[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40092-40106]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16552]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389; NRC-2011-0302]


License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level, 
Florida Power & Light Company, St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) 
is considering issuance of an amendment for Renewed Facility Operating 
License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16, issued to Florida Power & Light Company 
(FPL or the licensee) for operation of the St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 
2 (St. Lucie), located in St. Lucie County, Florida. The proposed 
license amendment would increase the maximum thermal power level from 
2,700 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3,020 MWt for each unit. The proposed 
power increase is 11.85 percent over the current licensed thermal 
power. The NRC performed an environmental assessment (EA) and based on 
its results, the NRC is issuing a finding of no significant impact 
(FONSI).

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0302 when contacting the 
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You 
may access information related to this document, which the NRC 
possesses and is publicly available, using any of the following 
methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2011-0302. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: [email protected].
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly-available documents online in the NRC 
Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the 
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number 
for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is 
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is 
referenced.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

I. Introduction

    The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment for Renewed 
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16, issued to Florida 
Power & Light Company (FPL or the licensee) for operation of St. Lucie, 
located in St. Lucie County, Florida, in accordance with Title 10 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.90. The NRC performed an EA 
and based on its results, the NRC is issuing a FONSI.
    The proposed license amendment would increase the maximum thermal 
power level from 2,700 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3,020 MWt for each 
unit. The proposed power increase is 11.85 percent over the current 
licensed thermal power. In 1981, FPL received approval from the NRC to 
increase its power by 5.47 percent to the current power level of 2,700 
MWt.
    The NRC did not identify any significant environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action based on its evaluation of the 
information provided in the licensee's application and other available 
information. For further information with respect to the proposed 
action, see the licensee's applications dated November 22, 2010, and 
February 25, 2011 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML103560419 and ML110730116, 
respectively), as supplemented by letter dated May 2, 2012 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML12124A224).
    The NRC published a notice in the Federal Register requesting 
public review and comment on a draft EA and FONSI for the proposed 
action on January 6, 2012 (77 FR 813), and established February 6, 
2012, as the deadline for submitting public comments. By letters dated 
January 30, 2012, and January 6, 2012 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML12037A063 
and ML12044A127, respectively), the NRC received comments from FPL and 
Mr. Edward W. Johnson, respectively. The FPL comments provided new 
estimates on the number of additional workers needed to support the 
outage work implementing the proposed Extended Power Uprate (EPU) and 
revised the projected outage times necessary to implement the EPU. The 
FPL comments have been incorporated in this final EA with no change to 
the FONSI conclusion. The comments from Mr. Johnson have been addressed 
in this final EA with no change to the FONSI conclusion. The comments 
are summarized in the attachment to this document, ``Summary of 
Comments on

[[Page 40093]]

the Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant 
Impact.''

II. Environmental Assessment

Plant Site and Environs

    The St. Lucie site is located on approximately 1,130 acres (457 
hectares) in Sections 16 and 17, Township 36 South, Range 41 East on 
Hutchinson Island in unincorporated St. Lucie County, Florida. St. 
Lucie is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the east and the Indian 
River Lagoon, a tidally influenced estuary, to the west. The plant is 
located on Hutchinson Island between Big Mud Creek to the north and 
Indian River to the south on an area previously degraded through 
flooding, drainage, and channelization for mosquito control projects. 
The nearest city limits from the plant site on the Atlantic coast are 
Port St. Lucie, approximately 2.5 miles (mi) (4 kilometers (km)) 
southwest, and Fort Pierce, approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) northwest of 
the plant. St. Lucie has two pressurized water reactors (Units 1 and 
2), each designed by Combustion Engineering for a net electrical power 
output of 839 megawatts electric. St. Lucie Unit 1 is fully owned by 
FPL, which has operated it since March 1, 1976. The licensee also 
solely operates St. Lucie Unit 2, which began operations on April 6, 
1983, and is co-owned by FPL, Orlando Utilities Commission, and Florida 
Municipal Power Agency.
    St. Lucie withdraws cooling water from the Atlantic Ocean through 
three offshore cooling water intakes with velocity caps. The ocean 
water is drawn through buried pipes into the plant's L-shaped intake 
canal to the eight intake pumps that circulate the non-contact cooling 
water through the plant. Two mesh barrier nets, one net of 5-inch (in) 
(12.7 centimeter (cm)) mesh size and the other of 8-in (20.3 cm) mesh 
size, and one rigid barrier located sequentially in the intake canal 
reduce the potential loss of large marine organisms, mostly sea 
turtles. Water passes through a trash rack made of 3-in (7.6 cm) spaced 
vertical bars and a \3/8\-in (1 cm) mesh size traveling screen, against 
which marine organisms that have passed through the nets are impinged, 
and into eight separate intake wells (four per unit) where it is pumped 
to a circulating-water system and an auxiliary cooling water system at 
each unit. The majority of the water goes to a once-through 
circulating-water system to cool the main plant condensers. The system 
has a nominal total capacity of 968,000 gallons per minute (gpm) 
(61,070 liters per second (L/s)). The auxiliary cooling water systems 
are also once-through cooling systems but use much less water (up to 
58,000 gpm (3,660 L/s)) than the circulating-water systems. Marine life 
that passes through the screens becomes entrained in the water that 
passes through the plant and is subject to thermal and mechanical 
stresses. The plant is also equipped with an emergency cooling water 
intake canal on the west side that can withdraw Indian River Lagoon 
water through Big Mud Creek, but this pathway is closed during normal 
plant operation.
    The heated water from the cooling water systems flows to a 
discharge canal and then through two offshore discharge pipes beneath 
the beach and dune system back to the Atlantic Ocean. One 12-foot (ft) 
(3.6 meter (m))-diameter discharge pipe extends approximately 1,500 ft 
(457 m) offshore and terminates in a two-port ``Y'' diffuser. A second 
16-ft (4.9 m)-diameter discharge pipe extends about 3,400 ft (1,040 m) 
from the shoreline and terminates with a multiport diffuser. This 
second pipe has fifty-eight 16-in (41 cm)-diameter ports spaced 24 ft 
(7.3 m) apart along the last 1,400 ft (430 m) of pipe farthest 
offshore. The discharge of heated water through the diffusers on the 
discharge pipes ensures distribution over a wide area and rapid and 
efficient mixing with ocean water.

Background Information on the Proposed Action

    By application dated November 22, 2010 (Unit 1), and February 25, 
2011 (Unit 2), the FPL requested an amendment for an EPU for St. Lucie 
to increase the licensed thermal power level from 2,700 MWt to 3,020 
MWt for each unit, which represents an increase of 11.85 percent above 
the current licensed thermal power. This change requires NRC approval 
prior to the licensee operating at that higher power level. The 
proposed action is considered an EPU by the NRC because it exceeds the 
typical 7-percent power increase that can be accommodated with only 
minor plant changes. An EPU typically involves extensive modifications 
to the nuclear steam supply system contained within the plant 
buildings.
    The licensee plans to make the extensive physical modifications to 
the plant's secondary side (i.e., non-nuclear) steam supply system that 
are needed in order to implement the proposed EPU. The modifications 
were scheduled to be implemented for Unit 1 and Unit 2 over the course 
of four refueling outages. Three of the four outages have been 
completed, with Unit 2 modifications scheduled to be implemented during 
the fall 2012 outage, which will be longer than a routine 35-day outage 
at approximately 113 days. Unit 1 also requires a short ``mid-cycle'' 
outage of 10-days in the summer of 2012 to implement final EPU 
modifications. The actual power uprate, if approved by the NRC, 
constitutes a 10 percent power uprate from major equipment 
installations and upgrades and operating changes and an additional 1.7 
percent power uprate from upgrades that decrease certain measurement 
uncertainties. As part of the proposed EPU project, FPL would release 
heated water with a proposed temperature increase of 3 [deg]F (1.7 
[deg]C) above the current discharge temperature through the discharge 
structures into the Atlantic Ocean.
    Approximately 800 people are currently employed at St. Lucie on a 
full-time basis. For the recently completed Unit 1 outage, this 
workforce was augmented by an additional 750 EPU workers on average, 
with a peak of 1,703 workers. For the mid-cycle Unit 1 outage, FPL 
estimates no additional staff. For the upcoming Unit 2 outage, FPL 
estimates an average of 1,058 workers, with a peak of 1,439 workers. 
The increase of workers would be larger than the number of workers 
required for a routine outage; however, the peak construction workforce 
would be smaller than the FPL-reported peak workforce for previous 
outages involving replacement of major components.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The licensee states in its environmental report that the proposed 
action is intended to provide an additional supply of electric 
generation in the State of Florida without the need to site and 
construct new facilities, or to impose new sources of air or water 
discharges to the environment. The licensee has determined that 
increasing the electrical output of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 is the most 
cost effective option to meet the demand for electrical energy while 
enhancing fuel diversity and minimizing environmental impacts, 
including the avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions.
    As stated in FPL's application, the proposed action is to provide 
the licensee with the flexibility to increase the potential electrical 
output of St. Lucie. The proposed EPU will increase the output for each 
unit by about 320 MWt, from about 2,700 MWt to about 3,020 MWt.

