ML083080627
| ML083080627 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point, PROJ0763  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/2008 |
| From: | Scroggs S Florida Power & Light Co |
| To: | Office of New Reactors, State of FL, Public Service Commission |
| References | |
| +reviewedmmc1, FOIA/PA-2015-0150 | |
| Download: ML083080627 (251) | |
Text
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DOCKETNO. 07 -El FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY IN RE: FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANYS PETITION TO DETERMINE NEED FOR TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR UNITS 6 AND 7 ELECTRICAL POWER PLANT DIRECT TESTIMONY & EXHIBITS OF:
STEVEN D. SCROGGS
I I 1 BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 2 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 3 DIRECT TESTIMONY OF STEVEN D. SCROGGS 4 DOCKET NO. 07--EI 5 OCTOBER 16,2007 6
I 7 Q. Please state your name and business address.
I 8 A. My name is Steven D. Scroggs. My business address is 700 Universe 9 Boulevard, Juno Beach, Florida 33408.
I IO Q. By whom are you employed and what is your position?
I 11 A. I am employed by Florida Power & Light Company (FPL or the Company) as 12 Senior Director of Project Development. In this position at FPL, I have 13 responsibility for the development of power generation projects to meet the I 14 needs of FPLs customers.
15 Q. Please describe your duties and responsibilities with regard to the I 16 development of new nuclear generation to meet FPL customer needs.
I 17 A. Commencing in the summer of 2006, I was assigned the responsibility for 18 leading the investigation into the potential of adding new nuclear generation I 19 to FPLs system, and the subsequent development of new nuclear generation I 20 additions to FPLs power generation fleet. I lead the development and 21 permitting team for FPLs Turkey Point Nuclear Units 6 and 7 (Turkey Point 22 6 & 7 or the Project).
- 8. D 1
I I 1 Q* Please describe your education and professional experience.
2 A. I graduated from the University of Missouri - Columbia in 1984 with a 3 Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering. From 1984 until 4 1994, I served in the United States Navy as a Nuclear Submarine Officer.
From 1994 to 1996, I was a research associate at The Pennsylvania State University, where I earned a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering. I I provided consulting and management services to the power generation I industry through a number of positions until 2003, when I joined FPL as 9 Manager, Resource Assessment and Planning. In July 2006, I was assigned to I 10 my current role as a Senior Director, Project Development.
I 11 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony in this proceeding?
12 A. The purpose of my testimony is to provide an overview of the proposed 13 Project. Specifically, I will discuss the four specific phases in the deployment I 14 process for new nuclear generation, which are: the Exploratory phase; 15 Licensing phase; Preparation phase; and Construction phase. I will describe I 16 how FPL developed its cost estimate range and provide estimates of when key I 17 expenditures are expected to occur. I will also describe how the deployment 18 of new nuclear generation differs from fossil and renewable project I 19 development, and discuss how the new nuclear deployment process should 20 proceed under the Florida Public Service Commissions (FPSC or 21 Commission) Nuclear Power Plant Cost Recovery Rule (NPPCR Rule or Rule 22 25-6.0423). Additionally, I will discuss the factors related to managing and 23 executing the Project and how those factors may impact the estimated cost and I
2 I
I 1 earliest practical deployment schedule of the proposed Project. I will I 2 3
conclude by discussing financial considerations and the potential for ownership participation by interested Florida utilities.
I 4 Q* Please summarize your testimony.
I 5 A. FPL proposes to pursue the option of up to 3,040 megawatts (MW) of highly 6 reliable, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission-free new nuclear generation for our 7 customers. The total capacity for the two-unit project will be based on the I 8 design selected. The project FPL is proposing to undertake will be a long-9 term investment of resources and require significant regulatory support I 10 throughout all stages. New nuclear generation offers great promise as well as I 11 unanswered questions. As further described by FPL witness Kosky, it is also 12 the only baseload generation alternative available in Florida that produces no I 13 GHG emissions, a resource that is critical to achieving meaningful COZ 14 reductions in the future. However, new nuclear licensing and construction is 15 just now emerging from a hiatus of 30 years presenting unique risks and 16 uncertainties. FPL and the Commission will need to work together in an I 17 unprecedented collaborative process to successfully develop this alternative 18 for the benefit of customers.
I 19 I 20 FPLs proposal is consistent with recent state and federal actions taken to 21 promote the renewed deployment of nuclear generation. FPLs proposal is I 22 also consistent with meeting the growing electrical needs of our customers 23 with an electric generation alternative that can provide cost-effective, reliable, 3
1 fuel-diverse, non GHG emitting generation on a full-time (or baseload) basis.
I 2 As I discuss the different phases of the Project, I indicate how the Project 3 relates to the Rule 25-6.0423 annual review process. This newly revised I 4 approach allows the deployment process for new nuclear to proceed in a I 5 deliberate stepwise fashon, equivalent to purchasing a series of options for 6 hture nuclear generation, with periodic feasibility reviews to ascertain the 7 continued viability of the project.
8 9 New nuclear generation, in combination with conservation, renewables and 10 other forms of clean energy, can be a key contributor to reducing emissions, 11 enhancing fuel diversity, increasing system reliability and energy 12 independence. But action is required now to create that option. FPLs non-I 13 binding construction cost estimate range compares favorably to the I 14 economically feasible cost range for alternatives on FPLs system, illustrating that moving forward with the Project is not only vital to achieving Floridas I 15 16 goals for clean reliable energy, but is very attractive from an economic I 17 perspective based on the best information available today.
18 Q. Are you sponsoring any exhibits in this case?
19 A. Yes. I am sponsoring E h b i t s SDS-1 through SDS-9, w h c h are attached to 20 my direct testimony.
21 Exhibit SDS- 1 Illustrative Deployment Process Timeline 22 Exhibit SDS-2 Site Selection Study Report 23 Exhbit SDS-3 FPL Technology Review 4
1 Exhibit SDS-4 Combined License Application (COLA) Content 2 Exhibit SDS-5 Estimated Project Milestones 3 Exhibit SDS-6 Overnight Cost Estimate Range ($/kW, 2007$)
4 Exhibit SDS-7 Comparison to Breakeven Range I 5 6
Exhibit SDS-8 Exhibit SDS-9 Project Total Cost Estimate Range (Year Spent $)
Project Expenditure Estimate I 7 Q* Are you sponsoring any sections in the Need Study?
I 8 A. Yes. I am sponsoring Sections II.A, IV.A-D, V.A.5, VI, VI1.A and Appendix 9 J of the Need Study.
10 11 FEDERAL AND STATE SUPPORT OF NEW NUCLEAR 12 GENERATION I 13 I 14 Q. Is there a need for continued regulatory and governmental support for 15 pursuing nuclear generation technology that can meet demand growth, I 16 maintain reliability, provide fuel diversity and contribute to meaningful I 17 GHG reductions?
18 A. Yes. Strong regulatory and governmental policy support is critical throughout 19 all stages of the process. Obtaining the appropriate state and federal approvals 20 will take several years, but once obtained will provide the option to construct 21 the facility for some considerable time following approval. Once the decision 22 to construct is made, new nuclear generation is a long-term investment with I 23 an initial licensed operating life of forty years and the potential to renew the I
5 I
~
I 1 1 operating license for another twenty years. It would be regrettable if erratic levels of support in the early stages, created for example by short term I 2 3 fluctuations in energy fuel market prices, were to change the course of efforts 1 4 to create the option for new nuclear. The qualities of energy independence 1 5 6
and the lack of GHG emissions were the driving characteristics behind the renewed desire to support the re-emergence of nuclear generation and were I 7 the forces that drove the development of recent federal and state legislation.
1 8 9 FPL is one of an early group of utilities responding to the call made by federal I 10 and state legislators to actively pursue new nuclear as a vital source of clean, I 11 safe and reliable energy generation. As FPL witness Olivera testifies, and as 12 more fully described later in my testimony, the initiative to deploy new I 13 nuclear generation will be a lengthy process that will require continuous I 14 cooperation between industry and government, and strong and constant 15 support from all levels of government.
I 16 Q. What federal legislation has been enacted recently to support the I 17 development of new nuclear generation capacity in the United States?
18 A. Federal legislation enacted in 2005 signaled the renewal of the importance of I 19 nuclear generation as a national resource and the increasing public acceptance I 20 of new nuclear generation as a credible alternative that should be pursued.
21 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) recognizes the need to assist I 22 potential nuclear plant owners by providing incentives and tools to help I 23 manage the risks of undertaking nuclear development activities. EPAct 2005 I
6 I
I 1 1 provided three proposed programs that are designed to benefit up to six new I 2 3
nuclear plants developed in the US that meet specific development and construction milestones: a form of risk insurance designed to cover costs I 4 incurred by an owner as a result of delays created in the commercial operation I 5 of a new nuclear plant by the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) 6 failure to act in a timely manner; a Loan Guarantee program intended to I 7 reduce the lending costs associated with a new nuclear project; and production I 8 tax credits that would come into effect when operational. These programs are 9 promising, but limited in their ability to materially offset deployment risks.
I 10 However, this legislation was important as an early signal to FPL and other I 11 utilities that support for new nuclear generation was re-emerging. Moreover, 12 it served to motivate state level activities that are encouraging the deployment I 13 of new nuclear generation resources in Florida.
I 14 Q. What State legislation has been enacted recently to provide incentives for 15 the development of new nuclear generation capacity in Florida?
I 16 A. The Florida Energy Act of 2006 (FEAct 2006) provided important legislative I 17 direction to remove some of the barriers impeding the active consideration 18 and pursuit of new nuclear generation as a resource option. Recognizing the I 19 uncertain and developing status of new nuclear development, the Florida I 20 legislature directed the Commission to modify the rules associated with power 21 plant need determinations to allow for the initial investigative steps to be I 22 undertaken now, in parallel with the rapidly maturing deployment effort.
I 23 Additionally, the FEAct 2006 facilitated the institution of a mechanism by I
7 I
1 which the Commission could oversee the progress and expenditures of a 2 nuclear project on an annual basis while allowing utilities interim cost 3 recovery of development costs, a feature that lowers the overall costs 4 customers will pay. This legislation was implemented through rulemaking by 5 the Commission that resulted in Rule 25-6.0423. Taken together, the revised 6 need determination statute and implementation rule, and the statute and 7 implementation rule for cost recovery for new nuclear plants (Rule 25-6.0423) 8 combine to provide a clear process of initial authorization and ongoing 9 oversight to effectively approach the unique challenges of deploying new I 10 nuclear generation.
I 11 Q. Recent actions addressing GHG emissions place an increasing importance 12 of deploying new nuclear generation resources in Florida?
I 13 A. Yes. Recent GHG policy actions at the state level are illustrative of a strong 14 trend at both state and federal levels to take aggressive steps toward reducing 15 GHG emissions. Additional nuclear generation resources will be extremely 16 valuable in helping to meet the expectation that meaningful GHG emissions 17 reductions can be achieved. For example, as discussed by FPL witness Reed 18 in his testimony, achieving the targets identified in Governor Crists recent 19 Executive Order 07- 127 cannot be accomplished without new GHG emission-20 free generation resources like Turkey Point 6 & 7.
8
I 1 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 2
3 Q* How is the recently instituted need determination and cost recovery 4 process for new nuclear different than that employed in recent fossil fuel 1 5 generation processes?
6 A. The revised need determination process for new nuclear explicitly I 7 acknowledges that the approach required to deploy new nuclear generation I 8 must be unique. The approach allows the developer to move forward with a 9 stepwise, transparent decision making process that seeks out and incorporates 10 new information allowing for adjustments to be made as the project unfolds.
11 This flexibility is particularly valuable with new nuclear generation which is 12 experiencing rapid development and change. A determination of need in I 13 response to this filing is therefore not an irreversible commitment to a project I 14 or a specific development path. To the contrary, a determination of need 15 simply represents the first, crucial step in a process that is economically I 16 equivalent to purchasing an option to maintain the possibility of new nuclear I 17 capacity joining the FPL generating fleet by 2018. FPL will have substantial 18 flexibility to adjust the actual development and construction path in light of I 19 additional information likely to be learned in future years; and the 20 Commission will have the ability to review and evaluate future decisions 21 contemporaneously, thus ensuring that the final result is prudent and in 22 customers long-term best interests.
9
I I 1 FPL submits this Need Filing with the recognition that in order to provide 2 substantial GHG emission-free, fuel diverse generation to FPL customers as 3 soon as practical, FPL and the Commission must take concrete steps now in a 4 collaborative process to create the opportunity to deploy a new nuclear I 5 project. FPL is confident that the information provided in this Need Filing 6 provides the Commission with a sufficient basis to issue an affirmative Need I 7 Order. That Need Order will allow FPL to pursue the opportunity for new I 8 nuclear generation for our customers.
9 Q* Please describe some of the key aspects in the development of a new I 10 nuclear resource option as they relate to this Need Filing.
I 11 A. As later explained in my testimony, the deployment process for a new nuclear 12 generation project is lengthy. Following the Need Order, regulatory licenses 13 and approvals will be sought at the state and federal level over a five to six 14 year period. Concurrently, and in order to maintain the earliest practical 15 deployment schedule, FPL is recommending significant investments in 16 preparation steps prior to the point when licenses and approvals will be 17 finalized. Assuming these preparation activities are undertaken, a 18 construction period of approximately five years will follow. This results in a 19 minimum span of ten to eleven years, following Commission approval, before 20 new nuclear generation can be placed into service. Moreover, uncertainties 21 regarding cost and schedule that limit our knowledge from todays perspective 22 will not be resolved without a concerted effort by industry participants such as 23 FPL. The active pursuit and resolution of these uncertainties will be 10
1 necessary to put FPL in a strong position to bring new generation to our 2 customers as soon as possible within an acceptable risk profile.
3 Q* Please provide a summary of the overall deployment process for nuclear I 4 generation.
I 5 A. Exhibit SDS-1 provides an overview of the nuclear deployment process. In summary, the process can be divided into four key phases that entail 6
I 7 incrementally increasing commitment and corresponding investment in the I 8 Project. The first period is the Exploratory phase, followed by the Licensing, 9 Preparation and Construction phases.
10 I 11 The Exploratory and Licensing phases are characterized by information 12 gathering and development. The processes are collaborative, involving local, I 13 state and federal agencies and they include multiple opportunities for public I 14 involvement. These phases are not cost-intensive in comparison to the overall 15 Project cost, but are pivotal in order to create the option, hold the earliest I 16 practical deployment schedule and obtain the information necessary to make a I 17 well-informed decision as to whether the Project should proceed to the 18 Construction phase.
19 20 The Preparation phase involves a series of preliminary activities that 21 determine the timing of the Construction phase schedule. As it relates to 22 FPL s proposed Project, the Preparation phase includes expenditures to 23 maintain progress towards a 2018 commercial operating date (COD) for the 11
I I 1 first unit. Each year, as FPL provides its filing of projected costs, the I 2 3
Commission will be able to monitor the Project as it moves through these phases and to review and determine the reasonableness of the decisions made I 4 to enable future steps.
I 5 6
Q* How do these development phases correspond to the cost recovery categories described in Rule 25-6.0423?
I 7 A. The Exploratory phase includes all the costs up to filing for a Need Order, I 8 thereby meeting the Rule 25-6.0423 definition of Site Selection costs.
9 Costs incurred in the Licensing phase would qualify for recovery as Pre-I 10 Construction Costs. Some costs in the Preparation phase (such as permitting, I 11 long lead procurement, site-clearing and engineering expenditures) would 12 qualify for recovery as Pre-Construction Costs while others (such as site I 13 preparation and non-nuclear construction activities) would qualify for I 14 recovery as Construction Costs, depending on their nature. All costs 15 incurred during the Construction phase would be considered Construction I 16 Costs. FPL witness Ousdahl presents a more complete discussion of the I 17 regulatory accounting for the Project.
18 I 19 EXPLORATORY PHASE I 20 21 Q. Please describe the steps taken in the Exploratory phase.
I 22 A. The Exploratory phase began with FPL s normal resource planning process of I 23 investigating different generation alternatives, and then proceeds to more I
12 I
1 specific project-related investigations. In the case of the Turkey Point 6 & 7, 2 FPL monitored the developments in new nuclear generation at the Nuclear 3 Regulatory Commission (NRC) earlier this decade and began to seriously 4 consider new nuclear as a possibility in 2005 as support began to materialize.
5 Through 2006, FPL took steps involving increasing levels of detail and 6 commitment to determine the viability and timing of a potential new nuclear 7 project. A detailed engineering evaluation of design options was conducted, 8 along with an extensive study of site alternatives. The final steps in the phase 9 include developing and filing an Application for Public Hearing with Miami-I 10 Dade County to obtain zoning approvals and the filing of a Need Petition at I 11 the Commission.
12 Q. What is FPLs estimated investment in order to conduct the activities in I 13 the Exploratory phase?
I 14 A. FPL expects to have spent approximately $8 to $9 million in Exploratory 15 phase activities. These costs are Site Selection costs under Rule 25-6.0423, 16 assuming an affirmative need determination is granted.
17 Q. How did FPL select the site for its proposed Project?
18 A. FPL conducted a detailed Site Selection Study, provided as Exhibit SDS-2.
19 This study employed the principles of the Electric Power Research Institute 20 (EPRI) siting guidelines and is modeled upon applicable NRC site suitability 21 and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) criteria regarding the 22 consideration of alternative sites. The study convened a group of industry and 23 FPL subject matter experts to develop and assign weighting factors to a broad 13
range of site selection criteria. Twenty-three candidate sites were then ranked I using the siting criteria. This review allowed the list of candidates to be reduced. More detailed reviews were conducted on the remaining sites, U 4 including successive rounds of rating and elimination. In parallel, a more I 5 6
free-form process was conducted, whereby site suitability criteria were entered into a database that conducted a search for viable locations within I 7 FPLs service territory that could potentially support new nuclear. This I 8 process allowed FPL to canvass all regions to ensure credible candidate areas 9 were not overlooked through the site-specific approach.
1 io Q. What were the results of this site selection process?
I 11 A. Turkey Point was identified as the site that, on balance, provided the most 12 favorable location for developing new nuclear generation to serve FPLs I 13 customers.
I 14 15 Turkey Point, as an existing site, allows FPL to add new generation with I 16 minimal impact on land resources and leverages existing infrastructure and 17 opportunities for synergies with the existing units at the site. Key issues 18 contributing to the selection of Turkey Point include the existing transmission 19 and transportation infrastructure to support new generation, the large size and I 20 seclusion of the site while being relatively close to the load center, and the 21 long-standing record of safe and secure operation of nuclear generation at the I 22 site since the early 1970s. Turkey Point will also support the earliest practical I 23 deployment schedule, in contrast to use of an undeveloped site.
I 14 I
What activities has FPL undertaken regarding the selection of a specific 2 nuclear design?
3 A. FPL conducted a detailed engineering evaluation that has been provided as a 4 Exhibit SDS-3. In this review, FPL canvassed the range of possible designs 1 5 6
and then solicited specific design, construction and operation information from the vendors of the designs that were deemed viable for commercial 1 7 utility application in the U.S. The results found that the five specific designs I 8 considered in detail are safe, reliable and either have or are capable of 9 obtaining the necessary Design Certification from the NRC. Operating 10 performance, capability and operating costs are expected to be broadly within I 11 the same range for all designs and were not a distinguishing factor.
12 Transmission related costs are expected to be hgher for larger units, but the I 13 difference is not expected to be significant in the overall economic evaluation I 14 of the design alternatives. In short, the engineering evaluation validated each 15 design as a safe and capable candidate for FPLs consideration from a I 16 technical, safety and security perspective.
17 Q. What designs were reviewed and what are the general features of these 18 designs?
19 A. FPL reviewed the Westinghouse APlOOO (1,100 MW net), General Electrics 20 Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR, 1,350 MW net) and the Economic 21 Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR, 1,520 MW net) designs, 22 Mitsubishis Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (APWR, 1,560 M W net) 23 and the Areva U.S. Evolutionary Pressurized Reactor (US EPR, 1,580 MW 15
1 1 1 net). A summary of each design is provided in Exhibit SDS-3, as well as the 1 2 3
Need Study. The APlOOO and ABWR designs have received Design Certification from the NRC, whlle the other designs are in the process of a 4 developing and submitting Design Certification Documents to the NRC for 1 5 6
review.
7 Existing nuclear generation designs are referred to as second generation I 8 designs, while the new designs represent the third generation of design evolution. Third generation nuclear designs can be grouped into two general 9
I 10 categories based on the type of reactor system and the type of safety systems I 11 used. Those that are based on current designs are called evolutionary and 12 employ active safety systems. Active safety systems, like those in operating I 13 reactors, require the action of external systems to maintain the safety and 14 protection of the reactor core during a design basis event. The ABWR, 15 APWR and US EPR are evolutionary designs.
16 I 17 The second category of designs differs from evolutionary designs or 18 incorporate passive safety systems. Passive systems use natural forces, such I 19 as gravity and natural circulation, to provide protection for the reactor core I 20 during design basis events. The AP1000 and ESBWR fall into this second 21 category of designs.
I 16
I I Q. Is FPL affiliated with any industry groups that are exploring the deployment of new nuclear designs?
A. Yes. FPL is a member of NuStart, a consortium of ten power companies 4 formed in 2004 with the purpose of obtaining a combined Construction and I 5 6
Operating License (COL), and completing the design engineering for the selected reactor designs. Currently NuStart is in the process of jointly I 7 developing two COL Applications (COLAS) that may be used as reference I 8 designs. These reference designs include the General Electric ESBWR and 9 the Westinghouse APlOOO designs. Participation in NuStart has allowed FPL 10 to better understand each reference design technology and the COLA 11 development process itself. Additionally, FPL will have access to the 12 information developed for the reference COLA and detailed design 13 engineering, should FPL go forward with either of the two reference designs.
14 Q. What are the issues that influence FPLs design selection for the COLA?
15 A. Recognizing that all the candidate designs are safe and suitable from a 16 technical perspective, the selection process focuses on the issues that will 17 influence the cost-effectiveness and overall success of the new nuclear 18 deployment process. Having been satisfied with the safety and technical 19 soundness of the designs, and recognizing the similarity of projected 20 operational cost and performance, the three principal commercial issues 21 relevant to FPLs design selection for the Project are: 1) the estimated capital 22 cost of the total construction Project, 2 ) the ability to manage cost and 23 schedule risk throughout the Project, and 3) the execution capabilities of the 17
1 team of Design Vendor, Engineer and Constructor that will design, construct 2 and commission the Project.
3 Q. Given the above issues, has FPL been able to narrow the list of competing 4 designs to be considered as candidates for the Project?
A. Yes. FPL has determined that the General Electric ESBWR and Westinghouse APlOOO designs are in the best position to address the three principal commercial issues for the Project. FPL will be able to leverage the I 8 combined experience of the NuStart consortium to the benefit of our customers with a selection of either design. The large industry commitment to 9
I 10 these two designs should provide strong opportunity for cost, schedule and I 11 risk management. The involvements of engineering and construction firms in 12 the development of the reference COLA will further increase the readiness of 13 these contributors to the overall engineering and construction process. Six 14 COLAs for the APlOOO and three COLAs for the ESBWR are expected to be 15 submitted in the next 18 months, in advance of FPLs planned March 2009 16 COLA target date. This will allow FPL to learn from the common body of 17 review material generated by these first wave COLAs and develop teams 18 composed of firms with direct and current experience in COLA development, 19 utilizing the NRCs Design Centered Review approach for effective and 20 efficient processing of the application. Additionally, it is likely that there will 21 be projects involving these designs under construction in advance of the 22 Project, which will provide important information on steps FPL can take to 23 reduce cost and risk.
18
1 Q* How will FPL complete the process of design selection?
2 A. FPL is currently engaged in discussions with General Electric and 3 Westinghouse that will result in a defined project scope, schedule and I 4 structure for each of the two designs. Associated with this defined project I 5 6
scope will be a set of commercial terms and pricing estimates. Once this information is obtained and analyzed, and due diligence is completed, FPL I 7 will have the necessary basis to make the final selection. From that point, I 8 FPL will enter into dedicated commercial negotiations with the selected vendor that will result in the terms of the purchase and construction contract.
9 10 This process is expected to require an additional 18 to 24 months following I 11 design selection.
12 Q. FPL has submitted an Application for Public Hearing with Miami-Dade I 13 County to address zoning issues; what is the status of the Application?
I 14 A. FPL has submitted an Application for Public Hearing with Miami-Dade 15 County for Public Hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on its I 16 requested Unusual Use variances that will, in aggregate, support the Project 17 and associated facilities. This application is under formal review by the 18 Countys Development Impact Review Committee (DIC). The DIC provides 19 a review and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. A 20 Public Hearing on FPLs application is expected in late 2007 or early 2008.
19
I 1 1 Q* Please describe some of the issues that FPL has identified during the 1 2 3 A.
Exploratory phase.
Many of the issues are related to potential associated facilities surrounding the I 4 Turkey Point site that will be needed to support the new nuclear Project.
I 5 These include potential sources of fill for developing the construction site and infrastructure that may be needed to deliver water to the facility. Turkey Point 6
I 7 6 & 7 offers ample opportunities to team with local, state and federal agencies I 8 to develop creative solutions that meet multiple objectives. These issues will 9 be addressed in detail in the federal COLA and state Site Certification I 10 Application (SCA) proceedings which are part of the Licensing phase. FPL I 11 expects, and the regulatory processes require, that these solutions will be 12 developed in coordination with interested parties and will comply with the I 13 substantive requirements of applicable regulations.
I 14 Q. What are the development challenges associated with transmission 15 integration for a large electric generation unit?
I 16 A. Transmission integration of a large generating unit requires specific I 17 consideration in the transmission system reliability arena. Selection of either 18 design will result in the addition of the largest, or one of the largest, single I 19 generation sources on the FPL, Florida Reliability Coordinating Council I 20 (FRCC) and Southeast Electric Reliability Council (SERC) systems. In order 21 to comply with FRCC and SERC planning requirements, the instantaneous I 22 loss of such a large single source of generation must be accommodated I 23 through a combination of physical system capabilities and specific operational I
20 I
1 I 1 procedures. Successful integration of large generation units may require the I 2 3
cooperation of other system entities in reviewing technical studies, commercial negotiations and regulatory approvals. FPL witness Sanchez I 4 provides a more detailed discussion of the considerations related to I 5 transmission facilities needed to support the proposed Project.
6 Q* Are there other potential associated facilities that may be required to I 7 support Turkey Point 6 & 7?
I 8 A. Yes. In addition to the transmission facilities identified by FPL witness 9 Sanchez, other infrastructure may be required to support the construction and I 10 operation of the Project. For example, as with all generation, nuclear I 11 technology requires a dedicated water source for facility personnel, process 12 use and cooling. Turkey Point 6 & 7 will utilize mechanical draft cooling I 13 towers which help to conserve water. These towers will be separate from the I 14 existing closed loop cooling canal system. Multiple alternatives, including 15 reuse water, will be evaluated in the Licensing phase.
I 16 I 17 Also, site improvements will be required to establish an engineered 18 foundation to support the building structures. Identification of the optimal I 19 source and delivery methods for this fill will be determined in the Licensing I 20 phase, with the potential that certain additional associated facilities would 21 result.
I I
I 21 I
I I 1 Construction of such a large project may also require the development of 2 temporary facilities near the site for equipment laydown and field fabrication 3 of modular components.
4 Q* What are the results to date of FPLs efforts under the Exploratory I 5 phase?
FPL has selected a site and is making progress towards the selection of a 6 A.
I 7 nuclear design. The Exploratory phase has not identified any insurmountable I 8 obstacles at this time to developing either of the candidate designs at the 9 selected site.
I 10 I 11 LICENSING PHASE 12 13 Q. Please describe the steps in the Licensing phase and discuss how these 14 steps will need to be coordinated.
15 A. Floridas Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) and the NRCs COL process are the 16 formal processes to obtain the necessary licenses, authorizations and 17 approvals to construct and operate a new nuclear generation project in Florida.
18 These processes have similar objectives and therefore have some 19 complementary content. Each process will involve a period of data collection 20 and study to provide the required information. However, each process will 21 have specific areas of concentration and unique perspectives. As the 22 applications are being prepared it will be important to ensure that the 23 information in each application is complete, consistent and meets the 22
1 submittal requirements of each reviewing body. As the applications are being I 2 3
reviewed, each governmental review team will develop requests for additional information and potentially seek modifications to the proposed plans. As a I 4 matter of process, there will be issues identified at all levels that require 1 5 further review once the project plan is developed in the Licensing phase. The 6 review of these issues, within the PPSA process, will allow FPL to I 7 demonstrate that the Project is fully consistent with the substantive 8 requirements of applicable law and regulation. FPLs efforts will be focused 9 on addressing all relevant issues within the regulatory processes in a I 10 consistent manner so as to avoid delays or confusion as the process move I 11 forward to final approvals.
12 Q. What are the specific steps within the COL process?
I 13 A. FPL will submit a COLA for a nuclear power facility, pursuant to 10 CFR I 14 Part 52. The required content of a COLA is summarized in Exhibit SDS-4.
15 I 16 The COLA is the first formal step for conducting the license application 17 review at the federal level, in conformance with all applicable laws and 18 regulations. The COLA review includes the NRC staff Safety Review, the 19 independent review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, the I 20 final environmental review, public involvement, contested hearings and a 21 mandatory hearing. The COLA FPL would submit would reference a specific I 22 standardized design and describe those portions of the design which are site I 23 specific.
I 23
I I 1 The NRC safety and environmental analyses that are performed in response to I 2 3
a COLA result in the staffs issuance of a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which contain recommendations to I 4 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP). The ASLBP has the I 5 6
responsibility to open the proceedings for contested hearings and a final mandatory hearing, in accordance with the amended Part 2 of CFR Title 10, I 7 and recommend the granting of the license if safety, security and I 8 environmental requirements are found to be in compliance with pertinent laws 9 and regulations, including NEPA. The NRC, as the appellate body, retains I 10 final authority in the licensing process.
I 11 12 Finally, once a license is granted, construction is commenced in accordance I 13 with the COL. When construction is complete, the licensee submits the I 14 Inspections, Tests, Analysis and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) collected 15 during the Construction Phase. The NRC reviews the ITAAC and will I 16 confirm that the facility is constructed according to the license and acceptance I 17 criteria, and that there is reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public 18 health and safety, the environment and national security for its operation. The I 19 owner is then authorized to load fuel and operate the facility. Intervention or I 20 litigation during the contested hearing process or the ITAAC review could 21 create delays that would impact the project cost and schedule.
I I
I 24 I
1 Q- What are the expected milestones related to the COL process in the 2 Project schedule?
3 A. The COLA will be initiated in early 2008 and is expected to be filed with the 4 NRC in the first half of 2009. The NRC reviews are expected to be complete 5 by the end of 2011, with the ASLBP hearings to follow in 2012. A COL 6 would be expected in late 2012.
7 Q* How does this timeline compare to the requirements necessary for a 8 project to compete with other projects for the proposed benefits in the 9 EPAct 2005 legislation?
I 10 A. The EPAct 2005 legislation set out an aggressive timeline for projects to I 11 qualify for the proposed benefits. The first milestone requires candidate 12 projects to have filed a COLA with the NRC before January 1, 2009. In order I 13 to meet this requirement, FPL would have had to greatly accelerate the 14 Exploratory and Licensing phase activities and begin expenditures towards 15 completing the COLA in early 2007 - as the revisions to 25-22.081 and the 16 development of Rule 25-6.0423 were being completed, and in advance of a I 17 Need Determination. The risk insurance, loan guarantee and production tax 18 credit programs currently envision support for up to six new units. Units that I 19 follow these first six may or may not obtain any benefits, even if they would I 20 meet the COLA filing deadline. Therefore, the actual value that would accrue 21 to a proposed project from the EPAct 2005 programs is uncertain, unfunded I 22 and does very little to alleviate the early stage risks to the project. Because I 23 the value of the benefits is uncertain and the timeline necessary to compete for 25
1 I 1 some portion of the benefits is so aggressive, FPL could not justify the added I 2 3 Q*
risk.
What risks are presented to the Project in the Licensing phase?
4 A. During this phase, there are a number of risks that can affect cost and 5 schedule. As the license applications are developed or during the review 6 process, additional investigations or data collection concerning specific issues I may be required. The cost to conduct these activities and the additional time I necessary to complete them can impact the overall project cost and the earliest practical deployment schedule. Additionally, the Licensing phase provides I 10 opportunities for public interaction and ends in a hearing process that is open I 11 to interested parties. Although FPLs schedule accommodates reasonable 12 time spans based on input from industry groups and reviewing agencies, the 13 overall project cost and schedule will be affected by the level of intervention 14 and pace of the license review processes at the state and federal levels.
15 Additionally, there is the overall risk of failing to obtain the necessary state or I 16 federal approvals.
I 17 Q. What is the incremental investment estimated for completion of activities 18 in the Licensing phase?
I 19 A. The development and review of a COLA and an SCA will require up to five I 20 years of technical, environmental, regulatory and legal work. The cost 21 estimated to develop the applications and support them through the review 22 process is approximately $155 million and would be qualified for recovery as 23 Pre-Construction costs in the Rule 25-6.0423 proceeding. The Licensing 26
1 I phase costs can be estimated with a higher degree of certainty than costs in the subsequent Preparation and Construction phases because they are defined in 3 scope, near in term and involve engineering services for which a developed I 4 and competitive market exists.
I 5 6 The end result of the Licensing phase is the authorization to build a plant of a I 7 specific design at Turkey Point. That authorization is valid for some I 8 considerable period into the future. In this way, even if circumstances do not 9 support an immediate construction effort, the asset would retain its value as an I 10 option into the future.
I 11 12 PREPARATION PHASE I 13 I 14 Q. What are the key steps within the Preparation phase?
15 A. Several key activities must be taken prior to actually beginning construction I 16 on a nuclear project. These steps and the associated investment are necessary I 17 for FPL to maintain its proposed schedule for commercial operation of the 18 first unit by 2018. These activities can be grouped into three categories: long I 19 lead procurement, detailed engineering, and site preparation.
I 20 21 Long lead procurement involves reserving manufacturing space and executing 22 the design, purchase and delivery of special heavy forgings and equipment so 23 that they will be prepared and ready to be placed at the appropriate time 27
I 1 1 during the complex construction process. For example, the reactor pressure I 2 3
vessel must be in place very early in the construction schedule as the physical plant is constructed around it. The unique nature (e.g., size, shape, quality I 4 requirements) of these forgings requires several years to design, fabricate and I 5 deliver them to the site. Procurement of an option for certain long lead items will be required within the first year following an affirmative Need Order to 6
I 7 preserve a target COD of 2018 for the first unit. The current demand for I 8 manufacturing capability of this type drives the need to reserve a position to 9 ensure the forgings will be available when the schedule requires. Based on I 10 the current international market for these heavy forgings, and the number of I 11 additional projects in the planning stages, these advance purchase options may 12 retain a certain remarket value. In the event that Turkey Point 6 & 7 were I 13 delayed or cancelled, these manufacturing space reservations possibly could I 14 be resold for use in other projects. As the Construction period draws closer, 15 an increasing number of key components and materials will need to be I 16 purchased in order to enable an expeditious and cost-effective construction I 17 schedule. Similarly, these items may be expected to have a remarket value, 18 providing some risk mitigation in the event of a change.
I 19 I 20 Detailed engineering is the process of completing the plant-specific design 21 and converting it into a set of engineered drawings suitable for constructors I 22 and craftsmen to actually build the design on a specific site. This process I 23 involves a team of engineers of every specialty working several years in I
28 I
1 advance of construction start to ensure the design is complete and ready to 2 execute. These activities would not have a remarket value.
3 4 Site preparation refers to the specific steps necessary to convert the designated 5 land into a site that is suitable for the major construction effort. For a nuclear 6 project this will involve a site clearing excavation followed by an engineered 7 fill to establish specific foundation features to support the proposed plant.
8 This process is estimated to take 24-36 months, and must be initiated no later 9 than 18 months prior to the initiation of major construction activities to 10 prevent an impact to the subsequent construction schedule. Site preparation I 11 activities would also have no remarket value.
12 Q. What specific long lead procurement is FPL considering and what would I 13 be the timing and range of potential costs for such activity?
I 14 A. Obtaining a commitment for manufacturing capability of ultra-heavy forgings 15 for the Reactor Pressure Vessels and other necessary items that would support I 16 the earliest practical deployment schedule is a long lead procurement item 17 FPL will pursue immediately. This commitment may be obtained by making 18 advance payments that have the effect of reserving manufacturing space at a 19 capable facility within a given time frame. The details regarding expenditures 20 and contractual terms have yet to be developed; however these reservations 21 may retain value (for FPL or others) and be potentially tradable in the event 22 that the Project does not move forward, allowing recovery of at least a portion 23 of the advance payments. The advance-payment expenditures would begin in 29
I I 1 2008, in order to maintain the earliest practical deployment schedule with a I 2 3
2018 COD for Unit 6. Current estimates indicate that long lead expenditures for ultra-heavy forgings could be on the order of $100 MM.
I 4 I 5 Another long lead item is the design, procurement and construction of a 6 computer-based training simulator that would be built in advance of the actual I 7 Project to allow for the comprehensive training and licensing of the operation I 8 staff in accordance with NRC requirements. This facility, similar to the 9 training simulators used for existing nuclear facilities, is vital to the successful I 10 and safe operation of the new nuclear units. FPL will investigate the I 11 opportunity to coordinate with other owners of the selected design to 12 determine the possibility to share training facilities to address this issue.
I 13 Q. What is the key strategic decision considered during the Preparation I 14 phase?
15 A. The key decision is how much should be spent at each step of the process to I 16 maintain the earliest practical deployment schedule prior to receiving the I 17 Licensing phase approvals.
18 I 19 The question of when to start individual steps within the Preparation phase I 20 is based on the overall project schedule. The project schedule will identify a 21 specific lead time to start these activities based on the projected COD. If the I 22 long lead items and preparations cannot be started far enough in advance, a I 23 delay in the schedule and/or an increase to construction costs would be the I
30
1 likely result. A delay at this stage of the process may have a disproportionate 1 2 result in delaying the COD of the units.
Please describe the site-related activities that would be initiated during 3 Q*
1 4 the Preparation phase.
1 5 6
A. Activities up to and including site-clearing operations are conducted during the Preparation phase and would qualify for recovery as Pre-Construction I 7 costs as defined by Rule 25-6.0423. Necessarily, there are a number of 8 activities that need to occur between the time that site-clearing operations are 9 complete and the beginning of plant construction. These activities include 10 civil engineering work to build the site to grade. Installation of underground I 11 utilities and infrastructure, and the construction of non-nuclear safety-related 12 buildings and associated facilities are required to be accomplished in advance I 13 of the main construction to support the overall schedule. Expenditures for I 14 activities that follow site-clearing would therefore be defined as Construction 15 costs per Rule 25-6.0423.
I 16 Q. What is the range of incremental investment that would be required to 17 accomplish the activities within the Preparation phase?
18 A. The scope of appropriate activities will depend on the pace of the Licensing I 19 phase activities and the continued demonstration of project feasibility.
I 20 Expenditures necessary to procure long lead components, conduct site 21 preparation, complete the detailed design engineering and construct any I 22 support facilities such as the training simulator, would be determined based on I 23 the desired construction schedule. Therefore the Preparation phase costs are I
31
I I 1 currently estimated to be $163 million, if only Exploratory and Licensing phase expenditures are pursued, to $523 million once certain preparation I 2 3 activities are undertaken. Of course, these expenditures could be higher or 4 lower as the stepwise review process unfolds and lessons learned in other 5 projects are incorporated. The amount of preparation, including advanced 6 construction which is deemed appropriate, will be based on the information 7 available at the time and the activities that are allowed by licensing 8 authorities. Preparation phase costs are necessary to obtain the earliest 9 practical deployment schedule. Spending this money earlier in the overall 10 schedule may well decrease the overall project cost by reducing the impact of 11 cost escalation and conducting some construction activities early. This will 12 allow for more efficient logistics and construction scheduling in the 13 Construction phase and increase the certainty of obtaining the scheduled 14 COD.
15 Q. How do the costs incurred during the Preparation phase relate to the cost 16 categories described within Rule 25-6.0423?
17 A. Preparation phase costs will include costs in the Pre-Construction and 18 Construction categories. Pre-Construction costs will be reviewed in the 19 annual filing process and, if authorized, recovered via the Capacity Cost 20 Recovery Clause. Construction costs incurred during the Preparation or 21 Construction phase will be reviewed annually for prudence in the Rule 25-22 6.0423 filing and held in account for eventual incorporation into base rates.
23 Construction carrying costs will be recovered via the Capacity Cost Recovery 32
I 1 Clause for Construction costs as they are incurred based on the values I 2 3 Q.
approved in the annual Rule 25-6.0423 filing.
Exhibit SDS-1 indicates that commercial negotiations are conducted I 4 during the Preparation phase. What is involved in this process and why I 5 6 A.
is it sequenced at this point in time?
