Environmental Impact Statement 

for Combined Licenses (COLs)

for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant

Units 6 and 7

Final Report

Chapters 7 to 12

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of New Reactors 

Washington, DC 20555-0001

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Jacksonville District

Jacksonville, Florida 32232-0019

NUREG-2176, Vol. 2

Environmental Impact Statement 

for Combined Licenses (COLs)

for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant

Units 6 and 7

Final Report

Chapters 7 to 12

Manuscript Completed: October 2016

Date Published: October 2016

Division of New Reactor Licensing

Office of New Reactors

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Regulatory Division

Jacksonville District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Jacksonville, Florida 32232-0019 

NUREG-2176, Vol. 2

October 2016 iii NUREG–2176 

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Combined License (COL) 

FOR THE TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR PLANT 

Lead Agency: 

Cooperating Agency: 

Contact:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District 

Alicia Williamson, Environmental Project Manager 

Environmental Projects Branch 

Division of New Reactor Licensing 

Office of New Reactors 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Telephone: 301-415-1878 

e-mail: Alicia.Williamson@nrc.gov 

ABSTRACT 

This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared in response to an application 

submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by Florida Power & Light 

Company (FPL) for two combined construction permits and operating licenses (combined 

licenses or COLs). The proposed actions related to the FPL application are (1) NRC issuance 

of COLs for two new power reactor units (Units 6 and 7) at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power 

Plant site in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and (2) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

decision to issue, deny, or issue with modifications a Department of the Army (DA) permit to 

perform certain dredge and fill activities in waters of the United States and to construct 

structures in navigable waters of the United States related to the project. The NRC, its 

contractors, and USACE make up the review team. The National Park Service (NPS) is also a 

cooperating agency on this EIS but does not now have a request to take any specific regulatory 

action before it. Due to this unique set of circumstances, impact determinations made in this 

EIS should only be attributed to the review team. This EIS documents the review team’s 

analysis, which considers and weighs the environmental impacts of constructing and operating 

two new nuclear units at the Turkey Point site and at alternative sites, including measures 

potentially available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. 

The EIS includes an evaluation of the impacts of construction and operation of Turkey Point 

Units 6 and 7 on waters of the United States pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

and on navigable waters of the United States pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 

Act of 1899. The USACE will base its evaluation of FPL’s DA permit application, on the 

requirements of USACE regulations, the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, and the 

USACE public interest review process. 

After considering the environmental aspects of the proposed action before the NRC, the NRC 

staff’s recommendation to the Commission is that the COLs be issued as proposed. This 

recommendation is based on (1) the application, including the Environmental Report (ER), 

submitted by FPL; (2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; (3) the review 

 
Abstract 

NUREG–2176 iv October 2016 

team’s independent review; (4) the consideration of public comments received on the 

environmental review; and (5) the assessments summarized in this EIS, including the potential 

mitigation measures identified in the ER and this EIS. 

NUREG-2176 has been reproduced 

from the best available copy. 
October 2016 v NUREG–2176 

CONTENTS 

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. iii 

CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................. v

FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... xxi

TABLES..................................................................................................................................... xxv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... xxxi

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS ............................................................................................... xliii

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 1-2

1.1.1 Application and Review ................................................................................ 1-3

1.1.1.1 NRC COL Application Review ....................................................... 1-3

1.1.1.2 USACE Permit Application Review ................................................ 1-5

1.1.2 Preconstruction Activities ............................................................................. 1-6

1.1.3 Cooperating Agencies .................................................................................. 1-7

1.1.4 Concurrent NRC Reviews ............................................................................ 1-9

1.2 The Proposed Federal Actions ................................................................................. 1-9

1.3 The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Actions .............................................. 1-10

1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Actions ..................................................................... 1-11

1.5 Compliance and Consultations ............................................................................... 1-12

1.6 Report Contents ..................................................................................................... 1-12

2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Site Location ............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Land Use .................................................................................................................. 2-4

2.2.1 The Site and Vicinity ..................................................................................... 2-4

2.2.1.1 Mineral Resources ......................................................................... 2-4

2.2.1.2 Nearby Population Centers, Schools, and Hospitals ..................... 2-5

2.2.1.3 Rail and Ports ................................................................................ 2-5

2.2.1.4 Comprehensive Plans and Zoning ................................................. 2-5

2.2.1.5 Site Access .................................................................................... 2-7

2.2.1.6 Existing Land Uses on the Turkey Point Site and in the 

Vicinity ........................................................................................... 2-7

2.2.2 Transmission Line Corridors and Offsite Areas .......................................... 2-12

2.2.2.1 Transmission Line Corridors ........................................................ 2-13

2.2.2.2 Transmission Substation Improvements ...................................... 2-17

2.2.2.3 Makeup and Potable Water System Pipelines ............................. 2-18

2.2.2.4 Fill Material Source Site ............................................................... 2-18

2.2.2.5 Emergency Operations Facility .................................................... 2-19

2.2.2.6 Roads and Highways ................................................................... 2-19
Contents 

NUREG–2176 vi October 2016 

2.2.3 The Region ................................................................................................. 2-21

2.2.3.1 Rail and Ports .............................................................................. 2-21

2.2.3.2 Regional Land Uses and Jurisdictions ......................................... 2-21

2.3 Water ...................................................................................................................... 2-24

2.3.1 Hydrology ................................................................................................... 2-25

2.3.1.1 Surface-Water Hydrology ............................................................ 2-25

2.3.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology ............................................................... 2-47

2.3.2 Water Use ................................................................................................... 2-58

2.3.2.1 Surface-Water Use ...................................................................... 2-59

2.3.2.2 Groundwater Use ......................................................................... 2-60

2.3.3 Water Quality .............................................................................................. 2-61

2.3.3.1 Surface-Water Quality ................................................................. 2-62

2.3.3.2 Groundwater Quality .................................................................... 2-68

2.3.4 Water Monitoring ........................................................................................ 2-71

2.3.4.1 Surface-Water Monitoring ............................................................ 2-71

2.3.4.2 Groundwater Monitoring .............................................................. 2-73

2.4 Ecology ................................................................................................................... 2-75

2.4.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Ecology ................................................................ 2-76

2.4.1.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Communities of the Site and Vicinity ..... 2-76

2.4.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Associated Offsite Facilities ................... 2-80

2.4.1.3 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats – Site and Vicinity .... 2-82

2.4.1.4 Important Terrestrial Species – Transmission Lines .................. 2-112

2.4.1.5 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats – Other Offsite 

Facilities ..................................................................................... 2-117

2.4.1.6 Terrestrial Monitoring ................................................................. 2-118

2.4.1.7 Related Federal Projects and Consultation ............................... 2-118

2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology ........................................................................................ 2-119

2.4.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and Vicinity ....................................... 2-122

2.4.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines and Related 

Pipeline ...................................................................................... 2-134

2.4.2.3 Aquatic Species and Habitats .................................................... 2-136

2.4.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring ..................................................................... 2-159

2.5 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................... 2-162

2.5.1 Demographics .......................................................................................... 2-164

2.5.1.1 Resident Population ................................................................... 2-165

2.5.1.2 Transient Population .................................................................. 2-166

2.5.1.3 Migrant Labor ............................................................................. 2-167

2.5.2 Community Characteristics ....................................................................... 2-168

2.5.2.1 Economy .................................................................................... 2-168

2.5.2.2 Taxes ......................................................................................... 2-172

2.5.2.3 Transportation ............................................................................ 2-175

2.5.2.4 Aesthetics and Recreation ......................................................... 2-178

2.5.2.5 Housing ...................................................................................... 2-180
Contents 

October 2016 vii NUREG–2176 

2.5.2.6 Public Services .......................................................................... 2-181

2.6 Environmental Justice .......................................................................................... 2-187

2.6.1 Methodology ............................................................................................. 2-188

2.6.1.1 Minority Populations .................................................................. 2-189

2.6.1.2 Low-Income Populations ........................................................... 2-190

2.6.2 Analysis .................................................................................................... 2-196

2.6.3 Scoping and Outreach .............................................................................. 2-196

2.6.4 Migrant Populations .................................................................................. 2-196

2.6.5 Environmental Justice Summary .............................................................. 2-196

2.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................................... 2-197

2.7.1 Cultural Background ................................................................................. 2-197

2.7.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the Site and in the Vicinity ................. 2-201

2.7.2.1 Archaeological Resources ......................................................... 2-202

2.7.2.2 Above-Ground Resources ......................................................... 2-202

2.7.2.3 Traditional Cultural Properties ................................................... 2-203

2.7.2.4 Historic and Cultural Resources in Transmission Line 

Corridors and Offsite Areas ....................................................... 2-203

2.7.3 Consultation .............................................................................................. 2-205

2.8 Geology ................................................................................................................ 2-208

2.9 Meteorology and Air Quality ................................................................................. 2-211

2.9.1 Climate ..................................................................................................... 2-211

2.9.1.1 Wind ........................................................................................... 2-212

2.9.1.2 Temperature .............................................................................. 2-213

2.9.1.3 Atmospheric Moisture ................................................................ 2-213

2.9.1.4 Severe Weather ......................................................................... 2-213

2.9.1.5 Atmospheric Stability ................................................................. 2-214

2.9.2 Air Quality ................................................................................................. 2-214

2.9.3 Atmospheric Dispersion ............................................................................ 2-215

2.9.3.1 Short-Term Dispersion Estimates .............................................. 2-215

2.9.3.2 Long-Term Dispersion Estimates............................................... 2-216

2.9.4 Meteorological Monitoring ........................................................................ 2-216

2.10 Nonradiological Health ......................................................................................... 2-217

2.10.1 Public and Occupational Health ............................................................... 2-217

2.10.1.1 Air Quality .................................................................................. 2-217

2.10.1.2 Occupational Injuries ................................................................. 2-220

2.10.1.3 Etiological Agents ...................................................................... 2-222

2.10.2 Noise ........................................................................................................ 2-224

2.10.3 Transportation .......................................................................................... 2-227

2.10.4 Electromagnetic Fields ............................................................................. 2-228

2.11 Radiological Environment ..................................................................................... 2-229
Contents 

NUREG–2176 viii October 2016 

2.12 Related Federal Projects and Consultation .......................................................... 2-231

3.0 SITE LAYOUT AND PLANT DESCRIPTION .................................................................. 3-1

3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout .................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Proposed Plant Structures ....................................................................................... 3-4

3.2.1 Reactor Power-Conversion System ............................................................. 3-5

3.2.2 Structures with a Major Environmental Interface .......................................... 3-5

3.2.2.1 Landscape and Stormwater Drainage ........................................... 3-8

3.2.2.2 Cooling System .............................................................................. 3-8

3.2.2.3 Other Structures with a Permanent Environmental Interface ....... 3-14

3.2.2.4 Other Structures with a Temporary Environmental Interface ....... 3-19

3.2.3 Structures with a Minor Environmental Interface ........................................ 3-19

3.2.3.1 Nuclear Island and Other Reactor Buildings ................................ 3-19

3.2.3.2 Cranes and Footings ................................................................... 3-20

3.2.3.3 Pipelines ...................................................................................... 3-20

3.2.3.4 Support and Laydown Areas ....................................................... 3-21

3.2.3.5 Parking ......................................................................................... 3-21

3.2.3.6 Miscellaneous Buildings .............................................................. 3-21

3.3 Construction and Preconstruction Activities ........................................................... 3-21

3.3.1 Major Activity Areas .................................................................................... 3-23

3.3.1.1 Landscape and Stormwater Drainage ......................................... 3-23

3.3.1.2 Main Plant Area, Cooling Towers, and Makeup Water 

Reservoir ..................................................................................... 3-23

3.3.1.3 Reclaimed Makeup Water Reservoir and Cooling Towers .......... 3-24

3.3.1.4 Excavation Dewatering ................................................................ 3-25

3.3.1.5 Radial Collector Wells .................................................................. 3-25

3.3.1.6 Deep-Injection and Monitoring Wells ........................................... 3-25

3.3.1.7 Spoils Disposal ............................................................................ 3-25

3.3.1.8 Roads .......................................................................................... 3-26

3.3.1.9 Barge-Unloading Facility .............................................................. 3-26

3.3.1.10 Reclaimed Water-Treatment Facility ............................................ 3-26

3.3.1.11 Sanitary Waste-Treatment Plant .................................................. 3-26

3.3.1.12 Pipelines ...................................................................................... 3-26

3.3.1.13 Concrete Batch Plant ................................................................... 3-27

3.3.1.14 Construction-Support and Laydown Areas .................................. 3-27

3.3.1.15 Parking ......................................................................................... 3-27

3.3.1.16 Miscellaneous Buildings .............................................................. 3-27

3.3.1.17 Switchyard and Substation Expansions ....................................... 3-27

3.3.1.18 Transmission Lines ...................................................................... 3-27

3.3.1.19 Cranes and Crane Footings ......................................................... 3-28

3.3.2 Summary of Resource Parameters During Construction and 

Preconstruction ........................................................................................... 3-28

3.4 Operational Activities .............................................................................................. 3-29

3.4.1 Description of Operational Modes .............................................................. 3-29
Contents 

October 2016 ix NUREG–2176 

3.4.2 Plant-Environment Interfaces during Operation ......................................... 3-30

3.4.2.1 Stormwater-Management System ............................................... 3-30

3.4.2.2 Circulating-Water System ............................................................ 3-30

3.4.2.3 Injection Wells .............................................................................. 3-32

3.4.2.4 Other Environmental Interfaces during Operation ....................... 3-32

3.4.3 Radioactive Waste-Management System .................................................. 3-33

3.4.3.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste-Management System ......................... 3-34

3.4.3.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste-Management System .................... 3-34

3.4.3.3 Solid Radioactive Waste-Management System ........................... 3-35

3.4.4 Nonradioactive Waste-Management Systems ........................................... 3-36

3.4.4.1 Solid-Waste Management............................................................ 3-36

3.4.4.2 Liquid-Waste Management .......................................................... 3-37

3.4.4.3 Gaseous Waste Management ..................................................... 3-39

3.4.4.4 Hazardous- and Mixed-Waste Management ............................... 3-40

3.4.5 Summary of Resource Parameters During Operation ................................ 3-40

4.0 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS AT THE TURKEY POINT SITE ......................................... 4-1

4.1 Land-Use Impacts .................................................................................................... 4-4

4.1.1 The Turkey Point Site and Vicinity ................................................................ 4-4

4.1.1.1 Onsite Land-Use Impacts .............................................................. 4-4

4.1.1.2 Pipelines ........................................................................................ 4-8

4.1.1.3 Access Roadways ......................................................................... 4-9

4.1.1.4 Fill Material – Sources and Transportation .................................. 4-12

4.1.2 Transmission Line Corridors and Associated Offsite Areas ....................... 4-13

4.1.2.1 Transmission Line Corridors ........................................................ 4-13

4.1.2.2 Substations .................................................................................. 4-18

4.1.3 Summary of Land-Use Impacts .................................................................. 4-18

4.2 Water-Related Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-20

4.2.1 Hydrological Alterations .............................................................................. 4-21

4.2.1.1 Biscayne Bay ............................................................................... 4-21

4.2.1.2 Biscayne Aquifer .......................................................................... 4-23

4.2.1.3 Floridan Aquifers and Boulder Zone ............................................ 4-25

4.2.1.4 IWF (Cooling Canals) .................................................................. 4-26

4.2.1.5 Offsite/Adjacent Areas ................................................................. 4-29

4.2.2 Water-Use Impacts ..................................................................................... 4-30

4.2.2.1 Surface-Water-Use Impacts......................................................... 4-30

4.2.2.2 Groundwater-Use Impacts ........................................................... 4-30

4.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts ................................................................................ 4-31

4.2.3.1 Surface-Water-Quality Impacts .................................................... 4-31

4.2.3.2 Groundwater-Quality Impacts ...................................................... 4-33

4.2.4 Water Monitoring ........................................................................................ 4-34

4.2.4.1 Surface-Water Monitoring ............................................................ 4-34

4.2.4.2 Groundwater Monitoring .............................................................. 4-35
Contents 

NUREG–2176 x October 2016 

4.3 Ecological Impacts ................................................................................................. 4-35

4.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts ................................................................. 4-35

4.3.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity ..................................... 4-35

4.3.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Associated Offsite Facilities ................... 4-40

4.3.1.3 Impacts on Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats ............... 4-45

4.3.1.4 Impacts from Fill Acquisition ........................................................ 4-65

4.3.1.5 Terrestrial Monitoring ................................................................... 4-65

4.3.1.6 Potential Mitigation Measures for Terrestrial Impacts .................. 4-65

4.3.1.7 Summary of Impacts on Terrestrial Resources ............................ 4-70

4.3.2 Aquatic Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-74

4.3.2.1 Aquatic Resources − Site and Vicinity ......................................... 4-75

4.3.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Line and Pipeline 

Corridors ...................................................................................... 4-85

4.3.2.3 Aquatic Species and Habitats ...................................................... 4-86

4.3.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring ....................................................................... 4-96

4.3.2.5 Summary of Impacts on Aquatic Resources ................................ 4-97

4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts ......................................................................................... 4-98

4.4.1 Physical Impacts ......................................................................................... 4-98

4.4.1.1 Noise Impacts on Workers and the Local Public ......................... 4-98

4.4.1.2 Air-Quality Impacts on Workers and the Local Public .................. 4-99

4.4.1.3 Buildings ...................................................................................... 4-99

4.4.1.4 Roads ........................................................................................ 4-100

4.4.1.5 Waterways ................................................................................. 4-102

4.4.1.6 Aesthetics .................................................................................. 4-102

4.4.1.7 Summary of Physical Impacts .................................................... 4-103

4.4.2 Demography ............................................................................................. 4-103

4.4.3 Economic Impacts on the Community ...................................................... 4-105

4.4.3.1 Economy .................................................................................... 4-106

4.4.3.2 Taxes ......................................................................................... 4-108

4.4.3.3 Summary of Economic Impacts on the Community ................... 4-110

4.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts ........................................ 4-110

4.4.4.1 Traffic ......................................................................................... 4-110

4.4.4.2 Recreation ................................................................................. 4-113

4.4.4.3 Housing ...................................................................................... 4-113

4.4.4.4 Public Services .......................................................................... 4-115

4.4.4.5 Education ................................................................................... 4-118

4.4.4.6 Summary of Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts ..... 4-119

4.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts ....................................................... 4-119

4.5 Environmental Justice Impacts ............................................................................. 4-119

4.5.1 Physical and Socioeconomics Impacts .................................................... 4-120

4.5.1.1 Physical Impacts ........................................................................ 4-120

4.5.1.2 Socioeconomics ......................................................................... 4-121

4.5.2 Health Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-121
Contents 

October 2016 xi NUREG–2176 

4.5.3 Subsistence and Special Conditions ........................................................ 4-121

4.5.3.1 Subsistence and Unique Pathways of Exposure to 

Environmental Effects ................................................................ 4-122

4.5.3.2 High-Density Communities ........................................................ 4-122

4.5.4 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts ............................................ 4-122

4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts ............................................................. 4-122

4.7 Meteorological and Air-Quality Impacts ................................................................ 4-125

4.7.1 Construction and Preconstruction Activities ............................................. 4-125

4.7.2 Transportation .......................................................................................... 4-127

4.7.3 Summary of Meteorological and Air-Quality Impacts ............................... 4-128

4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts ............................................................................ 4-128

4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health ............................................................... 4-129

4.8.1.1 Public Health .............................................................................. 4-129

4.8.1.2 Construction Worker Health ....................................................... 4-130

4.8.1.3 Summary of Public and Construction Worker Health Impacts ... 4-131

4.8.2 Noise Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-131

4.8.3 Impacts of Transporting Construction Materials and Personnel to the 

Turkey Point Site ...................................................................................... 4-133

4.8.4 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts ........................................... 4-136

4.9 Radiation Exposure to Construction Workers ...................................................... 4-136

4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures ...................................................................... 4-136

4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents .......................................... 4-137

4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents ............................................... 4-138

4.9.4 Total Dose to Construction Workers ......................................................... 4-138

4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts ................................................. 4-138

4.10 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts ............................................................................. 4-138

4.10.1 Impacts on Land ....................................................................................... 4-139

4.10.2 Impacts on Water ..................................................................................... 4-140

4.10.3 Impacts on Air ........................................................................................... 4-141

4.10.4 Summary of Nonradioactive Waste Impacts ............................................ 4-142

4.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Construction Activities 4-142

4.12 Summary of Construction and Preconstruction Impacts ...................................... 4-147

5.0 OPERATIONAL IMPACTS AT THE TURKEY POINT SITE............................................ 5-1

5.1 Land-Use Impacts .................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity ..................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1.1 Onsite Land-Use Impacts .............................................................. 5-2

5.1.1.2 Pipelines ........................................................................................ 5-3

5.1.1.3 Access Roadways ......................................................................... 5-4

5.1.2 Transmission Line Corridors and Associated Offsite Areas ......................... 5-4
Contents 

NUREG–2176 xii October 2016 

5.1.2.1 Transmission Line Corridors .......................................................... 5-4

5.1.2.2 Substations .................................................................................... 5-5

5.1.3 Summary of Land-Use Impacts .................................................................... 5-5

5.2 Water-Related Impacts ............................................................................................. 5-5

5.2.1 Hydrological Alterations ................................................................................ 5-7

5.2.1.1 Biscayne Bay ................................................................................. 5-8

5.2.1.2 Biscayne Aquifer .......................................................................... 5-13

5.2.1.3 Boulder Zone ............................................................................... 5-20

5.2.1.4 Industrial Wastewater Facility (Cooling Canals) .......................... 5-29

5.2.1.5 Effect of Radial Collector Well Operation..................................... 5-33

5.2.1.6 Offsite/Adjacent Areas ................................................................. 5-33

5.2.2 Water-Use Impacts ..................................................................................... 5-34

5.2.2.1 Surface-Water-Use Impacts......................................................... 5-34

5.2.2.2 Groundwater-Use Impacts ........................................................... 5-34

5.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts ................................................................................ 5-37

5.2.3.1 Surface-Water-Quality Impacts .................................................... 5-37

5.2.3.2 Groundwater-Quality Impacts ...................................................... 5-38

5.2.4 Water Monitoring ........................................................................................ 5-42

5.2.4.1 Surface Water .............................................................................. 5-42

5.2.4.2 Groundwater ................................................................................ 5-42

5.3 Ecological Impacts ................................................................................................. 5-43

5.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts Related to Operations ............................. 5-43

5.3.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity ..................................... 5-44

5.3.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Associated Offsite Facilities ................... 5-51

5.3.1.3 Impacts on Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats ............... 5-54

5.3.1.4 Terrestrial Monitoring ................................................................... 5-65

5.3.1.5 Potential Mitigation Measures for Terrestrial Impacts .................. 5-65

5.3.1.6 Summary of Impacts on Terrestrial Resources ............................ 5-65

5.3.2 Aquatic Impacts Related to Operation ........................................................ 5-67

5.3.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and Vicinity ......................................... 5-67

5.3.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Line and Pipeline 

Corridors ...................................................................................... 5-70

5.3.2.3 Aquatic Species and Habitats ...................................................... 5-70

5.3.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring During Operation ........................................... 5-77

5.3.2.5 Summary of Operational Impacts on Aquatic Resources ............ 5-78

5.4 Socioeconomic Impacts ......................................................................................... 5-78

5.4.1 Physical Impacts ......................................................................................... 5-78

5.4.1.1 Noise Impacts on Workers and the Local Public ......................... 5-78

5.4.1.2 Air-Quality Impacts on Workers and the Local Public .................. 5-79

5.4.1.3 Buildings ...................................................................................... 5-79

5.4.1.4 Roads .......................................................................................... 5-79

5.4.1.5 Waterways ................................................................................... 5-80

5.4.1.6 Aesthetics .................................................................................... 5-80
Contents 

October 2016 xiii NUREG–2176 

5.4.1.7 Summary of Physical Impacts ...................................................... 5-81

5.4.2 Demography ............................................................................................... 5-81

5.4.3 Economic Impacts on the Community ........................................................ 5-82

5.4.3.1 Economy ...................................................................................... 5-82

5.4.3.2 Taxes ........................................................................................... 5-83

5.4.3.3 Summary of Economic Impacts on the Community ..................... 5-86

5.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Services ..................................................... 5-86

5.4.4.1 Traffic ........................................................................................... 5-86

5.4.4.2 Recreation ................................................................................... 5-87

5.4.4.3 Housing ........................................................................................ 5-88

5.4.4.4 Public Services ............................................................................ 5-89

5.4.4.5 Education ..................................................................................... 5-91

5.4.4.6 Summary of Infrastructure and Community Services .................. 5-92

5.4.4.7 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts ........................................... 5-92

5.5 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................ 5-92

5.5.1 Physical and Socioeconomic Impacts ........................................................ 5-93

5.5.1.1 Soil-Related Impacts .................................................................... 5-93

5.5.1.2 Water-Related Impacts ................................................................ 5-93

5.5.1.3 Air-Related Impacts ..................................................................... 5-93

5.5.1.4 Noise Impacts .............................................................................. 5-94

5.5.1.5 Socioeconomic Impacts ............................................................... 5-94

5.5.2 Health Impacts ............................................................................................ 5-94

5.5.3 Subsistence and Special Conditions .......................................................... 5-94

5.5.3.1 Subsistence and Unique Pathways of Exposure to 

Environmental Effects .................................................................. 5-94

5.5.3.2 High-Density Communities .......................................................... 5-95

5.5.4 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts .............................................. 5-95

5.6 Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts ............................................................... 5-95

5.7 Meteorological and Air-Quality Impacts .................................................................. 5-97

5.7.1 Air-Quality Impacts ..................................................................................... 5-97

5.7.1.1 Criteria Pollutants......................................................................... 5-97

5.7.1.2 Greenhouse Gases ...................................................................... 5-99

5.7.2 Cooling-System Impacts ............................................................................. 5-99

5.7.3 Transmission Line Impacts ....................................................................... 5-101

5.7.4 Summary of Meteorological and Air-Quality Impacts ............................... 5-101

5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts ............................................................................ 5-102

5.8.1 Etiological and Chemical Agents .............................................................. 5-102

5.8.1.1 Operational Components ........................................................... 5-102

5.8.1.2 Potential Impacts ....................................................................... 5-103

5.8.2 Noise ........................................................................................................ 5-104

5.8.3 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields ................................................... 5-106
Contents 

NUREG–2176 xiv October 2016 

5.8.4 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields ................................................ 5-107

5.8.5 Occupational Health ................................................................................. 5-108

5.8.6 Impacts of Transporting Operations Personnel to and from the Turkey 

Point Site .................................................................................................. 5-110

5.8.7 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts ........................................... 5-112

5.9 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ......................................................... 5-113

5.9.1 Exposure Pathways .................................................................................. 5-113

5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public .............................................. 5-115

5.9.2.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway ............................................................. 5-115

5.9.2.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway ........................................................ 5-118

5.9.3 Impacts on Members of the Public ........................................................... 5-119

5.9.3.1 Maximally Exposed Individual .................................................... 5-119

5.9.3.2 Population Dose ........................................................................ 5-122

5.9.3.3 Deep-Well Injection Scenarios – Postulated Doses ................... 5-123

5.9.3.4 Summary of Radiological Impacts on Members of the Public .... 5-124

5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers ............................................................... 5-124

5.9.5 Impacts on Non-Human Biota .................................................................. 5-125

5.9.5.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway ............................................................. 5-125

5.9.5.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway ........................................................ 5-125

5.9.5.3 Summary of Impacts on Biota Other Than Humans .................. 5-126

5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring ............................................................................ 5-126

5.10 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts ............................................................................. 5-127

5.10.1 Impacts on Land ....................................................................................... 5-127

5.10.2 Impacts on Water ..................................................................................... 5-128

5.10.3 Impacts on Air ........................................................................................... 5-129

5.10.4 Summary of Nonradiological Waste Impacts ............................................ 5-130

5.11 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents .................................................. 5-130

5.11.1 Design Basis Accidents ............................................................................ 5-134

5.11.2 Severe Accidents ...................................................................................... 5-136

5.11.2.1 Air Pathway ................................................................................ 5-138

5.11.2.2 Surface-Water Pathways ........................................................... 5-143

5.11.2.3 Groundwater Pathway ............................................................... 5-144

5.11.2.4 Externally Initiated Events ......................................................... 5-144

5.11.2.5 Summary of Severe Accident Impacts ....................................... 5-146

5.11.3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ................................................... 5-147

5.11.4 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts ................................................ 5-151

5.12 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts during Operation .................... 5-151

5.13 Summary of Operational Impacts ......................................................................... 5-154

6.0 FUEL CYCLE, TRANSPORTATION, AND DECOMMISSIONING .................................. 6-1

6.1 Fuel-Cycle Impacts and Solid Waste Management ................................................. 6-1
Contents 

October 2016 xv NUREG–2176 

6.1.1 Land Use ...................................................................................................... 6-7

6.1.2 Water Use ..................................................................................................... 6-8

6.1.3 Fossil-Fuel Impacts ...................................................................................... 6-8

6.1.4 Chemical Effluents ........................................................................................ 6-9

6.1.5 Radiological Effluents ................................................................................. 6-10

6.1.6 Radiological Wastes ................................................................................... 6-12

6.1.7 Occupational Dose ..................................................................................... 6-15

6.1.8 Transportation ............................................................................................ 6-16

6.1.9 Conclusions for Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management ........................ 6-16

6.2 Transportation Impacts ........................................................................................... 6-16

6.2.1 Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel ............................................................ 6-19

6.2.1.1 Normal Conditions ....................................................................... 6-19

6.2.1.2 Radiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents ....................... 6-25

6.2.1.3 Nonradiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents .................. 6-25

6.2.2 Transportation of Spent Fuel ...................................................................... 6-26

6.2.2.1 Normal Conditions ....................................................................... 6-27

6.2.2.2 Radiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents ....................... 6-33

6.2.2.3 Nonradiological Impact of Spent Fuel Shipments ........................ 6-36

6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive Waste ......................................................... 6-37

6.2.4 Conclusions for Transportation ................................................................... 6-38

6.3 Decommissioning Impacts ..................................................................................... 6-39

7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Land-Use Impacts .................................................................................................... 7-8

7.2 Water-Use and Water-Quality Impacts ................................................................... 7-11

7.2.1 Water-Use Impacts ..................................................................................... 7-11

7.2.1.1 Surface-Water–Use Impacts ........................................................ 7-12

7.2.1.2 Groundwater-Use Impacts ........................................................... 7-13

7.2.2 Water-Quality Impacts ................................................................................ 7-14

7.2.2.1 Surface-Water-Quality Impacts .................................................... 7-14

7.2.2.2 Groundwater-Quality Impacts ...................................................... 7-16

7.3 Ecological Impacts ................................................................................................. 7-18

7.3.1 Terrestrial Ecosystem Impacts ................................................................... 7-19

7.3.1.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

Affecting Terrestrial Ecology ........................................................ 7-19

7.3.1.2 Summary of Terrestrial and Wetland Ecology Impacts ................ 7-23

7.3.2 Cumulative Effects for Aquatic Ecology ...................................................... 7-24

7.3.2.1 Description of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable 

Future Actions .............................................................................. 7-24

7.3.2.2 Summary of Aquatic Ecology Impacts ......................................... 7-29

7.4 Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice Impacts .............................................. 7-29
Contents 

NUREG–2176 xvi October 2016 

7.4.1 Socioeconomics ......................................................................................... 7-29

7.4.2 Environmental Justice ................................................................................ 7-31

7.5 Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts ............................................................... 7-31

7.6 Air-Quality Impacts ................................................................................................. 7-33

7.6.1 Criteria Pollutants ....................................................................................... 7-33

7.6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................... 7-35

7.6.3 Summary of Air-Quality Impacts ................................................................. 7-37

7.7 Nonradiological Health ........................................................................................... 7-37

7.8 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ........................................................... 7-39

7.9 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts ............................................................................... 7-40

7.10 Postulated Accidents .............................................................................................. 7-41

7.11 Fuel-Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning Impacts .................................. 7-42

7.11.1 Fuel Cycle ................................................................................................... 7-42

7.11.2 Transportation ............................................................................................ 7-43

7.11.3 Decommissioning ....................................................................................... 7-45

7.11.4 Summary of Cumulative Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and 

Decommissioning Impacts .......................................................................... 7-45

7.12 Summary of Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................... 7-46

8.0 NEED FOR POWER ........................................................................................................ 8-1

8.1 Description of the Power System ............................................................................. 8-1

8.1.1 Description of the FPL System ..................................................................... 8-2

8.1.2 Evaluation of the FPL Analytical Process ..................................................... 8-4

8.1.2.1 Systematic ..................................................................................... 8-4

8.1.2.2 Comprehensive .............................................................................. 8-4

8.1.2.3 Subject to Confirmation ................................................................. 8-5

8.1.2.4 Responsive to Forecasting Uncertainty ......................................... 8-5

8.2 Determination of Demand ........................................................................................ 8-5

8.2.1 Factors in the FPSC Determination of Need ................................................ 8-6

8.2.1.1 Growth in Demand ......................................................................... 8-6

8.2.1.2 Electric System Reliability .............................................................. 8-6

8.2.1.3 Fuel Diversity ................................................................................. 8-7

8.2.1.4 Baseload Capacity ......................................................................... 8-7

8.2.1.5 Adequate Electricity at a Reasonable Cost .................................... 8-7

8.2.1.6 Demand-Side Management and Renewable Energy Sources 

and Technologies .......................................................................... 8-8

8.2.1.7 Most Cost-Effective Source of Power ............................................ 8-8

8.2.2 FPL’s Demand for Electricity ........................................................................ 8-9

8.3 Determination of Supply ........................................................................................... 8-9

8.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 8-12

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES ...................................................... 9-1
Contents 

October 2016 xvii NUREG–2176 

9.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................ 9-2

9.2 Energy Alternatives .................................................................................................. 9-2

9.2.1 Alternatives Not Requiring New Generating Capacity .................................. 9-3

9.2.1.1 Purchased Power .......................................................................... 9-3

9.2.1.2 Reactivating Retired Power Plants or Extending Operating 

Life ................................................................................................. 9-4

9.2.1.3 Energy Efficiency and Demand-Side Management ....................... 9-5

9.2.1.4 Summary Statement Regarding Alternatives Not Requiring 

New Generating Capacity .............................................................. 9-5

9.2.2 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity ........................................ 9-5

9.2.2.1 Coal-Fired Power Generation ........................................................ 9-6

9.2.2.2 Natural-Gas−Fired Power Generation ......................................... 9-16

9.2.3 Other Alternatives ....................................................................................... 9-22

9.2.3.1 Oil-Fired Power Generation ......................................................... 9-23

9.2.3.2 Wind Power ................................................................................. 9-23

9.2.3.3 Solar Power ................................................................................. 9-24

9.2.3.4 Hydropower ................................................................................. 9-25

9.2.3.5 Geothermal Energy ...................................................................... 9-26

9.2.3.6 Wood Waste ................................................................................ 9-26

9.2.3.7 Municipal Solid Waste ................................................................. 9-26

9.2.3.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels ...................................................... 9-27

9.2.3.9 Fuel Cells ..................................................................................... 9-28

9.2.4 Combination of Alternatives ........................................................................ 9-28

9.2.5 Summary Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................ 9-30

9.3 Alternative Sites ..................................................................................................... 9-33

9.3.1 Alternative Site-Selection Process ............................................................. 9-34

9.3.1.1 Selection of Region of Interest ..................................................... 9-35

9.3.1.2 Selection of Candidate Areas ...................................................... 9-35

9.3.1.3 Selection of Potential Sites .......................................................... 9-37

9.3.1.4 Selection of Candidate Sites ........................................................ 9-40

9.3.1.5 Selection of the Proposed Site .................................................... 9-40

9.3.1.6 Review Team Evaluation of FPL’s Site-Selection Process .......... 9-41

9.3.2 Glades Site ................................................................................................. 9-44

9.3.2.1 Land Use ..................................................................................... 9-53

9.3.2.2 Water Use and Quality ................................................................. 9-56

9.3.2.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources ............................................. 9-61

9.3.2.4 Aquatic Resources ....................................................................... 9-70

9.3.2.5 Socioeconomics ........................................................................... 9-75

9.3.2.6 Environmental Justice .................................................................. 9-82

9.3.2.7 Historic and Cultural Resources .................................................. 9-88

9.3.2.8 Air Quality .................................................................................... 9-91

9.3.2.9 Nonradiological Health Impacts ................................................... 9-93

9.3.2.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ................................. 9-94

9.3.2.11 Postulated Accidents ................................................................... 9-95
Contents 

NUREG–2176 xviii October 2016 

9.3.3 Martin Site .................................................................................................. 9-96

9.3.3.1 Land Use ................................................................................... 9-108

9.3.3.2 Water Use and Quality ............................................................... 9-111

9.3.3.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources ........................................... 9-116

9.3.3.4 Aquatic Resources ..................................................................... 9-125

9.3.3.5 Socioeconomics ......................................................................... 9-129

9.3.3.6 Environmental Justice ................................................................ 9-135

9.3.3.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................ 9-141

9.3.3.8 Air-Quality Impacts .................................................................... 9-144

9.3.3.9 Nonradiological Health ............................................................... 9-145

9.3.3.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ............................... 9-147

9.3.3.11 Postulated Accidents ................................................................. 9-147

9.3.4 Okeechobee 2 Site ................................................................................... 9-148

9.3.4.1 Land Use ................................................................................... 9-157

9.3.4.2 Water Use and Quality ............................................................... 9-161

9.3.4.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources ........................................... 9-165

9.3.4.4 Aquatic Resources ..................................................................... 9-172

9.3.4.5 Socioeconomics ......................................................................... 9-175

9.3.4.6 Environmental Justice ................................................................ 9-182

9.3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................ 9-187

9.3.4.8 Air-Quality Impacts .................................................................... 9-190

9.3.4.9 Nonradiological Health ............................................................... 9-192

9.3.4.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ............................... 9-194

9.3.4.11 Postulated Accidents ................................................................. 9-194

9.3.5 St. Lucie Site ............................................................................................ 9-195

9.3.5.1 Land Use ................................................................................... 9-204

9.3.5.2 Water Use and Quality ............................................................... 9-207

9.3.5.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources ........................................... 9-211

9.3.5.4 Aquatic Resources ..................................................................... 9-219

9.3.5.5 Socioeconomics ......................................................................... 9-224

9.3.5.6 Environmental Justice ................................................................ 9-231

9.3.5.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................ 9-236

9.3.5.8 Air Quality Impacts ..................................................................... 9-239

9.3.5.9 Nonradiological Health ............................................................... 9-240

9.3.5.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ............................... 9-243

9.3.5.11 Postulated Accidents ................................................................. 9-243

9.3.6 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and the Alternative 

Sites .......................................................................................................... 9-244

9.3.6.1 Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the Proposed and 

Alternative Sites ......................................................................... 9-245

9.3.6.2 Environmentally Preferable Sites ............................................... 9-247

9.3.6.3 Obviously Superior Sites............................................................ 9-249

9.4 System Design Alternatives ................................................................................. 9-250

9.4.1 Heat-Dissipation Systems ........................................................................ 9-250

9.4.1.1 Natural Draft Cooling Towers ..................................................... 9-250
Contents 

October 2016 xix NUREG–2176 

9.4.1.2 Fan-Assisted Natural Draft Cooling Towers ............................... 9-251

9.4.1.3 Once-Through Cooling .............................................................. 9-251

9.4.1.4 Cooling Pond ............................................................................. 9-252

9.4.1.5 Spray Ponds .............................................................................. 9-252

9.4.1.6 Dry Cooling Towers ................................................................... 9-252

9.4.1.7 Combination Wet/Dry Cooling-Tower System ........................... 9-253

9.4.1.8 Mechanical Draft Towers with Plume Abatement ...................... 9-253

9.4.2 Circulating-Water Systems ....................................................................... 9-253

9.4.2.1 Water Supplies .......................................................................... 9-254

9.4.2.2 Intake Alternatives ..................................................................... 9-256

9.4.2.3 Discharge Alternatives ............................................................... 9-257

9.4.2.4 Water Treatment ........................................................................ 9-258

9.4.3 Summary Statement ................................................................................. 9-258

9.5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alternatives Evaluation ........................................ 9-258

10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 10-1

10.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................. 10-4

10.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts ........................................................ 10-5

10.2.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts during Construction and 

Preconstruction Activities ........................................................................... 10-5

10.2.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts during Operation ........................................ 10-9

10.3 Relationship between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the 

Human Environment ............................................................................................. 10-14

10.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ................................... 10-15

10.4.1 Irreversible Commitments of Resources .................................................. 10-15

10.4.1.1 Land Use ................................................................................... 10-15

10.4.1.2 Water Use .................................................................................. 10-15

10.4.1.3 Ecological Resources ................................................................ 10-15

10.4.1.4 Socioeconomic Resources ........................................................ 10-15

10.4.1.5 Historical and Cultural Resources.............................................. 10-16

10.4.1.6 Air and Water ............................................................................. 10-16

10.4.2 Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ................................................. 10-16

10.5 Alternative to the Proposed Actions ..................................................................... 10-16

10.6 Benefit-Cost Balance ............................................................................................ 10-17

10.6.1 Benefits ..................................................................................................... 10-18

10.6.1.1 Societal Benefits ........................................................................ 10-18

10.6.1.2 Regional Benefits ....................................................................... 10-20

10.6.2 Costs ........................................................................................................ 10-21

10.6.2.1 Internal Costs ............................................................................. 10-24

10.6.2.2 External Costs ........................................................................... 10-26

10.6.3 Summary of Benefits and Costs ............................................................... 10-27

10.7 NRC Staff Recommendation ................................................................................ 10-28
Contents 

NUREG–2176 xx October 2016 

11.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 11-1

12.0 INDEX............................................................................................................................. 12-1

APPENDIX A – CONTRIBUTORS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ..... A-1

APPENDIX B – ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED ................................................................ B-1 

APPENDIX C – NRC AND USACE ENVIRONMENTAL 

REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE ................................................................... C-1 

APPENDIX D – SCOPING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ............................................... D-1 

APPENDIX E – DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COMMENTS AND 

RESPONSES ................................................................................................ E-1 

APPENDIX F – KEY CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE ............................................. F-1 

APPENDIX G – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ............................................................. G-1 

APPENDIX H – AUTHORIZATIONS, PERMITS, AND CERTIFICATIONS ........................... H-1 

APPENDIX I – THE EFFECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE EVALUATION OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS........................................................................ I-1 

APPENDIX J – GREENHOUSE GAS FOOTPRINT ESTIMATES FOR A REFERENCE

1,000 MW(E) LIGHT-WATER REACTOR ..................................................... J-1 

APPENDIX K – POTENTIAL USACE ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTES .... K-1 
October 2016 xxi NUREG–2176 

FIGURES 

ES-1 The Turkey Point Site and Affected Environment ....................................................... xxxiii 

ES-2 Location of Sites Considered as Alternatives to the Turkey Point Site ....................... xxxix 

2-1 Proposed Units 6 and 7 Plant Area and 50-Mile Region ................................................ 2-2

2-2 Proposed Units 6 and 7 Plant Area and 6-Mile Vicinity .................................................. 2-3

2-3 Oblique Aerial Photograph of the Proposed Units 6 and 7 Plant Area and 

Surrounding Area ........................................................................................................... 2-5

2-4 Principal Land Uses in the 6-Mile Vicinity of the Turkey Point Site ................................ 2-9

2-5 Locations of Proposed Transmission Line Corridors and Water Pipelines at the 

Turkey Point Site .......................................................................................................... 2-14

2-6 Map Showing Major Roads, Highways, and Rail Lines within the Turkey Point 

Site Vicinity ................................................................................................................... 2-20

2-7 Land Use within the 50-Mile Radius of the Turkey Point Site ...................................... 2-22

2-8 Physiographic Provinces in Southeast Florida ............................................................. 2-26

2-9 South Florida Canal System 1920 and 1990 ............................................................... 2-27

2-10 South Florida Typical Surface Hydrologic Flows Historic and Present ........................ 2-29

2-11 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Projects in Southeastern Florida 

that Are Planned through 2020 .................................................................................... 2-30

2-12 Regional Hydrologic System Showing the Canals, Glades, etc. .................................. 2-32

2-13 Biscayne Bay Bathymetry and Features ...................................................................... 2-34

2-14 Salinity Station Locations in Biscayne Bay .................................................................. 2-36

2-15 Salinity Time Series from 2005 through 2012 for the Four Stations near the 

Turkey Point Site .......................................................................................................... 2-37

2-16 Site Drainage Sub-Basins for the Existing Condition ................................................... 2-40

2-17 Temperature in Cooling Canals ................................................................................... 2-45

2-18 Salinity in Cooling Canals ............................................................................................ 2-45

2-19 Geologic Stratigraphy and Major Aquifers beneath the Turkey Point Site ................... 2-48

2-20 Specific Conductance Isopleths along a West-to-East Cross Section through the 

IWF ............................................................................................................................... 2-52

2-21 Monthly Water-Quality Measurements at Station BISC123 for the Period of 

Record Including the Monthly Averages for Each Constituent ..................................... 2-63

2-22 USGS Estimated Extent of Saltwater Intrusion from 1951 to 2008 .............................. 2-69

2-23 Landward Limit of the Saltwater Interface in 1996 and Canal Control Structures ........ 2-70

2-24 Locations of Surface-Water Monitoring Stations from SFWMD, the FPL Units 3 

and 4 Uprate Project, and NPS .................................................................................... 2-72

2-25 Locations of Groundwater Monitoring Well Clusters for the FPL Units 3 and 4 

Uprate Project .............................................................................................................. 2-74

2-26 USGS Groundwater Monitoring Locations within 6 Miles of the Proposed Plant 

Location ....................................................................................................................... 2-75

2-27 Habitat Classification at the Proposed Units 6 and 7 Plant Area ................................. 2-78

2-28 Turkey Point Site Location with Respect to Protected Areas ..................................... 2-120

2-29 Turkey Point Site Showing Onsite Aquatic Resources, Surface-Water Habitats 

and Canal Systems, and Nearshore Areas Adjacent to the Turkey Point 

Peninsula ................................................................................................................... 2-121
Figures 

NUREG–2176 xxii October 2016 

2-30 2009 Fish Sampling Locations on the Turkey Point Site ............................................ 2-124

2-31 Critical Habitat for the Florida Manatee near the Turkey Point Site ........................... 2-145

2-32 Critical Habitat for the American Crocodile near the Turkey Point Site ...................... 2-149

2-33 Locations of Crocodile Nests in the Turkey Point IWF, 1978−2010 ........................... 2-152

2-34 Location of Crocodile Nests in the Turkey Point IWF, 2011–2015 ............................. 2-153

2-35 Map of South Florida, Showing Counties Potentially Affected by Proposed Units 

6 and 7 ....................................................................................................................... 2-163

2-36 Transportation Infrastructure within the 50-Mile Radius of the Site ............................ 2-176

2-37 Highways, Streets, and Traffic Count Stations in the Vicinity of the Site ................... 2-177

2-38 Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

Justice Selection Criteria ............................................................................................ 2-192

2-39 Hispanic Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

Selection Criteria ........................................................................................................ 2-193

2-40 African-American Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

Justice Selection Criteria ............................................................................................ 2-194

2-41 Aggregate Low-Income Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

Justice Selection Criteria ............................................................................................ 2-195

2-42 The Generalized Stratigraphy and Corresponding Hydrogeologic Units at the 

Turkey Point Site ........................................................................................................ 2-210

2-43 Nearest Actual and Potential Receptors .................................................................... 2-219

3-1 Location of Proposed Units 6 and 7 on the Turkey Point Site ........................................ 3-3

3-2 Conceptualization of Proposed Units 6 and 7 Superimposed on the Turkey Point 

Site ................................................................................................................................. 3-4

3-3 AP1000 Power-Conversion Diagram ............................................................................. 3-6

3-4 Site Layout for Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 and Associated Facilities ............ 3-7 

3-5 Plan View of a Typical Radial Collector Well System .................................................. 3-10 

3-6 Cross-Section View of a Typical Radial Collector Well System ................................... 3-11

3-7 Turkey Point Proposed Units 6 and 7 Layout Detail .................................................... 3-12

3-8 Cross-Section View of a Typical Injection Well Design ................................................ 3-13

4-1 Cooling-Canal Volumes Calculated by the Review Team Using Estimated 

Monthly Fluxes from the FPL Uprate Report 2012 ....................................................... 4-28

4-2 Concentrations of TKN Using Estimated Monthly Fluxes from the FPL Uprate 

Report 2012 ................................................................................................................. 4-28

4-3 Location of Muck Spoils Area within the IWF ............................................................... 4-79

4-4 Road Improvements to Maintain an Acceptable Level of Service .............................. 4-101

4-5 Total Workforce at Turkey Point Plant Units 6 and 7 ................................................. 4-105

5-1 Schematic of Hydrologic and Mass Exchange Processes Considered in 

Estimating the Effects of Drift Deposition on the IWF Cooling Canals, Model 

Lands, and Biscayne Bay ............................................................................................. 5-30

5-2 Concentrations of 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Based on Annual Average Drift Flux from 

the Cooling Towers over a 9-Year Period .................................................................... 5-31

5-3 Predicted Monthly Salt Deposition from Cooling-Tower Operation Using Makeup 

Water Only Supplied by the Radial Collector Wells. .................................................... 5-46

5-4 Exposure Pathways to Humans ................................................................................. 5-114

5-5 Exposure Pathway to Biota Other than Humans ........................................................ 5-116

5-6 Typical Injection Well for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 ................................................. 5-117
Figures 

October 2016 xxiii NUREG–2176 

6-1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle: No-Recycle Option ................................................................ 6-5

6-2 Illustration of Truck Stop Model .................................................................................... 6-30

8-1 FPL Service Territory ..................................................................................................... 8-3

9-1 FPL Service Territory ................................................................................................... 9-36

9-2 Candidate Areas: Southern Service Territory .............................................................. 9-38

9-3 Candidate Areas: Northern Service Territory ............................................................... 9-38

9-4 Potential Site Locations ................................................................................................ 9-39

9-5 The Glades Site Region ............................................................................................... 9-45

9-6 Glades Site Footprint ................................................................................................... 9-46

9-7 Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

Justice Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Glades Alternative Site .......................... 9-84

9-8 Hispanic Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Glades Alternative Site ...................................... 9-85

9-9 African American Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

Justice Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Glades Alternative Site .......................... 9-86

9-10 Low-Income Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Glades Alternative Site ...................................... 9-87

9-11 Martin Site Region ........................................................................................................ 9-97

9-12 Martin Site Footprint ..................................................................................................... 9-98

9-13 Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

Justice Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Martin Alternative Site .......................... 9-137

9-14 Hispanic Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Martin Alternative Site ...................................... 9-138

9-15 African American Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

Justice Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Martin Alternative Site .......................... 9-139

9-16 Low-Income Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Martin Alternative Site ...................................... 9-140

9-17 Okeechobee 2 Site Region ........................................................................................ 9-149

9-18 Okeechobee 2 Site Footprint ..................................................................................... 9-150

9-19 Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

Justice Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Okeechobee 2 Alternative Site ............ 9-184

9-20 Hispanic Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Okeechobee 2 Alternative Site ........................ 9-185

9-21 African American Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

Justice Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Okeechobee 2 Alternative Site ............ 9-186

9-22 Low-Income Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Okeechobee 2 Alternative Site ........................ 9-187

9-23 St. Lucie Site Region .................................................................................................. 9-196

9-24 St. Lucie Site Footprint ............................................................................................... 9-197

9-25 Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

Justice Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the St. Lucie Alternative Site ...................... 9-232

9-26 Hispanic Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the St. Lucie Alternative Site .................................. 9-233 
Figures 

NUREG–2176 xxiv October 2016 

9-27 African American Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

Justice Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the St. Lucie Alternative Site ...................... 9-234

9-28 Low-Income Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the St. Lucie Alternative Site .................................. 9-235 
October 2016 xxv NUREG–2176 

TABLES 

ES-1 Environmental Impact Levels of the Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 ................. xxxv 

ES-2 Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the Impacts of 

Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 ......................................................................... xxxvi 

ES-3 Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the Turkey Point and Alternative Sites .......... xxxvii 

ES-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Construction and Operation of New 

Nuclear, Coal-Fired, and Natural-Gas-Fired Generating Units and a Combination 

of Alternatives .................................................................................................................. xl 

2-1 Proposed Coordinates for the Units 6 and 7 Containment Buildings ............................. 2-4

2-2 Major Land-Use Acreages on the Turkey Point Site ....................................................... 2-8

2-3 Major Land-Use Acreages within the 6-Mile Vicinity ...................................................... 2-8

2-4 Existing and Proposed Transmission Line Corridors ................................................... 2-13

2-5 FLUCFCS Land-Cover Acreage within Proposed Transmission Line Corridors 

and Transmission Access Roads ................................................................................. 2-17

2-6 Regional Land Use ....................................................................................................... 2-21

2-7 Agriculture in the Region .............................................................................................. 2-23

2-8 Summary Statistics of Salinity at the Four Measurement Stations near the Turkey 

Point Site ...................................................................................................................... 2-38

2-9 The Review Team Estimates of Average and Maximum Annual Runoff under the 

Existing Condition from Sub-Basins on FPL Property at the Turkey Point Site ........... 2-41

2-10 Consumptive Use Surface-Water Permits in the Region around the Turkey Point 

Site ............................................................................................................................... 2-59

2-11 Acreage of Land-Cover Classes within the Proposed Units 6 and 7 Offsite 

Reclaimed Water Pipeline Corridor .............................................................................. 2-80

2-12 Federally Listed Species Known to Occur within Terrestrial Habitats of MiamiDade County or in the Vicinity of the Turkey Point Site................................................ 2-82

2-13 Number of Nests at Wood Stork Colonies Located near the Proposed West 

Transmission Corridors from 1992–2011 ..................................................................... 2-94

2-14 State-Listed Terrestrial or Wetland Plant Species Occurring in the Vicinity of the 

Turkey Point Site not Previously Discussed as a Federally Listed Species ................. 2-98

2-15 State-Listed Terrestrial or Wetland Animal Species Occurring in the Vicinity of the 

Turkey Point Site Not Previously Discussed as a Federally Listed Species .............. 2-104

2-16 Federally and State-Listed Terrestrial Wildlife Species Identified by the State of 

Florida as Occurring or Potentially Occurring within Transmission Line Corridors 

Associated with Proposed Units 6 and 7 .................................................................... 2-113

2-17 Federally and State-Listed Plant Species Observed within Transmission Line 

Corridors Associated with Proposed Units 6 and 7 .................................................... 2-116

2-18 Fish Species Present in Surface-Water Habitats Inclusive of the IWF on Turkey 

Point Site in Summer 2009 ........................................................................................ 2-125

2-19 Aquatic Species Documented in the Industrial Wastewater Facility........................... 2-125

2-20 Summary of Benthic Invertebrate Abundances near Turkey Point ............................ 2-127

2-21 Relative Abundance of Aquatic Species Commonly Found in Biscayne Bay for 

Given Salinity Ranges ................................................................................................ 2-130
Tables 

NUREG–2176 xxvi October 2016 

2-22 Fish Species Composing 90 Percent of the Total Catch in Card Sound during 

2008-2009 Sampling Events ...................................................................................... 2-132

2-23 Shellfish Species Composing 90 Percent of the Total Catch in Card Sound during 

2008-2009 Sampling Events ...................................................................................... 2-132

2-24 Fish Larvae Composing 90 Percent of the Total Collection in Card Sound during 

2008-2009 Sampling Events ...................................................................................... 2-133

2-25 Summary of Benthic Invertebrate Abundances near Card Sound ............................. 2-133