[[Page 40094]]

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    As part of the original licensing process for St. Lucie, the U.S. 
Atomic Energy Commission published a Final Environmental Statement 
(FES) in 1973 for Unit 1, and the NRC published a FES in 1982 for Unit 
2 (NUREG-0842). The two FESs contain an evaluation of the potential 
environmental impacts associated with the operation of St. Lucie over 
their licensed lifetimes. In May 2003, the NRC published an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) for St. Lucie (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML031360705). The 2003 EIS evaluated the environmental impacts of 
operating St. Lucie for an additional 20 years beyond its then-current 
operating license, extending the operation life of Unit 1 until 2036 
and Unit 2 until 2043. The NRC determined that the overall 
environmental impacts of license renewal were small. This NRC 
evaluation is presented in NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact 
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 11, 
Regarding St. Lucie Units 1 and 2'' (Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement (SEIS)--11). The NRC used information from FPL's license 
amendment request for the EPU, FPL's response to requests for 
additional information (ADAMS Accession No. ML12132A067), consultation 
with National Marine Fisheries Service, the FESs, and SEIS-11 to 
perform the EA for the proposed EPU.
    The licensee's application states that it would implement the 
proposed EPU without extensive changes to buildings or to other plant 
areas outside of buildings. The licensee proposes to perform all 
necessary physical plant modifications in existing buildings at St. 
Lucie or along the existing electrical transmission line right of way 
(ROW). With the exception of the high-pressure turbine rotor 
replacement, the required plant modifications would be generally small 
in scope. Other plant modifications would include installing a new 
digital turbine control system and associated control room; providing 
additional cooling for some plant systems; modifying feedwater and 
condensate systems; accommodating greater steam and condensate flow 
rates; adjusting the current onsite power system to compensate for 
increases in electrical loading; and upgrading instrumentation to 
include minor items such as replacing parts, changing setpoints, and 
modifying software.
    The licensee would use a vehicle and helicopter for transmission 
line modifications proposed along the existing overhead electrical 
transmission line ROW. The vehicle would transport personnel and a 
spool of overhead wire as a helicopter holds and moves the wire into 
place for the stringing activities. Although the modifications are part 
of the proposed EPU, this type and extent of activity along the ROW is 
included in existing maintenance permits and licenses.
    The following sections describe the potential nonradiological and 
radiological impacts to the environment that could result from the 
proposed EPU.

Nonradiological Impacts

Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts

    Potential land use and aesthetic impacts from the proposed EPU 
include impacts from proposed plant modifications at St. Lucie. While 
FPL proposes some plant modifications, most plant changes related to 
the proposed EPU would occur within existing structures, with the 
exception of modifications along the electrical transmission line ROW. 
As described in the licensee's application, the proposed electrical 
transmission line modifications would include the addition of 
subconductor spacers, an overhead wire, and replacement of relay 
protection electronics. The overhead wire would function as a ground 
for relay protection of the transmission lines. The licensee would 
install these transmission line modifications via helicopter. The only 
land use activity FPL expects to occur on the ground along the ROW 
would be the periodic need to park a truck or trailer containing a 
spool of wire that would be strung but would not extend outside of the 
existing ROW area. The NRC expects the electrical transmission line 
modifications to cause little or no observable change in the appearance 
of the transmission lines. Maintenance of the electrical transmission 
line ROW (tree trimming, mowing, and herbicide application) would 
continue after EPU implementation. The NRC does not expect land use or 
aesthetic changes for the proposed EPU along the transmission line ROW.
    During the EPU related refueling outages, FPL added two additional 
overflow parking areas (Area 1 and Area 2), safe walk pathways, 
additional lighting, and signage. The parking lot located in Area 1 was 
a previously vacant area that was prepared by grading. The parking lot 
located in Area 2 required some minor grubbing and grading. Both 
parking lots are located on previously disturbed areas, and FPL 
performed surveys of the areas prior to any ground-disturbing 
activities to evaluate potential impacts to threatened or endangered 
species and any ecological and cultural resources. Permits were not 
required or obtained for this work and best management practices were 
employed to reduce fugitive emissions. Other than the ground-disturbing 
activities described above, no new construction would occur outside of 
existing plant areas, and no expansion of buildings, roads, parking 
lots, equipment lay-down areas, or storage areas are required to 
support the proposed EPU. Existing parking lots, road access, equipment 
lay-down areas, offices, workshops, warehouses, and restrooms would be 
used during plant modifications. Because land use conditions would not 
change, and because any land disturbance has and would occur within 
previously disturbed areas, there would be no significant impact from 
EPU-related plant modifications on land use and aesthetic resources in 
the vicinity of St. Lucie.

Air Quality Impacts

    Because of its coastal location, meteorological conditions 
conducive to high air pollution are infrequent at St. Lucie. The plant 
is located within the South Florida Intrastate Air Quality Control 
Region. In addition, the Central Florida Intrastate Air Quality Control 
Region and the Southwest Florida Intrastate Air Quality Control Region 
are within 50 mi (80.5 km) of St. Lucie. These regions are designated 
as being in attainment or unclassifiable for all criteria pollutants in 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulations at 40 CFR 
81.310.
    Diesel generators, boilers, and other activities and facilities 
associated with St. Lucie emit pollutants. The Florida Department of 
Environmental Protection (FDEP) regulates emissions from these sources 
under Air Permit 1110071-006-AF. The FDEP reported no violations at St. 
Lucie in the last 5 years. The NRC expects no changes to the emissions 
from these sources as a result of the EPU.
    During EPU implementation, some minor and short duration air 
quality impacts would occur from other non-regulated sources. Vehicles 
of the additional outage workers needed for EPU implementation would 
generate the majority of air emissions during the proposed EPU-related 
modifications. Based on a traffic study FPL conducted for the EPU 
project, an additional 917 construction vehicles are estimated during 
an EPU-related outage period, with a peak increase of 1,333. The 
licensee has completed three of four

[[Page 40095]]

planned outages, with the fourth outage planned for the fall of 2012. 
The outage duration is expected to be longer than a routine 35-day 
outage, at 113 days. Based on the traffic study conducted by FPL, air 
emissions from the EPU workforce, truck deliveries, and construction/
modification activities would not exceed the FDEP annual emissions 
limit of 5 tons per year, recognized in Rule 62-210.300(3)(b) of the 
Florida Administrative Code, and would therefore not be significant. In 
addition, FPL would perform the majority of the EPU work inside 
existing buildings, which would not result in changes to outside air 
quality. The NRC expects no significant impacts to regional air quality 
from the proposed EPU beyond those air impacts evaluated for SEIS-11, 
including potential minor and temporary impacts from worker activity.

Water Use Impacts

Groundwater

    The licensee has approval from the City of Fort Pierce and the Fort 
Pierce Utilities Authority to use freshwater for potable and sanitary 
purposes. Although this freshwater comes from groundwater sources 
pumped from the mainland, St. Lucie does not use groundwater in any of 
its cooling systems and has no plans for groundwater use as part of 
plant operations in the future. The plant currently uses approximately 
309,565 gallons (gal) (1,171,831 liters (L)) of freshwater per day (or 
approximately 154,800 gal (585,982 L) per unit per day) and uses 
seawater from the Atlantic Ocean for noncontact cooling water. No 
production wells are present on the plant site for either domestic-type 
water uses or industrial use. The licensee does not discharge to 
groundwater at the plant site or on the mainland, and the plant's 
individual wastewater facility permit (IWFP) does not apply to 
groundwater.
    Under the EPU, FPL does not expect to significantly change the 
amount of freshwater use or supply source. With an expected increase of 
1,000 to 1,700 workers supporting EPU construction activities, the NRC 
expects potable water use to increase during the outage and return back 
to the regular operating levels after EPU implementation. It is 
unlikely this potential temporary increase in groundwater use during 
the EPU construction activities would have any effect on other local 
and regional groundwater users. The licensee has no use restrictions on 
the amount of water supplied by the City of Fort Pierce and the Fort 
Pierce Utilities Authority. The NRC expects no significant impact on 
groundwater resources during proposed EPU construction activities or 
following EPU implementation.

Surface Water

    The NRC evaluated the potential effects of releasing heated water 
with a proposed temperature increase of 3[emsp14][deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) 
above the current discharge temperature through the discharge pipes 
into the Atlantic Ocean as part of the proposed EPU. The FDEP regulates 
the Florida Surface Water Quality Standards through an IWFP, which also 
establishes the maximum area subject to temperature increase (mixing 
zone), maximum discharge temperatures, and chemical monitoring 
requirements.
    The plant injects chlorine in the form of sodium hypochlorate into 
seawater upstream of the intake cooling water system in regulated 
quantities to control microorganisms. Because FDEP regulates discharges 
and requires chemical monitoring, the NRC expects that the authorized 
discharges will not exceed the IWFP limitations after EPU 
implementation.
    The FDEP has issued the plant a permit modification to the IWFP for 
a 2[emsp14][deg]F (1.1 [deg]C) temperature increase of the heated water 
discharge temperature limit--from 113[emsp14][deg]F (45 [deg]C) before 
the EPU to the proposed thermal discharge limit of 115[emsp14][deg]F 
(46.1 [deg]C)--to accommodate the 3[emsp14][deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) actual 
discharge temperature increase. The FDEP granted this permit 
modification with the condition that FPL performs biological and 
thermal monitoring studies to demonstrate continued compliance with the 
Florida Surface Water Quality Standards, Thermal Surface Water 
Criteria. The proposed EPU will not result in an increase in the amount 
or rate of water withdrawn from or discharged to the Atlantic Ocean. 
The licensee conducted a thermal discharge study for the proposed EPU-
related increase in discharge water temperature (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML100830443) that predicts an increase in the extent of the thermal 
plume (mixing zone). The ambient water affected by the absolute 
temperature increase beyond the existing mixing zone would be less than 
25 ft (7.6 m) vertically or horizontally for the two-port ``Y'' 
diffuser and less than 6 ft (1.8 m) in any direction for the multiport 
diffuser.
    The FDEP has the authority to review all Federal licenses for 
coastal zone consistency with the FCMP. In 2007, FPL included a request 
for FDEP to review St. Lucie's coastal zone consistency as part of 
their Site Certification Application for the EPU (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML12144A316). The FDEP subsequently issued St. Lucie's Site 
Certification, demonstrating the proposed EPU's consistency with 
Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML12144A316).
    Because the NRC expects chemical and thermal discharges to remain 
within the limits specified in St. Lucie's modified permits, and 
because the FDCA determined that the proposed EPU is consistent with 
Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act, there would be no 
significant impact to surface water resources following implementation 
of the proposed EPU.