FPL anticipates that commercial negotiations for a new nuclear plant will be 7 complex and require a considerable period of time. The COLA, SCA and 8 some long lead procurement must be developed without having a complete 9 construction contract in place in order to maintain the earliest practical I 10 deployment schedule. However detailed engineering, construction planning I 11 and construction itself cannot proceed without benefit of a contract that 12 defines the terms, responsibilities and schedule requirements for project I 13 execution. Therefore, FPL and other utilities are choosing to select a nuclear I 14 design to use as the basis for a COLA and engage in limited contracts for long 15 lead procurement in advance of developing a complete construction contract 16 to enable the earliest practical deployment schedule.
17 18 Commercial terms for a new nuclear project will include risk management 19 mechanisms and involve a significant level of support from technical, 20 financial, legal, regulatory and commercial experts. The overall commercial 21 arrangement will involve the considerable commitment of resources from 22 multiple key contractors. Ensuring that these individual contracts fully protect 33
I I 1 the interests of FPL and its customers will require a lengthy and involved 2 negotiation and review process.
3 Q* What forms of risk management will be used to manage the execution of 4 the Project?
5 A. Risk management will be pervasive throughout the process. Reviews will be 6 conducted through regulatory oversight, internal FPL management and risk I 7 control processes and within the execution of specific contracts by the I 8 accountable parties.
9 I 10 The stepwise decision making process that will govern the pace and execution 11 of the Project, and in which the Commission will participate through the 12 annual Rule 25-6.0423 review process, is a significant form of risk 13 management for Project costs. The concurrent review of planned 14 expenditures and activities will ensure that all perspectives are considered and 15 addressed prior to making critical commitments.
16 17 Additionally, FPL will develop contract terms that will include cost control 18 features and involve contractors in risk sharing for areas within their control.
19 For example, a construction contractor may not be able to estimate with 20 certainty the hourly cost of certain skilled labor classifications required for the 21 construction program. However, that provider should be able to accurately 22 estimate and stand behind the number of man-hours required and the level of 23 productivity that can be achieved during construction. FPL will seek to 34
I 1 develop contract terms that hold that provider accountable for the man-hour I 2 3
and productivity estimates relied upon when establishing the Project schedule and cost estimate.
I 4 I 5 CONSTRUCTION PHASE 6
7 Q- What considerations must be taken into account prior to initiating the 8 Construction phase?
9 A. The Construction phase can begin once the necessary approvals are obtained 10 from Floridas Siting Board and the NRC, respectively. The Construction 11 phase should not begin without a complete and verifiable road map to 12 commercial operation and confidence in the final feasibility of the Project.
13 Verifying a complete roadmap will require that components, materials, labor 14 and engineering services will be available and dedicated in the qualities and 15 quantities necessary to execute the construction schedule. Finally, FPL will 16 annually submit its proposed expenditures for the coming year and an updated 17 feasibility analysis in the Rule 25-6.0423 process. The Commission will 18 review and determine the reasonableness of the proposed expenditures and 19 whether or not continuation of the Project is in the customers best interest.
20 Q. What are the key milestones with respect to the execution of the 21 Construction phase?
22 A. Exhibit SDS-5 provides a listing of major activities and milestones in each 23 year of the Project. At the beginning of the Construction stage, preparation 35
~
1 I 1 activities such as site-clearing, grading, utility installations and support I 2 3
facility construction are accomplished if they have not already been accomplished in the Preparation phase. The first major step in the I 4 construction process is the pouring of concrete over which the IWC has I 5 safety-related jurisdiction to establish the foundation for the Reactor Island 6 and Turbine Island. Approximately 12 to 18 months after the first safety-I 7 related concrete is poured, the Reactor Pressure Vessel will be delivered to the I 8 site and set in place within the foundation structure. The Reactor Island and 9 Turbine Island systems and subsystems will be assembled through modular I 10 construction techniques over the next several years. Once the construction of I 11 the physical facility is substantially complete the unit will be ready to receive 12 its first fuel load. The ITAAC will have been documented throughout the I 13 construction process. At this stage, the ITAAC are reviewed and affirmed by I 14 the NRC prior to the first fuel load. Following fuel load, the unit is 15 thoroughly tested prior to commercial operation.
I 16 Q. What forms of risk are associated with the Construction phase?
I 17 A. Risks in regulatory, legal, economic and project management areas are present 18 throughout the Construction phase. Stability of the state and federal I 19 regulatory environments are critical to obtaining the most favorable cost and I 20 earliest practical deployment schedule for the Project. Actual or perceived 21 weakness in regulatory support for the Project, or unfavorable modifications I 22 to regulatory requirements governing the Project, would create difficulty in I
I 36 I
1 obtaining or maintaining the access to capital markets that will be necessary to 2 execute the proposed Project.
3 I 4 Legal challenges may be presented through regulatory proceedings or other I 5 6
forms of intervention. These challenges may create delays and will increase the cost of executing the Project, directly and indirectly.
I 7 I 8 Economic markets, particularly in fuel prices or emission compliance costs, 9 may shift during the Construction phase, changing the expected economic 10 benefits to be derived from the Project for better or worse. It is important to 11 maintain a long-term view of all the benefits offered by the Project, including 12 system reliability and material progress in achieving GHG reductions.
13 Temporal shifts in fuel and emission compliance cost markets almost certainly 14 will occur, but should be reviewed in the proper perspective for their long-15 term implications.
16 17 Execution of a design and construction project of this magnitude and 18 complexity will require state-of-the art project management and logistical 19 planning. During the course of the lengthy development process there will be 20 project management challenges in obtaining, scheduling, delivering and 21 maintaining cost control over the resources required to execute the 22 construction plan. The project will require a labor force with specific training 23 and skills, both in the professional and craft classifications. The resources 37
I I 1 needed to supply and construct the facility are part of the global economy and 1 2 3
FPL and its construction team will be competing with other national and international infrastructure projects for these resources. FPL and its selected I 4 team of design vendor, engineer and constructor will coordinate from the early I 5 stages through project completion to mitigate these risks.
6 Q* What are examples of delays that may impact the Project schedule and I 7 how are these delays, or their impact, managed?
I 8 A. Regulatory issues at the local, state or federal level may be presented that 9 delay the Project. For example, delays could result from the development of I 10 information associated with other non-FPL projects, existing facilities or I 11 development projects, during licensing or construction that would impact 12 Turkey Point 6 & 7 directly or indirectly. The potential for regulatory delays I 13 at the federal level have been addressed by the redesigned and streamlined I 14 NRC COL process emphasizing a standardized design. The positioning of 15 FPLs Project - approximately 18 months behind the initial round of COLAS, I 16 and selection of a reference COLA design - should allow monitoring of the I 17 first wave of applications and construction projects. FPL would incorporate 18 lessons learned from these projects to minimize impact to Turkey Point 6 & 7.
I 19 Regulatory delays at the state and local level will be addressed within the I 20 PPSA process, which coordinates the procedural review of the SCA and will 21 precede major construction and expenditure.
I I
I 38 I
1 I 1 Delays related to material, labor or equipment availability may impact the I 2 3
Project. The potential for delay is managed by a detailed integrated supply chain and construction planning process. The process will track needed I 4 materials and components so that they are available with lead time to I 5 minimize impact on the overall project schedule. Critical path components 6 will be tracked. A cadre of skilled labor crafts will be required to support the I 7 design and construction of the proposed facility. Industry and government I 8 groups are working on programs today to develop the staff to meet production 9 schedules as those schedules become more certain.
I 10 I 11 Severe weather always has the potential to produce construction delays at 12 critical points in the process. FPL will be coordinating with the I 13 Vendor/Engineer/Constructor team during the planning phases to ensure that I 14 appropriate measures and schedule flexibility are incorporated to anticipate 15 and mitigate the potential impact of severe weather.
I 16 I 17 Finally, the support for new nuclear generation is linked to the safety and 18 operating record of existing facilities. Should something occur at an existing I 19 nuclear facility, nationally or internationally, unanticipated delays may occur I 20 while issues are resolved to allow resumed activities.
I I
I 39
1 NON-BINDING COST ESTIMATE RANGE I 2 Please describe the development of FPLs non-binding cost estimate 3 Q*
I 4 range.
I 5 6
A. The process for creating a new nuclear project cost estimate differs from fossil or renewable generation projects due to a lack of a similar level of relevant I 7 market-based information and recent experience base. For example, the 8 detailed site-specific design, firm schedule and negotiated supply contracts 9 usually developed prior to the need filing for fossil units, will not be available I 10 for several years after the need determination process for new nuclear, I 11 Because the commencement of construction is four to five years from the 12 Need Order, the impact to final cost of market variations in materials, I 13 equipment and labor is difficult to predict. Therefore, it was necessary for I 14 FPL to survey current studies to identify a body of work that could be adapted 15 into a cost estimating process for new nuclear in Florida. The primary source I 16 of FPLs non-binding cost estimate is an interagency study conducted by an 17 industry consortium, led by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in 18 coordination with the U.S. Department of Energy, and published in August of 19 2005 (the TVA Study).
20 Q. What does the TVA Study provide and what additional information or 21 experience was applied to develop FPLs cost estimate range?
22 A. The study provided a detailed construction schedule and cost evaluation for 23 the construction of a General Electric ABWR design reactor unit at TVAs 40
I 1 Bellefonte Site. Industry experts, such as Bechtel Power Corporation, a I 2 3
contributor to the study, were consulted. The TVA Study provides a current evaluation of new nuclear generation construction in the United States under 1 4 expected regulatory, design, logistic and labor conditions. The study provides I 5 6
a detailed and well-researched basis for new nuclear construction costs for the General Electric ESBWR and Westinghouse APlOOO because the construction 7 methods, materials and schedules are similar. Additionally, FPL discussed 8 design specific construction schedules with General Electric and 9 Westinghouse to confirm that the assumptions used in the TVA Study would I 10 be generally consistent with construction of a GE ESBWR or Westinghouse I 11 APlOOO design unit. The study provided the information that allowed FPL to 12 develop an applicable cost estimate range on a dollars-per-installed-kilowatt I 13 ($/kW) basis.
I 14 15 As a leader in nuclear power generation in the United States, FPL has 16 maintained continuous involvement in a variety of industry forums and I 17 working groups. Participation through these industry outlets and direct 18 participation in the NuStart consortium has allowed FPL to keep current with I 19 the status of new nuclear generation and to understand the issues surrounding I 20 the project construction schedule and costs associated with new nuclear 21 project designs. This involvement allows FPL to critically evaluate available I 22 information and develop an opinion as to its applicability. FPL also brings to I 23 bear a significant amount of nuclear engineering maintenance and operational 41
I I 1 knowledge that is specifically applicable to this task. FPL maintains one of I 2 3
the most active and current utility construction programs in the U.S.,
providing in-house expertise and access to industry experts in all disciplines.
I 4 Q* What steps did FPL take to modify the TVA Study into an FPL-specific I 5 nuclear cost estimate range?
6 A. In late 2005 and early 2006, FPL conducted a detailed review of the TVA I 7 Study. The underlying costs, material amounts and labor man-hour estimates I 8 were reviewed to understand the assumptions upon which they were based 9 and the level of certainty that might be applied to each estimate. Costs were I 10 reviewed and adjusted to account for the impact of escalation that has I 11 occurred since the study was published. All costs were brought to current 12 values in 2007, resulting in an overnight construction cost estimate in 2007 I 13 dollars (2007$). The overnight cost estimate does not include the time-related I 14 effects of escalation or interest costs that occur during pre-construction and 15 construction. The FPL estimate includes the FPL specific costs projected for I 16 the Exploratory and Licensing phases.
I 17 Q. Does the cost estimate apply to a single unit or a two unit project?
18 A. The assumptions used to develop the FPL cost estimate range assume a two I 19 unit project, and the associated. Those economies are considerable, and they I 20 occur throughout every step of the deployment process. The COLA process 21 provides for the licensing of up to two units of the same design for each I 22 application submitted, effectively cutting the per-unit licensing costs in half I 23 for a two unit project. Similarly, management costs, mobilization and I
42 I
I demobilization costs and certain administrative, training and support facilities I would be shared equally between two units. The incremental resources necessary to prepare a site and conduct the detailed design engineering for the I 4 second unit of a two unit project are relatively small. The extension of I 5 6
workforce by 18 to 24 months can be managed effectively through the scheduling process to minimize the manpower costs associated with a second 7 unit. Procurement efficiency and bargaining leverage is facilitated by the 8 increased scale of a two unit project. Finally, the operational synergies 9 associated with multiple units keep fuel and operating costs low.
I io Q. Please summarize FPLs non-binding construction cost estimate range.
I 11 A. Exhibit SDS-6 provides a summary of the non-binding cost estimate range for 12 the proposed Project. The Power Island costs are those related to the major I 13 equipment, buildings and systems necessary to generate electricity and 14 maintain the plant. Owners costs include site-related costs not a part of the 15 Power Island scope, such as staffing, project management, site security, and 16 supporting infrastructure. Finally, transmission costs to integrate the facility 17 to the FPL system are added.
18 19 Several key areas were reviewed to understand the effect these assumptions 20 have on the overall estimate. Different assumptions for these areas were 21 developed and then applied to create a cost estimate range. The areas that 22 influence the cost estimate range developed from the TVA Study are: 1) the 23 recent and significant escalation of material, equipment and labor indices seen 43
1 I 1 between 2004 and 2007, 2) the items included in Owners scope which can I 2 3
vary among designs, 3) the accuracy of the Owners scope estimate and 4) the cost estimate range of the transmission integration proposed for Turkey Point 4 6&7.
5 6 Cost Escalation - Between 2004 and 2007, two key materials escalators I 7 increased by 54% to 63%, respectively. A simple application of these I 8 escalators to the 2005 study cost estimate would provide an estimate of the 9 2007 overnight costs, as if all of the material and equipment was procured at I 10 todays indexed costs. In reality, the procurement of these items will actually I 11 occur over the span of many years during the Preparation and Construction 12 phases. So a simplistic approach would result in a singular estimate that could 13 be high or low when compared to the actual cost the Project will experience.
14 As a means of capturing the significance of this assumption, and the net 15 escalation experienced over the procurement process, the cost estimate range I 16 is developed recognizing three potential escalation assumptions applied to the I 17 2005 TVA study. Case A applies the 2007 index values without modification, 18 while reduced escalation is shown in Case B (reflecting 27% and 32% for the I 19 two key material escalators) followed by an increased material escalation I 20 (reflecting 81% and 95% for the two key material escalators) and increased 21 labor costs in Case C.
44
I I 1 Owners Scope -Additional scope areas, such as cooling towers and auxiliary 2 boilers, were identified. Discussions with the vendors have indicated that they 3 may be included in some vendors scope estimates and excluded in others.
4 These scope items were removed for Case B, and included in Cases A and C.
I 5 6 Owners Cost Estimate - The Owners cost could also vary based on the I 7 design selected, as well as the conditions placed on the Project in the I 8 9
Licensing phase by the COL or Site Certification process. A base cost estimate was developed for Case A, with a 10% reduction applied in Case B.
I 10 A 10% premium was applied to all costs, with an additional 30% premium 11 applied to labor items in Case C.
12 13 Transmission ZnteRration - The costs to integrate the selected design will be 14 the result of a series of transmission studies that are just now beginning. A 15 cost estimate range has been developed based on preliminary information 16 covering the range of the two designs under consideration. The average of the 17 cost estimate range is used in Case A, while the low end of the range is 18 applied in Case B and the high end of the range in Case C.
19 20 Exhibit SDS-6 provides a summary of the three cases developed for the 21 overnight construction cost estimate range, including a line item summary of 22 the cost components as divided between Power Island scope, Owners cost and 23 transmission integration costs. Developing and applying a reasonable range 45
1 of potential factors results in an overnight capital cost range that can vary 2 between $3,108 and $4,540 per kW.
3 Q* Does the above overnight construction cost range include the cost of I 4 decommissioning and an allowance for the costs associated with handling I 5 6 A.
spent fuel?
No. Those costs were explicitly considered as costs that are accrued for or I 7 expended during facility operation, and are therefore included as Fixed I 8 Operations and Maintenance costs in the system based cost comparisons 9 discussed by FPL witness Sim.
io Q. How does FPLs construction cost estimate compare to industry 11 expectations for new nuclear construction costs?
12 A. The estimate is consistent, but slightly higher than estimates available in the I 13 industry. In early 2007, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) estimated Power I 14 Island (or Engineering, Procurement and Construction or EPC) costs to range 15 between $1,800 and $2,400 per kW. Overnight plant costs were estimated to I 16 be between $1,950 and $2,800 per kW in 2007 dollars including a modest I 17 range of $150 to $400 per kW for Owners costs. When this range is adjusted 18 for FPLs estimate of Owners costs and transmission costs of $664 to $959 19 per kW, the NE1 range would be between $2,614 and $3,759 per kW. The 20 Power island costs from the TVA Study, escalated to mid 2007 values are 21 approximately $400 to $700 per kW higher than the NE1 values, an amount 22 equal to the difference between FPLs estimate and NEIs adjusted estimate.
46
I How does FPLs construction cost estimate compare to recent media reports regarding the cost of new nuclear generation?
I 2 3 A. There is a range of figures, commonly from $2,000 to $3,000 per kW, that I 4 have been cited in the press from time to time when describing the potential I 5 6
construction cost range of new nuclear projects across the country. I stand by FPLs values because they are traceable to the TVA Study, which was not 7 associated with promotion of any particular commercial interests and hence is 8 less likely to be affected by bias than vendor-specific estimates that might be 9 relayed in media reports. I note that Moodys Investors Service recently issued I 10 a special comment report questioning whether some of the industry I 11 estimates that are being reported in the press are too low.
12 I 13 It is also important to recognize that the direct comparability of values quoted 14 in the press to specific cost estimates is always in question, because generally 15 less is known regarding the scope or age of those estimates or the specific 16 commercial terms associated with them. In FPLs experience, the figures 17 quoted in the press typically are current year, overnight costs for the vendor 18 scope (or Power Island) costs only. As seen in Exhibit SDS-6, FPLs range I 19 for only the Power Island costs (2007$, overnight) starts at $2,444 and ranges I 20 up to $3,582 per kW.
I I
47
I I 1 Q* Would FPL expect its cost estimate range to change over the course of the Project?
1 2 3 A. Yes. FPLs cost estimate range is a means of bracketing the potential 4 expected range of costs based on what is currently known and knowable. It is 5 important to note that the estimate has been developed in advance of being 6 able to complete a review with a selected vendor/engineer/constructor team in 7 a manner that is more in keeping with FPLs common practice. As FPL 1 8 begins to work with the selected vendor/engineer/constructor team the cost 9 estimates will become increasingly firm and will likely change from the I 10 estimate that can be provided at this point in time.
I 11 Q. Has FPL concluded that new nuclear generation could be cost 12 competitive with other generation alternatives?
13 A. Yes. FPL compared the construction cost estimate range developed above to 14 an economically feasible range developed by the Resource Assessment and 15 Planning department using a system cost-based analysis. FPL witness Sim I 16 describes the process developing the range, which is presented as the nuclear I 17 capital cost that would be economically equivalent (or break-even) with 18 alternative technologies.
I 19 I 20 As seen in Exhibit SDS-7, FPLs cost estimate range is below all but one of 21 the break-even nuclear capital costs developed by the system cost-based 22 analysis when comparing the plan with nuclear to the plan that substitutes 23 combined cycle units for nuclear. The cost estimate range is below all break-48
1 even capital cost estimates developed in comparison to Integrated Gasification 2 Combined Cycle (IGCC). This signifies that, based on information available 3 at this time, a new nuclear plant could be cost-effective in comparison to other 4 generation alternatives when considering construction, operating and emission 5 compliance costs in potential future markets. This analysis substantially 6 affirms and supports the continued pursuit of new nuclear generation. Moving I 7 forward, this type of review can be refined as more is learned with respect to I 8 construction cost and schedule and how those refinements compare to the, 9 then current fuel and emission cost forecasts.
I io Q. How are time-related costs, such as escalation and interest during I 11 construction, included to develop a total Project delivered cost estimate 12 range?
13 A. A set of assumptions are made that allow the overnight costs estimate range to 14 be translated over time through the construction period to develop a total 15 Project delivered cost estimate range. The key assumptions required are a I 16 construction schedule, the allocation of the overnight costs to four major cost I 17 categories, annual expenditure estimates for each category and the escalation 18 rate(s) that would be applied. Exhibit SDS-8 identifies the assumptions used I 19 in developing the cost estimate range and the major components of cost for I 20 the overall Project. A calculation is first made to bring the overnight capital 21 cost range (2007$) to the value expected at the commencement of 22 construction. The overnight cost at the beginning of construction is then split 23 into four cost categories: material (1 l%),equipment (46%), labor (32%), and I
49 I
I 1 1 miscellaneous (1 1%). The costs are then spread across the construction period I 2 3
based on the expected timing of annual expenditures in each category. The annual costs are then escalated and totaled to provide the estimated annual 1 4 nominal expenditures. In this analysis FPL assumed a simple 2.5 percent 1 5 annual escalation for all categories. Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) is applied to develop the interest costs for each year of 6
7 construction. The nominal costs are combined with the annual interest costs 8 to develop the total Project estimated cost range.
9 I 10 The results of this analysis are shown on Exhibit SDS-8. The total Project I 11 cost estimate range varies from approximately $5,492 per kW for Case B to 12 over $8,071 per kW for Case C in year spent dollars for a 2,200 M W project.
I 13 The terms year spent dollars, recognizes that the expenditures occur over a 14 period of years and is cumulative for the Project including the time-related 15 effects of escalation and interest during construction. Exhibit SDS-9 provides 16 an estimate of the project cost separated into Rule 25-6.0423 categories for a 17 2,200 M W project for each of the cases discussed.
18 Q. What are the critical decisions based on the estimated range of Project 19 expenditures?
20 A. The early years of the Project are characterized by a series of incremental 21 investment decisions. Each decision can be reviewed in the context of its 22 influence on overall project schedule, the supporting information that justifies 23 the expenditure, and the relative investment necessary to take the specific 50
1 step. As shown in the scenario illustrated in SDS-9, the Project would be able 2 to proceed through the bulk of the Exploratory and Licensing phases with 3 expenditures on the order of $8 million and $155 million, respectively. An I 4 additional $360 million would be spent on Preparation phase activities, for a I 5 6
total expenditure of $523 million in order to maintain the earliest practical deployment schedule. The amounts incurred during these phases may actually I 7 be higher or lower based on the results of the stepwise decision process as the I 8 project proceeds. These preliminary expenditures will lead to the most critical 9 decision point, expected to occur in 2011, when FPL will determine if the 10 project should proceed to the Construction phase.
11 12 The investments made in the early years may retain value, to varying degrees.
I 13 The potential remarket value of long lead items has been previously discussed I 14 and may mitigate risks associated with those expenditures. The COL also has 15 a value as a future option. While no precise time period is specified in the I 16 Code of Federal Regulations, it is expected that the ability to commence I 17 construction under the COL would remain valid for some considerable time 18 into the future, subject to continued demonstration of the original licensing I 19 design basis. This would allow FPL to exercise the option at some point in I 20 the future, even if factors indicate a delay prior to beginning construction.
I I
I 51 I
I I 1 COST ESTIMATE RANGE SENSITIVITIES I 2 3 Q* Does the Project cost estimate range represent a bounding set of values 4 for the cost of constructing the Project?
5 A. No. The range of the Project cost estimate reflects the best information 6 available at this stage of project planning. It was created by applying potential I 7 changes to certain assumptions to illustrate how costs may vary with these I 8 areas of uncertainty. Other factors in the licensing, design, procurement and 9 construction aspects of the Project will have the potential to impact the cost I 10 and schedule. As FPL proceeds through the Project, the cost estimate range I 11 will be refined and compared to the most current information for the 12 economically feasible range to determine the ongoing feasibility of continuing 13 the Project.
14 Q. What would be the range of potential cost impact of a hypothetical delay 15 of six months?
I 16 A. The annual AFUDC cost grows throughout the Project reaching a peak in the I 17 final year of the Construction phase. The annual AFUDC cost in the last 18 stages of the Project could range from $800 million to over $1.2 billion per I 19 year. A six-month delay at this late stage of the Project would result in the I 20 addition of $400 to $600 million in interest costs along with any other project 21 related costs that may be incurred.
52
I 1 Q* What would be the potential cost impact of a one percent variation in 1 2 3
each of the cost escalators for materials, vendor equipment and labor and services categories?
I 4 A. If escalation rates were uniformly one percent higher than those used in the I 5 6
cost estimate range, the total project costs would increase by approximately
$415 million in Case A for 2,200 MW project. A one-percent decrease in all 7 escalators would result in a decrease of $380 million for Case A for a 2,200 8 M W project.
9 Q* What factors may change that would improve the relative economics of I 10 nuclear generation over the course of the deployment process?
I 11 A. Many factors could result in improved economics: factors related to nuclear 12 unit construction cost and factors related to the energy generation market in I 13 which new nuclear facilities will operate.
I 14 15 Construction costs are uncertain, in part, because it is not known how many 16 U.S. projects will proceed from the Licensing Phase to the Construction 17 Phase, or on what schedule they will proceed. This will influence the total 18 market created for equipment fabrication, labor and engineering services to I 19 build the new reactors. A healthy number of projects will create a balanced I 20 supply and demand relationshp for these services, maintaining or lowering 21 costs. A predictable licensing and approval process will increase the ability to I 22 plan procurement and resources, minimizing costs.
I 53
1 Externally, the economic factors created by tightening world energy supplies 2 and increased emission control legislation will affect the electric generation 3 market as a whole - establishing a new market price range in the future.
I 4 Carbon costs will add directly and indirectly to the cost to generate electricity.
I 5 The cost to emit CO2 will be a direct charge to technologies that produce the greenhouse gas and will indirectly affect the market price of fuels, resulting in 6
I 7 a likely premium to low-CO:! fuels, like natural gas. Likewise, proposed 8 requirements to change the future energy mix will have an economic impact 9 on the alternatives against which nuclear generation competes compared to the 10 current scenarios. For example, increasing the amount of renewable I 11 generation can help achieve meaningful GHG reductions, but may increase 12 the overall cost of electric generation supply because of the high capital costs I 13 for these technologies and the low capacity factors that can be realized in I 14 Florida.
15 I 16 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT COST RECOVERY FILING PROCESS 17 18 Q. How will the costs associated with Turkey Point 6 & 7 be presented to the 19 Commission within the Rule 25-6.0423 process?
20 A. Expenditures will be presented for cost recovery to the Commission annually 21 in the Rule 25-6.0423 process. The initial filing, expected to be in May of 22 2008, will include the actudestimated costs for 2008 and the projected costs 23 for 2009. The costs will include costs associated with the Licensing phase as 54
1 well as Preparation phase steps that FPL recommends be undertaken to 2 maintain the earliest practical deployment schedule, specifically long lead 3 procurement. Filings in following years will provide a true-up of prior year 4 actual expenditures, actualdestimates of costs in the current year and a 5 projection of the subsequent year costs. Major contracts will be enumerated 6 to allow an understanding of the structure and allocation of costs across the 7 involved parties.
8 Q* How does the Rule 25-6.0423 annual review process provide assurance to 9 FPL customers that pursuing new nuclear generation remains prudent a 10 and that the costs associated with doing so are reasonable?
I 11 A. The process requires that FPL provide a complete description of expenditures 12 to be incurred in the current and subsequent year of the Project. Interested I 13 parties will have the opportunity to review these projections and the I 14 Commission must be satisfied that they are prudent and reasonable. Each year 15 FPL will also include a feasibility report, in which the ongoing economic 16 viability of the Project will be reviewed. Recognizing that the factors that 17 impact the cost-effectiveness of the Project change over time, this process 18 ensures that a continuing review will be made with current information and 19 will allow the Commission to determine that it is reasonable to expect that the I 20 Project will maintain, in aggregate, the combination of benefits upon w h c h 21 the Need Order is based.
I I
I 55 I
I I 1 COMPARISON OF THE DEPLOYMENT OF NUCLEAR I 2 3
GENERATION VERSUS OTHER GENERATING RESOURCES I 4 Q- What are the key differences and similarities in the deployment of new 5 nuclear generation compared to the deployment of existing forms of 6 renewable resources (whether GHG emission-free or not) or fossil fuel 7 generation?
I 8 A. The key differences pertain to the relative strength of the regulatory, economic 9 and industrial framework necessary to support deployment of the different I 10 technologies. The challenges of deploying new nuclear generation can be I 11 demonstrated by comparing to deploying existing fossil or renewable 12 generation technologies (such as natural gas combined cycle or wind I 13 turbines). In general, much more is known and knowable about existing fossil 14 and renewable generation deployment because there is current experience 15 regarding the recent deployment of these resources in the U.S. generally and I 16 Florida specifically. Regulatory authorities have had recent experience I 17 reviewing the issues related to these projects. Additionally, there is an active 18 and competitive market for conventional generation equipment, engineering I 19 and construction services that support cost and schedule estimates for existing I 20 fossil and renewable technology construction efforts.
21 22 In contrast, nuclear generation deployment in the U.S. is just now resuming 23 with the licensing and construction of proposed new nuclear plants, after a 56
1 hiatus of over 30 years. The differences in the regulatory approval processes 2 for new nuclear versus existing fossil and renewable generation create 3 uncertainty. The uncertainty with the new nuclear regulatory paradigm may 4 cause unexpected delays, particularly as the federal regulatory oversight 5 provided by the NRC interacts with state and local processes. Nuclear 6 generation is a high capital cost technology. Therefore there are additional 7 challenges in the area of financing projects, and ramifications of delays can be I 8 financially significant. Meanwhile, increased demand relative to a limited 9 supply of nuclear material and equipment providers will affect the certainty of I 10 construction costs and schedules. Therefore, a delay in approving the pursuit I 11 of a nuclear project now may have a disproportionate impact on the costs and 12 timeline to deliver new nuclear generation to customers. FPL believes that I 13 these uncertainties will begin to be resolved over time for re-emerging nuclear 14 generation as the currently proposed 19 U.S. projects, representing 29 units, 15 move forward.
16 I 17 There are also similarities in the deployment of new nuclear generation when 18 compared to the deployment of existing fossil and renewable resources as I 19 well. These technologies (nuclear, natural gas combined cycle, wind) use I 20 known and mature designs that have predictable operational characteristics 21 and performance expectations.
I 57
1 1 Q- How does the deployment of new nuclear generation differ from the development and deployment of IGCC?
I 2 3 A. New nuclear generation deployment is an evolving process built on the I 4 foundation of a well understood technology and supported by an established 1 5 6
and stable nuclear generation industry. The nuclear industry in the U.S. is taking the logical next steps to build on the design improvements that have 7 occurred internationally in the past 20 years, and deploy these refined nuclear 8 designs to meet the U.S. need for energy security and reduced GHG 9 emissions.
I 10 I 11 In contrast, IGCC is an emerging technology that has not achieved the status 12 of a mature generation technology at utility scale. Much is to be learned about I 13 the reliable operation of IGCC facilities and significant development is 14 required to provide a coal-fueled technology that can match the reliability and 15 greenhouse gas emission profile of nuclear generation. Small-scale IGCC 16 demonstration facilities have been constructed and operated without Carbon 17 Capture and Sequestration (CCS). CCS, itself, is an emerging technology 18 with a number of preliminary design concepts that have yet to be engineered, 19 constructed and tested. To offer a truly comparable alternative to nuclear 20 generation, IGCC will not only need to develop higher capacity designs with 21 increased reliability and cost-effectiveness, but will need to demonstrate the 22 stability and cost-effectiveness of operations with CCS.
58
1 Q* Has FPL considered the possibility that emerging technologies may 2 develop over the next ten to fifteen years?
3 A. Yes. FPL routinely monitors developments in new generation technologies.
I 4 There are promising emerging technologies in various stages of research and 1 5 6
development, as noted by FPL witness McBee. For example, ocean-current driven turbine technology offers some promise of high capacity factor I 7 generation that is uniquely suited to application in Florida given the proximity I 8 of population centers on the east coast to the Gulf Stream current. However, 9 ocean-current technology has not been demonstrated to be technically feasible 10 at a commercial scale in the open marine operating environment. Moreover, 11 the environmental issues related to its wide scale deployment have not been 12 reviewed. This is one example of a promising technology that FPL is I 13 exploring, but in its current state presents an unknown risk profile, an I 14 undefined environmental impact, and an undeveloped cost structure and 15 development timeline.
I 16 I 17 In FPLs view, it would not be prudent to forego taking the early enabling 18 steps towards deploying new nuclear generation while searching for 19 undeveloped alternatives with unknown deployment timelines. Rather, FPL 20 advocates a parallel path, whereby it will take the steps to create a viable 21 nuclear alternative while continuing to pursue the development of emerging 22 technologies through partnerships and offers to purchase the capacity and 23 energy produced from these facilities.
59
I I 1 Q* What are the key differences in the deployment of new nuclear I 2 3
generation compared to the development and deployment of emerging renewable resources (whether GHG emission-free or not) or fossil fuel 4 generation?
5 A. As compared to emerging fossil and renewable technologies, nuclear 6 generation deployment involves the siting and construction of a proven I 7 technology with a strong operational history of safety and reliability whose I 8 operational costs are largely known and knowable. Further the nuclear 9 industry is thriving with a continued record of delivering low cost generation I 10 with high reliability and safety. Nuclear generation is also a baseload capacity I I1 option, available at all hours, unlike many renewable resources. For these 12 reasons, new nuclear generation is better positioned than developing 13 technologies to make the successful transition to deployment and should be 14 able to resolve uncertainties as they are presented. FPL concludes that the 15 pursuit of new nuclear generation now is prudent and should not be postponed 16 merely because of the undefined potential and uncertain development timeline 17 of emerging technologies.
18 19 MANAGING THE OPTION FOR NEW NUCLEAR 20 21 Q. Previously you referred to the early stage investments in the Licensing 22 and Preparation phase activities as equivalent to buying an option to 23 develop new nuclear in the future. Please expand on this concept.
60
I I 1 A. In order to be in a position to actually deploy new nuclear generation by the I 2 3
end of the next decade FPL and the Commission must make some decisions, and consequently must authorize some expenditure to move the process I 4 forward. The ultimate benefit of these investments include the economic 5 savings of choosing nuclear generation over an alternative technology as well 6 as the qualitative system benefits of improved fuel diversity, reduced 7 dependence on fossil fuels, reduced GHG emissions and improved system I 8 reliability. Based on current analysis the savings appears to be significant in 9 most scenarios, but these benefits are not without risk.
I 10 I 11 The expenditures fit the definition of option payments. An option payment 12 is an investment or series of investments made in order to keep the path open I 13 to achieving an ultimate benefit at a future time. The Licensing and 14 Preparatory activities are the series of investments, and the ultimate benefit to 15 FPL customers is the potential future value of the investment (e.g., cost 16 savings relative to alternatives, increased fuel diversity, energy I 17 independence).
18 I 19 The investments are managed to develop additional information that will I 20 enable continued refinement of the estimated ultimate economic benefit. The 21 Nuclear Power Plant Cost Recovery Rule process allows precisely this I 22 disciplined logical approach. The uncertainty associated with the ultimate 23 economic benefit is large at first. Correspondingly, the incremental 61
i 1 investments in the early stage are low in comparison to the total investment required to obtain the ultimate economic benefit. As the project proceeds, the I 2 3 uncertainty reduces and both the magnitude and the likelihood of obtaining I 4 the ultimate economic benefit become more certain. The judgment of I 5 6
prudency must therefore be made at the point of expenditure, recognizing that it is based on the best infomation available to the decision makers at the time 7 the expenditure is authorized.
8 Q* How is the ultimate set of benefits determined?
9 A. The ultimate economic benefit is the product of detailed economic modeling I 10 of the relative lifecycle costs of various generation alternatives. By analyzing I 11 the cost effectiveness of several generation alternatives against a range of 12 economic scenarios (including variations in fuel price forecasts and emission I 13 compliance costs), FPL develops an understanding of the potential ultimate 14 economic benefit outcomes. As illustrated in Exhibit SDS-7, most scenarios 15 analyzed show that new nuclear generation can demonstrate economic benefit 16 when compared to alternative technologies under a range of fuel and emission 17 compliance scenarios.
18 19 Additionally, the Commission must consider the qualitative system benefits 20 provided by diversifying the portfolio and reducing GHG emissions with the 21 addition of more nuclear generation. The range of economic benefit identified 22 by the current analysis strongly supports the incremental option investments 23 that are described in the Licensing and Preparation phases. The potential 62
1 qualitative system benefits further reinforce these incremental investments, 2 The only way to initiate this process is through an affirmative determination 3 of need. Such a decision on the part of the Commission is by no means the I 4 last word on the deployment of new nuclear generation.
I 5 Q* What benefits does this option approach provide FPL customers in 6 contrast to the approach that Florida Administrative Code requires for I 7 non-nuclear generation?
I 8 A. Primarily this allows the pace of development to be managed in direct 9 proportion to the confidence that can be placed in each incremental 10 investment step of the process. As I have described, non-nuclear generation is 11 generally able to be developed on a much shorter time frame and within a 12 more defined commercial market framework. Nuclear generation 13 deployment, re-emerging after a thirty year hiatus, entails a significant 14 licensing process and construction cycle. These combined timeframes, 15 resulting in a minimum of ten years, make it impractical to approach the 16 decision in the same method as a project that can be designed, built and 17 brought into commercial operation within three or four years.
18 Q. What are some of the potential scenarios that might convince FPL to 19 suspend or terminate developing an option for new nuclear generation?
20 A. There are several possible scenarios that could result in a suspension or 21 termination of the Project. Failure to obtain the required licensing approvals 22 would halt the process. The opportunity to dispose of assets developed to that 23 point would be dependent on the overall demand in the resale market.
63
1 Alternatively, the long-term economics could change (although it would need I 2 to be a dramatic change) that would no longer justify incremental investments in the deployment process. In that instance, expenditures made towards I 4 Licensing and Preparation phase activities would not be entirely lost, but I 5 6
transform into a long-term investment that could benefit customers if and when a re-institution of the process where economically justified. If this 7 deferral or termination occurred due to changing project economics once the 8 Licensing approvals were obtained, or nearly so, this outcome would retain 9 substantial future option value as the COL would be valid for some time into I 10 the future.
I 11 12 The approach required by the Rule 25-6.0423 review process enables the I 13 pursuit of new nuclear generation and ensures that the process be conducted in I 14 a reasonable and prudent manner. The process limits the potential for the 15 project to create undesirable expenditures. In short, the down-side is 16 significantly limited and under the direct control of the Commission and FPL.
17 18 POTENTIAL FOR OWNERSHIP PARTICIPATION I 19 I 20 Q. Has FPL held discussions with other Florida utilities regarding potential 21 ownership participation in the proposed Project?
I 22 A. Yes. FPL has discussed, in general terms, the potential for ownership I 23 participation with utilities who have expressed interest. As FPL proceeds 64
1 through the process of developing the project plan and the associated contracts 2 necessary to execute the Project, FPL will engage interested parties to 3 determine the potential for mutually beneficial ownership participation by 4 other utilities.
5 6 FINANCIAL ISSUES 7
8 Q- Given the magnitude of the total project cost, what financial challenges 9 are presented to FPL to raise the funding necessary to finance the 10 Project?
11 A. The two factors that most influence the ability to finance a new nuclear 12 project will be continued demonstration of state and federal support and 13 timely, stable regulatory action in support of licensing and cost recovery for 14 the projects.
15 16 The EPAct 2005 legislation has provided promising programs to support new 17 nuclear deployment. I understand that extensions of the timeframes 18 associated with the original legislation are being considered by Congress.
19 Such extensions would provide for further federal support in a tangible way 20 that would help mitigate a portion of the financing risk. Continued support at 21 the state level in the area of cost recovery will also be critical to maintaining 22 the confidence of the investment community, thereby keeping the cost of 23 capital as low as possible.
65
I I 1 Access to capital markets will be dependent on several factors related to the I 2 3
regulatory experience for the initial wave of nuclear projects. Particularly, the ability of the first several nuclear projects to achieve licensing and pre-4 construction milestones per plan will set the tone for projects that follow. The 5 markets will also be looking for a demonstrated stability in the actions and 6 decisions of regulators as the projects move through the early steps.
I 7 Demonstrating that the industry-government relationship is working will be I 8 instrumental.
9 Q* What specific economic impacts are of concern for a project of this I 10 magnitude?
I 11 A. The risk of delays over a long approval and construction process is the 12 primary concern created by a project of this magnitude. However, this risk is 13 partly offset by the regulatory rules that have been established in Florida to 14 ensure interim recovery of prudently incurred pre-construction and carrying 15 costs on construction work-in-process. This regulatory framework is a step 16 toward ensuring that the utility will have adequate cash generation throughout 17 the construction process. Continued regulatory support for the interim 18 recovery framework is needed to ease concerns in t h s area.
19 Q. What are the rating agencies views on new nuclear construction?
20 A. In general, the rating agencies (such as Moodys Investor Services) view new 21 nuclear construction as a higher risk than other technologies. This view is 22 primarily driven by the long approval and construction process associated 23 with new nuclear construction as well as the size of the capital requirements in 66
I I 1 relation to the utility as compared to capital requirements for other generation technologies. Rating agencies also recall the difficulties of the 1970s and I 2 3 1980s. That said, the rating agencies recognize that interim recovery of 4 prudently incurred costs can help to mitigate that risk. They also recognize 5 the need for fuel diversity in the FPL portfolio, given the increasing reliance 6 on natural gas.