2-26 Fish Species that Could Occur in Open Water Habitats Associated with the 

Proposed Transmission Line Corridors in Dade County, Florida ............................... 2-135

2-27 Ecologically, Recreationally, and Commercially Important Aquatic Species Likely 

to Occur at or near the Turkey Point Site ................................................................... 2-137

2-28 Federally or State-Listed Species, Proposed Species, or Candidate Species 

Likely to Occur at or near the Turkey Point Site ......................................................... 2-143

2-29 American Crocodile Monitoring Results at the Turkey Point Site, 2000−2015 ........... 2-150

2-30 Federally or State-Listed Species of Concern Likely to Occur at or near the 

Turkey Point Site ........................................................................................................ 2-155

2-31 Designated Essential Fish Habitat Likely to Occur near the Turkey Point Site .......... 2-157

2-32 Population of Counties within 50 Miles of the Proposed Site ..................................... 2-162

2-33 Commuting Characteristics of Workers in the 50-Mile Region ................................... 2-164

2-34 Distribution of Turkey Point Plant Employees ............................................................ 2-164

2-35 Population Growth in Miami-Dade and Florida, 1970−2030 ...................................... 2-165

2-36 Resident Population in the 50-Mile Radius, Projected to 2030, by County ................ 2-166

2-37 Employment by Industry, Miami-Dade County, 2012 ................................................. 2-169

2-38 Construction and Extraction Occupation in the Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall 

Metropolitan Area, 2013 ............................................................................................. 2-170

2-39 Major Employers in Miami-Dade County, by Number of Employees, 2013 ............... 2-171

2-40 Employment and Unemployment Statistics for Miami-Dade County and Florida, 

Annual Averages ........................................................................................................ 2-171

2-41 Miami-Dade County Adopted Budget Revenues by Major Sources, 

FY 2011-2012, $Thousands ....................................................................................... 2-172

2-42 Florida Tax Revenues by Major Sources, FY 2010-2011 .......................................... 2-173

2-43 City of Homestead Adopted Budget, FY 2012 ........................................................... 2-174

2-44 Available Peak Hour Capacity at Traffic Count Stations, 2008 .................................. 2-177

2-45 Wildlife Management Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, Preserves, and State 

Parks within 50 Miles of the Turkey Point Site ........................................................... 2-179

2-46 Baseline Housing Information .................................................................................... 2-180

2-47 Major Public Water Suppliers in Miami-Dade County, 2007 ...................................... 2-181

2-48 Miami-Dade County Projected Water Demands, 2005−2025 .................................... 2-182

2-49 Wastewater-Treatment Systems in Miami-Dade County ........................................... 2-182

2-50 Law Enforcement and Fire Protection in Miami-Dade County and the Homestead 

and Florida City Area, 2010 ....................................................................................... 2-183

2-51 Medical Facilities and Personnel in Miami-Dade County, 2006 ................................. 2-185

2-52 Public School Statistics in Miami-Dade County and Homestead and Florida City ..... 2-187

2-53 Class Sizes in Miami-Dade County, 2010-2011 ......................................................... 2-187

2-54 Regional Minority and Low-Income Populations by Block Group Analysis Results ... 2-190
Tables 

October 2016 xxvii NUREG–2176 

2-55 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for Proposed Units 6 and 7 Design Basis 

Accident Calculations ................................................................................................. 2-215

2-56 Maximum Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition Factors for 

Evaluation of Normal Effluents for Receptors of Interest ........................................... 2-216

2-57 Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Area ............................................................... 2-220

2-58 Fatal Injuries by Industry in the United States ............................................................ 2-221

2-59 Waterborne Disease Outbreaks in Florida, 2002−2011 ............................................. 2-224

2-60 Construction Noise Sources and Attenuation with Distance ...................................... 2-227

3-1 Volume of Fill Needed for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 and Associated Facilities ......... 3-16

3-2 Summary of New Transmission Lines for Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 ......... 3-18

3-3 Definitions and Examples of Activities Associated with Building Turkey Point 

Units 6 and 7 ................................................................................................................ 3-22

3-4 Summary of Parameters and Resource Commitments Associated with 

Construction and Preconstruction of Proposed Units 6 and 7 ..................................... 3-28

3-5 Expected Constituents and Concentrations Discharged to the Deep-Injection 

Wells ............................................................................................................................ 3-38

3-6 Resource Parameters Associated with Operation of Proposed Turkey Point Units 

6 and 7 ......................................................................................................................... 3-41

4-1 Summary of Proposed Disturbance on the FPL Turkey Point Site in Acres .................. 4-6

4-2 Major Land-Use Acreages along the Reclaimed Water Pipeline to the FPL 

Reclaimed Wastewater-Treatment Facility..................................................................... 4-9

4-3 Major Land-Use Acreages in Areas of the Access Road Improvement ....................... 4-10

4-4 Major Land-Use Acreages within the Proposed Transmission Line Corridors ............. 4-14

4-5 Major Land-Use Acreages within Transmission Line and Substation Access 

Corridors ...................................................................................................................... 4-16

4-6 Extent of Proposed Impacts on Cover Types at the Turkey Point Site ........................ 4-36

4-7 Permanent Habitat Loss on the FPL Turkey Point Property Attributed to Building 

Units 6 and 7 Facilities ................................................................................................. 4-37

4-8 Wetland Types that Would Be Permanently Lost During Building of Proposed 

Units 6 and 7 and the Associated Facilities on the Turkey Point Site .......................... 4-39

4-9 Summary of Undeveloped Uplands and Wetlands Found within Transmission 

Line Corridors ............................................................................................................... 4-41

4-10 Proposed Mitigation Efforts to Offset Loss of Wetland Function Related to the 

Preconstruction and Construction of Proposed Units 6 and 7 and the Building 

and Installation of Related Structures .......................................................................... 4-67

4-11 Level-of-Service Designations for Key Intersections during Peak Workforce after 

Road and Intersection Improvements ........................................................................ 4-111

4-12 Peak Workforce Traffic LOS Analysis for Truck Traffic beyond the Vicinity of the 

Site ............................................................................................................................. 4-112

4-13 Construction Impact on Police Protection in Miami-Dade County and the 

Homestead and Florida City Area .............................................................................. 4-117

4-14 Construction Impact on Fire Protection in Miami-Dade County and the 

Homestead and Florida City Area .............................................................................. 4-117

4-15 Anticipated Annual Average Atmospheric Emissions Associated with Site 

Preparation and Construction of Proposed Units 6 and 7 .......................................... 4-126
Tables 

NUREG–2176 xxviii October 2016 

4-16 Estimated Impacts of Transporting Workers and Materials to and from the Turkey 

Point Site for a Single Unit ......................................................................................... 4-136

4-17 Summary of Measures and Controls Proposed by FPL to Limit Adverse Impacts 

During Construction and Preconstruction of Proposed Units 6 and 7 ........................ 4-143

4-18 Summary of Impacts from Construction and Preconstruction of Proposed Turkey 

Point Units 6 and 7 ..................................................................................................... 4-147

5-1 Estimated Annual Average Deposition Rates from Cooling-Tower Drift ...................... 5-12

5-2 Estimated Contaminant Concentrations in the Cooling Canal from Drift 

Deposition .................................................................................................................... 5-31

5-3 Comparison of Predicted Concentrations of Chemicals from Cooling-Tower 

Deposition during Reclaimed Water Use to Analytical Method Detection Limits 

and Toxicological Criteria or Benchmarks .................................................................... 5-48

5-4 Level of Service of Key Intersections during Normal Operations of Turkey Point 

Units 6 and 7 with Selected Intersection Improvements .............................................. 5-87

5-5 Building Impact on Police Protection in Miami-Dade County and the Homestead 

and Florida City Area ................................................................................................... 5-90

5-6 Operations Impact on Fire Protection in Miami-Dade County and the Homestead 

and Florida City Area ................................................................................................... 5-91

5-7 Anticipated Atmospheric Emissions Associated with Operation of Proposed Units 

6 and 7 ......................................................................................................................... 5-98

5-8 Screening-Level Analysis of Inhalation of Selected Chemicals in Drift from 

Reclaimed Water Used for Cooling ............................................................................ 5-110

5-9 Nonradiological Estimated Impacts of Transporting Operations Workers to and 

from the Turkey Point Site and Alternative Sites ........................................................ 5-111

5-10 Gaseous Effluent Exposure Pathway Receptor Locations ......................................... 5-119

5-11 Annual Individual Doses to the MEI from Gaseous Effluents for One Unit ................ 5-120

5-12 Comparisons of the Dose Estimates from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents to 10 

CFR Part 50, Appendix I Design Objective at the Turkey Point Site Boundary ......... 5-121

5-13 Cumulative Turkey Point Site Dose to the MEI from Units 6 and 7 Combined with 

Units 3 and 4 .............................................................................................................. 5-121

5-14 FPL Estimate of Non-Human Biota Doses for Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 

7 for a Single Unit ....................................................................................................... 5-125

5-15 Comparison of the FPL Estimate of Biota Doses from the Proposed Turkey Point 

Units 6 and 7 to the IAEA/NRCP Guidelines for Biota Protection .............................. 5-126

5-16 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for Turkey Point Site DBA Calculations .................. 5-135

5-17 Design Basis Accident Doses for an AP1000 Reactor for Proposed Turkey Point 

Units 6 and 7 .............................................................................................................. 5-136

5-18 Mean Environmental Risks from AP1000 Reactor Severe Accidents at the Turkey 

Point Site .................................................................................................................... 5-139

5-19 Comparison of Environmental Risks for an AP1000 Reactor at the Turkey Point 

Site with Risks for Current-Generation Reactors at Five Sites Evaluated in 

NUREG−1150 and the AP1000 at Four Early Site Permit Sites ................................ 5-140

5-20 Comparison of Environmental Risks from Severe Accidents Initiated by Internal 

Events for an AP1000 Reactor at the Turkey Point Site with Risks Initiated by 

Internal Events for Current Plants Undergoing Operating License Renewal 

Review and Environmental Risks of the AP1000 Reactor at Other Sites .................. 5-141
Tables 

October 2016 xxix NUREG–2176 

5-21 Comparison of the Turkey Point Site SAMDA Characteristics with Parameters 

Specified in Appendix 1B of the AP1000 DCD ........................................................... 5-149

5-22 Alternatives Considered for the SAMDA in the AP1000 DCD .................................... 5-149

5-23 Summary of Proposed Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts during 

Operation ................................................................................................................... 5-151

5-24 Summary of Operational Impacts for the Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 ........ 5-154

6-1 Table S–3 from 10 CFR 51.51(b), Table of Uranium Fuel-Cycle Environmental 

Data ................................................................................................................................ 6-2

6-2 Comparison of Annual Average Dose Received by an Individual from All Sources ..... 6-12

6-3 Number of Truck Shipments of Unirradiated Fuel for the Reference LWR and the 

AP1000 Reactor ........................................................................................................... 6-20

6-4 RADTRAN 5.6 Input Parameters for Unirradiated Fuel Shipments .............................. 6-21

6-5 Radiological Impacts under Normal Conditions of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel 

to the Turkey Point Site or the Alternative Sites ........................................................... 6-22

6-6 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to the Turkey Point 

Site and the Alternative Sites Normalized to Reference LWR ..................................... 6-26

6-7 Transportation Route Information for Shipments from the Turkey Point Site and 

the Alternative Sites to the Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, 

Nevada ......................................................................................................................... 6-28

6-8 RADTRAN 5.6 Normal Exposure Parameters ............................................................. 6-29

6-9 Normal Radiation Doses to Transport Workers and the Public from Shipping 

Spent Fuel from the Turkey Point Site and the Alternative Sites to the Proposed 

High-Level Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain ........................................................ 6-31

6-10 Radionuclide Inventories Used in Transportation Accident Risk Calculations for 

an AP1000 Reactor ...................................................................................................... 6-34

6-11 Annual Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for an AP1000 Reactor at 

the Turkey Point Site and the Alternative Sites, Normalized to Reference 1,100 

MW(e) LWR Net Electrical Generation ........................................................................ 6-36

6-12 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Spent Fuel from the Turkey Point Site 

and the Alternative Sites to Yucca Mountain, Normalized to Reference LWR ............. 6-36

6-13 Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the Turkey Point Site and 

Alternative Sites ........................................................................................................... 6-37

6-14 Nonradiological Impacts of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the Turkey Point 

Site ............................................................................................................................... 6-38

7-1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

Considered in the Cumulative Analysis in the Vicinity of the Turkey Point Site ............. 7-3

7-2 Comparison of Annual Carbon Dioxide Emission Rates .............................................. 7-36

7-3 Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the Impacts of 

Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 .......................................................................... 7-46

8-1 Shares of Electricity Sales by FPL Customer Class....................................................... 8-4

8-2 FPL Summer Reserve Margin Forecast by Case........................................................... 8-7

8-3 Forecasted Energy Consumption, Capacity, and Peak Demand ................................. 8-10

8-4 Forecasted Capacities and Reserve Margins during the Summer Peak Period .......... 8-11

9-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Generation at the 

Turkey Point Site .......................................................................................................... 9-15

9-2 Summary of the Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas−Fired Power Generation ...... 9-21
Tables 

NUREG–2176 xxx October 2016 

9-3 Summary of the Environmental Impacts of a Combination of Power Sources ............. 9-29

9-4 Summary of the Environmental Impacts of Construction and Operation of New 

Nuclear, Coal-Fired, and Natural-Gas–Fired Generating Units and a Combination 

of Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 9-31

9-5 Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Energy Alternatives ............................. 9-32

9-6 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions in the 

Vicinity of the Glades Alternative Site ........................................................................... 9-47

9-7 Glades Site Land-Use Impacts .................................................................................... 9-55

9-8 Federally Listed Terrestrial Species that May Occur on the Glades Site or within 

the Conceptual Transmission Line Corridor ................................................................. 9-62

9-9 Acreage within the Conceptual Footprint at the Glades Site ........................................ 9-64

9-10 Peak Workforce Traffic LOS Analysis for the Glades Site ........................................... 9-80

9-11 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions in the 

Vicinity of Martin Site .................................................................................................... 9-99

9-12 Martin Alternative Site Land-Use Impacts .................................................................. 9-109

9-13 Federally Listed Terrestrial Species that May Occur on the Martin Site or within 

the Conceptual Transmission Line Corridor ............................................................... 9-117

9-14 Acreage within the Conceptual Footprint at the Martin Site ....................................... 9-119

9-15 Peak Workforce Traffic LOS Analysis for the Martin Site ........................................... 9-133

9-16 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions in the 

Vicinity of the Okeechobee 2 Site .............................................................................. 9-151

9-17 Okeechobee 2 Alternative Site Land-Use Impacts .................................................... 9-159

9-18 Federally Listed Terrestrial Species that May Occur on the Okeechobee 2 Site or 

within the Conceptual Transmission Line Corridor ..................................................... 9-166

9-19 Acreage within the Conceptual Footprint at the Okeechobee 2 Site .......................... 9-167

9-20 Peak Workforce Traffic LOS Analysis for the Okeechobee 2 Site ............................. 9-180

9-21 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions in the 

Vicinity of the St. Lucie Site ........................................................................................ 9-198

9-22 St. Lucie Alternative Site Land-Use Impacts .............................................................. 9-206

9-23 Federally Listed Terrestrial Species that May Occur on the St. Lucie Site or within 

the Conceptual Transmission Line Corridor ............................................................... 9-212

9-24 Acreage within the Conceptual Footprint at the St. Lucie Site ................................... 9-214

9-25 Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Present near the 

St. Lucie Site .............................................................................................................. 9-221

9-26 Federally or State-Listed Species and Species of Concern Likely to Occur at or 

near the St. Lucie Site ................................................................................................ 9-222

9-27 Peak Workforce Traffic LOS Analysis for the St. Lucie Site ....................................... 9-229

9-28 Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the Turkey Point and Alternative Sites .......... 9-246

10-1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Construction and 

Preconstruction Activities ............................................................................................. 10-6

10-2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation .................................. 10-10

10-3 Summary of the Benefits of the Proposed Action ...................................................... 10-19

10-4 Summary of the Costs of Preconstruction, Construction, and Operation ................... 10-21
October 2016 xxxi NUREG–2176 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This environmental impact statement (EIS) presents the results of a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) environmental review of an application for a combined construction permit 

and operating license (combined license or COL) for two new nuclear reactor units at a 

proposed Turkey Point site in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) participated in the preparation of the EIS as a cooperating agency and as a member 

of the review team, which consisted of the NRC staff, its contractor staff, and the USACE staff. 

The National Park Service (NPS) participated in the environmental review as a cooperating 

agency by providing special expertise for the areas in and around the adjacent national parks 

(Biscayne and Everglades National Parks). The NPS does not have a request to take any 

specific regulatory actions related to the proposed COLs before it. Due to this unique set of 

circumstances, all impact determinations made in this EIS should not be attributed to NPS, but 

only to the NRC and USACE (also referred to as the review team). The NPS’s participation in 

connection with this EIS does not imply NPS concurrence. 

Background 

On June 30, 2009, the Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) submitted an application to the 

NRC for a combined construction permit and operating license (combined license or COL) for 

Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. 

Upon acceptance of FPL’s application, the NRC review team began the environmental review 

process by publishing a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping in the Federal 

Register on June 15, 2010. As part of this environmental review, the review team did the 

following: 

 conducted public scoping meetings on July 15, 2010 in Homestead, Florida 

 conducted a site visit of the proposed Units 6 and 7 plant area on the Turkey Point site in 

June 2010 

 conducted visits to alternative sites in July 2010 

 reviewed FPL’s Environmental Report (ER) 

 consulted with Tribal Nations and other agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS), Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami-Dade Office of Historic and 

Archaeological Resources, and Florida Division of Historical Resources 

 conducted the review following guidance set forth in NUREG-1555: 

– “Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants 

– Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal” 

 considered public comments received during the 60-day scoping process from June 15, 

2010 to August 16, 2010 
Executive Summary 

NUREG–2176 xxxii October 2016 

 conducted public meetings on the draft EIS on April 22, 2015, in Miami, Florida, and on April 

23, 2015, in Homestead, Florida 

 considered public comments received during the comment periods for the draft EIS, which 

extended from March 5 to May 22 and from May 28 to July 17, 2016. 

Proposed Action 

FPL initiated the proposed Federal action by submitting an application for Turkey Point Units 6 

and 7 to the NRC. The NRC’s Federal action is issuance of COLs for two Westinghouse 

AP1000 reactors at the Turkey Point site near Homestead, Florida. 

The USACE is a cooperating agency in preparation of this EIS. The USACE’s Federal action is 

its decision of whether to issue, deny, or issue with modifications a Department of Army (DA) 

permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and 

Harbors Act of 1899 to authorize certain construction activities potentially affecting waters of the 

United States.(1) 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The purpose of the proposed NRC action, issuance of the COL, is to provide for additional 

baseload electric generating capacity for use in the FPL service territory. 

The USACE determines both a basic and an overall project purpose pursuant to the Clean 

Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, 33 CFR § 230.10. The basic purpose is to meet the 

public’s need for electric energy. The overall purpose is to meet the public’s need for reliable 

increased electrical baseload generating capacity in FPL’s service territory. 

Affected Environment 

The Turkey Point site is located in southeast Miami-Dade County, Florida, near Homestead 

(Figure ES-1). Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 would be located on the same site as the existing 

Turkey Point site, which has five other power plants, including two nuclear power reactors. 

Turkey Point would be located 25 mi south of Miami and 4.5 and 8 mi east of Homestead and 

Florida City, respectively. The primary source of cooling water would be reclaimed wastewater 

and the alternative source would be saltwater supplied from radial collector wells beneath 

Biscayne Bay. The ultimate heat sink for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 would be the atmosphere, 

using three mechanical draft cooling towers per reactor. 

 

(1) Waters of the United States” is used to include both “waters of the United States” as defined by 33 

CFR Part 328 (TN1683) defining the extent of USACE geographic jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 

of the Clean Water Act and “navigable waters of the United States” as defined by 33 CFR Part 329 

(TN4770) defining the extent of USACE geographic jurisdiction pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers 

and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 403) (TN4768). 
Executive Summary 

October 2016 xxxiii NUREG–2176 

Figure ES-1. The Turkey Point Site and Affected Environment
Executive Summary 

NUREG–2176 xxxiv October 2016 

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 

This EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts 

of the construction and operation of the two new nuclear 

plants proposed for the Turkey Point site related to the 

following resource areas: 

 land use 

 air quality 

 aquatic ecology 

 terrestrial ecology 

 surface and groundwater 

 waste (radiological and nonradiological) 

 human health (radiological and nonradiological) 

 socioeconomics 

 environmental justice 

 cultural resources 

 fuel cycle, decommissioning, and transportation 

The impacts are designated as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The incremental impacts 

related to the construction and operations activities requiring NRC authorization are described 

and characterized, as are the cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed action when the 

effects are added to, or interact with, other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

effects on the same resources. A summary of the construction and operation impacts are 

outlined in Table ES-1. Table ES-2 summarizes the review team’s assessment of cumulative 

impacts. The review team’s detailed analysis which supports the impact assessment of the 

proposed new units can be found in Chapters 4, 5, and 7, respectively. 

SMALL: Environmental effects are 

not detectable or are so minor that 

they will neither destabilize nor 

noticeably alter any important 

attribute of the resource. 

MODERATE: Environmental 

effects are sufficient to alter 

noticeably, but not to destabilize, 

important attributes of the resource. 

LARGE: Environmental effects are 

clearly noticeable and are sufficient 

to destabilize important attributes of 

the resource. 
Executive Summary 

October 2016 xxxv NUREG–2176 

Table ES-1. Environmental Impact Levels of the Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 

Resource Category 

Preconstruction and 

Construction Operation 

Land Use MODERATE (NRC authorized 

construction impact level is 

SMALL) 

MODERATE 

Water-Related 

Water Use – Surface Water SMALL SMALL 

Water Use – Groundwater Use SMALL SMALL 

Water Quality – Surface Water SMALL SMALL 

Water Quality – Groundwater SMALL SMALL 

Ecology 

Terrestrial Ecosystems MODERATE (NRC authorized 

construction impact level is 

SMALL) 

MODERATE 

Aquatic Ecosystems SMALL to MODERATE SMALL 

Socioeconomic 

Physical Impacts SMALL (adverse) to 

MODERATE (beneficial) 

SMALL (adverse) to 

MODERATE (beneficial) 

Demography SMALL SMALL 

Economic Impacts on the Community SMALL SMALL and beneficial 

Infrastructure and Community Services SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE 

Environmental Justice NONE(a) NONE(a)

Historic and Cultural Resources MODERATE (NRC authorized 

construction impact level is 

SMALL) 

SMALL 

Air Quality SMALL SMALL 

Nonradiological Health SMALL SMALL 

Nonradiological Waste SMALL SMALL 

Radiological Health SMALL SMALL 

Postulated Accidents n/a SMALL 

Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and 

Decommissioning 

n/a SMALL 

(a) A determination of “NONE” for Environmental Justice analyses does not mean there are no adverse impacts to 

minority or low-income populations from the proposed project. Instead, an indication of “NONE” means that 

while there are adverse impacts, those impacts do not affect minority or low-income populations in any 

disproportionate manner, relative to the general population. 
Executive Summary 

NUREG–2176 xxxvi October 2016 

Table ES-2. Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the Impacts of 

Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 

Resource Category Impact Level 

Land Use MODERATE 

Water-Related 

Water Use – Surface Water SMALL 

Water Use – Groundwater Use SMALL 

Water Quality – Surface Water MODERATE 

Water Quality – Groundwater SMALL 

Ecology 

Terrestrial Ecosystems MODERATE to LARGE 

Aquatic Ecosystems MODERATE 

Socioeconomic 

Physical Impacts SMALL adverse to MODERATE beneficial 

Demography SMALL 

Economic Impacts on the Community SMALL and beneficial 

Infrastructure and Community Services SMALL to MODERATE 

Environmental Justice NONE(a)

Historic and Cultural Resources MODERATE 

Air Quality SMALL to MODERATE for criteria pollutants and 

MODERATE for GHGs 

Nonradiological Health SMALL 

Nonradiological Waste SMALL 

Radiological Health SMALL 

Postulated Accidents SMALL 

Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning SMALL 

(a) A determination of “NONE” for Environmental Justice analyses does not mean there are no adverse impacts to 

minority or low-income populations from the proposed project. Instead, an indication of “NONE” means that while 

there are adverse impacts, those impacts do not affect minority or low-income populations in any 

disproportionate manner, relative to the general population.

Alternatives 

The review team considered the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to issuing a 

COL for the two new nuclear units proposed by FPL for the Turkey Point site. These 

alternatives included a no-action alternative (i.e., not issuing the COL) and alternative energy 

sources, siting locations, and system designs. 

The no-action alternative would result in the COL not being granted or the USACE not issuing 

its permit. Upon such a denial, construction and operation of new units at the Turkey Point site 

would not occur and the predicted environmental impacts would not take place. If no other 

facility would be built or strategy implemented to take its place, the benefits of the additional 

electrical capacity and electricity generation to be provided would also not occur and the need 

for baseload power would not be met. 

Based on the NRC staff’s review of energy alternatives, the NRC staff concluded that, from an 

environmental perspective, none of the viable alternatives is environmentally preferable to 

building a new baseload nuclear power generation plant at the Turkey Point site. The NRC staff 

eliminated several energy sources (e.g., wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass) from full 
Executive Summary 

October 2016 xxxvii NUREG–2176 

consideration because they are not currently capable of meeting the need of this project. None 

of the viable baseload alternatives (natural gas, coal, or a combination of alternatives) was 

environmentally preferable to the proposed Turkey Point units. 

After comparing the cumulative effects of a new nuclear power plant at the proposed site against 

those at the alternative sites, the NRC staff concluded that none of the alternative sites would be 

environmentally preferable to the proposed site for building and operating a new nuclear power 

plant (Table ES-3). The four alternatives sites selected were as follows (Figure ES-2): 

 Glades 

 Martin 

 Okeechobee 2 

 St. Lucie. 

Table ES-3. Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the Turkey Point and Alternative Sites

Resource Category 

Turkey Point 

Site(a) Glades(b) Martin(b)

Okeechobee 

2(b) St. Lucie(b)

Land Use MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

Water-Related 

Surface-water use SMALL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE SMALL 

Groundwater use SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Surface-water quality MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

Groundwater quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Ecology 

Terrestrial and 

wetland ecosystems 

MODERATE 

to LARGE 

MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

Aquatic ecosystems MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE SMALL to

MODERATE 

Socioeconomics 

Physical impacts SMALL 

adverse 

except for 

MODERATE 

beneficial 

impacts on 

road quality 

MODERATE 

adverse to 

SMALL 

beneficial 

impacts on 

road quality 

MODERATE 

adverse to 

MODERATE 

beneficial 

impacts on 

road quality 

MODERATE 

adverse to 

SMALL 

beneficial 

impacts on 

road quality 

LARGE adverse 

to MODERATE 

beneficial 

impacts on road 

quality 

Demography SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL, except 

for LARGE 

residential 

displacement 

impacts 

Economic impacts on 

the community 

SMALL and 

beneficial 

SMALL and 

beneficial, 

except for 

LARGE and 

beneficial 

property tax 

revenues for 

Glades 

County and 

School District 

SMALL and 

beneficial, 

except for 

MODERATE 

and beneficial 

property tax 

revenues for 

Martin County 

and School 

District 

SMALL and 

beneficial, 

except for 

LARGE and 

beneficial 

property tax 

revenues for 

Okeechobee 

County and 

School District 

SMALL and 

beneficial 
Executive Summary 

NUREG–2176 xxxviii October 2016 

Table ES-3. (contd) 

Resource Category 

Turkey Point 

Site(a) Glades(b) Martin(b)

Okeechobee 

2(b) St. Lucie(b)

Infrastructure and 

community services 

SMALL except 

for 

MODERATE 

adverse 

impacts on 

traffic 

SMALL except 

for 

MODERATE 

adverse 

impacts on 

traffic 

SMALL except 

for 

MODERATE 

adverse 

impacts on 

traffic 

SMALL except 

for 

MODERATE 

adverse 

impacts on 

traffic 

SMALL except 

for 

MODERATE 

adverse 

impacts on 

traffic 

Environmental 

Justice 

None(c) None(c) None(c) None(c) None(c)

Historic and Cultural 

Resources 

MODERATE MODERATE SMALL MODERATE SMALL 

Air Quality 

Criteria pollutants SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Greenhouse gas 

emissions 

MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

Nonradiological 

Health 

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Radiological Health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Postulated 

Accidents 

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

(a) Cumulative impact determinations taken from EIS Table 7-3. 

(b) Cumulative impact determinations taken from EIS Table 9-28.

(c) A determination of “NONE” for Environmental Justice analyses does not mean there are no adverse impacts on 

minority or low-income populations from the proposed project. Instead, an indication of “NONE” means that 

while there are adverse impacts, those impacts do not affect minority or low-income populations in any 

disproportionate manner, relative to the general population. 

Table ES-3 provides a summary of the cumulative impacts for the proposed and alternative 

sites. The NRC staff concluded that all of the sites were generally comparable, and it would be 

difficult to state that one site is preferable to another from an environmental perspective. In 

such a case, the proposed site prevails because none of the alternatives is environmentally 

preferable to the proposed site. 

Table ES-4 provides a summary of the EIS-derived impacts for a new nuclear power plant in 

comparison with the energy alternatives. The NRC staff concluded that none of the viable 

energy alternatives is preferable to construction of a new baseload nuclear power-generating 

plant located within FPL’s region of interest. 

The NRC staff considered various alternative systems designs, including seven alternative heatdissipation systems and multiple alternative intake, discharge, and water-supply systems. The 

review team identified no alternatives that were environmentally preferable to the proposed 

Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 systems design. 
Executive Summary 

October 2016 xxxix NUREG–2176 

Figure ES-2. Location of Sites Considered as Alternatives to the Turkey Point Site 
Executive Summary 

NUREG–2176 xl October 2016 

Table ES-4. Summary of Environmental Impacts(a) of Construction and Operation of New 

Nuclear, Coal-Fired, and Natural-Gas–Fired Generating Units and a 

Combination of Alternatives 

Impact Category Nuclear Coal(b) Natural Gas(b)

Combination of 

Alternatives(b)

Land Use MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

Air Quality SMALL MODERATE SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Water Use and Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Ecology MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

Waste Management SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL 

Socioeconomics MODERATE 

Beneficial to 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

MODERATE 

Beneficial to 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

MODERATE 

Beneficial to 

SMALL 

Adverse 

MODERATE 

Beneficial to 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

Human Health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Historic and Cultural 

Resources 

MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

Environmental Justice NONE(b) NONE(b) NONE(b) NONE(b)

(a) Impact levels for all alternatives are for construction and operation but do not reflect cumulative impacts. Thus, 

the nuclear impacts identified here may differ from those used to compare the proposed site to the alternative 

sites, which reflect cumulative impacts. 

(b) Impacts taken from EIS Table 9-4. These conclusions for energy alternatives should be compared to NRCauthorized activities reflected in Chapters 4, 5, and Sections 6.1, and 6.2. 

(c) A determination of “NONE” for Environmental Justice analyses does not mean there are no adverse impacts to 

minority or low-income populations from the proposed project. Instead, an indication of “NONE” means that while 

there are adverse impacts, those impacts do not affect minority or low-income populations in any 

disproportionate manner, relative to the general population.

Benefits and Costs 

The NRC staff compiled and compared the pertinent analytical conclusions reached in the EIS. 

It gathered all of the expected impacts from building and operating proposed Turkey Point Units 

6 and 7 and aggregated them into two final categories: (1) expected environmental costs and 

(2) expected benefits to be derived from approval of the proposed action. Although the analysis 

in Section 10.6 is conceptually similar to a purely economic benefit-cost analysis, which 

determines the net present dollar value of a given project, the purpose of the section is to 

identify potential societal benefits of the proposed activities and compare them to the potential 

internal (i.e., private) and external (i.e., societal) costs of the proposed activities. In general, the 

purpose is to inform the COL process by gathering and reviewing information that demonstrates 

the likelihood that the benefits of the proposed activities outweigh the aggregate costs. 

On the basis of the assessments in this EIS, the building and operation of proposed Turkey 

Point Units 6 and 7, with mitigation measures identified by the review team, would accrue 

benefits that most likely would outweigh the economic, environmental, and social costs. For the 

NRC-proposed action (i.e., NRC-authorized construction and operation), the accrued benefits 

would also outweigh the costs of preconstruction, construction, and operation of proposed 

Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. 
Executive Summary 

October 2016 xli NUREG–2176 

Public Involvement 

A 60-day scoping period was held from June 15, 2010, to August 16, 2010. On July 15, 2010, 

the NRC held two public scoping meetings in Homestead, Florida. The review team received 

many oral comments during the public meetings and 32 e-mails and 10 letters throughout the 

rest of the scoping period on numerous topics including energy alternatives, terrestrial ecology, 

ground and surface water, and socioeconomics. The review team’s response to the in-scope 

public comments can be found in Appendix D. The Scoping Summary Report (Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML103130609) contains 

all of the comments, even those considered out-of-scope (e.g., security, safety issues). 

During the initial 75-day comment period on the draft EIS, which began on March 6, 2015, the 

review team held public meetings in Miami, Florida, on April 22, 2015, and in Homestead, 

Florida, on April 23, 2015. During the course of the comment period, the NRC received 

requests from members of the public, a Tribal government, and Federal agencies to extend the 

comment period. In response to these requests, the NRC reopened the comment period on the 

draft EIS on May 28, 2015, until July 17, 2015, allowing additional time for public comments. In 

total, approximately 68 people provided oral comments at the public meetings held in April, and 

the NRC received approximately 11,300 pieces of correspondence during the original and 

reopened comment period. 

Recommendation 

The NRC’s recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental aspects of the 

proposed action is that the COL should be issued. 

This recommendation is based on the following: 

 the application, including the ER, submitted by FPL 

 consultation with Federal, State, Tribes, and local agencies 

 site audits and alternative sites audits 

 consideration of public comments received during the environmental review 

 the review team’s independent review and assessment summarized in this EIS. 

The NRC’s determination is independent of the USACE’s determination of whether to issue, 

deny, or issue with modifications the DA permit application for the Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. 

The USACE will conclude its Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and public interest 

analyses in its Record of Decision. 

October 2016 xliii NUREG–2176 

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS 

AADT annual average daily traffic 

ac acre(s) 

ACC averted cleanup and decontamination costs 

ac-ft acre (foot) feet 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ACS American Community Survey 

AD Anno Domini 

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

AERMOD American Meteorological Society/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(AMS/EPA) Regulatory Model 

AICUZ Air Installation Compatible Use Zone 

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable 

a.m. ante meridian 

AO Administrative Order 

AP-42 EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors document 

APE Area of Potential Effect 

APPZ Avon Park Permeable (or Producing) Zone 

AQCR Air Quality Control Region 

ARNI Aquatic Resources of National Importance 

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

ASE advanced safety evaluation 

ASR aquifer storage and recovery (system) 

ATC Atlantic Coastal Ridge 

BA Biological Assessment 

BACT Best Available Control Technologies 

BBCW Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands 

BC Before Christ 

BEBR University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research 

BEA U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 

BEIR VII Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII 

bgs below ground surface 

BISC Biscayne Bay 

BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

BMP Best Management Practice 

Btu British thermal unit 

°C degree(s) Celsius 

μCi microcurie(s) 
Abbreviations/Acronyms 

NUREG–2176 xliv October 2016 

μCi/mL microcuries per milliliter 

CA Consent Agreement 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule 

CCD Colony Collapse Disorder 

CCR coal combustion residuals 

CCS cooling-canal system (also known as IWF) 

CDF core damage frequency 

CDMP Comprehensive Development Master Plan 

CDNFRM cost for decontamination of non-farmland 

CEC chemical/contaminant of emerging concern 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program (also Project, Plan) 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic foot/feet per second 

cm centimeter(s) 

cm2 square centimeter(s) 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent 

COL combined construction permit and operating license 

CPI Consumer Price Index 

CPUE catch per unit effort 

CSAPR Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

CTEMISS cooling-tower emissions processor 

CWA Clean Water Act (aka Federal Water Pollution Control Act) 

CWS circulating-water system 

CZMP Coastal Zone Management Plan 

d day(s) 

D Directional Distribution Factor 

DA Department of the Army 

dB decibel(s) 

dBA decibel(s) on the A-weighted scale 

DBA design basis accident 

DCD Design Control Document 

DEET N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide 

DEIS draft environmental impact statement 

DERM Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources 

Management 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 
Abbreviations/Acronyms 

October 2016 xlv NUREG–2176 

DNL day-night average sound level 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOI U.S. Department of Interior 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

DPS distinct population segment 

DSM demand-side management 

DZMW dual-zone monitoring well 

EAB exclusion area boundary 

EAI Ecological Associates, Inc. 

EC10 effective concentration required to induce a 10% effect 

EC50 effective concentration required to induce a 50% effect 

ECOTOX EPA Ecotoxicology 

EDR Florida Legislature’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research 

EEEA East Everglades Expansion Area 

EEL Environmentally Endangered Lands (Program) 

EFH essential fish habitat 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EJ environmental justice 

ELF extremely low frequency 

ELF-EMF extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field 

EMB Everglades Mitigation Bank 

EMF electromagnetic field 

ENP Everglades National Park 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPOC emerging pollutant of concern 

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

ER Environmental Report 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

ESOC emerging substance of concern 

ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan (NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, 

Operating License Renewal) 

EW exploratory well 

°F degree(s) Fahrenheit 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FAC Florida Administrative Code or Fla. Admin. Code 

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

FDHR Florida Division of Historic Resources 

FDOH Florida Department of Health 
Abbreviations/Acronyms 

NUREG–2176 xlvi October 2016 

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation 

FEC Florida East Coast (Railway) 

FEFP Florida Education Finance Program 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FFWCC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map 

FKNMS Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

FLUCFCS Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification System 

FLUM Future Land Use Map 

FMNH Florida Museum of Natural History 

FMP fishery management plan 

FMSF Florida Master Site File (form) 

FNAI Florida Natural Areas Inventory 

FONSI Findings of No Significant Impact 

FPL Florida Power & Light Company 

fps foot (feet) per second 

FPSC Florida Public Service Commission 

FR Federal Register 

FRCC Florida Reliability Coordinating Council 

FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report 

FSER Final Safety Evaluation Report 

ft foot/feet 

ft2 square foot/feet 

ft/d foot (feet) per day 

ft2/d square foot (feet) per day 

ft3 cubic foot (feet) 

ft3/d cubic foot (feet) per day 

ft3/yr cubic foot (feet) per year 

FTE full-time equivalent 

FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act 

of 1977) 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

FY fiscal year 

μg microgram(s) 

μg/L microgram(s) per liter 

μGy microgray(s) 

g gram(s) or gravity of Earth (g-force) 

gal gallon(s) 

gal/yr gallon(s) per year 
Abbreviations/Acronyms 

October 2016 xlvii NUREG–2176 

GC gas centrifuge 

g/cm3 gram(s) per cubic centimeter 

GCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement (for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437) 

GHG greenhouse gas 

GIS geographic information system 

gpd gallon per day 

gpm gallon per minute 

gpm/ft gallon(s) per minute per foot 

g/s gram(s) per second 

GU Interim District (zone) 

GW gigawatt(s) 

GWh gigawatt hour(s) 

ha hectare(s) 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HAPC habitat area of particular concern 

HBB health-based benchmark 

HDR HDR Engineering, Inc. 

HEC-RAS Hydrologic Engineering Centers River Analysis System 

hr hour 

HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Hz hertz 

I Interstate 

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency 

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection 

ID identification 

IGCC integrated gasification combined-cycle 

in. inch(es) 

IRWST in-containment refueling water storage tank 

ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation 

IUCN World Conservation Union 

IWF industrial wastewater facility (also known as CCS) 

K Standard Peak Hour Factor 

kg kilogram(s) 

kg/d kilogram(s) per day 

kg/L kilogram(s) per liter 

kg/yr kilogram(s) per year 
Abbreviations/Acronyms 

NUREG–2176 xlviii October 2016 

kg/ha/mo kilogram(s)/hectare/month 

kHz kilohertz 

km kilometer(s) 

km2 square kilometer(s) 

km/hr kilometer(s) per hour 

kt knot(s) 

kV kilovolt(s) 

kV/m kilovolt(s) per meter 

kW kilowatt(s) 

kWh kilowatt-hour(s) 

L liter(s) 

lb pound(s) 

lb/yr pound(s) per year 

Ldn day-night average sound level 

LEDPA least environmentally damaging practicable alternative 

Leq noise level equivalent 

LFA Lower Floridan Aquifer 

LLC Limited Liability Company 

LLW low-level waste 

LOEC lowest-observed effect concentration 

LOS level of service 

LPZ low-population zone 

LST local standard time 

LWA Limited Work Authorization 

LWR light water reactor 

μmhos/cm micromhos per centimeter 

m meter(s) 

m/s meter(s) per second 

m2 square meter(s) 

m3 cubic meter(s) 

m3/d cubic meters per day 

m3/s cubic meter(s) per second 

mA milliampere(s) 

MACCS MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 

MCU Middle Confining Unit 

MDC Miami-Dade County 

M-DCPS Miami-Dade County Public School District 

MDWASD Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department 

MEI maximally exposed individual 
Abbreviations/Acronyms 

October 2016 xlix NUREG–2176 

mg milligram(s) 

mG milliGauss 

Mgd million gallon(s) per day 

Mgd/yr million gallon(s) per day per year 

Mgm million gallons per month 

Mg/L milligram(s) per liter 

Mg/m3 milligram(s) per cubic meter 

mg N/L milligrams of nitrate per liter 

mg P/L milligrams of phosphate per liter 

mGy milligray(s) 

mGy/d milligray(s) per day 

MFCMA Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (or 

Magnuson–Stevens Act)

MHz megahertz 

mi mile(s) 

mi2 square mile(s) 

min minute(s) 

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

mL milliliter(s) 

MMBtu one million British thermal units 

MMBtu/hr one million British thermal units per hour 

MMBtu/yr one million British thermal units per year 

mo month(s) 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

mph mile(s) per hour 

mrad millirad 

mrem millirem 

msl or MSL mean sea level 

mSv millisievert(s) 

MSW municipal solid waste 

MT metric ton(nes) 

MTU metric ton uranium 

MW megawatt(s) 

MWd/MTU megawatt-days per metric ton of uranium 

MW(e) megawatt(s) electric 

MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal 

MWh megawatt hour(s) 

MWh/yr megawatt hour(s) per year 

N north or nitrogen 

NA not applicable 
Abbreviations/Acronyms 

NUREG–2176 l October 2016 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

NAD83 North American Datum of 1983 

NARUC National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 

NASCAR National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing 

NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

NCI National Cancer Institute 

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 

NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

NESC National Electrical Safety Code 

NFC Natural Forest Community 

NGCC natural-gas combined-cycle 

NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NNC Numerical Nutrient Criteria 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NO3+NO2 nitrate+nitrite 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOEC no-observed effect concentration 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPS National Park Service 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSR new source review 

NUREG U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission technical document 

NW northwest 

NWS National Weather Service 

O2 oxygen 

O3 ozone 

ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 

OFW Outstanding Florida Water 

OIG Office of the Inspector General 

ORV off-road vehicle 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

P phosphorus 

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 
Abbreviations/Acronyms 

October 2016 li NUREG–2176 

PC personal computer 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

pCi/L picocurie(s) per Liter 

pH measure of acidity or basicity in solution 

PHU panther habitat units 

PHU panther habitat unit 

PFA Panther Focus Area 

P/L phosphorus per liter 

PIR Public Interest Review or Project Implementation Report 

PIRF Public Interest Review Factor 

PK-12 preschool through 12th grade 

p.m. post meridian 

PM particulate matter 

PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less 

PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less 

PPSA Power Plant Siting Act 

ppm part(s) per million 

ppt parts per thousand 

PRA probabilistic risk assessment 

PSA probabilistic safety assessment 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration (Permit) 

psu practical salinity unit 

PWR pressurized water reactor 

rad radiation absorbed dose 

RAI Request for Additional Information 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended

RCW radial collector well 

rem roentgen equivalent man 

REMP radiological environmental monitoring program 

RfC reference concentration 

RFI Request for Information 

RHA Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 

RIMS II Regional Input-Output Modeling System 

RMS root mean square 

Rn-222 radon-222 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROI region of interest 

RPHP Radiation Public Health Project 

RRY reference reactor year 

RSICC (Oak Ridge) Radiation Safety Information Computational Center 
Abbreviations/Acronyms 

NUREG–2176 lii October 2016 

RV recreational vehicle 

RWTF reclaimed water-treatment facility 

Ryr reactor year 

s or sec second(s) 

SAFMC South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council 

SAMA severe accident mitigation alternative 

SAMDA severe accident mitigation design alternative 

SAV submerged aquatic vegetation 

SBO Station Blackout 

SCA Site Certification Application 

scf standard cubic feet 

SCR selective catalytic reduction 

SDWWTP South District Wastewater Treatment Plant 

sec second(s) 

SECA State Energy Conversion Alliance 

SER Safety Evaluation Report 

SFRPC South Florida Regional Planning Council 

SFWMD South Florida Water Management District 

SGWEA Southern Glades Wildlife Environmental Area 

SHA seismic hazard analysis 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office (or Officer) 

s/m3 seconds per cubic meter 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SOx oxides of sulfur 

SOR Save Our Rivers (Program) 

SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (Plan) 

SR State Route 

SRP Standard Review Plan 

SSC Species of Concern 

SU Standard Unit(s) 

Sv sievert(s) 

SW southwest 

SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan 

SWS service-water system 

T ton(s) or tonne(s) 

T/B Tug/Barge 

TBq terrabequerel 

TCP traditional cultural property 

T&E threatened and endangered 
Abbreviations/Acronyms 

October 2016 liii NUREG–2176 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TEDE total effective dose equivalent 

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

TIMDEC decontamination time 

TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen 

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter 

TLF Treasured Lands Foundation 

TN total nitrogen 

TOC total organic carbon 

TP total phosphorus 

TRC total reportable cases 

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority 

UDB urban development boundary 

UF6 uranium hexafluoride 

UIC underground injection control 

UMAM Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method 

UMTRI University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 

UNESCO United National Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 

UO2 uranium dioxide 

US U.S. (State Highway) 

U.S. United States 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USCB U.S. Census Bureau 

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USDW underground source of drinking water 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VOC volatile organic compound 

W west 

W.A.T.E.R. Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Review 

WCA water conservation area 

Westinghouse Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC 

WHO World Health Organization 

wk week(s) 

WOTUS waters of the United States 

WRDA Water Resources Development Act 

WTP water treatment plant 

WWTP wastewater treatment plant 
Abbreviations/Acronyms 

NUREG–2176 liv October 2016 

/Q atmospheric dispersion factor(s); annual average normalized air 

concentration value(s) 

yd3 cubic yards 

yr year(s) 
October 2016 7-1 NUREG–2176 

7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) 

(TN661) requires Federal agencies to consider the cumulative impacts of proposals under its 

review. Cumulative impacts may result when the environmental effects associated with the 

proposed action are overlaid or added to temporary or permanent effects associated with past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. When 

evaluating the potential impacts of two new nuclear units at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power 

Plant (Turkey Point) site proposed by Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) in its application for 

combined construction permits and operating licenses (combined licenses or COLs) (FPL 2009-

TN1229), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) staff considered potential cumulative impacts on resources that could be 

affected by the construction, preconstruction, and operation of two Westinghouse Electric 

Company, LLC (Westinghouse) AP1000 pressurized water reactors at the site 

(Westinghouse 2011-TN261). Cumulative impacts result when the effects of an action are 

added to, or interact with, other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future effects on the 

same resources. For the purposes of this analysis, past actions are those taken prior to the 

receipt of the COL application. Present actions are those related to resources from the time of 

the COL application until the start of NRC-authorized construction of the proposed new units. 

Future actions are those that are reasonably foreseeable during the building and operating of 

the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, including decommissioning. The effect of climate 

change on the evaluation of environmental impacts is addressed in more detail in Appendix I. 

The geographic area over which past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions could 

contribute to cumulative impacts is dependent on the type of resource considered and is 

described below for each resource area. 

The approach for evaluating cumulative impacts in this environmental impact statement (EIS) is 

outlined in the following discussion. To guide its assessment of environmental impacts of a 

proposed action or alternative actions, the NRC has established a standard of significance for 

impacts based on guidance developed by the Council on Environmental Quality (Title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1508.27 [TN428]). The three significance levels established 

by the NRC—SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE—are defined as follows: 

SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 

neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 

MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 

destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 

destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

The impacts of the proposed action, as described in Chapters 4 and 5, are combined with other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions near the Turkey Point site that would 

affect the same resources affected by proposed Units 6 and 7, regardless of what agency 

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions. These combined impacts are 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-2 October 2016 

defined by the Council on Environmental Quality as “cumulative” in 40 CFR 1508.7 (TN428) and 

include individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. It 

is possible that an impact that may be SMALL by itself could result in a MODERATE or LARGE 

cumulative impact when considered in combination with the impacts of other actions on the 

affected resource. Likewise, if a resource is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL 

individual impact could be important if it contributes to or accelerates the overall resource 

decline. 

The description of the affected environment in Chapter 2 serves as the baseline for the 

cumulative impacts analysis, including the effects of past actions. The incremental impacts 

related to the construction activities requiring NRC authorization (10 CFR 50.10(a)) [TN249]) are 

described and characterized in Chapter 4 and those related to operations are described in 

Chapter 5. These impacts are summarized for each resource area in the sections that follow. 

The level of detail is commensurate with the significance of the impact for each resource area. 

The specific resources and components that could be affected by the incremental effects of the 

proposed action and other actions in the same geographic area were assessed. This 

assessment includes the impacts of construction and operation of the proposed new units as 

described in Chapters 4 and 5; impacts of preconstruction activities as described in Chapter 4; 

impacts of fuel cycle, transportation, and decommissioning as described in Chapter 6; and 

impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private 

actions that could affect the same resources affected by the proposed actions. 

The review team visited the Turkey Point site from June 7 through 11, 2010 (NRC 2010-

TN1457). The team then used the information provided in the Environmental Report, responses 

to requests for additional information, information from other Federal and State agencies, and 

information gathered during the visits to the Turkey Point site to evaluate the cumulative impacts 

of building and operating two new nuclear power plants at the site. To inform the cumulative 

analysis, the review team searched U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) databases for 

recent EISs and for permits for water discharges in the geographic area (to identify water-use 

projects and industrial facilities). In addition, the review team used the www.recovery.gov 

website to identify projects in the geographic area funded by the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (26 U.S.C. § 1) (TN1250). Other actions and projects 

identified during this review and considered in the review team’s independent analysis of the 

potential cumulative effects are described in Table 7-1. Approximate locations are given with 

respect to the Turkey Point site. 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-3 NUREG–2176 

Table 7-1. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

Considered in the Cumulative Analysis in the Vicinity of the Turkey Point Site 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Everglades Ecosystem Restoration and/or Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 

Projects (DOI 2016-TN4589) 

Everglades 

Ecosystem 

Restoration Project 

A major restoration initiative that 

will restore the quantity, quality, 

timing, and distribution of fresh 

water in an effort to reverse 

decades of unintended 

environmental decline. 

Throughout 

region 

Ongoing (USACE 2016-

TN4588; DOI 2016-

TN4589) 

Comprehensive 

Everglades 

Restoration Plan 

(CERP)

Associated with the Everglades 

Ecosystem Restoration Project, 

this effort is made up of 

numerous projects (e.g., 

Biscayne Wetlands Restoration 

Project) in the region. The 

projects in and around the region 

are discussed in Section 2.3.1.1.

Throughout 

region

Made up of numerous 

project elements in 

various stages of 

completion from those 

that have been 

proposed to those that 

have been completed 

(DOA and DOI 2016-

TN4580).

Energy Projects 

Turkey Point Units 

1-5 

Two 720 MW nuclear and three 

oil/gas 2,900 MW plants 

Adjacent Operational, Units 3 and 

4 underwent license 

renewal in 2002 

(NRC 2012-TN1298;

NRC 2012-TN1299) and 

uprate in 2012 

(NRC 2012-TN1438) 

Turkey Point Units 3 

and 4 

General Licensed Independent 

Spent Fuel Storage Installation 

Adjacent Operational 

Conversion of Turkey 

Point Units 1 and 2 

to use as 

synchronous 

condensers 

 Adjacent Unit 2 converted; Unit 1 

will be converted in 

December 2016 

(FPL 2016-TN4579) 

Freshening of the 

water in the cooling 

canals of the 

industrial waste 

water facility 

The Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection issued 

an Administrative Order requiring 

FPL to submit to the Department 

a salinity management plan that 

would describe how FPL would 

reduce and maintain the average 

annual salinity in the coolingcanal system at 34 psu. 

Adjacent Freshening has been 

underway since summer 

of 2014 using water 

from the L-31E Canal, 

Biscayne aquifer, and 

Upper Floridan aquifer 

Homestead Power 

Plant 

53 MW oil/gas-power–generation 

plant 

9 mi northwest 

of the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1082) 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-4 October 2016 

Table 7-1. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Remediation of 

hypersalinity plume 

FPL and Miami-Dade County 

entered into a Consent 

Agreement on October 6, 2015, 

identifying the steps FPL will take 

to remediate the hypersaline 

plume in groundwater such that 

groundwater with a concentration 

greater than 19,000 mg/L 

chloride would be limited to the 

area within the FPL property 

boundary.

Adjacent FPL is developing a plan 

in response to the 

Consent Agreement. 

Resources Recovery 

Facility 

77 MW waste-to-energy plant 28 mi north of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (MiamiDade County 2012-

TN1077) 

Medley Landfill 9.6 MW landfill gas powergeneration plant 30 mi north of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Proposed, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration 

Permit application 

submitted 2010 (Waste 

Management 2010-

TN1079)

South Dade Landfill Two 2 MW co-generation gas 

power-generation project 

8.1 mi north of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Approved (DOE 2010-

TN1476) 

Lauderdale Power 

Plant 

Two 884 MW oil/gas-power–

generation plants 

45 mi north of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (FPL 2013-

TN2630) 

Port Everglades 

Power Plant 

420 MW oil/gas-power–

generation plant 

47 mi north of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Proposed upgrade to 

existing plant to naturalgas units. Construction 

to begin 2014 

(FPL 2012-TN1081)

Homestead City 

Utilities – Gordon W. 

Ivey Power Plant 

60 MW oil-power–generation 

plant 

9 mi northwest 

of the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational 

(FDEP 2012-TN1083) 

Wheelabrator South 

Broward, Inc. – 

Waste-to-Energy 

Facility 

67 MW waste-to-power plant 45 mi 

northeast of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational 

(Wheelabrator 2012-

TN1086) 

Mining Projects 

Florida Rock and 

Sand – Card 

Rock and sand 7 mi west of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1110) 

Rinker Materials of 

Florida, Inc. 