Aquatic Resource Impacts

    The potential impacts to aquatic resources from the proposed action 
could include impingement of aquatic life on barrier nets, trash racks, 
and traveling screens; entrainment of aquatic life through the cooling 
water intake structures and into the cooling water systems; and effects 
from the discharge of chemicals and heated water.
    Because the proposed EPU will not result in an increase in the 
amount or velocity of water being withdrawn from or discharged to the 
Atlantic Ocean, the NRC expects no increase in aquatic impacts from 
impingement and entrainment beyond the current impact levels. 
Currently, all organisms impinged on the trash racks and traveling 
screens would be killed, as would most, if not all, entrained 
organisms. The licensee would continue to rescue and release sea 
turtles and other endangered species trapped by the barrier nets in the 
intake canal. In addition, FPL's IWFP permit requires FPL to monitor 
aquatic organism entrapment in the intake canal, and, if unusually 
large numbers of organisms are entrapped, to submit to the FDEP a plan 
to mitigate such entrapment.
    The predicted 3 [deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) temperature increase from the 
diffusers and resulting increased size of the mixing zone would 
increase thermal exposure to aquatic biota at St. Lucie in the vicinity 
of the discharge locations. The thermal discharge study conducted for 
the proposed EPU predicts no increase in temperature higher than 96 
[deg]F (35.5 [deg]C) within 6 ft (1.8 m) of the bottom of the ocean 
floor and within 24 ft (7.3 m) from the ocean surface as a result of 
heated water discharged from the multiport diffuser. The same study 
also predicts that heated water discharged from the ``Y'' diffuser 
would not increase the ocean water temperature higher than 96 [deg] F 
(35.5 [deg]C) within 2 ft (0.6 m) of the bottom of the ocean floor and 
within 25 ft (17 m) from the ocean surface. Based on this analysis, 
surface water temperature

[[Page 40096]]

would remain below 94 [deg]F (34.4 [deg]C). Thermal studies conducted 
for St. Lucie prior to its operation and summarized in SEIS-11 
predicted there would be minimal impacts to aquatic biota from diffuser 
discharges that result in a surface temperature less than 97 [deg]F 
(36.1 [deg]C). Because the NRC expects the surface water temperature 
not to exceed 94 [deg]F (34.4 [deg]C) as a result of the proposed EPU, 
the NRC concludes that there are no significant impacts to aquatic 
biota from the proposed EPU.
    Although the proposed increase in temperature after EPU 
implementation would continue to exceed the Thermal Surface Water 
Quality Criteria for open waters as contained in the Florida Surface 
Water Quality Standards established by FDEP, St. Lucie currently 
operates under a separate mixing zone variance authorized by the FDEP. 
The NRC expects FPL to continue to meet its limits under the mixing 
zone variance after EPU implementation. The licensee will also continue 
to assess any potential impacts by performing the biological and 
thermal studies required by the IWFP modification mentioned above. If 
the study results are insufficient to adequately evaluate environmental 
changes, or if the data indicates a significant degradation to aquatic 
resources by exceeding Florida Surface Water Quality Standards or is 
inconsistent with the FCMP, FDEP could enforce additional abatement or 
mitigation measures to reduce the environmental impacts to acceptable 
levels. If the NRC approves the proposed EPU, the NRC does not expect 
aquatic resource impacts significantly greater than current operations 
because State agencies will continue to assess study results and the 
effectiveness of current FPL environmental controls. The FDEP could 
impose additional limits and controls on FPL if the impacts are larger 
than expected. Therefore, the NRC has determined that if FDCA and FDEP 
review the study results and allow FPL to operate at the proposed EPU 
power level, the increase in thermal discharge will not result in 
significant impacts on aquatic resources beyond the current impacts 
that occur during plant operations.

Essential Fish Habitat Consultation

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) 
identifies the importance of habitat protection to healthy fisheries. 
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined as those waters and substrata 
necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity 
(Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). Designating EFH is an 
essential component in the development of Fishery Management Plans to 
minimize habitat loss or degradation of fishery stocks and to take 
actions to mitigate such damage. Section 305(b) of the MSA provides 
that Federal agencies shall consult with the Secretary of Commerce on 
all actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by 
the agency that may adversely affect any EFH. On March 20, 2012, an EFH 
assessment for the proposed EPU was sent to the National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NMFS) under separate cover to initiate an EFH 
consultation (ADAMS Accession No. ML12053A345). The submitted EFH 
assessment found no adverse effects to EFH for two of the species of 
concern (Polyprion americanus and Litopenaeus setiferus) and minimal 
adverse effects for the remaining 40 species. The NMFS responded to the 
NRC's EFH assessment on May 18, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12144A008). 
In its letter, NMFS concluded that the proposed EPU would not have a 
substantial adverse impact on EFH. This letter fulfilled the NRC's EFH 
consultation requirements for the proposed EPU under the MSA. Based on 
its assessment and NMFS's conclusions, the NRC concludes that the 
proposed EPU would not have substantial adverse impact on EFH.
    The following table identifies the species that the NRC considered 
in its EFH assessment. The NMFS noted in its response that four 
additional species--Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus), cobia 
(Rachycentron canadum), king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla), and 
spiny lobster (Panulirus argus)--should have been included in the NRC's 
EFH assessment. However, NMFS also noted that this omission does not 
change the overall evaluation.

                                 Species of Fish Analyzed in the EFH Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Fishery management plan            Scientific name                         Common name
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Coral
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Order Alcyonacea.......  octocorals.
                                      Order Scleractinia.....  stony coral.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Highly Migratory Coastal Pelagics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuna................................  Katsuwonus pelamis.....  Atlantic skipjack tuna.
Swordfish...........................  Xiphias gladius........  swordfish.
Billfish............................  Tetrapturus pfluegeri..  longbill spearfish.
                                      Istiophorus platypterus  sailfish.
Large Coastal Sharks................  Carcharhinus limbatus..  blacktip shark.
                                      Carcharhinus leucas....  bull shark.
                                      Carcharhinus perezi....  Caribbean reef shark.
                                      Carcharhinus obscures..  dusky shark.
                                      Sphyrna mokarran.......  great hammerhead shark.
                                      Negaprion brevirostris.  lemon shark.
                                      Ginglymostoma cirratum.  nurse shark.
                                      Carcharhinus plumbeus..  sandbar shark.
                                      Sphyrna lewini.........  scalloped hammerhead shark.
                                      Carcharhinus             silky shark.
                                       falciformis.
                                      Carcharhinus brevipinna  spinner shark.
                                      Galeocerdo cuvier......  tiger shark.
                                      Carchardon carcharias..  white shark.
Small Coastal Sharks................  Rhizoprionodon           Atlantic sharpnose shark.
                                       terraenovae.
                                      Carcharhinus acronotus.  blacknose shark.
                                      Sphyrna tiburo.........  bonnethead shark.

[[Page 40097]]

 
                                      Carcharhinus isodon....  finetooth shark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Shrimp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Farfantepenaeus aztecus  brown shrimp.
                                      Farfantepenaeus          pink shrimp.
                                       duorarum.
                                      Sicyonia brevirostris..  rock shrimp.
                                      Litopenaeus setiferus..  white shrimp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Snapper-Grouper
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Lutjanus buccanella....  blackfin snapper.
                                      Caulolatilus microps...  blueline tilefish.
                                      Epinephelus itajara....  goliath grouper.
                                      Lutjanus griseus.......  gray (mangrove) snapper.
                                      Seriola dumerili.......  greater amberjack.
                                      Lutjanus analis........  mutton snapper.
                                      Pagrus pagrus..........  red porgy.
                                      Lutjanus campechanus...  red snapper.
                                      Mycteroperca phenax....  scamp.
                                      Lutjanus vivanus.......  silk snapper.
                                      Epinephelus niveatus...  snowy grouper.
                                      Epinephelus              speckled hind.
                                       drummondhayi.
                                      Rhomboplites aurorubens  vermilion snapper.
                                      Epinephelus nigritus...  Warsaw grouper.
                                      Haemulon plumier.......  white grunt.
                                      Polyprion americanus...  wreckfish.
                                      Epinephelus              yellowedge grouper.
                                       flavolimbatus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terrestrial Resources Impacts

    St. Lucie is situated on a relatively flat, sheltered area of 
Hutchinson Island with red mangrove swamps on the western side of the 
island that gradually slope downward to a mangrove fringe bordering the 
intertidal shoreline of the Indian River Lagoon. East of the facility, 
land rises from the ocean shore to form dunes and ridges approximately 
15 ft (4.5 m) above mean low water. Tropical hammock areas are present 
north of the discharge canal, and additional red mangrove swamps are 
present north of Big Mud Creek. Habitat in the electrical transmission 
line ROW is a mixture of human-altered areas, sand pine scrub, prairie/
pine flatwoods, wet prairie, and isolated marshes.
    Impacts that could potentially affect terrestrial resources include 
disturbance or loss of habitat, construction and EPU-related noise and 
lighting, and sediment transport or erosion. The licensee plans to 
conduct electrical transmission line modifications that would require a 
periodic need to park a truck or trailer containing a spool of wire. 
The NRC found in SEIS-11 that no bird mortalities were reported up to 
that time associated with the electrical transmission lines and 
predicted that FPL maintenance practices along the ROW would likely 
have little or no detrimental impact on the species potentially present 
in or near the electrical transmission ROW. Because FPL proposes a 
similar type and extent of land disturbance during typical maintenance 
of the electrical transmission line ROW for the EPU modifications, the 
NRC expects the proposed transmission line modifications would not 
result in any significant changes to land use or increase habitat loss 
or disturbance, sediment transport, or erosion beyond typical 
maintenance impacts. Noise and lighting would not adversely affect 
terrestrial species beyond effects experienced during previous outages 
because EPU-related construction modification activities would take 
place during outage periods, which are typically periods of heightened 
activity. Also, as previously discussed, prior to the grading or 
grubbing conducted for the two additional EPU-related parking areas, 
FPL performed a survey of the areas in accordance with FPL's conditions 
of site certification under the FDEP and followed best management 
practices to ensure that any ecological and terrestrial resources were 
protected. For all of these reasons, the NRC expects no significant 
impacts on terrestrial resources associated with the proposed action.