I 7 Q* How would you summarize the impact of financial issues on this proposed I 8 Project?
9 A. We believe FPL s strong financial position coupled with continued legislative I 10 and regulatory support for the role new nuclear generation resources can play I 11 in addressing Floridas increasing generation requirements and energy policy 12 vision, as outlined in Governor Crists recent Executive Orders, should 13 support pursuit of this Project.
14 Q. Does this conclude your direct testimony?
15 A. Yes.
I I
I I
67
00 15 n cu b
E; 64 I
I cu E;
cu r
15 cu 0
E; cu I
Q, 0 U 0
cu 00 0
0 cu b
0 0
cu to 0
0 cu C
0 I c,
3 Q Q) .
E I L c
. I 0 E C
B .
C O
I 8
c, v) v)
Q)
N I
8 0 Q 'CJ 0
E 0 Q)
I Q) e 4 2 I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 1 of 174 I
I I
I FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY I PROJECT BLUEGRASS NEW NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION I
I FINAL I
1 SITE SELECTION STUDY REPORT I
I October 2006 I
I I
1 I
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 2 of 174 I
Florida Power & Light Company I Project Bfuegrass Nuclear Power Plant Site Selection Study Report I FIh~L October 2006 I Acronyms and Abbreviations 1.O Background and Introduction I 2.0 3.0 Siting Process Overview Potential Site Selection 4.0 Evaluation of Potential Sites and Identification of Candidate Sites 1 5.0 6.0 Evaluation of Candidate Sites and Identification of Alternative Sites Selection of Proposed Site I Appendix A - Weight Factor Development Appendix B - Technical Basis for Screening Criterion Ratings Appendix C - Technical Basis for General Site Criterion Ratings I
Acronyms and Abbreviations I %g percent of gravity AAA American Automobile Association I AFB bgs Air Force Base below ground surface CFR Code of Federal Regulations I cfs CH COL cubic feet per second Critical Habitat Combined Operating License I COLA E
EIS Combined Operating License Application Endangered Environmental Impact Statement I EPA EPRI F
Environmental Protection Agency Electric Power Research Institute Fahrenheit c FDEP FEMA FIRM Florida Department of Environmental Protection Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps FPL Florida Power & Light Company I ft ft2 feet square feet a d gallons per day I &pm in gallons per minutc inches I October 2006 Page 1
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 3 of 174 I
I kV MDWASD mgd kilovolts Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Department million gallons per day mi miles I MSA MSL Metropolitan Statistical Area Mean Sea Level NAVD North American Vertical Datum I NCDC NE1 National Climate Data Center Nuclear Energy Institute NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 1 NMFS NOM National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NP Nuclear Plant NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRHP National Register of Historic Places NUREG Nudear Regulatory Commission Regulation NWI National Wetlands Inventory NWR National Wildlife Refuge OFW Outstanding Florida Waters I Okee PE Okeechobee Probability of Exceedance PGA Peak Ground Acceleration I PPE PSm ROI Plant, Property, and Equipment persons per square mile Region of Interest I ROW RR RTE Right of Way Railroad Rare, Threatened, and Endangered I SIA sq. mi.
T Similar in Appearance square miles Threatened T&E Threatened and Endangered I tbd USDA to be determined U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS US.Geological Survey WCA Water Conservation Area WMA Wildlife Management Area WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant yr year I
I October 2006 Page 2 I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 4 of 174 I
I 1.0 Background and Introduction Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) intends to prepare a Combined Operating License Application (COLA) for a new nuclear power plant. An early step in this process is selection of I a site that will provide the geographic setting for the COLA. This Siting Plan provides a description of the bases, assumptions, and processes applied in selecting the FPL COL site.
I The purpose of the new Nuclear Power Plant Project is to provide needed generating capacity to FPLs customers that will enhance the fuel diversity and fie1 supply reliability of FPLs fleet, reduce emissions from the FPL system on a per-kilowatt basis, and help balance the generation I and load in Southeast Florida.
The overall objective of the siting process was to identify a nuclear power plant site that 1) meets I FPLs business objectives for the COL project, 2) satisfies applicable Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) site suitability requirements, and 3) is compliant with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements regarding the consideration of alternative sites.
I Sites were evaluated based on a bounding set of site-related plant characteristics that define the nuclear plant physical site suitability requirements. This set of parameters is analogous to the I Plant Parameter Envelope defined in NEI-01-04, Industry Guideline for an Early Site Permit License Application - 10 CFR Part 52, Subpart A. Site requirements and plant interface parameters used in the siting evaluations were derived from Florida Power & Light Company, I Project Bluegrass New Nuclear Power Generation Project: Site Requirements Document to support Combined Construction and Operating License Application (COLA), Revision B, July 24,2006.
I Processes for site selection also take into account that existing sites have special status with NRC regarding consideration of alternative sites. For example, guidance provided to NRC staff on I their review of alternative site analyses (NUREG-1555,
[emphasis added]:
Section 9.3, III [8]) states, in part Recognize that there will be special cases in which the proposed site was not selected on I the basis of a systematic site-selection process. Examples include facilities proposed to be constructed on the site of an existing nuclear power facility previously found acceptable on the basis of a NEPA review andor demonstrated to be environmentally I satisfactory on the basis of operating experience.. .
An overail description of the siting process is provided in Section 2.0; additional detail on I component steps in the site selection process is provided in succeeding sections.
I I
October 2006 Page 3
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 5 of 174 I
I 2.0 Siting Process Overview Site selection was conducted in accordance with the overall process outlined in the EPRI Siting Guide: Site Selection and Evaluation Criteriafor an Early Site Pennit Application (Siting 1 Guide), March 2002. This process, as adapted for the FPL site selection study, is depicted in Figure 2- 1.
I Perform feasibility screening of 23 sites; 15 potential sites identified I for consideration Evaluate 15 potential sites Identify 8 candidate sites for using screening criteria further evaluation using general site criteria I Identify 5 alternative sites Detailed analysis of alternative sites Identify recommended site I I I I I _1 Figure 2-1 Site Selection Process Overview I
A team composed of personnel from Enercon Services, Inc. and McCallum-Turner, Inc. was I established to perform the analyses required under the site-selection process. The EnercodMcCallum-Tumer team initiated data collection and analysis to support evaluation of the 15 identified potential sites. Screening-level criteria developed from the EPRI Existing Site I Criteria (Table 4.2 of the EPRI Siting Guide) were developed and applied. Based on the results of evaluation of the 15 sites potential sites against the screening criteria, a down-select of eight candidate sites was made.
I Using available data and criteria developed based on the EPRI general site criteria (Section 3.0 of the EPN Siting Guide), detailed site-suitability evaluations of the candidate sites was conducted. Overall composite site-suitability ratings were developed for the eight candidate I sites. Based on these ratings, five sites were identified as alternative sites. A recommended site for the new nuclear power plant was selected based on the composite ratings and other applicable considerations related to FPL business plans and objectives.
October 2006 Page 4
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 6 of 174 I
I 3.0 Potential Site Selection The Region of Interest (ROI) for the FPL siting study was defined as areas within or immediately adjacent to the FPL service territory. Within that ROI, 23 sites were identified by FPL as 1 locations that could be evaluated for the COL and, potentially, a new nuclear power plant. These sites, which included existing power plant sites and greenfield sites previously identified by FPL, represented the fiill suite of siting tradeoffs available within the ROI and therefore provided a I basis for evaluation of a reasonable set of alternative locations.
FPL and EnerconiMcCallum-Turner team personnel reviewed this set of sites in a joint meeting on August 1,2006, to identify the final set of potential sites for this study. The following groups of sites were reviewed.
I FPL Existing Sites Twelve existing FPL power-generating sites were considered. Two of the sites are existing I nuclear power generating plants.
Canaveral 0 Port Everglades Cutler Putnam I 0 Ft. Myers Lauderdale 0 Riviera Sanford St. Lucie (existing nuclear)
Manatee 0 I e Martin 0 Additionally, three FPL-owned greenfield sites were considered:
Turkey Point (existing nuclear)
I 0 0
Andytown DeSoto West County I Finally, eight non-FPL-owned greenfield sites were considered; these sites were identified by the FPL corporate real estate department as being potentially available and feasible sites for new power generation projects:
0 Charlotte Hendry (2 locations)
Glades 0 Highlands Hardee Okeechobee (2 locations)
Each of the sites was evaluated qualitatively with respect to the following considerations:
Sufficient land currently exists for new nuclear power plant construction; I 0 Sufficient land can be obtained for new nuclear power plant construction; Adequate sources of water; and Transnlission feasibility.
I Using this process, the following 15 potential sites were identified for hrther consideration; these sites are depicted in Figure 3-1:
I 0 Charlotte DeSoto I October 2006 Page 5 I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 7 of 174 Ft. Myers Glades Hardee Hendry (2 locations)
Highlands Manatee Martin Okeechobee (2 locations)
St. Lucie Turkey Point West County Sites in the northern part of the ROI (Putnam, Sanford, Canaveral), as well as the Cutler site, were eliminated due to transmission feasibility; these sites are located far from the FPL load centers, and/or right-of-way acquisition would be difficult, andlor their transmission connections would have to be coordinated with other utilities. In addition, the Cutler, Sanford and Canaveral sites do not have adequate land area, and additional land could not feasibly be acquired.
The Andytown, Lauderdale, Port Everglades, and Riviera sites were eliminated from further consideration because these sites do not include enough land for a new nuclear power plant and additional land cannot be feasibly acquired in the time-frame required to support the FPL COLA schedule.
I I
I I
I I
I I FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page G I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 8 of 174 Fieure 3-1 Potential Site Locations I
I I
FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page 7
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 9 of 174 I
I 4.0 4.1 Evaluation of Potential Sites and Identification of Candidate Sites Potential Site Evaluation I The overall process for screening-level evaluation of potential sites was composed of the following elements; each element is described in the following paragraphs.
I Develop criterion ratings for each site; Develop weight factors reflecting the relative importance of each criterion; and Develop composite site-suitability ratings.
I 0
Criterion Ratings - Each potential site was assigned a rating of 1 to 5 (1 = least suitable, 5 =
most suitable) for each of the screening criteria, using the rationale listed in Table 4-1.
I Information sources for these evaluations included publicly available data, data available from FPL files and personnel, and large-scale satellite photographs.
I Weight Factors - Weight factors reflecting the relative importance of these criteria were developed by a multi-disciplinary committee in the areas of nuclear power plant site suitability that was convened at FPL offices on August 29,2006; this committee was composed of subject I matter experts in water use and availability, engineering, real estate, ecology, transmission, land use, health & safety, socioeconomics and public relations. The weight factors were derived using methodology consistent with the modified Delphi process specified in the Siting Guide I (see Appendix A). Weight factors used (1 = least important, 10 = most important) are listed in the table below.
I I
I I
I Composite Suitability Ratings - Ratings reflecting the overall suitability of each site were developed by multiplying criterion ratings by the criterion weight factors and summing over all criteria for each site.
I Criteria presented in Table 4-1 were derived from the larger set of more detailed criteria listed in Chapter 3 of the EPRI Siting Guide:Site Selection and Evciluation Criteriafor un Early Site Permit Application (Siting Guide), March 2002. They are intended to provide insights into the I overall site suitability trade-offs between the potential sites and to take advantage of data available at this stage of the site selection process.
I FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page 8 I
Table 4-1 Screening Evaluation Criteria Water Supply Composite ratings were based on an average of ratings for 5 = No practical restriction the following four aspects: 4 = Greater than 5 times the requirement Flow - 3 = 3-5 times the requirement 2 = Less than 3 times the requirement Surface water: Low daily 1 = Insufficient flow mean flow for the period of record as reported by USGS. Note: A sensitivity analysis was performed regarding the rating rationale presented Reclaimcd watx: WWTP above. An alternate rating scale was developed that consisted 08 flow reported by FDEP 1= Insuficient flow available for re-use on a 2=1 times the requiredflow county basis. 3=1 to 3 times the requiredpow Groundwater: Flow 4=3 to 5 times the requiredpow estimated based on FPL 5= No practical restriction.
familiarity with Floridan Applying this alternate rating rationale resulted in no substantial changes in the aquifer, where feasible. composite ratings (ajlow sub-rating change at one of the sites (+I at Charlotte) was Lake Okeechobee:
calculated]. The original rationalepresented above was used for thefiizal criterion rating.
Conservatively estimatcd to be at least the lower of the low daily mean flow reported for the C44 and C43 canals.
Flexibility -
I 5 = Multiple sources each capable of full flow required Number of alternate source(s) 4 = Additional sources capable of providing substantial portion of flow of water present and capable 3 = One source capable of providing full flow of providing substantial 2 = Multiple sources each capable of providing substantial portion of flow with no portion of required flow.
single source providing full flow requirements 1 = Insufficient flow regardless of number of sources 11/22/06 Page 9 FPL Proprietary
Risk -
Associated with flow 5= All aspects favorable 4= Some favorable aspects variability, longer pumping 3= Neutral distances andor other 2= Some risk reliability aspects of water 1= Substantial risk supply-Regulatory Challenge -
5= All aspects favorable Known areas with elevated 4= Some favorable aspects competition for water 3= Neutral resources, a high number of 2= Some challenges water users, difficult supply 1= Substantial challenges conditions or challenging compliance situation are ranked lower than those without such challenges, based on judgment.
P2 Flooding Difference between mean site 5 = Greater than 20 feet elevation and mean water 4 = Between 20 feet and IO fcct elevation fi-om USGS 3 = Between 10 feet and 6 feet topographic maps, USGS 2 = Between 6 feet and 3 feet (or near swamp lands) gaging station measurements. 1 = Less than 3 feet (or in swamp lands) 11/22/06 Page 10 FPL Proprietary
Population Composite ratings were based 5 = No population centers within 20 miles on an average of ratings 4 = Population centers between 20 and 15 miles based on the following two 3 = Population centers between 15 and 10 miles conditions: 2 = Population centers between 10 and 5 miles (1) Distance to nearest 1= Population centers within 5 miles population center (high County Population Density Ratings:
density); and 5 = Less than 50 persons per square mile (psm)
(2) Population density of host 4 = Between 250 psm and 50 psm county (based on 2000 3 = Between 350 psm and 250 psm census). 2 = Betwcen 500 psm and 350 psm In addition, a rating point was 1 = Greater than 500 psm deducted or added if the site A point was added if no densely populated area is found within 40 miles of the site; a is or is not in a particularly point deducted if a densely populated area is found within 15 miles of the site or if a densely populated area. large grouping of densely populated areas are located within 15-40 miles of the site.
Hazardous Land Number of airports, pipelines, 5 = No major airport, city or county airport, military base, or rail within 10 miles Uses and other known hazardous [small air fieldsllanding strips are allowed if no more than 2 within 5 miles]
industrial facilities (including 4 = No major airport (or Air Force Base) within 10 miles, no rail, pipeline small city or Air Force Bases and Kennedy county airport within 5 miles [ 1-2 small air fielddlandings strips are ok]
Space CenterKape 3 = Rail and small airports (multiple) < 5 miles Canaveral), as determined 2 = Major airport or Air Force Base < 10 miles from publicly available data. 1 = Major airport or Air Force Base < 10 miles, rail and multiple small airports < 5 miles, and existing plant location Ecology Number of Federal 5 = 0 species Threatened, Endangered and 4 = 1-10 species Rare Species in County 3 = 1 1-20 species
[aquatic and terrestrial] 2 = 21-30 species 1 = over 30 species Wetlands Number of mapped wetland 5 = 0 acres acres within a 5,000 acre 4 = Between 0 acres and 250 acres nominal site area', excluding 3 = Between 250 acres and 500 acres riverine or marine areas. 2 = Between 500 acres and 1,500 acres 1 = Greater than 1,500 acres FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page I1
i p7 Railroad Accea Estimated cost of constructing a rail spur to the site, bascd on distance in Ratings computed by scaling costs from lowest (rating = 5) to highest (rating = I}.
1 = More than 15 miles 2 = Between 15 miles and 10 miles miles to the nearest in-service 3 = Between 10 miles and 5 miles rail line. 4 = Between 5 miles and 2 miles 5 = Fewer than 2 miles Note: Ratings may be adjusted if barge access is located in the immediate vicinity ir lieu of railroad access.
Transmission Transmission access is Ratings computed by measuring distances to greater Miami Area Load Center and Access evaluated in the preliminary considering high-level evaluation of transmission issues.
screening in terms of distance 1 = More than 200 miles to the load center in the 2 = Between 200 miles and 100 miles greater Miami area (Palm 3 = Between 100 miles and 70 miles Beach, Broward, and Miami- 4 = Between 70 miles and SO miles Dade Counties) and amount 5 = Fewer than 50 miles of new right-of-way that Ratings points adjusted based on amount of new right-of-way that must be acquired would have to be acquired.
and the relative difficulty of acquisition. The plant switchyard is assumed to be the same for all sites.
P9 Land Acquisitio Estimated cost of acquiring Ratings computed by scaling costs from lowest (rating = 5 ) to highest (rating = 1) land (nominally 3,000 acres**)at the site, based on the following costlacre assumptions:
- very remote areas - $8,000 -
$12,000 [used $lO,OOOj
- farm areas $15,000 -
I
$20,000 per acre [used
$17,5001
- land near population centers
- $30,000 - $40,000 per acre
[used $35,0001 11/22/06 Page 12 FPL Proprietary
- In the screening phase wetlands criterion, a 5,000-acre general area was evaluated for each site to provide a general characterization ofthe presence of wetlands and to provide flexibility in the eventual plant layout, This general area size is consistent with the upper end of the Desired Owner Buffer k e d identified in the FPL site requirements document.
The low end of the Desired Owner Buffer Area (i.e., 3,000 acres) was used for the land acquisition criterion evaluation as the actual acreage that would be placed undcr FPL ownership.
11/22/06 Page 13 FPL Proprictary
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 15 of 174 I 4.2 Identification of Candidate Sites Results of the screening evaluation are presented in Table 4-2 and Figure 4-1 ; the technical basis I for the individual criterion ratings is detailed in Appendix B.
The screening evaluation process identified four sites that were clearly less suitable than the remaining eleven sites. As a result, the set of candidate sites was derived by taking the top eight D ranked sites, but with the following optimizations:
Okeechobee 1 - Deferred in favor of Okeechobee 2, due to their close geographic t proximity and the resulting expectation that no important siting trade-offs or opportunities would be eliminated. Okeechobee 1 is also farther from the proposed water source for these sites, leading to the expectation that it would encounter more cost and regulatory difficulties in water supply compared to Okeechobee 2.
Hendrv 2 - Deferred in favor of the higher-rated Hendry 1, due to their close geographic proximity and the resulting expectation that no important siting trade-offs or opportunities would be eliminated. Hendry 2 is also farther from the proposed water source for these sites, leading to the expectation that it would encounter more cost and regulatory difficulties in water supply compared to Hendry 1.
Manatee - Deferred due to the expectation that the site is questionable with regard to the engineering and regulatory feasibility of developing a water supply and would encounter significant local resistance based on experience from previous FPL plant development activities in the site vicinity.
St. Lucie - Included based on the fact that it is an existing, operating nuclear power plant site. Inclusion of this site in the set of candidate sites allows detailed evaluation of the advantages of this existing site, including confidence in site characteristics, existing infrastructure, and public acceptance, The eight candidate sites identified for further evaluation include:
0 DeSoto Glades 0 Hardee 0 Hendry 1 0 Martin 0 Okeechobee 2 0 St. Lucie Turkey Point FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page 14
Table 4-2 Screening Criteria Site Ratings Cooling Flooding Popula- IIazard- Ecology Wetlands Railroad Transmis- Land Watcr tion ousLand Access sion Acquisi-Uses Access tion Site Potential Site Name 3.9 7.6 5.0 6.1 I 6.4 I 5.6 I 8.5 I 6.5 Rating Charlottc 2 4 5 2 1 1 2 3 142.9 I I DeSoto 3 2 3 3 5 173.8 Ft. Myers 1 3 2 2 4 2 3 132.8 Glades l 3 3 3 4 I
4 3 195.1 Hardce I 1 4 1 4 1 3 3 2 5 2 3 166.1 Hendry 1 2 4 4 3 2 3 4 3 178.6 Hendry 2 1 5 5 3 1 2 4 3 175.3 Highlands 5 4 2 1 2 3 2 3 141.6 5 2 3 3 3 4 1 5 179.1 Manatee 1 3 2 3 3 2 4 5 5 5 214.9 Martin
~
1 3 --
Oleechobee 1 2 203.1 Okeechobee 2 3 185.0 St. Lucie 4 152.9 I I Turkey Point 4 1 1 2 175.8 West County 3 2 1 4 2 1 2 2 3 130.2 FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page 15
Figure 4-1 Screening Criteria Ratings FPL Screening Criteria Evaluation 220 1214.9 210-200-190-180 Score 170 160 150 140 130 120 Site 11J22/06 Page 16 FPL Proprietary
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 18 of 174 I
I 5.0 Evaluation of Candidate Sites and Identification of Alternative Sites The objective of this component of the site-selection process was to further evaluate the top eight ranked candidate sites and select a smaller set of altemative sites (an initial target for the number I of alternative sites was four) for detailed evaluation and ultimate selection of the proposed site for the FPL COL. Section 5.1 outlines the process for evaluating candidate sites, while Section 5.2 describes process results and the selection of altemate sites.
I 5.1 Process for Evaluating Candidate Sites I General siting criteria used to evaluate the eight candidate sites were derived from those presented in Chapter 3.0 of the Siting Guide: Site Selection and Evaluation Criteria for an Early Site Permit Application, EPRZ, Palo Alto, CA: 2002 (Siting Guide); criteria from the siting guide I were tailored to reflect issues applicable to - and data available for - the FPL candidate sites. A list of the criteria appears in Table 5-1.
1 The overall process for applying the general site criteria was analogous to that described in Section 4.1 and was composed of the same three elements identified below. Results from applying the process are described in Section 5.2. Appendix C provides the detailed technical I basis for the general site-criteria ratings.
Criterion Ratings - Each site was assigned a rating of 1 to 5 (1 = least suitable, 5 = most suitable)
I for each of the potential site evaluation criteria using the rationale described in Appendix C.
Information sources for these evaluations included publicly available data, information available from FPL files and personnel, and USGS topographic maps.
I Weight Factors - Weight factors reflecting the relative importance of these criteria were developed by a multi-disciplinary committee in the areas of nuclear power plant site suitability I that was convened at FPL offices on August 29,2006; this committee was composed of subject matter experts in water use and availability, engineering, real estate, ecology, transmission, land use, health & safety, socioeconomics and public relations. The weight factors were derived using methodology consistent with the modified Delphi process specified in the Siting Guide.
I Weight factors used (1 = least important, 10 = most important) are included in Table 5-2 below.
Composite Suitability Ratings - Ratings reflecting the overall suitability of each site were I developed by multiplying criterion ratings by the criterion weight factors and summing all criteria for each site, as summarized in Table 5-2.
I I
I FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page 17
TabIe 5-1 Site Criteria 1.1 Health and Safctv Critcria: Accident Cause-Related Criteria Environmental Criteria: Operational-Related Effects on Aquatic Ecology, cont'd.
1.1.1 Geology and Scisniology 2.3.2 Entrainment/ImpingementEffects
- 1. I .2.1 Coolin4 Swtcni Resuirements: Coolinq Water Sumlv 2.3.3 DredgindDisuosal Effects 1.1.2.2 Coolinlr Watcr Svstcm: Anibient Temuerature Reouiremcnts 2.4 Environmental Criteria: Operational-Related Effects on Terrestrial Ecology I.I .3 Flooding 2.4.1 Drift Effects on Surrounding Areas I .I .4 Nearby Haadous Land Uses 3 Socioeconomic Criteria __
1 . I .5 Extrcmc Wcarhcr Conditions 3.1 Socioeconomic- ConstructionRelated Effects ~-
1.2 Health and Snfctv Criteria: Accidcnt Effects-Related 3.2 Socioeconomics- Operation (deleted from evaluation, see Appendix C) 1.2.I Pouulalion 3.3 Environmental Justice I .2.2 Emcrgcncy Planning ..___
3.4 Land Use 1.2.3 AtniosuhcricDispcrsion 4.1 Engineering and Cost-Related Criteria: Health and Safety Related Criteria 1.3 Health and Safety Criteria: Operational Effects-Related 4. I.I Water Supply 1.3.1 Surfacc Water - Radionuclide Pathway 4.1.2 Pumping Distance -__
1.3.2 Croundwatcr Radionuclide Pathway 4.1.3 Flooding 1.3.3Air Radionuclidc Pathway 4.1.4 Vibratory Ground Motion (deleted from evaluation, see Appendix C) 1.3.4 Air Food Ingcstiorl Pathway
~
4.1.5 Civil Works 1.3.5Surface Watcr Food Radionuclidc Pathway
~ -- - 4.2 Engineering and C o s t Transportation or Transmission Related Criteria 1.3.6 Transportation Safcty 4.2.1 Railroad Access ..
2.1 Environmental Criteria: Construction-Related Effects on Aquatic Ecology 4.2.2 Highway Access 2.1 .I Disruption of Important Spcciedl-Iabitats 4.2.3 Barge Access 2.1.2 Bottom Scdiment Disruption Effects 4.2.4 Transmission Access 2.2 Environmental Criteria: Construction-Related Effects on Terrestrial 4.3 Engineering and Cost-Related Criteria: Related to Socioeconomic & Land Use. ..
2.2.1 Disruption of Important SpeciesMabitatsand Wetlands 4.3.1 Topography .__
2.2.2 Dcwatering Effects on Adjacent Wctlands 4.3.2 Land Rights 2.3 Environmental Criteria: Operational-Related Effects on Aquatic Ecology 4.3.3 Labor Rates 2.3.1 Thermal Dischagc Effects FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page 18
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 20 of 174 5.2 Identification of Alternative Sites Results of applying the evaluation process described in Section 5.1 to the eight candidate sites are summarized in Table 5-2 and Figure 5-1. Detailed discussions of the basis for site ratings for each of the criteria are provided in Appendix C.
The general criteria evaluation process identified three sites clearly less suitable than the remaining five sites. Based on these results, the following five altemative sites were identified for fixther, more detailed evaluation and consideration:
0 Glades 0 Martin 0 Okeechobee 2 0 St. Lucie 0 Turkey Point The DeSoto, Hardee, and Hendry 1 sites rated lower than the above sites in the general criteria evaluations, and were deferred from further analysis, Limited water availability was shown to be a factor in the general criteria evaluations for both the DeSoto and Hardee sites. The Hendry 1 site was observed to be similar to the Glades site, but was deferred from further consideration at this time due its lower composite rating.
I I
I I
I I
I FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page 19 I
Table 5-2 General Site Criteria Site Ratings
~ ~-
Okeechobee I Criteria irdee Turkey Point -
?
0 0
v) 1.1.1 Geology/Seismology
_ I_
39.5 5 I 39.5 1 5 I 39.5 5 39.5 Cooling Systcin 1.1.2 19.2 3.5 33.6 Requirements
____I I _
1.1.3 Flooding 19.5 1 3.9 Nearby Hazardous 1.1.4 12.6 2 8.4 Land Uses Extreme Weathcr 2 9.2 1.1.5 13.8 Conditions c _
Accident Effect 3 24.3 1.2 32.4 Related Surface Water - 29.6 5 37 1.3.1 Radionuclide Pnlhway - __--
Groundwater 21.6 2 14.4 1.3.2 Radionuclide Pathway ___ __-
Air Radionuclide 29.6 4 29.6 4 29.6 5 37 1.3.3 Pathway Air - Food Ingestion 7.5 1 7.5 2 15 5 37.5 1.3.4 Pathway Surface Water -Food 7.4 1 7.4 1 7.4 5 37 1.3.5 Radioiiuclide Pathway 16.2 3 16.2 3 16.2 3 16.2 1.3.6 Transportation Safety FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page 20 Docket No. -El Site Selection Saidy Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 21 of 174
I r-okeechobee I Criteria D,eSoto 1 ( ades Hardee H' ndry I I Martin _q_ _Point Weight c 2
z n
I= 2 0 Y u) c
.- 2 8 -0, E
a c
z 2 0
Factor 53 2 cn 2 8 2 ix Disruption of 2.1.1 1 Important 6.4 4 25.6 4 25.6 5 32 4 25.6 19.2 Species/EIabitats Bottom Sediment 2.1.2 5.1 3 15.3 3 15.3 3 15.3 3 15.3 20.4 Disruption Effects
~
Disruption of Important 2.2.1 6.5 4 26 4.5 29.25 3.5 22.75 3.5 22.75 16.25 SpecieslHabitats and Wetlands Dewatering Effects on 2.2.2 5.4 4 22.4 3 16.8 3 16.8 2 11.2 4 22.4 3 16.8 Adjacent Wetlands 2.3.1 1 Thermal Discharge Effccts 6.1 2 12.2 3 18.3 3 18.3 3 18.3 3 18.3 3 24.4 Entrainmeid 6.1 4 24.4 4 24.4 3 18.3 4 28.3 2.3.3 I
1 Dredging/Disposal Effects 4.9 5 24.5 5 24.5 5 24.5 5 24.5 Drift Effects on 23.6 4 23.6 4 23.6 2 11.8 2 11.8 5.9 3 17.7 4 Socioeconomics -
5.2 3 15.6 2 26 3 15.6 5 26 5 26 4.3 5 21.5 5 ~ 21.5 5 21.5 5 21.5 5 21.5 3.4.1 I
I LandUse 5.4 3 16.2 3 16.2 3 16.2 3 16.2 4 21.6 4.1.1 1 Water Supply 8.5 1 8.5 4 25.5 34 4 34 5 42.5 5 42.5 FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Docket No.- -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 22 of 174
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 23 of 174 i
I N
I N
9 p.r I
I I
I z- T t m
t-D I-I-
I %-&
I I
I m l
- l I
I +0 0
I %
n m
I I h I %
0 0
WJ E
3 I
LL I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 24 of 174 I
m I
c.l CJ bo (d
a I
I I
I I .
B El CI, I
2 I .
cd L
a, i
I Y w
ii; m
I L m
S G
I I
I I 0 rc)
W 0
0 I
CU
\
0 I
rc)
I-
\
0 0
I-
\
a (0
\
8 co 5:
Lo 0
0 Lo aio3S I
I I
I
I Docket No. -E I Site Selection Study ReDort Exhibit SDS-2, Page 25 of i74 I
6.0 Selection of Proposed Site I As discussed in Section 5.2, the Glades, Martin, Okeechobee 2, St. Lucie, and Turkey Point sites were selected as alternative sites for the FPL COL. Based on the comprehensive evaluations I conducted to this point, all of these sites appear to be feasible locations for a new nuclear power plant.
I To select a proposed site for the COL from this set of alternatives, additional considerations were evaluated to provide further insight on their relative suitability to support FPLs objectives for the COL and a future nuclear plant. Scope and results of these studies are described in Section I 6.1. The rationale for selecting a proposed site from the alternatives considered is provided in Section 6.2.
I 6.1 Analysis of Altemative Sites The objective of these additional considerations for the five alternative site studies was to I provide further insight into site conditions and/or to provide further confidence on specific issues that were viewed as important to the COL site decision. Specific factors considered in this evaluation were as follows:
I Environmental impact - Existence of ecological or environmental permitting issues; Transmission - Availability of existing right-of-way and cost of upgrades; I Land acquisition - Existing land ownership and expected difficulty of acquiring site (if applicab1e);
Reliability (transmission) - Analysis of reliability from a power-transmission I perspective; Reliability (generation) - Qualitative analysis of risk factors for reliable power production and supply; Public acceptance - Ability to obtain public acceptance to support siting activities; Political (local) - Govemmental/organizational support at the local level; Political (state) - Governmental and regulatory support at the state and Federal level; Transmission takeaway - Feasibility of constructing the necessary upgrades to deliver power to the system; Schedule compatibility - Level of confidence that site will support commenceinent of COLA activities in January 2007; and Site layout feasibility - Ability of site to accommodate plant layout.
Evaluation of these factors was conducted by a multi-disciplinary team of FPL professionals with specific expertise, experience, and ongoing involvement in the areas being evaluated; for example, personnel involved in environmental permitting throughout the FPL service territory provided input on environmental matters, and public relations staff provided judgments on public acceptance a i d political factors.
Results of these evaluations were reported by assigning ratings for each alternative site that ranged from 1 to 3 (1 = more favorable, 3 = less favorable), based on experience and best professional judgment. Each of the ratings was discussed by personnel from FPL, Enercon FTL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page 24
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 26 of 174 I
I Services, and McCallum-Turner. The resdting ratings are summarized in Table 6- 1; information on the basis for these ratings, along with results of the General Site Criteria evaluations (Section 5.0), are provided in the following paragraphs.
I Environmental Impact The St. Lucie site was rated least favorable because much of the land proposed for development I contains red and black mangrove habitat and would incur significant environmental impact.
Turkey Point was rated average with respect to environmental impact. Some of the land proposed for development at the Turkey Point site is designated as critical crocodile habitat.
I Some mitigation may be implemented because the entire cooling canal system is designated as critical habitat and the proposed area of development is small in relation to the whole canal system. The Glades, Martin, and Okeechobee 2 sites were rated as more favorable because I environmental impacts can be mitigated more effectively than at the St. Lucie or Turkey Point sites.
I Transmission Transmission access was originally evaluated in terms of distance to the load center in the I greater Miami area and the amount of new right-of-way that would have to be acquired; these factors are described in the screening criteria rating description in Section 4.0. Based on those evaluations the following ratings were applied to the alternative sites:
I Glades - 2 Martin - 1 Okeechobee 2 - 2 St. Lucie - 3 Turkey Point - 1 Land Acquisition The Turkey Point, St. Lucie, and Martin sites are all rated more favorable as these sites are FPL owned properties. The Glades site is rated average because while the property is not owned by FPL, options to purchase exist. The Okeechobee 2 site is rated less favorable because the property is not owned by FPL and purchasing options have not been developed.
Reliabilitv (Transmission)
The Turkey Point and Martin sites are rated more favorable with respect to transmission reliability. Power generation from a new power plant at Turkey Point could be routed on a geographically diverse corridor, thereby minimizing reliability risks. Transmission from all other sites would be co-located with existing transmission lines with varying degrees of congestion and crossings. Transinission from the St. Lucic site is less favorable as co-location within one heavily used right-of-way would be rcquired.
FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page 25
~
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 27 of 174 I
Reliability (Generation)
I The Glades site is rated more favorable due to a lower hurricane frequency and resulting site evacuation and shut-down requirements. The Turkey Point site is rated less favorable due to the I slightly higher frequency of hurricanes.
Public Acceptance I The Turkey Point site is rated more favorable because the existing nuclear plants license renewal received strong local community support. The Glades site also is rated favorable due to I demonstrated local government support. The Okeechobee 2 site is rated average because local political leaders have indicated they would support a nuclear power generation project. The Martin and St. Lucie sites do not appear to have a similarly strong supportive base and are rated I less favorable.
Political Acceptance (Local)
I The Glades and Okeechobee 2 sites are rated more favorable because no rezoning or comprehensive plan amendments would be required for a new nuclear power plant. The Turkey I Point site was rated average because no comprehensive plan amendments would be necessary, but some level of rezoning or land use definition appears to be required. The Martin and St.
Lucie sites are rated less favorable because both sites would require significant effort with local I planning issues.
Political Acceptance IStatelFederal)
I With respect to regulatory requirements, there is no significant distinction between the altemative sites. The Florida State government has shown strong support for new nuclear power generation. The Martin site could present some resistance due to previously observed political I perception surrounding water use issues and Lake Okeechobee water levels. As such, all sites have been rated more favorable, with the exception of the Martin site, which has been rated less favorable.
I Transmission Takeaway Feasibility I The Turkey Point and St. Lucie sites are rated more favorable because neither site would require significant acquisition of new transmission right-of-way. The Glades site would require a significant acquisition of new right-of-way, but was rated average because a coal-fired power I plant is proposed in the vicinity of the Glades location, and a nuclear plant at the site would benefit from earlier work to obtain some portion of the necessary right-of-way. The Martin site also was rated average because existing right-of-way could be utilized, although they are I congested in areas. The Okeechobee 2 site is rated less favorable because significant amounts of right-of-way acquisition and ncw line construction would bc required.
I I FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page 26 I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 28 of 174 Schedule Compatibility The ability to meet schedule requirements at a site closely parallels the land-acquisition evaluation above. The Turkey Point, St. Lucie, and Martin sites were rated more favorable because they are located on FPL-owned property. The Glades site was rated average as the property is not owned by FPL, but options to purchase exist. The Okeechobee 2 site was rated less favorable because the property is not owned by F'PL and purchasing options have not been developed.
Site Layout The Glades and Okeechobee 2 sites were rated more favorable. Both sites are greenfield sites and would allow the greatest flexibility in developing layouts for a new nuclear power plant.
The Martin site was also rated more favorable because a considerable amount of FPL-owned property exists that would provide a similar amount of flexibility. Both existing nuclear power plant sites were rated lower than the greenfield sites because layout flexibility is reduced at each site due to the existing facilities. The Turkey Point site was rated average because there are several potential locations that can be developed. St. Lucie was rated less favorable because the restrictions to available land and surrounding natural features would significantly limit the ability to site new nuclear facilities.
FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page 27
Table 6-1 FPL Site Selection Study - Alternative Site Ratings"
~
Technical Analysis Environ- Reliability Transmission Schedule Site Composite mental (Trans- Takeaway Compati- Layout Rating/Score Inlpact mission) Feasibility bility Glades 730 1 2 2 1 3
Martin 776 2 2 1 2 2
Okeechobee 736 1 2 3 3 I 2 3 St. Lucie 765 3 3 1 1 3 2
Turkey SO4 2 1 1 1 2 Point 1
- Note: A scale of 1 (more favorable) to 3 (less favorable) is used in this Table.
FYL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page 28
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 30 of 174 6.2 Selection of Proposed Site The results of the 11 additional site selection considerations (section 6,l), combined with the results of the general criteria evaluations (section 5.2), were used to identify a recommended site as described below.
Results of the evaluations as described in Section 6.1 confirm that all of the five altemative sites are viable locations for a nuclear power plant. However, these evaluations do serve to further distinguish among the five altemative sites and identify the most favorable site. The Turkey Point site rates more favorable in 8 of the 12 considerations, and does not rate less favorable in any. Each of the other alternative sites rates more favorable in fewer considerations and rates Iess favorable in at least one.
Based on these results, the overall ranking of the five alternative sites is as follows:
- 1. Turkey Point
- 2. Glades
- 3. Martin
- 4. Okeechobee 2 5 . St. Lucie Thus, taking into consideration the results of each evaluation conducted (including satisfying the overall business objectives for the FPL COL), the Turkey Point site was selected as the recommended site for Project Bluegrass.
I I
I I
1 I
I FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page 29 I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 31 of 174 I
I I
1 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY PROJECTBLUEGRASS I NEW NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION I
APPENDIX A I WEIGHT FACTOR DEVELOPMENT I
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 32 of 174 1
Appendix A - Weight-Factor Development I For the potential and candidate site evaluation phases of the site selection process (Sections 4.0 and 5.0, respectively), weight factors were developed that reflect the relative importance of I individual criteria in judging the overall suitability of nuclear power plant sites. As described below, weight factors were used in developing overall composite suitability ratings for sites under consideration.
I Weight factors reflecting the relative importance of the screening criteria used to evaluate potential sites were developed consistent with the modified Delphi method suggested in the t EPRI Siting Guide. The process used for weight-factor development is summarized in the diagram below.
I 1 Establish common basis for evaluating existing site criteria 1 Assign weight values to each criterion I Discussionof weighting results I
I I YES Record Group results and individual positions I ..Group averaQe weights do not change significantly from one voting round io the next Weight factors reflecting the relative importance of these criteria were developed by a multi-disciplinary committee in the areas of nuclear power plant site suitability that was convened at FPL offices on August 29,2006; this committee was composed of subject matter experts in water use and availability, engineering, real estate, ecology, transmission, land use, health & safety, socioeconomics and public relations.
A brief description of the screening site criteria, data inputs, and rating methodologies was provided. Weights were assigned on a 1 to 10 scale, with 10 being most important and 1 being least. Individual weight scores were averaged to amve at group composite criterion weighting factors.
Afiter the first round of voting, a group discussion was held in which each committee member provided the rationale for his 01' her weight-factor assignments. Following this discussion, another polling of the group was conducted and committee members modified their weights, as they deemed appropriate, based on the discussions and arguments presented after the first round.
A second discussion was held after the second round of voting. When polled, no members of the FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page 1
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 33 of 174 I
I committee indicated that they had been persuaded to change their weight assignments, and the Delphi session was terminated. The resulting weight factors are provided in Section 4.1.
The same process (described above) was applied to develop weight factors for the general site I criteria. Again, after two rounds of voting, no members of the committee indicated that they had been persuaded to change their weight assignments, and the Delphi session was terminated. The resulting weight factors are provided in Table 5-2.