Crushed and broken limestone 21 mi 

northwest of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1111)
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-5 NUREG–2176 

Table 7-1. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Custom Crushing & 

Material 

Nonmetallic minerals 25 mi 

northwest of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1112) 

Florida Rock 

Industries 

Concrete block and brick 26 mi 

northwest of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1113) 

White Rock Quarries Crushed and broken limestone 28 mi 

northwest of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1114) 

Florida Rock 

Industries/Sawgrass 

Concrete block and brick 36 mi 

northwest of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1115) 

Transportation Projects 

Various 

Transportation 

Projects 

Road, traffic, pedestrian projects Throughout 

region 

Ongoing (FDOT 2012-

TN1132) 

Parks and Aquaculture Facilities 

Biscayne National 

Park 

Biscayne fishery management 

plan 

Adjacent Proposed, Draft EIS 

released 2012 

(NPS 2012-TN1116) 

Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary 

Wildlife areas Throughout 

region 

Proposed, marine 

zoning and regulatory 

review Draft EIS 

planned for 2014 

(NOAA 2012-TN1117)

Crocodile Lake 

National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Refuge closed to the public 9 to 17 mi 

south of the 

Turkey Point 

site 

Development unlikely in 

this park (FWS 2012-

TN706)

Dangy Johnson Key 

Largo Hammock 

Botanical State Park 

Activities include picnicking, 

biking, wildlife viewing, and 

hiking 

10 mi south of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Development unlikely in 

this park (Florida State 

Parks 2012-TN1119)

The Barnacle Historic 

State Park 

Activities include picnicking, 

wildlife viewing, and hiking 

21 mi north of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Development unlikely in 

this park (Florida State 

Parks 2012-TN1120)

Bill Baggs Cape 

Florida State Park 

Activities include picnicking, 

boating, swimming, camping, 

fishing, wildlife viewing, and 

hiking 

20 mi 

northeast of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Development unlikely in 

this park (Florida State 

Parks 2012-TN1121)
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-6 October 2016 

Table 7-1. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

John Pennekamp 

Coral Reef State 

Park 

Activities include picnicking, 

boating, swimming, camping, 

fishing, wildlife viewing, and 

hiking 

18 to 23 mi 

southwest of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Development unlikely in 

this park (Florida State 

Parks 2012-TN1122)

Lignumvitae Key 

Botanical State Park 

Activities include boating, 

swimming, fishing, and wildlife 

viewing 

43 mi 

southwest of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Development unlikely in 

this park (Florida State 

Parks 2012-TN1123) 

Long Key State Park Activities include picnicking, 

boating, swimming, camping, 

fishing, wildlife viewing, and 

hiking 

50 mi 

southwest of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Development unlikely in 

this park (Florida State 

Parks 2012-TN1124) 

San Pedro 

Underwater 

Archaeological 

Preserve State Park 

Activities include scuba, boating, 

and swimming 

44 mi 

southwest of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Development unlikely in 

this park (Florida State 

Parks 2012-TN1125) 

Indian Key Historic 

State Park 

Activities include boating, scuba, 

swimming, fishing, hiking, and 

wildlife viewing 

43 mi 

southwest of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Development unlikely in 

this park (Florida State 

Parks 2012-TN1126) 

Windley Key Fossil 

Reef Geological 

State Park 

Activities include hiking, 

picnicking, and wildlife viewing 

36 mi 

southwest of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Development unlikely in 

this park (Florida State 

Parks 2012-TN1127) 

Oleta River State 

Park 

Activities include picnicking, 

swimming, camping, fishing, 

wildlife viewing, and hiking 

36 mi north of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Development unlikely in 

this park (Florida State 

Parks 2012-TN1128) 

John U. Lloyd Beach 

State Park 

Activities include boating, scuba, 

swimming, fishing, hiking, and 

wildlife viewing 

46 mi north of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Development unlikely in 

this park (Florida State 

Parks 2012-TN1129) 

Everglades National 

Park 

Activities include picnicking, 

swimming, camping, fishing, 

wildlife viewing, and hiking 

15+ mi west of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Development unlikely in 

this park (NPS 2012-

TN1130) 

Big Cypress National 

Preserve 

Activities include picnicking, 

hunting, camping, fishing, wildlife 

viewing, and hiking 

35+ mi 

northwest of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Development unlikely in 

this park (NPS 2012-

TN1131) 

Other Actions/Projects

Tampa–Orlando–

Miami High-Speed 

Intercity Passenger 

Rail 

High-speed rail from Tampa to 

Miami (through Orlando) 

26 mi 

northeast of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Proposed; Phase 1 

(Tampa- Orlando 

corridor) is ongoing. 

Project development for 

Phase 2 (Orlando-Miami 

corridor) began in May 

2010 (FRA 2012-

TN1297) 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-7 NUREG–2176 

Table 7-1. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Various wastewater 

treatment plants 

Sewage treatment Throughout 

region 

Operational 

Various hospitals 

using nuclear 

material 

Medical and other industrial 

isotopes 

Throughout 

region 

Ongoing 

Various water/flood 

management projects 

Construction of levees, 

floodwalls, closure structures, 

and interior drainage structures 

Throughout 

region 

Ongoing (USACE 2012-

TN1133) 

Contender Boats 

Incorporated 

Boat building and repair 6 mi northwest 

of the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1092) 

CEMEX Miami Cement manufacturing 25 mi 

northwest of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1093) 

Aero Kool Corp. Aircraft equipment 27 mi north of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1094) 

Flexible Foam 

Products, Inc. 

Plastics foam products 31 mi north of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1095) 

Dyplast Products, 

LLC 

Plastics foam products 32 mi north of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1096) 

Exteria Building 

Products 

Plastics products 35 mi north of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1097) 

AAR Landing Gear 

Center 

Repair and rebuild aircraft 

landing gears and brakes 

30 mi north of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1098) 

American Whirlpool 

Products Corporation 

Acrylic and fiberglass bath and 

spa manufacturer 

43 mi 

northeast of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1099) 

Angler Boat 

Corporation 

Fiberglass boat manufacturer 29 mi 

northeast of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1100) 

Benada Aluminum of 

Florida, Inc. 

Extruded aluminum products 

manufacturer 

29 mi 

northeast of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1101) 

Bertram Yacht, Inc. Fiberglass boat manufacturer 26 mi 

northeast of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1102) 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-8 October 2016 

Table 7-1. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Blumberg 

Industries – Fine Art 

Lamps 

Lamp manufacturer 33 mi north of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1103) 

DM Industries, Ltd Acrylic and fiberglass bath and 

spa manufacturer 

33 mi 

northeast of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1104) 

Dusky Marine, Inc. Fiberglass boat manufacturer 45 mi 

northeast of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1105) 

Eastern Aero Marine, 

Inc. 

Inflatable vest and raft 

manufacturer 

28 mi 

northeast of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1106) 

Englehard Hex Core Nomex honeycomb board, and 

fiberglass honeycomb board and 

rotor manufacturer 

28 mi 

northeast of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1107) 

US Foundry & 

Manufacturing 

Corporation 

Gray iron foundry and cast iron 

products manufacturer 

30 mi 

northwest of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1108) 

Homestead Air 

Reserve Base 

Military activities 5 mi northwest 

of the Turkey 

Point site 

Operational (EPA 2012-

TN1109) 

SR836/Dolphin 

Expressway 

Southwest Extension 

Transportation infrastructure 14 mi 

northwest of 

the Turkey 

Point site 

Proposed (MDX 2013-

TN3728) 

Future urbanization Construction of housing units 

and associated commercial 

buildings; roads, bridges, and 

rail; construction of water and/or 

wastewater treatment and 

distribution facilities and 

associated pipelines, as 

described in local land-use 

planning documents 

Throughout 

region 

Construction would 

occur in the future, as 

described in State and 

local land-use planning 

documents 

7.1 Land-Use Impacts 

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.2 serves as a baseline for the following 

cumulative impacts assessment of land-use impacts. As described in Section 4.1, the NRC 

staff concludes that the impacts of NRC-authorized construction on land use would be SMALL 

and no further mitigation would be warranted. The combined impacts from construction and 

preconstruction were described in Section 4.1 and determined to be MODERATE. As described 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-9 NUREG–2176 

in Section 5.1, the review team concludes that the impacts of operations on land use would be 

MODERATE, but that no further mitigation beyond that required of FPL by State agencies would 

be warranted. 

In addition to land-use impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operation of the 

proposed Units 6 and 7, the following cumulative impacts analysis also considers other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could cumulatively contribute to landuse impacts. For this cumulative analysis, the geographic area of interest comprises land areas 

extending outward from the 218 ac plant area for a distance of 10 mi, plus lands encompassed 

by transmission line or pipeline corridors that extend beyond 10 mi. All such lands are part of 

Miami-Dade County. This geographic area of interest includes the land areas that could be 

substantially affected by proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. Other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions whose impacts might cumulatively interact with those of the 

proposed Units 6 and 7 are presented in Table 7-1. Distances listed in Table 7-1 are from the 

Units 6 and 7 plant area unless otherwise noted. 

Because the Miami-Dade County 2015−2025 Comprehensive Development Plan designates the 

unincorporated land in the immediate vicinity of the Turkey Point site as protected land, open 

land, parkland, or agricultural land, future urban development of this land is not likely to occur. 

The cities of Homestead and Florida City do designate areas for development, but these areas 

do not directly adjoin the project site (Miami-Dade County 2012-TN1150). 

The geographic area of interest has been substantially altered by a history of agricultural and 

urban development, as well as by development of Units 1 through 5 on FPL’s Turkey Point site. 

The present and reasonably foreseeable projects noted in Table 7-1 with the greatest potential 

to influence the cumulative land-use impacts in the geographic area of interest include the 

following: 

 FPL – continued operation and decommissioning of the existing Turkey Point power plant 

units (Units 1 through 5); 

 South Dade Landfill – landfill gas-power–generation project, an approved facility 

approximately 8.1 mi north from the plant area; 

 Contender Boats Incorporated – a boat manufacturing plant in Homestead approximately 

6 mi northwest of the plant area; 

 Homestead Air Reserve Base, 5 mi northwest of the plant area; and 

 continued operations of existing limestone mines in the vicinity. 

Other than the proposed action, the only reasonably foreseeable major future action known to 

the review team to directly involve land on the FPL Turkey Point site is the continued operation 

and possible decommissioning of Units 1 through 5 (two nuclear and three oil/gas electricity 

generation plants) and associated support facilities. No major land-use changes would result 

from operation of these existing facilities, although decommissioning could free up land 

presently dedicated to energy generation to other purposes. Minor infrastructure improvement 

projects (e.g., road widening) supporting these facilities as well as Units 6 and 7 and other FPL 

activities are possible. Routine land-management practices and minor projects for purposes of 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-10 October 2016 

conservation by FPL are also possible. These might include stabilization of shorelines, 

construction and operation of stormwater management facilities, landscaping and landscape 

management, and removal of exotic or invasive vegetation. 

The South Dade Landfill gas-power–generation plant would be built on land used as part of an 

existing landfill, and would therefore not be expected to result in noticeable land-use impacts. 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) NEPA determination for this project concluded that there 

would be no extraordinary impacts or land-use changes, and that the project was categorically 

excluded from NEPA (DOE 2010-TN1476). 

Contender Boats is an existing manufacturing facility located in an industrial area of Homestead. 

It has been in operation for a substantial period of time, and is consistent with the surrounding 

land uses. For this reason, its continued operation will not result in land-use changes. 

Similarly, the continued operation of the Homestead Air Reserve Base is not expected to result 

in noticeable land-use changes, and surrounding uses are currently subjected to restrictions 

related to their location near the base (HAFRC 2007-TN1427). The consistency of land uses 

between proposed offsite facilities associated with Units 6 and 7 is discussed in Sections 4.1 

and 5.1. 

The Homestead-Miami Speedway improvement project as proposed includes a change in the 

land-use designation applied by the City of Homestead to the 120 ac project site from 

“agriculture” to “business and office.” While this project would increase the permitted capacity of 

the speedway, it would not constitute a substantial change in land use because the site of the 

expansion is not used for agriculture, rather for overflow parking during speedway events. 

Continued operation of existing limestone mines in the vicinity, especially as they supply 

materials for Units 6 and 7 and for other anticipated urban development in the area, could 

contribute to land-use impacts related to hauling. Additional lands presently supporting natural 

vegetation or agriculture could be used for future limestone mining. 

The review team expects that the other projects described in Table 7-1 would have little or no 

impact on land use within the geographic area of interest around the FPL Turkey Point site. The 

Miami-Dade Expressway Authority, in coordination with the Florida Department of 

Transportation, is conducting a Project Development and Environment Study to evaluate the 

feasibility of a southwest extension of SR 836/Dolphin Expressway from its current terminus at 

NW 137th Avenue in the vicinity of NW 12th Street to SW 136th Street or some point to the 

north of SW 136th Street. Potential routes for this project could be located very near one or 

more of the transmission line corridors. Construction and operation of the SR 836/Dolphin 

Expressway could increase cumulative impacts in this area. Because the Miami-Dade 

Comprehensive Development Master Plan designates most of the undeveloped land near the 

Turkey Point site for conservation or open space purposes (see Section 5.1), substantially 

increased urban development close to the site is unlikely. The review team does however 

recognize that urban development will likely increase in the agricultural landscape north and 

east of the geographic area of interest. Lastly, the review team acknowledges the presence of 

the Turkey Point site to areas addressed by the CERP, but as noted in Section 4.1.1, building 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-11 NUREG–2176 

and operating the proposed facilities would not adversely conflict with the CERP and the 

associated mitigation would beneficially further the objectives of CERP’s. 

The incremental land-use impacts associated with development and maintenance of the 

proposed transmission line corridors for the project in combination with the construction and 

operation of Units 6 and 7 at the Turkey Point site are the principal contributors to the project 

land-use impacts. The proposed new transmission line corridors pass through agricultural 

lands; undisturbed lands, including wetlands and some lands in or close to Everglades National 

Park and Biscayne National Park; and urbanized lands where the local jurisdictions, including 

Miami-Dade County and the local cities, have expressed concerns that the proposed 

transmission line improvements would be incompatible with existing and planned land uses. 

Local agencies, the National Park Service (NPS), and the State of Florida have identified 

mitigation measures to be taken. Most of the mitigation focuses on reducing impacts on 

wetlands and other ecological resources and is discussed in detail in Section 4.3.1.6. 

The review team concludes that the cumulative effect of the proposed action on land use, added 

to effects associated with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects, is 

MODERATE. This conclusion primarily reflects a history of agricultural and urban development 

in portions of the geographical area of interest, and possible land-use conflicts resulting from 

development of new facilities near two national parks and building new transmission lines 

through urban areas. The incremental contribution of NRC authorized activities associated with 

the overall Units 6 and 7 project (which would exclude building the transmission lines and 

certain other facilities) would be a significant contributor to the cumulative impact. 

7.2 Water-Use and Water-Quality Impacts 

This section analyzes the cumulative impacts of the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, and 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, on water use and water quality. As 

described below, the review team identified no hydrological alterations during either the building 

or operation periods for the proposed plant that would interfere with either the Administrative 

Order (AO; FDEP 2014-TN4144) or the Consent Agreement (CA; Miami Dade County v. Florida 

Power & Light 2015-TN4505) activities associated with controlling the industrial wastewater 

facility (IWF) salinity and mitigating the hypersaline plume that has extended beyond the Turkey 

Point site. The review team considered a range of future conditions for both the construction 

and operation reviews to be plausible. Although the exact design of the systems for the AO and 

CA are not completely specified at this time, the review team has sufficient understanding of 

plausible designs to make a determination. For instance, pumping and deep-well injection are 

both mature technologies. 

7.2.1 Water-Use Impacts 

The cumulative water-use impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operations of 

proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

projects, are related to the use of surface water and groundwater. 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-12 October 2016 

7.2.1.1 Surface-Water–Use Impacts 

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 serves as a baseline for the 

cumulative impacts assessments in this resource area. As described in Section 4.2, the 

impacts from NRC-authorized construction on surface-water use would be SMALL, and no 

further mitigation would be warranted beyond the conditions imposed on FPL by the State of 

Florida final Conditions of Certification. As described in Section 5.2, the review team concludes 

that the impacts of operations on surface-water use would also be SMALL, and no further 

mitigation would be warranted beyond the conditions imposed on FPL by the State of Florida 

final Conditions of Certification (State of Florida 2014-TN3637). 

The combined surface-water–use impacts from construction and preconstruction are described 

in Section 4.2.2 and were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from 

construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative impacts analysis considers other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect surface-water use, as 

discussed below. 

The primary surface-water–use plan that could potentially be affected by Turkey Point Units 6 

and 7 is the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program (CERP; USACE 2010-TN113; 

DOA and DOI 2016-TN4580) and its component Biscayne Bay Wetlands Restoration Project 

(USACE/SFWMD 2011-TN1038). At present, CERP has restoration plans extending to 2020, 

including several projects located in the region around Turkey Point. These projects are 

discussed in Section 2.3.1.1. 

For this analysis, the geographic area of interest is strongly influenced by the site’s proximity to 

Biscayne Bay. Because the primary water supply for cooling purposes is from reclaimed water, 

the impacts of surface-water use are limited to the potential for use of Biscayne Bay saltwater 

as a backup water supply obtained via radial collector wells (RCWs). However, based on 

discussions with the reclaimed water supply provider about their past operating experience and 

the incentive of greater cycles of concentration to FPL, the review team determined that any 

disruption of reclaimed water that would result in use of the backup water supply would likely be 

infrequent and only for short durations. Consequently, the effect on Biscayne Bay from the use 

of the RCWs would be minimal. 

In accordance with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) AO 

(FDEP 2014-TN4144), as part of operation of Units 3 and 4, water may be withdrawn from the 

L-31E Canal to freshen the IWF. This withdrawal would only be allowed during periods of 

excess flow. Other than the ecological use identified, there are no other identified water users 

beyond the withdrawal location before the water enters Biscayne Bay. As pointed out earlier, 

Units 6 and 7 would not use surface-water supplies from the affected environment. 

The NRC staff determined that the consumptive use of water from the operation of proposed 

Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 and all other consumptive uses (existing or likely future uses) would 

not alter the volume of water in Biscayne Bay. Because of the use of reclaimed water and the 

limited use of the RCWs, there would be no noticeable alteration of the surface-water resources 

due to building and operating Units 6 and 7. Based on its evaluation, the NRC staff concludes 

that the cumulative impacts on surface-water use from construction, preconstruction, and 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-13 NUREG–2176 

operations of two new nuclear units and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

activities would be SMALL, and likely, no mitigation would be warranted. 

7.2.1.2 Groundwater-Use Impacts 

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 of this EIS serves as a baseline for 

the cumulative impacts assessments in this resource area. As described in Section 4.2, the 

impacts from NRC-authorized construction on groundwater use would be SMALL, and no 

further mitigation would be warranted beyond the conditions imposed by the State of Florida 

final Conditions of Certification (State of Florida 2014-TN3637). As described in Section 5.2, the 

review team concludes that the impacts of operations on groundwater use would also be 

SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted beyond the conditions imposed on FPL by 

the State of Florida final Conditions of Certification. 

The combined groundwater-use impacts from construction and preconstruction are described in 

Section 4.2 and were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from construction, 

preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis considers other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect groundwater use. For this analysis, the 

geographic area of interest related to groundwater-use impacts is the area in which 

measureable effects of excavation dewatering or RCW operation are reasonably expected. 

Potential impacts on groundwater use from preconstruction, construction, and operation of the 

proposed plants are primarily related to the following: 

 preconstruction dewatering of plant excavations involving pumping groundwater from 

excavations to the IWF cooling canals; 

 limited dewatering related to construction and maintenance of facilities, including the 

reclaimed water treatment facility, pipelines, ancillary buildings, roads, transmission towers, 

temporary utilities, cooling towers, and wastewater-injection wells; and 

 removal of groundwater from the Biscayne aquifer during operation of the RCWs as a 

backup cooling-water supply and for well maintenance. 

As discussed in Section 2.3, groundwater from the Biscayne aquifer provides practically all of 

the freshwater for Miami-Dade County including the geographic area of interest. This area is 

located within the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), which monitors 

groundwater resources within the district. Continued development and increasing use of 

groundwater in the areas west of the Turkey Point site could have a cumulative effect of 

lowering groundwater levels in the aquifer, which could cause inland movement of the interface 

between saltwater and freshwater in the aquifer. The review team’s determination that the 

proposed limited operation of the RCWs would have minor impacts on groundwater users is 

based on the reliability of the reclaimed water supply. Based on discussions with the reclaimed 

water supply provider about their past operating experience and the incentive of greater cycles 

of concentration to FPL, the review team determined that any disruption of reclaimed water that 

would result in use of the backup water supply would likely be infrequent and only for short 

durations. 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-14 October 2016 

The water-surface elevation in the cooling canals would increase as a result of adding water for 

freshening as required by the AO (FDEP 2014-TN4144). This increase in water-surface 

elevation would result in increased piezometric heads beneath the IWF. As a result, any 

eastward groundwater movement from inland would tend to be diverted to the north around the 

north end of the IWF and to the south away from the south end of the IWF. Also, a decrease in 

piezometric head may result from pumping from the hypersaline plume in the area around the 

IWF associated with the CA (Miami Dade County v. Florida Power & Light 2015-TN4505). 

Pumping for remediation likely would focus on the bottom of the Biscayne aquifer, allowing the 

density of the hypersaline water to drive itself toward the well screens; whereas, the freshening 

activities would dominate more in the upper part of the Biscayne aquifer and very near the site. 

The fraction of the water that enters the RCWs from sources other than Biscayne Bay would 

likely increase and would be increasingly from the IWF-induced inflow. Model analyses 

discussed in Appendix G support this assessment. 

The review team determined that the consumptive use of water from the operation of Turkey 

Point Units 6 and 7 would not result in a noticeable alteration of the available groundwater 

resources within the geographic area of interest for groundwater-use impacts. Based on its 

evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts on groundwater from 

construction, preconstruction, and operations of two new nuclear units and other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future activities would be SMALL, and no mitigation would be 

warranted beyond the conditions imposed on FPL by the State of Florida final Conditions of 

Certification (State of Florida 2014-TN3637). 

7.2.2 Water-Quality Impacts 

This section describes cumulative water-quality impacts from construction, preconstruction, and 

operations of proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, and other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects. 

7.2.2.1 Surface-Water-Quality Impacts 

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 of this EIS serves as a baseline for 

the cumulative impacts assessments in this resource area. As described in Section 4.2, the 

impacts from NRC-authorized construction on surface-water quality would be SMALL, and no 

further mitigation would be warranted beyond the conditions imposed on FPL by the State of 

Florida final Conditions of Certification (State of Florida 2014-TN3637). As described in Section 

5.2, the review team concludes that the impacts of operations on surface-water quality would 

also be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted beyond the conditions imposed 

on FPL by the State of Florida final Conditions of Certification. 

As stated in Section 2.3.3.1 of this EIS, some waterbodies near the Turkey Point site are listed 

on the State’s 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies (FDEP 2010-TN1253). Historical point and 

non-point-source discharges have affected the water quality of streams and rivers near the 

Turkey Point site. Portions of the estuary and streams along the southeast Atlantic coast to 

Biscayne Bay appear on the final 2010 303(d) list as impaired waterbodies because of the 

presence of copper, fecal coliforms, mercury, and nutrients (FDEP 2010-TN1253). The State of 

Florida has a Total Maximum Daily Loads program to help protect and restore the quality of 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-15 NUREG–2176 

waters. In addition, the State of Florida also designates waterbodies as Outstanding Florida 

Waters and special waters to which pollutant discharges are generally prohibited. The waters of 

Biscayne National Park near the Turkey Point site are designated as an Outstanding Florida 

Waterbody (Fla. Admin. Code 62-302-TN776). Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 have no discharge to 

Biscayne Bay or to any surface water. All effluent is disposed of via deep-well injection under 

the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. As stated above, the State of Florida, under 

the Total Maximum Daily Loads program, helps protect and restore the quality of impaired 

waters. Therefore, the review team determined that the cumulative impacts from existing, 

proposed and reasonably foreseeable future action on these waterbodies would be noticeable 

but not destabilizing. 

Other present and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the geographic area of interest that 

could contribute to cumulative impacts on surface-water quality include the impact of the 

uprates of FPL’s Units 3 and 4 at Turkey Point, the conversion of Unit 2 to synchronous 

condenser mode and the planned conversion of Unit 1 to the same, and the potential use of 

reclaimed water for cooling purposes at Turkey Point Unit 5 (FPL 2015-TN4148). The uprate of 

Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 has increased the discharge temperature from the two units. The 

IWF has also recently experienced localized increases in the temperature of the cooling-canal 

water. Also the conversion of Units 1 and 2 to synchronous condenser mode would reduce flow 

in the IWF (NRC 2012-TN1438). The staff considered the potential use of reclaimed water for 

cooling of Turkey Point Unit 5 and the resulting release of contaminants from the cooling-tower 

drift with subsequent deposition in the surrounding environments. However, based on the 

review team’s analysis of drift deposition from proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, the loading 

of contaminants to the surrounding environment would be negligible. 

As noted in 2.3, recently an algal bloom occurred in the IWF. The IWF also experienced 

increased water temperatures, increases in concentrations in salinity and nutrients and a 

decrease in precipitation which may have caused or contributed to the algal bloom. These 

anomalous conditions in the IWF are not associated with either the construction or operation of 

the proposed units, since no activity has begun yet. Furthermore, no cooling water from 

operation of Units 6 and 7 are proposed to be discharged to the IWF. Based on the analysis 

discussed in Sections 4.2 and 5.2, the review team determined that the construction and 

operation of the proposed units would have a negligible effect on the IWF and that the conditions 

in the IWF would not be altered significantly as a consequence of the proposed action. 

In accordance with the AO (FDEP 2014-TN4144), water may be removed from L-31E Canal or 

taken from the Upper Floridan aquifer to freshen the cooling canals. Withdrawal from the L-31E 

Canal is limited to periods of excess flow to minimize the impact on Biscayne Bay. Units 6 and 

7 would not discharge into the IWF. Therefore, building and operation of Units 6 and 7 would 

not result in greater demand for freshening water withdrawals. 

The review team determined that the cumulative impacts from existing, proposed, and 

reasonably foreseeable future action on these waterbodies would be MODERATE and the 

incremental impacts from NRC-authorized activities for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 would be 

SMALL, and no further mitigation beyond that described in Chapters 4 and 5 would be 

warranted. 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-16 October 2016 

7.2.2.2 Groundwater-Quality Impacts 

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 of this document serves as a 

baseline for the cumulative impacts assessments in this resource area. As described in 

Section 4.2, the impacts from NRC-authorized construction and preconstruction on groundwater 

quality would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted beyond the conditions 

imposed by the State of Florida final Conditions of Certification (State of Florida 2014-TN3637). 

As described in Section 5.2, the review team concludes that the impacts of operations on 

groundwater quality would also be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted 

beyond the conditions imposed by the State of Florida final Conditions of Certification and UIC 

permits. 

In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative 

analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could 

affect groundwater quality. For this analysis, the geographic area of interest is the expected 

area of migration of wastewater injected into the Boulder Zone of the Lower Floridan aquifer, 

and the area in the Biscayne aquifer potentially affected by the migration of hypersaline water 

from the IWF. This distance also encompasses the area in which measureable effects of 

excavation dewatering, and RCW operation are reasonably expected and, therefore, it is 

sufficiently large enough to characterize potential cumulative groundwater-quality impacts. 

The potential groundwater-quality impacts from dewatering and RCW pumping are based on the 

risk of increasing saltwater intrusion of the Biscayne aquifer described in Section 2.3.3.2 of this 

EIS and potential cumulative impacts related to saltwater intrusion in this aquifer. Local and 

Federal agencies are working to enhance freshwater recharge of the Biscayne aquifer in this 

area as part of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project of the CERP (USACE/SFWMD 

2011-TN1038). In the dry season, the SFWMD uses the canal system to import water from the 

northwest to increase groundwater elevation and reduce saltwater intrusion. These actions and 

others planned under the CERP are projected to partially restore the previous natural 

environment in the area including enhanced freshwater recharge of the aquifer and sheet flow of 

some of the excess surface water now carried by canals. The review team has determined that 

future actions implemented under the CERP would not have a negative impact on the Biscayne 

aquifer, but would potentially have a positive impact by increasing the recharge of freshwater to 

the Biscayne aquifer and reducing the possibility for westward movement of the saltwaterfreshwater interface. Hypersaline water in the IWF cooling canals interacts with groundwater in 

the Biscayne aquifer. Therefore, changes to the IWF, such as the recent temperature and 

salinity variations, and the proposed freshening of the IWF cooling canals by adding water 

pumped from the Upper Floridan aquifer (Tetra Tech 2014-TN4126) may have cumulative 

impacts on groundwater quality of the Biscayne aquifer. The uprate coincided with temperature 

and salinity increases within portions of the cooling-canal system (NRC 2012-TN3579). Adding 

additional brackish water from the Upper Floridan aquifer would likely reduce the temperature, 

salinity, and concentration of other constituents in the IWF water; which would result in lower 

concentrations in water seeping into the underlying aquifer. FPL determined that adding 

14 mgd of brackish water would increase the water level of the IWF canals by about 0.25 ft 

(Tetra Tech 2014-TN4126) and eventually reduce salinity to approximately that of Biscayne 

Bay. The higher water levels would create a slightly greater hydraulic gradient into the 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-17 NUREG–2176 

underlying aquifer. However, if a project is implemented to freshen the IWF water, potential 

impacts on the Biscayne aquifer would be reduced compared to the existing impacts. 

Other potential cumulative impacts on groundwater quality are related to the injection of 

wastewater into the Boulder Zone and include other wastewater-injection well operations, and 

any potential use of saline groundwater from this aquifer. There are more than 180 active 

Class 1 injection wells that inject wastewater into the Boulder Zone and 13 of these wells are 

located at the Miami-Dade South District Wastewater Treatment Plant (SDWWTP) wastewaterinjection site approximately 9 mi north of the proposed FPL UIC wells. All Boulder Zone UIC 

wells must be permitted and monitored by the FDEP UIC program, which is responsible for 

protecting underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) within Florida. Upward migration of 

treated municipal waste wastewater injected into the Boulder Zone has been observed at the 

Miami-Dade SDWWTP (Maliva et al. 2007-TN1483; Starr et al. 2001-TN1251; EPA 2003-

TN3658), and has resulted in injected wastewater moving upward into the middle Floridan 

confining unit. As mentioned in Section 2.3, previous studies reported that injectate had 

migrated into the Upper Floridan aquifer at the SDWWTP site (Starr et al. 2001-TN1251; EPA 

2003-TN3658). However, Walsh and Price (2010-TN3656) report that upwelling has not 

migrated above the APPZ of the MCU at the SDWWTP. Reese and Richardson (2008-TN3436) 

provided an explanation for this by recognizing, “the Avon Park Permeable Zone has been 

identified in previous studies as the...lower part of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in...the southern 

part of southeastern Florida.” The cause of the observed migration of contaminants has been 

attributed (McNeill 2000-TN4572; McNeill 2002-TN4571) to a lack of adequate geologic 

confinement, or a well construction problem. However, Starr et al. (2001-TN1251) conclude that 

“The vertical and spatial distribution of contamination in the Upper Floridan and Lower Floridan 

aquifers shows a pattern more consistent with point-source contamination, such as leaking 

wells, than from widespread upward migration through a leaking confining layer.” 

Variable density modeling of the potential transport of wastewater in the Boulder Zone from the 

proposed Units 6 and 7 UIC wells (FPL 2014-TN4069) indicate that it is not likely that the 

injected wastewater may reach the location of the Miami-Dade SDWWTP UIC wells within the 

operational period of Units 6 and 7. Pressure within the Boulder Zone from continued injection 

at the SDWWTP would deter movement of injection from the proposed site in that direction and 

prevent significant commingling of the two injection plumes. As explained in Section 5.2, if this 

transport did occur, dilution and dispersion would reduce the concentrations within the effluent 

plume over the transport distance. The FDEP UIC permit for the Miami-Dade SDWWTP UIC 

wells requires that concentrations of potential contaminants are monitored in the USDW aquifer 

and in the confining zone separating the injection zone from the USDW aquifer. Remedial 

action would be taken to protect the USDW if contaminants were detected. The review team 

concludes that cumulative impacts resulting from operation of both UIC systems are unlikely 

and would have insignificant effects on water in the Boulder Zone. If transported contaminants 

migrated upward near the SDWWTP, they would be detected by the monitoring program 

required by FDEP. These geologic characteristics, fate and transport processes, and 

monitoring requirements would adequately protect the Upper Floridan aquifer from degradation 

resulting from cumulative effects of wastewater injection at Units 6 and 7 and the Miami-Dade 

SDWWTP site. Therefore, the review team determined that the cumulative impact of injecting 

wastewater in the Boulder Zone would be minor. 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-18 October 2016 

Cumulative impacts could also result from the mining of fill needed to build the proposed plants. 

The mining of fill material in the region of interest creates open ponds that may create a 

cumulative impact on groundwater quality because of the evaporation of groundwater from the 

pond surface, or from mixing of groundwater from different depths. Evaporation could result in 

the increased salinity of water in the ponds that could move into the aquifer intersected by the 

mine excavation. The annual evaporation rate in Florida is approximately equal to the annual 

precipitation rate (Shih 1981-TN4070). However, increases in salinity of fill-mine ponds occurs 

during the dry season. The effect of fill mines on groundwater mixing from different depths in 

the Biscayne aquifer was studied as part of an investigation conducted for Everglades National 

Park (Solo-Gabriele and Wilcox 2000-TN4110). Mixing of groundwater from separate 

permeable layers within the mine pond was observed based on the analysis of stable isotopes 

of oxygen. The FDEP and SFWMD have developed a proactive groundwater-management 

program to preserve and manage groundwater resources including groundwater quality (Fla. 

Admin. Code 62-520-TN1252). The review team determined that State and local regulation of 

fill-mine operations would be adequate to protect groundwater quality and the cumulative 

impacts on groundwater quality from fill mining would be minor.

Adding water for freshening as required by the AO (FDEP 2014-TN4144) would increase the 

water-surface elevation in the cooling canals. This increase in water-surface elevation would 

result in increased piezometric heads beneath the IWF. As a result, any eastward groundwater 

movement from inland would tend to be diverted to the north around the north end of the IWF 

and to the south away from the south end of the IWF. The fraction of the water that enters the 

RCWs laterals from sources other than Biscayne Bay would likely increase. The increased 

fraction would be increasingly from the IWF-induced inflow. Because the target for the 

freshening is an average annual concentration of 34 psu (similar to Biscayne Bay water), the 

change in salinity in the water recovered in the RCW is not expected to change noticeably. 

Model analyses discussed in Appendix G support this assessment.

In summary, the evaluation of cumulative impacts performed by the review team analyzed the 

impacts of enhanced recharge to the Biscayne aquifer from activities related to CERP and 

freshening of the IWF at the current operating site, evaluated the potential cumulative impact of 

deep-well injection into the Boulder Zone by the applicant and other wastewater-injection 

operations and reviewed the impacts of fill mining on water quality. Based on its evaluation, the 

review team concludes that due to the hydrologic characteristics of the affected aquifers, fate 

and transport processes, and the monitoring and management programs required by the State 

of Florida the cumulative impacts on groundwater quality from construction, preconstruction, 

and operations of two new nuclear units and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future activities would be SMALL, and no mitigation would be warranted. 

7.3 Ecological Impacts 

This section addresses the cumulative impacts on terrestrial, wetlands, and aquatic ecological 

resources as a result of activities associated with the proposed Turkey Point project and other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities within the geographic area of interest 

for each resource. 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-19 NUREG–2176 

7.3.1 Terrestrial Ecosystem Impacts 

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.4.1 provides the baseline for the 

cumulative impacts assessments for terrestrial ecological resources, including wetlands and 

important species. As described in Section 4.3.1, the review team concludes that impacts from 

NRC-authorized construction on terrestrial resources would be SMALL, and additional mitigation 

beyond that already proposed by the applicant would not be warranted. As described in Section 

5.3.1, the impacts of operations on terrestrial resources would be MODERATE. This conclusion 

accounts for multiple impacts, especially those related to wetlands, increased vehicular collision 

mortality of wildlife, vegetation control on listed plants, and transmission system operation on 

listed avian species, especially the Federally threatened wood stork. The combined impacts 

from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.3.1 and determined to be 

MODERATE. This conclusion accounts for the impacts on wetlands, wildlife, and Federally and 

State-listed plant and animal species. 

In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operations, the following 

cumulative analysis considers other past, present, and future actions that could affect terrestrial 

resources. For the cumulative analysis of terrestrial ecology, the geographic area of interest is 

considered to be the 50 mi vicinity for the Turkey Point site and the existing and proposed 

corridors associated with the transmission, potable water, and reclaimed water systems (as 

described in Chapter 4). This area is expected to encompass the ecologically relevant 

landscape features and species potentially affected by the proposed Units 6 and 7. 

7.3.1.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Affecting Terrestrial 

Ecology 

Past land practices have had a great influence on the current ecology of South Florida. 

Because of South Florida’s low elevation, relatively flat topography, and wet climate, wetlands 

are the dominant natural terrestrial landscape feature. Lands of higher elevation have always 

been limited in extent and also have been more desirable for agriculture and urban 

development. The result has been a substantial loss of the shallow-soiled pinelands (pine 

rocklands) that formerly dominated the uplands. Also lost is the diversity of plants and animals 

that once thrived there as indicated by the number of listed species that occur only in pine 

rocklands (Tables 2-15 and 2-16). Alteration of surface-water flow during the last 100 years, 

especially the digging of canals to divert water to supply farms and cities and to build highways 

across wetlands, has altered hydrologic function and resulted in the substantial loss and 

degradation of wetlands and wetland function. This habitat loss and degradation caused biota 

populations that evolved to thrive in this environment to subsequently decline. For example, 

populations of many wading bird species have drastically decreased from historic levels 

(USACE/SFWMD 1999-TN116; Bancroft 1989-TN3571). 

Specific past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and actions that have affected or 

could affect terrestrial and wetland ecology in the vicinity of Turkey Point are listed in Table 7-1. 

This list includes a variety of urban development, energy production, mining, manufacturing, 

transportation and infrastructure development, and other miscellaneous activities that could 

affect terrestrial and wetland resources. Current efforts, including the CERP and the Southern 

Glades Addition Restoration that restore ecological integrity to the region, also affect terrestrial 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-20 October 2016 

and wetland resources in a beneficial way. The following sections describe the cumulative 

impacts of past as well as present and reasonably foreseeable future actions on terrestrial and 

wetland ecology within the geographical region of interest, including those that may be 

environmentally beneficial. 

Habitats and Wildlife 

The principal cause of terrestrial habitat degradation and loss of wetland function within the 

region is related to land use and water management, and it is likely that pressure on land and 

water managers will continue to increase as the local human population in South Florida 

continues to grow and coastal habitats are developed further. Development that occurred 

during the construction of proposed Turkey Point Units 1−5 and the IWF has permanently 

altered most of the habitat in the immediate vicinity. Mangroves have been cleared for 

development, leaving scattered remnants in the remaining patches of wetlands. Upland areas 

have been created by filling and upland vegetation, including specimens of invasive species 

such as Australian pine, has become established. Natural wetlands have been replaced by 

canals and spoils within the 2 mi by 5 mi IWF. Hypersaline water released during operation of 

these units has likely influenced the distribution, abundance, and species composition of 

vegetation currently present. 

Land-management planners in the region have begun to account for increased human 

habitation when developing and using conceptual ecological models (Ogden et al. 2005-

TN196). Formerly, planning efforts had failed to account for an unpredictably large increase in 

the human population, resulting in unintended ecological consequences (Ogden et al. 2005-

TN197). Continued growth of the human population in South Florida could result in more land 

development, decreased habitat, more hydrological alterations to remaining habitat, and 

reduced connectivity and ecological function of the remaining habitats. An increase in the 

amount of impervious surfaces could increase runoff during storm events. Building of more 

roads and levees could funnel runoff rather than allowing natural sheet flow, thereby affecting 

area wetlands and the biota that thrive in them. The Comprehensive Development Master Plan 

for Miami-Dade County and the Coastal Zone Management Program could help minimize these 

ecological impacts (Miami-Dade County 2012-TN1150; NOAA 2007-TN1244). 

The CERP was approved under the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 

§ 2201 et seq.) (TN1037) and is intended to provide a framework for restoration, protection, and 

preservation of water resources in central and southern Florida. The primary goals of the CERP 

are to capture freshwater that now flows into nearshore coastal areas as point sources and 

redirect it to promote more natural hydrologic conditions and enhance environmental 

connectivity (CERP 2012-TN1035). As noted by the National Research Council (2008 TN666), 

the CERP is an extremely complex, long-term restoration program with 68 separate subprojects 

that require sophisticated scientific knowledge of ecosystem function and dynamics, and the 

development of new approaches and technologies to support water management. One project 

within the CERP that could affect resources within the geographic area of interest is the 

Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetland project (USACE/SFWMD 2011-TN1038). This project is 

designed to restore wetlands adjacent to Biscayne Bay and Biscayne National Park through the 

redistribution of sheet flow away from canals to replicate natural runoff processes. Removal of 

water from the L-31E Canal during periods of excess flow to freshen the IWF, in accordance 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-21 NUREG–2176 

with the AO (FDEP 2014-TN4144), could result in less availability for freshwater for the 

Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetland restoration. The West Preferred Corridor along the eastern 

boundary of the Everglades National Park could be counterproductive to the future CERP goals 

because of its presence near the eastern portion of Everglades National Park. The West 

Transmission Line Corridors (Preferred or Consensus corridors) may require an engineering 

review by USACE pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 408) 

to assess consistency with CERP goals. 

Another related CERP project that could affect local resources is the modification of the 

Tamiami Trail (US Highway 41) roadway to increase water flow into the Everglades National 

Park. The USACE constructed a 1 mi bridge along Tamiami Trail and raised the elevation of 

the roadbed elsewhere. This allows for higher water levels in Water Management Area 3A 

north of the road to flow into Water Management Area 3B south of the road and was 

constructed done in part to improve Everglade snail kite habitat (USACE 2013-TN2468). The 

project was completed on December 23, 2014. 

The Model Lands Basin and Southern Glades Addition projects represent an effort to manage 

lands immediately south and west of the Turkey Point site and represent a collaborative effort 

by the Environmentally Endangered Lands Program of Miami-Dade County and the Save Our 

Rivers Program of the SFWMD. Programmatic goals include improving the overall condition of 

about 34,000 ac of freshwater and coastal wetlands through removal of exotic plants, improving 

access control to sensitive areas, implementing a prescribed fire program, and restoring wetland 

function through removal of physical barriers to overland flow (SFWMD 2005-TN217). FPL has 

specifically agreed to raise water elevations within the Everglades Mitigation Bank and fill 

portions of the Model Lands North Canal as part of the effort to manage hypersaline 

groundwater coming from the IWF (Miami Dade County v. Florida Power & Light 2015-TN4505). 

All of these activities would benefit the terrestrial ecology and wetlands of South Florida. 

As stated in Section 4.3, building Units 6 and 7 would result in permanent loss of approximately 

585 ac of terrestrial and wetland habitats within the Turkey Point site boundary, involving the 

loss of approximately 307 ac of wetlands, including mostly non-vegetated mudflat and 

mangrove. An additional 45 ac of undeveloped habitat would be affected by the installation of 

the reclaimed water-supply systems, including approximately 43 ac of offsite wetlands. 

Proposed transmission line corridors built or upgraded to support proposed Units 6 and 7 

contain more than 3,200 ac composed mostly of wetlands and agricultural lands. Only a portion 

of these lands, estimated to be less than 10 percent of lands within the corridor, would be 

permanently occupied by pads and roads (FPL 2015-TN4442). Vegetation maintenance within 

the corridors would permanently affect forested habitats and could affect additional acreage 

immediately outside of the rights-of-way. Land-cover classes that would be affected by 

transmission line corridor development include mangrove swamp, freshwater marsh, mixed 

wetland hardwoods, shrub and brushland, and herbaceous prairie. Proposed Units 6 and 7 

would therefore further contribute noticeably to the regional loss, fragmentation, and 

degradation of wetland and upland habitats in South Florida. 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-22 October 2016 

Important Species and Habitats 

Biota listed as Federally endangered, threatened, or candidates for listing as endangered or 

threatened would also be affected. As discussed in Section 4.3.1.3, three listed plant species, 

the sand flax (proposed endangered; Linum arenicola), Florida brickell-bush (endangered; 

Brickellia eupatorioides (mosieri) var. floridana), and the pineland sandmat (candidate; 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum) have been observed growing within proposed 

transmission line corridors that would support proposed Units 6 and 7 and may be affected. 

Surveys have not yet been conducted throughout the proposed corridors, and areas not yet 

surveyed may harbor other listed species. Listed wildlife that could likely be affected by building 

proposed Units 6 and 7 facilities include the eastern indigo snake (threatened; Drymarchon 

corais couperi), Florida panther (endangered; Puma (=Felis) concolor coryi), piping plover 

(threatened; Charadrius melodus), red knot (threatened; Calidris canutus), Everglade snail kite 

(endangered; Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus), and the wood stork (threatened; Mycteria 

americana). Although one of two known occurrences of the Miami tiger beetle lies in a pine 

rockland complex immediately adjacent the East transmission right-of-way, it would not be 

affected by building and maintenance of the right-of-way, which would pass adjacent to but not 

actually encroach into the pine rockland complex. 

Numerous plant and animal species listed by the State of Florida as endangered or threatened 

could also be affected. Most of the State-listed plants are associated with pine rockland and 

marl prairie habitats, both of which occur within the preferred western transmission line corridor 

and either within or alongside the eastern corridor. The distribution and abundance of Statelisted species is unknown. Past development has resulted in the loss of approximately 

99 percent of pine rockland habitat outside of Everglades National Park. Pine rockland species 

are threatened by a multitude of issues exacerbated by continued urbanization of South Florida, 

and are sensitive to the loss of small losses of remaining habitat and even to the loss of 

individual organisms. Incremental impacts on pine rockland habitat and respective species from 

the proposed Units 6 and 7 are expected to be minimal because very little pine rockland habitat 

would be affected and BMPs described in Sections 4.3.1 and 5.3.1 of this EIS would limit the 

type and extent of impact. In addition the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

(FFWCC) has required FPL to conduct pre-clearing and post-construction surveys for all Statelisted species in coordination with the FFWCC (FFWCC 2012-TN520). Federally listed species 

are also State-listed species in Florida (Table 2-12). FPL has stated that it will follow FFWCCapproved survey protocols, conduct regular reporting of results, and implement management 

actions for specific species or resources as required by FFWCC (FFWCC 2012-TN520). 

The Turkey Point site currently contains five power-generating plants. Cooling canals of the 

closed-loop IWF cool the water for Units 1−4. Prior to 2014, these canals provided habitat and 

forage for many wading birds. Water within the cooling canals does not directly discharge via 

surface flow into other bodies of surface water and is hypersaline. An uprate for Units 3 and 4 

was approved by the NRC in 2012 (77 FR 20059) (TN1001), increasing the capacity to 823 

MW(e). FPL predicted this increase in capacity would increase water temperatures within the 

cooling canals by 2°F and increase salinity 2−3 ppt (FPL 2014-TN4058). Aquatic species found 

within the cooling canals are subtropical or tropical and would not likely be affected by the 

predicted increases in water temperature or salinity from the uprate (77 FR 20059) (TN1001). 

However, record high salinity and temperature levels along with algal blooms during the 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-23 NUREG–2176 

summer of 2014 changed the ecology of the IWF. Although subsequent actions to freshen 

water within the IWF have returned salinity and temperatures to pre-summer 2014 levels, the 

ecological functions would likely remain substantially altered. Consequently, terrestrial species 

that forage on these aquatic species have likely already been affected and the rate of recovery 

of the IWF to a more normal ecological state is unknown. Unit 5 uses mechanical draft cooling 

towers to dissipate heat. The current cooling-water source for Unit 5 is groundwater (FPL 2014-

TN4058). The deposition of salt from Unit 5 cooling-tower drift would be minimal; the combined 

salt deposition from Units 5, 6, and 7 would not be expected to exceed ecological threshold 

levels that could be harmful to area wetlands and biota. It is possible reclaimed water could 

replace groundwater as the primary coolant in the future. As with proposed Units 6 and 7, use 

of reclaimed water for cooling Unit 5 would also result in the deposition of chemicals of 

emerging concern (CECs) in the environment from cooling-tower drift. However, CEC 

deposition levels from all three units would still not be expected to reach levels that could 

adversely affect terrestrial or wetland species. 

7.3.1.2 Summary of Terrestrial and Wetland Ecology Impacts 

Existing terrestrial and wetland ecosystem conditions within the geographic area of interest are 

a function of past land-use practices. Land development and alteration of surface-water flow 

has degraded and fragmented much of the terrestrial habitat within the region. Regional 

planning efforts designed to reverse habitat degradation resulting from past land-use and watermanagement practices are under way. The CERP is a comprehensive project that could result 

in substantial long-term landscape-scale benefits to terrestrial and wetland ecosystems in the 

region. The Model Lands Basin and Southern Glades Addition Restoration projects could also 

benefit terrestrial and wetland ecosystem function in the Everglades National Park, Biscayne 

National Park, and other lands in the immediate vicinity of the Turkey Point site. However, the 

ecological complexity of the south Florida landscape may prevent full recovery of the ecosystem 

and these planned beneficial activities could at least temporarily exacerbate current ecological 

conditions. 

Development related to human population growth in South Florida is expected to continue, 

placing increased demand on limited resources that would continue to degrade ecological 

function. Building the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 and associated facilities would affect 

substantial areas of naturally vegetated wetlands and uplands. Many species listed by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as endangered, threatened, or candidates and by the State of 

Florida as endangered or threatened are also likely to be affected. Cumulative effects related to 

anticipated regional development and population growth would depend on the success of 

current and future planning efforts to manage growth and development. 

The NRC staff concludes that the overall cumulative impacts on terrestrial resources in the 

geographic area of interest from the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

described above would be MODERATE to LARGE. A range is provided because of the review 

team’s uncertainty about the possible effects from the complex interplay of habitat losses from 

ongoing development in the area combined with building proposed Units 6 and 7 facilities; 

habitat loss and degradation from past, ongoing, and anticipated regional land development; the 

sensitivity of terrestrial habitats in the region to hydrological changes; the number and 

distribution of Federally and State-listed species present in the region; the presence of two 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-24 October 2016 

national parks and numerous other conservation lands in the area. Considering the wetland 

mitigation proposed for impacts from building the proposed Units 6 and 7 facilities, as well as 

mitigation measures that FPL proposes to develop with FWS to address possible avian impacts 

from the new transmission lines, the NRC staff concludes that the possible incremental effects 

of construction, preconstruction, and operation of the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 

project would be MODERATE, with noticeable but not destabilizing effects on the regional 

ecology. 

The NRC staff concludes that the incremental contribution to cumulative impacts from NRCauthorized construction and operation of the proposed Units 6 and 7 (which excludes site 

preparation activities and building certain non-safety related buildings associated with the 

project) would still be MODERATE. Operating the power blocks and maintaining various 

facilities associated with Units 6 and 7 could still noticeably affect terrestrial habitats in many 

sensitive terrestrial habitats in the region. 

7.3.2 Cumulative Effects for Aquatic Ecology 

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.4.2 serves as a baseline for the 

cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.3.2, the NRC 

staff concludes that preconstruction, and construction, of Units 6 and 7 would result in SMALL 

impacts on aquatic resources, except MODERATE impacts on the threatened American 

crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) from preconstruction activities. As described in Section 5.3.2, the 

NRC staff concludes that the impacts of operations on aquatic resources would be SMALL. 

In addition to the impacts from building and operation, the cumulative analysis considers other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect aquatic ecology. For 

this analysis, the geographic area of interest includes all aquatic resources in southeastern 

Florida which includes the Turkey Point site, Biscayne National Park, Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary north of mile marker 106 in Key Largo, the eastern portion of Everglades 

National Park, and canal systems (e.g., Card Sound, Mowry, L-31 N, and L-31 E Canals). The 

geographic area of interest for the proposed transmission line and pipeline corridors is 

described in Section 3.2.2.3. Surface-water areas within and outside the Turkey Point site 

provide habitat to ecologically, recreationally, and commercially important species; are 

hydrologically connected to some extent; and have experienced adverse and beneficial changes 

from anthropogenic and natural activities that have occurred in the past, and that could occur in 

the future. 

7.3.2.1 Description of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

Historical Context 

Prior to drainage and development activities, the wetland and aquatic ecosystems of southern 

Florida encompassed approximately 8.9 million acres, and included ridge and slough 

landscapes, sawgrass plains, cypress and mangrove swamps, and coastal lagoons and bays 

(USACE/SFWMD 1999-TN116). Ogden et al. (2005-TN196) characterized this pre-drainage 

condition as a “hydrologically interconnected, slow flowing system that extended from the 

Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee southward over low-gradient lands to the estuaries of 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-25 NUREG–2176 

Biscayne Bay, Ten Thousand Islands, and Florida Bay, and eastward and westward to the 

northern estuaries.” Browder et al. (2005-TN151) noted that prior to development, Biscayne 

Bay possessed both marine and estuarine habitat and fauna, and that construction of major 

canals and subsequent water drainage affected the salinity gradients and ecotones from the 

Everglades through coastal wetlands and tidal creeks into Biscayne Bay. Historical accounts 

suggest that prior to inlet and navigational dredging and related development, the northern and 

central portions of Biscayne Bay had much lower salinity conditions, low nutrient concentrations, 

and low turbidity/high light transmittance that promoted the presence of extensive seagrass 

meadows on the bay bottom (USACE/SFWMD 1999-TN116). 

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, flood control was recognized as the principal 

impediment to development in South Florida. Land was drained to support urban and 

agricultural development and a series of canals were constructed to support flood control, 

irrigation, and transportation. In 1948, Congress authorized the creation of the Central and 

Southern Florida Flood Control Project—one of the largest water-management systems in the 

world (Ogden et al. 2005-TN196). As a result of this and other projects, a substantial portion of 

the original wetland system in South Florida was lost or converted to support agriculture, urban 

development, and related infrastructure. These changes have dramatically reduced sheet flow, 

and have created point-source discharge of freshwater into estuarine and coastal wetland areas 

that have substantially changed the dynamics of the system and aquatic species compositions. 

The effects of these practices have included the creation of deeper water habitats within canal 

systems, which has contributed to the spread of exotic and nuisance species, the creation of 

unnatural habitats for predatory fishes and alligators, and unnatural reversals in wet and dry 

patterns (Ogden et al. 2005-TN197). 

Existing Turkey Point Units 

The existing Turkey Point site described in Chapter 3 encompasses 11,000 ac and currently 

contains five power-generating plants. Units 1 and 2 are natural-gas/oil steam electrical 

generating units that each produce 400 MW(e). Unit 1 has been in service since 1967 and 

Unit 2 has been in service since 1968. In January 2013, Unit 2 was converted to operate in 

synchronous condenser mode to provide voltage support for the transmission system in 

southeastern Florida. In this mode, it no longer generates power. FPL also expects to convert 

Unit 1 to a similar purpose in December 2016 (FPL 2016-TN4579). Two pressurized water 

reactors each producing 700 MW(e) and associated facilities (Units 3 and 4) are also located on 

the site. Unit 3 has been in service since 1972 and Unit 4 has been in service since 1973. Both 

units received operating license renewals, allowing operation of Unit 3 until 2032 Unit 4 until 

2033 (NRC 2012-TN1298; NRC 2012-TN1299). Both Units 3 and 4 received extended power 

uprates on June 15, 2012 (NRC 2012-TN1438). Unit 5 is a natural-gas combined-cycle unit that 

began operating in 2007 and is rated to produce 1,150 MW(e). These existing units occupy 

approximately 195 ac. Units 1 through 4 on the Turkey Point site rely on a system of canals that 

occupy approximately 5,900 ac on the Turkey Point site to provide cooling water. The canals 

are used as a closed-loop cooling system, and they are permitted as an IWF. Mechanical draft 

cooling towers are used to dissipate heat from Unit 5. Water from the Upper Floridan aquifer is 

withdrawn to provide makeup water to Unit 5. Blowdown from the Unit 5 cooling towers is sent 

to the cooling canals of the IWF (FPL 2014-TN4058). 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-26 October 2016 

Because the existing Units 1−5 have limited connection to Biscayne Bay, Card Sound, the 

cumulative effects of their operation will likely be confined to species inhabiting the IWF. The 

operation of the cooling systems for Units 1, 3, 4, and 5 would continue to result in impacts on 

aquatic resources in the IWF, including impingement, entrainment, and chemical, thermal, and 

high-salinity discharges. For Units 3 and 4, the NRC has previously assessed the 

environmental impacts of the 2002 license renewal and of the 2012 extended power uprate. 