Threatened and Endangered Species

    Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(ESA), Federal agencies, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 
(as appropriate), must ensure that actions the agency authorizes, 
funds, or carries out are not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat.

List of Species

    A number of species in St. Lucie County are listed as threatened or 
endangered under the ESA, and other species are designated as meriting 
special protection or consideration. These include birds, fish, aquatic 
and terrestrial mammals, flowering plants, insects, and reptiles that 
could occur on or near St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 facility areas and 
possibly along the electrical transmission line ROW. The most common 
occurrences of threatened or endangered species near St. Lucie are five 
species of sea turtles that nest on Hutchinson Island beaches: 
Loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta), Atlantic green turtles (Chelonia 
mydas), Kemp's Ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempii), Leatherback 
turtles (Dermochelys coriacea), and Hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys 
imbricata).
    The following table identifies the species that the NRC considered 
in this EA that it had not previously assessed in SEIS-11 for license 
renewal because the species were not listed at that time.

[[Page 40098]]



   Table of Federally Listed Species Occurring in St. Lucie County Not
                     Previously Assessed in SEIS-11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Scientific name            Common name         ESA status \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Birds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calidris canutus ssp. Rufa....  red knot.........  Candidate.
Charadrius melodus............  piping plover....  T.
Dendroica kirtlandii..........  Kirtland's         E.
                                 warbler.
Grus americana................  whooping Crane     EXPN, XN.
                                 \b\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Fish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pristis pectinata.............  smalltooth         E.
                                 sawfish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Mammals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puma concolor.................  puma.............  T/SA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Reptiles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crocodylus acutus.............  American           T.
                                 crocodile.
Gopherus polyphemus...........  gopher tortoise    Candidate.
                                 \c\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ E = endangered; T = threatened; T/SA = threatened due to similarity
  of appearance; EXPN, XN = experimental, nonessential.
\b\ Experimental, nonessential populations of endangered species (e.g.,
  red wolf) are treated as threatened species on public land, for
  consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private
  land.
\c\ The gopher tortoise is not listed by the FWS as occurring in St.
  Lucie County. The core of the species' current distribution in the
  eastern portion of its range occurs in central and north Florida (76
  FR 45130), and FPL has reported the species' occurrence on the site
  and in the electrical transmission line ROWs.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Impacts on Aquatic Species

    The licensee has a mitigation and monitoring program in place for 
the capture-release and protection of sea turtles that enter the intake 
canal. The NRC has consulted with NMFS since 1982 regarding sea turtle 
kills, captures, or incidental takes. A 2001 NMFS biological opinion 
analyzed the effects of the circulating cooling water system on certain 
sea turtles at St. Lucie. The 2001 NMFS biological opinion provides for 
limited incidental takes of threatened or endangered sea turtles. 
Correspondence between FPL, FWS, and NMFS in connection with the 2003 
license renewal environmental review indicated that effects to 
endangered, threatened, or candidate species, including a variety of 
sea turtles and manatees, would not significantly change as a result of 
issuing a license renewal for St. Lucie. The NRC reinitiated formal 
consultation with NMFS in 2005 after the incidental take of a 
smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata). The NRC added sea turtles to 
the reinitiation of formal consultation with NMFS in 2006 after St. 
Lucie exceeded the annual incidental take limit for sea turtles. The 
NRC provided NMFS with a biological assessment in 2007 (ADAMS Accession 
No. ML071700161) as an update regarding effects on certain sea turtle 
species up to that time.
    By letter dated April 22, 2011, as part of this ongoing 
consultation, the NRC provided NMFS with information regarding 
potential impacts to listed aquatic species that would occur as a 
result of the proposed EPU. The NRC stated that the proposed EPU would 
increase the temperature of discharged water and the temperature of 
ocean water within the thermal plume surrounding the discharge point. 
However, the increase in the temperature would be relatively small, and 
the multiport diffusers on the discharge pipes would continue to 
rapidly dilute heated water and limit high temperatures to the mixing 
zone area specified in the IWFP. The NRC also analyzed the impacts of 
the higher temperatures on the smalltooth sawfish and various sea 
turtle species. The NRC concluded that because the smalltooth sawfish 
has a high thermal tolerance and sea turtles are able to tolerate a 
wide range of water temperatures, these species are unlikely to be 
adversely affected by higher water temperatures within the thermal 
plume at the St. Lucie discharge under EPU conditions. The NRC expects 
a response from NMFS in response to this ongoing consultation.
    Should NMFS determine mitigation measures necessary as part of the 
ongoing consultation, the NRC could enforce those measures. 
Furthermore, as described in the ``Aquatic Resource Impacts'' section, 
if the data collected from FPL's thermal monitoring studies indicates a 
significant degradation to aquatic resources by exceeding Florida 
Surface Water Quality Standards or is inconsistent with the FCMP, FDEP 
could enforce additional abatement or mitigation measures to reduce the 
environmental impacts to acceptable levels.
    Therefore, the NRC expects the proposed EPU would not have any 
significant impact on threatened and endangered aquatic species.

Impacts on Terrestrial Species

    Planned construction-related activities associated with the 
proposed EPU primarily involve changes to existing structures, systems, 
and components internal to existing buildings and would not involve 
earth disturbance, with the exception of planned electrical 
transmission line modifications. As described in the ``Terrestrial 
Resource Impacts'' section, electrical transmission line modifications 
may require truck use within the transmission line ROW. The NRC 
concluded in SEIS-11 that transmission line maintenance practices would 
not lower terrestrial habitat quality or cause significant changes in 
wildlife populations. Because the proposed EPU operations would not 
result in any significant changes to the expected transmission 
maintenance activities evaluated for license renewal, the proposed EPU 
transmission modifications also should have no adverse effect on 
threatened and endangered terrestrial species. In addition, the 
transmission modifications should have no adverse effect on the 
additional species not previously assessed in SEIS-11 listed in the 
above table.

[[Page 40099]]

    Traffic and worker activity in the developed parts of the plant 
site during the combined refueling outages and EPU modifications would 
be somewhat greater than a normal refueling outage. The NRC concluded 
in SEIS-11 that the continued operation of St. Lucie was not likely to 
adversely affect terrestrial wildlife. This conclusion was supported by 
consultation with FWS. Despite potential minor and temporary impacts 
from EPU-related worker activity, the effects from the proposed EPU 
should not exceed those potential effects evaluated in SEIS-11 and 
there should be no adverse effect on threatened or endangered species. 
In addition, the increased traffic and worker activity should have no 
adverse effect on the additional species not previously assessed in 
SEIS-11 listed in the above table.

Impacts on Critical Habitat

    The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) also has been 
documented at St. Lucie. Designated critical habitat for the West 
Indian manatee is located along the Indian River west of Hutchinson 
Island. No other critical habitat areas for endangered, threatened, or 
candidate species are located at the St. Lucie site or along the 
transmission line ROW. The NRC assessed potential impacts on the West 
Indian manatee from St. Lucie in SEIS-11, and the effects on its 
critical habitat from the proposed EPU should not exceed those assessed 
in SEIS-11. The incremental area affected by the increased thermal 
discharge due to the EPU should have negligible effects on the 
manatee's habitat. Therefore, the proposed EPU should have no adverse 
effect on the critical habitat for the West Indian manatee.

Historic and Archaeological Resources Impacts

    Records at the Florida Master File in the Florida Division of 
Historical Resources identify five known archaeological sites located 
on or immediately adjacent to the property boundaries for St. Lucie, 
although no archaeological and historic architectural finds have been 
recorded on the site. None of these sites is listed on the National 
Register for Historic Places (NRHP). Sixteen properties are listed on 
the NRHP in St. Lucie County including one historic district. The 
Captain Hammond House in White City, approximately 6 mi (10 km) from 
St. Lucie, is the nearest property listed on the NRHP.
    A moderate to high likelihood for the presence of significant 
prehistoric archaeological remains occurs along Blind Creek and the 
northern end of the St. Lucie boundary. As previously discussed, all 
EPU-related modifications would take place within existing buildings 
and facilities and the electrical transmission line ROW, which are not 
located near Blind Creek or the northern FPL property boundary. As 
discussed in the Land Use Impacts section, prior to any grading or 
grubbing conducted on previously disturbed areas for the two additional 
EPU-related parking areas, FPL performed a survey of the areas in 
accordance with the Site Conditions of Certification and followed best 
management practices to ensure that any cultural resources were 
protected. Because no change in ground disturbance or construction-
related activities would occur outside of previously disturbed areas 
and existing electrical transmission line ROW, the NRC expects no 
significant impact from the proposed EPU-related modifications on 
historic and archaeological resources.