I t
I I
I I
I FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page A-2
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 34 of 174 I
I I
I FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY PROJECTBLUEGRASS I NEW NUCLEAR POWER GENERATlON I:
APPENDIX B I TECHNICAL BASIS FOR SCREENING CRITERION RATINGS I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
Appendix B -Technical Basis for Screening Criterion Ratings Descriptions of the methodology, rationale, and data used in evaluating potential sites are provided in Table 4-1. Results of the cvaluatioiis are pi-ovided in the following tables. All ratings are assigned on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 representing a more suitable site from the perspective of each criterion and 1 representing a less suitable site.
Charlotte Combination - 2
- Peace River - 209 cfs
- Reclaimed Water4 - 11 cfs (Charlotte Co)
- Groundwater - tbd De Soto Combination - 1 t - 2 2
- Peace River - 62 C ~ S
- Reclaimed Water4 - 1 cfs (DeSoto Co)
- Groundwater - tbd5
- Caloosahatchee 404 CfS 5 2 Ft. Myers
- River
- Orange River - tbd
- Ocean (18 miles) - Unlimited
- Reclaimed Water4 - 60 cfs (Lee Co.) I-
- 155 cfs 3 2 Glades - Groundwater
- C43 (2.5 miles) - 482 C ~ S
- Lake Okeechobee - 360+ cfs (5 miles)
- Reclaimed Water4 - 0 cfs (Glades C o )
1 2 Hardee Combination -
- Peace River - 62 CfS
- Groundwater - tbd5
- Reclaimed Water - 1 cfs (Hardee Co) 11/22/06 Page B-l FPI, Proprietary
- Groundwater - 155 cfs 2 2
- Lake Okeechobee - 360+ cfs (1 1 miles)
- Reclaimed Water4 - 3 cfs (Hcndry Co) . --
Hendry 2 - Groundwater - 155 cfs 2 2
- Lake Okeechobee - 360+ cfs (24 miles)
- Reclaimed Water4 - 3 cfs (Hendry Co)
Highlands - Kissimmee River - 105 cfs 1 2 1
( 10 miles)
- Reclaimed Water4 - 2 cfs (Highlands Co) -
Manatee - Tampa Bay (13 - Unlimited 2 3 miles)
- Reclaimed Water4 - 45 cfs (Manatee Co.)
3 3 3 Martin - Lake Okecchobee - 360t cfs
- c-44 - 360 cfs
- Pond - tbd5
- Reclaimed Water4 - 7 cfs (Martin Co) 2 3 2 2 Okeechobee 1 - Groundwater - 155 cfs 3
- Lake Okeechobee - 360+ cfs (1 0 miles)
- Reclaimed Water4 - 1 cfs
( OkCo) 11/22/04 Page B-2 FPL Proprietary
Docket No. -E I Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 37 of 174 3
w t /n
? I-
901ZZIT1 Cliarlotte 2 Charlotte elevation = 57 feet.
Fisheating Creek elevation = 29 feet, flood stage = 34 feet.
Difference = 23 feet above flood stage.
Site is located idnear swamp lands.
Site is located at border of Zone A and Zone X.
r Site is at border of 100-year flood zone.
DeSoto DeSoto elevation = 81 feet.
Peace River current elevation (at Arcadia, FL) 10 feet. River flood stage = 17 feet.
Difference = 64 feet above flood stage.
Site is located in Zone X (outside 500-year flood zone). Swamp areas exist in the vicinity of the I---
proposed site.
Site is not located in 100-year flood zone.
Ft. Myers Ft. Myers elevation = 9 feet.
Site is located in Zone AE with base flood elevations of 8 feet.
Site is located in 100-vear flood zone.
1_Glades 2* Glades elevation = 15 feet.
Caloosahatchee Canal (Okeechobee Waterway) and Lake Hicpochee elevation = 11 feet.
Difference = 4 feet.
Site is in Zone A (located in 100-year flood zone).
IZ Hardee 4 Highlands elevation = 63 feet.
Peace River current elevation (at Zolfo Springs, FL) 39 feet. River flood stage = 46 feet.
Difference = 17 feet above flood stage.
Site is in Zone X (not located in 100-year flood zone).
FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page E-5
Hendry 1 Hendry 1 elevation = 19 feet.
Lake Okeechobee elevation = 14 feet.
Difference = 5 feet.
Site is located near swamp areas.
Site is located in Zone A3 (located in 100-year flood zone).
~ ~~
IIendry 2 1 Hendry 2 elevation = 14 feet.
Site is located in swamp areas (east of canal and Levee 3).
Site is in Zone A (located in 100-year flood zone).
In the event of canal flooding, areas immediately northeast of the canal are primarily impacted as levees protect areas southwest of canals.
Flexibility in locating the proposed site within the Hendry 2 parcel could result in improved flood conditions. Moving the site to the southwest of the canal and Levee 3 would increase elcvation 2-3 feet, move the site out of swamp areas, and improve flood protection by utilizing Levee 3. The proposed site could be located in Zone C (not located in 100-year flood zone), and the site rating could be increased to a rating of 2 (or possibly 3).
Highlands 5 Highlands elevation = 74 feet.
River stage data not available for Palmetto Creek or Arbuckie Creek. Topographic maps show approximate river elevation at 50 feet.
Difference = 24 feet.
Given site coordinates are located near swamp lands, but ample areas outside of swamp lands exist in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site.
Site is located on border of Zone A (100-year flood zone) and Zone C (outside of 100-year flood zone).
However, the exact proposed site location can be located in Zonc C areas (not located in 100-year flood zone).
FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page B-6
I Manatce 5 Manatee elevation = 46 feet Little Manatee River current elevation 3 feet. River flood stage = 11 feet.
Difference = 35 feet above flood stage.
Site is located in Zone X (outside 500-year flood zone).
Site is not located in 100-year flood zoiie.
Flood Insurance Rate Map is old (circa 1971) and does not reflect current conditions. However, area flooding is not expected to differ significantly from prior surveys (ix., reservoir is not expected to impact area flood potential).
Martin 2 Martin site elevation = 28 feet.
Lake Okecchobee elevation = 14 feet.
Difference = 14 feet.
Site is located near swamp lands.
Site is in Zone X (area of 500-year flood, area of 100-year flood with average depths of < 1 foot or with drainage area < 1 sq. mi., or area protected by levees from 100-year flood).
Site is located east of boundary limit of flooding from Lake Okecchobee caused by breaching of Herbert I----
Hoover Dike.
Site is not located in 100-year flood zone.
Okeechobee 1 5 Okeechobee 1 elevation = 59 feet.
Lakc Okeechobee elevation = 14 feet.
Difference = 45 feet.
Swamp areas exist in the vicinity of the proposed site, but specific location could be moved to avoid these areas.
Site is located in Zone C.
Site is not located in 100-year flood zone.
FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page E-7
Okeechobee 2 3 Okeechobee 2 elevation = 28 feet.
Kissinunee River 20 feet.
Difference = 8 feet.
Swamp areas exist in the vicinity of the proposed site, Site is at border of Zone A and Zone C.
Site is at border o f 100-year flood zone.
St. Lucie 1 St. Lucie elevation = 0-5 feet.
Atlantic Ocean elevation = 0 feet.
Difference = 0-5 feet.
Sile is located in Zone AE with base flood elevations of7-8 feet.
Site is located in 100-year flood zone.
Turkey Point 1 Turkey Point elevation = 1-2 feet.
Site is located in Zone AE with base flood elevations of 12 feet.
Site is located in 100-year flood zone.
West county 2 West County elevation = 14 feet.
Lake Okeechobee elevation = 14 feet.
Difference = 0 feet.
Site is located idnear swamp lands.
Site is in Zone B (area between limit of 100-year flood and 500-year flood, area of 100-year flood with average depths of < 1 foot or with drainage area < I sq. mi., or area protected by levees from 100-year flood).
In the event of canal flooding, areas immediately northeast ofthe canal are primarily impacted as levees protect areas southwest of canals. Flooding of West Palm Beach Canal could impact proposed site.
Site is not located in 1OO-year flood zone.
FYL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page B-8
the 1-iii-100-yearevent is based on lake elevation at 21 ' NAVD. Screening level evaluation does not consider a dike breach of Lake Okeecbnbee, such site-specific factors is addressed in a subsequent phase of the evaluation.
References:
FBMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps, lilt~://Www.insC.fema.crov Google Earth, b/!eartli.google.com; NOAA Stream and Flood Data, ~/!www.weather.~ov/ahus/.
USGS Topographic Maps (1 x 100,000 metric); US. Flood Hazard Areas, 11/22/06 Page B-9 FPL Proprietary
Charlot le 4 5 4 4 No large population centers within 10 miles (Charlotte) Population centers within 25 miles:
141,627 (2000) Fort Myers Shores (5,733) - 16 miles SW 157,536 (2005) La Belle (4,210) - 16.3 miles SH (1 1o/o gi-owthrate Ft. Myers (48,208) - 21 miles SW 204.2 psm Arcadia (6,604) - 23 miles N W Port Charlotte (46,45 1) - 23 miles WNW DeSoto 5 2 3 3 Population centers within 10 miles:
Arcadia (6,604) - 8.5 miles SW (De Soto) 32,309 (2000) Population Centers within 20 miles:
35,406 (2005) Zollo Springs (no pop data) - 12.1 miles N (9.9% growth Wauchula (4,368) - 15.4 miles N rate) Sebring (3667)bke Placid area( 1668)- 20 miles ENE 50.5 psni Port Charlotte (46,451) 30 miles SW
~
Ft. Myers 1 1 1 1 Population Centers within 5 miles:
(Lee County) Tice (4,538) - 1.6 miles W 440,885 (2000) Ft. Myers Shores (5,733) - 1.6 miles E 544,758 (2005)
(23.6% growth Population Centers within 10 miles:
rate); Fort Myers (48,208) 6.4 miles SW worth Ft. Myers]-
548.6 psni Lehigh Acres (33,430) - 8 miles SE Cape Coral (102,286) - 11.2 miles SW FPL Proprietary 11/22/06 Page B-10
5 1 4 Population centers within 5 miles:
Moore Haven (1,635) - 2 miles E Population centers within 20 miles:
Clewiston (6460) - 12 miles ESE Belle Glade (14,906) - 12 miles E La Belle ( 4,210) - 18.4 miles W Population Centers within 50 miles Okeechobee (5.376) - 35 miles NE Fort Myers (westem fringe, Lehigh Acres, 33,430) -
j.___ 45 miles W I
j Ilarcice 3 4 Population centers within 20 miles:
! (Ila1clre CO) Zollo Springs (no pop data) - 12 miles NE 1 76,938 (2000) Wauchula (4,368) - 13.5 miles NE 1
I I 2 S X 6 (2005) Arcadia (6,604) - 14 miles SE (5.0% growtli Population Centers within 30 miles:
I ate) Sarasota (52,715) - 35 miles W J? 3 PSI11 Port Charlotte (46,461) - 26 miles SW 3 4 Population centers within 10 miles IIend1y 1 2 Clewiston (6460) 7.3 miles (1 lclldl y) 36.2 I O (2000) Population Centers within 25 miles:
39,561 (2005) Belle Glade (14,906) 19.9 miles E (9.3% glowlh La Belle (4,210) - 25 milcs W 1 ale) 3 ! .4 psm L--_
1- !> L Proprietary 11/22/06 Page B-11
5 5 Population centers within 30 miles:
Clewiston (6460) - 28 miles NW Belle Glade (14,906) - 28 miles NE Immokalee (13,763) 27.6 miles W
~
Population Centers within 50 miles Boca RatodAtlantic coast (western fringe) 42 miles to Coral Springs 4 Population centers within 10 miles:
Avon Park, (8,542), 4.6 miles W Sebring, (9667), 7 miles SW Population Centers within 20 miles Lake Wales (10,194), 20.7 miles NW Closest densely populated area:
Vero Beach/ (1 7,705 - city; 20,362 - Vero beach South, CDP)/coastal development - 50 miles
.\lann :cc 2 Population centers within 10 miles:
Pamsh (no pop data ) - 4.8 miles W (hlanatcc; site Wimauma (4,246) - 7.2 miles N
- lost lo Ruskin (8,321) - 8 miles NW I 1 I I Isboi ough COLI11 t y border)
Population Centers within 20 miles 764,002 (2000) Palmetto (12,571) - 13 miles SW 306,779 (2005) Bradenton (49,504) - 14 miles SW
( I 6 2% gl owth Sarasota (52.715) - 19 miles SW
- 'Itc) St. Petersburg (248,232) - 20 miles NW Tampa (303,447) - 22 miles NW 11/22/06 Page B-12
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 47 of 174 m
m
SC.I.ccie 3 1 2 Population center within 5 miles:
(Si Ihcie County) Port St. Luck (88,769) - 4.5 miles W
!92,695 (2000) 2-11. X 5 (2005) Population Centers within 10 miles:
!?5.2%, growth Ft Pierce (37,516) - 7 miles NW I:) :c j Stuart (14,633) - 8 miles S 336.3 psm I-llrkey Point 2 1 No population centers within 5 miles (kliaiiii Dade Population Centers within 10 miles:
Cuut>ty)
Leisure City (22,152)- 7.2 miles N 2,253,362 (2000)
Homestead (3 1,909)- 9 miles NW 2,376,014 (2005)
Florida City (7,843) - 8 miles W
(-5.4%gi-on.th Key Largo (1 1,806)- 10 miles S
- .;tLc) 1.157.') (pcrsons
~ L Ysquare mile, Major population center within SO miles 135 111 j Miami (450,403 for Miami and Miami Beach)- 20-25 miles N, although S. Miami development within 10 miles N (9.6 miles Goulds and Cutler Ridge) 1 1 1 Population centers within 5 miles:
\vest County 1 Wellington (38,216) - 4 miles E (Palm Beach Co) 1,131,154(2000) Population Centers within 20 miles 1,268,545 (200.5) Belle Glade (14,506) - 17 miles W (12.1% growth West Palm Beach (82,103) - 18 miles E (but 3-5 miles JLIIC) to residentialldevelopment); and coastal development extends below West Palm down to Miami.
573 psm 11/22/06 Page B-14
I'oint added if no densely populated area is found wthin 40 miies of the site; point deducted if a densely populated area is lso:in~! within 15 miles of the site or if a large grouping of densely populated areas are located within 15-40 miles of the site.
11/22/06 Page B-15
Airports: Closest major airport is Regional Southwest Airport in Ft. Myers, 28.4 miles away; Charlotte County airport is 24 miles W and Arcadia airport is 24 miles NW; Smaller airports located 3.2, 7.4, 8.7, 12.9, 15.8, 16.3 and 18.1 miles away Rail: Closest is 18 miles E Airports: No major airports; smaller airports at Arcadia (9.6 miles SW) and Sebring (24.8 miles to NW)
Other small airportnanding strips at 2.5, 7.4,8.2, 8.4, 12.7, 13.5, and 15.4 miles Rail: 7.1 miles W Airport: Regional Southwest (Ft. Myers) - 10 miles S Other smaller airports: 2.1 miles, 4.8 miles (Lehigh Acres SE); 9.6 miles (Page Field SW), 9 and 10 miles Rail: 2.4 miles SW Natural gas pipeline service to site 1.5 i d e s from 1-75 Existing power plant on site with natural gas pipeline service to site Airports: Clewiston is 12.4 miles SE of site; other smaller airports at 2 and 3 miles from site (landing strips)
Rail: 3.1 miles NE; 11 miles W Airports: No major airports; airport at Arcadia (9 miles) and smaller airstrips located 9.5 and 12.5 miles away Rail: Located 0.4 miles W [more like 4 miles from my site location]
Airports: Clewiston Airport (7.3 miles); smaller airports at 4.5,9.8, 10.5, 10.9, 16.6 miles Rail: 8.7 miles NE -
5 Airports: Small airports nearby at 2.2,4.4 and 6.7 miles Rail: 12.8 miles N 11/22/06 Page B-16
2 Airports: Sebring Regional Airport 10.3 miles SE; MacDill AFB auxiliary/Avon Park AFB 3.7 miles NE; [also appears to be abandoned airfield on Avon Park Bombing Range, just NE of AFB airfield]; Avon Park Municipal 8 miles W, another smaller landing strip (for ranch) also further to the west.
The Avon Park Aiiyort fixed base operator is Avon Park Jet Center. The maximum runway length for the Avon Park Airport is 5,364 feet.
Rail: 5.75 miles SE [railroad fi-eight service provided by CSX includes side-track service to several industrial areas. Passenger service is provided by Amtrak which has scheduled arrivals and departures from Sebring.]
Pipeline: None identified within 5 miles.
Military Installations: Avon Park AFB/Avon Park Bombing Range - 4 miles NE 3 Major Airports: 30 miles St Pete airport (NW); 18 miles MacDill AFB 0; 27 miles Tampa airport (N); 18 miles Sarasota Bradenton airport (SW)
Rail: 2.6 miles N Existing power plant with natural gas pipeline service to site
.I_.
3 Airports: No major airports; Stuart Airport 25 miles E; smaller airports at 2.5,6.4, 6.8, and 11 miles away Rail: 1 .S miles NE and 2.8 miles W Existing power plant with natural gas pipeline service to site
-I____
4 Airports: Okeechobee County airport 9.6 miles SW; Sebring Airport over 25 miles NW; smaller airports located 3.5,6.4,6.6, 10, 12 and 13 miles away.
Rail: 8.3 miles SW and 13.1 miles SE No pipelines identified 3 Airports: Okeechobee County airport 7.3 miles E; smaller airports located 1.3,4.3, 8.1 and IO miles away Avon Bombing Range - 27 miles NW Rail: 2.2 miles NW
. ..___-._I-11/22/06 Page B-17
3 Airports: Major airport 12.4 miles NW (St. Lucie County International); smaller airport (Witham field in Stuart) 10.4 miles SW Pipeline: Did not see on topographic maps, but other reports show line extending down Atlantic Coast Rail located 2.1 miles W Site located on navigable waterway Existing nuclear plant 2 Airport/Mjlitary Base: Homestead AFB-5.2 miles NW [unclear what operations occur at base now -has been some realigning and proposals to use air base as commercial airport; assume fully operational as AFB for now]
Other Airports: Homestead general aviation airport - 14+ miles NW Rail: 10 miles W Site located on navigable waterway US Naval Reservation with heliport and radio facility, located 7 miles SW Pipelines: did not scc any major pipeline routes marked on topographic maps, but natural gas pipeline service to site Existing power plants [2 nuclear units, 2 conventional boiler fossil units plus building new combined cycle unit]
4 Airports: West Palm Beach airport 18.3 miles E; other smaller airports 12.7 and 13.4 miles away Rail: 13.6 miles NE; 14.1 miles NW Pipeline: 13.5 miles W Property is adjacent to existing Corbett Substation and soon to be used for new greenfield combined cycle natural gas power plant; surrounding land use is predominantly sugar cane and limestone mining (site previously used for mining operations). [Site could qualify as 5 based on criteria but the fact that a new power plant is going in and mining occurs in area drops its rating to a 4.1 I
I Googlc Earth, http:/iearth.google.com.
I 1JCjGS 'Topographic Maps (1 x 100,000metric).
i _ _ -~-I Page B-18
2 20 T&E species: 3 mammals, 9 birds (although documentation for 2 is very old), 7 fish and 1 plant 3 13 T&E species: 3 mammals (including manatee), 8 birds, 2 reptiles 2 20 T&E species: 3 mammals, 8 birds, 6 reptiles, 2 fish, 1 plant 3 16 T&E spccies: 3 mammals, 9 birds, 2 reptiles, 2 plants 3 12 T&E species: 2 mammals, 6 birds, 2 reptiles, 2 plants 3 14 T&E species: 3 mammals, 9 birds, 2 reptiles 5 14 T&E species: 3 mammals, 9 birds, 2 reptiles bust north of Big Cypress National PreserveNMA and just to west of Rotenberger and Holey Land WMAs]
1 37 T&E species: 3 mammals, 9 birds (documcntation for one is 40 years old), 4 reptiles, 1 invertebrate, and 20 plants. Area includes unique ecological habitat along Lake Wales Ridge and State Forest and Avon Park Air Force Range. This habitat includes numerous protected species (federal and state).
3 14 T&E species: 1 mammal, 6 birds, 1 fish, 5 reptiles, 1 plant 2 28 T&E species: 4 mammals, 10 birds, 7 reptiles, 1 fish, 6 plants 3 14 T&E species: 3 mammals, 9 birds, 2 reptiles
-~
3 14 T&E species: 3 mammals, 9 birds, 2 reptiIes 2 27 T&E species: 4 mammals, 10 birds, 7 reptiles, 2 fish, 4 plants [+72 state species]
1 40-44T&E species: 3 mammals, 12 birds (but 4 last documented in 1960s or earlier; 1 last documented in 1987-1991 and 2 arc possible migrants - 1901 and 1958), 7 reptiles, 1 fish, 2 invertebrates, 19 plants (2 last documented over 50 years ago); site located between Biscayne National Park and Everglades National Park FPL maintains natural wildlife area; wetlands set aside as Everglades Mitigation Bank; entire site is crocodile habitat 2 30 T&E species: 4 mammals, 10 birds, 7 reptiles, 1 fish, 1 invertebrate, 7 plants [in between Loxahatchee NWR and JW Corbett WMA]
11/22/06 Page B-19
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 54 of 174 h
L.
5 d
?J I
I ..*
[i I
Charlotte 2,008 1 De Soto 632 2 I Ft. Mvers I 802 I 2 I Glades t 489 3 Hardee 622 2 I
Hendi-y 1 843 2 I
Hendry 2 2,170* 1 I
Highlands 547* 2 Manatee 461- 3 Martin 210 4 Okeechobee 1 23 1 4 Okeechobee 2 961 2 St. Lucic 1,074 2 Turkey Point 1,476 2 West County 1,905 1
- Estimated fi-om radius map.
Reference:
From NWT Wetlands Mapper. Does not include estuarine and marine deepwater, riverine or freshwater pond acreage.
11/22/06 Page B-21
I -
Rail is 18.1 miles E (operated by South Central Florida Express, CSX Transportation has trackage rights).
Rail is 22.7 miles W (operated by Seminole Gulf RR, CSX Transportation has trackage rights).
Rail is 7.1 miles W (operated by CSX Transportation).
A rail line between Arcadia, FL and Bowling Green, FL (- 2.3 miles W of the proposed site) formerly operated by Seaboard System RR has since been abandoned.
Rail is 2.4 miles SW (operated by Seminole Gulf RR, CSX Transportation has trackage rights).
Connection to rail could be complicated by development in Tice, FL and location near the Caloosahatchee River.
Rail is 3.1 miles NE (operated by South Central Florida Express, CSX Transportation has trackage rights).
Iln1dcc Rail is - 0.4 miles W (operated by CSX Transportation).
A rail line between Arcadia, FL and Bowling Green, FL (- 6.4 miles E of the proposed site) formcrly operated by Seaboard System RR has since been abandoned.
I ICtldt-y 1 3 -
Rail is 8.7 miles NE (operated by South Central Florida Express, CSX Transportation and Florida East Coast Railway have trackage rights).
2 -
Rail is 12.8 miles N (operated by South Central Florida Express, CSX Transportation and Florida East Coast Railway have trackage rights).
I 3 Rail is 7. I miles W (operated by CSX Transportation).
4 Rail is - 2.2 miles N (operated by CSX Transportation). This rail line formerly ran between Palmetro, F1, and Durant, FL but now terminates in Willow, FL (- 2.6 miles N of proposed site). A spw from this rail line accesses the existing Manatee plant.
5 Rail i s - 1.5 miles NE (operated by CSX Transportation).
Rail is 2.8 miles W (operated by Florida East Coast Railway). Ilowever, lake/reservoir is located between the Martin site and this rail line.
Olteechobee 1 3 -
Rail is 8.3 miles SW (operated by CSX Transportation).
Rail is 13.1 miles SE (operated by Florida East Coast Railway).
11/22/06 Page B-22
Rail is - 2.2 miles NE (operated by CSX Transportation).
Rail is 2.1 miles W (operated by Florida East Coast Railway). However, Intercoastal Waterway is located between the St. Lucie site and this rail line.
Due to the coastal location of the St. Lucie site, barge access is accessible in the immediate vicinity for delivery of heavy/large items. However, since rail access is not immediately accessible, a rating of 5 was not assigned.
furkey Point l 4 Rail is - 10.3 miles W (operated by CSX Transportation). Homestead, FL marks the southernmost point ofFlorida served by rail.
A rail line to Homestead, FL formerly operated by Florida East Coast Railway has since been abandoned.
Due to the coastal location of the Turkey Point site, barge access is immediately accessible for delivery of heavy/large items. A barge channel has been constructed in Biscayne Bay providing direct access to
-r
\\'est County Rc li-rcnces:
the site. As barge access provides an altemative to rail access, the rating has been increased to 4 (howevcr, since rail access is not immediately accessible, a rating of 5 was not assigned).
Rail is Rail is
- 13.6 miles NE (operated by CSX Transportation).
- 14.1miles NW (operated by Florida East Coast Railway).
North American Railroad Map, version 2.14, http://www.RailroadMau.com.
USGS Topographic Maps (1 x 100,000 metric).
11/22/06 Page B-23
- 65 miles to Miami Load Center.
35 miles of new 500 kV in existing ROW, 6- 500 kV line terminals.
- 90 miles to Miami Load Center.
75 miles of new 500 kV o f which approximately 20 miles of new KOW acquisition, 2 autotransformers, 8- 500 kV line terminals.
- 90 miles to Miami Load Center.
95 iniles of new 500 kV of which approximately 40 miles of new ROW acquisition, 2 autotransformers, 8- 500 kV line terminals.
- 85 miles to Miami Load Center.
80 d e s of new 500 kV ROW acquisition, 2 autotransformers, 8- 500 kV line terminals. ROW will be difficult to obtain.
- 50 miles to Miami Load Center.
64 miles of existing 500 kV, 1 autotransformer, 8-500 kV line terminals.
- 45 miles to Miami Load Center.
50 miles of new 500 kV ROW acquisition, 50 miles of new 230 kV will need to be rebuilt, 1 autotransformer, 6- 500 kV line termjnals . ROW to the south will be difficult to obtain.
'L Gdcyic 151th, http://carth.gooaIc.com.
L ~~
11/22/06 Page B-25
FPL does not own - farmlandrural [$45 MI [there is less farming here than in other counties (50% farming: cattle watermelons; fish)]
[Note: assumed 1,000 acres at $10,000 per acre and 2,000 acres at $17,500 per acre]
FPL owns sufficient land FPL owns some land but would have to buy more land; $35,000 per acre [near Ft.
Myers] - [$52.5 MI Does not own - mostly farmland/agriculture [$52.5 MI County is second largest sugarcane producer in the state
~
Does not own - mostly farmland/agriculture [$52.5 MI;County is leading citrus and cattle producer in state 3 Does not own -mostly farmlandagriculture [$52.5MI County is largest producer of sugarcane in the state; crops; cattle and citrus around Lake Okeechobee
~
~~~~
Does not own - mostly farmlandagriculture [$52.5 M] County is largest producer of sugarcane in the state; crops; cattle and citrus around Lake Okeechobee Does not own -mostly farmlandagriculture [$52.5 M]; County is big in citrus/crop and livestock (milk and beef). Avon park area (near site) is one of heaviest citrus producing areas in state mL owns sufficient land FPL owns sufficient land Does not own - mostly farmland/agriculture [$52.5 M] [County big in cattle, dairy, citrus]
Does not own - mostly famland/agriculture [$52.5 M] [County big in cattle, dalry, citrus]
FPL owns sufficient land FPL owns sufficient land 11/22/06 Page B-26
acres more a where FPL holdings are not sufficient for new nuclear plant.
Note: Costs pcr acre are assumed to be $10,000 in rural areas; $17,500 for farmland; $35,000 for sites near urbaddeveloped arc 3s.
11/22/06 Page B-27
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 62 of 174 I
I I
I FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY PROJECT BLUEGRASS I NEW NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION I
APPENDIX C I TECHNICAL BASIS FOR GENERAL SITE CRITERION RATINGS I
I I
I I
I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 63 of 174 Appendix C - Technical Basis for General Site Criterion Ratings General siting criteria used in the FPL nuclear power plant siting study were derived from those presented in Chapter 3.0 of the Siting Guide: Site Selection and Evaluation Criteria for an Early Site Permit Application, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2002 (Siting Guide).
The following information is provided in this appendix for each criterion:
0 Objective - what aspect of site suitability is being measured; Evaluation approach - technical badmethodology used to develop site ratings from available data; 0 Discussion - data and information available for the eight sites under consideration; and Results - ratings results and rationale.
I The following candidate nuclear plant (NP) sites were evaluated for the FPL Combined Operating License Application in Florida: DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry 1, Martin, Okeechobee 2, St. Lucie, and Turkey Point (Miami-Dade County).
I Note that the sites were evaluated with respect to the following siting criteria during the initial screening phase: cooling water supply, flooding, population, hazardous land uses, ecology, I wetlands, railroad access, transmission access, and land acquisition. The evaluation and results of this phase are presented in the screening criteria report. For several of these criteria (e.g.,
transmission access), the screening criteria evaluations are used in the general site criteria I evaluations reported in this appendix. For these criteria, a brief summary and the final ratings are presented in this appendix for completeness. For other screening criteria (e.g., flooding, population and ecology), additional data were evaluated or additional detail are provided in this I appendix, as appropriate, to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the full suite of EPRI siting general site criteria and sub-criteria.
Technical bases for site ratings developed for each of the general site criteria are provided in the following sections. Criteriodsectian numbering is designed to reflect section numbers in Chapter 3 of the EPRI Siting Guide where the criteria is discussed, e.g., Criterion (2.1.1.1 -
Geology/ Seismology appears in Section 3.1.1.1 of the Siting Guide.
I I
I I
I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 64 of 174 C.1 HEALTH .4NDSAFETY CRITERIA c.1.1 ACCIDENT CAUSE-RELATED I c.1.1.1 Geology/Seismology Objective - The objective of this criterion is to rank the suitability of the eight candidate sites II with respect to the geologic and seismic setting.
Evaluation approach - A numerical system of weights and ratings based upon suitability criteria I were assigned to each geologic/seismic category, including vibratory ground motion, capable tectonic sources, surface faulting and deformation, geologic hazards, and soil stability (Sections C. 1.1.1.1 through C.1.1.1.8) and used to compute (i.e., rate times weight) an index number for I each category. (To enable the comparative evaluation of sites, the weights and rating schemes adopted herein are the same for all eight sites.) The index numbers for each site were summed to compute a GEOL Index (Tables C. 1.1- 1 through C. 1.1-8). The range of GEOL indexes was then I used to develop a rating system for candidate sites (Section C. 1.1.1.6). The sites were rated on a scale of 1 to 5, based on the GEOL scale, with the most suitable sites receiving an overall rating of 5 . Weights and the basis for deriving correlating site ratings from the GEOL scale are discussed with respect to each of the sub-criteria in the sections below. NOTE: Within the GOEL index sub-criteria an inverse rating basis is used, with lower numbers indicating most suitable and 5 the least suitable; for the composite GEOL index, higher numbers indicate more suitable sites.
c.1.1.1.1 Vibratory Ground Motion I Objective - The purpose of this sub-criterion is to rate sites according to the expected magnitude of ground motion that can be expected. As long as expected peak ground accelerations do not I exceed that for the certified designs under consideration, there are no exclusionary or avoidance components to this sub-criterion.
Evaluation approach - Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is a measure of the maximum force I experienced by a small mass located at the surface of the ground during an earthquake and is an index of hazard for some structures. The units for PGA are in percent of gravity (%g); i.e. an acceleration of 0.3Og is expressed as 30%g. PGA provided herein, as for other sites, is for a t probability of exceedance (PE) of 2% in 50 years (once in 2,500 years). PGA data for eight FPL Florida sites were obtained from the USGS National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, 2002 (http://eqint.cr.usas. ~ovieanitmlllook~ip-~~~2-interv.html).
Discussion/Results - The locations evaluated for each of the eight candidate sites have PGA values as sliown in the table below.
~
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Studv ReDort Exhibit SDS-2, Page 65 of i 7 4 I
Probabilistic ground motion values in %g I
I DeSoto ~~
3.58 1 I I I Glades Hardee 3.57 3.56 I Hendry 1 Martin 3.52 3.33 Okeechobee 2 3.55 I I St. Lucie 1 3.00 I I Turkev Point I 2.1 1 I I The following table shows the assigned weight and rating scheme for vibratory ground motion.
I I 5 PGA(%g) 0-3 0-50 3-6 I 6-9 9 - 12 4 I 12-15 5 15 - 18 6 I 1s - 21 21 -24 7
8 I 24 - 27 27 - 30 9
10 I Based upon the information provided in Tables C. 1.l-1 through C. 1.1-8, each candidate site receives the following ratings based on the computed index numbers for vibratory ground motion.
I I
I I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study ReDort Exhibit SDS-2, Page 66 of 174 I DeSoto Glades 2
2 10 10 I I Hardee Hendrv 1 1 2
2 I 10 10 I Martin 2 10 I Okeechobee 2 2 10 St. Lucie 1-2 5-10 I Turkey Point 1 5 c.1.l.1.2 I Capable Tectonic Structure or Source Objective - No absolute exclusionary criteria have been identified. Capable tectonic structures are addressed as avoidance criteria; therefore, the objective of this sub-criterion is to identify the existence of capable or potentially capable tectonic structures within 200 miles of each site.
Candidate sites that are farthest from capable or potentially capable tectonic structures are considered more suitable.
Evaluation Approach - A database compiled by USGS (Quaternary Fault and Fold Database, 2003; http://qfaults.cr.usgs.gov/)and Crone and Wheeler (2000) were utilized to identify capable and potentially capable tectonic sources within 200 miles of each of the eight candidate sites. It was assumed that capable and potential capable tectonic sources, which are Quaternary features that may generate strong ground motion, fall into two categories as defined by Crone and Wheeler (2000, p5):
Class A features have good geologic evidence of tectonic origin and are potentially seismogenic; and Class B features have geologic evidence that supports the existence of a seismogenic fault or suggests Quaternary deformation, but the currently available geologic evidence for Quaternary tectonic activity is less compelling than for a Class A feature.
Discussion/Results - There are no Class A or B features within 200 miles of the candidate sites.
The following table shows the assigned weight and the rating scheme for capable tectonic sources.
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 67 of 174 I
I I Class A 2
]None I
within 200 mile radius Between 100 and 200 miles 0
2 1 0 - 10 I Between 50 and 100 miles Between 25 and 50 miles 3
4 Within 25 miles 5 I I I
Class B 1
None within 200 mile radius Between 100 and 200 miles Between 50 and 100 miles
- i 2
0-5 3 1 I
Between 25 and 50 miles Within 25 miles 1 Based on the information provided in Tables C.l.l-1 through C.l.l-8, each candidate site I receives the following ratings and computed index numbers.
Class A I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 68 of 174 Class B I DeSoto I 0 I 0 I I I Glades I 0 I 0 I Hardee 0 0 I Hendry 1 0 0 Martin 0 0 I Okeechobee 2 0 0 St. Lucie 0 0 I Turkey Point 0 0 Crone and Wheeler (2000) and the USGS Fault Database (2003) also identify Class C and D features. Class C features are defined by Crone and Wheeler (2000) as features where:
Geologic evidence is insufficient to demonstrate (1) the existence of a tectonic fault, or (2) Quaternary slip or deformation associated with the feature.
No Class C features are known to occur within 200 mites of any of the eight candidate sites.
Class D features are defined by Crone and Wheeler (2000) as features where:
Geologic evidence demonstrates that the feature is not a tectonic fault or feature; this category includes features such as demonstrated joints or joint zones, landslides, erosional or fluvial scarps, or landforms resembling fault scarps, but of demonstrable non-tectonic origin.
One Class D feature is known to occur within 200 miles of all eight candidate sites.
Class D Feature The following Class D feature occurs within 200 miles of the eight candidate sites, and is considered non-capable.
Grossman's Hammock Rock Reef. The Grossman's Hammock rock reef is located approximately 120 miles south of the DeSoto site; 98 miles south-southeast of the Glades site; 150 miles southeast of the Hardee site, 88 miles south-southeast of the Hendry 1 site; 110 niiles south of the hllaitin site; 120 miles south of the Okeechobee 2 site, 130 miles south of the St. Lucie site, and 25 miles west of the Turkey Yoint site. Following a ten1atii.c infcrcncc of Quaternary disp1:ict"ent at Grossman's TJanimock, investigalion by ?rillii~gm d gi-ounil pcncli-aling radar showcd no evitIc!~ccof Qwtcmriry faulting
[ liSGS F:!uit Dalab.!sc. 2W3; Crorie a!id iViicclcr, 2000).
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 69 of 174 I
I (2.1.1.I .3 Surface Faulting and Deformation Obiective - Develop site ratings for site suitability relative to surface faulting and deformation in I the site vicinity, Evaluation approach - No absolute exclusionary criteria have been identified with regard to surface faulting and deformation. Suitability criteria have been established based on the I occurrence of surface faulting and tectonic and non-tectonic structures within a 25-mi and 5-mi radius of the candidate sites, as follows (EPRI 2000, p.3-7):
I Within 25 miles 0 No such structures altogether (Most Suitable)
Potential non-capable structures I 0 Potential capable structures (Least Suitable)
Within 5 miles I 0 No such structures altogether (Most Suitable)
Potential non-capable structures Potential capable structures I 0 Fault exceeding 1,000 feet in length (Least Suitable)
The potential for surface faulting or deformation primarily concerns plant design; therefore, I features identified within 5 miles of a candidate site receive a higher weight. Following are the assigned weights and ratings for surface faulting and deformation.
I I Between 5 and 25 miles - 1 Potential non-capable structures 1 0-5 Potential capable structures 5 I No structures Potential non-capable structures 0
2 Potential capable structures 3 I Fault exceeding 1,000 feet in length Capable fault exceeding 1,000 feet in 4
5 0-1 0 length I
I I
I I
I Site Docket No. Study Report Selection -El Exhibit SDS-2, Page 70 of 174 I
I Within 25 miles 0 0 I DeSoto Glades 0 0 0 0 I Hardee Hendry 1 0 0 Martin 0 0 I 1 Okeechobee2 1 0 I 0 I St. Lucie 0 0 I Turkey Point 0 0 I Within 5 miles I DeSoto Glades 0
0 0
0 I Hardee Hendry 1 0
0 0
0 0 0 I Martin Okeechobee 2 1 0 0 St. Lucie 0 0 I Turkey Point 0 0 I C. 1.1.1.4 Geologic Hazards I Objective - Based on EPRI guidance (2000, p. 3-7), sites having the following geolagic and man-made conditions should be avoided:
I Areas of active (and dormant) volcanic activity, Subsidence areas caused by withdrawal o f subsurface fluids such as oil or groundwater, iiicluding areas which may be affected by future withdrawals, I Potential unstable slope areas, including areas demonstrating paleolandslide characteristics, Areris o f p f w t i a l collapse (e.$. karst 31'cx, salt., or othcr sold>ieronnations),
'Mined arcas, sucli ns ncx-surfacc coal iniimi-o!.;t itreas, ;is wcll as ;:~'t':is wiierc I-CSCI~~I'CCS I ::rc prescrit XI[! may bc c s p l o i t d hi the fixt\-ire,and izX:I :j s 1i hie c i to s cI s IIII c 2.i) 2 c7 [ h c r i i i (1 1: c: tlcl *l,ca!c 11,;~iL'2 s ;in :i ;'I i:c) tl ci .
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 71 of 174 I
I Evaluation approach - Sites farthest away from these features would be considered the most suitable sites; sites were rated in accordance with the presence of - and distance from - these D features. Following are the assigned weight and rating used for geologic hazards:
I 1 1 Geologic hazard(s)present 1 1 1 0-1 1 DiscussiodResults - The following Geologic Hazard applies to six of the sites (DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry 1, Martin and Okeechobee 2):
The Geologic Map of Florida, other maps, and site vicinity reports indicate that each site area is underlain by several tens of feet of sand and shelly material, which in turn overlie at least 350 feet of Hawthorn Group sediments (300 feet of Hawthorn Group sediments for the DeSoto and Hardee sites) consisting primarily of phosphatic sands and clays.
Discontinuous lenses of limestone or dolostone may occur. Topographic maps of the general site vicinity exhibit some evidence of sinkhofe formation.
The following Geologic Hazard applies to the two coastal sites (St. Lucie and Turkey Point):
The site is located adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, and is subject to seismic and other induced water waves and floods. Design specifications for a new nuclear facility at this site must address the possibility of large water waves and floods.
Design specifications for a new nuclear facility must address the possibility of solutioning and sinkhole formation, and of large water waves and floods. The eight candidate sites received the following computed rating and index number for geologic hazards:
DeSoto 1 1 I Glades Hardee 1
1 1
1 I Hendry 1 Martin 1
1 1
1 I Okeechobee 2 St. Lucie 1
1 1
1 I
I I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 72 of 174 I C. I. 1.1.5 Soil Stability Objective - Evaluate the sites with respect to the difficulty of expected soil conditions.