The NRC (2002-TN2605) determined that the impacts of license renewal on aquatic resources 

in the IWF, Biscayne Bay, and Card Sound would be SMALL. The NRC (2012-TN3579) 

determined that the extended power uprate would result in additional temperature and salinity 

increases within the cooling-canal system but that these changes would not result in significant 

long-term impacts on aquatic resources. 

Increases in temperature, salinity, and nutrient levels observed during the summer of 2014, 

including an extensive algal bloom, had a significant impact on aquatic biota in the IWF. The 

significance of these events and their potential to affect the water quality of the IWF are 

discussed in Sections 2.3 and 7.2. American crocodile nesting in the IWF area noticeably 

decreased during the nesting season in 2015; the decrease appeared to be linked to ongoing 

changes in IWF water quality and lack of foraging opportunities because of the reduction in 

quality of the localized ecosystem. However, nesting was observed to have increased in other 

adjacent habitats outside the IWF, and overall numbers of nests within designated critical 

habitat throughout South Florida were not reduced (PNNL 2015-TN4446). The presence of the 

existing units may also require additional protection from sea-level rise, as discussed below that 

could further affect existing hydrology, and potentially reduce the potential for species 

introduction into the IWF via storm surge. 

Model Lands Basin and Southern Glades Addition Restoration 

The Model Lands Basin and Southern Glades Addition projects are located south and west of 

the Turkey Point site, and represent a collaborative effort by the Environmentally Endangered 

Lands Program of Miami-Dade County and the Save Our Rivers Program of the SFWMD. The 

restoration area encompasses about 34,000 ac of freshwater and coastal wetlands, and serves 

as a key area for freshwater flow to Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay, Card Sound, and Barnes Sound 

(SFWMD 2005-TN217). Programmatic goals include improving the overall condition of 

wetlands through removal of exotic plants, improving access control to sensitive areas, 

implementing a prescribed fire program, and restoring wetland function through removal of 

physical barriers to overland flow. Although many of the restoration actions do not specifically 

involve aquatic resources, the overall program will benefit aquatic species by restoring historic 

flow patterns into Biscayne Bay, Card Sound, and Biscayne National Park, and limiting future 

impacts through programmatic planning. If successful, these projects could result in ecosystem 

connection and function that more closely resemble what was present before industrialization 

and urbanization occurred in South Florida. Unfortunately, detectable changes in aquatic 

environments may not be evident for many years after project implementation. 

Biscayne National Park Fishery Management Plan 

In 2014, the NPS finalized a fishery management plan to protect and restore Biscayne National 

Park’s existing fisheries. The plan was intended to ensure that fishing activities were conducted 

in a sustainable manner and to comply with the NPS mandate to provide inspiration, education, 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-27 NUREG–2176 

and enjoyment to future generations (NPS 2014-TN4073). The plan includes the following five 

alternatives related to future conditions within Biscayne National Park: 

1. Maintain status quo: no-action alternative with regard to regulations. 

2. Maintain Biscayne National Park fisheries resources at or above current levels: potentially 

change minimum harvest sizes, bag limits, seasonal closures. 

3. Improve conditions over current levels: increase the abundance and size of fishery target 

species resources by 10 percent compared to existing conditions. 

4. Rebuild and conserve park fishery resources: increase the abundance and size of fishery 

target species resources by 20 percent compared to existing conditions. 

5. Restore park fishery resources: increase the abundance and size of fishery target species 

resources to within 20 percent of their estimated historic (pre-exploitation) levels. 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program 

The CERP was approved under the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 

§ 2201 et seq.) (TN1037) and is intended to provide a framework for restoration, protection, and 

preservation of water resources in central and southern Florida. The program encompasses 16 

counties and more than 180,000 mi2, and is expected to take more than 30 years to complete at 

a cost of nearly $12 billion in 2007 dollars. The primary goals of the CERP are to capture 

freshwater that now flows into nearshore coastal areas as point sources and redirect it to 

promote more natural hydrologic conditions and enhance environmental connectivity 

(CERP 2012-TN1035; DOA and DOI 2016-TN4580). 

One of the key CERP projects that will affect aquatic resources in the vicinity of the Turkey Point 

site is the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase 1 Project (USACE/SFWMD 2011-TN1038). 

The lead agency for this project is the USACE Jacksonville District; the SFWMD serves as the 

non-Federal cost-sharing partner. The overall goal of the project is to rehydrate coastal 

wetlands and reduce point-source discharge of freshwater into Biscayne Bay by redirecting the 

water to spreaders in coastal wetlands that are currently bypassed by the canal systems. This 

is intended to improve nearshore substrate and fish habitat that are affected by high salinity 

during the dry season, and to reduce excessive freshwater outflow during the rainy season. As 

designed, the project will divert an average of 59 percent of the freshwater discharged into 

Biscayne Bay from coastal structures into freshwater and saltwater wetlands (USACE/SFWMD 

2011-TN1038). If this program meets its intended goals, it should result in detectable 

improvements in nearshore habitats and reductions in salinity in Biscayne Bay. 

As noted by the National Research Council (2008-TN666), CERP is an extremely complex, 

long-term restoration program with 68 separate subprojects that require sophisticated scientific 

knowledge of ecosystem function and dynamics, and the development of new approaches and 

technologies to support water management. In its second biennial review of CERP progress, 

the Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress (National 

Research Council 2008-TN666) concluded CERP was “...bogged down in budgeting, planning, 

and procedural matters and is making only scant progress toward achieving restoration goals.” 

The Committee went on to state that the ecosystems CERP is intended to save remain in peril 

while rising construction costs and ongoing population growth and development make 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-28 October 2016 

restoration challenges more difficult (National Research Council 2008-TN666). Unfortunately, in 

its third biennial review, the National Research Council concluded that natural system 

restoration progress from the CERP remained slow noted that “continued declines in some 

aspects of the ecosystem coupled with environmental and societal changes make accelerated 

progress in Everglades restoration even more important" (National Research Council 2010-

TN1036). A similar finding was reached in 2012 (National Research Council 2012-TN2685), 

and in 2014 (National Research Council 2014-TN4608). Thus, it is difficult to predict whether 

CERP-related restoration actions, or those funded by other sources, will meet their intended 

goals and result in a detectable beneficial change to affected aquatic resources in South 

Florida. 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

Because improved water quality and habitat may positively influence Card Sound and Biscayne 

Bay, the past, present, and future activities associated with the Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary (FKNMS) may influence cumulative effects. In 2011, the National Oceanographic 

and Atmospheric Administration released a report about the condition of FKNMS that 

summarized the state of the resources with respect to water, habitat, living resources, and 

maritime archaeological resources (NOAA 2011-TN1847). The conclusions related to water 

suggested that although some management actions have reduced impacts on water quality, 

conditions were either declining or had not appreciably changed. A similar conclusion was 

reached for metrics associated with habitat and living resources. In response to this report, the 

FKNMS has indicated it will continue implementation of its water-quality protection program in 

conjunction with the EPA and FDEP to reduce point and nonpoint-source pollution and work 

collaboratively with State and Federal agencies to provide enforcement of existing laws. The 

FKNMS will also continue to implement its marine zoning and permitting program to reduce 

habitat loss and destruction within sanctuary boundaries. These actions are expected to benefit 

both FKNMS and surrounding waterbodies, including open-ocean environments adjacent to the 

sanctuary and Card Sound and Biscayne Bay to the north. 

Population Growth and Coastal Development 

Increased population growth and coastal development have been cited as serious ecological 

concerns by many Federal and State resource agencies, nongovernmental groups, and 

researchers studying South Florida ecosystems. For instance, the National Research Council, 

in its 2008 review of CERP (National Research Council 2008-TN666), noted that an expanding 

population in South Florida would create competition with ecosystem restoration for finite 

resources, and that planned restoration efforts could be in conflict with agriculture when farmed 

areas interrupt intended water flow for rehydration and restoration. Environmental effects 

related to historical and current population growth have also been incorporated into ecosystem 

conceptual models for South Florida (Ogden et al. 2005-TN196; Ogden et al. 2005-TN197) and 

identified as a major threat to Biscayne National Park (Robles et al. 2005-TN198). A similar 

concern was stated in the Final Integrated Project Implementation Report and EIS for the 

Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetland Phase 1 Project (USACE/SFWMD 2011-TN1038), which 

indicated that without the Phase 1 project, further development and creation of impervious 

surfaces would lead to increased runoff and larger point-source freshwater discharges into 

nearshore areas. USACE/SFWMD also indicated that if the plan was not implemented, much of 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-29 NUREG–2176 

the study area for the project would likely be developed, resulting in increased stormwater runoff 

and pollution, and additional use of chemicals to reduce mosquito populations and support 

agricultural development (USACE/SFWMD 2011-TN1038). 

7.3.2.2 Summary of Aquatic Ecology Impacts 

Clearly, many factors will contribute to the cumulative ecological effects experienced by aquatic 

communities at or near the Turkey Point site over the next 40 years. Increased development 

and overpopulation, historic alterations to waterbodies for flood control and agriculture, 

subsequent destruction of wetlands, introduction of exotics, and habitat degradation have 

adversely affected aquatic resources in southern Florida. These effects, unrelated to the 

construction and operation of Units 6 and 7 are observable. Although the effects of construction 

and operation of proposed Units 6 and 7 may contribute to the overall cumulative impacts 

experienced by aquatic communities at or near the Turkey Point site, the largest source of 

uncertainty related to future conditions appears to be the success or failure of existing and 

pending restoration activities, and the magnitude of hydrological alterations as a result of 

climate change as discussed in Appendix I, along with State and Federal agency response to 

climate change impacts. Although the construction and operation of the proposed Turkey Point 

Units 6 and 7 could contribute to cumulative effects on aquatic resources, including those within 

Biscayne National Park, it is likely the impacts of construction and operation of these units 

would be minor compared to (1) the success (or failure) of existing or planned restoration 

activities and (2) the effect of continued urbanization in South Florida. The NRC staff concludes 

that the contribution to cumulative impacts on aquatic resources from authorized NRC activities 

for proposed Units 6 and 7, within the geographic area of interest would likely be SMALL. 

However, overall, cumulative impacts on aquatic resources in the geographic area of interest 

would be MODERATE, primarily based on historic alterations to aquatic resources. 

7.4 Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice Impacts 

The evaluation of cumulative impacts on socioeconomics and environmental justice is described 

in the following sections. 

7.4.1 Socioeconomics 

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.5 serves as a baseline for the 

cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.4, the NRC 

staff assessed the physical impacts of the NRC-authorized construction on the activities related 

to building proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 and concluded that physical impacts on 

workers and the general public, including impacts on existing buildings, roads, waterways, 

aesthetics, noise levels, and air quality would be SMALL and no further mitigation would be 

warranted. The NRC staff also concludes that impacts of NRC-authorized construction on 

demographics, recreation, housing, public services, and education would be SMALL, with 

MODERATE impacts on traffic in the vicinity of the proposed site for Units 6 and 7. Impacts 

from NRC-authorized construction on the economy and tax revenues at the State and local 

levels would be SMALL and beneficial. 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-30 October 2016 

The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction are described in Section 4.4 and 

were determined to be SMALL and adverse with the exception of SMALL and beneficial impacts 

to the economies of Miami-Dade County, Homestead, and Florida City; MODERATE and 

beneficial impacts on roads; and MODERATE adverse impacts from traffic in the vicinity of the 

proposed site for Units 6 and 7. In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, 

and operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that could have socioeconomic impacts. For this cumulative 

analysis, the primary geographic area of interest is Miami-Dade County because it is the 

principal area where Turkey Point site workers would live, where the economy, tax base, and 

infrastructure would most likely be affected, and therefore where socioeconomic impacts would 

occur. However, the geographic area of interest was modified as appropriate for specific impact 

analyses; for example, specific taxation jurisdictions were considered when appropriate. 

As described in Section 2.5, Miami-Dade County is the most populous county in Florida. Its 

population doubled between 1970 and 2010 but its population growth rate has slowed. In 1992 

it was hit by Hurricane Andrew and an estimated 40,000 residents left the area and did not 

return. The Homestead Air Force Base, an important employer in the South Miami-Dade 

County, was destroyed by the hurricane and today supports contingency and training operations 

(HARB 2012-TN3551). 

The socioeconomic impact analyses in Chapters 4 and 5 of this EIS are cumulative by nature. 

Past and current economic impacts already have been considered as part of the socioeconomic 

baseline presented in Section 2.5. For example, the economic impacts of existing enterprises 

are part of the base used for establishing the Regional Input-Output Model System II multipliers 

(BEA 2012-TN1569). Regional planning efforts and associated demographic projections formed 

the basis for the review team’s assessment of reasonably foreseeable future impacts. State 

and County plans along with modeled demographic projections like those used in Sections 2.5, 

4.4, and 5.4 include forecasts of future development and population increases. Thus, 

cumulative impacts associated with general growth in Miami-Dade County construction, 

preconstruction, and operation of proposed Units 6 and 7 are evaluated in Chapters 4 and 5. 

Future foreseeable specific projects that are not part of general growth in the region include the 

following (Table 7-1; FPL 2014-TN4058): 

 Decommissioning of current Turkey Point units would reduce the use of roads in the vicinity 

of the proposed site, and would remove a local source of employment and tax revenues. 

 The independent spent fuel storage installation for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 is collocated 

on the Turkey Point site. It would be operational during construction of Units 6 and 7, but no 

additional workers are expected to be needed for its operations. 

 Several CERP (USACE 2010-TN113) initiatives would involve construction within a 30 mi 

radius of the proposed Units 6 and 7 plant area. Some of these projects are under way and 

others are still on paper. They would bring additional workers to Miami-Dade County, but 

information about numbers and dates is still uncertain. 

 The INGENCO Resource Recovery Facility is a proposed 8 MW landfill gas-fired power 

plant to be built 6 mi northwest of the Turkey Point site. The facility would be expected to be 

built by the time the Units 6 and 7 construction begins. 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-31 NUREG–2176 

Other projects are being planned for the area and could bring additional construction workers or 

traffic (e.g., see Table 7-1), but none have been identified that would add increased pressure on 

roads and traffic during periods when large numbers of Units 6 and 7 workers are traveling to 

and from the site (e.g., peak construction period or during outages), or that would be cumulative 

with adverse aesthetic impacts on Everglades National Park—the resources most severely 

affected by Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. 

The review team has considered the impacts of the construction and operations activities plus 

all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities over the license period. Because 

of the existing large population, labor force, and tax base of Miami-Dade County, cumulative 

socioeconomic impacts are likely to be SMALL and adverse, with the exception of beneficial 

physical impacts on roads during operations, but adverse impacts on traffic in the vicinity of 

projects, which are likely to be noticeable. Because of local planning and zoning regulations, 

noticeable impacts on roads and traffic would not be expected to destabilize existing physical 

and traffic attributes of the affected area. The incremental impact of NRC-authorized activities 

would be the principal contributor to the MODERATE adverse impacts on traffic in the vicinity of 

the proposed site, and the MODERATE and beneficial socioeconomic impacts on road quality 

near the existing Turkey Point site. 

7.4.2 Environmental Justice 

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.6 serves as a baseline for the 

cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.5, the NRC 

staff identified no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on environmental justice (EJ) 

populations of interest from construction of the proposed Units 6 and 7. As discussed in 

Section 5.5., the review team identified no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on EJ 

populations of interest from the operations of proposed Units 6 and 7. 

In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that could 

disproportionately affect EJ populations of interest. For this cumulative analysis, the general 

geographic area of interest is considered to be the 50 mi region described in Section 2.5.1—the 

area likeliest to experience health effects (if any) and provide the workforce for proposed Units 6 

and 7. This is the region for which census block groups were assessed. However, subsets of 

the area were considered based on the area likely to be both influenced by the particular impact 

of proposed Units 6 and 7 and the other facilities. 

Based on the analysis above, the review team determined that there were no disproportionately 

high and adverse impacts on any EJ populations of interest due to preconstruction, 

construction, and operations activities for the Turkey Point Units 6 and 7; and that there would 

most likely be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on EJ communities from any 

past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects in the 50 mi region. 

7.5 Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts 

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.7 serves as a baseline for the NEPA 

cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As discussed in Section 2.7, no known 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-32 October 2016 

resources are recorded in the Units 6 and 7 project area and, as described in Section 4.6, 

impacts on cultural resources from NRC-authorized construction would be SMALL and no 

further mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.6, the review team concludes 

that the impacts on cultural resources from operations would be SMALL. Mitigation may be 

warranted in the event of an unanticipated discovery during any ground-disturbing activities 

associated with construction or maintenance of the operating facility. Mitigation actions would 

be determined by the USACE in consultation with the Florida State Historic Preservation Office. 

FPL has proposed that cultural resource procedures for unanticipated discoveries, to be 

developed as stipulated in the work plans for the site and offsite facilities (FPL 2009-TN1514; 

FPL 2009-TN1515; FPL 2011-TN95), would be followed if any activity encountered cultural 

resources during building and operation. 

The combined impacts from preconstruction and construction, including transmission lines, are 

described in Section 4.6 and were determined to be MODERATE by the NRC staff. No known 

resources are located in the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the pipelines and access roads 

and bridges, but known significant cultural resources are located in the direct- and indirecteffects APEs for the transmission line corridors. These resources are described in Section 2.7.3 

and consist of numerous archaeological sites, historic buildings, historic districts, and linear 

resource groups. Construction of the transmission lines could generate visual impacts on 

above-ground historic period resources. If preconstruction activities associated with the 

transmission lines result in additional alterations of known cultural resources, then the impact 

could be greater. 

In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative 

analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that could affect 

historic and cultural resources. The geographic area of interest for this assessment of potential 

cumulative impacts includes the direct- and indirect-effects APEs for cultural resources at the 

Turkey Point site, which are defined in Section 2.7, and the offsite facilities including 

transmission line corridors, water pipelines, access roads, and bridges. The cumulative impacts 

assessment considers the eligibility of historical properties for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

The cultural background for the Turkey Point site is described in Section 2.7.1. The area 

contains a rich record of prehistoric human habitation; thus, there are habitation, burial, and 

other types of sites throughout the region. Historically, several groups of Native Americans lived 

in Florida, many of which became extinct or merged with other groups due to non-Native 

American encroachment by explorers and settlers by the late 1700s. The largest groups were 

the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and the Seminole Tribe of Florida. Conflict between settlers 

and the Seminoles was defined by warfare and slave raids until the mid-nineteenth century, by 

which time conflict and disease had contributed to the near-extinction of the Seminoles. 

European-American settlers, dominated by farmers and cattle ranchers, began to move into 

South Florida in greater numbers in the mid-1800s. By the early 1900s, large tracts of South 

Florida had been drained and numerous railroad lines were established. This expansion of 

infrastructure prompted the establishment and rapid growth of local communities, such as 

Homestead, as well as military-related facilities during World Wars I and II. 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-33 NUREG–2176 

Projects within the geographic area of interest that may have a potential cumulative impact on 

cultural resources include ongoing infrastructure improvements and future urbanization, such as 

the expansion or creation of roads or pipelines near or intersecting the proposed transmission 

line corridors. These could include projects listed in Table 7-1, such as the Florida Gas 

Transmission Company Phase VIII Expansion Project, the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands 

Project – Phase 1, the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project, and the C-111 South Dade 

Project. Development of such projects could affect cultural resources if ground-disturbing 

activities occur or if new above-ground structures affect the visual APE. As described in 

Section 2.7, known cultural resources exist in the transmission line corridors. Long linear 

projects such as new or expanded roads, pipelines, and utilities may intersect the proposed 

transmission line corridors. Because cultural resources can likely be avoided by long linear 

projects, and because many will occur alongside existing utilities, additional impacts on cultural 

resources would likely be minimal. Further, because many of the projects would likely require 

Federal involvement, impacts would be analyzed through Federal agency compliance with the 

National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.) (TN4157) and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 

§ 4321 et seq.) (TN661), and it is likely that adverse effects on historic properties or important 

cultural resources would be minimized. That said, a large number of historic structures are 

present along the eastern transmission line corridor, in particular, and visual impacts on any of 

these resources found eligible for listing in the National Register could occur. If activities 

associated with building the transmission lines or road and pipeline projects result in significant 

alterations (both physical alteration and visual intrusion) of cultural resources in the transmission 

line corridors, then cumulative impacts on cultural resources would be greater. 

Cultural resources are nonrenewable. Therefore, the impact of destruction of cultural resources 

is cumulative. Based on the information provided by the applicant and the NRC staff’s 

independent evaluation, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative cultural resources impact 

from preconstruction, construction, and operation of two proposed units at the Turkey Point site, 

including the transmission lines, and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects 

would be MODERATE. The potential visual impact of new transmission lines on built resources 

is the principal contributor to the MODERATE rating of cumulative impacts. The NRC staff 

further concludes that the incremental impacts associated with the onsite NRC-authorized 

activities would not significantly contribute to the cumulative impact because no significant 

historic or cultural resources would be affected by these activities in the geographic area of 

interest. 

7.6 Air-Quality Impacts 

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.9 serves as a baseline for the 

cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.7, the impacts 

of construction activities on air-quality impacts would be SMALL, and no additional mitigation 

would be necessary. As described in Section 5.7, the review team concludes that the effect of 

operations on air-quality impacts would be SMALL. 

7.6.1 Criteria Pollutants 

The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.7 and 

determined to be SMALL. Emissions associated with these activities would be predominately 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-34 October 2016 

fugitive dust from ground-disturbing activities and engine exhaust from heavy equipment and 

vehicles; these emissions are expected to be temporary and limited in magnitude. Section 5.7 

addresses air-quality impacts from operations. Air emissions from operations would be primarily 

from worker vehicles and stationary combustion sources such as diesel generators and auxiliary 

boilers. Stationary sources would be permitted and operated in accordance with State and 

Federal regulatory requirements, and their operation would be infrequent and mostly for 

maintenance testing. Therefore, potential impacts on air quality from operations would be 

SMALL. In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operations, the 

cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions that could contribute to cumulative impacts on air quality (see Table 7-1). For this 

cumulative analysis of criteria pollutants, the geographic area of interest is Miami-Dade County, 

which is within the Southeast Florida Intrastate Air Quality Control Region. Air-quality 

attainment status for Miami-Dade County as set forth in 40 CFR Part 81 (TN255) reflects the 

effects of past and current emissions from all regulated air-pollutant sources in the region. 

Miami-Dade County is currently in attainment for all air pollutants for which for the EPA has 

established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs). 

The air-quality impact of site development for proposed Units 6 and 7 would be temporary. The 

distance from building activities to the site boundary would be sufficient to generally limit airquality impacts to within the facility boundary. Mobile source emissions from workforce 

commuting would be the principal source of offsite emissions. The major land-use projects in 

the immediate vicinity (within 6 mi) are wetland mitigation and restoration projects, but these 

would have only occasional air-quality impacts from periodic controlled burns and from mobile 

sources used in maintenance and monitoring activities. Other more distant reasonably 

foreseeable projects within Miami-Dade County that have the potential to increase air emissions 

include three landfill gas-power-generation projects. The closest, South Dade Landfill, is 8 mi 

north of Turkey Point; the two other proposed landfill gas-power plants, Medley and North Dade, 

are located 30 and 37 mi north of the Turkey Point site, respectively. Emissions from the 

operation of these landfill gas-power plants would be noticeable but would not alter or 

destabilize the air quality within the region. Any new projects either would have de minimis 

impacts or would be subject to permitting by the FDEP. State permits are issued under 

regulations approved by the EPA and are deemed sufficient to attain and maintain the NAAQSs 

and comply with other Federal requirements under the Clean Air Act. Given these institutional 

controls, it is unlikely that the air quality in the region would degrade significantly (i.e., degrade 

to the extent that the region is in nonattainment of the NAAQSs). 

Combustion equipment associated with the operation of Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 is similar to 

the equipment that would be associated with proposed Units 6 and 7. Releases are intermittent 

and made at relatively low levels with little vertical velocity. Because of the intermittent nature of 

the releases (4 hours per month) and the small quantities of effluents being released, the review 

team expects that the cumulative impacts of combustion product release associated with the 

four Turkey Point units would be negligible. 

Operation of the Units 6 and 7 cooling towers would result in plumes and salt deposition with the 

highest concentrations occurring within the Turkey Point site. Modeling predictions for proposed 

Units 6 and 7 show significant salt deposits of around 100 kilogram(s)/hectare/month (kg/ha/mo) 

at the makeup-water reservoir plant area when using water from the RCWs and with salt 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-35 NUREG–2176 

deposition of 10 kg/ha/mo generally confined to the Turkey Point site and the IWF, with the 

exception of the southeastern perimeter of the site. When operated using reclaimed water, the 

primary water source, the salt deposition rates would be considerably lower. The natural-gas 

combined-cycle steam electric generating cooling tower (Unit 5) has plumes that remain 

primarily on the Turkey Point site as well as salt deposition from the Unit 5 cooling tower 

estimated to have a maximum average of 6.3 kg/ha/mo at 200 m. For the vegetation in the 

vicinity of the Turkey Point site these salt deposition rates were found to have minimal impact. 

Future development near the Turkey Point site also could lead to increases in gaseous 

emissions related to transportation. Table 7-1 lists medium potential for growth within MiamiDade County through construction of the proposed SR836/Dolphin Expressway Southwest 

Extension and Tampa–Orlando–Miami High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail. Given the 

potential for growth, and the contribution of criteria pollutant emissions from the three landfill 

gas-power−generation projects, the cumulative impact on air quality would be noticeable. 

7.6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

As discussed in the state-of-the-science report issued by the U.S. Global Change Research 

Program (GCRP) (GCRP 2014-TN3472), “The majority of the warming at the global scale over 

the past 50 years can only be explained by the effects of human influences, especially the 

emissions from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and from deforestation...Oil used 

for transportation and coal used for electricity generation are the largest contributors to the rise 

in carbon dioxide that is the primary driver of recent climate change.” 

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with building, operating, and decommissioning a 

nuclear power plant are addressed in Sections 4.7, 5.7.1, 6.1.3, and 6.3. The review team 

concluded that the atmospheric impacts of the emissions associated with the building, operating, 

and decommissioning a nuclear power plant would be minimal. The review team also concluded 

that the impacts of the combined emissions for the full plant life cycle would be minimal. 

It is difficult to evaluate the cumulative impacts of a single source or combination of GHG 

emission sources for the following reasons: 

 The impact is global rather than local or regional. 

 The impact is not particularly sensitive to the location of the release point. 

 The magnitude of individual GHG sources related to human activity, no matter how large 

compared to other sources, is small when compared to the total mass of GHGs that exist in 

the atmosphere. 

 The total number and variety of GHG emission sources are extremely large and are 

ubiquitous. 

These points are illustrated by the comparison of annual emission rates of carbon dioxide (CO2), 

one of the principal GHGs, in Table 7-2. 

In the United States, the national annual GHG emission rate was 6.5 billion MT CO2 equivalent 

(CO2e) in 2012, and of that amount, 5.0 billion MT CO2e was from fossil-fuel combustion 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-36 October 2016 

(EPA 2014-TN4008). The total GHG emissions in Florida were 290 million MT CO2e in 2007, 

and of that amount, 256 million MT CO2e were from fossil-fuel combustion (FDEP 2010-

TN2997). Appendix J provides details of the review team’s estimate for a reference 

1,000 MW(e) nuclear power plant. The review team estimated the total nuclear power plant 

lifecycle footprint to be 10,500,000 MT CO2e, with a 7-year preconstruction and construction 

phase, 40 years of operation, and 10 years of decommissioning. This value is representative of 

the proposed Units 6 and 7 at Turkey Point because the new units are AP1000 reactors and 

have the same electrical output as the reference 1,000 MW(e) reactor in Appendix J. The 

uranium fuel-cycle phase is projected to generate the highest emissions (see Appendix J of this 

EIS). Table 7-2 lists the GHG emissions from normal operations, including the uranium fuel 

cycle, as 260,000 MT CO2e per year. These emissions are significantly less than the GHG 

emissions reported from power plants in Florida or from fossil-fuel combustion in the United 

States for the year 2012. 

Even though GHG emission estimates from normal operations are small compared to other 

sources, the applicant should consider measures that would reduce GHG emissions. These 

could include, but would not necessarily be limited to, energy-efficient design features and 

features to reduce space heating and air-conditioning energy requirements, use of renewable 

energy sources, use of low-GHG-emitting vehicles, and other policies to reduce GHG emissions 

from vehicle use, such as anti-idling policies and vanpooling or carpooling. 

Table 7-2. Comparison of Annual Carbon Dioxide Emission Rates 

Source Metric Tons per Year(a)

Global emissions from fossil-fuel combustion (2011) 3.3 × 1010 (b)

United States emissions from fossil-fuel combustion (2012) 5.0 × 109 (b)

Florida emissions from fossil-fuel combustion (2007) 2.56 × 108 (c)

1,000 MW(e) nuclear power plant (including fuel cycle, 80% capacity factor) 260,000(d) 

1,000 MW(e) nuclear power plant (operations only) 4,500(d) 

Average U.S. passenger vehicle 5(e)

Note: 1 metric ton = 1.1 U.S. tons (at 2,000 lb per U.S. ton) 

(a) Nuclear power emissions estimates are in units of MT CO2e whereas the other energy alternatives emissions 

estimates are in units of MT CO2. If nuclear power emissions were represented in MT CO2, the value would 

be slightly less, because other GHG emissions would not be included. 

(b) EPA 2014-TN4008, expressed in metric tons per year of CO2e. 

(c) FDEP 2010-TN2997, expressed in metric tons per year of CO2e. 

(d) Appendix J, expressed in metric tons per year of CO2e. 

(e) EPA 2013-TN2505. 

Evaluation of the cumulative impacts of GHG emissions requires the use of a global climate 

model. The GCRP report referenced above (GCRP 2014-TN3472) provides a synthesis of the 

results of numerous climate modeling studies; hence, the cumulative impacts of GHG emissions 

around the world as presented in the GCRP report provide an appropriate basis for the 

evaluation of cumulative impacts. Based primarily on the scientific assessments of the GCRP 

and National Research Council, the EPA Administrator issued a determination in 2009 (74 FR 

66496) (TN245) that GHGs in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health and welfare, based on observed and projected effects of GHGs, their impact on 

climate change, and the public health and welfare risks and impacts associated with such 

climate change. Therefore, national and worldwide cumulative impacts of GHG emissions 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-37 NUREG–2176 

reflect conditions within the MODERATE impact level for air quality related to GHG emissions—

noticeable but not destabilizing. Based on the impacts set forth in the GCRP report, and on the 

CO2 emissions criteria in the final EPA CO2 Tailoring Rule (75 FR 31514) (TN1404), the review 

team concludes that the national and worldwide cumulative impacts of GHG emissions are 

noticeable but not destabilizing. The review team further concludes that the cumulative impacts 

would be noticeable but not destabilizing, with or without the GHG emissions from the proposed 

project. 

Consequently, the review team recognizes that GHG emissions, including CO2, from individual 

stationary sources and cumulatively from multiple sources can contribute to climate change and 

that the carbon footprint is a relevant factor in evaluating energy alternatives. Section 9.2.5 

contains a comparison of carbon footprints of the viable energy alternatives. 

7.6.3 Summary of Air-Quality Impacts 

Cumulative impacts on air-quality resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

FPL and the review team’s independent evaluation. Other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable activities exist in the geographic areas of interest (local for criteria pollutants and 

global for GHG emissions) that could affect air-quality resources. The cumulative impacts on 

criteria pollutants from emissions of effluents from the new units at the Turkey Point site and 

other projects would be noticeable but not destabilizing. The new units and the other projects 

listed in Table 7-1 would have minimal impacts. The national and worldwide cumulative impacts 

of GHG emissions are noticeable but not destabilizing. The review team concludes that the 

cumulative impacts would be noticeable but not destabilizing, with or without the GHG 

emissions from the new units at the Turkey Point site. The review team concludes that 

cumulative impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on airquality resources in the geographic areas of interest would be SMALL to MODERATE for 

criteria pollutants and MODERATE for GHGs. The incremental contribution of impacts on airquality resources for both criteria pollutants and GHGs from building and operating the new 

units at the Turkey Point site would be SMALL. 

7.7 Nonradiological Health 

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.10 of this EIS serves as a baseline for 

nonradiological health related to Units 6 and 7 at Turkey Point. As described in Section 4.8, the 

impacts from NRC-authorized construction would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be 

warranted. As described in Section 5.8, the nonradiological health impacts from operation of 

the proposed Units 6 and 7 would also be SMALL, and would warrant no further mitigation. 

The combined nonradiological health impacts from construction and preconstruction are 

described in Section 4.8 and were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from 

construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative impacts 

to nonradiological health (Table 7-1). 

Based on the localized nature of most of the nonradiological health impacts of Turkey Point, the 

geographic area of interest for this cumulative impacts analysis is expected to be limited to the 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-38 October 2016 

immediate vicinity of the Turkey Point site, except for (1) the wastewater underground injection 

location and receiving aquifers and other waters (as described in Section 2.3), and (2) the 

geographic area for the transmission system associated with proposed Units 6 and 7 (as 

described in Section 2.2.2). These two geographic areas, plus the immediate vicinity of the site, 

are expected to encompass the areas where public and worker health could be influenced by 

the proposed project in combination with any other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable 

future actions. No other current energy projects are within the area of interest. As noted in 

Section 7.1, future development of the adjacent land is not likely to occur and thus no 

reasonably foreseeable future projects in the geographic areas of interest that could contribute 

to cumulative impacts for nonradiological health are expected. 

Preconstruction, construction, and operation activities that have the potential to affect the 

nonradiological health of the public and workers include exposure to fugitive dust emissions, 

occupational injuries, noise from construction and operation, exposure to etiological and 

chemical agents, exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), and noise and vehicle emissions 

from the transportation of construction materials and personnel to and from the Turkey Point 

site. Fugitive dust emissions are addressed in Section 7.6.1. The total occupational injury rate 

is not expected to be significantly affected by construction and operation of the new units in the 

area of interest. 

The closest significant noise-generating sites to Turkey Point site are the Homestead Air 

Reserve Base and Homestead-Miami Speedway, both approximately 5 mi away. Based on the 

noise analysis described in Sections 4.8 and 5.8, however, the nearest resident to Turkey Point 

is in Homestead Bayfront Park, which is in the general direction of the Reserve Base and 

speedway. This location would experience little or no discernible difference in noise from sitepreparation, construction, or operation of Units 6 and 7, and therefore no cumulative noise 

impacts are expected. 

Existing and potential development of new transmission lines could increase nonradiological 

health impacts from exposure to acute EMFs. As stated in Section 5.8.3, however, adherence 

to Federal criteria and State utility codes would create minimal cumulative nonradiological 

health impacts. With regard to chronic effects of EMFs, the scientific evidence on human health 

does not conclusively link extremely low-frequency EMFs to adverse health impacts. Noise and 

vehicle emissions associated with current urbanization, current operations of Turkey Point units, 

and other activities could contribute to public nonradiological health impacts. However, as 

discussed in Sections 4.8 and 5.8, the proposed Units 6 and 7 contribution to these impacts 

would be temporary and minimal, and existing and future facilities would likely comply with local, 

State, and Federal regulations governing noise and emissions. Section 7.10.2 discusses 

cumulative nonradiological health impacts related to additional traffic on the regional and local 

highway networks leading to and from the Turkey Point site, and the review team determined 

that these impacts would be minimal. 

In Sections 5.8.1 and 5.8.5, the review team evaluated the health impacts of operating the two 

new proposed units at the site with regard to etiological and chemical agents in the cooling 

water and the wastewater discharge. Based on the lack of complete exposure pathways and 

other factors, including the review team’s independent analysis, the review team determined 

that the likelihood of impacts from etiological and chemical agents on human health would be 

minimal and mitigation would not be warranted. The potential use of reclaimed wastewater for 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-39 NUREG–2176 

cooling of Turkey Point Unit 5 could result in the release of additional etiological and chemical 

agents from the cooling-tower drift, which could involve subsequent exposure to workers and 

the public. Based on the review staff’s analysis of chemical exposure from the drift from the 

proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, however, any additional exposure from Unit 5 would be 

negligible. 

Estimates of cumulative impacts on nonradiological health are based on information provided by 

FPL and the review team’s independent evaluation of impacts resulting from the building and 

operation of proposed Units 6 and 7, along with a review of potential impacts from other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and urbanization located in the geographic area of 

interest. The review team concludes that cumulative impacts on public and worker 

nonradiological health would be SMALL, and that mitigation beyond what is discussed in 

Sections 4.8 and 5.8 would not be warranted. 

7.8 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.11 serves as a baseline for the 

cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.9, the NRC 

staff concludes that the radiological impacts from NRC-authorized construction would be 

SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.9, the NRC 

staff concludes that the radiological impacts from normal operations would be SMALL, and no 

further mitigation would be warranted. 

The combined impacts from preconstruction and construction were described in Section 4.9 and 

determined to be SMALL. In addition to impacts from construction, preconstruction, and 

operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative radiological impacts. For the 

purposes of this analysis, the geographic area of interest is the area within a 50 mi radius of the 

Turkey Point site. Historically, the NRC has used the 50 mi radius as a standard bounding 

geographic area to evaluate population doses from routine releases from nuclear power plants. 

The area within the 50 mi radius of the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 includes the 

existing operating Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 and an independent spent fuel storage installation 

(ISFSI). There are also likely to be medical, industrial, and research facilities within the 50 mi 

radius of the site that use radioactive materials. As discussed in Sections 2.11 and 5.9, there is 

no credible drinking water pathway from groundwater under the Turkey Point site. As described 

in Section 2.11, quantities of tritium are detected in monitoring wells on and around the Turkey 

Point site as a result of tritium in the cooling-canal system. As further stated in Section 2.11, the 

FDEP considers that the tritium levels found in the monitoring wells “does not represent a public 

health and safety issue.” 

As described in Section 4.9, the estimate of dose to construction workers during building of the 

proposed Units 6 and 7 is well within the NRC annual exposure limits (i.e., 100 mrem/yr), which 

are designed to protect public health. This estimate includes exposure from Turkey Point Units 

3 and 4 and the ISFSI. The estimate of doses to construction workers during building Unit 7 

includes Unit 6 as a source of exposure. As described in Section 5.9, the public and 

occupational doses predicted from the proposed operation of two new units at the Turkey Point 

site are below regulatory limits and standards. In addition, the site boundary dose to the 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-40 October 2016 

maximally exposed individual from the existing Turkey Point 3 and 4, the ISFSI and the 

proposed Turkey Point 6 and 7 at the Turkey Point site would be well within the regulatory 

standard of 40 CFR Part 190 (TN739). 

The NRC staff estimated the cumulative dose to biota other than human from the operation of 

Turkey Point Units 3, 4, 6, and 7, as presented in Appendix G. The results of the dose 

estimates are provided in Tables 5-14 and 5-15, and Appendix G. The NRC staff concludes 

that the cumulative radiological impact on biota other than human would not be significant. The 

results of the radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) indicate that effluents and 

direct radiation from area medical, industrial, and research facilities that use radioactive 

materials do not contribute measurably to the cumulative dose for biota in the vicinity of the 

Turkey Point site. 

As stated in Section 2.11, FPL has conducted a REMP at the Turkey Point site since 1969. The 

REMP measures radiation and radioactive materials from all sources, including the Turkey Point 

site and area medical, industrial, and research facilities. The results of the REMP indicate that 

the levels of radiation and radioactive material in the environment around the Turkey Point site 

are generally not above or only a little above natural background levels. 

Currently, there are no other nuclear facilities planned within 50 mi of the Turkey Point site. The 

NRC, the DOE, and the State of Florida would regulate or control any reasonably foreseeable 

future actions in the region that could contribute to cumulative radiological impacts. 

Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts of operating two 

new units, along with the existing units at the Turkey Point site and the influence of other manmade sources of radiation nearby would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be 

warranted. 

7.9 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts 

As described in Section 4.10, the NRC staff concludes that the nonradioactive waste impacts of 

NRC-authorized construction would be SMALL and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

As described in Section 5.10, the review team concludes that the nonradioactive waste impacts 

of operations would be SMALL and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

Cumulative impacts on water and air from nonradioactive waste are discussed in Sections 7.2 

and 7.6, respectively. The cumulative impact of nonradioactive waste destined for land-based 

treatment and disposal are primarily related to the available capacity of area treatment and 

disposal facilities and the amount of waste generated by the proposed project and other 

reasonably foreseeable projects in Table 7-1. The geographical area of interest for this 

cumulative analysis is Miami-Dade County because of the availability of landfill capacity within 

the county and the relatively long haul distances associated with transportation outside of the 

county. Miami-Dade County currently operates two landfills and a waste-to-energy plant, has 

contracts with commercial firms for additional landfill capacity, and is currently developing a plan 

for solid-waste management for future disposal needs (Miami-Dade County 2013-TN2950; 

Miami-Dade County 2010-TN2953; Miami-Dade County 2012-TN2951). 

During construction, offsite land-based waste treatment and disposal would be minimized by 

production and delivery of modular plant units (FPL 2014-TN4058) and by segregation of 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-41 NUREG–2176 

recyclable materials. Building activities would generate small quantities of construction debris, 

and the construction workforce would produce small quantities of municipal solid waste (MSW). 

Building waste and trash would be handled, transported, and disposed in accordance with all 

applicable Federal, State, and local regulations (FPL 2010-TN272). Most of the projects listed 

in Table 7-1 generally either would not generate significant amounts of solid waste (e.g., plastics 

and fiberglass manufacturing), would not coincide with the construction of the proposed Turkey 

Point Units 6 and 7 (e.g., decommissioning Turkey Point Units 1 through 5), or would produce 

waste streams of a different nature (e.g., mining and park projects). 

During operation, FPL estimates that Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 would generate an average of 

1,000 tons of nonradioactive, nonhazardous, solid waste annually, equivalent to about 0.03 

percent of the 3.2 million tons of MSW managed in Miami-Dade County in 2012 (FDEP 2013-

TN2949). Therefore, such disposal impacts would be minimal. 

FPL would be classified as a either a conditionally exempt small-quantity generator or a smallquantity generator under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.) (TN1281). Conditionally exempt small-quantity generators and 

small-quantity generators combined generate only 7 percent of the hazardous waste produced 

in Florida. No known capacity constraints exist for the treatment or disposal of hazardous 

wastes either within Florida or for the nation (FDEP 2007-TN1478). 

Of the projects listed in Table 7-1, only the operation and decommissioning of Turkey Point 

Units 3 and 4 and the hospitals that use radioactive materials have the potential to generate 

mixed waste. None of the considered projects is expected to generate mixed waste in 

significant quantities above current rates, and therefore cumulative impacts would be minimal. 

Based on the quantity of nonradioactive and mixed waste projected during operation of Turkey 

Point Units 6 and 7 and the available treatment and disposal capacity, the review team 

concludes that cumulative impacts of nonradioactive and mixed waste would be SMALL, and 

additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

7.10 Postulated Accidents 

As described in Section 5.11.4 of this EIS, the NRC staff concludes that the potential 

environmental impacts (risk) from a postulated accident related to the operation of proposed 

Units 6 and 7 would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. Section 5.11 of 

this EIS considers both design basis accidents (DBAs) and severe accidents. 

As described in Section 5.11.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences 

of DBAs at the Turkey Point site would be SMALL for an AP1000 reactor. DBAs are addressed 

specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet NRC safety criteria. 

The consequences of DBAs are bounded by the consequences of severe accidents. 

As described in Section 5.11.2.5, the NRC staff concludes that the severe accident probabilityweighted consequences (i.e., risks) of an AP1000 reactor at the Turkey Point site are SMALL 

compared to risks to which the population is generally exposed. The cumulative analysis 

considers risk from potential severe accidents at all other existing and proposed nuclear power 

plants that have the potential to increase risks at any location within 50 mi of proposed Units 6 

and 7. The 50 mi radius was selected to cover any potential risk overlaps from two or more 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-42 October 2016 

nuclear facilities. The only existing reactors within a 50 mi radius of the proposed Units 6 and 7 

plant area are Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. Existing reactors that contribute to risk within this 

geographic area include Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. 

Tables 5-15 and 5-16 in Section 5.11.2 provide comparisons of estimated risk for the proposed 

AP1000 units at the Turkey Point site and current-generation reactors. The estimated 

population dose risk for the proposed AP1000 units at the Turkey Point site is well below the 

median value for current-generation reactors. In addition, estimates of average individual early 

fatality and latent cancer fatality risks are well below the Commission’s safety goals 

(51 FR 30028) (TN594). For existing plants within the geographic area of interest (Turkey Point 

Units 3 and 4), the Commission has determined that the probability-weighted consequences of 

severe accidents are small (10 CFR Part 51) (TN250), Appendix B, Table B-1). On this basis, 

the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative risks of severe accidents at any location within 

50 mi of the Turkey Point site likely would be SMALL and no further mitigation would be 

warranted. 

7.11 Fuel-Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning Impacts 

The cumulative impacts related to the fuel cycle, transportation of radioactive materials (fuel and 

waste), and facility decommissioning for the proposed site are described below. 

7.11.1 Fuel Cycle 

As described in Section 6.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental impacts of the fuel 

cycle due to operation of proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 would be SMALL. Fuel-cycle 

impacts would occur not only at the Turkey Point site but also at other locations in the United 

States or, in the case of foreign-purchased uranium, in other countries as described in 

Section 6.1. 

In addition to fuel-cycle impacts from proposed Units 6 and 7, this cumulative analysis also 

considers fuel-cycle impacts from existing Units 3 and 4. There are no other nuclear power 

plants within 50 mi of the Turkey Point site. The fuel-cycle impact of Units 3 and 4 would be 

similar to that of proposed Units 6 and 7. The NRC staff concludes the impacts would be 

acceptable for the 1,000 MW(e) reference reactor (10 CFR Part 51) (TN250). As discussed in 

Section 6.1 of this EIS, advances in reactors since the development of Table S–3 of 

10 CFR 51.51(TN250), would have the effect of reducing environmental impacts relative to the 

operating reference reactor. For example, a number of fuel-management improvements have 

been adopted by nuclear power plants to achieve higher performance and to reduce fuel and 

separative work (enrichment) requirements. Adding the fuel-cycle impacts from existing Units 3 

and 4 at a combined 1,632 MW(e) (FPL 2016-TN4579) to the impacts from proposed Units 6 

and 7 at a combined 2,230 MW(e) (FPL 2014-TN4058) would not increase the cumulative 

impacts from the fuel cycle by more than 75 percent. The NRC staff concludes the cumulative 

fuel-cycle impacts of operating the proposed Units 6 and 7 would be minimal. 

The Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel 

(NUREG–2157) (NRC 2014-TN4117) examines the incremental impacts of continued storage 

on each resource area analyzed in NUREG–2157 in combination with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. Section 6.5 of NUREG–2157 indicates ranges of 

potential cumulative impacts for multiple resource areas (NRC 2014-TN4117). These ranges 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-43 NUREG–2176 

are primarily driven by impacts from activities other than the continued storage of spent fuel at 

the reactor site; the impacts from these other activities would occur regardless of whether spent 

fuel is stored during the continued storage period. In the short-term timeframe, which is the 

most likely timeframe for the disposal of the fuel, the potential impacts of continued storage for 

at-reactor storage are SMALL and would, therefore, not be a significant contributor to the 

cumulative impacts. Because the impacts during the short-term timeframe are SMALL, 

continued storage would not be a significant contributor to the cumulative impacts. In the longer 

timeframes for at-reactor storage, or in the less likely case of away-from-reactor storage, some 

of the impacts from the storage of spent fuel could be greater than SMALL. However, other 

Federal and non-Federal activities occurring during the longer timeframes, as noted in NUREG–

2157, include uncertainties as well, contributing to the cumulative impacts. All of these 

uncertainties lead to the ranges in cumulative impacts as discussed throughout Chapter 6 of 

NUREG–2157 (NRC 2014-TN4117). The overall cumulative impact conclusions would not be 

changed if the impacts of continued storage were removed. Taking into account the impacts 

that the NRC can predict with certainty, which are SMALL; the uncertainty reflected by the 

ranges in some impacts; and the relative likelihood of the timeframes, the staff finds that the 

impacts in NUREG–2157 do not change the staff’s overall finding regarding the cumulative 

impacts from the fuel cycle (which includes the impacts associated with spent fuel storage). 

7.11.2 Transportation 

The description of the affected environment in Section 2.5.2 serves as a baseline for the 

cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Sections 4.8.3 and 5.8.6, 

the review team concludes that impacts of transporting personnel and nonradiological materials 

to and from the Turkey Point site would be SMALL. In addition to impacts from preconstruction, 

construction, and operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, and present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative transportation 

impacts. For this analysis the geographic area of interest is the 50 mi region surrounding the 

Turkey Point site. 

Nonradiological transportation impacts are related to the additional traffic on the regional and 

local highway networks leading to and from the Turkey Point site. Additional traffic would result 

from shipments of construction materials and movements of construction personnel to and from 

the site. The additional traffic increases the risk of traffic accidents, injuries, and fatalities. A 

review of the projects listed in Table 7-1 indicates that other projects in the region could 

potentially increase nonradiological impacts. The most significant cumulative nonradiological 

impacts in the vicinity of the Turkey Point site would result from major construction projects. A 

review of Table 7-1 suggests that the only major new construction project in the vicinity of the 

Turkey Point site is the Tampa-Orlando-Miami Florida High-Speed Rail project. The first phase 

of the Florida High-Speed Rail project is currently developing the leg from Tampa to Orlando. 

Because Orlando is more than 250 mi north of the Turkey Point site, it is considered outside of 

the region of interest for this EIS. However, when construction begins on the Orlando to Miami 

leg, portions of the new rail line will reside within the region of interest. This interaction will 

minimally exacerbate nonradiological impacts because construction of the rail line will occur 

north of Miami, whereas the Turkey Point site is south of Miami. Therefore, traffic overlap 

between transport of construction materials and personnel to/from the Turkey Point site and 

to/from the rail line construction site will be minimal. Minor interactions with smaller construction 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-44 October 2016 

projects in this vicinity, including the South Dade Landfill gas generation, Medley landfill gas 

power, and construction activities at the Homestead Air Reserve Base are also anticipated. 

However, the magnitudes of these projects are small relative to construction of Turkey Point 

Units 6 and 7. Consequently, interactions among construction traffic are unlikely to exacerbate 

congestion and potentially increase nonradiological transportation impacts. The other 

construction projects are more than 25 mi from the Turkey Point site, and therefore the traffic 

from these projects is not likely to interact with traffic associated with building and operating the 

Turkey Point site units. 

Traffic associated with the existing Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 could interact with traffic 

associated with proposed Units 6 and 7. However, FPL has identified mitigation measures 

designed to reduce traffic impacts in the vicinity of the Turkey Point site. Traffic flow to and from 

operating facilities in the region would be of lesser importance because fewer workers and 

material shipments are needed to support operating facilities than major construction projects. 

The operating facilities with potential for cumulative nonradiological impacts include the 

Resources Recovery Facility, Homestead Power Plant, Gordon Ivey Power Plant, Contender 

Boats Inc., and Florida Rock and Sand. As with the construction projects, FPL would identify 

mitigation measures for the proposed new units and would also mitigate traffic concerns and 

reduce the potential cumulative nonradiological impacts associated with operating facilities. 

Finally, 16 parks are listed in Table 7-1. Current initiatives involving the Biscayne National Park 

and Florida Key National Marine Sanctuary do not involve additional construction (they are 

primarily legislative and regulation-related proposals). Development in the Crocodile Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge is considered unlikely. There are also 13 more parks within the region 

of interest and no reasonably foreseeable potential park improvements have been identified. 

When potential improvements occur, they are generally of smaller scope and have lower 

resource and personnel requirements than constructing a new nuclear power plant. Therefore, 

park improvements are not likely to result in a measurable cumulative impact. 

In Sections 4.8.3 and 5.8.6, the review team concluded that the impacts of transporting 

construction material and construction and operations personnel to and from the Turkey Point 

site are a small fraction of the existing nonradiological impacts in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

FPL has identified mitigation measures designed to improve traffic flow at the Turkey Point site 

(see Section 4.4.2.2.4). Based on the magnitude of nuclear power plant construction relative to 

the other construction activities listed in Table 7-1, the review team concludes the cumulative 

nonradiological transportation impacts of constructing and operating the proposed new reactors 

at the Turkey Point site would be SMALL, and it is likely no further mitigation would be 

warranted. 

As described in Section 6.2, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of transporting 

unirradiated fuel to the Turkey Point site and irradiated fuel and radioactive waste from the 

Turkey Point site would be SMALL. In addition to impacts from preconstruction, construction, 

and operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative transportation impacts. For this 

analysis, the geographic area of interest is the 50 mi region surrounding the Turkey Point site. 

Historically, the radiological impacts on the public and environment associated with 

transportation of radioactive materials in the 50 mi region surrounding the Turkey Point site 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-45 NUREG–2176 

have been primarily associated with shipments of fuel and waste to and from existing Turkey 

Point Units 3 and 4. Radiological impacts of transporting radioactive materials would occur 

along the routes leading to and from the Turkey Point site, fuel fabrication facilities, and waste 

disposal sites located in other parts of the United States. No other major activities with the 

potential for cumulative radiological impacts were identified in the geographic region of interest. 

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable impacts in the region surrounding the Turkey 

Point site are a small fraction of the impacts from natural background radiation. 

As discussed in Section 6.2, the addition of the proposed new units to the existing Turkey Point 

site would result in the need for additional unirradiated nuclear fuel and generation of additional 

spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. The impacts of transporting this fuel and radioactive 

waste to and from the Turkey Point site would be consistent with the environmental impacts 

associated with transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes from current-generation reactors 

presented in Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52 (TN250), which the NRC staff considers to be 

acceptable for the 1,100 MW(e) reference reactor. Advances in reactor technology and 

operations since the development of Table S–4 would reduce environmental impacts relative to 

the values in Table S–4. For example, fuel-management improvements have been adopted by 

nuclear power plants to achieve higher performance and to reduce fuel requirements. This 

leads to fewer unirradiated and spent fuel shipments than the 1,100 MW(e) reference reactor 

discussed in 10 CFR 51.52 (TN250). In addition, advances in shipping cask designs to increase 

their capabilities would result in fewer shipments of spent fuel to offsite storage or disposal 

facilities. 

Therefore, the NRC staff considers the cumulative radiological and nonradiological 

transportation impacts of operating the proposed new reactors at the Turkey Point site to be 

minimal. 

7.11.3 Decommissioning 

As discussed in Section 6.3, the environmental impacts from decommissioning are expected to 

be SMALL, because the licensee would have to comply with decommissioning regulatory 

requirements. 

In this cumulative analysis, the geographic area of interest is within a 50 mi radius of the Turkey 

Point site. In addition to proposed Units 6 and 7, the only other nuclear power plants within this 

geographic area of interest are the existing Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. In Supplement 1 to 

NUREG–0586, Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear 

Facilities, the NRC found the impacts on radiation dose to workers and the public, waste 

management, water quality, air quality, ecological resources, and socioeconomics to be small 

(NRC 2002-TN665). In addition, in Section 6.3 the NRC staff concluded that the impact of 

GHGs on air quality during decommissioning would be minimal. 