Socioeconomic Impacts

    Potential socioeconomic impacts from the proposed EPU include 
increased demand for short-term housing, public services, and increased 
traffic in the region due to the temporary increase in the size of the 
workforce at St. Lucie required to implement the EPU. The proposed EPU 
also could generate increased tax revenues for the State and 
surrounding counties due to increased power generation.
    Approximately 800 full-time employees work at St. Lucie. For the 
recently completed Unit 1 outage, this workforce was augmented by an 
additional 750 EPU workers on average, with a peak of 1,703 workers. 
For the mid-cycle Unit 1 outage, FPL estimates no additional staff. For 
the upcoming Unit 2 outage, FPL estimates an average of 1,058 workers, 
with a peak of 1,439 workers. Once EPU-related plant modifications have 
been completed, the size of the refueling outage workforce at St. Lucie 
would return to normal levels and would remain similar to pre-EPU 
levels, with no significant increases during future refueling outages. 
The size of the regular plant operations workforce would be unaffected 
by the proposed EPU.
    The NRC expects most of the EPU plant modification workers to 
relocate temporarily to communities in St. Lucie, Martin, Indian River, 
and Palm Beach Counties, resulting in short-term increases in the local 
population along with increased demands for public services and 
housing. Because plant modification work would be temporary, most 
workers would stay in available rental homes, apartments, mobile homes, 
and camper-trailers. The 2010 American Community Survey 1-year estimate 
for vacant housing units reported 32,056 vacant housing units in St. 
Lucie County; 18,042 in Martin County; 23,236 in Indian River County; 
and 147,910 in Palm Beach County that could potentially ease the demand 
for local rental housing. Therefore, the NRC expects a temporary 
increase in plant employment for a short duration that would have 
little or no noticeable effect on the availability of housing in the 
region.
    The additional number of refueling outage workers and truck 
material and equipment deliveries needed to support EPU-related plant 
modifications would cause short-term service impacts (restricted 
traffic flow and higher incident rates) on secondary roads in the 
immediate vicinity of St. Lucie. The licensee expects increased traffic 
volumes necessary to support implementation of the EPU-related 
modifications during the refueling outage. The NRC predicted 
transportation service impacts for refueling outages at St. Lucie 
during its license renewal term would be small and would not require 
mitigation. However, the number of temporary construction workers the 
NRC evaluated for SEIS-11 was less than the number of temporary 
construction workers required for the proposed EPU. Based on this 
information and that EPU-related plant modifications would occur during 
a normal refueling outage, there could be noticeable short-term (during 
certain hours of the day), level-of-service traffic impacts beyond what 
is experienced during normal outages. In the past, during periods of 
high traffic volume (i.e., morning and afternoon shift changes), FPL 
has attempted to stagger work schedules to minimize any impacts, has 
established satellite parking areas, and use buses to transport workers 
on and off the site. Local police officials have also been used to 
direct traffic entering and leaving the north and south ends of St. 
Lucie to minimize level-of-service impacts (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML12132A067).
    St. Lucie currently pays annual real estate property taxes to the 
St. Lucie County school district, the County Board of Commissioners, 
the County fire district, and the South Florida Water Management 
District. The annual amount of future property taxes St. Lucie would 
pay could take into account the increased value of St. Lucie as a 
result of the EPU and increased power generation. But due to the short 
duration of EPU-related plant modification activities, there would be

[[Page 40100]]

little or no noticeable effect on tax revenues generated by additional 
temporary workers residing in St. Lucie County.
    In total, the NRC expects no significant socioeconomic impacts from 
EPU-related plant modifications and future operations after 
implementation of the EPU in the vicinity of St. Lucie.

Environmental Justice Impact Analysis

    The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential 
for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 
effects on minority and low-income populations that could result from 
activities associated with the proposed EPU at St. Lucie. Such effects 
may include human health, biological, cultural, economic, or social 
impacts. Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the general 
public residing in the vicinity of St. Lucie, and all are exposed to 
the same health and environmental effects generated from activities at 
St. Lucie.
    The NRC considered the demographic composition of the area within a 
50-mi (80.5-km) radius of St. Lucie to determine the location of 
minority and low-income populations using the U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2010 and whether they may be affected by the proposed action.
    According to 2010 census data, an estimated 1.3 million people live 
within a 50-mi (80.5-km) radius of St. Lucie within parts of nine 
counties. Minority populations within 50 mi (80.5 km) comprise 37 
percent (approximately 466,800 persons). The largest minority group was 
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) (approximately 223,700 persons or 17.7 
percent), followed by Black or African-American (approximately 203,900 
persons or 16.2 percent). The 2010 census block groups containing 
minority populations were concentrated in Gifford (Indian River 
County), Fort Pierce (St. Lucie County), Pahokee (Palm Beach County 
near Lake Okeechobee), the agricultural areas around Lake Okeechobee, 
and Hobe Sound (Martin County).
    According to the 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates 
data, an average of 10.6 percent of the population (267,000 persons) 
residing in counties in a 50 mi (80.5 km) of St. Lucie were considered 
low-income, living below the 2010 federal poverty threshold of $22,113 
for a family of four. According to the 2010 American Community Survey 
1-Year census estimates, the median household income for Florida was 
$44,409, while 12.0 percent of families and 16.5 percent of the State 
population were determined to be living below the Federal poverty 
threshold. St. Lucie County had a lower median household income average 
($38,671) and higher percentages of families (14.1 percent) and 
individuals (18 percent) living below the poverty threshold, 
respectively.
    Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations would 
mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, 
dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Radiation doses from 
plant operations after implementation of the EPU are expected to 
continue to remain well below regulatory limits.
    Noise and dust impacts would be temporary and limited to onsite 
activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site 
access roads could experience increased commuter vehicle traffic during 
shift changes. Increased demand for inexpensive rental housing during 
the EPU-related plant modifications could disproportionately affect 
low-income populations; however, due to the short duration of the EPU-
related work and the availability of housing properties, impacts to 
minority and low-income populations would be of short duration and 
limited. According to the 2010 census information, there were 
approximately 221,244 vacant housing units in St. Lucie County and the 
surrounding three counties combined.
    Based on this information and the analysis of human health and 
environmental impacts presented in this EA, the proposed EPU would not 
have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 
effects on minority and low-income populations residing in the vicinity 
of St. Lucie.

Nonradiological Cumulative Impacts

    The NRC considered potential cumulative impacts on the environment 
resulting from the incremental impact of the proposed EPU when added to 
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the 
vicinity of St. Lucie. Since the NRC is unaware of any other actions in 
the vicinity of St. Lucie, the NRC concludes that there are no 
significant nonradiological cumulative impacts.
    Additionally, the NRC concluded that there would be no significant 
cumulative impacts to air quality, groundwater, threatened and 
endangered species, or historical and archaeological resources near St. 
Lucie because the contributory effect of ongoing actions within the 
region are regulated and monitored through a permitting process (e.g., 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and 401/404 permits 
under the Clean Water Act) under State or Federal authority. In these 
cases, impacts are managed as long as these actions comply with their 
respective permits and conditions of certification.

Nonradiological Impacts Summary

    As discussed above, the proposed EPU would not result in any 
significant nonradiological impacts. Table 1 summarizes the 
nonradiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at St. Lucie.

        Table 1--Summary of Nonradiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use.....................  No significant impacts on land use
                                conditions and aesthetic resources in
                                the vicinity of St. Lucie.
Air Quality..................  No significant impacts to air quality
                                from temporary air quality impacts from
                                vehicle emissions related to EPU
                                construction workforce.
Water Use....................  No significant changes to impacts caused
                                by current operations. No significant
                                impacts on groundwater or surface water
                                resources.
Aquatic Resources............  No significant changes to impacts caused
                                by current operation due to impingement,
                                entrainment, and thermal discharges.
Terrestrial Resources........  No significant changes to impacts caused
                                by current operations. No significant
                                impacts to terrestrial resources.
Threatened and Endangered      No significant changes to impacts caused
 Species.                       by current operations. The NRC expects
                                NMFS to issue a biological opinion on
                                sea turtles and the small tooth sawfish
                                in the near future.
Historic and Archaeological    No significant impacts to historic and
 Resources.                     archaeological resources onsite or in
                                the vicinity of St. Lucie.
Socioeconomics...............  No significant changes to impacts caused
                                by current operations. No significant
                                socioeconomic impacts from
                                EPU[dash]related temporary increase in
                                workforce.

[[Page 40101]]

 
Environmental Justice........  No disproportionately high or adverse
                                human health and environmental effects
                                on minority and low-income populations
                                in the vicinity of St. Lucie.
Cumulative Impacts...........  No significant changes to impacts caused
                                by current operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radiological Impacts

Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluents and Solid Waste

    St. Lucie uses waste treatment systems to collect, process, 
recycle, and dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that contain 
radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner within NRC and EPA 
radiation safety standards. The licensee's evaluation of plant 
operation under proposed EPU conditions show that no physical changes 
would be needed to the radioactive gaseous, liquid, or solid waste 
systems. Therefore, the NRC has determined that the impact from the 
proposed EPU on the radioactive gaseous, liquid, and solid waste 
systems would not be significant.

Radioactive Gaseous Effluents

    The radioactive gaseous system manages radioactive gases generated 
during the nuclear fission process and is part of the gaseous waste 
management system. Radioactive gaseous wastes are principally 
activation gases and fission product radioactive noble gases resulting 
from process operations, including continuous cleanup of the reactor 
coolant system, gases used for tank cover gas, and gases collected 
during venting. The licensee's evaluation determined that 
implementation of the proposed EPU would not significantly increase the 
inventory of carrier gases normally processed in the gaseous waste 
management system, because plant system functions are not changing, and 
the volume inputs remain the same. The licensee's analysis also showed 
that the proposed EPU would result in an increase (a bounding maximum 
of 13.2 percent for all noble gases, particulates, radioiodines, and 
tritium) in the equilibrium radioactivity in the reactor coolant, which 
in turn increases the radioactivity in the waste disposal systems and 
radioactive gases released from the plant.
    The licensee's evaluation concluded that the proposed EPU would not 
change the radioactive gaseous waste system's design function and 
reliability to safely control and process the waste. The existing 
equipment and plant procedures that control radioactive releases to the 
environment will continue to be used to maintain radioactive gaseous 
releases within the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1302 and the as low as is 
reasonably achievable (ALARA) dose objectives in 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix I. Therefore, the NRC has determined that the impact from the 
proposed EPU on the management of radioactive gaseous effluents would 
not be significant.