I Evaluation approach - No absolute exclusionary criteria have been identified with respect to soil stability. Soil stability is addressed as an avoidance criterion. Certain soil properties have I unfavorable characteristics in association with vibratory ground motion. These soil properties include poor mineralogy, low density soil (lack of compaction), and high water content (or high water table). Sites with the highest values of PGA in combination with deletenous site soils would receive a relatively lower rating. Sites having rock foundations or more suitable soil I conditions are considered to be better sites.
Following are the assigned weights and ratings for soil stability:
I I Rock site Deep soil site, no known deleterious soil 0
2 conditions 0-4 I Deep soil site with potential stability issues, or insufficient information 2 available to assign a rating of 1 I Discussioflesults - According to the Geologic Map of Florida, and other maps and reports, seven of the eight sites (DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry 1, Martin, Okeechobee 2, and St.
I Lucie) are underlain by hundreds of feet of predominately unconsolidated sediments (sands and clays) with some possible limestone or dolostone. Accordingly, each of these seven sites is a deep soil site. Deep soil sites will require specific site investigations to determine if deleterious I soil conditions exist.
According to extensive investigations for nuclear and other facilities near the Turkey Point site, I the site is underlain by a few feet of sandy material followed by approximately 70 feet of limestone. This limestone is reported to be competent and capable of supporting heavy loads.
The limestone is underlain by many hundreds of feet of competent sand, clay, and rock. The I Turkey Point site is a rock site.
Based upon this information the eight sites receive the following rating and computed index I number for soil stability:
I I
I I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 73 of 174 DeSoto 1 2 Glades 1 2 Hardee 1 2 1 Hendrv 1 I 1 2 1 2 I Martin Okeechobee 2 1 2 St. Lucie 1 2 I Turkey Point 0 0 I The index numbers for this ranking scheme range from 5 to 85. This range of indexes was used to develop a ranking system to compare the suitability of sites as follows:
5-21 5 22 - 37 4 1 38 -53 I 3 I 54 - 69 2 70 - 85 1
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 74 of 174 DeSoto 13 5 Glades 13 5 Hardee 13 5 Hendry 1 13 5 Martin 13 5 Okeechobee 2 13 5 St. Lucie 8-13 5 Turkey Point 6 5 Table C.l.l-1 Ratings for FPL DeSoto Site I
2 IMoti n National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, 12002,. lo 7-
-I Capable Tectonic No Class A features occur within 200 miles of 2 Source (Class A) the DeSoto site (USGS Fault and Fold Database, 2003. Crone & Wheeler, 2000).
Capable Tectonic No Class B features occur within 200 miles of Source (Class B) the DeSoto site (USGS Fault and Fold Database, 2003. Crone & Wheeler, 2000).
Surface Faulting & No surface faulting or deformation is known to Deformation within occur near the site.
1 1
T 25 miles Surface Faulting & 'No stirface faulting or deformation is known to 2 Deformation within occur at the site.
5 miles Geologic Hazards The site is located in an area of potential Soil Stability solutioning and sinkhole formation.
The DcSoto site i s presumed to be a deep-soil sitc. __ - _..
1 2
-I--
- -I_ -- __
r L . L ~ ~
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 75 of 174 I
I Table C.l.1-2 Ratings for FPL Glades Site I Vibratory Ground PGA 3.57 %g with 2% PE in 50 years (USGS Motion National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, I 2002).
Capable Tectonic No Class A features occur within 200 miles of Source (Class A) the Glades site (USGS Fault and Fold I Database, 2003. Crone & Wheeler, 2000).
Capable Tectonic No Class 3 features occur within 200 miles of I Source (Class 3) the Glades site (USGS Fault and Fold Database, 2003. Crone & Wheeler, 2000).
c 1 Surface Faulting & No surface faulting or deformation is known tc Deformation within occur near the site.
2 1 0 / o 5 miles 1 Geologic Hazards The site is located in an area of potential solutioning and sinkhole formation.
l I I I P Soil Stability The Glades site is presumed to be a deep-soil 2 1 2 1 site.
Total I
1 I
I I
I
~
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 76 of 174 I
I Table C.l.1-3 Ratings for FPL Hardee Site I
Vibratory Ground PGA 3.56 %g with 2% PE in 50 years (USGS 5 Motion National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, I 2002).
Capable Tectonic No Class A features occur within 200 miles of 2 Source (Class A) the Hardee site (USGS Fault and Fold I Database, 2003. Crone & Wheeler, 2000).
I Capable Tectonic No Class B features occur within 200 miles of 1 0 0 I Source (Class B) the Hardee site (USGS Fault and Fold Database, 2003. Crone & Wheeler, 2000).
Surface Faulting & No surface faulting or deformation is known to 1 0 0 I Deformation within occur near the site.
25 miles Surface Faulting & No surface faulting or deformation is known to 2 0 0 I Deformation within occur at the site.
5 miles Hazards The site is located in an area of potential 1 E I Geologic
/solutioning and sinkhole formation.
I Soil Stability The Hardee site is presumed to be a deep-soil 2 t site.
Total I L I 1
I I
I I
1 Docket No. -E I Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 77 of 174 I
I Table (2.1.1-4 Ratings for FPL I
I I
I I
I E
I Soil Stability The Hendry 1 site is presumed to be a deep-soil site. j 2 1 2 Total 13 Index I
I I
I I
I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 78 of 174 I
Table (2.1.1-5 Ratings for FPL Martin Site Motion National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, I 2002).
Capable Tectonic No Class A features occur within 200 miles of 2 0 0 Source (Class A) the Martin site (USGSFault and Fold I Database, 2003. Crone & Wheeler, 2000).
Capable Tectonic No Class B features occur within 200 miles of 1 0 0 I Source (Class B) the Martin site (USGSFault and Fold Database, 2003. Crone & Wheeler, 2000).
Surface Faulting & No surface faulting or deformation is known to 1 0 0 I :Deformation within occur near the site.
25 miles Surface Faulting & No surface faulting or deformation is known to 2 0 0 Deformation within occur at the site.
5 miles Geologic Hazards The site is located in an area of potential 1 1 1 solutioning and sinkhole fonnation.
Soil Stability The Martin site is presumed to be a deep-soil 2 1 2 site.
Total 13 Index I
I 1
I I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 79 of 174 Table C.l.1-6 Ratings for FPL Okeechobee 2 Site 0 0 0 0 Database, 2003. Crone &Wheeler, 2000).
Surface Faulting & No surface faulting or deformation is known to 1 0 0 Deformation within occur near the site.
25 miles Surface Faulting & No surface faulting or deformation is known to 2 0 0 Deformation within occur at the site.
5 miles Geologic Hazards The site is located in an area of potential 1 1 1 solutioning and sinkhole formation.
Soil Stability The Okeechobee 2 site is presumed to be a 2 1 2 deep-soil site.
Total Index
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 80 of 174 Table C.l.1-7 Ratings for FPL St. Lucie Site Motion National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, 2002).
Capable Tectonic No Class A features occur within 200 miles of 2 0 0
- Source (Class A) the St. Lucie site (USGS Fault and Fold Database, 2003. Crone & Wheeler, 2000).
Capable Tectonic No Class B features occur within 200 miles of 1 0 0 Source (Class B) the St. Lucie site (USGS Fault and Fold Database, 2003. Crone & Wheeler, 2000).
Surface Faulting & No surface faulting or deformation are known 1 0 0 Deformation within to occur near the site.
25 miles Surface Faulting & No surface faulting or deformation are known 2 0 0 Deformation within to occur at the site.
5 miles Geologic Hazards The site is Iocated in an area susceptible to 1 1 1 seismic and other induced water waves and floods.
Soil Stability The St. Lucie site is presumed to be a deep- 2 1 2
~
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 81 of 174 c
Table C.l.1-8 Ratings for FPL Turkev Point Site I Vibratory Ground PGA 2.11 %g with 2% PE in 50 years (USGS 5 ' 1 Motion National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, I 2002).
Capable Tectonic No Class A features occur within 200 miles of 2 0 Source (Class A) the Turkey Point site (USGS Fault and Fold I Database, 2003. Crone & Wheeler, 2000).
Capable Tectonic No Class B features occur within 200 miles of 1 0 0 I Source (Class B) the Turkey Point site (USGS Fault and Fold Database, 2003. Crone &Wheeler, 2000).
Surface Faulting & No surface faulting or deformation are known 1 0 I Deformation within to occur near the site.
25 miles Surface Faulting & No surface faulting or deformation are known 2 0 I Deformation within to occur at the site.
5 miles Geologic Hazards The site is located in an area susceptible to 1 1 I seismic and other induced water waves and floods.
Soil Stability The Turkey Point site is presumed to be a rock 2 0 I site.
Total 1 Index I
References t Crone, A.J. and Wheeler, R.L. 2000. Data for Quatemary faults, liquefaction features, and possible tectonic features in the Central and Eastem United States, east of the Rocky Mountain I front. USGS Open File Report 00-260.
Dames & Moore Draft Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Florida Power & Light Company I South Dade Plant, 1976.
EPRI. 2001. Sting Guide: Site Selection and Evaluation Criteria for an Early Site Permit I Application. Elcctric Power Rescarch Institute, August 2001.
I I
I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 82 of 174 I
Florida Geological Survey, Earthquake and Seismic History of Florida, Infomation Circular 85.
I Florida Geological Survey, Geologic Framework of the Lower Floridan Aquifer System, Brevard County, Florida, Bulletin No. 64,1994.
1 Florida Geological Survey, Geologic Map of Florida, 2001 I Florida Geological Survey, Floridas Geological History and Geological Resources, Special Publication No. 35, 1994.
I Florida Geological Survey, Text to Accompany the Geologic Map of Florida, open-file report 80, 200 1.
I Florida Power & Light Company Final Safety Analysis Report, Turkey Point Plant Units 3 & 4, 2003.
I Frankel, A. et. al. 1996. National Seismic Hazard Maps, Documentation. USGS Open File Report 96-532. June 1996.
I NRC. 1997. Identification and Characterization of Seismic Sources and Determination of Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion Regulatory Guide 1.165.
I USGS Earthquakes Hazards Program. National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project. Interpolated Probabilistic Ground Motion for the Conterminous 48 States by Latitude Longitude, 2002 data.
I USGS Earthquakes Hazards Program. National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States, 2005.
USGS, 1985. Sinkhole Type, Development, and Distribution in Florida.
I USGS. South Florida Information Access. Lithostratigraphic Units.
I USGS. Topographic Maps of Florida, various.
I C.1.1.2 Cooling System Requirements Obiective - Cooling system requirements are important siting considerations for new power I generating facilities. The objective of this criterion is to rate the candidate sites with respect to specific cooIing systeni requirements, using to the extent possible the same or similar criteria previously utilized to evaluate other potential nuclear power plant sites.
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 83 of 174 I
I system requirements. Water requirements presented below have been established in the FPL Site Requirements Document.
I 1 Closed-cycle I Make-up flow rate: 80,000gpm / 178cfs I I Ambient air temperature characteristics of a potential site affect the design of heat removal systems. The candidate sites are all located within a region of similar ambient air characteristics; this aspect is evaluated in section C.1.1.2.2.
DiscussionResults - Site data and results are presented for each of the sub-criteria in Sections C.1.1.2.1 and C.1.1.2.2, below. Overall ratings for the Cooling System Requirements criterion I are provided in Section C.1.1.2.3.
c.1.1.2.1 Cooling Water I The eight sites were evaluated with respect to the cooling water criterion during the initial screening phase (P1 criterion), and all were found to have an adequate flow or some potential to I develop reservoir capacity to support the requirements of a closed-cycle cooling water system.
The rating approach used in this evaluation, as well as the site data and screening results, were described previously in the screening criteria report (Criterion Pl).
For the screening phase, the metrics of flow, flexibility, risk and regulatory challenge were considered in developing the ratings. These metrics were combined to form the cooling water supply ratings reported in the screening criteria report and are incorporated into the evaluation of the general site criteria. Site attributes associated with pipeline routing or pumping are reflected in section C.4.1.
Rating I 1 1 2 3 3 4 I For the evaluation of the general criteria, additional aspects of developing a cooling water supply were evaluated. These additional aspects were selected to promote further differentiation of the eight sites. The additional aspects of the sites included the identification of a single existing I water source that would be capable of providing the required flow and the proximity of the site to sensitive areas from either an environmental or water-supply basis. Sensitive areas, for the purpose of evaluating this general criterion, were selected to consist of water supplies in or near I to 303(6), Water Conservation Areas or Outstanding Florida Waters designations. Once again, the sub-ratings were averngcti to compile a consolidntcd rating for cach site.
I I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 84 of 174 I
I sites were rated 3 as a result of their proximity to sensitive areas. The DeSoto and Hardee sites were rated 1 due to less favorable ratings in all three sub-criteria.
This evaluation has been performed in the absence of agency contact using publicly available I flow data (e.g., USGS Daily Streamflow Data and low flow of record data were used when appropriate data were available). Flow in some of the source water systems is complex and requires further investigation. Water usage in all source waters is governed by individual water I management districts in Florida. Approval for proposed water usage by the cognizant water management district will ultimately be required. It will be necessary to meet with the appropriate agencies to obtain preliminary confirmation of available water and to define I requirements for obtaining final approval of any proposed water use.
Cooling Water 3 3 3 I 2 4 4 Supply I Supply ID'd?'
OFW-303(d) - 2 1
2 5
2 1 5 2
5 3
5 3
5 3
5 3
WCA' I Composite Rating 1 3 1 3 4 4 4 4 I identified = 1 2
No sensitive areas nearby = 4,one designated area nearby = 3, one designated area nearby +
proximity to a second designated area = 2 I C. 1.1.2.2 Ambient TemDerature Requirements Temperature data were obtained from local weather stations as compiled by the Southeast Regional Climate Center - historical climate summaries and normals - which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climate Data Center ( N O M NCDC). Closest daily weather stations with a reasonable period of record (e.g., more than 20 years) were selected for each site. Data indicate that each site meets the ambient temperature exclusionary and avoidance criteria addressed in EPRI 2001 (Section 3.1. I .2.2). Maximum and minimum annual temperature values, as well as the highest and lowest average monthly temperatures values, and the annual average monthly mean values, were compared between sites.
Actual meteorological conditions at the eight sites, however, may vary from the data collected and evaluated for the closest reporting (representative) weather stations: Arcadia for DeSoto and I Hardee; Moore Haven for Glades; Clewiston for Hendry 1, Canal Point USDA for Martin; Okeechobee for Okeechobec 2; Fort Pierce for St. Lucie; and Miami for Turkey Point. The period of record for all sites iiicludes a minimum of 30 years varying between 1931 and 2005.
I I
I I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 85 of 174 I
I I
I I
I I Turkey Point 98 (5/25/05) 87.9 (August) 32 (12/24/89) 62.7
{January) 81.1 3 Miami Beach I Source: www.sercc.netilclimateiiifo/historical/historical.htnll-for Florida1 Annual Summary with Comparative Data for the following Florida locations: Arcadia, I Moore Haven, Clewiston, Canal Point/USDA, Okeechobee, Ft. Pierce, and Miami Beach.
Discussioflesults - The candidate sites were compared to one another to assess their relative I suitability with respect to selected temperature extremes and frequency values.
With the exception of extreme low temperature values, sites with the lowest dry bulb I temperatures are considered to be the most suitable. Based on a comparison of highest and lowest temperature (daily extremes), average high and low temperature records, annual average monthly mean temperatures, and consideration of general climate conditions at the sites, the I variation in temperatures between sites was very small. This is not surprising given that they are located in the same geographic area of south Florida. The differences were small enough that identical ratings were assigned to each site. In addition, because the temperatures in Florida are, I in general, higher than other parts of thc country, and the maximum temperatures exceeded 100 in 3.jl cases evccpt Okucchobci. nnd ' i h k c y Point, 3. conscrvative rating of 3 was given to ali sites.
I I
I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 86 of 174 I
I (2.1l 2 . 3 Cooling Svstem Summarv Rating The sites were assigned relative ratings for the suitability of the cooling system based on the average of the ratings for cooling water supply and the ambient air temperature characteristics.
I I Cooling Water Supply 1 3 1 3 4 4 4 4 Ambient I 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Temperature Composite 2 3 2 3 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Rating References U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. NUREG-1038 Supplement No. 4.
USGS: The National Streamflow Information Program, Florida Active Streamgages, http://water.us~s.Pov/nsiD/nsiDmal?s/flbase.htm1.
FDEP: The Watershed Management Basin Rotation Project, IMS Website, I http://wrmims2.dep.state.fl.uslbasinmap/o~en.h~n?BasinList=2 1&Submit1=Go%2 1.
Site Requirements Document to Support Combined Construction and Operating License I Application, Draft B, July 24,2006, FPL Nuclear Components and Replacement Group.
C.1.1.3 Flooding Obiective - The objective of this criterion is to evaluate the suitability of the candidate sites with respect to potential flooding. Some potential sites are located within the 100-year floodplain and may not meet the exclusionary and avoidance criteria outlined in EPRI 2001 (Section 3.1.1.3).
These criteria exclude potential sites within major wetlands and areas less than one foot above the maximum flood elevation.
Evaluation Apuroach - The relative suitability of the candidate sites was evaluated with respect to flooding in the Preliminary Screening Evaluation, but was limited to a comparison of existing surface water elevations and anticipated (and approximate) plant elevations. A further comparison was conducted in this detailed evaluation, between site grade elevation and the 100-year flood elevation or the major river or lake on which the plant is located. The 100-year flood elevations wcrc based on Fleet1 Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) from FEMA for the respective countirs in \vliicl~tlic sitcs :\!-e1oc;itccl. P ~ i i e ~m p~h x~i s~was > on~ fiood eievations for the mail:
w;itcr b d i c s (i.i\'crs and rcscwoii-s) atxi heir major Lribuiaries Lvherc flcod eleviltions were iiicri:i l j d . Fii~ally,criiicr pc;tc;i:i:il flooJjng SO!!I'CCS (c.g.: upstl-~intc!nm failure cmcci-ns) \vert'
- lsc! coi > s I d c i w..
. s
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 87 of 174 n
I Because of the more accurate floodplain data and consideration of upstream dam failure concerns, the rating scale was modified from that used in the Preliminary Screening Evaluation.
The revised scale is as follows:
I 5 = Site is not located within 100-year floodplain, and no potential upstream flooding concerns exist (e.g., dam failure).
I 4 = Site is not located within 100-year floodplain, but potential upstream flooding concerns exist.
3 = Site is on border of 100-year floodplain.
I 2 = Site is located within 100-year floodplain, but no potential upstream flooding concerns exist.
1 = Site is located within 100-year floodplain, and potential upstream flooding concerns I exist.
DiscussiodResults - Additional pertinent flood-related information for the candidate sites is shown in the following table, followed by the site ratings.
IC DeSoto DeSoto elevation = 8 1 feet.
Peace River current elevation (at Arcadia, FL) 10 feet. River flood stage = 17 feet.
I Difference = 64 feet above flood stage.
Site is located in Zone X (outside 500-year flood zone). Swamp areas exist in the vicinity of the proposed site; however ample areas exist for precise site location to avoid swamp areas and areas within the 100-I year flood zone.
Site is nor located in 100-year flood zone.
KO dams or other flooding concerns are located on the Peace River within 40 miles upstream of the proposed site. The Sand Gully (west of the proposed site) has been known to flood up to 2 miles west ofthe proposed site.
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 88 of 174 I
I Glades Glades elevation= 15 feet.
Caloosahatchee Canal (Okeechobee Waterway) and Lake Hicpochee I elevation = 11 feet.
Difference = 4 feet.
Site is in Zone A (located in 100-year flood zone).
I The proposed site is located 5.0 miles southwest of Lake Okeechobee. Lake Okeechobee is reinforced from flooding by the Herbert Hoover Dike. The failure of this dike has been examined, and resulting flood predictions in the event of dike failure have been I prepared. Two failure scenarios could potentially impact the proposed site.
Scenario #1: If the lake level is at 26 feet and a break in Reach 2 occurs (southeastof Moore Haven, FL), flood waters could reach the I proposed site in 5-1 8 days, and flood depths of 6 feet are predicted.
Scenario #2: If the lake level is at 26 feet and a break in Reach 4 occurs (north of Moore Haven, FL), flood waters could reach the I proposed site in 1-3 days, and flood depths of 6 feet are predicted.
Additionally,the Moore Haven Lock and Spillway (dam) is located at the entry of the Caloosahatchee Canal into Lake Okeechobee. Should this structure fail, flooding at the proposed site is predicted to be I Hardee observed within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and could reach depths of 2 feet.
Hardee elevation = 63 feet.
I Peace River current elevation (at Zolfo Springs, FL) 39 feet. River flood stage = 46 feet.
Difference = 17 feet above flood stage.
Site is in Zone X (not located in 100-year flood zone).
I No dams or other flooding concerns are located on the Peace River within 40 miles upstream of the proposed site.
Hendry 1 Hendry 1 elevation = 19 feet.
I Lake Okeechobee elevation = 14 feet.
Difference = 5 feet.
Site is located near swamp areas.
I Site is located in Zone A3 (located in 100-year flood zone).
The proposed site is located 10.9 nliles south of Lake Okeechobee.
Lake Okeechobee is reinforced from flooding by the Herbert Hoover I Dike. The failure of this dike has been examined, and resulting flood predictions in the event of dike failure have been prepared. The proposed site is located south of the L-1 canalilevee, and this structure is prcdictcd to protect the proposed site location in the event of a break I i n cithcr Reach 2 (southeast ofiMoore I Iaven, FL) or Reach 4 (north of Moore llaven, I:[,) with a I ~ k elevcl o f 2 6 rwt. No other powntial failures re's~:l~ingi;i ilooc!ing 21.c lozatcd in [he ;iro;?oic(! site nrm.
I I
I I
~
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 89 of 174 I
I Site Martin Martin site elevation = 28 feet.
Lake Okeechobee elevation = 14 feet.
I Difference = 14 feet.
Site is not located in 100-year flood zone, but is located near swamp lands.
I Site is in Zone X (area of 500-year flood, area of 100-year flood with average depths of < 1 foot or with drainage area < 1 sq. mi., or area protected by levees from 100-year flood).
Lake Okeechobee is located 5.1 miles west of the proposed site. The I proposed site is located east of the boundary limit of flooding from Lake Okeechobee caused by breaching of Herbert Hoover Dike (as shown on FIRM).
I Okeechobee 2 No other potential failures resulting in flooding are located in the proposed site area.
Okeechobee 2 elevation = 28 feet.
I Kissimmee River 20 feet.
Difference = 8 feet.
Swamp areas exist in the vicinity of the proposed site.
I Site is at border of Zone A and Zone C.
Site is at border of 100-year flood zone.
Lake Okeechobee is located 7.6 miles southeast of the proposed site.
I Lake Okeechobee is reinforced from flooding by the Herbert Hoover Dike. The failure of this dike has been examined, and resulting flood predictions in the event of dike failure have been prepared. The proposed site is located east of the Kissimmee River, and this feature is I predicted to protect the proposed site location in the event of a break in either Reach 6 or Reach 8 (both on the northwest side of Lake Okeechobee) with a lake level of 26 feet.
A lock stnicture is located on the south side of Lake Kissimmee, 41 -
I miles noith of the site. The Kissimmee River has been canalized between Lake Kissimmee and Lake Okeechobee for flood control uumoses.
I
~
St. Lucie St. Lucie elevation = 0-5 feet.
Atlantic Ocean elevation = 0 feet.
Difference = 0-5 feet.
I Site is located in Zone AE with base flood elevations of 7-8 feet.
Site is located in 100-year flood zone.
With the exception of flooding caused by adverse climatic events, no I other potential failures resulting in flooding are located in the proposec sitc area.
'I'iirkey Point Tiirkey Point rlevntiori = 1-2 fceb.
I Sirc is !oca:t.cl i n Zone ,;\E n~it1ib;ise f 0 ~ ~1 1 ~ ~ 3 t i l0 if 11 21 ~ftct.
Siie is li)utc(i in IOO-yt:1r i1;10d ZCJ:IC.
Wi:h :lie esccp:iI)n of' i l m d i j ~ gc:>!
I ~
o:ii cr '.IOt? ! :i n 1 is i 1 I
I I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 90 of 174 I
I Rating ~ 5 1 5 2 3 3 1 1 I References FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps, http://www.msc,fema.pov.
li Google Earth, http://eartli.noople,com.
I Herbert Hoover Dike Major Rehabilitation Study.
N O M Stream and Flood Data, http://www.weather.Pov/ahd.
Site Drainage and Interim Land Use Study, Brown & Root, Inc., March 1976.
USGS Topographic Maps (1:100,000 and 1:24,000 scale).
US. Flood Hazard Areas, http://www.esri .com/hazards/makemap.html.
I C.1.1.4 Nearby Hazardous Land Uses I C.1.1.4.1 C. 1.1.4.2 Existing Facilities Proiected Facilities I Obiective - The objective of this criterion is to include NRC guidance on considerations regarding the nature and proximity of man-related hazards (dams, airports, transportation routes, and military and chemical manufacturing and storage facilities).
I Evaluation approach - For the purpose of this evaluation, it was assumed that all eight sites can be developed to meet the exclusionary criteria outlined in 10 CFR 100. The suitability of the candidate sites was, therefore, cvaluated based on the relative number and distance of the following off-site man-made hazards that could be identified on USGS topographic maps, supplemented by information found in existing environmental reports for each site. The evaluation was limited to only existing hazards within a 5- to 10-mile radius of each site, to the extent such infonnation was available. This included primarily airports, pipelines, and rail. Note that infomiation relating to projected man-made hazards was not readily available and could not be evaluated during this phase o f the siting process.
I I
I I
I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 91 of 174 I
3 =No major hazardous land use within 10 miles but minor hazardous land use within 5 I miles (one rail and/or between 2 and 4 small airports/landing strips) 2 = Major hazardous land use within 10 miles or multiple minor hazardous land use within 5 miles (more than 4)
I 1 = Major hazardous land use within 5 miles Discussion - To summarize from the screening evaluation, identified hazards at each of the sites I are as follows:
DeSoto I Airports: No major airports; smaller airports at Arcadia (9.6 miles SW) and Sebring (24.8 miles NW); other small airportflanding strips at 2.5,7.4, 8.2, 8.4, 12.7, 13.5, and 15.4 miles [closest general aviation airports include DeSoto County in Arcadia and Port CharlottePunta Gorda].
I Freight Rail: Rail: 7.1 miles to W [rail in county includes CSX and Seminole Gulf rail line].
Other Potential Hazards: local deepwater ports - Manatee Port Authority - 49 miles.
I Glades Airports: Clewiston Municipal Airport is 12.4 miles SE of site; other smaller airports at 2 and 3 miles from site (landing strips) [county profile website mentions Airglades airport at unknown I distance].
Freight Rail: 3.1 miles to NE [South Central Florida Express]; 1 1 miles W.
Other Potential Hazards: local deep water port - Fort of Ft. Pierce - 64 miles.
I Also in Glades County: includes mining industry; Florida Rock, Witherspoon sand mine
[locatioddistance to site is unknown].
I Hardee Airports: no major airports; airport at Arcadia (9 miles) and smaller airstrips located 9.5 and 12.5 miles away [nearest with commercial service - Sarasota-Bradenton; general aviation is Hardee County Municipal Airport].
I Freight Rail: located 0.4 miles W ECSX].
Other Potential Hazards: closest local deepwater port - Manatee County Fort Authority - 25 miles.
I Industry in county includes two large companies in phosphate business but we are not sure of any associated mining activities.
I Hendry I Airports: general aviation: Clewiston Airport (7.3 miles); smaller airports at 4.5, 9.8, 10.5, 10.9, 16.6 d e s [airport in LaBelle].
I Freight Rail: 5.7 miles lo NE.
Other Potential Hazards: closcst decp water port - Ft. Pierce --8.4 niilcs.
I I
I ..
c : ,
/.. .*
",...._,I.
..)..,
I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 92 of 174 I
Martin I Airports: No major airports; Stuart Airport 25 miles to E; smaller airports at 2.5,6.4,6.8, and 11 miles away. General aviation - Witham Field.
Freight Rail: 1.5 miles NE and 2.8 miles W.
I Other Potential Hazards: Existing power plant with natural gas pipeline service to site [3,700 MW - 2 steam units, 3 combined cycle units, 6,800 acre cooling pond]; 40 miles from Port of Palm Beach; existing plant bounded on west by Florida East Coast Railway and adjacent I SFWMD L-65 Canal, and on the south by the St. Lucie Canal (C-44 or Okeechobee Waterway) and northeast by SR 710 and the adjacent CSX Railroad [from 10 year plan].
I Okeechobee 2 Airports: Okeechobee County airport 7.3 miles E; smaller airports located 1.3,4.3, 8.1 and 10 miles away [Palm beach International - closest with scheduled commercial airline service].
I Freight Rail: 2.2 miles NW.
Military Installation: Avon Bombing Range - 27 miles to NW.
Other Potential Hazards: Port of Ft. Pierce and Port of Palm Beach - 35 miles.
I St. Lucie Airports: Major airport 12.4 miles to NW (St. Lucie County International); smaller airport I (Witham field in Stuart) 10.4 miles to SW.
Freight Rail: 2.1 miles W.
Pipeline: Did not see on topographic maps, but other reports show nearby line extending down I Atlantic coast.
Other Potential Hazards: Site located on navigable waterway; Port of Ft. Pierce is 1 mile away; Existing nuclear power plant.
I Turkey Point Airports: Homestead general aviation airport - 5 miles NW of site; 141- miles to Rendall-Tamiami Executive Airport (NW of site).
I Freight Rail: 10 miles W.
Pipeline: did not see any major pipeline routes marked on topographic maps, but natural gas pipeline service to site.
I Military Installation: Homestead AFB-5.2 miles NW of site (unclear what operations occur at base now, but assume fully operational as AFB for purposes of evaluation). US Naval Reservation with heliport and radio facility, Iocated 7 miles SW.
I Other Potential Hazards: Site located on navigable waterway; Port of Miami less than 5 miles away; Existing power plants (2 nuclear units, 2 conventional boiler fossil units plus building new combined cycle unit).
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study ReDort Exhibit SDS-2, Page 93 of 174 I
I I Rating 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 I References Google Earth, http:i/earth.goo pl e.COM.
I USGS Topographic Maps.
FPL 10 Year Plan.
I County profile data.
I C.1.1.5 Extreme Weather Conditions C. 1.1.5.1 Winds I C.1.1.5.2 Precipitation Objective - The objective of this criterion is to rate the suitability of the eight candidate sites I with respect to extreme weather conditions. Extreme weather conditions of interest are related to specific PPE criteria regarding tornado design, wind and precipitation (EPRI Siting Guide, Section 3.1.I,5).
I Evaluation approach - During the review of available meteorological information on the sites, no information was found that indicated the eight sites could not meet the exclusionary and I avoidance criteria specified for the PPE values. Extreme weather readily available for the eight sites included fastest mile speed (available for selected cities - although not necessarily the most representative of site conditions); number of tornadoes and violent tornadoes per 10,000 square I miles (state average); and maximum 24-hour precipitation values. The number of hurricanes making landfall in Florida was also considered. Available extreme weather data were obtained from govenunent sources (National Climate Data Center and Southeast Regional Climate Center), including NCDC Climatic Wind Data for US [ncdc.noaa.gov/documentlibrary.
I pdfluindl99G.pdf.j.
Discussion/Results - Rating of the sites was performed based on a comparison of fastest mile I (wiiid) spccds, maximum 24-hour precipitation and severe storm records, although greater emphasis was placed on the most distinguishi~lgsile feature - site location i n relation to the coast
- as xi indica!or of greater probability oFh:irricn:ii: threat - and the number o f 1iui-ricmt.s to hi\
I Fior-iclz ( b ro k-c ti i7 in to ti)ti I' gcograp 11 i c q 11 atlran :s } a: fo I 1OIVS:
11 I
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 94 of 174 I
I I
I I
I Or 79 7.38 DeSoto (Orlando for 711.2 Inland 36 (12 major)
(Arcadia) inland counties) 8.4 Glades 66 (W. Palm) 711.2 Inland 41 (15 major)
(Moore Haven) 7.38 Hardee 67 (Tampa) 711.2 Inland 36 (12 major) (Arcadia)
I I 86 (W. Palm) 9.6 92 (Ft. Myers) 711.2 Inland 1I 41 (15 major) (Clewiston) 1 Martin I 86 ( W . Palm) 1 7A.2 Inland I 41 (15 major) 9.G8 (USDA Canal) 8.08 (Okeechobee) 10.00 St. L L I C ~, ~86 (W. Palm) 711.2 Coast 41 (15 ma,jor) F t . I'icrce) 711.2 i coast (Miami)-- I
-./.. !- i --- ..A
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 95 of 174 I
I hurricanes) [also based on annual probability of experiencing hurricane force winds from a hurricane (http://~'W.floridadisaster.or.g/b~r/Responsc/Plans/Natl~~/hurrica~~es/hun compared to the other sites] they were given slightly lower ratings of 2.
freq-htm)
Rating 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 c.1.2 ACCIDENT EFFECTS-RELATED Objective - The overall objective of this criterion is to evaluate sites with respect to design-related accident evaluations and potential effects of accidents.
Evaluation amroach - Site ratings for this criterion are developed as a composite of three sub-I criteria that address site characteristics relevant to consideration of accidents: Population, Emergency Planning Considerations, and Atmospheric Dispersion.
I DiscussiodResults - A discussion of each of the sub-criteria appears in the following sections C. 1.2.1, C. 1.2.2, and C.1.2.3. A discussion of the roll-up of the sub-criterion ratings into a single rating for the Accident-Effects-Related criterion appears in Section C. 1.2.4.
I c.1.2.1 Population Obiective - The objective of this criterion is to evaluate the relative suitability of the candidate sites with respect to the population density in the vicinity of the sites. For the purposes of this evaluation, it was assumed the existing licensed units at three of the candidate sites meet the population density conditions codified in 10 CFR 100.21. These conditions are:
The sites have exclusion area authority, 0 A low population zone exists beyond the exclusion area, and Sufficient distance exists to high-population centers.
Evaluation amroach - As outlined in Regulatory Guide 4.7, low-population areas are preferred and low-population zones should have densities less than 500 people per square mile (EPRI 2001) (equivalent to less than 25,000 persons within 4 miles).
All sites meet population density exclusion criteria since population density was a criterion in the regional screening process. Available Census data regarding the nearest population centers and area population densities were reviewed for the candidate sites i n the screening criteria report (Crilerion P3), and confirmed that each met the cscltision critcrix Online data wcrc obt'iincd from the lJS Census Burcau.
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 96 of 174 I
I I
3 ,
Nearest population center: Arcadia, Population Center within 10 miles: Arcadia 8.5 miles (2005); $.9% growth (6,604)
Population Centers within 20 miles:
I County Seat:
Arcadia Largest City: Arcadia Population Projections (County): 40,400 (20 15)
Zollo Springs (no data), Wauchula (4,368),
Sebring (3,667)/Lake Placid (1,668) 48,500 (2030)
I Pop. Density: 50.5 psm Nearest MSA - Port CharlotteRunta Gorda (30 miles)
(2000)
I Nearest population center: Moore Glades (Glades Coun 10,576 (2000); 11,252 Population Center within 10 miles: Moore I Haven, 2 miles County Seat:
Moore Haven (2005); 6.4% growth Population Projections Haven (1,635)
Population Centers within 20 miles:
Clewiston (6,460), Belle Glade (14,906),
Largest City: (County): 12,200 (20 15) LaBelle (4,210)
I Moore Haven 13,700 (2030)
Nearest MSA - Ft. Myers/Cape Coral (38 Pop. Density: 13.7 psm miles) 1 MiamiIEast Coast - 95 miles Hardee (Hardee Coui I Nearest population center: Zollo Springs, 12 miles County Seat:
26,938 (2000); 28,286 (2005); 5.0% growth No Population Centers within 10 miles; Population Centers within 15 miles: Zollo Springs (no data), Wauchula (4,368), and I Wauchula Largest Cities: Wauchula, Bowling Green, Zollo Springs Population Projections (County): 30,300 (2015) 34,000 (2030)
Arcadia (6,604)
Nearest MSA - Port Charlotte (30 miles)
I Pop. Density: 42.3 psm TampafGulf Coast - 48 miles Orlando - 70 miles I Nearest population center:
Clewiston (7.3 miles) 36,210 (2000); 39,561 (2005); 9.3% growth Population Centers within 10 miles:
County Scat:
I LaBelle Largest Cities:
La Belle, Clewiqton Population Projections (County): 46.500 (2015) 56,000 (2030)
I I
I I
~
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 97 of 174 I
1 I Nearest population center:
Indiantown (7 miles) 126,731 (2000); 139,728 Population Centers within 10 miles:
(2005); 10.3% growth Indiantown (5,588)
County Seat: Population Centers within 20 miles:
I Stuart Largest Cities: Stuart, Population Projections (County): 170,300 Port St. Lucie (88,769), Okeechobee (5,376)
SewalIs Point, Jupiter Island (2015); 205,100 (2030) Nearest MSA - Ft. Pierceport St. Lucie (23 I Pop. Density: 228.1 psm miles) and West Palm Beach (40 miles)
MiamiEast Coast - 9G miles 0 eechobee 2 (Okeechobee I Nearest population center:
Okeechobee (8 miles) 35,910 (2000); 39,836 (2005); 10.9% growth Okeechobee (5,376)
County Seat: Population Centers within 20 miles:
I Okeechobee Largest Cities:
Okeechobee Population Projections (County): 41,200 (2015) 45,700 (2030)
Lake Placid ( 1,668)
Nearest MSA - Ft. PierceRort St. Lucie (35 I Pop Density: 46.4 psm miles)
Miami/East Coast - 111 miles Orlando - 93 miles I Nearest population center:
St. Lucie (St. Lucie Coi 192,695 (2000); 24 1,305 Population Center within 5 miles Port St. Lucie (4.5 miles) (2005); 25.2% growth Po& St. Lucie (88,769)
I County Seat:
Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie Largest Cities:
Population Projections (County) : 320,500 Population Centers within 10 miles Stuart (14,633), Ft. Pierce (37,516) t Port St. Lucie, Ft. Pierce, St. Luck Village (20 15); 41 9,200 (2040)
Pop. Density: 336.3 Nearest MSA - Ft. PiercePort St. Lucie (within 5 miles)
Psm Miami/East Coast - 1 15 miles I T rkey Point (Miami-Dad(
Orlando - 100 miles Nearest population center: 2,253,362 (2000);
I Leisure City (7.2 miles)
County Seat:
Miami 2,376,914 (2005);
5.4% growth Homestead (3 1,909), Florida City (7,843)
Key Largo (1 1,806)
Population Centers within 20 miles Largest Cities: Population Projections Miami 1 Miami, I.Iialeah, Miami Bcach (County): 2,771,500 (2015); 3,196,300 Nearest MSA - ?vIimni (within 20 miles)
(2031))
I I
I I
I I
I Based on the above information, the following site ratings were assigned. In the case of proximity to nearest population center, sites within 5 miles of the nearest population center were given a rating of 2 (less than 2 miles would receive a rating of l), within 10 miles were given a I rating of 3, within 15 miles were given a rating O f 4,and within 20 miles were given a rating of 5 . Ratings for proximity to densely populated areas also were considered and were based on the distance to the nearest metropolitan statistical area (MSA).
I I County population Distance to population center 5
2 5
1 5
3 5
2 4
2 5
2 3
1 1
2 Proximity to I densely populated area 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 1 Composite I Rating 4 3 4 4 3 4 2 1 References I US Census Bureau, 2000 population data.
I Florida Atlas and Gazetteer 2003; detailed topographic maps.
I (2.1.2.2 Emergency Planning Obiective - The objective of this criterion is to evaluate the relative suitability of the eight 1 candidate sites with respect to emergency planning characteristics of the general area around each site. (No exclusionary or avoidance criteria apply to this issue.) In particular, this evaluation relied on information pertaining to general population in surrounding area, road conditions near site, access to major traffic networks, terrain features, and climatic conditions.
I Evaluation apuroach - Sites with the least constrained evacuation planning issues (low population, good access from site to major traffic networks, and no terrain or dimate limitations)
I were considered the most suitable and were assigned a score of 5. Ratings are based on review of county websi tes (transportation infomation), USGS topographic maps, and best professional judgment. Ratings relate to extent of development in the general area, the number of roads I p r o v i c h ~egress from the site area, and proximity to major US highway systems.
I I
I I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 99 of 174 I
I DeSoto -
Proposed site is located 2.5 miles east of U.S.Highway 17 and 7.3 -
miles north of State Highway 70. Brownville, FL is located 3.2 miles I -
southwest of the proposed site, and Arcadia, FL is located 8.6 miles southwest of the proposed site. Area evacuation is possible in all directions. Florida is prone to impact by hurricanes, and site evacuations I coinciding with such climatic conditions would be hampered.