7.11.4 Summary of Cumulative Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Impacts 

Based on the analysis above, the cumulative impacts from fuel-cycle activities, transportation of 

radioactive material, and decommissioning would be SMALL, and additional mitigation would 

not be warranted. 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-46 October 2016 

7.12 Summary of Cumulative Impacts 

The review team considered the potential cumulative impacts resulting from construction, 

preconstruction, and operation of Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 together with past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions in the same resource-specific geographic area of interest. 

The specific resources that could be affected by the incremental effects of the proposed action 

and other actions listed in Table 7-1 were assessed. This assessment included the impacts of 

construction and operations for the proposed new units as described in Chapters 4 and 5: 

impacts of preconstruction activities as described in Chapter 4; impacts of fuel cycle, 

transportation, and decommissioning described in Chapter 6; and impacts of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private actions that could affect the same 

resources affected by the proposed action. 

Table 7-3 summarizes the cumulative impacts by resource area. The cumulative impacts for 

the majority of resource areas would be SMALL, although there could be MODERATE impacts 

for some resources as discussed below. 

Table 7-3. Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the Impacts of 

Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 

Resource Category Impact Level 

Land Use MODERATE 

Water-Related 

Water Use – Surface Water SMALL 

Water Use – Groundwater Use SMALL 

Water Quality – Surface Water MODERATE 

Water Quality – Groundwater SMALL 

Ecology 

Terrestrial Ecosystems MODERATE to LARGE 

Aquatic Ecosystems MODERATE 

Socioeconomic 

Physical Impacts SMALL adverse to MODERATE beneficial 

impacts on roads 

Demography SMALL 

Economic Impacts on the Community SMALL and beneficial 

Infrastructure and Community Services SMALL to MODERATE 

Environmental Justice NONE(a)

Historic and Cultural Resources MODERATE 

Air Quality SMALL to MODERATE for criteria 

pollutants and MODERATE for GHGs 

Nonradiological Health SMALL 

Radiological Health SMALL 

Nonradiological Waste SMALL 

Postulated Accidents SMALL 

Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning SMALL 

(a) A determination of “NONE” for environmental justice analyses does not mean there are no adverse impacts 

on minority or low-income populations from the proposed project. Instead, an indication of “NONE” should 

inform the reader that while there are adverse impacts, those impacts do not affect minority or low-income 

populations in any disproportionate manner, relative to the general population. 
Cumulative Impacts 

October 2016 7-47 NUREG–2176 

Land-use impacts from placement of new transmission lines would have a MODERATE impact 

on existing land uses while the incremental impacts of NRC-authorized activities would be 

SMALL. 

MODERATE cumulative impacts on land use result from a history of agricultural and urban 

development in portions of the geographic area of interest as well as possible land-use conflicts 

resulting from development of the proposed transmission lines that would serve Units 6 and 7. 

The incremental contribution of the overall Units 6 and 7 project would be MODERATE, 

primarily due to possible land-use conflicts from building and operating transmission lines in 

urban areas and national parks. However, the incremental contribution of NRC-authorized 

activities would be SMALL because the NRC does not authorize the building of transmission 

lines. 

MODERATE cumulative impacts on surface-water quality result from historical point and nonpoint-source discharges that have affected the water quality of streams and rivers near the 

Turkey Point site. Portions of the estuary and streams along the southeast Atlantic coast to 

Biscayne Bay appear on the final 2010 303(d) list as impaired waterbodies because of the 

presence of copper, fecal coliforms, mercury, and nutrients (FDEP 2010-TN1253). However, 

the incremental impacts from NRC-authorized activities would be SMALL and not contribute to 

the cumulative impacts. 

Cumulative impacts on terrestrial resources in the geographic area of interest would be 

MODERATE to LARGE. A range is provided because of the review team’s uncertainty about 

the possible effects from the complex interplay of habitat losses from building Units 6 and 7 

facilities; habitat loss and degradation from past, ongoing, and anticipated regional land 

development; the sensitivity of terrestrial habitats in the region to hydrological changes; and the 

number and distribution of Federally and State-listed species present in the region. Considering 

the wetland mitigation proposed for impacts from building the proposed Units 6 and 7 facilities, 

as well as mitigation measures that FPL proposes to develop with FWS to address possible 

avian impacts from the new transmission lines, the review team concludes that the possible 

incremental effects of construction, preconstruction, and operation of the Turkey Point Units 6 

and 7 project would be MODERATE. 

Cumulative impacts on aquatic resources in the geographic area of interest would be 

MODERATE primarily based on historic alterations to aquatic habitats and impacts on species 

within those habitats. The contribution to cumulative impacts from authorized NRC activities for 

proposed Units 6 and 7 would likely be SMALL and would not noticeably alter the ecology of the 

surrounding freshwater, estuarine, and marine environments, and therefore, would not 

significantly contribute to cumulative impacts. 

Because of the large population, labor force, and tax base of Miami-Dade County, cumulative 

socioeconomic impacts are likely to be SMALL and adverse, with the exception of physical 

impacts on buildings, and impacts on traffic in the vicinity of projects, which are likely to be 

MODERATE and adverse. There would be MODERATE and beneficial socioeconomic impacts 

on road quality near the existing Turkey Point site. 

Because of the potential for indirect visual impacts on cultural resources from the construction of 

offsite transmission lines, cumulative cultural resources impacts are likely to be MODERATE. 
Cumulative Impacts 

NUREG–2176 7-48 October 2016 

However, because the construction of transmission lines is not an NRC-authorized activity, the 

incremental impacts associated with the onsite NRC-authorized activities would not significantly 

contribute to cumulative impacts on cultural resources. 

MODERATE national and worldwide cumulative impacts of GHG emissions are noticeable but 

not destabilizing, with or without the GHG emissions of the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 

and 7. The incremental contribution of impacts on air-quality resources for both criteria 

pollutants and GHGs from building and operating the proposed units would be SMALL. 
October 2016 8-1 NUREG–2176 

8.0 NEED FOR POWER 

Chapter 8 of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) NUREG–1555, Environmental 

Standard Review Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000-TN614) guides the staff’s review and analysis of the 

need for power for a proposed nuclear power plant. The guidance states the following: 

Affected states or regions continue to prepare need-for-power evaluations for 

proposed energy facilities. The NRC will review the evaluation for the proposed 

facility and determine if it is (1) systematic, (2) comprehensive, (3) subject to 

confirmation, and (4) responsive to forecasting uncertainty. If the State’s or 

region’s need-for-power evaluation is found acceptable, no additional 

independent review by NRC is needed, and the State’s analysis can be the basis 

for ESRPs 8.2 through 8.4 (NRC 2000-TN614). 

In a 2003 response to a petition for rulemaking (68 FR 55905) (TN733), the NRC concluded that 

“... need for power must be addressed in connection with new power plant construction so that 

the NRC may weigh the likely benefits (e.g., electrical power) against the environmental impacts 

of constructing and operating a nuclear power reactor.” The NRC also stated in its response to 

the petition discussed above that (1) the NRC does not supplant the States, which have 

traditionally been responsible for assessing the need for power-generating facilities, their 

economic feasibility, and regulating rates and services; and (2) the NRC has acknowledged the 

primacy of State regulatory decisions regarding future energy options (68 FR 55905) (TN733). 

Consequently, the NRC staff’s role with regard to a need-for-power review is to identify whether 

an independently derived needs determination meets the four acceptability criteria and, if it 

does, report the conclusions of that independently derived determination. No independent 

assessment of the relevant service area’s need for power is necessary for the NRC staff to meet 

its responsibility under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) 

(TN661), as amended. 

The purpose and need for the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant (Turkey Point) Units 6 and 7 

project identified in Chapter 1 is to generate 2,200 MW(e) baseload power to meet the need for 

baseload power within the Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) service territory by 2027 and 

2028. In 2008, the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) analyzed the need for power 

upon which the NRC staff relied to reach its conclusion that there is a need for power from 

Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. The FPSC analysis showed a need for at least that amount of 

baseload power. Because the demand for baseload power is at least as much as the supply 

from Units 6 and 7, a need for the power exists. The following sections discuss the need for 

power in the context of FPSC’s determination (FPSC 2008-TN735).

8.1 Description of the Power System 

In Florida, investor-owned utilities such as FPL are regulated by a public service commission 

and serve a well-defined service territory. The State of Florida, through the FPSC, regulates 

FPL rates, electric service and grid reliability, and the planning and implementation of 

generation and transmission resources to serve loads within the FPL service territory. 

Expansion of FPL’s power system depends on the determination of the need for additional 
Need for Power 

NUREG–2176 8-2 October 2016 

power within the FPL service territory. In the case of the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, 

FPL has obtained a “Determination of Need” from the FPSC, based on Final Order 

PSC-08-0237-FOF-EI, dated April 11, 2008 (FPSC 2008-TN735). In its decision, FPSC 

provides its full reasoning, based on FPL’s petition and FPSC’s own analysis, for making its 

determination. For the purposes of this environmental impact statement (EIS), the NRC staff 

identified FPSC’s Determination of Need as an independently derived needs determination that 

was (1) systematic, (2) comprehensive, (3) subject to confirmation, and (4) responsive to 

forecasting uncertainty. Therefore, the NRC staff relied upon that FPSC Determination of Need 

for the remainder of this chapter of the EIS. 

The remainder of this chapter characterizes the institutional and physical characteristics of the 

FPL system, and the NRC staff’s basis for relying on FPSC’s Determination of Need. 

Section 8.1.1 reviews the current power system, including geographic considerations, and 

regional characteristics. Section 8.1.2 provides an assessment of the FPSC’s analytical 

processes in the context of the NRC’s four acceptability criteria. It discusses the specific criteria 

FPSC used to make its determination. Section 8.2 discusses some of the key factors affecting 

the demand for electricity and provides a table from the FPL Environmental Report (ER) 

(FPL 2014-TN4058) showing the FPL/FPSC analysis of future demand. Section 8.3 describes 

the FPL and FPSC assessments of the supply of electricity. Section 8.4 reports the FPSC’s 

conclusions regarding the determination of the need for power as proposed by FPL and verified 

by the FPSC evaluation. 

8.1.1 Description of the FPL System 

FPL is an investor-owned utility operating within a defined service territory in southern and 

northeastern Florida. It serves a population of approximately 10 million people within a 

27,650 mi2 area, and includes the large metropolitan areas of Miami and Fort Lauderdale (see 

Figure 8-1 for a map of FPL’s service area counties) (FPL 2016-TN4579). The region of 

influence for the proposed action is this 35-county area. 

The region of influence is within the administrative region of the Florida Reliability Coordinating 

Council (FRCC), which is an administrative subregion of the North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC). The FRCC, which includes investor-owned utilities, cooperative utilities, 

municipal utilities, Federal power agencies, power marketers, and independent power 

producers, was created to ensure the reliability and adequacy of current and future bulk 

electricity supply in Florida and the United States. The entire FRCC region is within the Eastern 

Interconnection of the alternating current power grid. 

FPL is part of an interconnected power network that enables power exchange between utilities. 

FPL is interconnected with 19 municipal and rural electric cooperative systems (FPL 2014-

TN4058). FPL’s transmission system includes approximately 6,897 circuit miles of transmission 

lines (FPL 2016-TN4579). In 2015, FPL had total summer capacity resources of approximately 

26,059 MW, consisting of system firm generation of 25,233 MW and 826 MW of firm purchased 

power (FPL 2016-TN4579). FPL provided electricity service to over 4.8 million customers in 

35 counties in 2015, including retail and wholesale customers, municipalities, utilities, and 

power agencies (FPL 2016-TN4579. 
Need for Power 

October 2016 8-3 NUREG–2176 

Figure 8-1. FPL Service Territory 

Table 8-1 illustrates recent trends in electricity sales by customer class (FPL 2016-TN4579). 

FPL relies on three measures of reliability in its resource planning. First, a deterministic 

measure known as “reserve margin” is used to reflect FPL’s ability to meet its forecasted 

seasonal peak load with firm capacity. Simply stated, the reserve margin is the percentage of a 

utility’s total available capacity that must be available for service (firm), over and above the 

system peak load, as insurance against forced outages and other planned or unplanned events 

that could cause outages. FPL uses a 20 percent minimum reserve margin criterion in its 
Need for Power 

NUREG–2176 8-4 October 2016 

resource-supply planning. It uses another measure of reliability—“loss of load probability”—that 

reflects the probability a company will be unable to meet its load throughout the year. This 

measure is a utility industry standard reflecting the maximum of 1 day in 10 years (one-tenth of 

a day per year) loss of load probability. Lastly, FPL has implemented a 10 percent generationonly reserve margin reliability criterion. This measure reflects the reserves provided only by 

actual generating resources. 

Table 8-1. Shares of Electricity Sales by FPL Customer Class (FPL 2016-TN4579) 

Customer Class 20011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

Residential (%) 51.8 51.2 51.4 50.3 50.5

Commercial (%) 42.7 43.3 43.2 41.6 40.7

Industrial (%) 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6

Wholesale (%) 2.1 2.1 2.1 4.9 5.7

Other (%) 51.8 51.2 51.4 50.3 50.5

Total (GWh) 105,502 104,462 104,943 109,763 116,430

8.1.2 Evaluation of the FPL Analytical Process 

In accordance with NUREG–1555 (NRC 2000-TN614), the NRC staff determined the analytical 

process and need-for-power evaluation performed by the FPSC met the four NRC criteria for 

being (1) systematic, (2) comprehensive, (3) subject to confirmation, and (4) responsive to 

forecasting uncertainty. The following sections describe how the FPSC process met the four 

NRC criteria. 

8.1.2.1 Systematic 

The NRC staff determined that FPSC used a systematic process for determining the need for 

the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. Regulatory provisions in Florida state that, on an 

annual basis, FPL must provide the most up-to-date forecast and expected resource portfolio, 

respective of all known current conditions. FPL accomplishes this through an iterative process 

for load forecasting, which is updated and reviewed annually as directed by the State through 

the FPSC. Load forecasts use utility industry best practices and methodological approaches to 

determine the utility’s need for power and the most cost-effective strategies to meet its 

regulatory obligations. In the Determination of Need proceedings, the FPSC staff and other 

witnesses indicated that FPL’s forecasts were reasonable for planning purposes, and the FPSC 

found that FPL had provided a reliable and appropriate basis for assessing the need for Turkey 

Point Units 6 and 7. Therefore, the regulatory provisions combined with FPSC’s Determination 

of Need Proceedings demonstrate to the NRC staff that a systematic process was applied for 

determining the need for Units 6 and 7. 

8.1.2.2 Comprehensive 

The NRC staff concluded FPSC’s analysis of issues affecting the need for power in the FPL 

service territory is comprehensive. The factors analyzed by FPSC include electric system 

reliability, the specific need for baseload capacity, the basis for forecasts and cost assumptions, 

the existence of viable alternatives, and cost-effectiveness. FPSC reviewed FPL’s peak 

demand and energy forecasts which incorporate key influencing factors, such as economic and 
Need for Power 

October 2016 8-5 NUREG–2176 

demographic trends, weather, and implemented load-reduction programs such as new energy 

efficiency and demand-side management (DSM) programs. Forecasts generated included each 

sector of the economy, and separate forecasts were developed to determine both short- and 

long-term demand. Power-supply forecasts include a comprehensive evaluation of present and 

planned generating capabilities as well as present and planned power purchases and sales in 

the service territory. FPL identified all existing generators by fuel type, planned expansions, 

new construction, and potential closure over the relevant time period, all of which FPSC found 

reasonable. All analyses are performed with forecasting and statistical modeling and 

methodological approaches appropriate for the power industry. 

The FPSC review process also takes into account the need for a reliable power system, fuel 

diversity, dependable supply of electricity, baseload power-generating capacity, adequate 

electricity at reasonable cost, and whether the project is the most cost-effective option 

(FPSC 2008-TN735). These factors are outside the authority of the NRC review, but 

demonstrate the standards of the FPSC Determination of Need review process. In view of the 

above, the NRC staff determined FPSC’s analysis of issues affecting the need for power in the 

FPL service territory is comprehensive. 

8.1.2.3 Subject to Confirmation 

The NRC staff concluded the process, models, and estimations used in the FPSC 

Determination of Need are subject to a rigorous confirmation process by expert witnesses and 

the general public. These proceedings and relevant findings are all documented in the Final 

Order issued by the FPSC (2008-TN735). The FPSC performed an independent analysis of the 

FPL assertions made in its application and affirmed the forecasting methods and results. The 

NRC staff reviewed the FPSC analysis conclusions and did not identify contradictory or 

unconfirmed conclusions in any other independent sources such as the NERC long-term 

reliability assessment (NERC 2008-TN734). Accordingly, the NRC staff determined FPSC’s 

process for making the Determination of Need was subject to confirmation. 

8.1.2.4 Responsive to Forecasting Uncertainty 

The NRC staff also determined that the FPSC Determination of Need was based on a 

forecasting methodology that incorporated uncertainty by the use of alternative scenario 

analysis and probabilistic modeling of the electrical system, which are standard industry 

practices. FPSC relied on FPL analyses that tested the validity of its overall forecast by 

analyzing the impact of alternative load forecasts (high, medium, and low). In addition, FPSC 

quantified uncertainty in the load forecast by evaluating the resource portfolios against 

variations in future sensitivities, such as fuel and construction costs, load forecasts, 

environmental laws and regulations, and risk. In doing so, FPL developed resource portfolios 

that quantify the long-term cost to customers under varying potential sensitivities while 

understanding the fundamental strengths and weaknesses of various resource configurations. 

Accordingly, the NRC staff determined the forecasting methodology relied upon by FPSC is 

responsive to forecasting uncertainty. 

8.2 Determination of Demand 

FPL performs demand forecasts to provide continuous service to its regulated service territory, 

meet its contractual commitments to wholesale customers, and contribute to the reliability of the 
Need for Power 

NUREG–2176 8-6 October 2016 

FRCC region. Forecasts are based on expected population growth and other economic factors. 

These analyses are contained in FPL’s annual 10-Year Site Plan and became the basis for 

FPL’s petition to the State of Florida for a Determination of Need for the proposed project. This 

process is governed by Section 403.519 of the Florida Statutes (Fla. Stat. 29-403.519-TN1057) 

and by Rule 25-22.080 of Florida Administrative Code (Fla. Admin. Code 25-22-TN1056). The 

FPSC reviewed FPL’s petition for a Determination of Need, which was submitted in October 

2007; and the resulting Final Order granting the petition was issued by the FPSC on April 11, 

2008 (FPSC 2008-TN735). 

8.2.1 Factors in the FPSC Determination of Need 

This section discusses key factors affecting the future demand for electricity that FPSC 

considered in the issuance of its Determination of Need Final Order. The FPSC provides an 

independent review of the FPL forecasts and other assertions to draw its own conclusions 

regarding the FPL case that a need exists for both proposed units at the Turkey Point site. 

Each section below describes a specific factor FPSC considered in granting its Determination of 

Need. 

8.2.1.1 Growth in Demand 

The principal factor affecting the change in demand for electricity over time is the change in the 

number and type of customers needing that power. Electrical demand and energy usage in 

Florida are unique compared to other states because residential customers make up the largest 

part of the customer base, composing over 89 percent of Florida’s electricity customers and 

consuming 52 percent of the total generating capacity available in the State. Because 

population projections are the key factor in determining the demand for electricity in Florida, FPL 

used population projections as one of its main independent variables. Therefore, FPL used 

population projections produced by the independent group IHS Global Insight to estimate 

growth in its customer base to develop its annual Ten-Year Power Plant Site Plan. FPL also 

applied standard State and national economic assumptions on growth that were produced by 

the IHS Global Insight. Florida’s population surpassed 20 million people in 2015 and is 

forecasted to exceed 23 million by 2025 (FPL 2016-TN4579). FPL projected that summer peak 

demand will grow from 22,959 MW in 2015 to 26,572 MW in 2025 (FPL 2016-TN4579). 

8.2.1.2 Electric System Reliability 

One of the most important functions of an electricity generating unit is to contribute to the 

protection of the overall distribution system by producing more electricity than its service area 

demands. This approach is taken as a hedge against unforeseen emergencies that could 

disrupt the delivery of electricity. This excess production capacity is commonly called a “reserve 

margin,” and FPL applies a 20 percent reserve margin to all of its demand projections 

(FPL 2014-TN4058). The FPSC reviewed FPL’s assertion that, without the proposed action, 

FPL would be unable to maintain its minimum reserve margin planning requirement beginning in 

2018. FPSC also reviewed FPL’s assertion that with no growth in demand, there is a need for 

power solely from power plant retirements and expiration of purchase power agreements. The 

FPSC found no issue with the forecast assumptions, regression models, and projected system 

peak demands provided by FPL for this petition and affirmed FPL’s reliance on the 20 percent 
Need for Power 

October 2016 8-7 NUREG–2176 

reserve margin. Table 8-2 presents FPL’s reserve margin analysis used in FPL’s petition to the 

State of Florida for a Determination of Need (FPSC 2008-TN735). FPL’s current summer 

reserve margin forecast has changed as have the startup dates for Units 6 and 7. The current 

summer reserve margin forecast is shown in Table 8-2. 

Table 8-2. FPL Summer Reserve Margin Forecast by Case (FPSC 2008-TN735) 

Year 

FPL Reserve Margin (%) 

w/ Units 6 and 7(a) w/o Units 6 and 7(a) No Growth, 2008−2012(b)

2015 23.6 23.6 28.3 

2016 20.6 20.6 19.3 

2017 21.2 21.2 16.5 

2018 22.9 18.6 13.9 

2019 20.4 16.2 11.4 

2020 21.9 13.7 8.8 

(a) Includes previously certified nuclear uprates in 2012 and 2013 as well as new uncertified gas 

combined-cycle units in 2011, 2015, 2016, and 2017. 

(b) Includes previously certified nuclear uprates in 2012 and 2013, but no new gas units. 

8.2.1.3 Fuel Diversity 

FPSC reviewed FPL’s assertion that without the proposed action, nuclear power generation 

would decline to 16 percent of its portfolio by 2021 and cause FPL to rely on natural-gas power 

generation for up to 75 percent of its power generation. Under Section 403.519 of the Florida 

Statutes as amended (Fla. Stat. 29-403.519-TN1057), the FPSC is mandated to consider fuel 

diversity in its evaluation of electricity generation expansion plans. Section 403.519(4) (b) of the 

Florida Statutes (Fla. Stat. 29-403.519-TN1057) directs FPSC to account for reductions in the 

State’s dependence on foreign natural gas and fuel oil. The FPSC concluded FPL 

demonstrated that the proposed action is needed to maintain a diverse fuel supply, reduce the 

State’s dependence on natural gas, and provide a significant source of non-carbon-emitting 

baseload generation. 

8.2.1.4 Baseload Capacity 

The FPSC reviewed FPL’s assertion that without the proposed action FPL would not meet its 

baseload needs and reduce carbon emissions because most renewable generation cannot 

provide baseload capacity. FPSC found that the addition of proposed Units 6 and 7 to the fleet 

would enable FPL to meet part of its baseload need without the use of more carbon-emitting 

generation. FPSC found that, by 2020, FPL’s baseload needs are expected to increase by 

6,000 MW, and even with substantial decreases in load forecasts or increases in DSM and 

renewable generation, the need for Units 6 and 7 would remain. The FPSC also found that the 

expected high capacity rates of Units 6 and 7 would represent a substantial addition of baseload 

capacity in the FPL system. Therefore, neither renewable generation resources nor DSM 

resources currently available or in the foreseeable future could provide enough baseload 

capacity to avoid or mitigate the need that would be met by the proposed action. 

8.2.1.5 Adequate Electricity at a Reasonable Cost 

The FPSC reviewed FPL’s assertion that relative to fossil fuels, nuclear fuel will continue to be 

the most stable in price and lowest-cost fuel available to FPL. The FPSC found FPL’s economic 
Need for Power 

NUREG–2176 8-8 October 2016 

assumptions and estimates of capital cost, transmission cost, and fuel price to be reasonable. 

These findings are based on FPSC’s own analyses and on testimony from several expert 

witnesses (FPSC 2008-TN735). 

The FPSC reviewed whether FPL included a reasonable level of environmental compliance 

costs associated with the proposed action. The FPSC found that because nuclear power 

generation is a non-carbon-emitting power-generation source, an increase in environmental 

compliance costs associated with expected carbon dioxide (CO2) regulation would increase the 

overall cost-effectiveness of the proposed new units. Because these costs have not yet been 

imposed but are expected to be imposed by the time the proposed units become operational, 

conclusions are based on four independent assessments of potential CO2 compliance costs. 

8.2.1.6 Demand-Side Management and Renewable Energy Sources and Technologies 

In its analysis of the Determination of Need for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, the FPSC 

considered the availability of viable alternatives. Its findings relative to alternatives are 

presented here to fully characterize the FPSC’s decision about the need for the new units. The 

NRC analysis of potential alternatives to Units 6 and 7 is documented in Chapter 9 of this EIS. 

Based on the record reported in its Final Order (FPSC 2008-TN735), the FPSC found that there 

are no renewable energy resources, technologies, DSM options, or other conservation 

measures reasonably available to FPL that could supply the need for 2,200 MW(e) of baseload 

power that Units 6 and 7 would provide. The record reflects the following observations by the 

FPSC: 

 FPL has searched and continues to search for reliable renewable generation sources and 

technologies. 

 FPL offers a wide range of residential and commercial DSM programs, such as load 

management, building envelope, lighting, and air-conditioning programs. 

 Although FPL’s load forecast assumes the addition of 144 MW of renewable firm capacity to 

its portfolio and the extension of 143 MW of renewable firm capacity from expiring municipal 

waste-to-energy contracts, additional capacity still would be needed to meet the need for 

baseload generation. 

 FPL’s DSM programs through 2009 resulted in summer peak reduction of 4,257 MW and 

energy savings of 51,055 GWh at the generator. In 2004, FPL received approval for 802 

MW (at the generator) of additional DSM from 2006 to 2014. By 2020, an additional 1,899 

MW (at the generator) of additional summer demand reduction is expected (FPL 2014-

TN4058). 

8.2.1.7 Most Cost-Effective Source of Power 

In accordance with Section 403.519(4) of the Florida Statutes (Fla. Stat. 29-403.519-TN1057), 

the FPSC reviewed FPL’s assertion that the proposed action would provide the most costeffective source of power. The FPSC found the breadth of planning scenarios that FPL 

analyzed, including 18 different fuel-cost and/or environmental-cost scenarios, provided a 

reasonable basis for considering the question of cost-effectiveness. These scenarios included 

nine different fuel-cost forecasts (low, medium, and high) and environmental-cost projections. 
Need for Power 

October 2016 8-9 NUREG–2176 

Subsequent FPSC reviews showed the proposed action to be cost-effective in 17 of the 

18 scenarios. None of the FPL scenarios included potential Federal incentives that, if 

considered, would serve to increase the cost-effectiveness in all cases. 

Because cost savings were projected from seven of the eight plausible projection cases 

identified, the FPSC concluded it is highly likely that FPL rate payers would realize net benefits 

over the life of the proposed new units. It found that the proposed action is projected to result in 

nearly $1 billion in fuel-cost savings beginning in 2021 and about $94 billion over the life of the 

permits when compared to reasonable combined-cycle alternatives. According to the FPSC, 

because nuclear generation is considered a “non-emitting” technology for greenhouse gas 

emissions, the higher the CO2-compliance costs imposed on other technologies, the more costeffective the proposed action becomes. 

The FPSC also recognized the role of uncertainty with long lead-time projects such as nuclear 

power generation, as well as the Florida provisions for early cost recovery through rate 

increases. As a result, the FPSC recommends that FPL continue to pursue joint ownership 

opportunities as a means to mitigate rate impacts. Therefore, as part of annual cost-recovery 

proceedings ordered by the FPSC, FPL must provide updates on its progress in this regard. As 

part of the annual cost-recovery proceedings, FPL must provide the FPSC with updated fuel 

forecasts, environmental forecasts, non-binding capital cost estimates, and an accounting of 

sunk costs. The FPSC then will consider each year’s new information and determine the 

feasibility of continued construction of the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. 

8.2.2 FPL’s Demand for Electricity 

This section reproduces the expected demand for electricity (Table 8-3) developed by FPL for 

the ER’s Chapter 8, Need for Power. The forecasted values for 2016 through 2025 in Table 8-3 

are taken from FPL’s Ten-Year Plan (FPL 2016-TN4579). Values from 2026 through 2031 (three 

years after startup of the last unit) were derived using the growth rate from 2021 through 2025. 

8.3 Determination of Supply 

The FPSC reported in its 2008 Determination of Need that in 2006, FPL’s generation capacity 

profile in Florida was approximately as follows: 18 percent coal generated, 50 percent naturalgas generated, and 21 percent nuclear generated (FPSC 2008-TN735). 

For its power-supply and capacity forecasts, FPL considered its present and planned generating 

capabilities (including planned uprates, closures of facilities, and additional new powergeneration facilities), present and planned purchases of power from generators outside the 

service territory, and its sales of power to consumers outside the service territory. 

FPL is expected to fall below the 20 percent summer reserve margin requirement in 2029. In 

2028 the generation-only reserve margin would drop below the 10 percent requirement to 9.7 

percent. Table 8-4 below shows the forecasted capacities and reserve margins from 2016 

through 2031 (FPL 2016-TN4579). The forecasted values for 2016 through 2025 in Table 8-4 

are taken from FPL’s Ten-Year Plan (FPL 2016-TN4579). Values from 2026 through 2031 were 

derived using the growth rate from 2021 through 2025 or, in the case of other public authorities, 

railroads, and railways, values were held constant. In the case of street and highway lighting 

10 GW were added each year in keeping with the trend in the FPL Ten-Year Plan. 
NUREG–2176 8-10 October 2016 

Need for Power Table 8-3. Forecasted Energy Consumption, Capacity, and Peak Demand Residential (GWh) Commercial (GWh) Industrial (GWh) Railroads and Railways (GWh) Street and Highway Lighting (GWh) Other Public Authorities (GWh) Total Sales (GWh) Sales for Resale (GWh) Utility Use and Losses (GWh) Net Energy for Load (GWh) 2016 57,282 46,420 3,173 91 478 23 107,467 6,524 5,730 119,614 

2017 57,100 46,424 3,255 91 488 23 107,382 5,988 5,606 118,821 2018 57,493 46,616 3,319 91 499 23 108,041 6,013 5,702 119,552 2019 57,889 46,822 3,368 91 509 23 108,703 6,084 5,735 120,266 2020 58,627 47,245 3,407 91 519 23 109,913 6,156 5,814 121,574 2021 59,108 47,485 3,438 91 529 23 110,674 5,651 5,811 121,771 2022 59,557 47,687 3,461 91 539 23 111,359 5,202 5,817 121,954 2023 60,033 47,930 3,479 91 549 23 112,106 5,278 5,857 122,756 2024 60,524 48,235 3,492 91 559 23 112,924 5,354 5,894 123,625 2025 61,034 48,454 3,501 91 569 23 113,673 5,432 5,957 124,452 2026 61,525 48,699 3,517 91 579 23 114,434 5,379 5,994 125,131 2027 62,020 48,946 3,533 91 589 23 115,202 5,326 6,031 125,815 2028 62,520 49,194 3,549 91 599 23 115,975 5,273 6,069 126,501 2029 63,023 49,443 3,565 91 609 23 116,754 5,221 6,107 127,192 2030 63,530 49,693 3,581 91 619 23 117,537 5,170 6,145 127,886 2031 64,041 49,945 3,598 91 629 23 118,327 5,119 6,183 128,585 

Source: FPL 2016-TN4579 
October 2016 8-11 NUREG–2176 

Need for Power 

Table 8-4. Forecasted Capacities and Reserve Margins during the Summer Peak Period 

August 

of the 

Year 

Projections 

of FPL Unit 

Capacity 

(MW) 

Projections 

of Firm 

Purchases 

(MW) 

Projection of 

Total Capacity 

(MW) 

Peak Load 

Forecast 

(MW) 

Summer 

DSM 

Forecast 

(MW) 

Forecast of 

Firm Peak 

(MW) 

Forecast 

of 

Summer 

Reserves 

(MW) 

Forecast 

of 

Summer 

Reserve 

Margins 

(%) 

Forecast of 

GenerationOnly 

Summer 

Reserves 

(MW) 

Forecast of 

GenerationOnly 

Summer 

Reserve 

Margins 

(%) 

2016 26,513 726 27,238 24,170 1,842 22,327 4,911 22.0 3,068 12.7 2017 26,003 879 26,882 24,336 1,935 22,401 4,481 20.0 2,546 10.5 

2018 25,984 1150 27,134 24,606 1,995 22,611 4,522 20.0 2,528 10.3 2019 27,657 826 28,482 24,893 2,041 22,852 5,630 24.6 3,589 14.4 

2020 27,812 444 28,256 25,206 2,088 23,117 5,138 22.2 3,050 12.1 

2021 27,899 624 28,523 25,316 2,136 23,180 5,343 23.0 3,207 12.7 

2022 27,984 624 28,608 25,540 2,185 23,355 5,252 22.5 3,068 12.0 

2023 27,983 624 28,607 25,833 2,234 23,599 5,008 21.2 2,774 10.7 

2024 29,605 624 30,228 26,180 2,284 23,896 6,332 26.5 4,048 15.5 

2025 29,604 624 30,227 26,572 2,334 24,238 5,989 24.7 3,655 13.8 

2026 29,604 624 30,228 26,896 2,387 24,510 5,718 23.3 3,332 12.4 

2027 29,604 624 30,228 27,223 2,440 24,785 5,443 22.0 3,005 11.0 

2028 29,604 624 30,228 27,555 2,495 25,063 5,165 20.6 2,673 9.7 

2029 29,604 624 30,228 27,890 2,552 25,344 4,884 19.3 2,338 8.4 

2030 29,604 624 30,228 28,230 2,609 25,629 4,599 17.9 1,998 7.1 

2031 29,604 624 30,228 28,574 2,668 25,916 4,312 16.6 1,654 5.8 

Source: FPL 2016-TN4579 
Need for Power 

NUREG–2176 8-12 October 2016 

8.4 Conclusions 

As stated in Section 8.0, the NRC acknowledges the primacy of states to assess and regulate 

their own power needs. The State of Florida has officially determined that there is a need for 

about 6,000 MW (e) of additional baseload electricity generation by 2020. Further, the State 

has determined that, for many reasons, the need should be filled by the proposed action of 

constructing and operating Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. The FPSC granted FPL a Determination 

of Need for Units 6 and 7 in April of 2008. The NRC staff outlined in Section 8.1 how the FPSC 

process was (1) systematic, (2) comprehensive, (3) subject to confirmation, and (4) responsive 

to forecasting uncertainty. Because its review process met the NRC’s four criteria for reliability, 

the NRC staff finds no reason to challenge the FPSC conclusions. Consequently, the NRC staff 

finds the applicant’s need for power conclusions to be reasonable and establishes a positive 

need for power for the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. 
October 2016 9-1 NUREG–2176 

9.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

This chapter describes alternatives to the proposed U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) action for a combined construction permit and operating license (combined license or 

COL) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE’s) action for a Department of the Army 

(DA) permit and discusses the environmental impacts of those alternatives. Section 9.1 

discusses the no-action alternative. Section 9.2 addresses alternative energy sources. Section 

9.3 reviews the region of interest (ROI) evaluated in the site-selection process, the Florida 

Power & Light Company (FPL) site-selection process, details specific to each one of the 

respective alternative sites, and summarizes and compares the cumulative environmental 

impacts for the proposed and alternative sites. Section 9.4 examines plant design alternatives. 

The need to compare the proposed action with alternatives arises from the requirement in 

Section 102(2)(c)(iii) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) 

(42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (TN661), that environmental impact statements (EISs) include an 

analysis of alternatives to the proposed action. The NRC implements this requirement through 

its regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51 (TN250) and its 

Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000-TN614). The environmental impacts 

of the alternatives are evaluated using the NRC’s three-level standard of significance—SMALL, 

MODERATE, or LARGE—developed using Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines 

(40 CFR 1508.27) (TN428) and set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 

(TN250), Subpart A, Appendix B. The issues evaluated in this chapter are the same as those 

addressed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Plants, NUREG–1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3 (NRC 2013-TN2654). Although NUREG–1437 was 

developed for license renewal, it provides useful information for the review of new reactors, and 

is referenced where appropriate throughout this chapter. Additional guidance on conducting 

environmental reviews is provided in Interim Staff Guidance on Environmental Issues 

Associated with New Reactors (NRC 2014-TN3767). 

As part of the evaluation of permit applications subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 

the USACE is required by regulation to apply the criteria set forth in the joint U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE CWA Section 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR Part 230) 

(TN427) (hereinafter “404 (b)(1) Guidelines”). These guidelines establish criteria that must be 

met for the proposed activities to be permitted pursuant to Section 404, which governs 

specification of disposal sites for dredged or fill material. Specifically, the 404(b)(1) Guidelines 

state, in part, that no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a 

practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that would have less adverse impacts on the 

aquatic ecosystem provided the alternative does not have other significant adverse 

consequences. An area not presently owned by the applicant that could reasonably be 

obtained, used, expanded, or managed to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity may 

be considered if it is otherwise a practicable alternative. The USACE will conclude its Clean 

Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and public interest analyses in its Record of Decision. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-2 October 2016 

9.1 No-Action Alternative 

For the purposes of an application for a COL, the no-action alternative refers to a scenario in 

which the NRC would deny the COLs requested by FPL, which would result in the proposed 

Units 6 and 7 not being built. The USACE no-action alternative is one that results in no 

construction requiring a DA permit. This could be accomplished by the applicant minimizing 

project impacts so that all work under the jurisdiction of USACE is eliminated or by USACE 

denying the DA permit application. Upon receiving such a denial by the NRC or the USACE, 

the construction and operation of two new nuclear units at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant 

(Turkey Point) site in accordance with 10 CFR Part 52 (TN251) would not occur and the 

predicted environmental impacts associated with the project would not occur. Some 

preconstruction impacts associated with activities not within the NRC’s definition of construction 

at 10 CFR 50.10(a) (TN249) and 10 CFR 51.4 (TN250) may occur nonetheless. However, no 

activities, including preconstruction activities, involving the discharge of dredged or fill materials 

into waters of the United States or work in navigable waters of the Unites States, could occur 

without a DA permit from the USACE. 

If no other power plants were to be built in lieu of the proposed project or other strategy 

implemented to take its place, the benefits of the additional electrical capacity and electricity 

generation to be provided by the project would not occur. If no additional measures (e.g., 

conservation, importing power, restarting retired power plants, and/or extending the life of 

existing power plants) were implemented to realize the amount of electrical capacity that would 

otherwise be required for power in FPL’s ROI (see Section 9.3.1), then the need for baseload 

power, discussed in Chapter 8, would not be met. Therefore, the purpose and need of this 

project would not be satisfied if the no-action alternative was chosen and the need for power 

was not met by other means. 

If other generation sources were installed, either at another site or using a different energy 

source, the environmental impacts associated with these other sources would eventually occur. 

As discussed in Chapter 8, there is a demonstrated need for power and FPL has regulatory 

responsibilities in Florida to provide electrical service in its service area. It is reasonable to 

assume that other options to meet the need for power would be pursued. This needed power 

may be provided and supported through several alternatives that are discussed in Sections 9.2 

and 9.3. 

9.2 Energy Alternatives 

The purpose and need for the proposed project identified in Section 1.3 is to provide additional 

baseload electrical generation capacity for use in FPL’s current markets. This section examines 

the potential environmental impacts associated with alternatives to construction of a new 

baseload nuclear power plant. Section 9.2.1 discusses energy alternatives not requiring new 

generating capacity. Section 9.2.2 discusses energy alternatives requiring new generating 

capacity. Other alternatives are discussed in Section 9.2.3. A combination of alternatives is 

discussed in Section 9.2.4. Section 9.2.5 compares the environmental impacts from new 

nuclear, coal-fired, and natural-gas−fired generating units and a combination of energy sources 

at the Turkey Point site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-3 NUREG–2176 

For analysis of energy alternatives, FPL assumed a bounding target value of 2,200 MW(e) net 

electrical output (FPL 2014-TN4058). The NRC staff also used this level of output in its analysis 

of energy alternatives. 

The review team’s analysis is based on in-service dates of 2027 for Unit 6 and of 2028 for Unit 7 

based on FPL’s COL Revision 7 (FPL 2015-TN4502). Even if the actual in-service date were to 

slip by a few years, the NRC staff would not expect such a change to affect the overall 

conclusions regarding energy alternatives for two reasons. First, the projections by FPL and by 

the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA) that the NRC staff 

has used in its analyses do not change appreciably in the later years and are generally 

consistent with the data used for 2028. Second, the environmental impacts of the feasible 

alternatives are not likely to change appreciably, so the NRC staff’s conclusions regarding 

environmental preferability are unlikely to change. 

9.2.1 Alternatives Not Requiring New Generating Capacity 

Four alternatives to the proposed action that do not require FPL to construct new generating 

capacity are as follows: 

 Purchase the needed electric power from other suppliers. 

 Extend the operating life of existing power plants. 

 Reactivate retired power plants. 

 Implement conservation or demand-side management programs. 

9.2.1.1 Purchased Power 

If power to replace the capacity of the proposed new nuclear units was to be purchased from 

sources within the United States or from a foreign country, the generating technology likely 

would be one of those described in NUREG–1437 (e.g., coal, natural gas, or nuclear) 

(NRC 2013-TN2654). The environmental impacts of other technologies described in 

the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, 

(NUREG–1437) are representative of the impacts associated with the construction and 

operation of new generating units at the Turkey Point site. The environmental impacts of coalfired and natural-gas−fired plants are discussed in Sections 9.2.2.1 and 9.2.2.2, respectively. 

Under the purchased power alternative, the environmental impacts of power production would 

still occur, but they would occur elsewhere in the region or nation. If the purchased power 

alternative was to be implemented, the most significant environmental unknown would be 

whether new transmission line corridors would be required. The construction of new 

transmission lines could have both environmental and aesthetic consequences, particularly if 

new transmission lines require new corridors (as opposed to collocating new lines with existing 

lines in existing corridors). The review team concludes that the local environmental impacts 

from purchased power would be SMALL when existing transmission line corridors are used and 

could range from SMALL to LARGE if acquisition of new corridors is required. The overall 

environmental impacts of power generation would depend on the generation technology and 

location of the generation site and, therefore, are unknown. However, as discussed in Section 

9.2.5, the NRC staff concluded that from an environmental perspective, none of the viable 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-4 October 2016 

energy alternatives would be clearly preferable to construction of a new baseload nuclear 

power-generation plant located within FPL’s ROI. 

9.2.1.2 Reactivating Retired Power Plants or Extending Operating Life 

In its Environmental Report (ER) (FPL 2014-TN4058), FPL acknowledged that reactivating or 

extending the service life of existing plants or extending their capacity through power uprates or 

other efficiency improvements could theoretically reduce the need for a new nuclear power 

station. FPL also noted in the 2014 Ten-Year Plan (FPL 2014-TN3360) that it has completed 

power uprates at FPL’s four existing nuclear units (Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 and St. Lucie 

Units 1 and 2). The capacity uprates have added approximately 520 MW of capacity to FPL’s 

system. In addition, FPL has already received renewed licenses for all of its existing nuclear 

units that extend the licenses through 2032 to 2043 (depending on the unit). Because 

extending the service life of these nuclear plants and constructing the proposed Turkey Point 

Units 6 and 7 are both already considered as part of FPL’s future baseload generation capacity, 

the NRC staff concludes that extending the service life of the existing nuclear plants alone is not 

a feasible alternative to the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. 

Another potential strategy is repowering one or more of FPL’s existing generating plants. 

Repowering involves modifying a plant to use a different fuel source. In its ER, FPL described 

plans that were approved by the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) in September 2008 

and were incorporated in FPL's recent Integrated Resource Plan to repower two existing 

generating plants, Cape Canaveral and Riviera Beach, each of which consists of two older 

fossil-fuel−fired steam-generating units that will be converted into new highly efficient naturalgas combined-cycle units. The two-unit plant at FPL's Cape Canaveral site has been replaced 

with a new combined-cycle plant that has an output of approximately 1,210 MW. This new unit 

is called the Cape Canaveral Next-Generation Clean Energy Center. The two-unit plant at 

FPL's Riviera site has also been replaced by a new combined-cycle plant that has an output of 

approximately 1,210 MW. In its 2016 Ten-Year Plan, FPL noted that the old units at Port 

Everglades were also replaced, and FPL will add another highly fuel-efficient combined-cycle 

unit in Okeechobee County in 2019 (FPL 2016-TN4579). 

Older existing fossil-fueled plants, predominately coal-fired and natural-gas−fired plants, are 

likely to need refurbishing to extend plant life for an extended period (the proposed action 

assumes a minimum operating period of 40 years), and meeting current environmental 

requirements would also be costly. Such plants would typically be old enough that the 

refurbished plants would likely be viewed as new sources, subject to the current-day 

complement of regulatory controls on air emissions and waste management. In the ER of its 

COL application, FPL identified some deactivated generators within its service area (FPL 2014-

TN4058). None of these retired units individually would be able to meet the proposed 

2,200 MW(e) output of the Units 6 and 7. The review team also concluded that it is unlikely that 

a combination of retired units could be developed to meet this demand and successfully meet 

applicable environmental requirements. In addition, FPL’s 2016 Ten-Year Plan no longer 

considers reactivation of these older units (FPL 2016-TN4579). 

Retired generating plants, predominately coal-fired and natural-gas−fired plants that potentially 

could be reactivated, would ordinarily require extensive refurbishment prior to reactivation. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-5 NUREG–2176 

Such vintage plants would typically require costly refurbishment to meet current environmental 

requirements. The environmental impacts of any reactivation scenario would be bounded by 

the impacts associated with coal-fired and natural-gas−fired alternatives (Section 9.2.2), which 

the NRC staff concludes are not environmentally preferable to the proposed actions (Section 

9.2.5). Given both these refurbishment costs and the environmental impacts of operating such 

facilities, the NRC staff concludes that reactivating retired generating plants would not be a 

reasonable alternative to the proposed action. 

9.2.1.3 Energy Efficiency and Demand-Side Management 

Improved energy efficiency and demand-side management (DSM) strategies can potentially 

cost less than construction of new generation and provide a hedge against market, fuel, and 

environmental risks. The FPSC approved FPL’s current DSM plan in an Order dated August 

16, 2011 (FPSC 2011-TN1357), as confirmed in an Order dated December 22, 2011 

(FPSC 2011-TN1358). See docket 100155-EG on the FPSC website for more details. In 

approving the FPL plan, the FPSC determined that two other plans that would have increased 

DSM would be too costly to the FPL customers. On April 2, 2014, FPL submitted an updated 

DSM Plan to the FPSC for its review (see docket 130199). New DSM goals for FPL for the 

2015 through 2024 time period were set by the FPSC in December 2014. FPL accounts for 

these DSM goals in its planning process and extends the annual level of DSM beyond the year 

2024 (FPL 2016-TN4579). 

The need-for-power discussion in Chapter 8 takes planned energy efficiency and DSM 

programs into account. The NRC staff concluded in Chapter 8 that there is a justified need for 

power in the FPL service territory even with the implementation of conservation and DSM 

programs. The NRC staff concludes that improved energy efficiency and DSM programs would 

not be a reasonable alternative to the proposed action. 

9.2.1.4 Summary Statement Regarding Alternatives Not Requiring New Generating Capacity 

Based on the preceding discussion, the NRC staff concludes that the options of purchasing 

electric power from other suppliers, reactivating retired power plants, extending the operating 

life of existing power plants, and energy efficiency and DSM programs are not reasonable 

alternatives to providing new baseload power-generation capacity. 

9.2.2 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity 

Consistent with the NRC’s evaluation of alternatives to operating license renewal for nuclear 

power plants, a reasonable set of energy alternatives to the building and operation of two new 

nuclear units at the Turkey Point site should be limited to analysis of discrete power-generation 

sources, a combination of sources, and those power-generation technologies that are 

technically reasonable and commercially viable (NRC 2013-TN2654). The current mix of 

baseload power-generation options in Florida is one indicator of the feasible choices for powergeneration technology within the state. The electricity produced in Florida in 2014 came mainly 

from coal (22.6 percent), natural gas (60.9 percent), and nuclear energy (12.1 percent) 

(DOE/EIA 2016-TN4584). The balance came from renewable energy (2.3 percent, including 

hydropower) and miscellaneous sources (2.1 percent). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-6 October 2016 

This section discusses the environmental impacts of energy alternatives to the proposed action 

that would require FPL to construct new generating capacity. The three primary energy sources 

for generating electric power in the United States are coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy 

(DOE/EIA 2016-TN4620, Table 8). Natural-gas combined-cycle power-generation plants are 

often used as intermediate generation sources, but they are also used as baseload generation 

sources (SSI 2010-TN1405). 

Each year, the EIA, a component of the DOE, issues an Annual Energy Outlook. In its updated 

Annual Energy Outlook 2016, the EIA’s reference case projects that total electric generating 

capacity additions between 2015 and 2040 will add 483 GW of new generating capacity using 

the following fuels (in GW and the approximate percentages of the total increase): natural gas(1)

(171 GW/35 percent), renewables (302 GW/63 percent), nuclear (4 GW/1 percent), and coal 

(1 GW/2 percent) (DOE/EIA 2016-TN4621, Table 9). DOE/EIA also predicts that total coal 

capacity will decrease by 99 GW by 2040 (DOE/EIA 2016-TN4621, Table 9). The EIA 

projection includes baseload, intermittent, and peaking units and is based on the assumption 

that providers of new generating capacity would seek to minimize cost while meeting applicable 

environmental requirements. 

The discussion in Section 9.2.2 is limited to a reasonable range of the individual energy 

alternatives that appear to be viable for new baseload generation: coal-fired and natural-gas 

combined-cycle generation. The impacts discussed in Section 9.2.2 are estimates based on 

present technology. Section 9.2.3 addresses alternative generation technologies that have 

demonstrated commercial acceptance but may be limited in application, total capacity, or 

technical feasibility when based on the need to supply reliable, baseload capacity. 

The review team assumed that (1) new generation capacity would be located at the Turkey 

Point site for the coal- and natural-gas−fired alternatives,(2) (2) the cooling approach planned for 

proposed Units 6 and 7 (Section 3.2.2.2) would be used for plant cooling, and (3) two new 

500 kV circuits and three new 230 kV circuits would be built to serve a new coal- or naturalgas−fired plant sited at the Turkey Point site, consistent with the FPL proposal for Units 6 and 7 

(FPL 2014-TN4058). 

9.2.2.1 Coal-Fired Power Generation 

For the coal-fired generation alternative, the NRC staff assumed construction of four pulverizedcoal−fired units, each with a total net capacity of 550 MW(e). The team’s estimates of coal 

consumption, coal-combustion technology, air emissions, and waste products are based on the 

EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors document (EPA AP-42), Section 1.1, 

Bituminous and Subbituminous Coal Combustion (EPA 2011-TN1088). The NRC staff also 

assumed that additional transmission line corridors would be acquired, as discussed in Section 

2.2.2. The plant was assumed to have an operating life of 40 years. Because FPL assumed a 

 

(1) This includes the projections for “combined cycle,” “combustion turbine/diesel,” and “distributed 

generation (natural gas).” 

(2) The land needed for the coal alternative might exceed the land available at the site. The applicant 

might choose to locate the plant elsewhere or dispose of coal-combustion products in an offsite 

location in such a case. However, for the purposes of this analysis the review team assumed all 

facilities would be at the Turkey Point site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-7 NUREG–2176 

pulverized-coal−fired alternative would consist of three boiler units, each with a net capacity of 

728.4 MW (FPL 2014-TN4058), the NRC staff compared its analyses to FPL’s COL application 

and found the results to be consistent. 

Because the nearest rail line is 11 mi by road from the Turkey Point site (FPL 2014-TN4058), 

the rail line would have to be extended to the site or coal deliveries would have to be 

accomplished by barge. In its ER, FPL assumed that coal would be delivered to the site by 

barge, in the same way that fuel oil had been delivered previously for Units 1 and 2 (FPL 2014-

TN4058). The NRC staff used this assumption in its analysis. 

The NRC staff also considered integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) coal-fired plants. 

IGCC is an emerging technology for generating electricity with coal that combines modern coal 

gasification technology with both gas turbine and steam turbine power generation. The 

technology is cleaner than conventional pulverized-coal plants because major pollutants can be 

removed from the gas stream before combustion. The IGCC alternative also generates less 

solid waste than the pulverized-coal−fired alternative. The largest solid-waste stream produced 

by IGCC installations is slag—a black, glassy, sand-like material that is potentially a marketable 

byproduct. The other large-volume byproduct produced by IGCC plants is gypsum, which is 

produced when sulfur is extracted during the gasification process, and it can be marketed rather 

than placed in a landfill. IGCC units do not produce ash or scrubber wastes. In spite of the 

preceding advantages, the NRC staff concludes that, at present, a new IGCC plant is not a 

reasonable alternative to a 2,200 MW(e) nuclear power-generation facility for the following 

reasons: (1) IGCC plants are more expensive than comparable pulverized-coal plants 

(NETL 2010-TN1423), (2) the existing IGCC plants in the United States have considerably 

smaller plant capacity than the proposed 2,200 MW(e) nuclear plant,3 (3) system reliability of 

existing IGCC plants has been lower than that of pulverized-coal plants, and (4) a lack of overall 

plant performance warranties for IGCC plants has hindered commercial financing (NPCC 2005-

TN1406). For these reasons, IGCC plants are not considered further in this EIS. 

Therefore, for the coal-fired alternative, the NRC staff assumed that coal and limestone (calcium 

carbonate) would be delivered to the plant by barge (FPL 2014-TN4058). The NRC staff 

estimates that the plant would consume 6.55 million T/yr of pulverized bituminous coal with an 

ash content of approximately 10.3 percent (DOE/EIA 2009-TN1415). Slaked lime or limestone, 

used in the flue-gas scrubbing process for control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, is injected 

as slurry into the hot effluent combustion gases to remove entrained SO2. The limestone-based 

scrubbing solution reacts with SO2 to form calcium sulfite (a food additive) or calcium sulfate 

(gypsum), which precipitates and is removed from the process as sludge for dewatering and 

then sold to industry for use in the manufacture of wallboard or other industrial products. The 

NRC staff estimates that approximately 450,000 T/yr of limestone, which could come from local 

sources, would be used for flue-gas desulfurization, generating approximately 700,000 T/yr of 

marketable scrubber sludge. 

 

(3) The review team is aware that Duke Energy placed a 618 MW(e) IGCC plant into service in June 

2013 (Duke 2013-TN2662) and that Mississippi Power is building an IGCC plant in Kemper County, 

Mississippi, with an output of 582 MW(e) (MPC 2014-TN3776). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-8 October 2016 

Air Quality 

The impacts on air quality from coal-fired generation would vary considerably from those of 

nuclear power generation because of emissions of SO2, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon 

monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds, and hazardous air 

pollutants such as mercury and lead. The NRC staff estimates that a 2,200 MW(e) coal-fired 

plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of 18.7 million T/yr that could 

affect climate change (EPA 2011-TN1088). 

The coal-fired plant emissions were determined based on factors contained in EPA AP-42 

(EPA 2011-TN1088). The estimates of emissions are based on “as fired” and controlled 

conditions using both combustion and post-combustion technologies to reduce criteria pollutants 

to maintain local and regional attainment status for the criteria pollutants listed below. 

Emissions estimates are not necessarily representative of what would be permitted. 

A final air permit would likely require applicable Best Available Control Technologies (BACTs). 

The NRC staff’s estimates of the emissions from the coal-fired generation alternative are 

approximately as follows(4) (PM10 is particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or

less than 10 microns (40 CFR 50.6) (TN1089): 

 SO2 – 7,469 T/yr

 NOx – 1,638 T/yr 

 CO – 1,638 T/yr 

 PM – 147 T/yr 

 PM10 – 34 T/yr(5)

 PM2.5 – 20 T/yr 

 Mercury – 0.085 T/yr. 