Radioactive Liquid Effluents

    The liquid waste management system collects, processes, and 
prepares radioactive liquid waste for disposal. Radioactive liquid 
wastes include liquids from various equipment drains, floor drains, the 
chemical and volume control system, steam generator blowdown, chemistry 
laboratory drains, laundry drains, decontamination area drains, and 
liquids used to transfer solid radioactive waste. The licensee's 
evaluation shows that the proposed EPU implementation would not 
significantly increase the inventory of liquid normally processed by 
the liquid waste management system. This is because the system 
functions are not changing and the volume inputs remain the same. The 
proposed EPU would result in an increase in the equilibrium 
radioactivity in the reactor coolant (12.2 percent), which in turn 
would impact the concentrations of radioactive nuclides in the waste 
disposal systems.
    The licensee stated that because the composition of the radioactive 
material in the waste and the volume of radioactive material processed 
through the system are not expected to significantly change, the 
current design and operation of the radioactive liquid waste system 
will accommodate the effects of the proposed EPU. The existing 
equipment and plant procedures that control radioactive releases to the 
environment will continue to be used to maintain radioactive liquid 
releases within the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1302 and ALARA dose 
objectives in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Therefore, the NRC has 
determined that the impact from the proposed EPU on the management of 
radioactive liquid effluents would not be significant.

Radioactive Solid Wastes

    Radioactive solid wastes include solids recovered from the reactor 
coolant systems, solids that come into contact with the radioactive 
liquids or gases, and solids used in the reactor coolant system 
operation. The licensee evaluated the potential effects of the proposed 
EPU on the solid waste management system. The largest volume of 
radioactive solid waste is low-level radioactive waste, which includes 
bead resin, spent filters, and dry active waste (DAW) that result from 
routine plant operation, refueling outages, and routine maintenance. 
The DAW includes paper, plastic, wood, rubber, glass, floor sweepings, 
cloth, metal, and other types of waste generated during routine 
maintenance and outages.
    The licensee states that the proposed EPU would not have a 
significant effect on the generation of radioactive solid waste volume 
from the primary reactor coolant and secondary side systems because 
system functions are not changing, and the volume inputs remain 
consistent with historical generation rates. The waste can be handled 
by the solid waste management system without modification. The 
equipment is designed and operated to process the waste into a form 
that minimizes potential harm to the workers and the environment. Waste 
processing areas are monitored for radiation, and safety features are 
in place to ensure worker doses are maintained within regulatory 
limits. The proposed EPU would not generate a new type of waste or 
create a new waste stream. Therefore, the NRC has determined that the 
impact from the proposed EPU on the management of radioactive solid 
waste would not be significant.

Occupational Radiation Dose at the EPU Power Level

    The licensee stated that the in-plant radiation sources are 
expected to increase approximately linearly with the proposed increase 
in core power level of 12.2 percent. For the radiological impact 
analyses, the licensee conservatively assumed an increase to the 
licensed thermal power level from 2,700 MWt to 3,030 MWt or 12.2 
percent, although the EPU request is for an increase to the licensed 
thermal power level to 3,020 MWt or 11.85 percent. To protect the 
workers, the licensee's radiation protection program monitors radiation 
levels throughout the plant to establish appropriate work controls, 
training, temporary shielding, and protective equipment requirements so 
that worker doses will remain within the dose limits of 10 CFR Part 20 
and ALARA.

[[Page 40102]]

    In addition to the work controls implemented by the radiation 
protection program, permanent and temporary shielding is used 
throughout St. Lucie to protect plant personnel against radiation from 
the reactor and auxiliary systems. The licensee determined that the 
current shielding design, which uses conservative analytical techniques 
to establish the shielding requirements, is adequate to offset the 
increased radiation levels that are expected to occur from the proposed 
EPU. Based on these findings, the NRC does not expect the proposed EPU 
to significantly affect radiation levels within the plant and, 
therefore, there would not be a significant radiological impact to the 
workers.

Offsite Doses at the EPU Power Level

    The primary sources of offsite dose to members of the public from 
St. Lucie are radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents. The licensee 
predicts that because of the EPU, maximum annual total and organ doses 
would increase by 12.2 percent. This would still be within the NRC's 
regulatory limits. As previously discussed, operation at the EPU power 
level will not change the ability of the radioactive gaseous and liquid 
waste management systems to perform their intended functions. Also, 
there would be no change to the radiation monitoring system and 
procedures used to control the release of radioactive effluents in 
accordance with NRC radiation protection standards in 10 CFR Part 20 
and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.
    Based on the above, the offsite radiation dose to members of the 
public would continue to be within NRC and EPA regulatory limits and, 
therefore, would not be significant.

Spent Nuclear Fuel

    Spent fuel from St. Lucie is stored in the plant's spent fuel pool. 
St. Lucie is licensed to use uranium-dioxide fuel that has a maximum 
enrichment of 4.5 percent by weight uranium-235. Approval of the 
proposed EPU would increase the maximum fuel enrichment to 4.6 percent 
by weight uranium-235. The average fuel assembly discharge burnup for 
the proposed EPU is expected to be limited to 49,000 megawatt days per 
metric ton uranium (MWd/MTU) with no fuel pins exceeding the maximum 
fuel rod burnup limit of 62,000 MWd/MTU for Unit 1 and 60,000 MWd/MTU 
for Unit 2. The FPL's fuel reload design goals will maintain the St. 
Lucie fuel cycles within the limits bounded by the impacts analyzed in 
10 CFR Part 51, Table S-3--Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data and 
Table S-4--Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to 
and From One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor, as supplemented 
by NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum1, ``Generic Environmental Impact 
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Section 
6.3--Transportation Table 9.1, Summary of findings on NEPA issues for 
license renewal of nuclear power plants'' (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML040690720). Therefore, there would be no significant impacts 
resulting from spent nuclear fuel.

Postulated Design-Basis Accident Doses

    Both the licensee and the NRC evaluated postulated design-basis 
accidents to ensure that St. Lucie can withstand normal and abnormal 
transients and a broad spectrum of postulated accidents with reasonable 
assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be 
endangered by operation in the proposed manner.
    The licensee performed analyses according to the Alternative 
Radiological Source Term methodology, updated with input and 
assumptions consistent with the proposed EPU. For each design-basis 
accident, radiological consequence analyses were performed using the 
guidance in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183, ``Alternative Source Terms for 
Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors'' (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML003716792). Accident-specific total effective dose 
equivalent was determined at the exclusion area boundary, at the low-
population zone, and in the control room. The analyses also include the 
evaluation of the waste gas decay tank rupture event. The licensee 
concluded that the calculated doses meet the acceptance criteria 
specified in 10 CFR 50.67 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General 
Design Criterion 19.
    The NRC is evaluating FPL's EPU applications to independently 
determine whether they are acceptable to approve. The results of the 
NRC evaluation and conclusion will be documented in a Safety Evaluation 
Report that will be publicly available. The NRC will only approve the 
proposed EPU if the radiological consequences of design-basis accidents 
will not have a significant impact.

Radiological Cumulative Impacts

    The radiological dose limits for protection of the public and 
workers have been developed by the NRC and EPA to address the 
cumulative impact of acute and long-term exposure to radiation and 
radioactive material. These dose limits are codified in 10 CFR Part 20 
and 40 CFR Part 190.
    The cumulative radiation doses to the public and workers are 
required to be within the regulations cited above. The annual public 
dose limit of 25 millirem (0.25 millisieverts) in 40 CFR Part 190 
applies to all reactors that may be on a site and includes any other 
nearby nuclear power reactor facilities. No other nuclear power reactor 
or uranium fuel cycle facility is located near St. Lucie. The NRC staff 
reviewed several years of radiation dose data contained in the FPL's 
annual radioactive effluent release reports for St. Lucie. The data 
demonstrate that the dose to members of the public from radioactive 
effluents is well within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and 40 CFR Part 
190. To evaluate the projected dose at the EPU power level for St. 
Lucie, the NRC increased the actual dose data contained in the reports 
by 12 percent. The projected doses remained well within regulatory 
limits. Therefore, the NRC concludes that there would not be a 
significant cumulative radiological impact to members of the public 
from increased radioactive effluents from St. Lucie at the proposed EPU 
power level.
    As previously discussed, FPL has a radiation protection program 
that maintains worker doses within the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 
during all phases of St. Lucie operations. The NRC expects continued 
compliance with regulatory dose limits during operation at the proposed 
EPU power level. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that operation of 
St. Lucie at the proposed EPU levels would not result in a significant 
impact to worker cumulative radiological dose.

Radiological Impacts Summary

    As discussed above, the proposed EPU would not result in any 
significant radiological impacts. Table 2 summarizes the radiological 
environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at St. Lucie.