Proposed site is located 1.O miles south of US.Highway 27 and State Highway 78. Moore Haven, FL is located 4.8 miles east of the proposed I site, and Clewiston, FL is located 15.2 miles southeast of the proposed site. Area evacuation is possible in all directions, but immediate area evacuation is limited to the south due to minimal crossings of the I--
Caloosahatchee Canal. Florida is prone to impact by hurricanes, and site I Hardee evacuations coinciding with such climatic conditions would be hampered.
~
Proposed site is located 5.0 miles south of State Highway 64 and G.4 miles west of U.S.Highway 17. Zolfo Springs, FL is located 8.7 miles I northeast of the proposed site, and Arcadia, FL is located 13.7 miles I I-I Hendry 1 south of the proposed site. Area evacuation is possible in all directions.
Florida is prone to impact by hurricanes, and site evacuations coinciding with such climatic conditions would be hampered.
Proposed site is located 5.4 miles east of State Highway 833 and 6.4 miles south of U.S. Highway 27. Clewiston, FL is located 9.2 miles northeast of the proposed site. Area evacuation is possible in all directions, I although northerly evacuation routes go around Lake Okeechobee and southerly evacuation routes go through swampy areas. Florida is prone to impact by hurricanes, and site evacuations coinciding with such climatic conditions would be hampered.
I ~ Martin -
Proposed site is located 1.1 miles southwest of State Highway 710 and 5.6 miles east of US.Highway 98/441. Indiantown, FL is located 6.3 -
miles southeast of the proposed site, and Port St. Lucie, FL is located -
I 20.4 miles northeast of the proposed site. Area evacuation is possible in three directions, being limited to the west by Lake Okeechobee. Florida is prone to impact by hurricanes, and site evacuations coinciding with such climatic conditions would be hampered.
1 I Okeechobee 2 -
Proposed site is located 0.4 miles north of State Highway 70 and 4.3 miles southwest of U.S. Highway 98. Okeechobee, FL is located 6.8 -
miles east of the proposed site. Area evacuation is possible in all I directions, although southerly evacuation routes go around Lake Okeechobee. Florida ISprone to impact by hurricanes, and site evacuation coinciding with such climatic conditions would be hampered.
1 I
I
~
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 100 of 174 I
I St. Lucie Proposed site is located on Hutchinson Island adjacent to Highway AlA and 9.8 miles from access to US.Highway 1. Port St. Lucie, FL is located 7.2 miles southwest of the proposed site, and Fort Pierce, FL is I -
located 8.7 miles northwest of the proposed site. Area evacuation is possible in two directions,being limited to the east by the Atlantic Ocean and to the west by the IntercoastalWaterway. Florida is prone to impact by I hurricanes,and site evacuations coinciding with such climatic conditions would be hampered and more prevalent at the proposed site due to its coastal location.
The site is adjacent to the existing St. Lucie nuclear power plant and brings I the advantage of already having an Emergency Plan that could easily be adapted to include the new site. However, both sites would require evacuation under emergency conditions.
I Turkey Point -
Proposed site is located 9.1 miles east of U.S.Highway 1 and the Florida Turnpike. Homestead, FL is located 9.8 miles west of the proposed site.
Area evacuation is possible in three directions,being limited to the east by the Atlantic OceaniBiscayne Bay. Westerly evacuation routes are I available, but are limited by the Everglades. Florida is prone to impact by hurricanes, and site evacuations coinciding with such climatic conditions wouId be hampered and more prevalent at the proposed site due to its I coastal location.
The site is adjacent to the existing Turkey Point nuclear power plant and brings the advantage of already having an Emergency Plan that could easily be adapted to include the new site. However, both sites would require E evacuation under emergency conditions.
I Rating 5 4 5 5 3 5 3 4 I References Rand McNally Road Atlas.
I USGS Topographic Maps.
I C.1.2.3 Atmospheric Dispersion I Objective - The objective of this criterion is to evaluate the suitability of the eight candidate sites with respect to short-term atmospheric dispersion characteristics, as a measure of the rclative level ol'conccntralions th:it cotild occtir during accident conditions at thc sites.
I I
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 101 of 174 I
I DiscussiodResults - The best way to calculate atmospheric dispersion (WQ)is using on-site meteorological data; however, no such data were readily available for all candidate sites. Sites near the coast would generally experience windier conditions, and were given a rating of 5 .
I Inland locations would generally experience less wind, and were given a rating of 4. Should atmospheric dispersion become a sensitive criterion for site selection, site-specific meteorological data should be obtained to calculate an atmospheric dispersion function (SQ)for more accurate site comparison.
I I DeSoto Glades Site is located 50 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico.
Site is located - 70 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico.
Site is located - 70 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean.
I Hardee Hendry 1 Site is located - 40 miles inland from the Gdf of Mexico.
Site is located - 65 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean.
Site is located 75 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico.
I Martin Site is located - 25 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean.
During the daytime with strong solar heating, the atmosphere is unstable and disperses pollutants quickly for I short periods of time. The majority condition is neutral and disperses pollutants at moderate rates. During nighttime, the atmosphere becomes stable and minimally disperses E Okeechobee 2 pollutants.
Site is located 45 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean, St. Lucie Site is located in the Atlantic Ocean coastal region.
l Turkey Point Site is located in the Atlantic Ocean coastal region.
Rating 4 4 4 4 4 4 s j 5 I
I Site Certification Application, Martin Expansion Project. January 2002.
USGS Topographic Maps (1 :100,000 and 1:24,000 scale).
I C.1.2.4 Accident-Effect Related Summ:tr~Rating I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 102 of 174 I
I I
I I
C.1.3 OPERATIONAL EFFECTS-RELATED P C.1.3.1 Surface Water - Radionuclide Pathway C.1.3.1.1 Dilution Capacity I C.I.3.1.2 C. 1.3.1.3 Baseline Loadings Proximity to Consumptive Users I Objective - The purpose of this criterion is to evaluate candidate sites with respect to potential liquid pathway dose consequences. (No site exclusionary or avoidance criteria apply to this issue.) Besides potential source terms, dilution in the receiving surface water body is of primary I importance. Three factors considered in evaluating the potential dilution for a receiving water body are dilution capacity, baseline loadings, and proximity to consumptive users.
I Evaluation Approach - Site ratings for this criterion are developed as a composite of three sub-criteria that address site characteristics relevant to consideration of operation: Dilution Capacity, Baseline Loadings, and Proximity to Consumptive Users.
I 9 Dilution Capacity - The purpose of this sub-criterion is to rate sites based on the overall capacity of the receiving water body to dilute effluents from a nuclear power plant.
Infomation on the radioactive source term dilution at a new power plant will be site I specific. For siting consideration where such information is not available, however, surrogate parameters, representing the dilution capacity of a stream, can be used. The greater the dilution capacity of the receiving water body, the shorter will be the mixhg I length downstream defined as the zone within which complete mixing of a discharge
. contaminant occurs. Sites with higher dilution capacity are rated higher.
Baseline Loadings - The capacity of a stream to impact health and safety of downstream I consumers is related to the existing, or baseline loadings of, radionuclides that are present in the system or can be anticipated in the future. The purpose of this sub-criterion is to characterize sitcs in accordance with existing levels of radioactive contamination in the I receiving water body. Sites are given a rating of 5 for no basehne loadings; propoitionally lower ratings are assigned as lii$ier existing levels of radionuclidc contamiiin~joiiare iclciiti ficd.
I
- Prosi;:?ity LO Coi>Lui-ij)ti\c Uws -?lit piirpost ofthis sub-criterion is to ~ 1 1 - 3sites ii:
- iczoid;iiicc u , r ~ hths proyii
- i ty ofpia:it cti?~it.~;t ~ ~ C I C ~ S point C to the iocntion(s) puhiic x:vLlt:t* ~ ~ ~ p \ p
~ ,l i yl } i ( . ~ r ~ ~ i\!orc ;\ l ,til(Il->ii+AI> p r c w i l hi>ghcrpotfi;r,tl:)l Li)r
~ , ~ l ~p ~~ )w . i m , ~
I I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 103 of 174 I dose impacts &om the surface water ingestion pathway and can require additional design and licensing efforts. Downstream locations of public water supply withdrawals and recreational contact were identified for each site. Sites with greater pathway lengths to I users were more suitable and were assigned a score of 5.
DiscussionResults - AB evaluation of each site and a summary of the sub-criterion and overall I ratings for the surface water-radionuclide pathway criterion are presented in the following tables.
I DeSoto Dilution Capacity: The Peace River is the nearest receiving body of water from the site (- 4 miles west of the proposed site). Recent river flow rates have been near 2,500 cubic feet per second. Under these conditions, the receiving body of water is likely capable of diluting potential liquid pathway dose.
Baseline Loading: No sources of existing radionuclide loadings were identified for the site.
Proximity to Consumptive Users: The majority of DeSoto County,including Arcadia, FL, relies on groundwater as the primary source of public water use.
The Peace River i s not widely used for consumptive uses.
~~~
Glades Dilution Capacity: Lake Okeechobee is the nearest receiving body of water from the site (- 5 miles east of the proposed site). The receiving body of water is llkely capable of diluting effluents from a nuclear power plant. The C-43 canal (Okeechobee Waterway / Caloosahatchee Canal) is another potential receiving body of water from the site. The C-43 canal flows west to the Gulf of Mexico (- 60 miles).
Baseline Loading: No sources of baseline radionuclide loadings were identified for the site.
Proximity to Consumptive Users: Lake Okeechobee is classified as a drinking water source. Moore Haven, FL is located 5 miles east of the proposed site.
Hardee Dilution Capacity: The Peace River is the nearest receiving body of wafer from the site (- 3 miles east of the proposed site). Recent river flow rates have been near 2,500 cubic feet per second. Under these conditions, the receiving body of water is likely capable of diluting potential liquid pathway dose.
Baseline Loading: No sources of existing radionuclide loadings were identified for the site.
Proximity to Consumptive Users: The majority of DeSoto County, including Arcadia, FL, relies on groundwater as the primary source of public water use.
The Peace River is not widely used for consumptive uses.
Hendry I Dilution Capacity: Lake Okeechobee is the nearest receiving body of water from the site (- 11 miles north of the proposed site). The receiving body of water is likely capable of diluting effluents from a nuclear power plant.
Baseline Loading: No sources of baseline radionuclide loadings were identified for the site.
Proximity to Consuinptive Users Lake Okeechobee is classified as a drinking xvater source. Clewiston, F1, is locatcd 9 miles northeast of the proposed sile
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 104 of 174 I
I Martin Dilution Capacity: Lake Okeechobee is the nearest receiving body of water from the site (- 5 miles west of the proposed site). The receiving body of I water is Iikely capable of diluting effluents from a nuclear power plant. The C-44 canal (Okeechobee Waterway / St. Lucie Canal) is another potential receiving body of water from the site. The C-44 canal flows east to the Atlantic Ocean (- 25 miles).
I Baseline Loading: No sources of baseline radionuclide loadings were identified for the site.
Proximity to Consumptive Users: The Okeechobee Utility Authority is I permitted to withdraw water from the northem bank of Lake Okeechobee for a public potable water source. This plant is located 18 miles northwest of the site.
I Okeechobee 2 Dilution Capacity: The Kissimmee River is the nearest receiving body of water from the site (- 2 miles southwest of the proposed site). The receiving body of water is likely capable of diluting effluents from a nuclear power plant.
Baseline Loading: No sources of baseline radionuclide loadings were I identified for the site.
Proximity to Consumptive Users: The Okeechobee Utility Authority is permitted to withdraw water from the northern bank of Lake Okeechobee for a I St. Lucie public potable water source. This plant is located 9 miles southeast of the site.
Dilution Capacity: The Atlantic Ocean is the receiving body of water from the site and is sufficiently large to easily dilute emuents from a nuclear power I plant.
Baseline Loading: While an existing nuclear power plant is located near the proposed site, the receiving body of water is sufficiently large to render any I baseline radionuclide loadings negligible.
Proximity to Consumptive Users: No downstream locations of public water supply withdrawals were identified for the site.
1 I
~~ ~~ ~ ~~
Turkey Point Dilution Capacity: The Atlantic Ocediscayne Bay and groundwater (via the cooling canals) are the receiving bodies of water from the site and are sufficiently large to easily dilute effluents from a nuclear power plant.
I Baseline Loading: While an existing nuclear power plant is located near the proposed site, the receiving body of water is sufficiently large to render any baseline radionuclide loadings negligible.
Proximity to Consumptive Users: No downstream locations of public water I supply withdrawals were identified for the site.
I I 1 DeSoto I I 5 I 4 I I
I I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 105 of 174 I Martin I I I I I 1 Okeechobee 2 4
3 5
5 4
3 4
4 i St. Lucie 5 4 5 5 I Turkey Point 5 4 5 5 I
I I C.1.3.2 Groundwater Radionuclide Pathway Obiective - The purpose of this section is to evaluate the candidate sites with respect to the relative vulnerability of shallow groundwater resources to potential contamination.
Evaluation Approach - All candidate sites overlie aquifers that have not been designated by EPAs (1 986) classification scheme. EPA guidelines were, however, used to assign a designation to candidate site aquifers. In addition, the reIative vulnerability of these aquifers to groundwater pollution was evaluated using a standard numerical ranking system called DRASTIC (Aller et al. 1987). Sites considered most suitable are those that are least vulnerable to groundwater contamination within a 2-mile radius of a site.
I DiscussiodResults - Class I groundwater is addressed as an avoidance criteria (EPRI 2000).
This classification includes groundwater resources of unusually high value. They are highly vulnerable to contamination and are irreplaceable sources of drinking water and or ecologically 1 vital. Groundwater underlying the candidate sites are either currently used or are potential sources of drinking water, hence, they would be considered Class I1 aquifers according to the EPA classification guidelines. The Biscayne Aquifer in South Florida has been designated a Sole Source Aquifer by EPA. One site, Turkey Point, is located above the Biscayne Aquifer.
I Projects that receive Federal financial assistance and have the potential to contaminate a sole source aquifer are subject to EPA review. The Okeechobee 2 site is located in the recharge zone for the Biscayne Aquifer, and the Martin and Glades sites are located either within or along the I border of the rechar$e zone. These sites, while not located above the Biscayne Aquifer, would have a potential for contamination since they are located within or very near the aquifers recharge zonc.
I The DRASTTC evaluation was completed using site-specific d a t a , where available, or data fiom pub 1ish eci soli rccs . Thz 1x1 os t i Inport 311t va ri abl cs that con t ro 1 th e yrounciwa\er PO i I uti 011po tc:i ti a1 I are:
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Studv ReDOrt Exhibit SDS-2, Page 106 of i74 I
I 0 D-Depth to water, R-Recharge (net),
A-Aquifer media, I S-Soil media, T-Topography (slope),
I-Impact of the vadose zone, I 0 C-Conductivity (hydraulic) of the groundwater flow system.
DRASTIC assigns a weighted numeric value to each characteristic, depending on its relative I contribution to risk of groundwater contamination. This results in a numeric ranking for each site, allowing the sites to then be ranked in order of suitability. The higher an area scores on the DRASTIC index, the more susceptible a site is to groundwater contamination. Following is a summary of the DRASTIC evaluations.
I DeSoto Depth to Water 5-15 ft bgs (USGS topographic maps) 5 9 45 I Net Recharge IO+idyr 4 9 36 I Aquifer Media Sands with silt and clay (Florida geologic maps and text) 3 6 18 I Soil Media
~-
1-Sandy Loam (Florida geologic map and text)
~ I 2
I 6
I 12 Less than 1% WSGS site topographic maps) 1 10 10 I Impact Vadose Zone Sand (Florida geologic map and text) 5 G 30 I Hydraulic Conductivity 300 - 700 gpd/ft2 (Dnscoll, 1986; D W T I C , 1987) 3 4 12 I
I I
I I
I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 107 of 174 I
I Glades I
Depth to Water I 5-15 ft bgs (USGS topographic maps) 1 5 1 9 1 45 I Net Recharge lo+idyr 4 9 36 I Aquifer Media Sands with silt and clay (Florida geologic maps and text) 3 6 18 I Soil Media Sandy Loam (Florida geologic map and text)
~~
2 6 12 Topography Less than 1% (USGS site topographic maps) 1 10 10 I Impact Vadose Zone Sand (Florida geologic map and text) 5 6 30 I Hydraulic Conductivity 300 - 700 gpd/ft? (DriscoII, 1986; DRASTIC, 1987) 3 4 12 I INDEX 163 I
I I
I I
I I
I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 108 of 174 Hardee Depth to Water 5-15 ft bgs (USGS topographic maps) 5 9 45 I Net Recharge 10' idyr 4 9 36 I Aquifer Media Sands with silt and clay (Florida geologic maps and text) 3 6 18 I Soil Media Sandy Loam (Florida geologic map and text) 2 6 12 Less than 1% (USGS site topographic maps) 1 10 10 I Impact Vadose Zone Sand with significant silt and clay (Florida 5 5 25 geologic map and text)
I Hydraulic 100 - 300 gpd/ft2 (Driscoll, 1986; 3 2 6 Conductivity DRASTIC,1987)
I INDEX 152 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 109 of 174 Hendry I Depth to Water 5-15 ft bgs (USGS topographic maps) 5 9 45 Net Recharge 10+in/yr 4 9 36 Aquifer Media Sands with silt and clay (Florida geologic 3 6 18 mam and text)
Soil Media Sandy Loam (Florida geologic map and text) 2 6 12 ToPograPhY Less than 1% (USGS site topographic maps) 1 10 10 Impact Vadose Zone Sand (Florida geologic map and text) 5 6 30 Hydraulic 300 - 700 gpd/ft2 (Driscoll, 1986; 3 4 12 Conductivity DRASTIC, 1987)
INDEX 163
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 110 of 174 I
Martin Depth to Water 5-15 ft bgs (USGS topographic maps) 5 9 45 Net Recharge IO+ idyr 4 9 36 Aquifer Media Sands with silt and clay (Florida geologic 3 6 18 maps and text)
Soil Media Sandy Loam (Florida geologic map and text) 2 6 12 TOPOPPhY Less than 1% (USGS site topographic maps) 1 10 10 Impact Vadose Zone Sand (Florida geologic map and text) 5 6 30 Hydraulic 300 - 700 gpd/ft2 (Driscoll, 1986; 3 4 12 Conductivity DRASTIC, 1987)
INDEX 163 I
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 111 of 174 I
I Okeechobee 2 I
Depth to Water 0-5 ft bgs (USGS topographic maps) 5 10 50 I Net Recharge 10' idyr 4 9 36 I Aquifer Media Sands with silt and clay (Florida geologic maps and text) 3 6 18 I Soil Media Sandy Loam (Florida geologic map and text) 2 6 12 Less than 1% (USGS site topographic maps) 1 10 10 I TOPOPPhY Impact Vadose Zone Thin sand (Florida geologic map and text) 5 8 40 I Hydraulic Conductivity 300 - 700 gpd/ftz @riscolf, 1986; DRASTIC, 1987) 3 4 12 I INDEX 178 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 112 of 174 1 St. Lucie 1 Depth to Water 1 5-15 ft bgs (USGS topographic maps)
Net Recharge 10' idyr 4 9 36 Aquifer Media Sands with silt and clay (Florida geologic 3 6 18 maps and text)
Soil Media Sand (Florida geologic map and text) 2 7 14 I I Less than 1% (USGS site topographic maps) 1 1 I 10 1 10 1 Impact Vadose Zone 1 Sand (Florida geologic map and text) 1 5 1 7 1 3 5 I Hydraulic Conductivity 300 700 gpdft2 (Dnscoll, 1986; DRASTIC, 1987) 3 4 12 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
c Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 113 of 174 I
11 Turkey Point I Depth to Water 0-5 ft bgs (USGS topographic maps) 5 1 10 I 50 10' idyr 4 9 36 Aquifer Media Bedded limestone (Florida geologic maps 3 7 21 and text)
I I Thn (Florida geologic map and text) 2 10 20 Less than 1%(USGS site topographic maps) 1 10 10 I Impact Vadose Zone Thin sand and limestone (Florida geologic 5 7 35 map and text)
I Hydraulic 700 - 1000 gpd/ft2 (Driscoll, 1986; 3 6 18 Conductivity DRASTIC, 1987) 1 INDEX 190 I DRASTIC indexes for all typical hydrogeologic settings range from 65 to 223 (AHer et al. 1987,
- p. 82). This range of indexes was used to develop a ranking system to compare vulnerability of I candidate sites, as follows:
I 65-98 Low 5 98-132 Low to Moderate 4 I 132-1 66 Moderate 3 166139 High 2 I 199-233 Very High 1 I Based on these DRASTIC Index Ranges for qualitative vulnerability, candidate sites were ranked as follows:
I I
I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 114 of 174 I
I I 1 DeSoto I 163 I 3 I I IGlades 163 I 3 I 1 I I
~~
Hardee 152 3 I Hendry 1 163 3 E Martin Okeechobee 2 163 178 3
2 St. Lucie 170 2 Turkey Point 190 2 II References I Aller, L., Bennett, T., Lek, J., Petty, R. and G. Hackett. 1987. DRASTIC: A Standardized System for Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Potential Using Hydrogeologic Settings.
EPA/600/2-87/035 , June 1987.
I DRASTIC: A Standardized System for Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Potential Using Hydrogeologic Settings; EPA Manual, 1987.
I Driscoll, Fletcher G., Groundwater and Wells, 1986.
I EPA, 1986. Guidelines for Groundwater Classification Under the EPA Groundwater Protection Strategy, Office of Groundwater Protection.
EPA, 2005. Source Water Protection. Sole Source Aquifer Program.
Florida Environment OnIine, Southeastem Geological Society, Hydrogeological Units of Florida.
Florida Geological Survey, Data and Maps, County Geologic Maps.
I Florida Geological Survey, Floridas Geological History and Geological Resources, Special Publication No. 35, 1994.
I F1o1i h CcuIo~~c,il Su-vc):, C c o l o g c Fra!n:u ork o f thc L,o;i-cr Floridnn Aquifer Systcin, Ercvan.!
Collllty. f l \ ~ l l ~ d BUll~tl!i J. 33 0-1, ;99-L.
I I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 115 of 174 I
I Florida Geological Survey, Geologic Map of Florida, 2001.
Florida Geological Survey, Text to Accompany the Geologic Map of Florida, open-file report 80, II 2051.
USGS, 1985. Sinkhole Type, Development, and Distribution in Florida.
I USGS South Florida Information Access. Lithostratigraphic Units.
I I USGS. Topographic Maps of Florida, various.
I C.1.3.3 C. 1.3.3.1 C.1.3.3.2 Air Radionuclide Pathway Tor>ographicEffects Atmospheric Dispersion E Objective - The purpose of this criterion is to address the relative suitability of sites with respect to the potential for exposure to the public from routine airbome releases from a nuclear power I plant.
Evaluation aDproach - The criterion is composed of two suitability characteristics:
1 Topographic Effects - Site ratings are based on whether there are any significant topographic features that would materially affect dispersion of the plume from plant releases (e.g., channeling of releases from a site located low in a high-banked river I valley).
Atmospheric Dispersion - Measured in terms of long term (e.g., annual average WQ)
I dispersion characteristics. Sites with lower X/Q values are rated higher than those with less favorable dispersion conditions.
t Discussioflesults - None of the sites are believed to have significant potential for negative topographic effects on long-term dispersion; however, final site locations have not been idcntified for several of the sites. Annual average X/Q values were unavailable for candidate I sites. Sites near the coast would generally experience windier conditions, and were given a rating of 5. Inland locations would generally experience less wind, and were given a rating of 4.
Should atmospheric dispersion become a sensitive criterion for site selection, site-specific 1 meteorological data should be obtained to calculate an atmospheric dispersion function ( X / Q for more accurate site comparison.
I I
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 116 of 174 I
I 1 Hendry 1 -
Site is located 65 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean. 4 I Martin Site is located 75 miles inland fiom the Gulf of Mexico.
Site is located 25 miles inland &om the Atlantic Ocean. 4 Okeechobee 2 Site is located - 45 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean. 4 St. Lucie Site is located inthe Atlantic Ocean coastal region. 5 1 Turkeycint 1 Siteis located in the Atlantic Ocean coastal region. I 5 I The proposed site ratings with respect to radionuclide exposure via airbome releases are as follows:
I I Rating 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 References I USGS Topographic Maps.
I C.1.3.4 Air-Food Ingestion Pathway I Objective - The objective of this criterion is to rate candidate sites in terms of the relative potential for exposure of humans to radioactive emissions through deposition of radioactive materials on food crops with subsequent consumption of exposed foodstuffs by individuals.
I Evaluation approach - A potential exposure pathway for nuclear power plants is the emission of radionuclides into the food chain on local crops and pashres. Radiological doses and dose commitments resulting from a nuclear plant are well-known and documented. While the operational impacts on the public through food pathway exposures are negligible, sites with lower amounts of crop and pasture land uses are considered to be more suitable. No I exclusionary or avoidance criteria apply to this issue. Sites with less crop production nearby are rated higher than those with larger agricultural industries.
DiscussionResults - General information regarding crop lands and pastures near the sites is I summarized in the table below.
I I
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 117 of 174 I
I .. ..
DeSoto Agriculture (farmland) represents 388,177 acres out of 407,680 acres in DeSoto County (95%). Out of the total I f a d a n d , 115,356 acres are planted in crop (30%). Other farmland is used for cattle (8 1,628 head), and lower numbers of hogs and pigs (33 head), sheep (38 head) and II poultry (25 1 layers).
Aerial imagery indicates that the proposed site is in the general vicinity of agricultural operations, and the actual impact to local crops, pastures, and livestock from 1 radionuclide emission exposure would be greater than the county-wide percentages.
Glades Agriculture (farmland) represents407,950 acres out of 1 I 495,360 acres in Glades County (82%). Out of the total farmland, 73,043 acres are planted in crop (18%). Other farmland is used for cattle (66,423 head), and lower numbers of hogs and pigs (48 head) and poultry (210 I layers).
Aerial imagery indicates that the proposed site is in the general vicinity of agricultural operations, and the actual I impact to local crops, pastures, and livestock from radionuclide emission exposure would be greater than the county-wide percentages.
I Hardee Agriculture (farmland) represents 346,19 1 acres out of 407,680 acres in Hardee County (85%). Out of the total farmland, 115,676 acres are planted in crop (33%). Other 1
farmland is used for cattle (94,749 head), and lower I numbers of hogs and pigs (93 head) and poultry (292 layers and 123 broilers).
Aerial imagery indicates that the proposed site is in the I
general vicinity of agricultural operations, and the actual impact to local crops, pastures, and livestock from radionuclide emission exposure would be greater than the county-wide percentages.
IC Bendry 1 Agriculture (farmland) represents 552,352 acres out of 737,920 acres in Hendry County (75%). Out of the total farmland, 296,006 acrcs are planted in crop (54%). Other I farmland is used for cattle (73,207 head), and lower numbers of hogs and pigs (125 head) and poultry (2SG layers).
herial imagery indicates that the proposed site is in the I general vicinity of agricultural operations, and the actual impact to local crops, pastures, and livestock from radionuclide emission exposure would be greater than the
- ounty-wide pocetitages.
I I
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 118 of 174 E
I Agriculture (farmland) represents 206,198 acres out of 2 I 355,840 acres in Martin County (58%). Out of the total f a d a n d , 97,840 acres are planted in crop (47%). Other farmland is used for cattle (27,279 head), and lower numbers of hogs and pigs (439 head) and poultry (81 I broilers).
Aerial imagery indicates that the proposed site is in the general vicinity of agricultural operations, and the actual impact to local crops, pastures, and livestock from 1 radionuclide emission exposure would be greater than the county-wide percentages. Additionally, while power plants are currently located near the proposed site, the potential for I radionuclide emissions would be a newly introduced area hazard.
Agriculture (farmland) represents 392,495 acres out of
~
1 495,360 acres in Okeechobee County (79%). Out of the I total f a d a n d , 115,292 acres are planted in crop (29%).
Other farmland is used for cattle (142,656 head), and lower numbers of hogs and pigs (82 head), sheep (1,737), and I poultry (17 1 layers).
Aerial imagery indicates that the proposed site is in the general vicinity of agricultural operations, and the actual impact to local crops, pastures, and livestock from I radionuclide emission exposure would be greater than the county-wide percentages.
Agriculture (farmland) represents 221,537 acres out of I 366,080 acres in St. Lucie County (61%). Out of the total farmland, 118,847 acres are planted in crop (54%). Other farmland is used for cattle (3 1,944 head), and lower numbers of hogs and pigs (394 head) and poultry (3 17 I layers).
Aerial imagery indicates that the proposed site is not in the general vicinity of agricultural operations, and the actual I I impact to local crops, pastures, and livestock from radionuclide emission exposure would be significantly lower than the county-wide percentages.
I Turkey Point Agriculture (farmland) represents 90,373 acres out of 1,245,440 acres in Miami-Dade County (7%). Out of the total farmland, 66,564 acres are planted in crop (74%).
5 Other farndand is used for cattle (3,880 head), hogs and I pigs (144 head), sheep (272 head), and poultry (2,052 layers and 240 broilers).
Aerial imagery indicates that the proposed site is in the general vicinity of sonie agricultural operatioiis (although I 11 ut as 3gr icul iura I1y do m in:i t i'd as po :c illi 3 1 grec nrici ii siicsj. I l u n ~ c s i . r ,existing 11iiclc:ir pc)wcr plants art' located 3 1 the Turkey P o i x iocJ!irrn, nix! :igriculIiiral opcraiioiis in I :h: gc:wml \.icini:;; >re :iIx!~dy e ~ p ~ ito~pokii(i3i i.atlio:l\icliile ci>iissiL);15.;ISs ~ i i iT. ~ I C~ c i l i i hn:i i > \ > ~ l i d cj:iissius><
i!
gl\tn .I 2r: 11(1t :1 I > C ' > ~ ,
I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 119 of 174 Rating 1 1 l ! 1 2 1 5 5 References Florida MapStats, httn://vltww.fedstats.~ov/af/stal;es/12000.html.
Google Earth, http://earth.aooale.coni.
I National Agricultures Statistics Service (2002 Census of Agriculture) for Florida, httv://151.121.3.33:8080/Census/CreateCensus US CNTY.isD.
I C.1.3.5 Surface Water - Food Radionuclide Pathway I Obiective - The purpose of this criterion is to evaluate the relative suitability of sites in terms of the specific use of irrigation water by downstream locations as a potential pathway for potential I exposure.
Evaluation aoproach - Sites with the fewest number of downstream imgation uses are more I suitable and are rated higher than sites with a large number of downstream irrigation withdrawals. No exclusionary or avoidance criteria apply to this issue (EPRI 2001).
I DiscussiodResults - General information regarding irrigated lands near the sites is summarized in the table below.
I DeSoto Total irrigated land represents 79,147 acres out of 388,177 1 acres of farmland in DeSoto County (20%). Withdrawals of water for inigation from the Peace River downstream of the site are probable.
Glades Total irrigated land represents 49,147 acres out of 407,950 2 acres of farmland in Gladcs County (12%). Withdrawals of water for irrigalion from area canals downstream o f the site are probable.
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 120 of 174 Hendry 1 Total irrigated land represents 206,043 acres out of 552,352 1 acres of farmland in Hendry County (37%). Withdrawals of water for irrigation from area canals downstream of the site are probable.
Martin Total irrigated land represents 55,805 acres out of 206,198 1 acres of farmland in Martin County (27%). Withdrawals of water for irrigation from area canals downstream of the site are probable.
Okeechobee 2 Total irrigated land represents 22,085 acres out of 392,495 2 acres of farmland in Okeechobee C o m b (6%).
Withdrawals of water for irrigation from the Kissimmee River and area canals downstream of the site are probable.
St. Lucie Total imgated land represents 102,629 acres out of 221,537 5 acres of farmland in St. Lucie County (46%). Withdrawals of water for irrigation downstream of the site are not expected as the site is located very near the Atlantic Ocean, and agricultural operations are not located in the vicinity of the site.
Turkey Point Total irrigated land represents 43,615 acres out of 90,373 5 acres of farmland in Miami-Dade County (48%).
Withdrawals of water for irrigation downstream of the site are not expected as the site is located very near the Atlantic Ocean (Biscayne Bay). Additionally, existing nuclear power plants are located at the Turkey Point location, and agricultural operations in the general vicinity are already exposed to potential radionuclide emissions. As such, the site has been given a rating of 5 as potential radionuclide emissions are not a new hazard to the area.
Rating 1 2 1 1 1 2 5 5 References National Agiculturcs Statistics Service (2002 Census of Agriculture) for Florida, ht~5j.l21.3.~3:8080/CensuslCf-eatc Census-US CNTY .=.
C.1.3.6 Tronsportntiori S:ifcty
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 121 of 174 I
I Evaluation approach - Potential impacts from plant operations on transportation safety could occur as a result of increased hazards from cooling towers. Both natural draft and mechanical cooling towers can increase area fogging conditions ice formation on local roads and highways.
I Sites with high frequencies of naturally-occurring fog and ice events will likely be more adversely affected by cooling tower operations.
I DiscussionlResults - Relative information regarding existing fog and ice conditions was not readily available for candidate sites; however, cooling tower fogging or icing is not expected to be a major issue at any of the sites, given their general weather patterns, nor is it expected to be a I major site discriminator. Accordingly, and in the absence of site specific data, all sites are given a conservative rating of 3 with respect to this criterion.
Rating 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 122 of 174 I
I (2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA c.2.1 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED EFFECTS ON AQUATIC ECOLOGY I c.2.1.1 Disruption of Important SpeciedHabitats I Obiective - The objective of this criterion is to evaluate the candidate sites with respect to potential construction-related impacts on aquatic or marine ecology. Regulatory Guide 4.7 defines important plant and animal species if one or more of the following conditions apply.
I 1, the species is commercially or recreationally valuable,
- 2. the species is officially listed as endangered or threatened,
- 3. the species effects the we11 being of another species within (1) or (2) above, I 4. the species is a critical component of the structure and function of a valuable ecosystem, or 5 . the species is a biological indicator of radionuclides in the environment.
I Of particular concern are potential impacts to habitat areas used by important species. These areas include those used for:
I 0 0
0 breeding and nursery, nesting and spawning, wintering, and I feeding.
Evaluation amroach - The following siting criteria were used to evaluate the eight candidate I sites.
0 0
Exclusionary - Designated critical habitat of endangered species Avoidance - Areas where threatened and endangered species are known to occur Suitability - Areas where limited potential impact is expected I
0 No information was obtained which would indicate that any of the sites under consideration would exceed the exclusionary or avoidance criteria relative to ecology. Therefore, the I evaluation focused on the relative suitability of the site based on the number of areas where limited potential impact is expected. The number of potential impact areas was directly correlated to the number of rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) aquatic species that may I occur in the host county, their habitat (based on existing reports and professional judgment of the amount and quality of habitat available for species), and flexibility (professional judgment of the amount of space within the site circle to avoid known locations of protected species during I constniction of the facility). Note that the evaluation was limited to the plant site and not existing or potential (future) transmission corridors.
I I
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 123 of 174 I
I Discussion - There are no Federally listed protected aquatic species found in Hardee County; and one protected aquatic species, the manatee, in DeSoto, Glades, Hendry and Okeechobee I counties.
Martin County also has the manatee and one fish species that could be in the vicinity of the site:
I the smalltooth sawfish.
St. Lucie County has the manatee, two fish species (smalltooth sawfish and gulf sturgeon) and B four sea turtles on the federally protected list.
Miami-Dade County, location of Turkey Point site, has the manatee, one fish species (smalltooth I sawfish), four sea turtles (same as St. Lucie County), two invertebrate coral species, and one aquatic plant on the federally protected species list.
I The species common and scientific names and listing status are included in the table below. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has lead for the fish, invertebrate, and plant species, as well as for the turtle species in the water.
I I 1 Gulf Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus dmntni 1
I Threatened Smalltooth sawfish I Pristis pectinnta Endangered I West Indian manatee I Trichechus manatus E, CH II Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea E Loggerhead Sea Turtle Curetta caretta T I Hawksbill Sea Turtle Elkhom coral Eretmocheiys imbricuta Acropora pnlmate E
PT I Staghorn coral Acropora cewicornis PT I
I I
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 124 of 174 I
I protected species (while trying to maximize access to cooling water supply) during coiistruction of the facility - also typically based on poor quality aerial photographs. All sites were given favorable ratings with slightly lower siting flexibility ratings given to Turkey Point and St. Lucie I based on their higher level of development currently existing on site. Martin and Okeechobee 2 sites fall in the middle given existing development at Martin and presumed preference to locate sites near existing surface water resources (e.g., lake/canal for Martin and Kissimmee River for I Okeechobee 2).
I I
~~
I Habitat Flexibility 4
5 4
5 5
5 4
5 4
4 4
4 3
2 3
2 Overall rating 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 3 ,
I References I US Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero BeacWSouth Florida
[1] - for DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Martin, Miami-Dade, Okeechobee, and St. Lucie Counties. Updated September 20061.
I c.2.1.2 Bottom Sediment Disruption Effects I c.2.1.2.1 C.2.1.2.2 Contamination Grain Size I Objective - The objective of the criterion is to evaluate the potential short-term impacts to aquaticlmarine resources resulting from construction related dredging activities at the candidate sites.
I Evaluation approach - The evaluation sought available data on the amount of contaminated sediments near the candidate sites and the grain size of sediments in the area. In general, sites I with the lowest concentration of heavy metah and toxic organic compounds and the highest sediment grain size are considered to be the most suitable.
I Little infomiation exists regarding the site-specific level of sediment contamination that exists in water bodies near the candidate sites. The majority of the available information was obtained from the EPAs National Sediment Quality Survey (2001 and 2004). Tiifonnation in the EPA report addresses sedinicnt contamination levels as Tier T (adverse impacts to aquatic life are I probable) and Tier I1 (adverse i m p x t s to aquatic life are possible but infreqLtent). Using best professinn~iljutlymeiit, :he follo\ving evnluation con,sicl~rcdchc rexults ofthc F,Piis Tier IiT~cr.I [
p i y t c n t l i d ib: Ihc ctll>cild>iiesites.
t i ~[Q Jctemiinc the rciativc coiiti~i~i11-?tio11 s ~ ~I es\iltl; I
I I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 125 of 174 I
I following evaluation of potential bottom sediment disruption effects was limited to available information regarding sediment contamination levels in principle water bodies at the eight sites.
I DiscussiodResults - An updated EPA study (EPA 2004) evaluated 2,874 sampling stations in the Southeast, and identified 12 water bodies as having the most significant sediment contamination in EPA Region 4.No water bodies on which the FPL candidate sites are located I were identified in the EPA study.
Because dredging is not one of the parameters considered for this particular evaluation, and I information on grain size was not readily available for most of the sites, the estimated potential for contaminated sediments to affect the cost and schedule of any construction-related dredging operations was based on the limited information available and professional judgment. Based on I the EPA study and information provided by the Water Management Districts in Florida, and because the presence of contaminated sediments in the immediate vicinity of the candidate sites including any onsite streams cannot be confirmed, the following conservative ratings are given to the candidate sites. The coastal sites are given a slightly higher rating because their receiving I body of water is so expansive (Atlantic Ocean).
I Rating 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 I References The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States.
0 National Sediment Quality Survey. Office of Science and Technology. EPA 823-R-04-007.
November.
I c.2.2 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED EFFECTS ON TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY I c.2.2.1 c.2.2.1 I1 (2.2.2.1.2 Disruption of Important SpeciedHabitats and Wetlands Important SpeciesMabitats Grounclcover/Habitat C.2.2.1.3 Wetlands I
I I
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 126 of 174 I
I 4. The species is a critical component of the structure and function of a valuable ecosystem, or
- 5. The species is a biological indicator of radionuclides in the environment.
I Of particular concem are potential impacts to habitat areas used by important species. These areas include those used for:
I 0 0
0 breeding and nursery, nesting and spawning, wintering, and I 0 feeding.
Evaluation approach - The following siting criteria were used to evaluate the eight candidate sites.
B 0 0
Exclusionary - Designated critical habitat of endangered species Avoidance - Areas where threatened and endangered species are known to occur Suitability - Areas where limited potential impact is expected I
0 No information was obtained which would indicate that any of the sites under consideration would exceed the exclusionary or avoidance criteria relative to ecology. Therefore, the I evaluation focused on the relative suitability of the site based on the number of areas where limited potential impact is expected. The number of potential impact areas was directly correlated to the number of rare, threatened, and endangered terrestrial species that may occur in I the host county, their habitat (based on existing reports and professional judgment of the amount and quality of habitat available for species), and flexibility (professional judgment of the amount of space within the site circle to avoid known locations of protected species during construction I of the facility). Note that the evaluation was limited to the plant site and not existing or potential (future) transmission corridors.
I Another sub-criteria evaluated was the total acreage of wetland within the 6,000 acres, not including the lake or reservoir that would be the primary source of cooling water. This was also broken out into three components: total wetlands (acres), total acreage of higher-quality I wetlands, and flexibility, or the ability to avoid wetlands during construction.
The relative suitability of the candidate sites with respect to ecology (rare, threatened, and I endangered aquatic and terrestrial species; and critical habitat) and wetlands was evaluated in the screening criteria report (Criterion P5,aquatic and terrestrial species combined; P6). Additional site ecological infomation specific to terrestrial resources at each site is included in the full discussion below.