The acid rain requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.) 

(TN1141) capped the nation’s SO2 emissions from power plants. FPL would need to obtain 

sufficient pollution credits either from a set-aside pool or purchases on the open market to cover 

annual emissions from the plant. 

Historically, CO2, an unavoidable byproduct of combustion of carbonaceous fuels, has not been 

regulated as a pollutant. However, regulations are now under development for CO2 and other 

greenhouse gases (GHGs). In response to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (Public 

Law 110-161) (TN1485), the EPA promulgated final mandatory GHG reporting regulations in 

October 2009, effective in December 2009 (74 FR 56260) (TN1024) (see also 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html [EPA 2012-TN1670]). The 

rules are applicable to major sources of CO2 (those emitting more than 25,000 T/yr). New 

utility-scale coal-fired power plants would be subject to those regulations. 

 

(4) Based on 6,552,000 T/yr of bituminous coal and controlled using overfire air in combination with lowNOx burners and selective catalytic reduction, limestone-based flue-gas desulfurization, and 

conventional particulate capture technology (EPA 2011-TN1088). 

(5) The value for PM10 includes particles of smaller diameter, such as PM2.5. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-9 NUREG–2176 

The coal-fired alternative plant would qualify as a major generator of GHGs under the “Tailoring 

Rule” promulgated by the EPA (75 FR 31514) (TN1404). Beginning January 2, 2011, permits 

issued to major sources of GHGs under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or 

Title V Federal permit programs must contain provisions requiring the use of BACTs to limit the 

emissions of GHGs if those sources would be subject to PSD or Title V permitting requirements 

because of their non-GHG pollutant emission potentials and if their estimated GHG emissions 

are at least 75,000 T/yr of CO2 equivalents (CO2e). The amount of CO2 released per unit of 

power produced would depend on the quality of the fuel and the firing conditions and overall 

firing efficiency of the boiler. Meeting permit limitations for GHG emissions may require 

installation of carbon capture and sequestration devices on any new coal-fired power plant, 

which could add substantial power penalties. On October 23, 2015, the EPA published its final 

rule for new source performance standards to limit CO2 emissions from new coal-fired power 

plants (80 FR 64509-TN4388). However, even with the application of this new standard, 

emissions from a coal-fired power plant would still be far greater than those from a comparably 

sized nuclear power plant. The relative efficiency penalty for adding CO2 capture ranges from 

21 to 29 percent on average, meaning that a new coal plant would have to be much larger than 

2,200 MW(e) to provide a comparable amount of power to proposed Units 6 and 7 (NETL 2010-

TN1423). In addition, once extracted the CO2 would have to be piped either to a permanent 

sequestration site, or for use in enhanced oil recovery. Regardless of end use, the construction 

of a CO2 pipeline would have the potential to increase the impacts on resources such as, but not 

limited to, terrestrial and aquatic ecology, socioeconomics, and cultural and historic resources. 

Because the exact location of such sequestration is beyond the scope of this analysis the 

magnitude of the impacts could not be quantified by the NRC staff. The NRC staff concludes 

that the cumulative impacts of construction of both a coal-fired power plant and a CO2 pipeline 

could increase the level of impacts. For example, SMALL ecological impacts from a coal plant 

alone may become MODERATE when combined with those of a CO2 pipeline. 

A new coal-fired power-generation plant at the Turkey Point site would need a PSD permit and 

an operating permit under the Clean Air Act. The plant would need to comply with the new 

source performance standards for such plants in 40 CFR Part 60 (TN1020), Subpart Da. The 

standards establish emission limits for PM and opacity (40 CFR 60.42Da), SO2 (40 CFR 

60.43Da), NOx (40 CFR 60.44Da), and mercury (40 CFR 60.45Da) (TN1020). EPA determined 

that coal-fired and oil-fired electric utility steam-generating units are significant emitters of the 

following hazardous air pollutants (HAPs): arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, dioxins, 

hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, lead, manganese, and mercury (65 FR 79825) (TN2536). 

The EPA concluded that mercury is the HAP of greatest concern and that (1) a link exists 

between coal combustion and mercury emissions, (2) electric utility steam-generating units are 

the largest domestic source of mercury emissions, and (3) certain segments of the U.S. 

population (e.g., the developing fetus and subsistence fish-eating populations) are believed to 

be at potential risk of adverse health effects resulting from mercury exposures caused by the 

consumption of contaminated fish (65 FR 79825) (TN2536). On March 28, 2013, the EPA 

finalized updates to emission standards, including mercury, for power plants under the Mercury 

and Air Toxics Standards (EPA 2013-TN2537). This rule became effective April 24, 2013 

(78 FR 24073) (TN3051). However, the NRC staff recognizes that the environmental impacts of 

air emissions from the coal-fired plant would be significantly greater than those from a proposed 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-10 October 2016 

nuclear power plant at the Turkey Point site, even after application of any new mercury 

emissions standards. 

The NRC staff assumes that fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would be 

mitigated using Best Management Practices (BMPs), similar to mitigation discussed in Chapter 

4 for proposed Turkey Points Units 6 and 7. Such emissions would be limited to the 

construction period. 

The EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51 

(TN1090), Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary 

source in an area designated as in attainment or unclassified for criteria pollutants under the 

Clean Air Act (40 CFR 51.307(a)) (TN1090). The entire State of Florida is designated as in 

attainment or unclassified for all criteria pollutants except for Hillsborough County, which is 

classified as nonattainment for lead (EPA 2012-TN1245), and two small portions of Nassau 

County and Hillsbourough County, which are classified as nonattainment for 1-hour sulfur 

dioxide (EPA 2015-TN4515). National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria pollutants are 

in 40 CFR Part 50 (TN1089). Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.) 

(TN1141) establishes a national goal of preventing future impairment of visibility and remedying 

existing impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas when impairment is from air pollution 

caused by human activities. In addition, EPA regulations provide that for each mandatory Class 

I Federal area located within a state, the State must establish goals that provide for reasonable 

progress toward achieving natural visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals must 

provide for an improvement in visibility on the most-impaired days over the period of the 

implementation plan and make sure there is no degradation in visibility for the least-impaired 

days over the same period (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)) (TN1090). If a new coal-fired power plant 

was located close to a mandatory Class I or II area, additional air-pollution control requirements 

could be imposed. There are three mandatory Class I Federal areas in Florida (FPL 2014-

TN4058): 

 Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area – >250 mi northwest of the Turkey Point site 

 St. Marks Wilderness Area – >250 mi northwest of the Turkey Point site 

 Everglades National Park – 13 mi west of the Turkey Point site. 

Of these, only Everglades National Park is close enough to the Turkey Point site to be 

potentially affected by air emissions from the site due to the close proximity and prevailing wind 

directions.

Florida is one of 27 states whose stationary sources of criteria pollutants would have been 

subject to revised emission limits for SO2 and NOx under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR). Florida stationary sources of SO2 and NOx are subject to this rule, as well as 

complementary regulatory controls developed at the State level 

(http://www.epa.gov/cair/index.html). On July 6, 2011, the EPA announced the finalization of 

the CSAPR, (previously referred to as the Transport Rule) (EPA 2011-TN3962) as a response 

to previous court decisions and as a replacement of the EPA’s 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule. 

CSAPR took effect on January 1, 2015, for SO2 and annual NOx, and on May 1, 2015, for ozone 

season NOx (EPA 2015-TN4307). Fossil-fuel power plants in Florida would be subject to the 

CSAPR and would be required to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOx to help reduce downwind 

ambient concentrations of fine particulates (PM2.5) and ozone. However, the NRC staff 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-11 NUREG–2176 

recognizes that the environmental impacts of air emissions from the coal-fired plant would be 

significantly greater than those from a proposed nuclear power plant at the Turkey Point site, 

even after application of the CSAPR. 

NUREG–1437 (NRC 2013-TN2654) indicates that air-quality impacts from a coal-fired power 

plant can be significant. NUREG–1437 also provides estimates of CO2 and other emissions 

(NRC 2013-TN2654). Adverse human health effects, such as cancer and emphysema, have 

been associated with the byproducts of coal combustion. The fugitive dust emissions from 

construction activities would be mitigated using BMPs, and would be temporary. 

Overall, the NRC staff concludes that air-quality impacts from new coal-fired power generation 

at the Turkey Point site, despite the availability of BACTs, would be MODERATE. The impacts 

would be clearly noticeable, but would not destabilize air quality. 

Waste Management 

Coal combustion generates waste in the form of ash, and equipment for controlling air pollution 

generates additional ash, spent selective catalytic reduction catalyst, and scrubber sludge. The 

NRC staff estimates that the coal-fired plants would generate approximately 675,000 T/yr of 

ash, the largest contributor to coal-combustion residuals (CCR) (DOE/EIA 2009-TN1415). In 

2012, approximately 40 percent of CCR was recycled for use in commodity products such as 

wallboard, concrete, roofing materials, and bricks, thus reducing the total volume needing 

disposal (EPA 2014-TN4164). Most CCR are managed in dedicated disposal units, i.e., landfills 

(dry systems) or surface impoundments (wet systems), with lesser quantities disposed of in 

underground mines or municipal solid-waste landfills. 

Effective 6 months after publication of the final rule signed by the EPA Administrator on 

December 19, 2014, CCR from electric utilities will be regulated as solid waste under Subtitle D 

of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. 

§ 6901 et seq.) (TN1281). The minimum criteria for new CCR units include location restrictions; 

design and operating criteria; groundwater monitoring and corrective action; closure 

requirements and post closure care; and requirements for recordkeeping, notification, and 

Internet posting. Different criteria apply to landfills and surface impoundments. Any existing 

CCR units that do not meet the location restrictions or cannot meet the structural integrity 

criteria must close. Any surface impoundment without a liner that exceeds the groundwater 

protection standard for any constituent must either install a liner or close, with limited 

exceptions. Inactive CCR surface impoundments that still contain water and CCR must meet 

the new criteria or be closed and capped (EPA 2014-TN4164). 

Waste impacts on groundwater and surface water could extend beyond the operating life of the 

plant if leachate or runoff from the waste-storage area occurs. Disposal of the waste could 

noticeably affect land use (because of the acreage needed for waste) but with appropriate 

management and monitoring, it would not destabilize any resources. After closure of the waste 

site and revegetation, the land could be available for some other uses. Construction-related 

debris would be generated during plant construction activities, and would be disposed of in 

approved landfills. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-12 October 2016 

For the reasons stated above, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from waste generated 

at a coal-fired plant would be MODERATE. The impacts would be clearly noticeable, but would 

not destabilize any important resource. 

Human Health 

Coal-fired power generation introduces worker risks from coal and limestone mining, worker and 

public risk from coal and lime/limestone transportation, worker and public risk from disposal of 

coal-combustion waste, and worker and public risk from inhalation of stack emissions. Adverse 

human health effects, such as cancer, asthma, and emphysema, have been associated with the 

byproducts of coal combustion. In addition, the discharges of uranium and thorium from coalfired plants can potentially produce radiological doses in excess of those arising from nuclear 

power plant operations (Gabbard 1993-TN1144). 

Regulatory agencies, including the EPA and State agencies, base air emission standards and 

requirements on human health impacts. These agencies also impose site-specific emission 

limits as needed to protect human health. Given the regulatory oversight exercised by the EPA 

and State agencies, the NRC staff concludes that the human health impacts from radiological 

doses and inhaled toxins and particulates generated from coal-fired generation would be 

SMALL. 

Other Impacts 

Land Use 

Based on the 1996 version of NUREG–1437 (NRC 1996-TN288), at least 3,700 ac of land 

would need to be converted to industrial use on the Turkey Point site for the power block, 

infrastructure and support facilities, coal and limestone storage and handling, reclaimed 

wastewater line, and landfill disposal of ash and scrubber sludge. Additional land would be 

needed for five new transmission lines in two corridors, water pipelines, and access roads, 

consistent with the FPL proposal for Units 6 and 7 (FPL 2014-TN4058). As for nuclear facilities, 

the coal plant facilities would be in close proximity to Biscayne National Park and the 

transmission lines would pass close to urban land uses and Everglades National Park. It is 

assumed that coal mining would occur at an undetermined offsite existing coal mining operation, 

but land-use changes would also occur if expansion of an existing mine or mines were required 

to supply coal for the plant. In the 1996 version of NUREG–1437 (NRC 1996-TN288), the NRC 

staff estimated that approximately 22,000 ac would be needed for coal mining and waste 

disposal to support a 1,000 MW(e) coal-fired plant over its operating life (corresponding to 

48,000 ac for the 2,200 MW(e) plant needed to produce the equivalent baseload generation 

provided by the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7). Based on the amount of land affected 

for the site, mining, and waste disposal (see waste-management subsection above), the NRC 

staff concludes that land-use impacts would be MODERATE. 

Water Use and Quality 

The amount of water used and the impacts on water use and quality from constructing and 

operating a coal-fired plant at the Turkey Point site would be comparable to those associated 

with a new nuclear plant. The new facility would use steam-cycle electrical generation with 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-13 NUREG–2176 

closed-cycle cooling. Water consumption due to evaporative cooling in the cooling systems 

would be somewhat less than that of a new nuclear facility because the coal plant would 

operate at a somewhat higher thermal efficiency. All discharges would be injected into the 

Boulder Zone (in the Lower Floridan aquifer) and regulated by the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP). Water quality would be affected by acids and mercury from 

air emissions from the coal-fired plant and drift of reclaimed wastewater from the cooling towers. 

Some of the emissions are regulated to minimize impacts. Given the sensitivity of the local 

aquatic and terrestrial environments, consideration of emissions, such as mercury, might have 

impacts even at levels compliant with emission standards. In NUREG–1437, the NRC staff 

determined that some erosion and sedimentation would likely occur during construction of new 

facilities (NRC 2013-TN2654). Coal plants require only relatively shallow excavations and 

foundations. Constructing the plant with stormwater and sediment discharged to cooling canals 

would ensure the impacts are minor. These impacts would be similar to those for a new nuclear 

plant. Overall, the NRC staff concludes that the water-use and water-quality impacts would be 

SMALL. 

Ecological Resources 

The coal-fired power-generation alternative would introduce ecological impacts from 

construction and new incremental impacts from operations. The impacts would generally be 

similar to those of the proposed action at the Turkey Point site and along the transmission line 

and pipeline corridors, especially losses of mangrove forest and other wetlands. The impacts 

could include terrestrial and aquatic habitat loss and degradation, habitat fragmentation, 

reduced productivity, and a local reduction in biological diversity. Impacts on the site could be 

greater than described for the proposed action because of the greater land-use demands for the 

coal plants. The impacts could occur not only at the Turkey Point site and offsite corridors, but 

also at the sites used for coal and limestone mining and effects related to transporting coal to 

the site. If transportation by barge were used, potential vessel collisions with protected species 

and potential groundings could occur. Construction and maintenance of new transmission line 

corridors, access roads, and pipeline corridors would have ecological impacts as described for 

the proposed action. Stack emissions and disposal of waste products could also affect aquatic 

and terrestrial resources. Siting of the coal plant at Turkey Point would result in permanent loss 

of critical habitat for the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). Additional impacts on 

threatened and endangered species could result from ash disposal and mining activities, 

especially if the locations of such activities overlap with habitat for protected species. Overall, 

the NRC staff concludes that the ecological impacts would be MODERATE, primarily because 

of potential impacts associated with disposal of ash, impacts on South Florida wetlands and 

associated important species, and the large area of land affected. 

Socioeconomics 

Socioeconomic impacts would result from the peak workforce of approximately 

2,500 construction workers and the approximately 250 workers needed to operate the coal-fired 

facility (FPL 2014-TN4058). Overall, the size of the workforce would be smaller than that for the 

proposed project, which indicates the socioeconomic impacts from building and operating a 

coal-fired facility at the Turkey Point site would be similar to, but of a lesser magnitude than, the 

same effects from building and operating the proposed project. Because the Turkey Point site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-14 October 2016 

is a heavily industrialized location relatively isolated from the surrounding population centers 

and would require fewer workers to construct and operate the plant, the NRC staff determined 

that the impacts of the proposed Units 6 and 7 establish an upper bound to the socioeconomic 

impacts of an appropriately sized coal-fired installation. This is especially relevant in the 

assessment of beneficial impact categories. The overnight capital costs of a coal-fired power 

plant, the building and operations workforces, and the local expenditures for materials and 

equipment would be lower for a coal-fired plant than those of a nuclear facility. Therefore, the 

NRC staff concludes that the tax benefits of a coal-fired plant would be would be SMALL for 

Miami/Dade County. The NRC staff determined traffic-related impacts during construction and 

operations for the proposed project would be MODERATE. However, while the increase in 

traffic in the vicinity of the proposed site would be less than the traffic increase for the proposed 

action, the construction-related traffic increases would still constitute a noticeable but not 

destabilizing impact. Therefore, the NRC staff determined the construction-related traffic 

impacts would still be MODERATE and adverse, but the roads would provide a MODERATE 

and beneficial impact from identified upgrades. The NRC staff concluded that as was the case 

for the proposed project, all other socioeconomic impacts would be SMALL. 

Coal-fired power generation would introduce mechanical sources of noise that would be much 

greater than the noise generated at a nuclear power plant and would likely be audible offsite. 

Sources contributing to the noise produced by plant operation are classified as continuous or 

intermittent. Continuous sources include the mechanical equipment associated with normal 

plant operations, such as the equipment related to coal-handling (conveyors, crushers, 

pulverizers). Intermittent sources include solid-waste disposal, transportation related to coal 

and lime/limestone delivery, transportation related to the removal of ash and other solid wastes, 

use of outside loudspeakers horns and sirens, and the commuting of plant employees. The 

impacts of noise are attenuated by distance. The closest residents and recreational areas are 

located over 1.5 mi from the proposed site and the NRC staff expects impacts from noise 

generated at the proposed plant site to be SMALL for the general public. Because power 

generators would be built adjacent to existing units on the Turkey Point site, the aesthetic 

impacts of coal-fired power generators at the proposed site are also expected to be SMALL to 

the general public. However, because the noise level of a coal-fired power plant is much 

greater than that of a nuclear facility, the impact on visitors to the Biscayne Aquatic Preserve or 

boaters in the bay would be MODERATE. Any segments of the western transmission line 

corridor between Everglades National Park and the Levee substation would follow SW 187th 

Avenue, and the presence of the road would attenuate any visual contrast with the natural 

environment. The resulting aesthetic impacts are expected to be SMALL. 

Environmental Justice 

Because the NRC staff did not identify disproportionately high and adverse impacts from any 

pathway associated with the building and operations of Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, there is no 

indication that the construction and operation of a coal-fired power plant at the same site would 

impose any disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations. 

Therefore, there would be no disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income populations 

associated with a coal-fired plant at the Turkey Point site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-15 NUREG–2176 

Historic and Cultural Resources 

The historic and cultural resource impacts of a new coal-fired plant located at the Turkey Point 

site would be similar to the impacts of a new nuclear plant, as discussed in Sections 4.6 and 

5.6. Other lands that would be acquired to support the plant would likely need an inventory of 

cultural resources, identification and recording of existing historic and archaeological resources, 

and possible mitigation of the adverse effects from ground-disturbing actions. The studies 

would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the plant site, any offsite affected 

areas, such as mining and waste-disposal sites, and along associated corridors where new 

construction would occur (e.g., pipeline corridors, roads, and transmission line corridors). The 

impact on historic or cultural resources at FPL plant property during studies for the new nuclear 

plant, were determined to be MODERATE because of the visual impacts from transmission 

lines. The reason the impacts on cultural and historic resources are similar for a coal-fired plant 

is that both plants would require the same amount of transmission lines and would affect the 

resource in the same manner. The NRC staff concludes that the historic and cultural resource 

impacts for a coal plant located at Turkey Point would be similar to those for the nuclear plant; 

i.e., MODERATE. 

The construction and operational impacts of a 2,200 MW(e) coal-fired power-generation plant at 

the Turkey Point site are summarized in Table 9-1. 

Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Generation at the 

Turkey Point Site 

Impact Category Impact Comment

Land Use MODERATE At least 3,700 ac would be needed for power block; coal-handling, 

storage, and transportation facilities; infrastructure facilities; and 

cooling-water facilities. Additional land would be needed for new 

transmission line and pipeline corridors and access roads. Coal 

mining (offsite) and waste-disposal activities would require an

additional 48,000 ac. 

Air Quality MODERATE SO2 – 7,469 T/yr 

NOx – 1,638 T/yr 

CO – 1,638 T/yr 

PM – 147 T/yr 

PM10 – 34 T/yr 

PM2.5 – 20 T/yr 

Mercury – 0.085 T/yr 

CO2 – 18.7 million T/yr 

Small amounts of hazardous air pollutants. 

Water Use and 

Quality 

SMALL Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for a new nuclear power 

plant located at the Turkey Point site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-16 October 2016 

Table 9-1. (contd) 

Impact Category Impact Comment

Ecology MODERATE Impacts could include terrestrial and aquatic habitat loss and 

modification, habitat fragmentation, reduced productivity, and a local 

reduction in biological diversity. Impacts could occur at the Turkey 

Point site and vicinity, along transmission line corridors, access 

roads, and pipeline corridors, and at the sites used for coal and 

limestone mining. Disposal of ash could also affect the terrestrial and 

aquatic environments. Additional impacts on threatened and 

endangered species could result from transporting coal to the site 

and permanent loss of critical habitat to the American crocodile. The 

project footprint would be larger than needed for the proposed action, 

resulting in greater permanent impact on habitats and wetlands.

Waste Management MODERATE Total volume of combustion wastes would exceed 1 million T/yr 

(590,000 T/yr ash and 700,000 T/yr scrubber sludge). 

Socioeconomics MODERATE 

Beneficial to 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

All socioeconomic impacts are SMALL and adverse, with the 

exceptions of SMALL beneficial economic and tax impacts throughout 

the affected region, MODERATE and beneficial impacts from road 

improvements, and MODERATE adverse impacts from traffic. 

Impacts during operations would likely be smaller than during 

construction with the exception of an increased adverse noise impact 

from operations, which would be MODERATE. 

Human Health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight are assumed to be protective of 

human health. 

Historic and Cultural 

Resources 

MODERATE Any potential impacts could likely be effectively managed. Most of 

the facility and infrastructure would be built on previously disturbed 

ground. Impacts may also be associated with new transmission line 

or pipeline corridors. 

Environmental Justice NONE(a) Based on analysis of census data and field interviews, no 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or lowincome populations would be anticipated. 

(a) A determination of “NONE” for environmental justice analyses does not mean there are no adverse impacts on minority or lowincome populations from the proposed project. Instead, an indication of “NONE” means that while there are adverse impacts, 

those impacts do not affect minority or low-income populations in any disproportionate manner, relative to the general 

population. 

9.2.2.2 Natural-Gas−Fired Power Generation 

For the natural-gas alternative, the NRC staff assumed building and operation of a naturalgas−fired plant at the Turkey Point site. The NRC staff assumed that the plant would use four 

combined-cycle combustion turbines, with a net capacity of 550 MW(e) per unit. In its COL, 

FPL assumed three 728.4 MW natural-gas combined-cycle (NGCC) units (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

The team’s estimates of natural-gas consumption, air emissions, and waste products are based 

on EPA AP-42 (Stationary Gas Turbines; EPA 2011-TN1088). The NRC staff also assumed the 

construction of two additional transmission line corridors, as discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. 

The natural-gas−fired plant is assumed to have an operating life of 40 years. The NRC staff 

estimated that the natural-gas−fired plant would use approximately 114 billion standard cubic 

feet of gas per year (EPA 2011-TN1088). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-17 NUREG–2176 

Air Quality 

Natural gas is a cleaner burning fuel than combusted coal. The associated emissions estimates 

were estimated based on factors contained in EPA AP-42 (EPA 2011-TN1088) except where 

noted. It is noted that emissions estimates are based on “as fired” and controlled conditions and 

are not necessarily representative of what would likely be permitted. 

A new natural-gas−fired power-generation plant would need a PSD permit and an operating 

permit under the Clean Air Act. A new NGCC plant would also be subject to the new source 

performance standards specified in 40 CFR Part 60 (TN1020), Subparts Da and GG. These 

regulations establish emission limits for particulates, opacity, SO2, and NOx. 

The EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51 

(TN1090), Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary 

source in areas designated as in attainment or unclassified under the Clean Air Act. The entire 

State of Florida is designated as in attainment or unclassified for all criteria pollutants except for 

Hillsborough County, which is classified as nonattainment for lead (EPA 2012-TN1245), and two 

small portions of Nassau County and Hillsbourough County, which are classified as 

nonattainment for 1-hour sulfur dioxide (EPA 2015-TN4515). 

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.) (TN1141) establishes a national 

goal of preventing future impairment of visibility and remedying existing impairment in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas when impairment is from air pollution caused by human 

activities. In addition, the EPA regulations provide that for each mandatory Class I Federal area 

located within a state, the State regulatory agencies must establish goals that provide for 

reasonable progress toward achieving natural visibility conditions. The reasonable progress 

goals must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most-impaired days over the period of 

the implementation plan and make sure there is no degradation in visibility for the least-impaired 

days over the same period (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)) (TN1090). If a new natural-gas−fired power 

plant was located close to a mandatory Class I area, additional air-pollution control 

requirements could be imposed. As discussed under the coal alternative, there is one 

mandatory Class I Federal area near the Turkey Point site 

A natural-gas−fired plant equipped with appropriate combustion and post-combustion pollutioncontrol technology would have approximately the following emissions.(6) 

 SO2 – 32 T/yr 

 NOx – 564 T/yr 

 CO – 214 T/yr 

 PM – 108 T/yr 

 PM10 – 108 T/yr(7)

 PM2.5 – 108 T/yr. 

 

(6) Emissions are based on 114 × 10E+6 MMBTU/yr and control technology, including lean-premix 

combustion, and catalytic control for NOx at a 90 percent reduction rate and for CO at a 75 percent 

reduction rate. 

(7) The value for PM10 includes particles of smaller diameter such as PM2.5. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-18 October 2016 

The NRC staff estimates that a natural-gas−fired power plant would also have unregulated CO2

emissions of 6.3 million T/yr that could affect climate change (EPA 2011-TN1088). Historically, 

CO2, an unavoidable byproduct of combustion of carbonaceous fuels, has not been regulated 

as a pollutant. However, regulations are now under development for CO2 and other GHGs. In 

response to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-161) (TN1485), the 

EPA promulgated final mandatory GHG reporting regulations in October 2009, effective in 

December 2009 (74 FR 56260) (TN1024). The rules are applicable to major sources of CO2

(those emitting more than 25,000 T/yr). New utility-scale gas-fired power plants would be 

subject to those regulations. 

The combustion turbine portion of the combined-cycle plant would be subject to EPA’s 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Combustion Turbines 

(40 CFR Part 63) (TN1403) because the site would be a major source of HAPs. 

The NRC staff assumes that fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would be 

mitigated using BMPs similar to mitigation discussed in Chapter 4 for proposed Turkey Point 

Units 6 and 7. Such emissions would be temporary. 

A new gas-fired generation plant would qualify as a major generator of GHGs under the 

“Tailoring Rule” recently promulgated by the EPA (75 FR 31514) (TN1404). Beginning January 

2, 2011, permits issued to major sources of GHGs under the PSD or Title V Federal permit 

programs must contain provisions requiring the use of BACTs to limit the emissions of GHGs if 

those sources would be subject to PSD or Title V permitting requirements because of their nonGHG pollutant emission potentials and if their estimated GHG emissions are at least 75,000 T/yr 

of CO2e. Meeting permit limitations for GHG emissions may require installation of carbon 

capture and sequestration devices on any new natural-gas–fired power plant, which could 

reduce power output. On October 23, 2015, the EPA published its final rule for new source 

performance standards to limit CO2 emissions from new stationary combustion turbines 

(e.g., NGCC technology) (80 FR 64509) (TN4388). However, the staff’s emissions estimate of 

6.3 million T/yr was already below the new standard and would, therefore, be unchanged under 

the new rule. Nevertheless, the review team recognizes that the environmental impacts of air 

emissions from the natural-gas−fired power plant would be significantly greater than those of a 

proposed nuclear power plant at the Turkey Point site. 

The impacts of emissions from the natural-gas−fired alternative would be noticeable, but would 

not be sufficient to destabilize air resources. The impacts would be greater than the impacts 

from the proposed action (which were SMALL), but less than the impacts for the coal alternative 

(which were MODERATE). Overall, the NRC staff concludes that air-quality impacts resulting 

from construction and operation of the natural-gas−fired alternative at the Turkey Point site 

would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

Waste Management 

In the 1996 version of NUREG–1437, the NRC staff concluded that waste generation from 

natural-gas−fired technology would be minimal (NRC 1996-TN288). The only significant waste 

generated at a natural-gas−fired power plant would be spent selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 

catalyst, which is used to control NOx emissions. The spent catalyst would be regenerated or 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-19 NUREG–2176 

disposed of offsite. Other than spent SCR catalyst, waste generation at an operating naturalgas−fired plant would be largely limited to typical operations and maintenance waste. 

Construction-related debris would be generated during construction activities. Overall, the NRC 

staff concludes that waste impacts from natural-gas−fired power generation would be SMALL. 

Human Health 

Natural-gas−fired power generation introduces public risk related to gaseous emissions. The 

risk may be attributable to NOx emissions that contribute to ozone formation, which in turn 

contributes to health risk. Regulatory agencies, including the EPA and State agencies, base air 

emission standards and requirements on human health impacts. These agencies also impose 

site-specific emission limits as needed to protect human health. Given the regulatory oversight 

exercised by the EPA and State agencies, the NRC staff concludes that the human health 

impacts from natural-gas−fired power generation would be SMALL. 

Other Impacts 

Land Use 

Based on the 1996 version of NUREG–1437 (NRC 1996-TN288), the natural-gas−fired powergenerating plant would require at least 240 ac for the power block and support facilities for the 

2,200 MW(e) plant. The plant would still not fit entirely onto the 218 ac island proposed as the 

site for Units 6 and 7, but the extent of land requirements elsewhere on the Turkey Point site 

may be somewhat reduced relative to the proposed action. Turkey Point Unit 5 is currently 

served by an existing 24 in. gas pipeline and it is assumed that if a new line were needed it 

could be sited within the existing pipeline corridor to minimize land-use impacts (FPL 2014-

TN4058). Assuming a new pipeline within the existing corridor, the total land-use commitment, 

not including natural-gas wells and collection stations, would be at least 240 ac. Consistent with 

the proposed project, additional land would be needed for five new transmission lines in two 

corridors (FPL 2014-TN4058). As for nuclear facilities, the gas plant facilities would be in close 

proximity to Biscayne National Park and the transmission lines would pass close to urban land 

uses and Everglades National Park. More than 7,000 ac of additional land away from the 

Turkey Point site would also be required for natural-gas wells and collection stations 

(NRC 1996-TN288). Overall, the NRC staff concludes that the land-use impacts from new 

natural-gas−fired power generation would be MODERATE primarily because of the land 

conflicts related to the transmission lines and the land requirements for the gas wells and 

collection stations. 

Water Use and Quality 

The water use for a natural-gas−fired combined-cycle plant is about a third of an equivalent 

nuclear plant (NREL 2011-TN3850). Because the plant would use reclaimed water for cooling 

and discharge to the Boulder Zone, the impacts on water use and quality from constructing and 

operating a natural-gas−fired plant at the Turkey Point site would be comparable to the impacts 

associated with building and operating a new nuclear facility. The impacts on water quality from 

sedimentation during construction of a natural-gas−fired plant were characterized in the 1996 

version of NUREG–1437 as SMALL (NRC 1996-TN288). The NRC staff also noted in the 1996 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-20 October 2016 

version of NUREG–1437 that the impacts on water quality from operations would be similar to, 

or less than, the impacts from other power-generating technologies (NRC 1996-TN288). 

Overall, the NRC staff concludes that impacts on water use and quality would be SMALL. 

Ecological Resources 

A natural-gas−fired plant at the Turkey Point site may have fewer ecological impacts than a new 

nuclear facility because less land would be affected. However, the plant would still not fit 

entirely onto the 218 ac plant area proposed as the site for Units 6 and 7 and therefore would 

require filling mangrove forest outside of the plant area and result in permanent loss of critical 

habitat for the American crocodile. Constructing a new underground gas pipeline to the site 

would result in temporary and permanent loss of some terrestrial and aquatic function as well as 

conversion and fragmentation of habitat, including mangrove forest; however, ecological 

impacts from the gas pipeline would be limited because there is an existing 24 in. transmission 

line pipeline to the Turkey Point site to serve Unit 5, and connection to natural-gas distribution 

systems would occur onsite and would use the existing natural-gas pipeline corridor. Impacts 

on threatened and endangered species would generally be as described for a new nuclear 

facility located at the Turkey Point site, despite the somewhat smaller overall onsite footprint. 

Overall, the NRC staff concludes that ecological impacts would be MODERATE because of the 

impacts on the American crocodile and impacts from transmission line corridors, access roads, 

and water supply pipeline corridors (all of which are expected to follow the same routes as 

described for the proposed nuclear units). 

Socioeconomics 

Socioeconomic impacts would result from the approximately 1,200 construction workers and 

150 workers needed to operate the natural-gas−fired facility (FPL 2014-TN4058). Overall, the 

size of the workforce would be smaller than that for the proposed project, which indicates the 

impacts from building and operating a natural-gas facility at the Turkey Point site would be 

similar to, but of a lesser magnitude than the same effects from building and operating the 

proposed project. Because the Turkey Point site is a heavily industrialized location relatively 

isolated from the surrounding population centers and would require fewer workers to construct 

and operate the plant, the NRC staff determined that the impacts of the proposed Units 6 and 7 

establish an upper bound to the socioeconomic impacts of an appropriately sized natural-gas–

fired installation. This is especially relevant in the assessment of beneficial impact categories. 

The overnight capital costs of a natural-gas−fired power plant, the building and operations 

workforces, and the local expenditures on materials and equipment are substantially lower at a 

natural-gas plant than those of a nuclear facility. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 

tax benefits of a natural-gas−fired plant would be would be SMALL for Miami/Dade County. The 

NRC staff determined traffic-related impacts during building and operations of Turkey Point 

Units 6 and 7 would be MODERATE. However, while there would be some increase in traffic in 

the vicinity of the proposed site for the natural-gas plant, that increase would be substantially 

less than the increase for the proposed action. Therefore, the NRC staff determined the 

adverse impact from an increase in traffic would be SMALL. The NRC staff concluded that, as 

was the case for the proposed project, all other socioeconomic impacts would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-21 NUREG–2176 

The turbine buildings, four exhaust stacks (each approximately 200 ft high) and associated 

emissions, and the gas-pipeline compressors would be visible during daylight hours from offsite. 

Noise and light from the plant would be detectable offsite. The new transmission lines would 

have an aesthetic impact. Overall, the NRC staff concludes that the aesthetic impacts 

associated with new natural-gas−fired power generation at the Turkey Point site would be 

SMALL. The impact along new transmission lines would be SMALL, similar to the proposed 

Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. 

Environmental Justice 

Because the NRC staff did not identify any disproportionately high and adverse impacts from 

any pathway associated with the building and operations of Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, there is 

no indication that the building and operation of a natural-gas−fired power plant at the same site 

would impose any disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income 

populations. Therefore, there would be no disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income 

populations associated with a natural-gas−fired plant at the Turkey Point site. 

Historical and Cultural Resources 

Historic and cultural resource impacts for a new natural-gas−fired plant located at the Turkey 

Point site would be similar to the impacts for a new nuclear plant, as discussed in Sections 4.6 

and 5.6. Other lands (if any) that are acquired to support the plant would also likely need an 

inventory of cultural resources, identification and recording of existing historic and 

archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of the adverse effect from ground-disturbing 

actions. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the plant 

site, any offsite affected areas, such as gas wells, collection stations, and waste-disposal sites, 

and along associated corridors where new construction would occur (e.g., roads and any new 

pipelines). Given that the impacts on historic or cultural resources at FPL plant property during 

studies for the new nuclear plant were determined to be MODERATE due to the visual impacts 

from transmission lines, the NRC staff concludes that the historic and cultural resource impacts 

for a natural-gas plant located at Turkey Point would also be MODERATE. 

The impacts of natural-gas−fired power generation at the Turkey Point site are summarized in 

Table 9-2. 

Table 9-2. Summary of the Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas−Fired Power 

Generation 

Impact Category Impact Comment

Land Use MODERATE At least 240 ac would be needed for power block, cooling towers, 

and support systems, and connection to a natural-gas pipeline. 

Additional land would be needed for transmission line corridors, 

gas supply pipeline, other infrastructure, and facilities. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-22 October 2016 

Table 9-2. (contd) 

Impact Category Impact Comment

Air Quality SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SO2 – 32 T/yr 

NOx – 564 T/yr 

CO – 214 T/yr 

PM – 108 T/yr 

PM10 – 108 T/yr 

PM2.5 – 108 T/yr 

CO2 – 6.3 million T/yr 

Some hazardous air pollutants 

Water Use and Quality SMALL Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for a new nuclear 

power plant located at the Turkey Point site. 

Ecology MODERATE Constructing a new underground gas pipeline to the site would 

result in loss of some terrestrial and aquatic function as well as 

conversion and fragmentation of habitat. Most impacts from 

pipeline construction would be temporary. Impacts on the Turkey 

Point site would be less than the impacts from new nuclear 

generating units, although the footprint could still not be confined to 

the 218 ac island where the main plant facilities would be built. 

Although permanent impacts on wetlands within the project 

footprint would occur but would also be proportionally less due to a 

smaller project footprint, species and habitats would still be affected 

along transmission line and pipeline corridors. Permanent loss of 

critical habitat for the American crocodile would occur. 

Waste Management SMALL The only significant waste would be from spent selective catalytic 

reduction catalyst used for control of emissions of NOx. 

Socioeconomics MODERATE 

Beneficial to 

SMALL Adverse 

Construction and operations workforces would be relatively small 

and generate small yet positive local impacts on the economy and 

taxes. Some construction-related impacts would occur, but the 

impacts would be SMALL and adverse, with the exception of a 

MODERATE and beneficial impact from road improvements and 

SMALL beneficial economic and tax impacts throughout the 

affected region. 

Aesthetic impacts associated with new natural-gas−fired power 

generation at the Turkey Point site would be SMALL. The impact

along new transmission lines would be SMALL similar to the 

proposed project. 

Human Health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight would be protective of human 

health. 

Historic and Cultural 

Resources 

MODERATE Most of the facility and infrastructure would be built on previously 

disturbed ground. Impacts may also be associated with 

transmission line and pipeline corridors. 

Environmental Justice NONE(a) No disproportionately high or adverse impacts on minority or lowincome populations would be anticipated based on analysis of 

census data and field interviews. 

(a) A determination of “NONE” for environmental justice analyses does not mean there are no adverse impacts on minority or lowincome populations from the proposed project. Instead, an indication of “NONE” means that while there are adverse impacts, 

those impacts do not affect minority or low-income populations in any disproportionate manner, relative to the general 

population.

9.2.3 Other Alternatives 

This section discusses other energy alternatives, the NRC staff’s conclusions about the 

feasibility of each alternative, and the NRC staff’s basis for its conclusions. New nuclear units at 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-23 NUREG–2176 

the Turkey Point site would be baseload generation units. As discussed in Section 9.2.3 of the 

ESRP (NRC 2000-TN614), any feasible alternative to the new units would need to generate 

baseload power. In evaluating other energy technologies, FPL used the technologies discussed 

in the 1996 version of NUREG–1437 (NRC 1996-TN288). The NRC staff reviewed the 

information submitted by FPL in its COL and also conducted an independent review. The NRC 

staff determined that the other energy alternatives are not reasonable alternatives to two new 

nuclear units that would provide baseload power. Also, the FPSC stated that renewable 

generation available today or in the foreseeable future cannot provide enough baseload 

capacity to avoid the need for the addition of proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 (FPSC 2008-

TN735). 

The NRC staff has not assigned significance levels to the environmental impacts associated 

with the alternatives discussed in this section because, as noted above, the generation 

alternatives are not feasible for providing 2,200 MW(e) of baseload power. In addition, some of 

the generation alternatives would have to be installed at a location other than the Turkey Point 

site, and any attempt to assign significance levels would require the NRC staff’s speculation 

about the unknown site. 

9.2.3.1 Oil-Fired Power Generation 

The EIA’s reference case in its Annual Energy Outlook 2016 Early Release, Table 8, projects 

that in the United States electric power generation using petroleum will decrease by around 67 

percent between 2014 and 2040 (DOE/EIA 2016-TN4620). Oil-fired generation is more 

expensive than nuclear, natural-gas−fired, or coal-fired generation options. In addition, future 

increases in oil prices are expected to make oil-fired generation increasingly more expensive. 

The high cost of oil has resulted in a decline in its use for electricity generation. In 

Section 8.3.11 of the 1996 version of NUREG–1437, the NRC staff estimated that construction 

of a 1,000 MW(e) oil-fired plant would require about 120 ac of land (NRC 1996-TN288). 

Ecological impacts would be less than those identified for the proposed action because less 

critical habitat for the American crocodile would be lost. Operation of an oil-fired power plant 

would have air emissions that would be similar to those of a comparably sized coal-fired plant 

(NRC 1996-TN288). 

For the preceding economic and environmental reasons, the NRC staff concludes that an oilfired power plant would not be a reasonable alternative to construction of a 2,200 MW(e) 

nuclear power-generation facility that would be operated as a baseload plant within FPL’s ROI. 

9.2.3.2 Wind Power 

Onshore areas within the FPL service territory are in a wind power Class 2 region (average wind 

speeds lower than 5.1 m/s at 10 m) (NREL 2012-TN1395). Offshore areas around the FPL 

service territory are in a wind power Class 3 region (average wind speeds 5.1 to 5.6 m/s at 

10 m) (NREL 2009-TN1396). Areas designated Class 3 or greater are suitable for most wind 

turbine applications, whereas Class 2 areas are marginal (NREL 2009-TN1397). Therefore, 

commercial-scale development of wind energy in Florida would have to be sited in offshore 

locations. Modern wind turbines typically operate at an average capacity factor of 30 percent to 

35 percent compared to 90 percent to 95 percent for a baseload plant such as a nuclear plant 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-24 October 2016 

(Wiser and Bolinger 2011-TN1361). The world’s largest operating wind farms are less than 

1,000 MW, but most are well under 200 MW. The 454 MW Cape Wind Project covers 

approximately 25 mi2 (MMS 2009-TN1402). Based on this, a utility-scale offshore wind powergeneration project would generally require about 35 ac/MW of installed capacity. The Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s 2011 Wind Technologies Market Report indicates 

that average wind turbine size was about 1.79 MW for U.S. installations in 2010 (Wiser and 

Bolinger 2011-TN1361). Therefore even with modern wind turbine designs, more than 

1,000 wind turbines would be required to produce a peak output that matches the 2,200 MW(e) 

of the proposed nuclear units. These wind turbines would need to be coupled with a 

2,200 MW(e) NGCC plant to provide power when the wind turbines are operating at less than 

full power. Alternately, in order to match the average annual generation expected from the 

proposed nuclear units (17,345 GWh) with wind power alone, more than 3,300 2 MW(e) wind 

turbines would have to be installed, coupled with energy storage on a very large scale. There is 

no such large-scale energy-storage mechanism available in Florida. Finally, the DOE/EIA’s 

2016 Table 58.2 projects no growth in wind power in the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council 

(FRCC), which includes the FPL service territory, from 2015 to 2028 (DOE/EIA 2016-TN4623). 

Based on this, the NRC staff assumes no growth in wind capacity for FPL from 2012 to 2040. 

Because (1) the wind resource in Florida is not optimal for utility-scale generation, (2) the 

DOE/EIA projects no growth in wind energy in Florida, (3) the capacity factor of wind power is 

too low for baseload applications, and (4) the offshore area needed (and the associated 

environmental impacts) would be very large, the NRC staff concludes that a wind-energy facility 

at the Turkey Point site or elsewhere within FPL’s ROI would not be a reasonable alternative to 

construction of a 2,200 MW(e) nuclear power-generation facility that would be operated as a 

baseload plant. 

9.2.3.3 Solar Power 

Solar technologies use energy and light from the sun to provide heating and cooling, light, hot 

water, and electricity for consumers. Solar energy can be converted to electricity using solar 

thermal technologies or photovoltaics. Solar thermal technologies use concentrating devices to 

create temperatures suitable for power production. Concentrating thermal technologies is 

currently less costly than photovoltaics for bulk power production. They can also be provided 

with energy storage or auxiliary boilers to allow operation during periods when the sun is not 

shining (NPCC 2006-TN1408). The largest operational solar thermal plant is the 310 MW(e) 

Solar Energy Generating System located on approximately 1,500 ac in the Mojave Desert in 

southern California (NextEra 2012-TN1400). 

Solar insolation has a low energy density relative to other common energy sources. 

Consequently, a large total acreage is needed to gather an appreciable amount of energy. 

Typical solar thermal power plants require 3 to 8 ac for every megawatt of generating capacity 

(Mendelson et al. 2012-TN1399). For solar photovoltaics, the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory reports 6.38 ac are typically required per megawatt (Roberts 2011-TN1398). For 

FPL’s target capacity of 2,200 MW(e) for Units 6 and 7, land requirements would be 

approximately 6,600 to 17,600 ac. Solar thermal electric technologies also typically require 

considerable water supplies. In addition, according to DOE/EIA an average solar capacity 

factor ranges from 18 to 25 percent in the United States (DOE/EIA 2010-TN1401). Finally, the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-25 NUREG–2176 

DOE/EIA projects limited growth in solar power in the FRCC, which includes the FPL service 

territory. From 2015 to 2028, DOE/EIA projects solar capacity in the FRCC will increase by 

about 1,230 MW (DOE/EIA 2016-TN4623). The 2014 Florida State Electricity Profile indicates 

that FPL generated about 57 percent of the power in the FRCC (DOE/EIA 2016-TN4624). 

Attributing 57 percent of the growth to FPL, the NRC staff assumes that growth in solar capacity 

for FPL from 2015 to 2028 would be around 700 MW. 

Because (1) the projections for growth in solar energy in Florida are limited, (2) the area needed 

(and the associated environmental impacts) would be very large, and (3) the capacity factor of 

solar power is too low for baseload applications, the NRC staff concludes that a solar-energy 

facility at or in the vicinity of the Turkey Point site would not be a reasonable alternative to 

construction of a 2,200 MW(e) nuclear power-generation facility that would be operated as a 

baseload plant. 

9.2.3.4 Hydropower 

The EIA’s reference case in its Annual Energy Outlook 2012 projects that U.S. electricity 

production from hydropower plants will remain essentially stable through the year 2035 

(DOE/EIA 2011-TN1368). In the 1996 version of NUREG–1437, the NRC staff estimated that 

land requirements for hydroelectric power are approximately 1 million ac per 1,000 MW(e) 

(NRC 1996-TN288). For the target capacity of 2,200 MW(e) for proposed Turkey Point Units 6 

and 7, land requirements would thus be 2.2 million ac. 

A study conducted by the DOE estimates that there are 13 undeveloped potential hydropower 

sites in Florida. The results for individual site capacities range from 200 kW to 18 MW. The 

capacities of the majority (69 percent) of the hydropower sites in Florida are greater than 1 MW, 

and less than 10 MW. The 13 identified sites are located within one major river basin 

(Appalachicola River basin) and several minor river basins (Conner and Francfort 1998-

TN1367). Thus, the available hydropower in the entire State of Florida is well below the 

approximate 2,200 MW(e) net capacity of the proposed nuclear project. 

Because of the extremely low amount of undeveloped hydropower resource in Florida and the 

large land-use and related environmental and ecological resource impacts associated with siting 

hydroelectric facilities large enough to produce 2,200 MW(e), the NRC staff concludes that 

hydropower is not a feasible alternative within the FPL ROI to construction of a new nuclear 

power-generation facility operated as a baseload plant at the proposed site. 

As discussed in NUREG–1437 (NRC 2013-TN2654), ocean and tidal technologies are being 

developed but are in their infancy and have not been used at utility scale. In addition, 

DOE/EIA’s 2016 Table 58.2 did not include these technologies in its projections in the Annual 

Energy Outlook 2015 (DOE/EIA 2016-TN4623). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that within 

the FPL ROI these technologies are not feasible alternatives to construction of a new nuclear 

power-generation facility operated as a baseload plant at the proposed site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-26 October 2016 

9.2.3.5 Geothermal Energy 

Geothermal energy has an average capacity factor of 90 percent and can be used for baseload 

power where available. Geothermal plants are most likely to be sited in the western continental 

United States, Alaska, and Hawaii, where hydrothermal reservoirs are prevalent (DOE 2008-

TN1409). Geothermal systems have a relatively small footprint and minimal emissions 

(MIT 2006-TN1410). Florida has high-temperature geothermal resources that are suitable for 

space-heating applications, but not for baseload power generation (DOE 2010-TN1411). 

A study led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that a $300-million to 

$400-million investment over 15 years would be needed to make early-generation enhanced 

geothermal system power plant installations competitive in the evolving U.S. electricity supply 

markets (MIT 2006-TN1410). 

The University of Florida Geophysical Laboratory has investigated heat flow values for the Gulf 

coastal plain and north-central Florida. Thermal gradients found in the majority of the wells 

drilled in Florida ranged from below average to average, indicating little promise of a significant 

geothermal resource (State of Florida 1984-TN1422). 

For these reasons, the NRC staff concludes that a geothermal energy facility at the Turkey Point 

site or elsewhere in FPL’s ROI would not be a reasonable alternative to construction of a 

2,200 MW(e) nuclear power-generation facility operated as a baseload plant. 

9.2.3.6 Wood Waste 

A wood-burning facility can provide baseload power and operate with a high annual capacity 

factor and with thermal efficiency similar to a coal plant (EPA 2007-TN2660; NREL 1993-

TN2661). The fuels required are variable and site-specific. A significant impediment to the use 

of wood waste to generate electricity is the high cost of fuel delivery and high construction cost 

per megawatt of generating capacity. Estimates in NUREG–1437 suggest that the overall level 

of construction impacts per megawatt of installed capacity would be approximately the same as 

that for a coal-fired plant (NRC 2013-TN2654). Similar to coal-fired plants, wood-waste plants 

require large areas for fuel storage and processing and involve the same type of combustion 

equipment. In the Annual Energy Outlook 2016 Early Release, Table 58.2 (DOE/EIA 2016-

TN4623, DOE/EIA projects that growth in the generating capacity from biomass (which includes 

wood waste) in the FRCC region between 2015 and 2028 will be about 10 MW(e). 

Because of the small projected increase in generating capacity for wood power-generation 

plants, the NRC staff concludes that wood waste would not be a reasonable alternative to a 

2,200 MW(e) nuclear power-generation facility operated as a baseload plant. 

9.2.3.7 Municipal Solid Waste 

Municipal solid-waste combustors incinerate waste and can use the resultant heat to produce 

steam, hot water, or electricity. The combustion process reduces the volume of waste and the 

need for new solid-waste landfills. Mass-burning technologies are most commonly used in the 

United States. This group of technologies processes raw municipal solid waste with little or no 

sizing, shredding, or separation before combustion. More than one-fifth of the U.S. municipal 

solid-waste incinerators use refuse-derived fuel. In contrast to mass burning—where the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-27 NUREG–2176 

municipal solid waste is introduced “as is” into the combustion chamber—refuse-derived fuel 

facilities are equipped to recover recyclables (e.g., metals, cans, and glass) followed by 

shredding the combustible fraction into fluff for incineration (EPA 2009-TN1412). 

Municipal solid-waste combustors generate SO2 and NOx emissions and an ash residue that is 

buried in landfills. The ash residue is composed of bottom ash and fly ash. Bottom ash refers 

to the portion of the unburned waste that falls to the bottom of the grate or furnace. Fly ash 

represents the small particles that rise from the furnace during the combustion process. Fly ash 

is generally removed from flue gases using fabric filters and/or scrubbers (EPA 2008-TN1413). 

Currently, 84 waste-to-energy plants are operating in the United States (Michaels 2014-

TN3849). These plants have a combined generating capacity of approximately 2,770 MW(e), or 

an average of approximately 33 MW(e) per plant (Michaels 2014-TN3849). Given the small 

average output of existing plants, the NRC staff concludes that generating electricity from 

municipal solid waste would not be a reasonable alternative to a 2,200 MW(e) nuclear powergeneration facility operated as a baseload plant within FPL’s ROI. 

One additional generating resource that uses municipal solid waste as a fuel derivative is the 

capture and combustion of landfill-based gas. There are currently 21 operating landfill-based 

gas facilities in Florida, generating a total of 83.3 MW. Units range in size from 0.4 to 11.3 MW 

(EPA 2012-TN1414). Given the relatively small size of the plants and the finite number of 

usable resources, the NRC staff concludes that generating electricity from landfill-based gas 

would not be a reasonable alternative to construction and operation of a 2,200 MW(e) nuclear 

power plant supplying baseload electricity. 

9.2.3.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels 

In addition to wood and municipal solid-waste fuel, several other biomass-derived fuels are 

available for fueling electric generators, including burning crops, converting crops to a liquid fuel 

such as ethanol, and gasifying crops (including wood waste). The EIA estimates that wind, 

solar, and biomass will be the largest sources of renewable electricity generation among the 

non-hydropower renewable fuels through 2040 (DOE/EIA 2016-TN4622, Table 58). 

Co-firing biomass with coal is possible when low-cost biomass resources are available. 

Co-firing is the most economic option for the near future to introduce new biomass power 

generation. These projects require small capital investments per unit of power-generation 

capacity. Co-firing systems range in size from 1 to 30 MW(e) of biopower capacity (DOE 2008-

TN1416). 

Finally, the DOE/EIA projects limited growth in biomass power in the FRCC, which includes the 

FPL service territory. From 2015 to 2028, DOE/EIA projects biomass capacity (including woodburning facilities) in the FRCC will increase by about 10 MW(e) (DOE/EIA 2016-TN4623, Table 

58.2). In 2014, FPL generated about 57 percent of the power in the FRCC (DOE/EIA 2016-

TN4624). Based on this, the NRC staff assumes that growth in biomass capacity for FPL from 

2015 to 2028 would be around 6 MW(e). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-28 October 2016 

The NRC staff concludes that given the relatively small average output of biomass powergeneration facilities, biomass-derived fuels do not offer a reasonable alternative to a 

2,200 MW(e) nuclear power-generation facility operated as a baseload plant within FPL’s ROI. 

9.2.3.9 Fuel Cells 

Fuel cells work without combustion and its associated environmental side effects. Power is 

produced electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an anode, air over a cathode, 

and then separating the two by an electrolyte. The only byproducts are heat, water, and CO2. 

Hydrogen fuel can come from a variety of hydrocarbon resources by subjecting them to steam 

under pressure. Natural gas is typically used as the source of hydrogen. 

Phosphoric acid fuel cells are generally considered first-generation technology. Highertemperature, second-generation fuel cells achieve higher fuel-to-electricity and thermal 

efficiencies. The higher temperatures contribute to improved efficiencies and give the secondgeneration fuel cells the capability to generate steam for cogeneration and combined-cycle 

operations. 

During the past three decades, significant efforts have been made to develop more practical 

and affordable fuel-cell designs for stationary power applications, but progress has been slow. 

The cost of fuel-cell power systems must be reduced before they can be competitive with 

conventional technologies (DOE 2008-TN1417). DOE has an initiative called the Solid State 

Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) with the goal of developing large (i.e., 250 MW or greater) 

fuel-cell power systems, including those based on coal-derived fuels. Another SECA goal is to 

cut the costs of electricity generated via fuel cells to $700 per kilowatt (electrical) (DOE 2011-

TN2083). However, it is not clear whether DOE will achieve these goals and, if so, when the 

associated fuel cells might reach commercial operations. 