[[Page 40103]]



         Table 2--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents  Amount of additional radioactive gaseous
                                effluents generated would be handled by
                                the existing system.
Radioactive Liquid Effluents.  Amount of additional radioactive liquid
                                effluents generated would be handled by
                                the existing system.
Radioactive Solid Waste......  Amount of additional radioactive solid
                                waste generated would be handled by the
                                existing system.
Occupational Radiation Doses.  Occupational doses would continue to be
                                maintained within NRC limits.
Offsite Radiation Doses......  Radiation doses to members of the public
                                would remain below NRC and EPA radiation
                                protection standards.
Spent Nuclear Fuel...........  The spent fuel characteristics will
                                remain within the bounding criteria used
                                in the impact analysis in 10 CFR Part
                                51, Table S-3 and Table S-4.
Postulated Design-Basis        Calculated doses for postulated design-
 Accident Doses.                basis accidents would remain within NRC
                                limits.
Cumulative Radiological......  Radiation doses to the public and plant
                                workers would remain below NRC and EPA
                                radiation protection standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC considered denial 
of the proposed EPU (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Denial of 
the application would result in no change in the current environmental 
impacts. However, if the EPU was not approved for St. Lucie, other 
agencies and electric power organizations may be required to pursue 
other means, such as fossil fuel or alternative fuel power generation, 
in order to provide electric generation capacity to offset future 
demand. Construction and operation of such a fossil-fueled or 
alternative-fueled facility could result in impacts in air quality, 
land use, and waste management greater than those identified for the 
proposed EPU at St. Lucie. Furthermore, the proposed EPU does not 
involve environmental impacts that are significantly different from 
those originally indentified in the St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 FESs and 
SEIS-11.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any different resources 
than those previously considered in the FESs or SEIS-11.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    Based upon a letter dated May 2, 2003, from Michael N. Stephens of 
the Florida Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control, to 
Brenda L. Mozafari, Senior Project Manager, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, the State of Florida does not desire notification of 
issuance of license amendments. Therefore, the State of Florida was not 
consulted. Consultations held with NMFS, FDEP, and FDCA are discussed 
and documented above.

III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    Based on the details provided in the EA, the NRC concludes that 
granting the proposed EPU license amendment is not expected to cause 
impacts significantly greater than current operations. The proposed 
action implementing the EPU for St. Lucie will not have a significant 
effect on the quality of the human environment because no significant 
permanent changes are involved, and the temporary impacts are within 
previously disturbed areas at the site and within the capacity of the 
plant systems. Accordingly, the NRC has determined it is not necessary 
to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of June 2012.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tracy J. Orf,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Summary of Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft 
Finding of No Significant Impact

Background

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff published a 
notice in the Federal Register requesting public review and comment on 
the draft environmental assessment (EA) and draft finding of no 
significant impact (FONSI) on January 6, 2012 (77 FR 813), and 
established February 6, 2012, as the deadline for submitting public 
comments. The NRC received comments and supplemental information from 
Florida Power & Light Company (FPL or the licensee) and from a member 
of the public. The correspondence associated with the comments is 
provided in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS) and available as a matter of public record. Table 1 is a 
summary of each correspondence, including the name and affiliation of 
each commenter, a document letter code, the ADAMS accession number, and 
the number of comments.
    In addition, the NRC staff made editorial changes to the draft EA, 
specifically the Threatened and Endangered Species section. These 
editorial changes did not change the conclusion of the FONSI.

                                         Table 1--Comments Received on the St. Lucie Extended Power Uprate (EPU)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           Number of
              Last name                       First name                Affiliation         Document  letter  ADAMS  accession number       comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anderson.............................  Richard L...............  Florida Power & Light...                  A  ML12037A063............                  6
Johnson..............................  Edward W................  Self....................                  B  ML12044A127............                  8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 40104]]

Comment Review

    The NRC staff reviewed each comment letter and all comments related 
to similar issues and grouped topics together. This attachment presents 
the comments, or summaries of comments, along with the NRC staff's 
responses. When comments have resulted in a modification to the draft 
EA, those changes are noted in the NRC staff's response.

Major Issues and Topics of Concern

    The staff grouped comments into the following categories: 
supplemental information provided to the NRC, Aquatic Resources, and 
Nuclear Safety (see Table 2). Next to each set of grouped comments is a 
four-component code corresponding to: the power plant (``SL'' for St. 
Lucie); the document letter (A-B) that corresponds to the document 
submitter from Table 1; the number of the comment from that particular 
commenter; and the two-letter category comment code from Table 2.

         Table 2--Draft EA Comment Categories and Comment Codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Comment category                       Comment code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplemental Information...................  SI
Aquatic Resources..........................  AR
Nuclear Safety.............................  NS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supplemental Information (SI)

Comment: SL-A-1-AR

    In a January 30, 2012, letter to the NRC, FPL suggested changes to 
the draft EA based on supplemental information provided in its letter 
to the NRC dated January 11, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML110210023). 
The draft EA indicated that the predicted discharge temperature 
increase resulting from the St. Lucie EPU would be 2 [deg]F (1.1 
[deg]C) above the current discharge temperature. The licensee clarified 
that the predicted temperature increase would be 3 [deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) 
and that FPL had requested from Florida Department of Environmental 
Protection (FDEP) a 2 [deg]F (1.1 [deg]C) increase to the heated water 
discharge temperature limit, from 113 [deg]F (45 [deg]C) before the EPU 
to 115 [deg]F (46.1 [deg]C) to account for the 3 [deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) 
increase after EPU completion at Units 1 and 2.

NRC Response

    The NRC staff reviewed the information and incorporated the change 
from a 2 [deg]F (1.1 [deg]C) temperature increase to a 3 [deg]F (1.7 
[deg]C) temperature increase. Because the discharge temperature limit 
did not change, consideration of the above comment does not change the 
conclusion of the FONSI.

Comment: SL-A-2-SI

    The licensee provided new information on the number of additional 
workers expected during the EPU-related outages. The draft EA stated 
that an additional 1,000 construction workers would be needed during 
each outage, with a potential peak of 1,400 additional construction 
workers. The licensee revised this estimate in its comment to an 
average of 2,100 workers per outage, with a peak of 3,000. This comment 
prompted the NRC to submit a request for additional information to FPL 
on April 18, 2012. The licensee's response to the request was provided 
on May 2, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12132A067). In their response, 
FPL clarified that three of the four necessary EPU-related outages had 
already occurred, with an additional outage planned for the fall of 
2012 for Unit 2. For the recently completed outage, the average number 
of additional workers was 750, with a peak of 1,703. The upcoming 
outage expects an average of 1,058 additional workers, with a peak of 
1,439.
    The licensee provided information requested by the NRC in the areas 
of land use, traffic impacts, air quality impacts, terrestrial impacts, 
and cultural impacts. For land use impacts, FPL provided more detailed 
information on the two parking lots that were created for the EPU-
related outages, including that surveys were conducted and best 
management practices employed to minimize impacts on threatened and 
endangered species, terrestrial resources, and cultural resources. For 
traffic impacts, FPL provided the transportation analysis it used to 
determine impact significance, as well as examples of how FPL has 
mitigated traffic impacts in the past, which include shift staggering, 
shuttling workers from offsite parking areas, and employing local 
police to direct traffic onsite during peak conditions. For air quality 
impacts, FPL provided an assessment of the potential impacts of an 
additional 1,400 to 3,000 construction workers, including the results 
of a traffic study and calculations for the amount of fugitive 
particulate matter emissions expected to result from the increased 
workforce. The licensee determined that the workforce increase would 
not trigger air quality violations under the Clean Air Act and would 
remain below FDEP regulations for unpermitted emissions.

NRC Response

    The NRC staff reviewed this additional information and determined 
that the additional workers during EPU-related outages in conjunction 
with the mitigating strategies that FPL implemented to account for the 
increase have no significant impacts in the areas of socioeconomic, 
terrestrial resource, air quality, and land use. The NRC made the 
necessary changes to the draft EA in the areas of socioeconomic, 
terrestrial resource, air quality, and land use impacts. Consideration 
of the above comment does not change the conclusion of the FONSI.

Comment: SL-A-3-SI

    In a January 30, 2012, letter to the NRC, FPL suggested changes to 
the draft EA based on supplemental information provided as Attachment 
2, ``St. Lucie Plant Water Usage 2004-2009'' (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML12037A063). The draft EA stated that the plant uses approximately 
131,500 gallons (498 m\3\) of water per day. The draft EA did not 
specify that this was a per unit withdrawal rate. The licensee provided 
information based on plant records developed from FPL's Ft. Pierce 
Utilities water bills for 2004 to 2009, showing that the approximate 
water usage is 154,800 gallons per unit per day (586 m\3\), or a 
combined average water usage rate of approximately 309,565 gallons 
(1172 m\3\).

NRC Response

    The NRC staff reviewed the information and incorporated the change 
to the draft EA in the area of Water Use Impacts, Groundwater from 
131,500 gallons (497,782 L) of water per day to 309,565 gallons 
(1,171,831 L) per day, or approximately 154,800 gallons (585,981 L) per 
unit per day. Under the EPU, FPL does not expect to significantly 
change the amount of freshwater currently used or its supply source. 
Consideration of the above comment does not change the conclusion of 
the FONSI.

Comment: SL-A-4-SI

    In a January 30, 2012, letter to the NRC, FPL suggested changes to 
the draft EA based on supplemental information provided in its letter 
to the NRC dated January 11, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML110210023). 
The draft EA stated that FDEP had issued a temporary variance for a 
temperature increase of heated water discharge from 113 [deg]F (45 
[deg]C) before the EPU to 115 [deg]F (46.1 [deg]C) after EPU completion 
at Units 1 and 2. The licensee clarified that the FDEP's change to the 
St. Lucie Plant's individual wastewater facility permit

[[Page 40105]]

(IWFP) was a modification, not a temporary variance. The permit 
modification was issued on December 21, 2010, and was accompanied by an 
Administrative Order requiring FPL to perform pre-EPU biological 
monitoring and a minimum of two years of post-EPU thermal and 
biological monitoring in the vicinity of St. Lucie.