I Di scussi oniResu1t s I
I I
I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 127 of 174 I
I County (see table below). One of the birds is an experimental population (whooping crane) the historic data for the ivory-billed woodpecker is unknown.
and Ammodramus savannarum Florida grasshopper sparrow Endangered floridanus Polybonts plancus audubonii Audubon's crested caracara Threatened E (historic data Campephilus principalis Ivory-billed woodpecker unknown)
Experimental Grus Americana Whooping crane population Dymarchon corais coupen' Eastern Indigo Snake Threatened Alligator mississippiensis American alligator Threatened (S/A)
Glades Fifteen Federally listed terrestrial species: 2 mammals, 9 birds, 2 reptiles, 2 plants, and critical habitat have the potential to occur in Glades County (see Table below). One of the birds is an experimental population (whooping crane) and the ivory-billed woodpecker was last documented in 1904.
Purm (=Felis) concolor cotyi Florida panther Endangered Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Threatened Rostrlzarnus sociabilis plnmbeus Everglade Snail Kite Endangered/CH IAahelocoma coerulriscens I Florida Scrub-iay I Threatened Ainmodrmiz 11s snvuniiuruin Florida grasshopper sparrow Endangered floridamis Po lyhorus phi nciis a irdirhonii Audubon' s crested caracara Threatened Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker Endangered E; (last documentcd priiic@ilis C~r~irpepliiius Ivory-billed woodpecker in 1904)
Experi mcntal I
Gms .A mm~ican~r Whoopin,(7 cranc p opcilnti 0.n I
~
-1
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 128 of 174 Hardee Twelve Federally listed terrestrial species: 2 mammals, 6 birds, 2 reptiles and 2 plants have the potential to occur in Hardee County (see Table below). One of the birds is an experimental population (whooping crane) and the historic data for the ivory-billed woodpecker is unknown.
Grus Americana Hendry 1 Thirteen Federally listed terrestrial species: 2 mammals, 9 birds, 2 reptiles and critical habitat have the potential to occur in Hendry County (see Table below). One of the birds is an experimental population (whooping crane) and the ivory-billed woodpecker was last documented in 1904.
1 Puma (=Felis) concolor I Puma (=Mountain lion) 1 Threatened(S/A) I
~
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 129 of 174 I
I Dymarchon corais couperi Alligator mississippiensis 1 Eastern Indigo Snake I American alligator I Threatened 1 Threatened (SiA)
I Martin I Twenty-one Federally listed terrestrial species: 3 mammals, 10 birds, 3 reptiles, 5 plants, and critical habitat have the potential to occur in Martin County (see Table below). Documentation for several of the species is very dated (1970s or earlier) or historic data are unknown (piping plover critical habitat), one is an experimental population (whooping crane), one is a migrant I (Kirklands warbler, 1978), and one plant species is only found at the Hobe NWR.
I Puma (=Felis) concolor Puma (=Mountain lion) Threatened (S/A)
I Puma (=Fezis) concolor coryi Peromyscus polionotus neveiventrus Florida panther Southeastem beach mouse Endangered T (inferred)
I Haiiaeetus leucocephalus Rostrhainus sociabizisplumbeus Apheiocomn coeruluscens Bald Eagle Everglade Snail Kite Florida Scrub-jay Threatened EndangerediCH Threatened Mvcteria Americana Wood Stork Endangered I Polyborus pZancus audubonii Audubons crested caracara Threatened Endangered, last Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker documented 1970-I Dendroica kirtlandii 1 Kirklands warbler 1978 E Miprant 1978 T, CH, historic date Charadritis melocius Piping plover I Canlpephiltis prin cipalis Ivory-billed woodpecker unknown E (last documented in 1985?1 I Grus dnlericana 1 Whooping crane Experimental oooulation. inferred Dytnnrclron corais coiqxri Eastem Indigo Snake Threatened Alligator mississippiensis American alligator Threatened (SA)
I Crococlylzrs acutus American crocodile E, historic data unknown E, last documented Jacqtmmitia recliriatn Reach jacquemontia I Asiiniiio frlrczcrliiera Cliitionicr p r . f O i ale I .-
Four-petal pawpaw Florida pcrforate cladonia in 1921 E
E I
I I
I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 130 of 174 Okeechobee 2 Thirteen Federally listed terrestrial species: 2 mammals, 9 birds, 2 reptiles and critical habitat have the potential to occur in Okeechobee County (see Table below). One bird species is part of experimental population and documentation for two other bird species is very dated (prior to 1970 and in 1924).
I 1 Puma (=Felis) concolor I Puma (=Mountain lion) 1 Threatened(S/A) 1 I Puma (=Felis) concolor coryi Haliaeetus larcocephalus I
I Florida panther 1 BaldEagle Endangered Threatened I Ammodramus savannarum floridanur I Florida grasshopper sparrow I
I Endangered I
I Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus Everglade Snail Kite I EndangeredCH Apheiocoma coeruluscens Florida Scrub-jay Threatened Mycteria Americana Wood Stork Endangered Polyborus plancus audubonii Audubon's crested caracara Threatened Endangered, last Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker documented prior to 1970 1 Campephilus principalis I Ivory-billed woodpecker I E (last documented I
- - in-*\
Experimental Grus Americana Whooping crane population, inferred Dymarchon corais couperi Eastern Indigo Snake Threatened Alligator mississippiensis American alligator 1 Threatened (S/A)
St. Lucie Nineteen Federally listed terrestrial species: 3 mammals, 9 birds, 3 reptiles, 3 plants, and critical habitat have the potential to occur in St. Lucie County (see Table below). Documentation for several of the bird species is very dated (1970s or earlier) or historic data are unknown; one is an experimental population (whooping crane), and two are migrant (also dated documentation).
I
~
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 131 of 174 I
I Endangered, last Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker documented 1970-I Dendroica kirtlnndii Kirkland's warbler 1978 E Migrant 1978 T, CH, migrant Charadrim melodus Piping plover 1918 I Campephilus principalis Ivory-billed woodpecker E (historic date unknown)
I I
I Turkey Point I Twenty-five Federally listed terrestrial species, including 2 mammal, 12 birds, 3 reptiles, 8 plants (plus 10 candidate plant species), and critical habitat have the potential to occur in Miami Dade I County (see Table below). The bird species include two migrant species and several with dated documentation or with unknown historic data.
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 132 of 174 Site ratings based on Important Terrestrial Specieshlabitat Flexibility 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 2 Overall Rating 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 2 Ratings for T&E species based on total number of' species found in the host county. Habitat and flexibility ratings are based on professional jud,gnent and other factors as discussed in Section C.2.1.1. Presence of critical habitat and number of protected species is also a consideration in habitat ratings.
~
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 133 of 174 I
I Wetlands The flexibility associated with the final Iocation of the plant area and the presence of higher quality wetlands such as forested wetlands were considered in addition to the overall acreage of I mapped wetlands indicated by NWI.
I % of wetland polygons 632 489 622 843 210 961 1074 1476 I mapped over 5,000 acre area 13% 10% 12% 17% 4% 19% 21% 30%
Number of acres I of high quality wetlands* within 0 0 552 300 0 143 0 27 site area I
I I Site ratings based on Wetlands I Total Acres' Acres of High I 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 5 5 2 2 5 4 5 5 I Quality Wetlands*
Flexibility (based on all % wetland I polygons mapped over 5,000 acres)3 5 4 4 44 4 34 24 Overall Rating 4 5 3 3 4 4 4 3 I
I I
I I
I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Studv Reoort Exhibit SDS-2, Page lg of 174 Composite Site Ratings Wetlands 4 5 3 3 4 4 4 3 Avg. Score 4 4.5 4 3 2.5 I References 3.5 3.5 3.5 I NWI website: http://wetlandsfivs.er.usas.aov/.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero BeacWSouth Florida
[2] - for DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Martin, Miami-Dade, Okeechobee, and St. Lucie Counties. Updated September 20061.
c.2.2.2 Dewatering Effects on Adjacent Wetlands c.2.2.2.1 Depth to Water Table c.2.2.2.2 Proximal Wetlands Obiective - The objective of this criterion is to evaluate the sites with respect to potential I impacts from construction-related dewatering activities on area wetlands.
Evaluation approach - The evaluation included a review of information related to the depth of I the water table and the distance to nearby wetlands. A determination of the extent of wetland acreage within the study area was limited. National Wetland Inventory maps were used for some sites as the basis for determining wetland acreage. Those maps can include numerous areas that I do not represent jurisdictional wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which contributed to the difficulty in making an estimate of wetland acreage. Moreover, those maps were based primarily on interpretation of aerial photogaphy, and the amount of field validation I that was performed varies according to region of the country and local terrain. Overall site elevation is being used as an indicator of depth to groundwater.
DiscussiodResults - Wetlands have been evaluated previously (Section C.2.2.1 of this I appendix); depth to groundwater for each site is being evaluated by proxy using site elevation as an indicator. Potential hydraulic connections among wetlands via groundwater are not known.
I In light of the previous ratings and groundwater information, the site ratings are as follows:
I I
I I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 135 of 174 I
I I
I scale reflects characteristics of nominal 5,000 acre circular area with ultimate site requlrement of 2,000 acre proposed site area 3 5=<100 acres, 4=<500 acres, 3=<1,500 acres, 2=<3,000 acres, 1=>3,000 acres
- 5= 4 0 acres, 4= <250, 3=<500,2=<1,000, 1= >1,000 (forestedscrub-shrub)
(avg. site elev. as surrogate) 5=80'+, 4=60'+, 3=40'+, 2=20'+, 1= <20' C.2.3 OPERATIONAL-RELATED EFFECTS ON AQUATIC ECOLOGY C.2.3.1 Thermal Discharge Effects C.2.3.1.1 Migratory Species Effects I C.2.3.1.2 C.2.3.1.3 Disruption of Important Species/Habitats Water Ouality I Obiective - No exclusionary or avoidance criteria apply to condenser cooling water system thermal discharges on receiving water bodies (EPRI 2001, Section 3.2.3.1). The objective of this criterion is to address the relative suitability of the eight candidate sites with respect to potential I thermal impacts. Two specific thermal impact issues were considered:
0 disruption of important species and habitats, and impact on water quality of the receiving water body.
Information on migratory species (also identified in EPRI criteria) was not collected at each site and therefore is not evaluated as part of this criterion.
Evaluation approach - In Decembe: 2001, the EPA published a final regulation, which affects the location, design, construction, and capacity of intake structures for new power plants (EPA 2001). The EPA nile will strongly encourage the use of closed-cycle designs to reduce adverse cooling water system impacts, and it is assumed that new nuclear reactors at the eight candidate sites would include closed-cycle cooling water systems.
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 136 of 174 I
I In summary, the set of ratings consisted of a composite of three sub-ratings: the disruption of important species (based on number of Federal1y protected aquatic species), as brought forward from Section C.2.1.1 of this appendix; existing water quality of the receiving water, based I primarily on cooling water supply information, as it relates to flow and volume, where the size of the receiving water body (heat sink) was the primary factor in assigning ratings (highest rating given to the largest heat sink); and the proximity to potential sensitive areas from either an 1 environmental or water supply basis. The presence of an existing nuclear plant in the immediate site area (St. Lucie and Turkey Point) also was taken into account, although these locations are not expected to be a problem for locating a second plant. The resulting ratings are provided below.
E II I OFW-303(d) -
WCA3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 Overall I rating 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 I
I C.2.3.2 C.2.3.2.1 Entrainmenflmpingement Effects Entrainable Organisms (22.3.2.2 ImDingable Organisins I Obiective - No exclusionary or avoidance criteria apply to entrainment and impingement impacts from the operation of condenser cooling water systems (EPRI 2001, Section 3.2.3.1).
I The objective of this criterion is to address the relative suitability of the candidate sites with respect to potential entrainment and impingement impacts.
I When cooling water is pumped from water bodies, several environmental impacts can occur.
Entrainment refers to the removal of small, drifting organisms with the cooling water. Small fish, fish eggs, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and other aquatidmarine organisms experience high I mortality rates as they pass through cooling water pumps and heat exchangers. Impingcinent rcfcrs to larger organisms that are scrccned out of the cooling water a t thc intake structure.
1iiipinyi.d orynisins can i iicliicic 1,irge fish, crustacciu~s,turtles. and othcr aquaticimarine I org.iisnis 11):iL c3ii ti 1'3 i 1t 2 k 62 si:1'2 c II 5 .
j
- i ~ , avoid
- t hi$i int;ikc vciocili<s n c x thc int:\kc sti-iicture nnd are irappeil itii I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 137 of 174 R
II Evaluation approach - Concerns about entrainment and impingement losses are resource dependent and vary on a site-to-site basis. Typically, power plants with once-through cooling water systems have higher entrainment and impingement impacts than power plants with closed-I cycle cooling water systems. The EPA issued a final rule in December 2001 affecting the design of intake structures for new power plants (EPA 2001). These rules encourage the use of closed-cycle systems, which is the type of system assumed to be used by FPL at these sites. Developers E of new power plants who choose certainty and faster permitting over greater design flexibility will be encouraged to limit intake water capacities and velocities and incorporate specific intake screen designs to reduce entrainment and impingement losses.
I DiscussiodResults - The eight candidate sites were evaluated with respect to relative potential for entrainment and impingement impacts for the closed-cycle cooling water system. Proposed facilities at each site will include cooling towers that will reduce the amount of cooling water I withdrawal required for plant operation. In addition, proper design of the water intake structure would minimize the potential adverse impacts. In NUREG 1437, NRC concludes that, with cooling towers and appropriate intake design, potential adverse impacts due to entrainment or I impingement of aquatic organism are minor and do not significantly disrupt existing populations.
Assuming a two-unit closed-cycle plant at the site, and 100 percent of the local plankton passing through the plant, it appears that there would be no discernible effect on the plankton population I in existing rivers and reservoirs at each site. This is due to the very small volume of water used by the plant relative to the total volume in the river or reservoir at the site. Because of the low flow velocities of a closed cycle plant at the site, impingement of adult fish would be expected to 1 be minimal. Use of a deep water intake would have a minimal effect on entrainment of larval fish.
I Another component of this criterion was the presence of important aquatic species.
Given the above information, all sites received consistent ratings in terms of intake design 1 (conservative rating of 3), with slightly higher preference given to those sites with fewer protected aquatic species present.
I I
Presence of important 5 5 5 4 5 3 3 aquatic species Reguiatorylengineering 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 design (conservative)
I Rating I 4 4 4 1 3 3 i -1 3 1 3
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 138 of 174 I
I C.2.3.3 C.2.3.3.1 C.2.3.3.2 Dredging/Disposal Effects Upstream Contamination Sources Sedimentation Rates 1 Obiective - The purpose of the section is to evaluate the sites for potential environmental impacts related to maintenance dredging at the intake structure. No specific exclusionary or I avoidance criteria apply to this issue. The following evaluation, therefore, is a summary of available information related to the relative suitability of the sites.
Evaluation approach - Sites with high levels of contaminated sediment deposition at the intake structure will experience higher maintenance costs for the removal and disposal of the dredged material. Two factors were considered in performing the evaluation:
The level of upstream contamination, and The rate of sedimentation at the site.
All sites are assumed to have relatively low fine-sediment-deposition rates (which are preferred),
I so the ratings were based on potential for contamination.
As addressed in Section C.2.1.2 (Contaminated Sediments), no site-specific information about I the level of sediment contamination at the sites was identified. Results in Section C.2.1.2 were based on EPA data, which addressed general trends in levels of contamination in the water bodies at the candidate sites, and general water-quality information for the major water bodies on I which the candidate sites are located. The evaluation was further expanded to consider existing background radioactive contamination at the sites. The greenfield sites were considered to be optimum because there is no known source of existing background radioactive contamination I present. Turkey Point was also rated high under the assumption that the effluent is contained in the canals which presumably would not be disturbed as part of development of the new plant (hence there would not be contaminated sediments to disturb). St. Lucie also received a I favorable, but slightly lower rating, because its effluent is discharged directly into the environment and there are other water-quality issues given the high levels of development along the coast in the site vicinity.
DiscussioniResults - Based on available information, the sites were rated according to the expected levels of contamination. The results are summarized in the table below.
I ! Rating 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 I
I I
I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 139 of 174 I
C.2.4 OPERATIONAL-RELATED EFFECTS ON TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY C.2.4.1 Drift Effects on Surrounding Areas C.2.4.1.1 Important Species/Habitat Areas C.2.4.1.2 Source Water Suitability Obiective - The objective of this criterion is to evaluate the relative suitability of the candidate sites with respect to potential concerns with cooling tower drift effects. This evaluation considered the potential effects on surrounding areas and the suitability of the cooling water source (EPRI 2001). This issue does not apply to sites for which once-through cooling water I systems are selected.
Cooling Tower Drift I In every cooling tower, there is a loss of water to the environment in the form of pure water, which results from the evaporative cooling process. This evaporated water leaves the tower in a I pure vapor state, and thus presents no threat to the environment. Drift, however, is the undesirable loss of liquid water to the environment, via small unevaporated droplets that become entrained in the exhaust air stream of a cooling tower. These water droplets carry with them minerals, debris and microorganisms and water treatment chemicals from the circulating water, thus potentially impacting the environment. High drift losses are typically caused by fouled, inefficient or damaged drift eliminators, excessive exit velocities or imbalances in water chemistry.
Minimizing drift losses in a cooling tower reduces the risk of impacting the environment. The principle environmental concern with cooling tower drift impacts are related to the emission and downwind deposition of cooling water salts (EPA 1987). Salt deposition can adversely affect sensitive plant and animal communities through changes in water and soil chemistry.
Evaluation approach - Sites considered with the most sensitive environments were assigned lower rating values. Sites with highest concentrations of dissolved solids and other potential II contaminants in cooling tower makeup were also assigned lower rating values.
DiscussiodResults - Information regarding important terrestrial and aquatic plant and animal communities, habitats, and wetlands in the vicinity of the candidate sites were previously I addressed in Section C.2.1 .l (Disruption of Important SpeciedHabitats) and Section C.2.2.1 (Disruption of Important SpeciedHabitats and Wetlands). Cooling water makeup water quality is also taken into account. The coastal sites were given lower ratings due to their proximity to I the ocean and greater likelihood of their cooling water being brackish and containing more salt.
Given all the above information, the following ratings were assiped:
1 I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 140 of 174 I
I I Important Species Habitat Areas - aquatic 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 3 I Important Species Habitat Areas -terrestrial 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 Source water' 3 4 3 4 5 5 1 3 I L Rating 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 I
I I
1 I
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 141 of 174 I c.3 C.3.1 SOCIOECONOMICS CRITERIA SOCIOECONOMICS - CONSTRUCTTONRELATED EFFECTS I Obiective - The objective of this criterion is to evaluate the relative suitability of the site with respect to the number of construction workers who will move into the plant site vicinity with their families; and the capacity of the communities surrounding the plant site to absorb this new temporary (in-migrant) population.
Evaluation approach - The number of in-migrant workers is dependent on labor availability within commuting distance of the plant site. If an adequate supply of workers is available within reasonable commuting distance, few (if any) workers will choose to relocate to the site vicinity.
The capacity of communities to absorb an increase in population depends on the availability of sufficient resources, such as adequate housing and community services to support the influx.
Steps 1 and 2 (Exclusionary and Avoidance criteria) are not applicable to this criterion. The plant construction workforce is likely to be available at any of the sites under consideration. The issue in siting, therefore, is the potential socioeconomic impact associated with any temporary influx of construction workers who live too far away to commute daily from their residence.
With respect to suitability of the sites under consideration by FPL, socioeconomic impacts of nuclear power plant construction are directly related to two factors:
0 number of construction workers who will move into the plant site vicinity with their families; and capacity of the communities surrounding the plant site to absorb this new temporary (in-migrant) population.
The number of in-migrant workers is dependent on labor availability within commuting distance of the plant site. If an adequate supply of workers is available within reasonable commuting distance, few (if any) workers would choose to relocate to the site vicinity. The capacity of communities to absorb an increase in population depends on the availability of sufficient resources, such as adequate housing and community services (e.g., schools, hospitals, police, transportation systems, and fire protection) to support the influx without straining existing services. Impacts to a small community located along the commuter route(s) (e.g., food, lodging, gas, md congestion) can also be significant and should be considered. The information that should be considered in rating sites from the perspective of construction impacts includes labor requirements, location of labor pool, number of immigrants, and the economic structure of affected communities.
Before the data could be compared between sites and the sites rated, certain assumptions were made regarding the construction labor requirements and construction schedule, labor pool, and affected area. Many of thcse assumptions were made without the benefit of site-specific infonnntion and may warrant future revision when site-specific data become avaiiable (i.e., fbll NEFA ciociiinentation for original plant construction and operatiori c3.n be rcviewed, and/or site-spcoi fic pI;in! p~"onne1 can be intcr-vicwcd regrdiiig acltial impacts from originul plant coiisiriiction). For pii~-posi'so f t h i s report, :~ss:imprions are based 011 proii.ssion::i j i i d ~ i n c n t thc ,
1000 Siriiis G G ~ & c ? i ; i ! ~ : ~ r ~ ~ i i :cur;t:iiriecl i n LIW L1.S. ic:uclcnr T < c g \ i l ; ~ ~Coii:inisio;-.*:\
I .
~~i~n or~
~
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 142 of 174 I
I Generic Environmental Iinpuct Statement for License Renewal for Nuclear Plarits (NUREG 1437) (May 1996).
I Assumptions According to the AFlOOO Siting Guide, the plant workforce (construction) includes a monthly maximum construction workforce requirement of 1,000 persons per unit. Construction of a 1 nuclear power plant is very labor-intensive, and for the APl 000 skilled and unskilled construction workers would likely be needed over a 4- to 5-year period. The following assumptions were used in this analysis.
I 0 Ratings are based on the assumption that two units would be constructed at a given site.
Construction would require a peak construction work force of 2,000 workers (1,000 per unit); this estimate is not necessarily the worst-case, but assumed to be a realistic I estimate for purposes of site comparison.
Analysis assumes that no other major construction project would occur in the site vicinity concurrently with the plant construction and operation. Thus, sites were rated without 1 consideration of potential cumulative impacts of other potential demands for labor.
Available population and economic data were obtained from the US Census Bureau for each site.
I The data were collected by county to determine availability of an adequate labor force within commuting distance (based on an assumed location of the labor pool). Data relating to population and labor force (primarily construction industry) were compared with the I construction labor requirement to determine availability of labor.
The study of economic structure examines employment because of its pre-eminent role in I determining economic well-being of an area. Specifically, impacts are determined by comparing the number of direct and indirect jobs created by plants construction with total employment of the local study area at the time of construction. Sites were rated according to economic impacts I based on the following criteria: economic effects were considered small if peak construction related employment accounted for less than 5 percent of total study area employment; moderate if it accounted for 5 to 10 percent of total study area employment; and large if it accounted for I more than 10 percent of total study area employment.
Note that the study area for evaluating socioeconomic impacts from construction included the host county, adjacent counties and any other nearby counties with a major population center I within a reasonable commuting distance from the site.
Discussjon - The available population and work force data are presented in the following tables.
I Projected growth rates from 2000-2010 is assumed to be the same as growth rates found between 1990 and 2000, based on US.Census data.
I I
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 143 of 174 I
I DeSoto Site Population and Work Force I
I I
I Highlands 87,366 111,566 (27.7%) 30,051 2,139 I Total 1,099,282 352,273 34,995 I Glades Site Population and Work Force I
I Glades 10,576 14,732 (39.3%) 3,677 368 Lee 440,888 580,208 (3 1.6%) 186,417 23,087 High1and s 87,366 111,566 (27.7%) 30,05 1 2,139 Hendry 36,210 50,875 (40.5%) 14,579 1,164 Total 757.381 231,253 26,758
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 144 of 174 I
I Hardee Site Population and Work Force I
I 1 1 1 1 1 I Hardee Polk 26,938 483,924 37,228 (38.2%)
577,321 (19.4%)
9,901 206,460 794 17,335 I Manatee Sarasota 264,002 325,957 329,210 (24.7%)
382,348 (17.3%)
11 1,793 133,419 13,098 12,246 I DeSoto 32,209 43,482 (35%) 12,742 976 Highlands 87,366 111,566 (27.7%) 30,05 1 2,139 I TotaI 1,481,155 504,366 46,588 I
1 Hendry 1 Site Population and Work Force D
I Hendry Glades 36,210 10,576 50,875 (40.5%)
14,732 (39.3%)
14,579 3,677 1,164 368 I Palm Beach 1,131,184 1,481,851 (31%) 484,760 40,152 TotaI 1,547,458 503,016 41,684 I
I I
I I
I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 145 of 174 Martin Site Population and Work Force I Martin 1 126,731 1 ~
159,174 (25.6%)
~
1 51,054 I 5,357 1 St. Lucie 192,695 247,228 (28.3%) 77,842 8,476 Palm Beach 1,131,184 1,481,851 (31%) 4 84,7 60 40,152 Okeechobee 35,910 43,523 (21-2%) 14,169 1,352 Total 1,931,776 627,465 55,337 Okeechobee 2 Site Population and Work Force 1 Okeechobee 1 35,910 I 43,523 (21.2%) Ij 14,169 I 1,352 I St. Lucie 192,695 247,228 (28-3%) 77,842 8,476 Highlands 87,366 111,566 (27.7%) 30,05 1 2,139
! Martin 1 126,731 1 159,174(25.6%) 1 51,054 1 5,357 I
I Glades 1 I
10,576 1I 14,732 (3913%) 1 I
3,677 1I 368 1 Indian River 112,947 141,410 (25.2%) 45,494 3,878 ,
OsceoIa 172,493 276,161 (60.1%) 79,859 7,030 Total 993,794 302,146 28,600
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Studv ReDort Exhibit SDS-2, Page 146 of 174 I
I St. Luck Site Population and Work Force I
1 I 1 1 1 I St. Lucie Indian River 192,695 112,947 247,228 (28.3%)
141,410 (25.2%)
77,842 45,494 8,476 3,878 I Martin Palm Beach 126,73 1 1,131,184 159,174 (25.6%)
1,481,851 (31%)
5 1,054 484,760 5,357 40,152 I Okeechobee 1 35,910 1 43,523 (21.2%) 14,169 1,352 Total 2,073,186 673,319 59,215 I
1 Turkey Point Site Population and Work Force I
I Miami-Dade 2,253,362 2,620,660 921,208 63,135 (1 6.3%)
I Broward 1,623,08 1 2,098,644 (29.3%)
75833 9 56,496 I Total 4,102,241 1,405,968 119,631 I
Results - Although the results show hi&r population and workforce numbers availabte at I Martin, St. Luck and Turkey Point, the overall population levels for all eight sites in 2010 when construction is anticipated to start, are sufficiently large that the impact on study area cniployi~entfrom construction of two new units would be low at each site. This is based on I conset.v:iti\:e workfol-cc levels using 2000 Cciisiis Burcaii data (without expected increases in 20IO); dihougli such ii:crcasos might be used to siippoi-t orhcr large (lion-nuclear) constnxiion prc-jects at thiit tiius). :ill sites show a pcrcentagi: iiizreiise less than 5% ~ h c compared i ~ io :0!:1!
I ~ . ~ . :I pfrceni:!gc iilcrr-':iSt: ICSS ill^ I ?G f o r total eirq:loyi.it
. i v ~ r k f i : ) ~ :ii:tl I
I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 147 of 174 I
II Because of the large population within the host county (Miami Dade) for Turkey Point, and the close proximity and easy access to the heavily populated Atlantic coastal development for the St.
I Lucie and Martin sites (in addition to these sites already including large power plant facilities), it was assumed that the majority of construction workers workforce would commute fiom within the area to these sites. There would be no in-migrant workforce population (and families), with I no demands on housing or communities services. Therefore, these three sites were given a rating of 5 .
Given the rural nature, the lower general population estimates - particularly in their respective I host counties - and the lower (existing) construction workforce to draw from at the remaining five sites, an additional analysis was conducted for these five sites to consider the impacts of workers in-migrating to the areas. We have identified the following assumptions to help address I potential impacts on local community services and housing:
50% of workers will in-migrate (1,000 workers) 50% of these workers bring their families (2.5 additional persons per family) (1,250 I family members)
Influx of direct workers also brings in influx of indirect workers (0.4 ratio of direct to indirect workers - in absence of site-specific information) pertaining to the Regional D Industrial Multiplier System directhdirect ratios calculated for each plant (as found in NUREG/CR-2749) (400 indirect workers) 50% of these indirect workers bring their families (2.5 additional persons per family)
I (500 family members)
Thus an influx of 1,000 workers is predicted to results in a total population influx of 3,150 I persons.
When this population influx is compared to the total population projections in 2010 for the five 1 areas (multiple county), the increase is less than 1%. Therefore, the impact on housing and community services would be expected to be negligible. However, when considering the population of the host county alone, Glades County has a significantly lower population 1 compared to the other sites.
When the workforce influx is compared to the total workforce for the five sites, the increase I ranges from 2% lo 4%; when the workforce illflux is compared to the total construction workforce for thc five sites, the increase is less than 1% in every instance (see summary table below). In general, the remaining five sites are within reasonable commuting distance from at I least one large city or metropolitan area, as sumniarized in the table below.
I I
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study ReDort Exhibit SDS-2, Page 148 of 174 i
i I DeSoto Port Charlotte (within 0.3 2.8 25 miles)
I Glades Hardee Ft. Myers (40 miles)
Port Charlotte (within 0.4 0.2 3.7 2.1 I Hendry 1 25 miles)
Ft. Myers and West Palm (each at 0.2 2.4 approximately 50 miles)
Okeechobee 2 Ft. Fierce and Port St. 0.3 3.4 Lucie area (40 miles)
I Each study area appears to have sufficient population centers within commuting distance andor has experienced tremendous growth since 1990 such that its public services sector would be able I to absorb the population in-migration associated with plant construction with minimal impact.
However, Glades comes in slightly lower in comparison to the other five sites, two of which (Hendry 1 and Okeechobee 2) are within 50 miles of more than one large MSA.
I Finally, this evaluation also incorporates more recent findings from a study conducted by Dominion Energy Inc., Bechtel Power Corporation, TLG, Inc., and MPR Associates for the US Department of Energy (2004) titled: Study of Construction Technologies and Schedules, O&M I Staffing cmd Cost, Decommissioning Costs and Funding Requirementsfor Advanced Reactor Designs. This report includes a more accurate and up-to-date assessment of labor availability that takes into account a US. labor pool that is aging and diminishing in number and skill level I (with retirement of the baby boom generation that constructed the first set of nuclear power plants). It recognizes that attracting craft with the high skill levels and regulatory employment criteria for new nuclear plant construction is expected to be difficult given that the group of craft currently doing nuclear work is significantly smaller than the total construction craA population, and is in higher demand because of the higher skill levels and greater capability to meet strict employment standards (e.g., scrutiny of NRC background check). However, in an effort to reduce or minimize the labor supply concerns associated with new nuclear plant construction projects, a new strategy has been identified that would shift portions of the work force to areas of the country where skills and craft are available in sufficient quantity (national workforce). This I would most effectively be done through rnodularizing portions of the plants to be built, and providing aggressive training of craftsmen before and during the constnictioii phase of the project. Modularization is anticipated to become an iniportant aspect of new nuclear I construction. Such a workforce wouId presumably bc in-migrant for thc duration of the coiislniction period a n d have tiic potential to adversely affect housing and comniunity services :It s I co !i rI ii cs .
tli osc siles I oc;i t cd i i I r ur;i i 1o \v pop f ;it ed ~ir.;.'ns~'ho I
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 149 of 174 I
I conditions at each of them with perhaps a slight disadvantage to the Glades site given its lower population and workforce numbers, particularly within the host county. Because of the general rural nature of all five sites and the slightly lower results for Glades, the following conservative I ratings are assigned. Martin, St. Lucie, and Turkey Point sites rate the highest as noted previously.
I Rating 3 2 3 3 5 3 5 5 I I
I C.3.2 SOCIOECONOMICS - OPERATION Socioeconomic impacts of operation relate primarily to the benefits afforded to local communities as a result of the plant's presence (e.g., tax plans, local emergency planning support, I educational program support). These benefits tend to be a function of negotiations between the plant owner and local government; they are not indicative of inherent site conditions that affect relative suitability between sites. In addition, three of the eight sites have previously I demonstrated that their local economies can support existing plant operations, and an additional unit will not adversely affect an area that has already shown its ability to support existing units.
This criterion is not applicable to a comparison of the eight candidate sites, and in accordance I with guidance in the Siting Guide, suitability scores were not developed.
I c.3.3 ENVTRONMENTAL JUSTICE Obiective - The objective of this criterion is to ensure that the effects of proposed actions do not I result in disproportionate adverse impacts to minority and low-income communities. In comparing sites, this principle is evaluated on the basis of whether any disproportionate impacts to these communities are significantly different when comparing one site to another.
I Evaluation approach - The first step in this evaluation is to collect and compare population data for minorities and low-income populations across sites.
I However, two additional questions comprising this evaluation also are relevant:
- 1. Does the proposed action result in significant adverse impacts?
I 2. Are impacts to minority or low-income populations significantly different between sites?
If the answer to the first question is "no" for all sites (Le., no significant health and safety impacts are identified), tlicn there would be no cnvironmental justice concerns, regardless of the I p crcentage of ii: I 11CI I-; t y o I- low-inconi c pop ii 1 at i o tis fo ti nd within the si~rrou~i a sitc(s). Ii'the ~ I X ~ Y C to ding coni in t i n i ii es of I ' {lie iirst qiiestioii is "yes" (i c., siy:ilicant iieai~hand safcry impIIc;s arc espcctctl), ciii i i oniiic!?;:il jw!ic:: c o n c e m s arc r e l e ~ m tto si tc selection only if the ;:nswcr- to thc I s~>coililciucstivii I:, ~ 1 x">,>s" 1 (i.c.. t!i,iiiropc~itionflt~ +.id\ c'r ,e in:p,.cts on i n i i x r i i y GI' I O \ L ' - I ~ C O I ~ ~ C I
I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 150 of 174 populations are identified at one or more sites, thereby resulting in significant differences between sites).
Note that the study area for evaluating environmental justice concerns included the host county and immediately surrounding counties.
Discussion - With regard to the sites under consideration, related environmental justice information is summarized for each candidate site below. Data for white population is for one race alone.
I DeSoto Site Minority and Low Income PopulationPercentages I 1 DeSoto I 32,209 I 23,619 I 8,590 18.3 / 5,894 I I Sarasota 325,957 301,985 23,972 8.4 / 27;380 c Manatee Charlotte 264,002 141,627 227,981 131,125 36,02 1 10,502 10.8 128,512 9.3 / 13,171 I Glades Hardee 10,576 26,938 8,142 19,035 2,434 7,903 13.1 / 1,385 20.6 15,549 I 1 Highlands 1 87,366 1 72,926 I 14,440 1 13.9/ 12,185 1 f Total 1 888,675 784,813 I 103,862 I 94076 1 I Source: U.S. Census Bureau, http://auickfacts.census.gov/qfdifor Florida I Glades Site Minority and Low Income PopuIation/Percentages I Glades 10,576 8,142 2,434 13.1 / 1,385 I Lee 440,858 386,598 54,290 10.2 / 44,970 H i g5lancls 87,366 72,926 14,440 13.9 / 12,185 I IIcnclr> 36,210 23.320 I 12,284 lS/G,SlS 1 I
I I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 151 of 174 Hardee Site Minority and Low Income PopulationE'ercentages Hardee 26,938 19,035 7,903 20.6 I 5,549 Polk 483,924 385,099 98,825 14 167,749 Manatee 264,002 227,981 36,021 10.8 128,512 Sarasota 325,957 301,985 23,972 8.4 I 27,3 80 DeSoto 32,209 23,619 8,590 18.3 15,894 1 Highlands 1 87,366 1 72,926 1 14,440 1 13.91 12,185 I Total 1,220,396 1,030,645 189,751 147,269 Includes some whites of Hispanic or Latino origin.
for Florida Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1i~u:liauickfacts.census.provlq.Fdi I Rendry 1 Site Minority and Low Income Populationil'ercentages 1
I I Hendry I 36,210 I 23,926 1 12,284 I 1816,518 1 Glades 10,576 8,142 2,434 13.1 / 1,385 1 Palm Beach 1,13 1,184 894,207 236,977 10.9 I 123,299 Total 1,177,970 926,275 251,695 131,202 I
I I
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 152 of 174 I
I Martin Site Minority and Low Income PopulatiodPcrcentages I Martin 126,73 1 113,912 12,819 9.2 / 11,659 I 1 St. Lucie PalmBeach I 192,695 1,131,184 I, 152,504 894,207 I 40,191 236,977 I 12.9 / 24,857 10.9/123,299 I I Okeechobee 35,910 28,468 7,442 15 / 5,386 Total 1,486,520 1,189,091 297,429 165,201 I
I Okeechobee 2 Site Minority and Low Income PopulationlPercentages I Okeechobee 35,9 10 28,468 7,442 15 15,386 I St. Lucie 192,695 152,504 40,191 12.9 f 24,857 Highlands 87,366 72,926 14,440 13.9 / 12,185 I 1 Martin I 126,731 1 113,912 I 12,819 I 9.21 11,659 I I Glades p-r 10,576 7 8,142 2,434 1 13.1 / 1,385 i I 1 Osceola 1 172,493 I 133,169 1 39,324 1 13.1 /22,596 1 Total 738,718 607,875 130,843 90,361 I i I ,
Source: U S . Census Bureau, http:/lauicl<facts.census.roviafd/ for Florida I
I I
I I
I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 153 of 174 St. Lucie Site Minority and Low Income PopulatiodPercentages St. Lucie 192,695 152,504 40,191 12.9 124,857 Indian River 112,947 98,754 14,193 10 I 11,295
~~~
Martin 126,73 1 113,912 12,819 9.2 / 11,659 Palm Beach 1,13 1,184 894,207 236,977 10.9 / 123,299 Okeechobee 35,910 28,468 7,442 15 15,386 Total 1,599,467 1,287,845 311,622 176,496 Turkey Point Site Minority and Low Income Populatioflercentages Miami-Dade 2,253,362 1,570,558 682,804 18.9 1425,885 Broward 1,623,081 1,145,287 477,794 12.5 1202,885 Total 3,876,443 2,715,845 1,160,598 628,770
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 154 of 174 I
I Results - Environmental justice data for the eight sites are summarized below.
DeSoto 888,675 88 23 10.6 I!
I Glades 575,037 85.5 14.5 11.3 Hardee 1,220,396 84.5 15.5 12.1 I Hendry 1 1,177,970 78.6 21.4 11.1 Martin 1,486,520 80 20 11.1 I Okeechobee 2 738,718 82.3 17.7 12.2 St. Lucie 1,599,467 80.5 19.5 11 I Turkey Point 3,876,443 70 30 16.2 I All sites had minority populations greater than 10%; minority populations of 20% or higher are found at four sites (DeSoto, Hendry 1, Martin and Turkey Point), with 19.5% found at St. Lucie; I although note that the state average minority population for Florida is 22%.
Low-income populations higher than the state average is found only at Turkey Point; however, I when evaluating income below poverty line for the individual counties, host counties DeSoto, Hardee, Hendry and iMiami-Dade have 18% or higher populations living below the poverty line.
I Low-income populations in other counties in the South that currently host existing nuclear power plants have directly benefited from economic impacts of the existing plant. Similar beneficial economic impacts are expected to occur for additional units at existing Turkey Point site, as well I as at the other sites with large minority populations as well.
Based on professional judgment in factoring in the above percentages alone, the initial site I ratings are as follows:
I Provisional Rating 3 4 1 4 3 3 4 4 2 I
I I
I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 155 of 174 While disproportionate adverse impacts could be expected to occur to minority or low-income populations at both sites, ;f significant health and safety impacts were expected from a new nuclear reactor, no significant health and safety impacts are expected to human populations from reactor operations. Therefore, if no significant health and safety impacts are identified from reactor construction and operation, then there would be no environmentaljustice concerns, I regardless of the percentage of minority or low-income populations found within the surrounding communities. Therefore, no significant differences in environmental justice impacts are expected between the candidate sites and all should receive a final comparative rating of 5 .
I Based on this analysis, there is no basis for differentiation between sites from an environmental justice perspective, despite differences in the percentages of minority and low-income populations found within the surrounding communities of each site. All sites are found to be I equally and highly suitable. Therefore, the site ratings are as follows:
Rating 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 c.3.4 LAND USE C.3.4.1 Construction- and Operation-Related Effects Obiective - The objective of this criterion is to evaluate the suitability of the eight candidate sites with respect to potential conflicts in existing land uses at each site. No exclusionary or avoidance criteria apply to this issue.
Evaluation Approach - The evaluation is based on the compatibility of a new nuclear station with existing land uses, including existing and filture land uses and zoning ordinances, as well as any significant historic resources. Historic resources include those currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or known (active) archaeological sites or Native American lands.