The NRC staff concludes that, at the present time, fuel cells are not economically or 

technologically competitive with other alternatives for baseload electricity generation. Future 

gains in cost competitiveness for fuel cells compared to other fuels are speculative. 

For the preceding reasons, the NRC staff concludes that a fuel-cell energy facility located at or 

in the vicinity of the proposed site would not currently be a reasonable alternative to 

construction of a 2,200 MW(e) nuclear power-generation facility operated as a baseload plant. 

9.2.4 Combination of Alternatives 

Individual alternatives to the construction of two new nuclear units at the Turkey Point site might 

not be sufficient on their own to generate FPL’s target value of 2,200 MW(e) because of the 

limited availability of the resource or lack of cost-effective opportunities. Nevertheless, it is 

conceivable that a combination of alternatives might be cost-effective. There are many possible 

combinations of alternatives. It would not be reasonable to examine every possible combination 

of alternatives in an EIS. Doing so would be counter to CEQ guidance that an EIS should be 

analytic rather than encyclopedic, should be kept concise, and should be no longer than 

absolutely necessary to comply with NEPA and CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.2(a),(b)

[TN2123]; CEQ 2005-TN1394). Given that FPL’s objective is for a new baseload generation 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-29 NUREG–2176 

facility, a fossil-fuel energy source, most likely natural gas or coal, would need to be a significant 

contributor to any reasonable alternative energy combination. 

Section 9.2.2.2 assumes the construction of four 550 MW(e) natural-gas−fired, combined-cycle 

power-generating units at the Turkey Point site using closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers. 

For a combined alternatives option, the NRC staff assessed the environmental impacts of an 

assumed 1,915 MW(e) of natural-gas−fired, combined-cycle power-generating units at the 

Turkey Point site using closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers, and the following contributions 

from within FPL’s ROI: 210 MW(e) from conservation and DSM programs beyond what is 

currently planned, 330 MW(e) from solar, and 75 MW(e) from biomass sources, including 

municipal solid waste. Solar energy would need to be combined with a backup power source 

(most likely NGCC) or an energy-storage mechanism, such as compressed air energy storage, 

to be used to meet a baseload need. The 1,915 MW(e) natural-gas plant assumed by the NRC 

staff would provide the backup power source for solar. The NRC staff believes that the 

preceding contributions are reasonable and representative for FPL’s ROI. The contributions 

reflect the NRC staff’s analysis in Sections 9.2.2 and 9.2.3. 

The environmental impacts of the natural-gas portion of the combination of energy alternatives 

would be somewhat less than those for the plant discussed in Section 9.2.2.2. The additional 

conservation and DSM should not have any direct impacts on the environment, although the 

program would involve increased costs to FPL customers. Because of its modest size, the 

biomass component would have minor impacts. The solar portion of the combination could 

have noticeable impacts on land use and terrestrial resources, depending on how it is 

implemented (i.e., built on cleared land versus rooftop installations). Overall, this alternative 

would have impacts similar to those of the natural-gas−only alternative discussed in Section 

9.2.2.2. A summary of the NRC staff’s characterizations of the environmental impacts 

associated with the construction and operation of the preceding assumed combination of 

alternatives is provided in Table 9-3. 

Table 9-3. Summary of the Environmental Impacts of a Combination of Power Sources 

Impact Category Impact Comment

Land Use MODERATE A natural-gas−fired plant would have land-use impacts for the 

power block, new transmission line corridors, cooling towers, and 

support systems, and connection to a natural-gas pipeline. Solar 

facilities and transmission lines could have noticeable land-use 

impacts because of the large footprints required for these facilities, 

especially the solar facilities. 

Air Quality SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Emissions from the natural-gas−fired plant would be approximately 

as follows: 

SO2 – 27 T/yr 

NOx – 466 T/yr 

CO – 177 T/yr 

PM10 – 89 T/yr 

PM2.5 –89 T/yr 

CO2 – 5.2 million T/yr 

Some hazardous air pollutants. 

Biomass would also have some emissions. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-30 October 2016 

Table 9-3. (contd) 

Impact Category Impact Comment

Water Use and 

Quality 

SMALL Impacts would be less than the impacts for a new nuclear power 

plant located at the proposed site. 

Ecology MODERATE Impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Solar facilities 

could add to impacts on terrestrial resources. Permanent impact 

on wetlands within the project footprint would occur. 

Waste 

Management 

SMALL The only significant waste would be from spent selective catalytic 

reduction catalyst used for control of NOx emissions and ash from 

biomass. 

Socioeconomics MODERATE 

Beneficial to 

SMALL Adverse 

Construction and operation impacts would be similar to those for 

the natural-gas–fired alternative, with all impacts SMALL and 

adverse, with the exception of a MODERATE and beneficial impact

from road improvements and SMALL beneficial economic and tax 

impacts throughout the affected region. Some construction-related 

impacts would occur, but the impacts would be minor because of 

the small workforce involved. Aesthetic impacts would be SMALL. 

Human Health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight would be protective of human 

health. 

Historic and 

Cultural 

Resources 

MODERATE The new transmission lines would have a noticeable adverse 

impact on the viewshed for cultural and historic resources. The 

impacts could be greater if the biomass or solar component was 

constructed on a location that contained archaeological resources. 

Environmental 

Justice 

NONE(a) No disproportionately high or adverse impacts on minority or lowincome populations would be anticipated based on analysis of 

census data and field interviews. 

(a) A determination of “NONE” for environmental justice analyses does not mean there are no adverse impacts on minority or lowincome populations from the proposed project. Instead, an indication of “NONE” means that while there are adverse impacts, 

those impacts do not affect minority or low-income populations in any disproportionate manner, relative to the general 

population.

9.2.5 Summary Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 9-4 contains a summary of the NRC staff’s environmental impact characterizations for 

constructing and operating new nuclear, coal-fired, and natural-gas−fired power-generating 

units, and a combination of alternatives at the Turkey Point site. The combination of 

alternatives shown in Table 9-4 assumes siting of the natural-gas−fired, combined-cycle units at 

the Turkey Point site and siting of other alternative power-generating units within FPL’s ROI. 

The significance levels used in the comparison table for the nuclear category originate from 

Chapters 4, 5, and 6 for construction and preconstruction as well as operational impacts. 

Because all or most of the electrical generation for the alternatives would be sited at the 

proposed site, the consideration of climate change in Appendix I would be applicable to these 

energy alternatives. 

The NRC staff reviewed the available information about the environmental impacts of powergeneration alternatives compared to the construction of new nuclear units at the Turkey Point 

site. Based on this review, the NRC staff concludes that, from an environmental perspective, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-31 NUREG–2176 

none of the viable energy alternatives is environmentally preferable to construction of a new 

baseload nuclear power-generation plant at the Turkey Point site. 

Table 9-4. Summary of the Environmental Impacts(a) of Construction and Operation of 

New Nuclear, Coal-Fired, and Natural-Gas–Fired Generating Units and a 

Combination of Alternatives 

Impact Category Nuclear Coal Natural Gas

Combination of 

Alternatives

Land Use MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

Air Quality SMALL MODERATE SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Water Use and Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Ecology MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

Waste Management SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL 

Socioeconomics MODERATE 

Beneficial to 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

MODERATE 

beneficial to 

MODERATE adverse 

MODERATE 

beneficial to 

SMALL adverse 

MODERATE 

beneficial to 

SMALL adverse 

Human Health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Historic and Cultural 

Resources 

MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

Environmental Justice NONE(b) NONE(b) NONE(b) NONE(b)

(a) Impact levels for all alternatives are for construction and operation but are not cumulative. Thus, the nuclear 

impacts identified here may differ from those used to compare impacts with those of the alternative sites, which 

use cumulative impacts. 

(b) A determination of “NONE” for environmental justice analyses does not mean there are no adverse impacts on 

minority or low-income populations from the proposed project. Instead, an indication of “NONE” means that 

while there are adverse impacts, those impacts do not affect minority or low-income populations in any 

disproportionate manner, relative to the general population.

Because of current concerns related to GHG emissions, it is appropriate to specifically discuss 

the differences among the alternative energy sources regarding CO2 emissions. The CO2

emissions for the proposed action and energy-generation alternatives are discussed in Sections 

5.7.1, 9.2.2.1, 9.2.2.2, and 9.2.4. Table 9-5 summarizes the CO2 emission estimates for a 

40-year period for the alternatives considered by the NRC staff to be viable for baseload power 

generation. These estimates are limited to the emissions from power generation and do not 

include CO2 emissions for workforce transportation, construction, fuel cycle, or 

decommissioning. Among the reasonable energy-generation alternatives, the CO2 emissions 

for nuclear power are a small fraction of the emissions of the other viable energy-generation 

alternatives. Even when the transportation emissions attributable to the nuclear workforce and 

the fuel-cycle emissions are added in, which would increase the emissions for plant operations 

over a 40-year period to about 11,000,000 MT CO2e, this number is still significantly lower than 

the emissions for the plant operations portion of the other reasonable energy-generation 

alternatives. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-32 October 2016 

Table 9-5. Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Energy Alternatives 

Generation Type Years CO2 Emissions (MT)(a)

Nuclear Power(b) 40 362,000 

Coal-Fired Generation(c) 40 748,000,000 

Natural-Gas–Fired Generation(d) 40 252,000,000 

Combination of Alternatives(e) 40 208,000,000 

(a) Nuclear power emissions are in units of MT CO2e whereas the other energy alternatives emissions estimates are

in units of MT CO2. If nuclear power emissions were represented in MT CO2, the value would be slightly less, 

because other GHG emissions would not be included. 

(b) From Section 5.7.1 for two units operational emissions, not including CO2 emissions for workforce transportation. 

(c) From Section 9.2.2.1. 

(d) From Section 9.2.2.2. 

(e) From Section 9.2.4 

On June 3, 2010, the EPA issued a rule that tailors the applicability criteria. The rule 

determines which stationary sources and modifications to existing projects become subject to 

permitting requirements for GHG emissions under the PSD and Title V programs of the Clean 

Air Act (75 FR 31514) (TN1404). According to the Tailoring Rule, GHG emissions are a 

regulated New Source Review pollutant under the PSD major source permitting program if the 

source (1) is otherwise subject to PSD (for another regulated New Source Review pollutant) and 

(2) has a GHG potential to emit equal to or more than 75,000 T/yr of CO2e (i.e., “carbon dioxide 

equivalent” adjusting for different global warming potentials for different GHGs), then the source 

would be subject to BACT. In addition, on October 23, 2015, the EPA published its final 

standards to limit CO2 emissions from new coal- and gas-fired power plants (80 FR 64509) 

(TN4388). The use of BACT has the potential to reduce the amount of GHGs emitted from 

stationary source facilities. The implementation of this rule could reduce the amount of GHGs 

from the values indicated in Table 9-5 for coal and natural gas, as well as from other alternative 

energy sources that would otherwise have appreciable uncontrolled GHG emissions. The GHG 

emissions from the production of electricity from a nuclear power source are primarily from the 

fuel cycle, and such emissions could be reduced further if the electricity from the assumed 

fossil-fuel source powering the fuel cycle is subject to BACTs. The emission of GHGs from the 

production of electrical energy from a nuclear power source is orders of magnitude less than 

those of the reasonable alternative energy sources. Accordingly, the comparative relationship 

between the energy sources listed in Table 9-5 would not change meaningfully, even if possible 

reductions to the GHG emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle are ignored, because GHG 

emissions from the other energy source alternatives would not be sufficiently reduced to make 

them environmentally preferable to the proposed project. 

CO2 emissions associated with other energy-generation alternatives, such as wind power, solar 

power, and hydropower, would be associated with workforce transportation, construction, and 

decommissioning of the facilities. Because these power-generation alternatives do not involve 

combustion, the review team considers the GHG emissions to be minor and concludes that the 

GHG emissions would have a minimal cumulative impact. Other energy-generation alternatives 

involving combustion of oil, wood waste, municipal solid waste, or biomass-derived fuels would 

produce CO2 emissions from combustion, as well as from workforce transportation, plant 

construction, and plant decommissioning. It is likely that the CO2 emissions from the 

combustion process for these alternatives would dominate the other CO2 emissions associated 

with the generation alternative. It is also likely that the CO2 emissions from these alternatives 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-33 NUREG–2176 

would be of the same order of magnitude as the emissions for the fossil-fuel alternatives 

considered in Sections 9.2.2.1, 9.2.2.2, and 9.2.4. However, because the review team 

determined that these alternatives would not meet the need for baseload power generation, 

their CO2 emissions were not evaluated quantitatively. 

Insofar as some of these alternatives, such as biomass, are considered in the combination of 

alternatives discussed in Section 9.2.4, they would increase the total CO2 emissions beyond the 

numbers shown in Table 9-5; however, the review team considers the small fraction contributed 

by these technologies in comparison to the contributions of the natural-gas component for the 

combination of alternatives case to have a minimal further cumulative impact that does not 

warrant a more precise analysis. 

As discussed in Chapter 8, the NRC staff concludes that the need for additional baseload power 

generation has been demonstrated. Also, as discussed earlier in this chapter, the NRC staff 

concludes that the viable alternatives to the proposed action all would involve the use of fossil 

fuels (coal or natural gas). Consequently, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action 

results in the lowest level of emissions of GHGs among the viable alternatives. 

9.3 Alternative Sites 

The NRC’s ESRP (NRC 2000-TN614) states that the ER, submitted in conjunction with an 

application for a COL, should include an evaluation of alternative sites to determine if any 

obviously superior alternative to the proposed site exists. The NRC’s site-selection process 

guidance calls for identification of a ROI, followed by successive screening to identify candidate 

areas, potential sites, candidate sites, and the proposed site (NRC 2000-TN614). This section 

includes a discussion of FPL’s ROI for the proposed siting of a new nuclear power plant, and 

describes its alternative site-selection process. This is followed by the review team’s evaluation 

of the FPL site-selection process, a description of the alternative sites selected, and discussion 

of the environmental impacts of locating the proposed facilities at each alternative site. 

The review of alternative sites consists of a two-part sequential test (NRC 2000-TN614). The 

first part of the test determines whether any of the alternative sites are environmentally 

preferable. To determine if a site is environmentally preferable, the NRC staff considers 

whether the applicant has (1) reasonably identified candidate sites, (2) evaluated the likely 

environmental impacts of the proposed action at these sites, and (3) used a logical means of 

comparing sites that led to selection of the proposed site. Based on its independent review, the 

NRC staff determines whether any of the alternative sites are environmentally preferable to the 

applicant’s proposed site. If the NRC staff determines that one or more alternative sites are 

environmentally preferable, it then proceeds with the second part of the test. 

The second part of the test determines if an environmentally preferable alternative site is not 

simply marginally better, but obviously superior to the proposed site. The NRC staff examines 

whether (1) one or more important aspects, either singly or in combination, of an acceptable and 

available alternative site are obviously superior to the corresponding aspects of the applicant’s 

proposed site, and (2) the alternative site does not have offsetting deficiencies in other 

important areas. Included in this part of the test is the consideration of estimated costs (i.e., 

environmental, economic, and time of building the proposed plant) at the proposed site and at 

the environmentally preferable site or sites (NRC 2000-TN614). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-34 October 2016 

The specific resources that could be affected by the incremental effects of the proposed action 

and other actions in the same geographic area were assessed. For the purposes of this 

alternative sites evaluation, impacts evaluated include NRC-authorized construction, operation, 

and other cumulative impacts including preconstruction activities. Sections 9.3.2 through 9.3.5 

provide a site-specific description of the environmental impacts at each alternative site based on 

issues such as land use, water resources, terrestrial and aquatic ecology, socioeconomics, 

environmental justice, historic and cultural resources, air quality, nonradiological health, 

radiological impacts of normal operation, and postulated accidents. Section 9.3.6 contains a 

table of the NRC staff’s characterization of the impacts at the alternative sites and comparison 

with the proposed site to determine if there are any alternative sites that are environmentally 

preferable to the proposed site. 

9.3.1 Alternative Site-Selection Process 

FPL’s site-selection process was based on guidance provided in the NRC’s ESRP (NRC 2000-

TN614), NRC Regulatory Guide 4.7, Revision 2 (NRC 1998-TN1008), and the Electric Power 

Research Institute (EPRI) siting guide (EPRI 2002-TN1799). The site-selection and comparison 

process focused on identifying and evaluating sites that represented an acceptable range of 

alternatives for the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. The following information details the 

process used to identify and screen sites in successive steps until a reasonable number of 

alternative sites were determined and evaluated, and the proposed Turkey Point plant site was 

selected (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

FPL’s screening process proceeded through the following steps, which successively reduced 

the number of sites to the final candidate sites (FPL 2014-TN4058): 

 ROI: Largest geographic area of consideration, defined as the FPL service area. 

 Candidate Areas: Areas within the ROI that would support the facility as proposed. These 

areas were determined by using exclusionary and/or avoidance criteria to screen the ROI to 

eliminate the areas where it would not be feasible to site a nuclear facility because of 

regulatory, institutional, plant design, and/or significant environmental impacts. 

 Potential Sites: Discrete parcels of land found within the candidate areas that would support 

the facility as proposed. Potential sites were determined by using a refined set of 

exclusionary and/or avoidance criteria to screen the candidate areas. The screening data 

set was more refined and of higher detail than the data set used to identify the candidate 

areas. 

 Candidate Sites: Sites that were selected by applying suitability criteria to the potential site 

list. This selection process used a quantifiable weighting and ranking process, including 

sensitivity analysis. 

 Proposed Site: FPL selected the Turkey Point site based on the exception discussed in 

ESRP 9.3 (NRC 2000-TN614). FPL also retained the St. Lucie site based on this exception. 

FPL then compared the proposed and alternative sites on an issue-by-issue basis that 

allowed the applicant to identify both cost and environmental trade-offs associated with 

developing each of the sites. This approach provided a high level of assurance that the 

proposed site had no fatal flaw that could result in environmental impacts outside the 

identified scope, licensing delays, or increased cost. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-35 NUREG–2176 

ESRP 9.3 (NRC 2000-TN614) recognizes the potential value of including existing nuclear power 

plant sites that were “previously found acceptable on the basis of a National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) review, or have [been] demonstrated to be environmentally acceptable on the 

basis of operating experience, or allocated to an applicant by a state government from a list of 

state approved power plant sites.” Based on FPL’s interpretation of ESRP 9.3, of the five final 

candidate sites, FPL determined that both the Turkey Point and the St. Lucie plant sites met the 

preceding criteria of having been found previously acceptable after a NEPA review. The NRC 

staff notes that previous determinations of site acceptability do not exempt that site from the 

same level of rigor of evaluation applied to the other alternative sites. The ESRP simply 

recognizes that a significant level of site characterization may have already been conducted, 

thereby providing a reasonable basis for assessment. 

FPL’s site-selection process is summarized herein and in its ER (FPL 2014-TN4058). A more 

detailed discussion of FPL’s site-selection process is available in FPL’s initial 2006 siting 

document, Project Bluegrass New Nuclear Power Generation Final Site Selection Study Report

(FPL 2007-TN3854). Subsequently, the ER and the siting report were supplemented in 2011 

with a report titled Florida Power & Light Company Turkey Point 6 & 7 New Nuclear Power 

Generation (Formerly Project Bluegrass) Augmented Site Selection Study Report (FPL 2011-

TN36) in response to the NRC’s environmental audit and requests for additional information 

(NRC 2011-TN3751) to demonstrate that the site-selection process was conducted in a manner 

consistent with NUREG–1555, Section 9.3 (NRC 2000-TN614; FPL 2014-TN4058). 

9.3.1.1 Selection of Region of Interest 

For this COL application, the FPL defined the ROI as the area within (or immediately adjacent 

to) the FPL service territory. The FPL service territory is shown in Figure 9-1. 

Although FPL’s service territory extends north to south across the State of Florida, FPL 

indicated that its need for power is focused primarily on the load centers for the greater Miami 

area (FPL 2011-TN36; FPL 2014-TN4058). 

9.3.1.2 Selection of Candidate Areas 

FPL reduced the ROI to candidate areas by applying the following five exclusionary criteria: 

(FPL 2014-TN4058) 

 areas greater than 10 mi from qualifying rivers and 10 mi from the Atlantic Ocean and the 

Gulf of Mexico 

 areas greater than 10 mi from qualifying wastewater-treatment plants 

 census block groups where population density >300 persons/mi2

 lands designated as national parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National Marine Sanctuary 

Areas, military installations, Indian lands, and Florida State parks 

 critical habitat for the following U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)-listed threatened or 

endangered species: American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), Cape Sable seaside sparrow 

(Ammodramus maritimus mirabili), Choctawhatchee beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus 

allophrys [Bowen]), Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus), frosted flatwoods 

salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum [Cope]), Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus), 

Johnson’s seagrass (Halophila johnsonii), Perdido Key beach mouse (Peromyscus 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-36 October 2016 

Figure 9-1. FPL Service Territory 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-37 NUREG–2176 

polionotus trissyllepsis [Bowen]), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), purple bankclimber 

(Elliptoideus sloatianus), rice rat (Oryzomys palustris), right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), and 

St. Andrew beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis). 

After applying these exclusionary criteria, FPL identified the 16 candidate areas identified in 

Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-3. 

9.3.1.3 Selection of Potential Sites 

In FPL’s initial site-selection process (FPL 2011-TN36) an internal FPL team was canvassed to 

identify known available sites within or near the FPL service territory. This initial effort identified 

23 potential sites consisting of existing FPL power-generation sites, FPL-owned greenfield sites, 

and other greenfield sites that FPL did not own. These 23 potential sites were qualitatively 

evaluated using the following criteria (FPL 2014-TN4058): 

 sufficient land currently exists for new nuclear power plant construction 

 sufficient land can be obtained for new nuclear power plant construction 

 adequate sources of water 

 transmission feasibility. 

Based on this evaluation, the original 23 potential sites were screened and reduced to 15 sites. 

FPL eliminated four sites because they were too distant from the primary load center of MiamiDade requiring new, difficult to obtain transmission line rights-of-way. An additional four sites 

were eliminated by FPL based on insufficient available space and determinations that additional 

lands were either not available or would be difficult to obtain (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

As described previously in Section 9.3.1, in 2011 FPL supplemented its initial screening 

evaluation with its Augmented Site Selection Study Report (FPL 2011-TN36) and applied the 

following screening criteria to the 16 candidate areas: 

 avoidance of high-population areas 

 avoidance of ecologically sensitive and special designation areas 

 avoidance of special dedicated land uses (e.g., national parks) 

 proximity to target transmission/load centers 

 a minimum size of 5,000 ac 

 flexibility to optimize site layout and design for cost minimization 

 flexibility to optimize site layout and design for avoidance or mitigation of environmental 

impacts 

 optimization of site engineering factors (e.g., topography, foundation conditions, grading 

requirements) (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

Through this process, FPL identified 6 additional greenfield sites to consider as potential sites 

for a total of 21 potential sites as identified in Figure 9-4. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-38 October 2016 

Figure 9-2. Candidate Areas: Southern Service Territory 

Figure 9-3. Candidate Areas: Northern Service Territory 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-39 NUREG–2176 

Figure 9-4. Potential Site Locations 

FPL evaluated the 21 potential sites against the following 9 weighted screening criteria 

(FPL 2014-TN4058): 

 cooling-water supply 

 flooding 

 population 

 hazardous land uses 

 ecology 

 wetlands 

 railroad access 

 transmission access 

 land acquisition. 

FPL’s detailed description of the metrics and rating rationale for each of these criteria is 

provided in the ER in Table 9.3-3. Of the original 21 potential sites FPL selected the top 8 

ranked sites, and even though they ranked below these 8 sites, FPL also retained the Turkey 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-40 October 2016 

Point and St. Lucie sites “based on the fact that they are existing, operating nuclear power plant 

sites within the ROI,” and FPL’s determination that the sites fall within “the special case 

(described above) for licensed nuclear power plant sites” (FPL 2014-TN4058). The resulting 10 

potential sites were: 

 DeSoto 

 Glades 

 Glades A 

 Hendry 1 

 Martin 

 Martin A 

 Okeechobee 1 

 Okeechobee 2 

 St. Lucie 

 Turkey Point. 

9.3.1.4 Selection of Candidate Sites 

FPL next subjected these 10 potential sites to further evaluation against 34 weighted screening 

criteria, including 12 health and safety criteria, 8 environmental criteria, 3 socioeconomic 

criteria, and 11 engineering and cost criteria. A detailed list of all 34 criteria can be found in the 

ER in Table 9.3-5 (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

In the resulting composite scores, the Okeechobee 1, DeSoto, and Hendry 1 sites rated lowest 

and were eliminated from further consideration. Of the remaining seven sites, FPL determined 

that neither the Martin A nor the Glades A sites presented any significant advantages over the 

Martin and Glades sites, respectively (sites that had already been evaluated in detail in the 2006 

study), and therefore they were also dropped from further consideration. The resulting five 

candidate sites proposed by FPL, from highest to lowest composite score, are: 

 Turkey Point 

 St. Lucie 

 Martin 

 Okeechobee 2 

 Glades. 

9.3.1.5 Selection of the Proposed Site 

FPL subjected the five candidate sites to an additional qualitative review using the following 11 

criteria: 

 Environmental impact – existence of ecological or environmental permitting issues 

 Transmission – availability of existing right-of-way and cost of upgrades 

 Land acquisition – existing land ownership and expected difficulty of acquiring site (if 

applicable) 

 Reliability (transmission) – analysis of reliability from a power-transmission perspective 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-41 NUREG–2176 

 Reliability (generation) – qualitative analysis of risk factors for reliable power production and 

supply 

 Public acceptance – ability to obtain public acceptance to support siting activities 

 Political (local) – governmental/organizational support at the local level 

 Political (state) – governmental and regulatory support at the State and Federal level 

 Transmission takeaway – feasibility of constructing the necessary upgrades to deliver power 

to the system 

 Schedule compatibility – level of confidence that site will support commencement of 

combined license application activities in January 2007 

 Site layout feasibility – ability of site to accommodate plant layout. 

Using a three-point scoring system where 1 equaled more favorable and 3 equaled less 

favorable, FPL overall scoring ranked the sites in numerical order as follows: 

1. Turkey Point 

2. Glades 

3. Martin 

4. Okeechobee 2 

5. St. Lucie. 

Thus FPL selected the Turkey Point site as its proposed site based on this ranking and its 

determination that the site was the preferred site for meeting FPL’s overall business objectives 

(FPL 2014-TN4058). 

9.3.1.6 Review Team Evaluation of FPL’s Site-Selection Process 

The NRC staff evaluated the methodology used by FPL and concluded that the process was 

reasonable and consistent with the guidelines presented in the ESRP and EPRI’s siting guide. 

The review team found that the systematic alternative siting analysis demonstrated a logical 

selection process and application of screening and exclusionary siting criteria. The analysis 

enabled the evaluation of the likely environmental impacts associated with the respective sites, 

including the evaluation of suitability criteria; identified acceptable alternative sites; and clearly 

provided the mechanism for selection of the final proposed site. 

Following the guidance provided in ESRP 9.3 (NRC 2000-TN614), the review team visited the 

four alternative sites and collected and analyzed reconnaissance-level information for each site. 

The review team then used the information in the ER, siting studies, and responses to requests 

for additional information (RAIs), information from other Federal and State agencies, and 

information gathered during the site visits to evaluate the environmental impacts of building and 

operating two new nuclear power plants at those sites. The analysis considered the impacts of 

NRC-authorized construction and operation as well as potential cumulative impacts associated 

with other actions affecting the same resources, including but not limited to preconstruction. 

The cumulative impact analysis for the alternative sites was performed in the same manner as 

discussed in Chapter 7 for the proposed site except that, as specified in ESRP 9.3 (NRC 2000-
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-42 October 2016 

TN614), the analysis was conducted at the reconnaissance level. The review team researched 

EPA databases for recent EISs within the State; used an EPA database for permits for water 

discharges in the geographic area to identify water-use projects; and used www.recovery.gov to 

identify projects in the geographic area funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (ARRA) (26 U.S.C. § 1) (TN1250). The review team developed tables of the major 

projects near each alternative site that were considered relevant in the cumulative analysis. 

The review team used the information to perform an independent evaluation of the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative impacts of the action at the alternative sites to determine if one or more 

of the alternative sites were environmentally preferable to the proposed site. 

Included are past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private 

actions that could have meaningful cumulative impacts with the action. For the purposes of this 

analysis, the past is defined as the time period prior to receipt of the COL application. The 

present is defined as the time period from the receipt of the COL application until the beginning 

of NRC-authorized construction of proposed Units 6 and 7. Future actions are those that are 

reasonably foreseeable through NRC-authorized construction and operation of the proposed 

Units 6 and 7 and decommissioning. 

The specific resources and components that could be affected incrementally by the action and 

other actions in the same geographic area were identified. The affected environment that 

serves as the baseline for the cumulative impacts analysis is described for each alternative site, 

and a qualitative discussion of the general effects of past actions is included. The geographic 

area over which past, present, and future actions could reasonably contribute to cumulative 

impacts is defined and described for each resource area. The analysis for each resource area 

at each alternative site concludes with a cumulative impact finding (SMALL, MODERATE, or 

LARGE). For conclusions greater than SMALL, the review team also discussed whether 

building and operating the proposed facilities would be a significant contributor to the cumulative 

impact. In the context of this evaluation, “significant” is defined as a contribution that is 

important in reaching that impact-level determination. 

The review team considered in Appendix I how future climate change could affect the evaluation 

of the impacts of operating the proposed new nuclear units at the Turkey Point site. The 

considerations in Appendix I would also apply to the alternative sites because all of the 

alternative sites are in the same geographic area (the Southeast Region) as the proposed site 

for the purposes of the analysis in the third National Climate Change Assessment by the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program (GCRP 2014-TN3472). The inland alternative sites could 

experience fewer impacts from sea-level rise, but may also experience greater impacts from 

other climate change indicators, such as rising temperature. 

The nonradiological waste impacts described in Sections 4.10 and 5.10 would not substantially 

vary from one site to another. The types and quantities of nonradiological and mixed waste 

would be approximately the same for construction and operation of two Westinghouse AP1000 

pressurized water reactors at any of the alternative sites. For each alternative site, all wastes 

destined for land-based treatment or disposal would be transported offsite by licensed 

contractors to existing, licensed, disposal facilities operating in compliance with all applicable 

Federal, State, and local requirements. All nonradioactive, liquid discharges would be 

discharged in compliance with the provisions of the applicable National Pollutant Discharge 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-43 NUREG–2176 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit. For these reasons, these impacts are expected to be 

minimal and will not be discussed separately in the evaluation of each alternative site. 

The impacts described in Chapter 6 of this EIS (e.g., nuclear fuel cycle and decommissioning) 

would likewise not substantially vary from one site to another because the NRC staff assumes 

the same reactor design (therefore, the same fuel-cycle technology, transportation methods, 

and decommissioning methods) for all of the sites. As such, these impacts would not 

differentiate between the sites and would not be useful in the determination of whether an 

alternative site is environmentally preferable to the proposed site. For this reason, these 

impacts are not discussed in the evaluation of the alternative sites. 

Three of the four alternative sites are located near Lake Okeechobee, the largest lake in the 

southeastern United States (SFWMD et al. 2011-TN3087). However withdrawal of water from 

the lake and its tributaries is heavily regulated to meet management and restoration goals for 

the lake and other resources in South Florida (SFWMD 2012-TN3085). As a result, FPL has 

proposed a combination of surface water and groundwater resources to meet the cooling-water 

needs of two nuclear power units at these alternative sites. During periods of excess flow, 

water from the Kissimmee River/Lake Okeechobee system would be withdrawn and stored in a 

3,000 ac reservoir on the site. During periods when this water was not sufficient, groundwater 

from the Avon Park permeable zone (APPZ) would be withdrawn and treated with reverse 

osmosis to reduce the salinity of the water so that sensitive plant and animal communities in the 

area would not be affected by salt drift from the cooling towers (FPL 2013-TN3052). Blowdown 

water would be disposed of by injecting the water into the Boulder Zone resulting in no 

discharge of wastewater to surface waters or groundwaters used as potable water supplies. 

To minimize the environmental impacts at these alternative sites, the review team considered 

an alternative configuration of the cooling system that FPL proposed. The review team was 

unable to confirm that, based on the drift rates provided by FPL for the Turkey Point cooling 

towers using brackish or saline water, salt deposition would be sufficiently adverse to the 

ecosystem to preclude the use of groundwater from the APPZ for cooling without a reverse 

osmosis system. The review team concluded that such a system would not be required. In 

addition, increased use of groundwater could reduce or eliminate the requirement for a surfacewater reservoir. Therefore, the review team performed an analysis that did not include either a 

surface-water reservoir or a reverse osmosis system as part of the cooling system for each 

inland alternative site. The review team assumed that the revised design would use surface 

water only at times of excess flow. The review team acknowledges that the revised coolingsystem design would result in a reduced number of cycles of concentration, greater 

groundwater pumping, and greater deep-well injection, all of which may contribute to greater 

operational and maintenance costs. 

The review team also notes that no power-generating station in Florida relies on groundwater 

from an aquifer of the depth of the APPZ, and it knows of no individual user of groundwater from 

this depth that would use water in the quantities necessary to cool two AP1000 units. There is, 

therefore, significant uncertainty regarding how the cooling system might be implemented at any 

of these three sites. If such a plant were to be built, State regulators could require actions to 

address environmental concerns, such as a cooling-water reservoir or a reverse osmosis plant. 

To address some of this uncertainty, in addition to evaluating the environmental impacts of its 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-44 October 2016 

version of the cooling system, the review team qualitatively assessed how those impacts would 

be different if a 3,000 ac reservoir was included in the design of the system. Based on that 

assessment, including the reservoir would increase the impacts on land use and terrestrial 

ecology, while also increasing in a minor way the impacts on aquatic ecology and surface-water 

use. Impacts on other resources would likely not change appreciably. The review team did not 

include any assessment of the impacts with reverse osmosis treatment of the water because the 

team concluded that such treatment would not be necessary. 

The cumulative impacts are summarized for each resource area in the subsections that follow. 

The level of detail is commensurate with the potential significance of the impacts. The four 

alternative sites are described in the following sections—the Glades site (9.3.2), the Martin site 

(9.3.3), the Okeechobee 2 site (9.3.4), and the St. Lucie site (9.3.5). A summary comparison of 

the review team’s characterization of the impacts of the proposed action at the proposed and 

alternative sites is presented in Section 9.3.6 and Table 9-28. 

9.3.2 Glades Site 

This section covers the review team’s evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting 

a new two-unit nuclear power plant on the Glades site. The Glades site is located in an 

undeveloped area in southeastern Glades County approximately 1 mi south of U.S. Highway 27 

(US-27). Nearby towns include Moore Haven (2 mi east), Clewiston (15 mi southeast), La Belle 

(18 mi west), and Okeechobee (35 mi northeast). The Miami load center is approximately 75 mi 

southeast of the Glades site. Lake Okeechobee is approximately 5 mi to the northeast 

(FPL 2014-TN4058). The location of the Glades site is shown in Figure 9-5. 

The Glades site is an undeveloped greenfield site approximately 3,000 ac in size (FPL 2014-

TN4058). The majority of the site is currently agricultural fields. Topography does not vary 

considerably over the site. 

FPL assumed the facility footprint, including the power units, support buildings, switchyard, 

storage areas, stormwater-retention ponds, and other structures, would require an estimated 

362 ac Figure 9-6. Building at the Glades site would also require the creation of a transmission 

line corridor approximately 121 mi long, a 1.9 mi access road (23.1 ac), installation of 6.2 mi of 

railway (74.8 ac), and an intake/makeup pipeline (3.4 ac). Additional area (up to several 

hundred acres) would be temporarily disturbed for activities such as laydown areas, a batch 

plant, and for fill and spoil deposition (FPL 2014-TN4058). As discussed in Section 9.3.1.7, the 

review team considered an alternative configuration of the cooling system that FPL proposed. 

The following sections include a cumulative impact assessment conducted for each major 

resource area. The specific resources and components that could be affected by the 

incremental effects of the proposed action if implemented at the Glades site and other actions in 

the same geographic area were considered. This assessment includes the impacts of NRCauthorized construction and operations and impacts of preconstruction activities. Also included 

in the assessment are past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future Federal, non-Federal, 

and private actions that could have meaningful cumulative impacts when considered together 

with the proposed action if implemented at the Glades site. Other actions and projects 

considered in this cumulative analysis are described in Table 9-6. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-45 NUREG–2176 

Figure 9-5. The Glades Site Region 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-46 October 2016 

Figure 9-6. Glades Site Footprint 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-47 NUREG–2176 

Table 9-6. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions in the 

Vicinity of the Glades Alternative Site 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Energy Projects 

St. Lucie Two 3,020 MW(t) nuclear power 

reactors 

68 mi NE of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

West County Energy 

Center 

Three 1,250 MW naturalgas−powered units 50 mi SE of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Martin Approximately 4,300 MW from 

five units, three natural-gas and 

two oil units with a solar thermal 

facility generating supplemental 

steam 

41 mi NE of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Indiantown 

Cogeneration 

Company 

330 MW coal-fired power plant 43 mi NE of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

J.H. Phillips Sebring 

Station 

36 MW two-unit oil power facility 45 mi NW of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Ft. Myers Combination of oil and gas units 

with a total combined capacity 

(summer) of 2,396 MW. FPL has 

proposed to replace 10 of the 12 

63 MW oil-fired units with 3 new 

200 MW gas-fired units. 

39 mi SW of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Lee County WasteTo-Energy Plant Waste-to-energy power 

generation 

39 mi SW of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Okeelanta 

Cogeneration Facility 

140 MW biomass powergeneration facility 31 mi SE of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

FPL pipeline 126 mi pipeline from Sabal Trail’s 

Central Florida Hub to FPL’s 

Martin Clean Energy Center 

Throughout 

region NE of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Operational, Units 1 and 2

underwent license renewal

in 2003. Units 1 and 2 

completed 320 MW(t) 

power uprates in 2013 

(NRC 2012-TN1668;

FPL 2014-TN3360) 

Operational (FDEP 2013-

TN2965) 

Operational (FPL 2016-

TN4579)

Operational (FDEP 2013-

TN2967) 

Put in reserve standby 

status in 2009

(TECO 2014-TN4125)

Operational and Proposed.

Replacement of 10 of the 

12 oil-fired units is planned 

in 2016 (FDEP 2013-

TN3003; FPL 2016-

TN4579)

Operational (Lee 

County 2014-TN2984) 

Operational (FDEP 2013-

TN2968) 

Proposed, construction set

to begin 2016 (FPL 2014-

TN2975) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-48 October 2016 

Table 9-6. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Floridian Natural Gas 

Storage Company - 

Natural Gas Storage 

Facility 

Storage of Natural Gas 40 mi NE of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Proposed, FERC Order 

amending Certificate issued 

(FERC 2015-TN4599) with 

associated Environmental 

Assessment (FERC 2015-

TN4600) 

DeSoto NextGeneration Solar 

Energy Center 

25 MW solar-energy plant 50 mi NW of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Operational (FPL 2014-

TN2974) 

Energy Projects (contd) 

Southeastern 

Renewable Fuels 

Biorefinery and 

Cogeneration Plant 

30 MW biofuel using leftover sweet 

sorghum stalk fiber 

19 mi SE of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Proposed, Final air permit 

issued by FDEP in 2010 

(FDEP 2010-TN2970) 

Mining Projects 

Five Stone Mining Stone/quarry mining 37 mi NE of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2013-

TN2959) 

Daniel Shell Pit, 

Phase 6 

Stone/quarry mining 32 mi NE of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2013-

TN2956) 

Florida Shell and 

Rock 

Stone/quarry mining 40 mi NW of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2013-

TN2960) 

Jay Rock Mine Stone/quarry mining 40 mi NW of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2013-

TN2962) 

E R Jahna Industries 

Inc - Ortona Mine 

Stone/quarry mining 8 mi SW of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2013-

TN2958) 

Harper Bros Inc - 

Alico Quarry 

Stone/quarry mining 39 mi SW of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2014-

TN2961) 

Bonita Grande 

Properties 

Stone/quarry mining 46 mi SW of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2014-

TN2955) 

Various other mine 

and quarry projects 

Stone/quarry mining Throughout 

region 

Operational (FDEP 2010-

TN2966) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-49 NUREG–2176 

Table 9-6. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Transportation Projects 

Various 

Transportation 

Projects 

Road, traffic, pedestrian projects Throughout 

region 

Ongoing (FDOT 2014-

TN4014) 

Parks and Aquaculture Facilities 

Big Cypress National 

Preserve 

Backcountry access plan to 

provide off-road vehicle secondary 

trails, non-motorized trails, and a 

camping management to the 

backcountry 

38 mi S of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Proposed, backcountry 

access plan and EIS being 

developed by the National 

Park Service (NPS) 

(NPS 2014-TN3754) 

Arthur R. Marshall 

Loxahatchee 

National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Activities include picnicking, 

boating, fishing, and hiking 

27–60 mi SE of 

the Glades 

alternative site 

Development likely limited 

within this area (FWS 2013-

TN2992) 

Okaloacoochee 

Slough State Forest 

Activities include bicycling, 

camping, hunting, fishing, and 

hiking 

15–22 mi SW of 

the Glades 

alternative site 

Development likely limited 

within this area 

(SFWMD 2014-TN3005) 

Everglades Wildlife 

Management Area 

Activities include bicycling, 

camping, hunting, fishing, and 

hiking 

40 mi SE of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Development likely limited 

within this area 

(FFWCC 2014-TN2977) 

DuPuis Wildlife and 

Environmental Area 

Activities include bicycling, 

camping, hunting, fishing, and 

hiking 

37–40 mi NE of 

the Glades 

alternative site 

Development likely limited 

within this area 

(FFWCC 2014-TN2977) 

Kissimmee River Activities include bicycling, 

Horseback riding, hunting, 

camping, fishing, and hiking 

N and NW of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Development likely limited 

within this area 

(FFWCC 2014-TN3004) 

Okeechobee 

Battlefield State Park 

Hiking, camping 36 mi NE of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Development likely limited 

within this area 

(FDEP 2010-TN2971) 

Archbold Biological 

Station 

Ecological research station and 

preserve; organization owns and 

protects a 5,193 ac globally 

significant Florida scrub preserve 

located on the southern end of the 

Lake Wales Ridge 

28 mi NW of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Development likely limited 

within this area (Archbold 

Biological Station 2014-

TN2954) 

Highlands Hammock 

State Park 

Activities include bicycling, 

camping, picnicking, horseback 

riding, fishing, and hiking 

48 mi NW of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Development likely limited 

within this area (Florida 

State Parks 2014-TN2972) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-50 October 2016 

Table 9-6. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Lake June in Winter 

Scrub State Park 

Activities include picnicking, 

fishing, and hiking 

36 mi NW of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Development likely limited 

within this area (Florida 

State Parks 2014-TN2973) 

Lake Okeechobee 730 mi2 freshwater lake, 

restoration and protection plan 

14 mi E and NE 

of the Glades 

alternative site 

Ongoing, Florida 

Legislature in 2007 

expanded the Lake 

Okeechobee Protection Act 

(SFWMD 2014-TN2988)

Lake Wales Ridge 

National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Composed of four tracts within 

Polk and Highlands Counties. 

Closed to the public 

46 mi NW of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Development likely limited 

within this area (FWS 2011-

TN2993) 

Other State Nature 

Preserves and 

Wildlife Management 

Areas 

Public recreational activities Throughout 

region 

Development likely limited 

within these areas 

(FFWCC 2014-TN2981) 

Everglades Ecosystem Restoration and/or Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Projects 

(DOI 2016-TN4589) 

C-43 Basin Aquifer 

Storage and 

Recovery

The Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan (CERP) Restudy 

envisioned aquifer storage and 

recovery wells with a capacity of 

approximately 220 million gallons 

per day and associated pre- and 

post-water quality treatment 

located in the C-43 Basin in 

Hendry, Glades, or Lee Counties in 

conjunction with another project. 

24 mi SW of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Proposed, Project in 

Preconstruction, 

Engineering and Design 

phase (USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-TN3009) 

Caloosahatchee 

River (C-43) West 

Basin Storage 

Project to improve the timing, 

quantity, and quality of freshwater 

flows to the Caloosahatchee River 

estuary 

21 mi SW of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Proposed, Project in 

Planning phase. (USACE 

and SFWMD 2014-

TN3010) 

Indian River Lagoon 

-South 

Project purpose is to improve 

surface-water management in the 

C-23/C-24, C-25, and C-44 basins 

for habitat improvement in the 

Saint Lucie River Estuary and 

southern portions of the Indian 

River Lagoon. 

49 mi E of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Proposed, Project in 

Preconstruction, 

Engineering and Design 

phase (USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-TN3013) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-51 NUREG–2176 

Table 9-6. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Everglades 

Agricultural Area 

Storage Reservoirs 

The purpose of this project is to 

improve the timing of 

environmental deliveries to the 

Water Conservation Areas, 

including reducing damaging flood 

releases from the Everglades 

Agricultural Area to the Water 

Conservation Areas. 

Throughout 

region 

Proposed, Final Project 

Implementation Report 

submitted 2012 (USACE 

and SFWMD 2014-

TN3011) 

Flows to Northwest 

and Central Water 

Conservation Areas 

3A 

The purpose of this feature is to 

increase environmental watersupply availability, increase depths 

and extend wetland hydropatterns 

in the northwest corner and westcentral portions of Water 

Conservation Area 3A. 

43 mi SW of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Proposed, Project in 

Preconstruction, 

Engineering and Design 

phase (USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-TN3012) 

Lake Okeechobee 

Aquifer Storage and 

Recovery 

A series of aquifer storage and 

recovery wells adjacent to Lake 

Okeechobee 

2 mi E of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Proposed, Project in 

Preconstruction, 

Engineering and Design 

phase (USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-TN3014) 

Lake Okeechobee 

Watershed Project 

Project to increase aquatic and 

wildlife habitat, regulate extreme 

highs and lows in lake staging, 

reduce phosphorus loading, and 

reduce damaging releases to the 

surrounding estuaries 

Throughout 

Okeechobee 

County 

Proposed, Project in 

Preconstruction, 

Engineering and Design 

phase (USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-TN3015) 

Melaleuca 

Eradication and other 

Exotic Plants 

The project includes (1) upgrading 

and retrofitting the current 

quarantine facility in Gainesville, 

and (2) large-scale rearing of 

approved biological control 

organisms for release at multiple 

sites within the South Florida 

ecosystem to control Melaleuca, 

Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, 

and Old World climbing fern. 

Throughout 

region 

Operational, Facility 

completed in 2013 (USACE 

and SFWMD 2014-

TN3020) 

Miccosukee Tribal 

Water 

Management Plan 

Construction of a managed 

wetland on the Tribe's Reservation 

in western Broward County. 

43 mi SE of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Proposed, Project in 

Preconstruction, 

Engineering and Design 

phase (USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-TN3016) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-52 October 2016 

Table 9-6. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Modify Holey Land 

Wildlife 

Management Area 

Operation 

Plan

Modification of the current 

operating plan and rules for Holey 

Land Wildlife Management Area 

will be made to implement raindriven operations for this area to 

improve the timing and location of 

water depths within this wildlife 

management area. 

35 mi SE of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Proposed, Project in 

planning phase. (USACE 

and SFWMD 2014-

TN3017) 

Modify Rotenberger 

Wildlife 

Management Area 

Operation 

Plan

Modification of the current 

operating plan for the Rotenberger 

Wildlife Management Area will be 

made to implement rain-driven 

operations for this area as needed. 

Water deliveries are made to the 

Rotenberger Area from 

Stormwater-Treatment Area 5. 

32 mi S of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Proposed, Project in 

planning phase. (USACE 

and SFWMD 2014-

TN3018) 

Palm Beach County 

Agriculture Reserve 

Aquifer Storage and 

Recovery 

Supplement water supplies for 

central and southern Palm Beach 

County by capturing and storing 

excess water currently discharged 

to the Lake Worth Lagoon. 

46 mi E of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Proposed, Project in 

Preconstruction, 

Engineering and Design 

phase (USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-TN3019) 

Herbert Hoover Dike 

Major Rehabilitation 

Project 

Rehabilitation Project and Dam 

Safety Modification Study 

5-37 mi NE of 

the Glades 

alternative site 

Environmental Assessment 

and FONSI (Findings of No 

Significant Impact) issued 

in 2015 (USACE 2015-

TN4598) Draft 

Environmental Report 

issued (DOI 2016-TN4589) 

Kissimmee River 

Restoration 

When restoration is completed in 

2017, more than 40 mi2 of riverfloodplain ecosystem will be 

restored, including almost 20,000 

ac of wetlands and 44 mi of historic 

river channel. 

Along 

Kissimmee River 

30-50 mile 

N/NW of the 

Glades site 

Ongoing (USACE 2014-

TN3061; DOI 2016-

TN4589) 

Other Actions/Projects

Atlantic Sugar 

Association 

Sugar manufacturing 32 mi E of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Operational (FDEP 2013-

TN2964) 

Southern Gardens 

Citrus Processing 

Corp. 

Food production/distribution 6 mi SE of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Operational (FDEP 2013-

TN2969) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-53 NUREG–2176 

Table 9-6. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

United States Sugar 

Corporation 

Clewiston 

Sugar manufacturing 15 mi SE of the 

Glades 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2014-

TN2963) 

Various wastewatertreatment plant 

facilities 

Sewage treatment Throughout 

region 

Operational 

Various Hospitals 

Using Nuclear 

Material 

Medical and other industrial 

isotopes 

Throughout 

region 

Ongoing 

Various water/floodmanagement 

projects 

Water and flood management Throughout 

region 

Ongoing (USACE 2012-

TN1133) 

Future Urbanization Construction of housing units and 

associated commercial buildings; 

roads, bridges, and rail; 

construction of water- and/or 

wastewater-treatment and 

distribution facilities and 

associated pipelines, as described 

in local land-use planning 

documents 

Throughout 

region 

Construction would occur in 

the future, as described in 

State and local land-use 

planning documents 

The geographic area of interest for cumulative impacts considers all existing and proposed 

nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences 

(i.e., risks) from a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the Glades site. An accident at 

a nuclear plant within 100 mi of the Glades site could potentially increase this risk. 

9.3.2.1 Land Use 

The following analysis includes land-use impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

affect land use, including other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-6. For the 

analysis of land-use impacts at the Glades site and the area within the transmission line 

corridors, the review team determined that a 10 mi radius, similar to that used for the Turkey 

Point site, would encompass an effective geographic area of interest for cumulative impact 

assessment for land use. The geographic area of interest includes the site and associated 

facilities. It also includes the nearest community, the small city of Moore Haven (2009 

population of 2,358), 2 mi east of the Glades alternative site. In evaluating the land-use impacts 

of using the Glades site, the review team used, in addition to the project application, readily 

obtainable data from the Internet or published sources, including aerial photographs of the site 

and vicinity, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) soils information, local zoning and planning 

documents, and data acquired from the Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification 

System (FLUCFCS). Impacts from both building and station operation are discussed. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-54 October 2016 

Building and Operation Impacts 

Existing land uses in the vicinity of the Glades alternative site consist predominantly of 

cultivated agriculture. The nearest community is Moore Haven, which is the County seat of 

Glades County. The larger region is primarily devoted to agriculture, and scattered small rural 

communities. The closest population center with more than 25,000 population is Fort Myers 

(2009 population 61,870) (FPL 2014-TN4058; USCB 2009-TN3395), 45 mi to the west. The 

Glades alternative site is located approximately 5 mi southwest of Lake Okeechobee. 

Existing land uses at the Glades site consist predominantly of cultivated agriculture, primarily 

sugar cane (FPL 2014-TN4058). No commercial mineral resources are identified on the site 

and in vicinity (Calver 1956-TN3752; Spencer 1993-TN3753). Based on a site visit (NRC 2010-

TN3304) and inspection of aerial photographs included on Google Earth, it appears that no 

substantial areas of developed land uses occur on or within the vicinity of the site. Wildlife 

management areas and recreational areas are located to the east, nearer Lake Okeechobee, 

several miles from the alternative plant site. The Glades County 2020 Comprehensive Plan 

(Glades County 2010-TN3303) identifies the existing land use at and in the vicinity of the 

Glades alternative site as “Agriculture” and the future land use on the Future Land Use Map 

(FLUM) (Glades County 2010-TN3303) as “Commercial” and “Transition.” The map depicts a 

small rural community that includes a roughly 1 mi2 area on the north and south sides of US-27 

of “Transition” surrounding a small commercial area. Areas to the south are designated as 

Agricultural. “Transition” is defined in the Glades 2020 Comprehensive Plan (Glades 

County 2010-TN3303) as follows: 

Transition: Mixed Use Areas in which the present primary use is agricultural, 

but which have scattered residential and nonresidential use areas and are likely 

to be infilled with additional residential uses. This category will not include more 

than 2.5% of the total land area of Glades County. The maximum densities are a 

gross residential density of 7 residential units per acre and the maximum floor to 

area ratio for nonresidential uses shall be 0.3. 

Therefore, the review team believes that use of the Glades alternative site for a power plant 

would be inconsistent with the current Glades County FLUM. This does not mean that the plant 

could not be built at this location, but a change in the current FLUM would be needed. Building 

and operating a major industrial facility at this location would constitute a land-use change not in 

keeping with general plans for development in this area. 

No Prime farmland is identified on or in the vicinity of the site. However, most of the soils on 

and in the vicinity of the plant site are considered farmlands of Unique Importance. 

(USDA 2014-TN3358). Unique farmland is defined in Section 2(c) of the Farmland Protection 

Policy Act (7 U.S.C. § 4201 et seq.) (TN708) as “land, other than Prime farmland, that has 

combined conditions to produce sustained high quality and high yields of specialty crops, such 

as citrus, nuts, fruits, and vegetables when properly managed.” No portion of the alternative 

plant site or site vicinity falls within the Coastal Zone (FPL 2014-TN4058). No rivers are located 

near the alternative plant site, as shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) Flood Zones 2020 map in the Glades 2020 Comprehensive Plan (Glades County 2010-

TN3303), but, as FPL states in its application (FPL 2014-TN4058), portions of the plant site fall 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-55 NUREG–2176 

within the 100-year flood zone. The 15 ft fill that the ER states would be required at the 

alternative plant site (FPL 2014-TN4058) could noticeably affect the flood plain, because it is 

such a large area and such a large amount of fill. 

Building and operation of the project at the Glades site would result in the conversion of existing 

land uses, including approximately 296.8 ac from agriculture to power-generation uses as 

shown in Table 9-7. Because this is a small amount of farmland in the context of the large 

amount of farmland under cultivation in Glades County, conversion of this amount of farmland to 

another use would not substantially affect the agricultural economy of the region. 

Additional land-use impacts include possible additional growth and land conversions in the 

vicinity to accommodate new workers and services (induced development). This could result in 

the loss of additional farmland. Because the workforce would be dispersed over larger 

geographic areas in the labor supply region, the impacts from land conversion for residential 

and commercial buildings induced by new workers relocating to the local area could likely be 

absorbed in the wider region. Therefore, the review team concludes that such impacts would be 

minimal. 