NRC Response

    The NRC staff reviewed the information and incorporated the change 
from referring to the FDEP change as a temporary variance to a permit 
modification. Consideration of the above comment does not change the 
conclusion of the FONSI.

Aquatic Resources (AR)

Comment: SL-A-5-AR

    The licensee disagreed with a statement in the draft EA that the 
proposed increase in temperature after EPU implementation would exceed 
Florida Surface Water Quality Standards. The licensee explained that, 
though St. Lucie's heated water discharge currently exceeds the Thermal 
Surface Water Criteria for open waters, FPL was granted a zone of 
mixing variance by FDEP. The FDEP also granted FPL an increase of 2 
[deg]F (1.1 [deg]C) in the instantaneous discharge temperature limit in 
the IWFP modification following EPU implementation. The licensee stated 
that it performs biological and thermal monitoring studies in 
accordance with the IWFP, which demonstrate its continued compliance 
with the State's thermal standards following EPU implementation.

NRC Response

    The NRC staff reviewed the information and incorporated the change 
into the final EA. While the draft EA stated that the increase in 
temperature after EPU implementation would exceed Florida Surface Water 
Quality Standards, the final EA states that EPU implementation will 
continue to exceed Thermal Surface Water Criteria established by FDEP, 
but that FPL will continue to meet its FDEP mixing zone variance limits 
and will continue to perform studies to assess any potential thermal 
impacts. Consideration of the above comment does not change the 
conclusion of the FONSI.

Comment: SL-B-2-AR

    The commenter is concerned that St. Lucie already withdraws 
approximately 1 million gallons per second and that this withdrawal 
amount should increase another 12 percent if a 12 percent power 
increase is permitted. The commenter states that withdrawal of an 
additional 100,000 gallons per second should be permitted by the NRC to 
avoid a temperature increase to the plant's heated water discharge.

NRC Response

    St. Lucie's thermal discharge limits are permitted and maintained 
by FDEP. The NRC has no regulatory authority over thermal discharge 
limits or water withdrawal permits. Therefore, no change was made to 
the final EA based on this comment.

Comment: SL-B-3-AR

    The commenter is concerned that the applicant's statement that the 
seawater temperature beyond the plant's mixing zone of 95 [deg]F (35 
[deg]C) is incorrect. The commenter would like verification of this 
temperature and provides information that the average water temperature 
in that area should be closer to an ambient temperature of 79 [deg]F 
(26.1 [deg]C). The commenter challenges the applicant's claim of an 
ambient water temperature of 95 [deg]F (35 [deg]C) and believes that an 
additional temperature increase after EPU implementation will have 
detrimental effects on aquatic resources.

NRC Response

    As discussed in the ``Aquatic Resource Impacts'' section, a thermal 
discharge study that was conducted for the proposed EPU predicts no 
increase in temperature higher than 96 [deg]F (35.5 [deg]C) within 6 ft 
(1.8 m) of the bottom of the ocean floor and within 24 ft (7.3 m) from 
the ocean surface as a result of heated water discharged from the 
multiport diffuser. The same study also predicts that heated water 
discharged from the ``Y'' diffuser would not increase the ocean water 
temperature higher than 96 [deg]F (35.5 [deg]C) within 2 ft (0.6 m) of 
the bottom of the ocean floor and within 25 ft (17 m) from the ocean 
surface. Based on this analysis, surface water temperature would remain 
below 94 [deg]F (34.4 [deg]C). Thermal studies conducted for St. Lucie 
prior to its operation and summarized in SEIS-11 predicted there would 
be minimal impacts to aquatic biota from diffuser discharges that 
result in a surface temperature less than 97 [deg]F (36.1 [deg]C). 
Therefore, no change was made to the final EA based on this comment.

Comment: SL-B-4-AR

    The commenter is concerned about the effects of thermal discharge 
temperatures and chemical treatment on microscopic ocean organisms.

NRC Response

    St. Lucie's thermal discharge limits are permitted and maintained 
by FDEP. The NRC has no regulatory authority over thermal discharge 
limits or water withdrawal permits. St. Lucie does inject chlorine in 
the form of sodium hypochlorate into seawater upstream of the intake 
cooling water system to control microorganisms, but these chemical 
discharges are also regulated by FDEP. After EPU implementation, these 
chemical discharges are not expected to exceed IWFP limitations and 
will continue to be monitored and regulated by FDEP. Therefore, no 
change was made to the final EA based on this comment.

Comment: SL-B-6-AR

    The commenter provided information on the August 2011 jellyfish 
incursion incident at St. Lucie and stated that the incident was not 
reported publicly until December 2011. The commenter wants the NRC to 
increase the timely reporting of such events to allow precautionary 
safety awareness and evacuation to proceed.

NRC Response

    The NRC was informed about the jellyfish intrusion incident, which 
occurred between August 20, 2011 and August 24, 2011, via letter from 
FPL on September 20, 2011. The letter was submitted as part of St. 
Lucie's Environmental Protection Plan as an ``Unusual or Important 
Environmental Event--Reportable Fish Kill.'' A License Event Report was 
also submitted by FPL to the NRC describing the Unit 1 manual reactor 
trip that resulted from the jellyfish influx. Both are publicly 
available and can be accessed in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML11270A098 
and ML11301A071, respectively. Evacuation precautions were not 
necessary during this incident because FPL manually shut down the plant 
until the jellyfish incursion could be resolved. Therefore, no change 
was made to the final EA based on this comment. (For a more detailed 
discussion on this incident, the commenter is referred to Section 5.2 
and Section 5.4.4 of the NRC's Essential Fish Habitat Assessment, 
published in February 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12053A345)).

Comment: SL-B-7-AR

    The commenter is concerned about the potentially harmful effects of 
once-through cooling systems, specifically the effects of entrainment 
and impingement on marine life.

[[Page 40106]]

NRC Response

    During St. Lucie's license renewal review, the NRC assessed the 
environmental impacts of entrainment, impingement, and heat shock from 
St. Lucie's once-through cooling system in Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 
4.1.3 of the SEIS-11 (ADAMS Accession No. ML031410445). The NRC does 
not expect that implementation of the EPU would increase the impacts of 
entrainment, impingement, and heat shock at St. Lucie beyond the small 
levels it found for current operation. Therefore, the NRC made no 
change to the final EA based on this comment.

Comment: SL-B-8-AR

    The commenter is concerned that smaller fish and organisms that are 
entrained by the cooling system may be scalded before being discharged 
into the waterway, or that those that are pulverized in the system will 
be released into the water, forming a sediment cloud that will block 
light from the ocean floor and cause a loss of oxygen.

NRC Response

    The proposed EPU will not result in an increase in the amount or 
rate of water withdrawn from or discharged to the Atlantic Ocean, so 
the impacts of entrainment will remain consistent with current 
operating levels. Also, the NRC staff always assumes a 100 percent 
mortality rate for any organisms that are entrained by the cooling 
system, and determined that implementation of the EPU would not 
increase the level of entrainment mortality rate or level of impact. 
The NRC concluded that scouring caused by discharged cooling water 
would have a small level of impact at St. Lucie, as discussed in 
Sections 4.1 and 4.1.3 of SEIS-11. The NRC also concluded that low 
dissolved oxygen in the discharged water would have a small level of 
impact, as discussed in Section 4.1 of SEIS-11. Therefore, the NRC made 
no change to the final EA based on this comment.

Nuclear Safety (NS)

Comments: SL-B-1-NS; SL-B-5-NS

    The commenter is concerned about safety issues at the plant. Most 
notably, his comments are related to the age of the reactors and safety 
concerns over permitting a 12 percent power increase on reactors of 
that age. The commenter is concerned that an increase in heat generated 
would potentially put stress on the internal components of the plant 
due to the age of the components and increase risk of failure.

NRC Response

    The St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 were granted, consistent with NRC 
regulations, a 40-year operating licenses in 1976 and 1983, 
respectively. The NRC requires licensees to test, monitor, and inspect 
the condition of safety equipment and to maintain that equipment in 
reliable operating condition over the operating life of the plant. The 
NRC also requires licensees to continually correct deficiencies that 
could affect plant safety (e.g., leaking valves, degraded or failed 
components due to aging or operational events). Over the years, FPL has 
also upgraded equipment or installed new equipment to replace or 
supplement original systems. The testing, monitoring, inspection, 
maintenance, and replacement of plant equipment provide reasonable 
assurance that this equipment will perform its intended safety 
functions during the 40-year license period. This conclusion applies 
both to operations under the current license and operations under EPU 
conditions.
    In 2003, the NRC approved renewal of the operating licenses for St. 
Lucie, Units 1 and 2 for a period of 20 additional years, extending the 
operating licenses to 2036 and 2043, respectively. The safety 
evaluation report documenting the staff's technical review can be found 
in NUREG-1779, ``Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License 
Renewal of the St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2'' (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML031890043). The NRC staff's review concluded that the licensee's 
management of the effects of aging on the functionality of structures 
and components met the NRC's established requirements (described in 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 54).
    The NRC's safety regulations are based on the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended, and require a finding of reasonable assurance that 
the activities authorized by an operating license (or an amendment 
thereto) can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of 
the public, and that such activities will be conducted in compliance 
with the NRC's regulations. With respect to the proposed EPU, the NRC 
will likewise decide--based on the NRC staff's safety evaluation--
whether there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the 
public will not be endangered by operation under the proposed EPU 
conditions and whether the authorized activities will be conducted in 
compliance with the NRC's regulations. The NRC will document its review 
of the effect of the EPU on aging management programs at St. Lucie in 
the relevant subsections of its safety evaluation.
    Therefore, no change was made to the final EA based on these 
comments.

[FR Doc. 2012-16552 Filed 7-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P