DiscussionResults - Special land use features, including proximity to National Register of Historic Places (") sites and dedicated landshpecial ecological areas are summarized for each site in the table below. No major issues were identified at any of the sites; however, the potential difficulty in changing existing land use or zoning plans is unclear for the rural, heavy agricultural sites, so they were given a conservative rating of 3. There is also a similar concern at the existing St. Lucie sitc given the surrounding protected uses, site location on an island between [lie Atlantlc and Indim River Lagoon, and resulting space limitations for construction of two :iew units. 'Turkey Poi111is n t c d iiiost favornblc given thc suitablc acreage anti existiny and c 3 I: s i s t e:i t i nd IIst ri ;I 1 (I, c. o t !I e 1- FI-' I, po \v a-p 1;I iiL s ) s urro 11rid i IIs the s i t 2 .
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 156 of 174 I
I ~~ ____
Greeenfield site: Undevelopedon 13,500acre property in unincorporated DeSoto County. Adjacent to portions of the Peace River. Land on site is I currently dedicated to agricultural use (sod farming, cattle grazing and truck crops). Developed portions of the adjacent properties are primarily agricultural (sod farms, citrus groves, and cattle grazing), Undeveloped portions include mixed scrub with some hardwoods and a few isolated I wetlands.
Agricultural land use would not appear to be consistent for nuclear power plant. Potential difficulty in changing existing land use or zoning is I unclear.
Historic Sites (NRHP): None in vicinity - two sites located in Arcadia.
Remote and m a l agrarian; mostly agricultural; County is the second largest producer of sugarcane in the state.
I Agricultural land use would not appear to be consistent for nuclear power plant. Potential difficulty in changing existing land use or zoning is unclear.
I Two management areas within 5 miles (north) of site: Nicodemus Slough and Fisheating Green Wildlife Management area.
Located near shore of Lake Okeechobee; Brighton Indian Reservation I located several miles to the north.
NRHP Sites: Moore Haven (Downtown Historic District and Residential Historic District).
Remote and rural; mostly farmlandagricultural - County is leading citrus I I and cattle producer in state.
Agricultural land use would not appear to be consistent for nuclear power I plant. Potential difficulty in changing existing land use or zoning is I unclear.
NRPH Sites: None in site vicinity; all located in Wauchula and Bowling Green.
I Remote and rural; mostly agriculturallfartnland.
Largest producer of sugarcane in state; crops; cattle and citrus around Lake Okeechobee.
Located near shores of Lake Okeechobee.
I Agricultural land use would not appear to be consistent for nuclear power plant. Potential difficulty in changing existing land use or zoning is unclear.
I NRXP Sites: None in vicinity; all located in La Belle and Clewiston.
Industrial site with existing power plant (3,700 MW), including 6,800-acre cooling reservoir; existing power plant located on 3,000 acres. To I
east is area of mixed pine flat wood with scattering of small wetlands.
I North is 1,200 acre cooling pond set aside as mitigation.
Peninsula of wetland forest on west side of reservoir that is named the Barley Barber S\-vamp. The Barley Barber Swamp encompasscs 400 I acres and is preserved as a natural area. Tnere is also a 10 kW phoiovoltnic eiicrgy facility a! south cnii of sitc.
[.ocatcd on L:ikc Okcechobcc 31idncm .I.W. C'orbett JVildiife I 1ife Re fu ge .
I 11d I , o s :I h :i !c hec N ;i li o 1'1 R 1 Wi 1(i I
I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 157 of 174 I
I Remote and rural; lightly populated; agrarian.
County has high levels of cattle, dairy, and citrus farms.
I Agricultural land use would not appear to be consistent for nuclear power I c--
St. Lucie plant. Potential difficulty in changing existing land use or zoning is unclear.
NRHP Sites: None in vicinity; located in Okeechobee (2 sites).
Existing power plant (nuclear) site.
Located on Hutchinson Island. Two county parks (Blind Creek Pass and Walton Rocks Parka) lie within site boundary.
I Indian River Lagoon located west of facility; stretch of lagoon adjacent to site is designated as the Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve.
Fort Pierce Inlet State Recreation Area 9 miles north of site.
Savannas State Preserve freshwater wetland is located 2 miles west.
I I Other prominent features within 50 miles of site include Lake Okeechobee, Blue Cypress Lake, Jonathan Dickinson State Park, Dupuis Reserve State Forest, JW Corbett Wildlife Management Area, portion of I Brighton Seminole Indian Reservation, and Hobe Sound, Pelican Island, and Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuges. Sand pine community containing several rare and endangered plants and animals.
I Hobe Sound NWR located south of the site on Jupiter Island. Includes one of the most productive sea turtle nesting a r e s in the US (listed leatherback, green and loggerhead sea turtles lay their eggs there).
NRHP sites in Ft. Pierce (MANY including in Stuart, Jupiter island, I Jensen Beach and Hobe Sound); also a shipwreck URCA DE LIMA (shipwreck) (added 200 1 Site - #01000529). Also h o w n as URCA DE LUCA State Underwater Archeological Preserve I 200 yds offshore Jack Island Park, N of Ft.I'iercc inlet, Ft. Pierce.
Existing industrial site on shore of part of Biscayne Bay with ecologically sensitive areas nearby including two National Parks: Biscayne National I Park (3.2 miles from park headquarters); Everglades National Park (15 miles west of the site).
Small portions of Miccosukee Indian Reservation and Big Cypress National Preserve are within 50 miles.
I I Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Recreation Area and Key Large Hammocks State Botanical Site also found near the site.
Ecologically sensitive estuarine environment along the coast.
I NRHP Sites: Numerous, including many in Homestead and Biscayne National Park but presumably would not be affected by the plant since land is owned by FPL and existing power plants/nuclear units located there now.
C I
I I
I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 158 of 174 I References Glades Environmental Site Assessment.
I St. Lucie and Turkey Point Relicensing Environmental Reports and Supplemental NRC EISs (License Renewal Generic EIS, NUREG 1427, Supplements 5 (Turkey Point Units 3 & 4, I January 2002) and 11 (St. Lucie Units 1 and 2, May 2003).
Florida Wildlife Viewing Guide, 1998.
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 159 of 174 c.4 ENGINEERING AND COST-RELATED CRITERIA C.4.1 HEALTH AND SAFETY RELATED CRITERIA C.4.1.1 Water Supply Obiective - The purpose of this criterion is to evaluate relative differences in the design and construction cost of developing water supply facilities.
I Evaluation approach - Sites with local conditions that would require additional engineering costs to develop water supply capability (e.g., reservoirs to address water supply limitations or reliability issues such as low flow constraints) are rated lower than sites with no such I requirements. Because topography in the vicinity of the candidate sites does not provide natural drainages that can easily be developed for reservoirs, actual construction of reservoirs would likely be very expensive, if feasible at all. Sites are characterized below in terms of the relative difficulty and expense of dealing with low-flow conditions at the sites, regardless of whether a I reservoir or some other means of addressing drought conditions is adopted.
DiscussionResults - Because water flows vary among the sites, particularly during periods of low flow, reservoir requirements also will differ. Site ratings are based on professional judgment
- taking into account major river body flows (average annual and low flow/drought conditions)
(see section C.l. 1.2), as well as the size and extent of on-site tributaries. Sites with no anticipated low-flow constraints received a 5; other ratings relate to the likelihood that a reservoir or other means to address low-flow conditions would be required.
DeSoto ' The water supply for the proposed site is a combination of 1 groundwater, the Peace River, and reclaimed water. Costs to engineer the combined water supply are anticipated to be relatively high.
Glades Potential water supplies for the proposed site include 4 I groundwater, the C-43 Canal, and Lake Okeechobee. Due to the flexibility and proximity of water supplies (- 5 miles to Lake Okeechobee), construction costs to deliver the water supply are anticipated to be moderately low.
I Hnrdee T h e water supply for the proposed site is a combination of groundwater, the Peace River, and reclaimed water. Costs 1
to eiigiiieer the combined water supply are anticipated to be I Hendry 1 relatively high.
Potential water supplies for the proposed site inc!ude groutidivater and Lake Okeecliobcc. Due to t h e flexibility 3
I 2?ld pJ0Xi:;lity O f LVnter s\lppli?S (- 1 1 l?UleS 10 Lake Okccciivbcc), coiistriictiori costs X) deliver the m i t r supply
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 160 of 174 I
I Martin Potential water supplies for the proposed site include the C- 3 44 Canal and Lake Okeechobee. Due to the flexibility and I proximity of water supplies (- 5 miles to Lake are anticipatedto be moderately low.
I Okeechobee 2 Potential water supplies for the proposed site include 4 groundwater, the Kissimee River, and Lake Okeechobee.
Due to the flexibility and proximity of water supplies (- 2 miles to the Kissimee River and 8 miles to Lake I St. Lucie Okeechobee), construction costs to deliver the water supply are anticipatedto be moderately low.
Potential water supplies for the proposed site include Ocean 5 I Intake and reclaimed water. Due to the proximity of water supplies (site is coastal), construction costs to deliver the water supply are anticipated to be relatively low.
Turkey Point Potential water supplies for the proposed site include Ocean 5 I Intake and reclaimed water. Due to the proximity of water supplies (site is coastal), construction costs to deliver the water supply are anticipated to be relatively low.
I I Rating 1 4 4 4 5 5 I References USGS Topographic Maps.
I C.4.1.2 Pumping Distance I Objective - The purpose of this criterion is to evaluate relative differences in the operational costs associated with pumping makeup water from the source water body to the plant.
I Evaluation amroach - Sites located large distances from their makeup water supply source are ratcd lower than those located adjacent to the souce. In general, the cost differential is expected I to be a linear Rinctioii of distance from the water source.
I I
I I
~
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 161 of 174 I
I DeSoto 1 The water supply for the proposed site is a combination of I groundwater, the Peace River, and reclaimed water. The Peace River is located - 4 miles west of the proposed site.
Pumping costs required to deliver the combined water supply are anticipated to be relatively high.
I Glades Potential water supplies for the proposed site include groundwater, the C-43Canal, and Lake Okeechobee. Lake Okeechobee is located 5 miles east of the proposed site.
I Pumping costs required to deliver the water supply are anticipated to be moderately low.
Hardee The water supply for the proposed site is a combination of I groundwater, the Peace River, and reclaimed water. The Peace River is located 3 miles east of the proposed site.
Pumping costs required to deliver the combined water supply are anticipated to be relatively high.
I Hendry 1 Potential water supplies for the proposed site include groundwater and Lake Okeechobee. Lake Okeechobee is located 11 miles north of the proposed site. Pumping I Martin costs required to deliver the water supply are anticipated to be moderate.
A Potential water supplies for the proposed site include the C-I 44 Canal and Lake Okeechobee. Lake Okeechobee is located 5 miles west of the proposed site. Pumping costs required to deliver the water supply are anticipated to be moderately low.
I Okeechobee 2 Potential water supplies for the proposed site include groundwater, the Kissimmee River, and Lake Okeechobee.
4 The Kissimmee River is located 2 miles southwest of the I proposed site, and Lake Okeechobee is located 8 miles southeast of the proposed site. Pumping costs required to deliver the water supply are anticipated to be moderately low.
I St. Lucie Potential water supplies for the proposed site include Ocean Intake and reclaimed water. Due to the proximity of water 5
supplies (site is coastal), pumping cosis required to deliver I Turkey Point the water supply are anticipated to be relatively low.
Potential water supplies for the proposed site include Ocean 5 I
I I
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 162 of 174 I
1 References USGS Topographic Maps (1: 100,000 and 1:24,000 scale).
I C.4.1.3 Flooding Objective - The purpose of this criterion is to rate sites with respect to differential costs associated with construction of flood protection structures necessary to address probable maximum floods at the sites under consideration.
Evaluation amroach - Sites with the largest differences between site-grade elevation and likely flood elevations are rated highest; sites with plant grade at or near flood level are rated lowest.
I DiscussionlResults - Although final plant layout locations have not been set for candidate sites, an initial comparison of potential site locations with floodplain information indicate that some I proposed plant facilities may require protection from flooding.
I 1
I Glades The proposed site is located within the 100-year flood zone (located in the vicinity of the Caloosahatchee Canal and 3
Lake Okeechobee). Failure of the Herbert Hoover Dike on Lake Okeechobee would present flooding concerns to the 1 proposed site and could result in flood depths of 6 feet.
Therefore, construction of flood protection structures or fill to elevate the proposed site is likely to be necessary.
Hardee The proposed site is not located in the 100-year flood zone. 5 No other neighboring flooding concerns exist. If required, construction of flood protection structures would be minimal.
~~
Hendry 1 The proposed site is located in the 100-year flood zone and 4 is near swamp areas. Existing secondary levees protect the I proposed site fioiii flooding due to failure of the Herbert Hoover Dike on Lake Okeechobee. No other neighboring floodinc conccms exist. Construction of flood protection I
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 163 of 174 I
I 5 .
S Martin The proposed site is not located in the 100-year flood zone. 5 While swamp areas exist in the vicinity of the proposed I site, ample areas exist for precise site location to avoid swamp areas and areas within the 100-year flood zone.
Existing secondary levees protect the proposed site from flooding due to failure of the Herbert Hoover Dike on Lake I Okeechobee. No other neighboring flooding concerns exist. If required, construction of flood protection structures would be minimal.
I Okeechobee 2 The proposed site is located on the border of the 100-year flood zone. While swamp areas exist in the vicinity of the proposed site, ample areas exist for precise site location to 4
avoid swamp areas. The location of the Kissimmee River I protects the proposed site from flooding due to failure of the Herbert Hoover Dike on Lake Okeechobee. No other neighboring flooding concerns exist. Construction of flood protection structures or fill to elevate the proposed site is I St. Lucie likely to be necessary, but would be minimal.
The proposed site is located in the 100-year flood zone with 2 base flood elevations of 7-8 feet. Adverse climatic events I (e.g., area hurricanes) would likely result in flooding of the proposed site. Construction of flood protection structures or fill to elevate the proposed site will be required and I Turkey Point would likely be more robust than other proposed sites.
The proposed site is located in the 100-year flood zone with base flood elevations of 12 feet. Adverse climatic events 2
(ens.,area hurricanes) would likely result in flooding of the I proposed site. Construction of flood protection structures or fill to elevate the proposed site will be required and would likefy be more robust than other proposed sites.
I I Rating 5 I
3 5 4 5 4 2 2 I
I I
I I
I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 164 of 174 I
I consideration, this criterion is not applicable to the FPL Florida service territory site selection process.
I C.4.1.5 Civil Works I Obiective - The objective of this criterion (formerly titled soil stability) is to rate sites according to differences in the cost of civil works (e.g., non-flood related berms, stabilizing of graded slopes and banks) necessary to prepare the site for nuclear plant development.
I Evaluation approach - Sites are rated highest to lowest according to the estimated level of cost of civil works required at each site.
Discussioflesults - The existing candidate sites (St. Lucie and Turkey Point) are located at operating plants that has been previously developed and has been shown to be capable of supporting conventional foundation designs. Accordingly, the existing sites are assigned a median rating of 3.
Given the general lack of site specific geotechnical information on the six remaining sites, I consideration was allotted to the overall elevation above sea level as a potential indicator of dewatering needs and overall site relief as an indicator of potential grading and excavation. Due to the average elevation of the sites, all sites except DeSoto and Hardee will require excavation I below MSL to accominodate reactor construction because of their lower elevations. Therefore these sites receive lower ratings in consideration of the potential dewatering and stability concerns. Due to the site topography, all sites except St. Lucie and Turkey Point exhibit over 10 I site relief. Therefore, these sites receive lower ratings in consideration of the potentially higher level of earthwork at these sites as compared to the relatively flat coastal sites.
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 165 of 174 I
I C.4.2 C.4.2.1 TRANSPORTATION OR TRANSMISSION-RELATED CRITERIA Railroad Access Objective - The purpose of this criterion is to rate sites according to the relative costs associated with providing rail access.
I Evaluation approach - Sites are rated from highest to lowest in accordance with the length of additional or new rail spur construction required to provide rail access, scaled from those discussed in the screening criteria report, Criterion P7. Sites having rail access within 2 miles or I less receive a rating of 5 ; sites with rail access between 2 and 5 miles away receive a rating of 4, and sites with rail access greater than 5 miles away receive a rating of 3.
Some sites are located near abandoned rail lines. The site-specific condition of abandoned rail lines is unknown and could range from removedrevegetated to present and operable with minimal upgrade. Therefore, distances used in this analysis are to the nearest rail line in service and assume abandoned rail lines have been removedrevegetated. Should rail access become a sensitive criterion for site selection, site-specific conditions of abandoned rail lines should be more fully evaluated.
I DiscussionResults - Distances to rail service at each of the sites were measured in the Preliminary Screening Evaluation (based on USGS topographic maps and summarized in I Appendix B). Assuming that (1) passenger lines may be used for a one-time delivery ofplant equipment to the site, (2) abandoned lines have been removedrevegetated, and (3) costs are based on a straight linear scale of costs for construction of rail spurs to the sites from these lines, I ratings for the sites are assigned in the table below.
I DeSoto A rail line between Arcadia, FL and Bowling Green, FL (-
2.3 miles west of the proposed site) formerly operated by 3
Seaboard System RR has since been abandoned.
I-----
Glades Hardee Rail is 3.1 miles NE (operated by South Central Florida Express, CSX Transportation has trackage rights).
Rail is 0.4 miles W (operated by CSX Transportation).
A rail line between Arcadia, FL and Bowling Green, FL (-
6.4 mifes east of the proposed site) formerly operated by 4
5 I Hendry 1 Seaboard Svstcnt RR has since been abandoned.
Rail is - 8.7 nliles NE (operated by South Central Florida Esprcss, CSX Tramportation and Florida East Coast 3
Raihvay have l m c k a y rights).
I I
I :,,\,,
a < <..'
I ' I:!--
,,;.'.- :\.,-
I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 166 of 174 I
I Martin -
Rail is 1.5 miles NE (operated by CSX Transportation). 5 Rail is 2.8 miles W (operated by Florida East Coast I Railway). However, lakelreservoiris located between the Martin site and this rail line.
A rail spur has been constructed from the Florida East Coast Railway line to access the existing Martin power I Okeechobee 2 plant.
Rail is 2.2 miles NE (operated by CSX Transportation). 4 Rail is - 2.1 miles W (operated by Florida East Coast I St. Lucie Railway). However, the Intercoastal Waterway is located between the St. Lucie site and this rail line.
4 Due to the coastal location of the St. Lucie site, barge I access is accessible in the immediate vicinity for delivery of heavy/large items. However, since rail access is not immediately accessible, a rating of 5 was not assigned.
I Turkey Point -
Rail is 10.3 miles W (operated by CSX Transportation).
Homestead, FL marks the southemost point of Florida 4
served by rail.
I A rail line to Homestead, FL formerly operated by Florida East Coast Railway has since been abandoned.
Due to the coastal location of the Turkey Point site, barge access is immediately accessible for delivery of heavyllarge I items. A barge channel has been constructed in Biscayne Bay providing direct access to the site. As barge access provides an altemative to rail access, the rating has been increased to 4 (however, since rail access is not I immediately accessible, a rating of 5 was not assigned).
I Rating 3 4 5 3 5 4 I References I North American Railroad Map, version 2.14, http:ll\.\.;vw.RailroadMap.com.
USGS Topographic Maps (1:100,000 and 1:24,000 scale).
I C.4.2.2 I1i g h way A cc c s s I
I I
I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 167 of 174 I
I DiscussioiliResults - The following table evaluates the existing roads serving the site areas. All sites are located near existing roads, and construction of site access is predicted to be minimal.
I Therefore, each site has been assigned a rating of 5 , with the exception of Hendry 1 which would likely require more construction than other sites.
I DeSoto -
Proposed site is located 2.5 miles east of US.Highway 17 and 7.3 miles north of State Highway 70. These roads 5
I provide main access to the area. U S Highway 27 is also I -
located 23 miles east of the proposed site at Lake Placid, FL. Construction of local access would be required but should be minimal.
I Glades Proposed site is located 1.0 miles south of US.Highway 27 and State Highway 78. These roads provide main access to the area. Construction of local access would be required 5
but should be minimal.
I I Hardee -
Proposed site is located 5.0 miles south of State Highway 64 and 6.4miles west of US.Highway 17. These roads 5
provide main access to the area. Additionally, Interstate 75 I -
is located 40 miles west of the proposed site.
Construction of local access would be required but should be minimal.
I I
I---
I I
Hendry 1 Martin Proposed site is located 5.4 miles east of State Highway 833 and 6.4 miles south of US.Highway 27. These roads provide main access to the area. Construction of local access would be required but should be minimal, although greater than other sites.
Proposed site is located 1.1 miles southwest of State 4
5 Highway 710 and 5.6 miles east of U S . Highway 98/441.
Area access exists due to co-location with the existing Martin power plant. Construction of local access would be required but should be minimal.
~~
Proposed site is located 0.4 miles north of State Highway 5 70 and 4.3 miles southwest of US.Highway 98. These i loads provide main access to the area. Construction of local access would be required but should be minimal.
I St. Luck Proposcd site is located on Hutchinson Isiand adjacent to Highway A l A and 9.8 miles from access IO U.S.
IIighway 1 and Interstate 95. Area access exists clue to co-location with the existing St. Lucie nuclear power plant.
Construction of local access would be required but should 5
bc iiiinim31.
i 5
~
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 168 of 174 I
I I References I Rand McNally Road Atlas.
USGS Topographic Maps (1 :100,000 and 1:24,000 scale).
I C.4.2.3 Barge Access I Obiective - The purpose of this criterion is to rate sites according to the relative costs associated with providing barge access.
I Evaluation approach - Sites are rated from highest to lowest in accordance with estimated cost of facilities construction required to provide barge access.
I DiscussiodResults - The following table evaluates the area geography permitting barge access to the candidate sites.
I DeSoto -
The proposed site is located 55 miles southeast of the 1 I Tampa Cargo Seaport. Intermodal transport of heavy/large items would be required.
Glades -
The proposed site is located 5 miles west of Lake 3 I Okeechobee, which is accessible by barge (Okeechobee Waterway) from either the Atlantic Ocean (Stuart, FL via 2 locks) or the Gulf of Mexico (Ft. Myers, FL via 3 locks).
The barge channel is 8 feet deep with an 80 foot bottom I Hardee width.
The proposed site is located 45 miles southeast of the 4 Tampa Cargo Seaport. Intermodal transport of heavyflarge I items would be required.
As rail access is available immediately adjacent to the proposed site and provides an alternative to barge transport, I the rating has been increased to 4 (however, since barge access is not immediately accessible, a rating of 5 was not assigned).
3 I
I I
I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 169 of 174 I
I Martin -
The proposed site is located 5 miles east of Lake Okeechobee, which is accessible by barge (Okeechobee 4
Waterway) from either the Atlantic Ocean (Stuart, FL via 2 I locks) or the Gulf of Mexico (Ft. Myers, FL via 3 locks).
The barge channel is 8 feet deep with an 80 foot bottom width.
I As rail access is available immediately adjacent to the proposed site and provides an alternative to barge transport, the rating has been increased to 4 (however, since barge access is not immediately accessible, a rating of 5 was not I Okeechobee 2 assigned).
The proposed site is located 8 miles north of Lake 3 Okeechobee, which is accessible by barge (Okeechobee I Waterway) fTom either the Atlantic Ocean (Stuart, FL via 2 locks) or the Gulf of Mexico (Ft. Myers, FL via 3 locks).
The barge channel is 8 feet deep with an 80 foot bottom width.
I St. Lucie The proposed site is located on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean. The Fort Pierce Cargo Seaport is located 8.8-4 miles northwest of the proposed site.
I Turkey Point The proposed site is located on the coast of the Atlantic OceaniBiscayne Bay. A barge canal has been constructed 5
from the northeast and provides direct barge access to the I proposed site.
I I References Florida Intracoastal and Inland Waterway Study, Final Report, May 2003.
I USGS Topographic Maps (1 :100,000 and 1:24,000 scale).
I C.4.2.4 Transmission Cost and iMarket Price Differentials I Objective - The purpose of this criterion is to rate sites accordins to the relative costs associated with consttmtion of power transmission systems and issues related to market price differentials.
I I
I I
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 170 of 174 I
I Discussion/Results - Transmission access is evaluated in temis of distance to the load center in the greater Miami area, and amount of new right of way (ROW) that needs to be acquired. The highest ranked sites already have the ROW, and the lowest-ranked sites require significant ROW acquisition, which will be difficult to obtain. In addition the plant switchyard is assumed the I same for all sites.
I I DeSoto - 125 miles to Miami Load Center.
c 3
I 135 miles of new 500 kV ROW acquisition, 2 autotransformers, 8 - 500 kV line terminals. ROW near I Glades Orange River substation will be difficult to obtain.
- 75 miles to Miami Load Center. 4 146 miles of new 500 kV ROW, of which approximately 60 I miles of new ROW acquisition, 1 autotransformer, 6 - 500 kV line terminals; rebuild 120 miles of 230 kV lines.
Hardee - 135 miles to Miami Load Center. 2 I 165 miles of new 500 kV ROW acquisition, 2 autotransformers, 6 - 500 kV line terminals.
Hendry 1 -.60 miles to Miami Load Center. 4 I 72 d e s of new 500 kV ROW, of which approximately 40 miles of new ROW acquisition, 1 autotransformer, 6 - 500 kV line terminals: rebuild 120 miles of 230 kV lines.
I -
~ ~
Martin 65 mifes to Miami Load Center.
35 miles of new 500 kV in existing ROW, G - 500 kV line terminals.
I Okeechobee 2 - 90 miles to Miami Load Center.
95 miles of new 500 kV ROW, of which approximately 40 I miles of new ROW acquisition, 2 autotransformers, 8 - 500 I St. Lucie
~~~
kV line terminals.
- 85 miles to Miami Load Center.
~~~
1 SO miles of new 500 kV ROW acquisition, 2 I autotransformers, 8 - 500 kV line terminals. ROW will be difficult to obtain.
I Turkey Point - SO miles to Miami Load Center. 5 I L 64 miles of existing 500 kV ROW, 1 autotransformer, 8 -
500 kV line tcrminals.
I I
I I
I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 171 of 174 c.4.3 CRITERIA RELATED TO LAND USE AND SITE PREPARATION C.4.3.1 Topography Objective - The purpose of this criterion is to rate sites according to the relative costs associated with site grading and earth-moving necessary to prepare the site for construction of a nuclear power plant.
I Evaluation amroach - Ratings are based on the amount of topographic relief currently found at the site, with the most severe relief resulting in the highest estimated grading costs and therefore I the poorest rating. Sites are rated from highest to lowest in accordance with estimated grading costs.
I DiscussionResults -Given the general flat topography found in central Florida, ratings were favorable across all sites.
I DeSoto The proposed site is located in a relatively flat area, with
' 5 minor relief (+/- 4 feet). At 2 miles west of the proposed site, the area begins to slope downward to the ~
Peace River. Costs associated with site grading are expected to be relatively low.
~
Glades Topographic relief across the area is relatively flat (+I- 1 5 foot) with a system of ditches and water retention areas for irrigation and drainage purposes. Areas north and west of the proposed site begin to slope upward. Costs associated with site grading are expected to be relatively low.
Hardee The proposed site is located in an area with moderate relief
(+/- 15 feet). East of the proposed site, the area begins to I I-Iendiy 1 slope downward to the Peace River. Costs associated with site grading are expected to be moderate.
The proposed site is located in a relatively flat area, with I Martin minor relief (H- 1 foot). Costs associated with site grading are exwcted to be relatively low.
The proposed site is located in a relatively flat area, with minor relief (+/- 4 feet). The area generally slopes from I east to west (toward Lake Okeechobee). Costs associated with site grading are expected to be relatively low.
Okeechobee 2 Topographic relief across the area is relatively flat (+/- 2 I feet) with a system of ditches and water retention areas for irrigation and drainage purposes. The area genernlly slopes down to the southwest (toward die Kissimmee River).
I s:, !.Ac 12 Costs associatcd with site grading are espcctcd t o be I c in t i ve I y l o c'.
~
I Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 172 of 174 I
I Turkey Point The proposed site is located in a relatively flat area, with minor relief (+/- 1 foot). Costs associated with site grading 5
are expected to be relatively low.
I I Rating 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 I References Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, A. Duda & Sons Inc. URS Corporation. July I 2006.
Phase I Environmentaf Site Assessment, Pelaez & Sons Inc. Ranch. URS Corporation. May I 2006.
Site Drainage and Interim Land Use Study. Brown & Root, Inc, March 1976.
I USGS Topographic Maps (1 :100,000 and 1:24,000 scale).
I C.4.3.2 Land Rights Objective - The purpose of this criterion is to rate sites according to the relative costs associated I with purchasing land required to constmct and operate a nuclear station on the site.
Evaluation amroach -Sites are rated from highest to lowest in accordance with estimated land I costs based on information provided by FPL real estate and County profile data.
DiscussionBesults - This criterion was evaluated previously in the screening criteria report I (Criterion P9), although for a larger land size area. Results are provided below.
I DeSoto FPL owns sufficient land Undeveloped site in 13,500-acre property 5
Glades Does not own - Farmland; [E35 M] 3 I [actually now appears FPL has bought for a coal fired powcr plant site, but not assumed 1 for purposes of siting evaluation]
I Hardee 1 Does not own - Fannland; IS35 M]
I 3
I I
I
Docket No. -El Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 173 of 174 1 Okeechobee 2 1 Does not own -Farmland [$35 MI I 3 I St. Lucie FPL owns sufficient land 5 I Turkey Point FPL owns sufficient land 5 I
I Rating 5 3 3 3 5 3 5 5 c.4.3.3 Labor Rates Obiective - The purpose of this criterion is to rate sites according to the relative costs associated with local labor costs that would be incurred during plant construction.
Evaluation approach - Sites are rated from highest to lowest in accordance with estimated local labor costs, with the lower cost resulting in higher ratings.
Discussioflesults - Economic data are typically available by county, but were found to be provided in a variety of forms (e.g., by hour, by week, by year; by job type) that were not necessarily consistent between counties. For purposes of consistency, this evaluation relied on Economic data based on County Data for Florida (eFlorida profile data for 2004), average annual wage for construction worker, 2004 data, as follows:
DeSoto: Average annual construction wage - $24,276 Glades: No data [assumed to be low wage given rural nature and emphasis on agriculture]
Hardee: $33,221 Hendry 1: $24,306 Martin: $33,667 Okeechobee 2: $26,147 St. Lucie: $31,894 Turkey Point: $40,149 Comparisons of the above construction labor wages reveals that the highest rates are in Miami Dade County (Turkey Point), the lowest rates in DeSoto, Hendry and presumably Glades counties, with the remaining sites falling somewhere in between. The slight differences are noted in the rankings. Finally, it should be noted that a significant portion of the construction workforce is expected to come from a national workforce ofjoumeymen, whose rates will be set based on supply and demand within the overall nuclear industry, rather than by local workforce rates or skill sets. Whilc the ratings below are based solely on current and local wage differentials, lhis adciilional Factor coiild mitig;ite dii'fercnces in labor costs betwccn the sltes.
Docket No. -E I Site Selection Study Report Exhibit SDS-2, Page 174 of 174 Rating 5 5 3 5 3 4 3 2
Docket No. 07 -E1 FPL Technology Review Exhibit SDS-3, Page 1 of 1 Engineering Evaluation of Current Technology Options I for New Nuclear Power Generation (Proprietary and Confidential Business Information)
I I
I I
I
I Docket No. 07 -E1 COL Application Content I Exhibit SDS-4, Page 1 of 1 Combined License Application (COLA) Content I Cover Letter Oath or Affirmation, contacts, reference plant I 0 General and Administrative Information 0 The identity and financialkechnical qualifications of the owner and operator 0 Decommissioning funding assurance plan Final Safety Analysis Report 0 Information which is site-specific including hydrological and seismic attributes of the site.
0 The detailed design of the plant (to the extent not certified)
Only need to reference the Certified Design Information.
I Environmental Report 0 A description of the affect on the environment along with the impact and any adverse effects which can not be avoided.
I 0 All Federal permits, licenses, approvals and other entitlements, applicable environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning and land-use regulations, and thermal and other water pollution I limitations or requirements which have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for environmental protection.
Technical Specifications I 0 A Technical Specification establishes plant operating requirements for items such as safety limits, limiting safety system settings, limiting control settings, limiting conditions for operation, surveillance requirements, design features, and administrative controls.
Emergency Plan 0 Integrated plans for addressing radiological emergencies at the facility Limited Work Authorization Requests 0 Any site preparation and or construction of any system or component delineated by the NRC which could affect nuclear safety and would require some form of NRC approval.
Site Redress Plan for any on-site physical work.
Generic Design Control Document (DCD) Departures Report 0 Any deviation from the Design Certification which is referenced in the COLA must be addressed.
Safeguards/Security Plans Physical security plan 0 Proprietary, Sensitive & SUNS1information not for general public dissemination.
ITAAC, and Other proposed License Conditions 0 Required inspections, tests, analysis, acceptance criteria to verify that the facility, as constructed, meets the design requirements and is in conformance with the COL once it is granted including all operational programs COLA Specific Information Example: Quality Assurance Plan
~
I Docket No. 07--EI Estimated Project Milestones I Exhibit SDS-5, Page 1 of 1 I Project Estimated Project Milestones Year I 2008 Site Selection complete, COLA Preparation begins, Detailed Engineering begins I Optional: Long Lead Procurement (Ultra-Heavy Forgings:
Pressure Vessels, Steam Generator Vessels)
I 2009 COLA filed at NRC, SCA filed at FDEP, Application Review begins, Detailed Engineering I 2010 Optional: Long Lead Procurement (Forgings, Simulator)
Detailed Engineering and COLA review continues, Training I SCA Hearing, Optional: Site clearing and Long Lead Procurement (Forgings, I 2011 Training Simulator, Major Equipment)
COLA review complete, Detailed Engineering continues I Optional: Site Preparation and Long Lead Procurement (Forgings, Training Simulator, Major Equipment) 2012 ASLB convenes license hearing, Detailed Engineering I continues, Non-nuclear Construction commences Optional: Site Preparation completes I 2013 Safety Related (NRC jurisdictional) Construction commences, foundation for Unit 1 constructed 2014 Reactor Pressure Vessel and major components for Unit 1 I 2015 delivered and set Unit 1 system construction, foundation for Unit 2 constructed I 2016 Reactor Pressure Vessel and major components for Unit 2 delivered and set 2017 Unit 1 Substantial Completion and I 2018
[TAAC Hearing Unit 1 Fuel Load, I 2019 testine and commercial oDeration.
Unit 2 Substantial Completion and
[TAAC Hearing I 2020 Unit 2 Fuel Load,
- esting and commercial operation.
Note: Optional items needed to support earliest practical deployment schedule I
I
Overnight Cost Estimate Range ($/kW, 2007$)
CASE C: Increased Material CASE A TVA Study Adjusted to 2007$ CASE B: Reduced Material Escalation (Index 242/284), Added Construction Unit Cost Estimate Range (Index 206/238) and Modified for FPL Escalation (Index 170/192), Reduced Owner Scope, 10% higher Owners Based on TVA Study - Two Unit ABWR Owners Scope and PTN Site Cost Owner Scope, 10% lower Owners Costs, High Labor & Transmission Project, at 1,371MW per unit Estimates Costs, Low Transmission Estimate Estimate 2007 $ $kWe 2007 $ $IkWe 2007 $ $/kWe Power Plant Island and Supporting Construction Structure & Improvements $792,000,000 $289 $654,000,000 $239 $931,000,000 $340 Reactor Plant Equipment $1,399,000,000 $510 $1,155,000,000 $421 $1,644,000,000 $600 Turbine Plant Equipment $934,000,000 $341 $771,000,000 $281 $1,097,000,000 $400 Electric Plant Equipment $413,000,000 $151 $333,000,000 $121 $493,000,000 $180 Misc. Plant Equipment $146,000,000 $53 $1 18,000,000 $43 $174,000,000 $63 Main Cond. Heat Reject Sys $84,000,000 $31 $84,000,000 $31 $84,000,000 $31 Circ. Water Pumps & Pipe $26,000,000 $9 $26,000,000 $9 $26,000,000 $9 Construction Labor, Manual $1,422,000,000 $519 $1,422,000,000 $519 $1,848,600,000 $674 ConstructionServices $534,000,000 $195 $431,000,000 $157 $694,200,000 $253 Engineers Home Office Services $834,000,000 $304 $834,000,000 $304 $1,084,200,000 $395 Additional Required Scope $98,000,000 $36 $0 $0 $107.800.000 $39 Allowance for Cost Risk $1,002,300,000 $366 $874,200,000 $319 $1,636,760,000 $597 Subtotal $7,~a4,3oo,ooo $2,802 $6,702,200,000 $2,444 $9,820,560,000 $3,582 Owners Costs Security infrastructure $109,000,000 $40 $98,100,000 $36 $1 19,900,000 $44 Cooling Towers $1 31,000,000 $48 $0 $0 $144,100,000 $53 Aux Boilers $16,000,000 $6 $0 $0 $17,600,000 $6 Switch Yard $93,000,000 $34 $83,700,000 $31 $102,300,000 $37 Site work $257,000,000 $94 $231,300,000 $84 $282,700,000 $103 EPC startup costs $139,000,000 $51 $125,100,000 $46 $152,900,000 $56 Fuel $45,000,000 $16 $40,500,000 $15 $49,500,000 $18 Site Security $91,000,000 $33 $81,900,000 $30 $1 00,100,000 $37 PermitslLicensing $104,000,000 $38 $93,600,000 $34 $1 14,400,000 $42 Other Owner costs $38,000,000 $14 $34,200,000 $12 $41,800.000 $15 Owner Project Management $166,000,000 $61 $149,400,000 $54 $237,380,000 $87 Owner Transition $192,000,000 $70 $172,800,000 $63 $274,560,000 $1 00 Land Costs - Site $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Land Costs - Offsite $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Allowance for Cost Risk $207,150,000 $76 $166,590,000 $6 1 $327,448,000 $119 Subtotal $1,588,150,000 $579 $1,277,190,000 $466 $1,964,688,000 $717 m G o o
$85 Additional Project Related Costs zsz in 2
Transmission Integration $512,000,000 $187 $471,000,000 $1 72 $553,000,000 $202 R+. 20 30 Allowance for Cost Risk $76,800,000 $28 $70,650,000 $26 $1 10,600,000 $40 2 $
Subtotal $588,800,000 $215 $541,650,000 $1 98 $663,600,000 $242 : fi$ E
- E09 Grand Total $9,861,250,000 $3,596 $8,521,040,000 $3,108 $12,448,848,000 $4,540
Comparison of Cost Estimate Range to Breakeven Capital Cost Range - Combined Cycle New Nuclear Capital Breakeven Nuclear Cost Estimate Range Capital Cost Range
($/kW, 2007$) ($/kW, 2007$)
$8,000
$7,000 Fuel Forecasts: High, Medium, Low Emissions Forecasts: I, II, Ill and IV
$6,000
$5,000
-$4,540 In Range Scenarios
Comparison of Cost Estimate Range to Breakeven Capital Cost Range - IGCC New Nuclear Capital Breakeven Nuclear Cost Estimate Range Capital Cost Range Note 1
($/kW, 2007$) ($/kW, 2007$)
- - -$7,996
High - 11
$8,000
- - -$77487
________ Medium
- - II
$7,000 Fuel Forecasts: High, Medium, Low Emissions Forecasts: I, II, Ill and IV Note 1: All results for emission $6,000 forecast Ill and IV were above
$8,00O/kW break-even cost
$5,000
$4.540
$4,000
Project Total Cost Estimate Range (Year Spent $)
1 Adjusts $191/kW of preconstruction costs from the TVA study for the 2,200 or 3,040 MW project considered in the FPL estimate range Case A includes full current escalation to 2007, full owner scope and cost, and mid-range transmission integration estimate c .- e4sug Case B includes reduced escalation to 2007, reduced owner scope and cost, and low-range transmission integration estimate ;
g $,j g. 3 Case C includes increased escalation to 2007, full owner scope and cost, and high-range transmission q y integration estimate S n p
- 5 F
Project Expenditure Estimates by Rule 25-6.0423Category 3xample by Category Exploratory Licensing Preparation Construction
($MM, Year Spent) Phase Phase Phase Phase
!x 1100 MW CASE A Site Selection Costs $8 $0 $0 $0 Preconstruction Costs $0 $155 $310 $0 Construction Costs $0 $0 $50 $9,456 AFUDC $0 $0 $0 $4,041 Phase Total $8 $155 $360 $13,497 Total Cost Curve $8 $163 $523 $14,020
!x 1100 MW CASE B Site Selection Costs $8 $0 $0 $0 Preconstruction Costs $0 $155 $310 $0 Construction Costs $0 $0 $50 $8,099 AFUDC $0 $0 $0 $3,461 Phase Total $8 $155 $360 $11,559 Total Cost Curve $8 $163 $523 $12,082
? x 1100 MW CASE C Site Selection Costs $8 $0 $0 $0 Preconstruction Costs $0 $155 $310 $0 Construction Costs $0 $0 $50 $12,074 AFUDC $0 $0 $0 $5,160 Phase Total $8 $155 $360 $17,234 Total Project Cost $8 $163 $523 $17,757