Table 9-7. Glades Site Land-Use Impacts (Acres) 

Agricultural Lands 

(FLUCFCS 200 

Land Use Series) 

Non-Agricultural Lands 

(all other FLUCFCS 

designations) Total 

Plant Site 207 113 320 

Access Roads 18 5 23 

Rail Corridor 47 28 75 

Intake Pipeline Corridor 0 1 1 

Makeup Pipeline Corridor 2 0.1 2 

Stormwater-Retention Ponds 22 20 42 

Total(a) 297 167 463 

Transmission Line Corridors 3,966 1,851 5,824 

Grand Total 4,559 2,185 6,750 

(a) Totals may not add due to rounding 

Sources: FPL 2011-TN59 and FPL 2014-TN4058

Approximately 121 mi of new transmission lines would have to be built to serve the plant. FPL 

states in its application (FPL 2014-TN4058) that none of the transmission lines would pass 

through the Coastal Zone. Approximately 5,824 ac of land would be at least temporarily 

affected. Of this land, approximately 3,966 ac are agricultural land, and the remainder primarily 

open lands and roadways. The agricultural land within the transmission line corridors would be 

converted from agricultural use to transmission line use, although FPL states in its application 

(FPL 2014-TN4058) that agriculture could continue within and along the transmission line 

rights-of-way. Therefore, much of the affected agricultural land would not necessarily be 

permanently converted to other land uses. 

Under the Florida Site Certification Application process explained in Section 4.1, the State 

approves a corridor and the applicant chooses a specific right-of-way within the approved 

corridor. The objective of this process, as stated in the electrical power plant and transmission 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-56 October 2016 

line statute (FDEP 2013-TN2629), is “that the location of transmission line corridors and the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of electric transmission lines produce minimal 

adverse effects on the environment and public health, safety, and welfare” and “to fully balance 

the need for transmission lines with the broad interests of the public in order to effect a 

reasonable balance between the need for the facility as a means of providing reliable, 

economical, and efficient electric energy and the impact on the public and the environment 

resulting from the location of the transmission line corridor and the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the transmission lines.” Engineering considerations and costs are likely to 

suggest designs that favor collocation with existing transmission lines in existing corridors. The 

siting criteria identified by FPL in the application include land-use considerations to minimize 

potential disruption to such areas as national, state, and county parks; wildlife refuges; estuarine 

sanctuaries; landmarks; and historical sites. FPL states in its application that, in its 

development of the conceptual transmission line corridor for the Glades alternative site, it 

attempted to select corridors that would allow collocation with existing transmission line 

corridors and avoided populated areas or residential land uses to some extent (FPL 2014-

TN4058). The State certification review process would also include a determination of land-use 

consistency with local land-use plans and zoning ordinances (Fla. Stat. 29-403.50665-TN1470). 

The review team concludes that the land-use impacts from building and operating two new 

nuclear units at the Glades alternative site would be noticeable, but not destabilizing. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Within the geographic area of interest, there are no other reasonably foreseeable future projects 

with the potential to affect cumulative land-use impacts. The Glades County FLUM does not 

identify other non-agricultural future land uses near the Glades alternative site, other than the 

area designated for Transition and Commercial uses noted above that covers the Glades 

alternative site (Glades County 2010-TN3303). 

Summary Statement 

Based on the information provided by FPL and the review team’s independent review, the 

review team concludes that the cumulative land-use impacts of building and operating the 

power plant at the Glades alternative site would be MODERATE. This conclusion primarily 

reflects the fact that land-use plans do not call for large-scale establishment of industrial or 

urban land uses in the area surrounding the Glades site. The incremental impact from the 

proposed project at the alternative site would be a significant, and principal contributor to the 

MODERATE impacts due to conflicts with the Glades 2020 Comprehensive Plan (Glades 

County 2010-TN3303). 

9.3.2.2 Water Use and Quality 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building and operating two new nuclear 

units at the Glades site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that affect water use and quality, including the other Federal and nonFederal projects listed in Table 9-6. The Glades site is located in rural Glades County in Florida 

southwest of Lake Okeechobee and near the Caloosahatchee River, which is also known as the 

C-43 Canal (Figure 9-6). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-57 NUREG–2176 

The geographic area of interest for surface water at the Glades site is the KissimmeeOkeechobee-Everglades watershed because this is the resource that would be affected if the 

proposed project were located at the Glades site. The Kissimmee-Okeechobee-Everglades 

watershed includes an area of about 9,000 mi2 (McPherson and Halley 1996-TN98). For 

groundwater, the ROI includes 1) the surficial aquifer and the Upper Floridan aquifer at the site, 

2) the APPZ of the Middle Floridan aquifer upgradient and downgradient of the site for water 

withdrawals, and 3) the Boulder Zone of the Lower Floridan aquifer upgradient and 

downgradient of the site for disposal of blowdown water. 

Building Impacts 

The water use for building activities at the Glades site would be comparable to the proposed 

water use for building activities for the Turkey Point site. During building, peak water use is 

estimated to be 565 gpm (0.8 Mgd) (see Table 3-4). The review team assumes that water for 

building the two units at the Glades site would come from a combination of surface water and 

groundwater. Surface water from the Caloosahatchee River or Lake Okeechobee may be 

available for building purposes during times of high surface-water flow. At less than 1 percent of 

the inflow for even the lowest month reported (January 1963), the peak water-use rate of 

0.8 Mgd during the building phase is inconsequential when compared to the historic average 

monthly flow into Lake Okeechobee. Surface water from onsite stormwater ponds and 

groundwater from excavation dewatering may also be used, when available, for building 

purposes. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) would regulate any use of 

surface water or shallow groundwater for plant construction. 

The review team concludes that the impact of groundwater and limited surface-water use for 

building the potential units at the Glades site would be minimal for the following reasons: 

 Withdrawal is inconsequential compared to the water resources in the Lake Okeechobee 

watershed. 

 Any use of surface water or shallow groundwater would be regulated by SFWMD and be 

limited to time periods when there would not be a negative impact on the Lake Okeechobee 

system or shallow aquifers. 

 Water use for building would be limited to the building period and the peak use of 0.8 Mgd is 

much less than the average 22.26 Mgd groundwater withdrawal rate reported for Glades 

County in 2005 (Marella 2009-TN1521). 

The review team assumes that the impact of dewatering the excavations needed for building 

two units at the site would be managed through the installation of diaphragm walls and grouting 

as is proposed for the Turkey Point site. Therefore, because there would be no use of nonsaline groundwater and the impact of dewatering would be controlled, the review team 

determined that there would be little or no impact on groundwater availability. 

Surface-water quality would potentially be affected by stormwater runoff during site preparation 

and the building of the facilities. The FDEP would require FPL to develop an erosion and 

sediment control plan and a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) before initiation of 

site-disturbance activities (FPL 2014-TN4058). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-58 October 2016 

The plans would identify BMPs to control the impacts on surface-water quality caused by 

stormwater runoff. The review team anticipates that FPL would construct new 

detention/infiltration ponds and drainage ditches to control delivery of sediment from the 

disturbed area to onsite waterbodies. Sediment carried with stormwater from the disturbed area 

would settle in the detention ponds and the stormwater would infiltrate into the shallow aquifer. 

Implementation of BMPs should minimize impacts on surface waterbodies near the Glades site. 

Therefore, the surface-water−quality impacts near the Glades site would be temporary and 

minimal. 

While building new nuclear units at the Glades site, groundwater quality may be affected by 

leaching of spilled effluents into the subsurface. The review team assumes that the BMPs FPL 

has proposed for the Turkey Point site would be in place during building activities and therefore 

the review team concludes that any spills would be quickly detected and remediated. In 

addition, groundwater impacts would be limited to the duration of these activities, and therefore, 

would be temporary. The review team reviewed the general BMPs that could be expected to be 

required at such a site (State of Florida 2014-TN3637). Because any spills related to building 

activities would be quickly remediated under BMPs, and the activities would be temporary, the 

review team concludes that the groundwater-quality impacts from building at the Glades site 

would be minimal. 

Wastewater streams from building activities could be injected into the Boulder Zone of the 

Lower Floridan aquifer as planned at Turkey Point (FPL 2014-TN4058). Construction and 

operation of the disposal wells would be performed under the conditions of an Underground 

Injection Control (UIC) permit issued by the FDEP, with the objective of protecting water quality 

within the APPZ and overlying aquifers. 

Operations Impacts 

FPL (2014-TN4058) indicates that the water needed to operate two units would be 

approximately 50,000 gpm or 72.7 Mgd. As indicated in Chapter 3, evaporative losses from 

cooling two units would be approximately 28,800 gpm (41.5 Mgd). The review team assumed 

that the two units at the Glades site would primarily use brackish groundwater from the 

permeable zone (APPZ) within the Avon Park formation for makeup cooling water. This 

relatively permeable zone is considered part of the Middle Floridan aquifer and is more than 

1,000 ft below ground surface near the Glades site. The SFWMD has informed the NRC that 

consumptive use of surface water from Lake Okeechobee or its tributaries would be limited 

(SFWMD 2012-TN3085). Use of water from Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee River 

would also have to avoid any negative impact on restoration projects in South Florida. 

Therefore, surface water from Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee River could be used 

only at times of excess surface-water flow that typically occur during the wet season. 

The APPZ aquifer is not generally used because of the salinity of its water (FPL 2013-TN3052). 

Therefore, the current impacts of using this water for power production are minor. Because 

brackish or saline groundwater is not in demand, use of this resource will not result in water-use 

conflicts. However, groundwater in the Middle Floridan aquifer at this site is a potential source 

of brackish water for desalinization. If demand for desalinization source water increases, water 

for the plant may be obtained from deeper, more saline formations. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-59 NUREG–2176 

Blowdown discharge and other wastewater streams would be pumped into the Boulder Zone of 

the Lower Floridan aquifer. The Boulder Zone is isolated from the APPZ by low-permeability 

units. Additional low-permeability confining units separate the APPZ from the overlying Upper 

Floridan aquifer. Construction and operation of the disposal wells would be performed under 

the conditions of a UIC permit issued by the FDEP. 

As indicated in Chapter 3, the consumptive water use due to evaporative losses from cooling 

two units would be approximately 28,800 gpm (41.5 Mgd). However, the review team assumed 

that surface water would only be consumed during periods of excess flow, thereby precluding 

water-use conflicts. 

During the operation of two new nuclear units at the Glades site, impacts on surface-water 

quality would be minimal because wastes would be injected into the Boulder Zone and not 

released to the surface water. The FDEP would require FPL to develop a SWPPP (FPL 2014-

TN4058). The SWPPP would identify measures to be used to control stormwater runoff. All 

discharges to surface waterbodies would be required to comply with limits established by FDEP 

in a NPDES permit. 

During the operation of the two units at the Glades site, impacts on groundwater quality could 

result from potential spills. Spills that might affect the quality of groundwater would be 

controlled and mitigated by BMPs. Like the proposed site, any wastewater at this inland 

alternative site would be combined with cooling-tower blowdown and discharged into the 

Boulder Zone with no loss of beneficial uses of the water resource. 

Cumulative Impacts 

In addition to water-use and water-quality impacts from building and operations activities, 

cumulative analysis considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

affect the same water resources. 

For the cumulative analysis of impacts on surface water and groundwater at the Glades site, the 

geographic area of interest is the same as what was considered for building and operational 

impacts, and was defined earlier in this section. 

Actions that have past, present, and future potential impacts on water supply and water quality 

near the Glades site include existing agriculture and existing and future urbanization in the 

region. 

Cumulative Impacts on Water Use 

The impacts of the other projects listed in Table 9-6 are considered in the analysis included 

above or would have little or no adverse impact on surface-water use. The projects believed to 

have little impact are excluded from the analysis either because they are too distant from the 

Glades site, use relatively little or no surface water, or have little or no discharge to surface 

water. Some projects (for example park and forest management) are ongoing, and changes in 

their operations that could have large impacts on surface-water use appear to be unlikely. 

In 2000, the Florida Legislature passed the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act to establish a 

restoration and protection program for Lake Okeechobee (SFWMD et al. 2011-TN3087; 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-60 October 2016 

SFWMD 2010-TN3086). Part of the focus of this Act was to restore the natural hydrology of the 

system after years of altering the natural drainage around the lake to permit development of the 

land and to reduce flood damage. The State of Florida and the Federal government are 

spending hundreds of millions of dollars to restore the Lake Okeechobee and other water 

resources in the watershed; therefore, the review team concluded that the cumulative impact on 

surface-water use would be MODERATE. 

Surface-water use during the building and operation of two units at the Glades site would be 

dominated by water use for operations. As discussed above, surface water would only be 

withdrawn during periods of excess flow. Therefore, the review team concluded that building 

and operating the proposed units at the Glades site would not be a significant contributor to the 

MODERATE impacts on surface-water use. 

As stated above, the review team assumed that any use of shallow groundwater to build the 

units at the Glades site would be regulated by the SFWMD. If this source is not available in 

sufficient quantity for building activities, brackish groundwater from the APPZ could be used for 

some building activities. Groundwater impacts from dewatering would be controlled with 

diaphragm walls and grouting. Brackish groundwater from the APPZ would be used to operate 

the plant except when excess surface water is available. The APPZ aquifer is not generally 

used because of the salinity of its water (FPL 2013-TN3052). Because brackish or saline 

groundwater is not in demand, use of this resource will not result in water-use conflicts. 

The impacts of the other projects listed in Table 9-6 are considered elsewhere in this analysis or 

else would have little or no adverse impact on groundwater use. The projects believed to have 

little impact are excluded from the analysis either because they are too distant from the Glades 

site, or use relatively little or no groundwater. Some projects (for example park and forest 

management) are ongoing, and changes in their operations that would have large impacts on 

groundwater use appear unlikely. Therefore, the review team concludes that cumulative 

impacts on groundwater use would be SMALL. 

Cumulative Impacts on Water Quality 

Point and non-point source discharges have affected the surface-water quality of the Lake 

Okeechobee watershed and the Caloosahatchee River upstream and downstream of the site. 

Water-quality information presented above for the impacts of building and operating the 

proposed new units at the Glades site would also apply to evaluation of cumulative impacts. 

Lake Okeechobee has been the target of extensive efforts to reduce nutrient loading and 

improve water quality (SFWMD et al. 2011-TN3087). During the operation of two new nuclear 

units at the Glades site, impacts on surface-water quality from the units would be minimal 

because plant discharges would be injected into the Boulder Zone and not released to the 

surface water. The State of Florida requires an applicant to develop a SWPPP (FPL 2014-

TN4058) and all discharges to surface waterbodies would be required to comply with limits 

established by FDEP in a NPDES permit. Such permits are designed to protect water quality. 

The SWPPP would identify measures to be used to control stormwater runoff (FPL 2014-

TN4058). Therefore, the review team concluded that the cumulative impact on surface-water 

quality of the receiving waterbody would be MODERATE. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-61 NUREG–2176 

The review team concluded that building and operating the proposed units at the Glades site 

would not be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impacts on surface-water quality, 

because industrial and wastewater discharges from the proposed units would be discharged 

directly to the Boulder Zone and any stormwater runoff from the site during operations would be 

managed in compliance with the SWPPP (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

The APPZ aquifer is not generally used because of the salinity of its water (FPL 2013-TN3052). 

Because brackish or saline groundwater is not in demand, use of this resource will not result in 

water-use conflicts. The review team also concludes that with the implementation of BMPs, the 

impacts on shallow groundwater quality from building and operating two new nuclear units at the 

Glades site would likely be minimal. Therefore, the cumulative impact on groundwater quality 

would be SMALL. The impacts of other projects listed in Table 9-6 are either considered in the 

analysis included above or would have little or no impact on surface-water and groundwater 

quality. 

9.3.2.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources 

This section addresses potential impacts on terrestrial resources from siting two new nuclear 

units on the Glades site and a transmission line corridor, which begins in Glades County and 

crosses portions of Hendry, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties. Most of the Glades site has 

been disturbed and is primarily used for agriculture, especially sugar cane. Small areas are 

maintained as improved and unimproved pasture. Natural upland habitats that include 

hardwood forest and coniferous plantations cover only small areas on the site. The remainder 

includes various wetland habitats including exotic and mixed wetland hardwoods, ditches, wet 

prairies, freshwater marsh, holding ponds (FPL 2011-TN59). 

Glades County hosts multiple terrestrial species that are listed as Federally endangered or 

threatened (Table 9-8). Surveys were not conducted at the Glades site or along the conceptual 

transmission line corridor to determine the presence and distribution of listed species. However, 

surveys were conducted at the formerly proposed FPL Glades Power Park site that has similar 

topography and habitat (FPL 2014-TN4058). The review team determined the likelihood of 

occurrence at project sites based on habitat preferences of each species and the land-cover 

types expected to be affected at Glades site and within the conceptual transmission line 

corridor. Audubon’s crested caracaras (Polyborus plancus audubonii), wood storks (Mycteria 

americana), and Everglade snail kites were observed during surveys at the formerly proposed 

FPL Glades Power Park site, which is located approximately 4 mi north of the Glades site. Life 

history information for most of these species can be found in Section 2.4.1. Species not 

previously discussed in this document are discussed below. 

Audubon’s crested caracara is a raptor that occurs in the United States from Florida west to 

Arizona, and also in Cuba, Mexico, and Central and South America (FWS 1999-TN136). Only 

the Florida population is listed in the United States. It forages in open habitats including 

agricultural fields, pastures, and wet prairies. Audubon’s crested caracaras are known to 

congregate in an area north of US-27 in Glades County in an area of expansive improved 

pasture (FWS 1999-TN136). The Glades site is south of US-27. Wood storks are colonial 

nesters that often use historic colonies that are located in trees over water. Wood storks forage 

in shallow water largely free from vegetation and often use ditches and seasonal water features 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-62 October 2016 

(FWS 1999-TN136). Everglade snail kites also prefer to nest over water, but prefer to feed 

exclusively on apple snails. 

Table 9-8. Federally Listed Terrestrial Species that May Occur on the Glades Site or 

within the Conceptual Transmission Line Corridor 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status 

Birds 

Polyborus plancus audubonii Audubon’s crested caracara Threatened 

Ammodramus savannarum floridanus Florida grasshopper sparrow Endangered 

Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus Everglade snail kite Endangered 

Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida scrub jay Threatened 

Campephilus principalis Ivory-billed woodpecker Endangered 

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered 

Mycteria americana Wood stork Threatened 

Grus americana Whooping crane Endangered 

Charadrius melodus Piping plover(a) Threatened 

Calidris canutus rufa Red knot(a) Threatened 

Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland’s warblera Endangered 

Mammals 

Puma concolor coryi Florida panther Endangered 

Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris Southeastern beach mouse(a) Threatened 

Reptiles 

Drymarchon corais couperi Eastern indigo snake Threatened 

Eumeces egregious Bluetail mole skink Threatened 

Neoseps reynoldsi Sand skink Threatened 

Invertebrates 

Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri Miami blue(a) Endangered 

Strymon acis bartrami Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak(a) Endangered 

Anaea troglodyte floridalis Florida leafwing(a) Endangered 

Plants 

Warea carteri Carter’s mustard Endangered 

Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. 

okeechobeensis 

Okeechobee gourd Endangered 

Jacquemontia reclinata Beach jacquemontia(a) Endangered 

Polygala smallii Tiny polygala(a) Endangered 

Asimina tetramera Four-petal pawpaw(a) Endangered 

(a) Additional listed species occur in Broward, Palm Beach, or Hendry Counties (FWS 2014-TN3761; FWS 2014-

TN3759; FWS 2014-TN3760). 

The Florida grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus) only occurs in treeless 

tracts of dry prairie habitat frequented by wildfire (FWS 2008-TN2516). Florida scrub jays 

(Aphelocoma coerulescens) prefer early successional upland shrub-dominated landscapes that 

historically were maintained by natural wildfire in South Florida. Ivory-billed woodpeckers 

(Campephilus principalis) have historically occurred in extensive old-growth bottomland and 

wetland hardwood forests (FWS 1999-TN136). This species was believed to be extirpated from 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-63 NUREG–2176 

the United States since the 1940s. A reported sighting in 2005 in Arkansas has resulted in the 

FWS drafting an ivory-billed woodpecker recovery plan (FWS 2010-TN2574). Red-cockaded 

woodpeckers require forest dominated by pine trees that are generally 60 years in age or older 

(FWS 1999-TN136). Florida panthers (Puma (=Felis) concolor coryi) have been recorded in 

many different habitat types, including those found on the Glades site. Eastern indigo snakes 

(Drymarchon corais couperi) use a wide variety of habitats including upland habitats, wetlands, 

and human-altered habitats including agricultural fields. Both the bluetail mole skink (Eumeces 

egregius lividus [Mount]) and sand skink (Neoseps reynoldsi Stejneger) occur in dry upland 

habitats found in sandy soil associated with the Lake Wales Ridge (FWS 1999-TN136) Neither 

the bluetail mole skink nor the sand skink are known to occur anywhere in Glades County. 

Carter’s mustard is a fire-dependent herb found in dry habitats of the Lake Wales Ridge (FWS 

1999-TN136). The Okeechobee gourd (Cucurbita okeechobeensis) historically grew under 

pond apple (Annona glabra), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and buttonbush 

(Cephalanthus occidentalis) trees at sites that had frequent disturbance such as seasonal

flooding from Lake Okeechobee and alligator nesting, and within mowed power line and road 

rights-of-way (FWS 1999-TN136). 

The regular use of pesticides and herbicides along with frequent human presence further 

reduce habitat value for native species in a predominantly agricultural landscape already highly 

fragmented with few native plants or habitats. Wading birds have been observed using the 

canals. Wading birds are an ecologically important group in the South Florida ecosystem, and 

both herons and ibises are considered ecological indicators (FWS 1999-TN136). Wading bird 

species observed in a similar setting at the FPL Glades Power Park include the cattle egret 

(Bubulcus ibis), green heron (Butorides virescens), great egret (Ardea albus), glossy ibis 

(Plegadis falcinellus), least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), blackcrowned night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), and yellow-crowned night-heron (N. violaceus). 

Wetlands in the surrounding landscape also provide habitat much more suitable for wading 

birds and other wildlife species than the canals present on the Glades site. 

Recreationally important species observed at the FPL Glades Power Park and also expected to 

occur on the Glades site include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), feral hog (Sus 

scrofa), raccoon (Procyon lotor), coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), mourning dove 

(Zenaida macroura), and bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus). Waterfowl are also hunted in 

Florida and numerous species could occur in suitable habitats on the Glades site. 

Building Impacts 

Typical impacts from building nuclear units include permanent and temporary habitat loss from 

development, habitat fragmentation and degradation, disturbance and displacement of 

individuals, exposure of wildlife to increased noise levels and human presence, and increased 

risk of vehicle collision mortality. The conversion of fully developed and stable plant 

communities to earlier successional communities dominated by lower growing vegetation during 

development of linear transmission or pipeline corridors often results in a high degree of habitat 

fragmentation within the landscape. 

FPL assumed a 362 ac area within the Glades site for evaluating the potential impacts of 

building two new nuclear power reactors and associated infrastructure and an additional 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-64 October 2016 

3,000 ac for a cooling-water storage reservoir (FPL 2014-TN4058) (see Figure 9-6). The review 

team determined cooling water could be obtained from groundwater beneath the Glades site 

and that the cooling-water storage reservoir was unnecessary. FPL stated offsite facilities and 

development would also be needed to construct and operate nuclear power plants at the Glades 

site. FPL estimated a 121 mi transmission line would be necessary to service power plants at 

the Glades site. FPL also assumed a 1.9 mi access road, 6.2 mi rail line, and pipeline corridors 

connecting the C-43 Canal to the site (assumed cooling-water source) would be necessary. 

Impacts from the plant area, access road, rail line, and pipeline corridors are discussed first 

below. Impacts from the transmission line are discussed in a separate section below. The 

access road would contribute 23 ac to the project footprint; the rail line would contribute 75 ac; 

and the intake/makeup pipeline corridors would contribute 3.4 ac. 

Plant Facilities 

If the plant facilities, access road, rail line, and pipelines were built within the proposed footprint, 

FPL estimated 464 ac would be affected (Table 9-9). Approximately half (243 ac) of this area is 

currently used for row crops. With the inclusion of other field crops as well as improved and 

unimproved pastures, agricultural lands cover 64 percent (297 ac) of the proposed footprint. 

Wetlands cover an additional 30 percent (141 ac) of the proposed footprint and include exotic 

and mixed wetland hardwoods, ditches, wet prairies, and freshwater marshes. The remainder 

(26 ac) is conifer plantation, upland hardwood forest, or existing roads and highways. 

Table 9-9. Acreage within the Conceptual Footprint at the Glades Site 

FLUCFCS Code Description 

Site and Non-Transmission 

(ac) 

Transmission 

(ac) 

200-series Agriculture 297 3,966 

300-series Uplands 0 108 

400-series Forest 26 91 

500-600 series Wetlands 141 1,627 

800-series Developed 0.1 32 

Total 464 5,824 

Source: FPL 2011-TN59 

Surveys of the occurrence, abundance, and distribution of Federally listed species have not 

been performed for the Glades site. Audubon’s crested caracaras, wood storks, and Everglade 

snail kites were observed during surveys at FPL’s formerly proposed Glades Power Park site, 

which is nearby and in a similar landscape. The Glades site appears to provide habitat suitable 

for Audubon’s crested caracara, including 37 ac of improved pasture. Wood storks may also 

use the ditches and wetlands for foraging. The 9.5 ac of freshwater marsh may be used by 

foraging storks as well as Everglade snail kites. However, it does not appear there is habitat 

suitable for nesting present for any of these three listed bird species. Florida panthers are 

known to occur in Glades County and may also occur on the Glades site, but they generally 

prefer upland habitats over wetlands and use native landscapes more than agricultural fields 

(FWS 1999-TN136). White-tailed deer, feral hogs, and many other medium-sized mammals are 

prey for Florida panthers. Although their abundance and distribution is unknown at the Glades 

site, their presence may indicate suitable habitat is present for panthers. The fragmented 

natural habitat and agricultural nature of the Glades site would likely preclude substantial use by 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-65 NUREG–2176 

Florida panthers, but the site lies very near the eastern boundary of the FWS-designated 

primary dispersal zone. Florida panthers may pass through the site while dispersing to more 

suitable habitats to the north, especially if prey is in abundance. Eastern indigo snakes are 

habitat generalists, widely distributed, and likely occur on the Glades site. They would be prone 

to increased mortality from off-road vehicle use during land clearing and increased traffic during 

construction and operation. Limited distribution and/or lack of suitable habitat likely preclude the 

occurrence of the other listed species on the Glades site. 

Although the Florida grasshopper sparrow has historically occurred in Glades County, it has not 

been observed there in recent years (FWS 2008-TN2516). The Florida scrub jay may currently 

occur in Glades County, but distribution information indicates this species is restricted to areas 

within the county west of the Glades site (FWS 2007-TN2517). High-quality forested wetlands 

are present on the Glades site, but large contiguous forested wetlands of the type that might 

harbor remnant individuals of ivory-billed woodpecker are not present. The Glades site contains 

both upland forest and conifer plantations, but the extent of forest and degree of forest 

fragmentation within the general landscape makes these habitats poorly suited to red-cockaded 

woodpeckers (Picoides borealis). The Lake Wales Ridge is not near the Glades site, excluding

the occurrence of the blue mole skink, sand skink, and Carter’s mustard (Warea carteri). The 

Okeechobee gourd is now limited to nine sites outside of Glades County (FWS 1999-TN136). 

Therefore, it is the staff’s conclusion that Audubon’s crested caracara, the wood stork, 

Everglade snail kite, Florida panther, and the eastern indigo snake could occur at the Glades 

site. 

Potential foraging habitat for the caracara, stork, kite, and panther would be permanently lost 

during site preparation at the Glades site. Approximately 39 ac of both improved and 

unimproved pasture potentially suitable for caracaras would be lost. Lost ditch and freshwater 

marsh habitat that storks could forage in would total 19 ac. If apple snails are present in the 

wetland habitats within the Glades site, kites could lose less than 10 ac of habitat. The loss of 

9.7 ac of upland forest and habitats that support panther prey and the subsequent loss of prey 

could also affect Florida panthers. However, the Glades site does not provide nesting or 

breeding habitat for any of the listed species and the suitability of these habitats would likely be 

low due to fragmentation within the landscape from agricultural development. Eastern indigo 

snakes could use most of the Glades site, and would likely be affected the most by 

preconstruction activities. Because they use burrows, they are also prone to direct mortality 

during preconstruction activities such as land clearing and grading. Snakes in general are also 

prone to vehicle collision mortality, and increased traffic could increase the risk of death to 

eastern indigo snakes on local roads. As with construction and operation at the Turkey Point 

site, mitigation requirements by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

(FFWCC) including staff awareness training and reporting would minimize negative impacts on 

the eastern indigo snake. Loss of habitats would also affect local populations of wildlife not 

Federally listed, but expected to occur within the region in suitable habitat. However, these 

effects are not expected to be noticeable and would not destabilize even local populations of 

any of these animals. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-66 October 2016 

Transmission Lines and Access Roads 

FPL stated offsite facilities and development would also be required to construct and operate 

nuclear power plants at the Glades site. The conceptual transmission line corridor is estimated 

to occupy 5,824 ac of additional land (Table 9-9). Because the conceptual transmission line 

corridor would pass through Glades, Hendry, and Broward Counties and could also pass 

through Palm Beach County, depending on the exact route ultimately selected, the review team 

also considered impacts on Federally listed species and those species proposed for Federal 

listing known to occur in those counties. Similar to the Glades site, the major land cover within 

the conceptual corridor is agriculture. Most of the corridor is used for agricultural purposes, 

including field crops, row crops, citrus groves, and pastures. Wetlands, including freshwater 

marsh, mixed wetland hardwoods, and wet prairies, account for much of the remainder of the 

conceptual corridor. There are also some areas of upland habitats, including improved pasture 

and dry prairie, and others (FPL 2014-TN4058). Forested areas would be converted to more 

open habitats with low ground cover including grass (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

FPL estimated approximately 1,780 ac of potential Audubon’s crested caracara habitat would be 

altered within the conceptual transmission line corridor (FPL 2011-TN59). Approximately 

1,037 ac of potential wood stork habitat would also be altered. Alteration of 995 ac of wetland 

habitats, including 902 ac of freshwater marsh, could affect the Everglade snail kite. Removal 

of trees could affect the quality and quantity of nesting habitats for these three bird species. 

The likelihood of non-native plants being accidentally introduced would also increase and could 

result in habitat alteration. Conversion of uplands into open habitats to accommodate the 

transmission right-of-way could increase foraging habitat for the caracara. The sum of 

remaining natural, upland habitats that would be crossed by the conceptual transmission line 

corridor and that could provide habitat value to panther’s amounts to almost 150 ac or 

approximately 2.5 percent of the corridor (FPL 2011-TN59). Alteration of natural land cover 

from agricultural conversion has highly fragmented the landscape north of Everglades National 

Park. This conversion and fragmentation not only reduces the amount of natural habitats 

usable by Florida panthers, it further reduces the value of habitats still present. 

Two large swaths of land designated as Everglade snail kite critical habitat lie between the 

Glades site and the Andytown substation. A gap between these two swaths approximately 

1.25 mi wide lies at the intersection of I-75 and SR-27 in Broward County. If the transmission 

line is built through this gap, then impacts on this critical habitat could be avoided. If not, then 

adverse impact on designated critical habitat for the Everglade snail kite could result. FPL 

would be expected to reduce and mitigate for increased mortality risk as well as lost habitat for 

listed species as required by the FFWCC and FWS. Effects from building the transmission lines 

would not be expected to result in a measurable decrease in the productivity of most local 

populations except possibly local populations of the Everglade snail kite. Impacts on 

designated critical habitat could measurably affect the snail kite and recovery efforts to save the 

species from extinction. 

Operations Impacts 

The operation of two nuclear units at the Glades site would create noise, fogging and dissolved 

solid deposition from cooling towers, runoff from increased impermeable surfaces, light 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-67 NUREG–2176 

pollution, and increased vehicle collision mortality of local wildlife populations. Operation of 

transmission lines could increase the risk of bird collision and electrocution mortality. 

Operational noise from the cooling towers would only displace individual animals from the 

immediate vicinity of the cooling towers, as the use of splash guards on air inlets and stacks on 

mechanical fans would limit cooling-tower noise to approximately 73 dBA at a distance of 200 ft 

from the cooling towers (FPL 2014-TN4058). The review team determined the salinity of the 

groundwater used for cooling would be less than or equal to that of seawater and salt deposition 

from cooling-tower drift at the Glades site would be similar in scale and intensity to deposition at 

the Turkey Point site. Most of the salt would likely be deposited on developed land near the 

cooling towers, and concentrations as high as 10 kg/ha/mo that have resulted in observable 

effects on sensitive plant species could be expected as far as 1.25 mi from the cooling towers. 

Unlike Turkey Point, the Glades site is located inland, and vegetation growing there would not 

be expected to be as tolerant to atmospheric-deposited salt. Some sensitive vegetation could 

be affected by salt drift, but the spatial extent would be limited and the climate of South Florida 

would quickly dissipate salt deposited in the landscape. 

The creation of impermeable surfaces at the Glades site would likely result in the concentration 

of stormwater runoff into surrounding wetlands. Increased runoff could result in siltation, 

pollutant deposition, and decreased habitat value of these areas to local natural communities. 

Light pollution during facility operation could affect wildlife residing on or migrating through the 

Glades site. Design criteria could include minimization of upward lighting, turning off 

unnecessary lighting between 11 p.m. and sunrise, and luminary selection and mounting to 

provide light only where needed (FPL 2014-TN4058). If these actions are taken, the review 

team expects that impacts from light pollution on wildlife would be minimal. 

The impacts of transmission line operation consist of bird collisions with transmission lines, 

electromagnetic field (EMF) effects on flora and fauna, and habitat alteration by vegetation 

control. Direct mortality resulting from birds colliding with tall structures has been observed 

(Avatar et al 2004-TN892). Factors that appear to influence the rate of avian impacts with 

structures are diverse and related to bird behavior, structure attributes, and weather. Migratory 

flight by flocking birds during darkness has contributed to the largest mortality events. Tower 

height, location, configuration, and lighting also appear to play roles in avian mortality. Weather, 

such as low cloud ceilings, advancing fronts, and fog, also contribute to this phenomenon. 

Waterfowl may be particularly vulnerable due to their low, fast flight and flocking behavior (EPRI 

1993-TN73). However, in NUREG–1437, the NRC staff concluded that the threat of avian 

collision as a biologically significant source of mortality is very low because only a small fraction 

of total bird mortality could be attributed to collision with nuclear power plant structures, 

including transmission line corridors with multiple transmission lines (NRC 1996-TN288). 

Although collision may contribute to local losses, thriving bird populations can withstand these 

losses without threat to their existence (EPRI 1993-TN73). Transmission line structures, 

conductors, and guy wires all pose a potential avian collision hazard for all resident birds that 

live in the vicinity of the transmission lines and for migratory birds that may pass through these 

areas. At least 41 species of birds are known to have been killed by interaction with Florida 

electrical utility structures, 20 of which have been killed by FPL electrical utility structures 

(FPL 2011-TN1283). Transmission lines connecting the Glades site to the Andytown substation 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-68 October 2016 

would pass through core foraging areas of multiple wood stork nesting colonies (FWS 2014-

TN3732). Although the NRC has concluded that bird collisions with transmission lines at 

existing U.S. nuclear power plants are of small significance, including transmission line corridors 

with variable numbers of transmission lines (NRC 2013-TN2654), the Federally listed wood 

stork, whooping crane (Grus canadensis), and Audubon’s crested caracara are particularly 

prone to transmission line collision mortality and members of all of these species have been 

killed by collision with and electrocution by electrical utility structures in Florida (FPL 2011-

TN1283). Wading birds are not particularly agile flyers and many large bird species are 

especially uncoordinated when young. Wood storks also routinely perch on tall structures, and 

their large wing span could pose an increased risk of electrocution by bridging the gap between 

live wires and ground circuits. 

The FWS Southeast Florida Ecological Services Office recognizes a 0.47 mi nest colony buffer. 

The FWS also recommends the establishment of at least a 500 ft primary zone around stork 

nesting colonies where no vegetation should be removed. Wetland vegetation under and 

surrounding the colony shall be maintained. Power-transmission lines, roadways, and other 

infrastructure should not be built within the primary zone. Also, humans should not get within 

300 ft of the colony and human activity patterns should not be changed when storks are present 

at the colony. FWS also recommends the establishment of a secondary zone that extends 

1,000 to 2,000 ft beyond the primary zone. The FWS also recommends that transmission lines 

not be built within 1 mi of stork nest colonies to lower the probability of low-flying stork strikes. 

FWS guidelines drafted to address management of the wood stork foraging habitat recommend 

an 18.6 mi core foraging area management zone around all known wood stork colonies that 

have had active nests within the last 10 years in South Florida. Human activity should be 

restricted within 300 ft of forage sites when storks are present and no closer than 750 ft if there 

is no vegetation to screen human activities from feeding storks (FWS 2010-TN226). It is not 

known whether the conceptual transmission line corridor contains any wood stork colonies or is 

within the range of the various protection distances (300 ft–18.6 mi) recognized by the FWS. 

If construction and operation were to occur at the Turkey Point site, FPL would be required by 

the FWS and FFWCC to conduct numerous activities and actions to minimize impacts on wood 

storks, and it is reasonable to assume the same requirements would apply for the use of the 

Glades site. Among these activities and actions are preconstruction and post-construction flight 

surveys of known wood stork nesting colonies to determine the flight corridors of fledging wood 

storks. FPL would be expected to conduct pre-clearing aerial surveys of transmission line 

corridors if nesting by wading birds is confirmed to occur within 0.5 mi of proposed transmission 

line corridors. FPL would be expected to conduct post-construction monitoring during the 

breeding season after transmission line installation near wood stork colonies. Monitoring would 

include carcass searches and flight behavior observation near operating transmission lines. 

FPL had proposed to evaluate the loss of wood stork foraging habitat within designated core 

foraging areas that would be intersected by transmission line corridors emanating from the 

Turkey Point site if the plants were located there. Impacts on suitable foraging habitats from 

building at Turkey Point would require mitigation (FWS 2010-TN226) and the staff assumed 

these requirements would also occur if needed at the Glades site. Audubon’s crested caracaras 

have also been electrocuted by electric utility structures in Florida (FPL 2011-TN1283), so 

installation and operation of transmission lines through caracara habitat could also increase the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-69 NUREG–2176 

risk of electrocution mortality to this species. Mitigation to dissuade large birds from perching on 

transmission structures would benefit caracaras. Operational effects on other important species 

would be minimal. 

FPL stated field surveys would be conducted for listed species as part of the permitting process 

before any preconstruction activities (FPL 2014-TN4058). Preconstruction activities would be 

conducted in accordance with all Federal and State regulations, permit conditions, good 

construction practices, and BMPs, including the use of directed drainage ditches and silt 

fencing. Acreage within the conceptual transmission line corridor was minimized to the extent 

possible by using the most direct route while avoiding areas with important resources and high 

biological value. FPL also stated that any Glades site wetland functions affected would be 

replaced or restored. 

EMFs are unlike other agents that have an adverse impact (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing 

radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be demonstrated and long-term effects, if they 

exist, are subtle (NRC 2013-TN2654). A careful review of biological and physical studies of 

EMFs did not reveal consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures 

(NRC 2013-TN2654). The impacts of EMFs on terrestrial flora and fauna are of small 

significance at operating nuclear power plants, including transmission line systems with variable 

numbers of power lines and lines energized at levels less than 765 kV (NRC 2013-TN2654). 

Since 1997, more than a dozen studies have been published that looked at cancer in animals 

that were exposed to EMFs for all or most of their lives (Moulder 2005-TN1329). These studies 

have found no evidence that EMFs cause any specific types of cancer in rats or mice (Moulder 

2005-TN1329). Therefore, the incremental EMF impact posed by operation of existing 

transmission lines and the addition of new lines for two new nuclear units would be negligible at 

the Glades alternative site. 

Transmission line corridor vegetation-management activities (cutting and herbicide application) 

and related impacts on floodplains and wetlands in transmission line corridors are of minor 

significance at operating nuclear power plants, including those with transmission line corridors 

of variable widths (NRC 2013-TN2654). Consequently, the incremental effects of transmission 

line corridor maintenance and associated impacts on floodplains and wetlands for two new 

nuclear units would be negligible at the Glades site. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The geographic area of interest for the assessment of the potential cumulative impacts of 

building and operating a new reactor at the Glades site and other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions on terrestrial resources and wetlands is defined as a 50 mi radius 

around the Glades site. A list of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable actions within 50 mi 

of the Glades site is presented in Table 9-6. This list includes a variety of energy-production 

projects, stone mining, manufacturing, transportation and infrastructure-development projects, 

set-aside areas for recreation and conservation, CERP-related projects, and other 

miscellaneous activities that could affect terrestrial and wetland resources. 

Past land use in South Florida, especially agriculture and more recently urbanization, has 

greatly affected the distribution and abundance of unfragmented plant and wildlife habitats still 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-70 October 2016 

remaining. Development and urbanization of higher elevation lands for energy, infrastructure, 

and manufacturing projects have further reduced the amount of pine flatwoods and other 

remaining upland habitat. Ditching and draining created more dry land, reducing the amount of 

wetlands available as habitat. The continued operation and maintenance of existing facilities 

would likely not exacerbate the current situation with respect to terrestrial and wetland 

ecosystems. New mining activities have the potential to expand their footprint and development 

in general on the landscape, as does continued human population growth in South Florida. 

Lands set aside for recreation and conservation provide buffers against development, provide 

habitat for plants and animals, and serve to preserve fragments of the ecosystem of South 

Florida. Projects that continue to incrementally reverse changes in land cover due to man-made 

changes in surface water flow, including CERP-related activities, would continue to benefit the 

terrestrial and wetland ecology of the region. 

As described in Chapter 7, terrestrial and wetland environments in South Florida may also be 

affected by continued population growth and related development. The overall impact from 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities on regional terrestrial and wetland 

ecology is substantial. 

Summary Statement 

Most land cover in the Glades site landscape is already converted to agriculture. Approximately 

140 ac of wetland and 26 ac of upland habitats would be permanently lost including high-quality 

forested wetlands. Although most of the conceptual transmission line corridor is currently used 

for agriculture, installation and operation of a 121 mi long transmission system could affect an 

undefined subset of the 1,627 ac of wetlands and nearly 200 ac of uplands contained within the 

conceptual transmission line corridor. Although the entire corridor would not be developed and 

all lands lost as habitat, some portion would be lost to pole installation, access road 

development, or altered to low-growing vegetation. Substantial amounts of ecologically 

valuable land-cover types would be affected and include freshwater marsh, wet prairies, and 

mixed wetland hardwoods. Intact habitats that reside in an already fragmented landscape 

would be fragmented further. Substantial amounts of potentially suitable habitat for Audubon’s 

crested caracara, the wood stork, and Florida panther would be altered. 

Based on the information provided by FPL and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

review team concludes that the cumulative impacts on terrestrial and wetland resources of 

building and operating two new nuclear units at the Glades alternative site, including impacts 

attributable to permanent conversion of habitat for the facility footprint as well as operation of 

the cooling towers and transmission lines would be MODERATE. The incremental effect of the 

building and operation of two new nuclear units at the Glades site would be a significant 

contributor to this impact primarily because of the proposed length of the transmission line 

corridor. 

9.3.2.4 Aquatic Resources 

What follows is an assessment of the potential impacts on aquatic resources that may occur if 

the two nuclear reactors described by FPL (2014-TN4058) were constructed and operated at 

the Glades alternative site. Based on a review of potential cooling-water sources discussed in 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-71 NUREG–2176 

Section 9.3.2.2, the review team assumes no cooling ponds or reverse osmosis facilities would 

be required for the Glades site. Unless otherwise noted, the information presented in this 

section was obtained from FPL’s ER, Revision 6 (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

The Glades site is an undeveloped greenfield site in the southeastern portion of Glades County 

that encompasses approximately 3,000 ac of primarily agricultural land. The site is located just 

north of the C-43 Channel (Caloosahatchee Canal) and Lake Hicpochee, and is approximately 

5 mi southwest of Lake Okeechobee (Figure 9-4). The size and elevation of Lake Hicpochee is 

directly influenced by the water-management activities occurring at Lake Okeechobee to 

maintain the existing Lake Okeechobee level. Lake Hicpochee also receives stormwater from 

Lake Okeechobee during storm events. Thus, Lake Hicpochee may support aquatic biota 

during the wet season, while resembling a sandy desert plain during the dry season. For this 

assessment, the review team assumes FPL would use groundwater as a primary water source 

for reactor cooling, supplemented by additional water from the C-43 Channel during high 

surface-water flow periods using a conventional intake structure. Cooling-tower blowdown 

would be injected into the Boulder Zone. 

The C-43 Channel connects to Lake Okeechobee just east of the Glades site, and likely 

contains aquatic resources that are similar to the lake. Lake Okeechobee is the largest lake in 

Florida, and the center of South Florida’s regional water-management system, providing 

commercial and sport fisheries, flood control, and a source of potable and irrigation water. The 

lake encompasses over 730 mi2, and has an average depth of about 9 ft (FFWCC 2013-

TN2842). Desired lake elevations (stages) are between 12.5 ft and 15.5 ft (USACE and 

SFWMD 2009-TN2848). Major natural tributaries to the lake are Fisheating Creek, Taylor 

Creek, and the Kissimmee River. Approximately 70 percent of the water entering the lake is 

associated with these tributaries; rainfall accounts for the remaining 30 percent. Evaporation 

accounts for about 70 percent of the water loss, and the remaining water exits the lake through 

engineered outfalls (FFWCC 2013-TN2842). 

As described in Section 2.4, water-management practices in South Florida over the past 100 

years have dramatically changed the regional hydrology and sheet-water flow, and influenced 

the aquatic plants and animals in the area. Creation of levees, canals, and channels to support 

agriculture and development has confined Lake Okeechobee to a smaller area than historically 

present, and resulted in a variety of water-management activities to maintain the lake level 

during the dry season and reduce flooding during the wet season. Lake Okeechobee and the 

connecting rivers, canals, channels, and engineered outfalls are also greatly affected by 

weather events. During the hurricane season of 2004, Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne created 

high water surges of over 18 ft, and created turbid conditions that affected submerged aquatic 

vegetation; the drought of 2006 lowered the level of Lake Okeechobee to an all-time record of 

8.82 ft msl (FFWCC 2013-TN2842). Currently, the USACE is responsible for managing water 

levels in Lake Okeechobee between 12.5 and 15.5 ft NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum 

of 1929) to balance flood control, public safety, navigation, water supply, and public health 

(SFWMD 2012-TN2883). 

Based on the information provided by FPL (2014-TN4058), the facility footprint at the Glades 

site will encompass approximately 362 ac. Although the affected area is primarily farmland, 

building activities have the potential to directly or indirectly affect aquatic resources present in 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-72 October 2016 

small streams or ponds at or near the site. Installation of the water-intake structure for 

intermittent cropping of water in the C-43 Channel may temporarily affect resident aquatic biota, 

and the construction of a water pipeline to the site may temporarily affect surface-water habitats. 

As described by FPL (2014-TN4058), approximately 121 mi of transmission lines encompassing 

5,823 ac may also affect aquatic resources in areas where the transmission lines support 

structures or access roads are adjacent to surface-water habitats. During the operation of the 

nuclear reactors, cooling water obtained from two intake structures on the C-43 Channel during 

high-flow periods creates the potential for impingement and/or entrainment of aquatic biota 

present in the channel, or those entering the channel from Lake Okeechobee. Because Lake 

Okeechobee and the rivers, streams, channels, and canals in the vicinity of the Glades site are 

highly connected, it is assumed the biota present in the lake are indicative of the aquatic 

resources that might be affected by the building and operation of two nuclear reactors, as 

described below. 

Commercial and Recreational Species 

As noted above, the review team assumes the fish and invertebrates present in the Lake 

Okeechobee would be representative of species occurring in the C-43 Channel and other 

surface water habitats near the lake, given the hydrological connections that are present. 

Recreational species present in Lake Okeechobee include Largemouth Bass (Micropterus 

salmoides), Black Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus); commercial fishing also occurs for 

various species of catfish (Ictaluridae) and bream (Lepomis spp.). 

Important Species 

The USACE (2013-TN2847) reports 69 species of fish present in Lake Okeechobee and the 

Okeechobee Waterway, ranging from small forage fish like the Threadfin Shad (Dorosoma 

petenense) and Inland Silversides (Menidia beryllina) to larger predatory species like the 

Largemouth Bass and Black Crappie (P. nigromaculatus). Electrofishing studies conducted by 

the FFWCC at 21 stations during the fall of 2011 yielded 34 species. Dominant species based 

on abundance, were Bluegill (L. macrochirus), Redear Sunfish (Lepomis microlophus), 

Largemouth Bass, Inland Silverside, and Gizzard Shad (D. cepedianum). Dominant species 

based on biomass were Largemouth Bass, Striped Mullet (Mugil cephalus), Bluegill, Florida Gar 

(Lepisosteus platyrhincus), Bowfin (Amia calva), Redear Sunfish, and Channel Catfish (Ictalurus 

punctatus). Lake-wide trawl sampling from 2005 to 2011 resulted in the capture of 3,281 fish. 

Dominant species by abundance were Threadfin Shad, Bluegill, White Catfish (Ameiurus catus) 

and Black Crappie. Dominant species based on biomass were White Catfish, Bluegill, Black 

Crappie, Florida Gar, Channel Catfish, Threadfin Shad, and Redear Sunfish (Zhang and 

Sharfstein 2013-TN2894). 

Lake Okeechobee also supports a wide variety of benthic invertebrates. Because the 

restoration of Lake Okeechobee is one of the primary goals of CERP, a 3-year project funded 

by SFWMD was conducted by FFWCC to establish pre-CERP environmental conditions in the 

lake. During the 2005 to 2008 study period, sampling was conducted at 18 stations during wet 

and dry seasons. A total of 118 aquatic invertebrate taxa representing 28 major taxonomic 

group were collected. Samples were numerically dominated by oligochaete worms and larval 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-73 NUREG–2176 

chironomid midges. Pelecypod, amphipods, gastropods, and isopods were also observed in the 

samples (Warren et al. 2009-TN2846). 

Non-Native or Nuisance Species 

Of the 69 fish species present in Lake Okeechobee, the USACE (2013-TN2847) noted 17 

species were non-native, including several species of catfish, carp, tilapia and cichlids. 

Additional information about exotic species is provided in the Lake Okeechobee Protection 

Program Exotic Species Plan, which includes the lake and 39 surrounding hydrologic basins 

identified in the Lake Okeechobee Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan 

(SFWMD 2003-TN2852). Exotic plants identified in the plan included hydrilla (Hydrilla 

verticillata), waterhyacinth (Eichornia crassipes), and waterlettuce (Pista stratiotes). Exotic 

aquatic animals identified in the plan included Blue Tilapia (Oreochromis aureus), Asian swamp 

eel (Monopterus albus), spiny water flea (Daphnia lumholtzii), Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea

or C. manilensis), and Sailfin Catfish (Pterygoplichthys multiradiatus). Work by Harvey et 

al. (2010-TN3158) has shown that up to 70 percent of the fish community within a canal system 

may be composed of non-native species, and that the canals can also act as a conduit that 

enables invasive species to colonize new areas. Given the hydrological connections that exist 

in and around Lake Okeechobee, many or all of the above species could be present at or near 

the Glades site. 

Federally and State-Listed Species and Critical Habitat 

Federally and State-listed aquatic species present in Glades County that could occur at or near 

the Glades site include the endangered Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostis), the 

threatened American crocodile, and the threatened American alligator (Alligator 

mississippiensis); the alligator is listed because of its similarity in appearance to the American 

crocodile (FNAI 2013-TN2850). Detailed information about these species is found in Section 

2.4.2. Critical habitat for manatee and crocodile is not present at the Glades site, but the 

manatee consultation area includes Lake Okeechobee (FWS 2003-TN2916). 

Building Impacts 

Building-related impacts on aquatic species are unlikely at the Glades site, because the majority 

of the land required for the facility footprint is currently used for farming and agriculture. Some 

existing drainage ditches that support a seasonal population of some of the fish species listed 

above may be adversely affected. Building of the surface-water intake on the C-43 Channel may 

result in short-term increases in water turbidity, and some disturbance of the shoreline area, but 

it is expected these impacts would be temporary and minor, and addressed primarily by the use 

of BMPs discussed by FPL (2014-TN4058). Installation of the transmission line system 

necessary to connect the new facility to the power grid would disturb approximately 5,000 ac of 

agricultural land, with limited aquatic resources expected to be present. Building activities are 

not expected to affect the recreational and commercial aquatic resources in Lake Okeechobee or 

the C-43 Channel, or any Federal or State-listed species that may occur at or near the building 

area. FPL has also indicated that field surveys for listed species would occur before land 

preparation or building activities occurred. Building activities related to the facility and 

transmission line systems would be conducted in accordance with State and Federal regulations, 

permits, and BMPs. Installation of the intake structure would use turbidity curtains, silt screens, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-74 October 2016 

or similar technology to minimize impacts. The use of BMPs during tower erection and 

conductor installation would minimize building-related impacts along transmission line corridors.

Operations Impacts 

Based on the review team assumptions described above, the majority of the water required to 

operate the cooling-water system for the two nuclear facilities at the Glades site would be 

obtained from groundwater resources, limiting the potential for impingement or entrainment of 

aquatic biota to periods of surface-water use. During times of excess surface-water flow that 

typically occurs during the wet season, supplemental water would be obtained from a surfacewater intake located in the C-43 Channel. Impingement and entrainment of organisms from the 

intake canal would be the most likely operational impacts on aquatic populations that would 

occur. Assuming a closed-cycle cooling system and compliance with the EPA’s 316(b) Phase I 

requirements for intake structures (66 FR 65256) (TN243), the intake is considered protective of 

aquatic life. The anticipated impacts attributed to impingement and entrainment are considered 

by the review team to be minimal. Furthermore, the intakes would likely be only operated 

intermittently throughout the year when excess surface water is available. Impingement or 

entrainment that does occur should not result in noticeable changes to aquatic biota species 

composition or abundance. Because cooling-tower blowdown would be discharged into the 

Boulder Zone of the Lower Floridan aquifer via deep-injection wells, surface-water resources 

would not be adversely affected. There is no available information about biological communities 

that may be present in the Boulder Zone formations near the Glades site, so it is not possible to 

determine whether a complete exposure pathway is present or assess potential biological 

effects. Thus, the potential risk of chemical exposure to aquatic resources resulting from 

discharge of cooling-tower blowdown cannot be determined. Based on an NRC assessment of 

a similar cooling system proposed at the Levy site in western Florida using brackish saltwater 

for cooling-tower makeup water (NRC 2012-TN1976), cooling-tower drift impacts on aquatic 

resources would likely be minimal, because deposition would be expected to occur primarily on 

plant property or adjacent agricultural lands. No detectable increase in surface-water salinity 

resulting from salt-drift deposition is anticipated.

Cumulative Impacts 

A list of past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the Glades site is 

presented in Table 9-6. As shown in the table, a wide variety of energy, mining, transportation, 

and restoration projects exist within the vicinity of the Glades site that have the potential to 

noticeably alter the surrounding landscape and affect plant, animal, and human populations. In 

addition, a variety of parks, wildlife refuges, and recreational areas are and will continue to 

provide both protection for wildlife and recreational opportunities for residents and visitors to 

South Florida. The operational or proposed regional energy facilities are powered by coal, oil, 

natural gas, biofuels, or solar energy. Collectively, these projects occupy land that was 

previously drained and channelized, as discussed in Section 2.4.2. Continued operation of 

these facilities may affect aquatic biota through interference with natural drainage patterns and 

consumptive water use. Rock-mining activities have the potential to negatively affect terrestrial 

and wetland species during excavation processes. However, rock mining may provide limited 

benefits to some aquatic species through the creation of new habitat after mining activities are 

completed. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-75 NUREG–2176 

As discussed above, the presence of parks, preserves, refuges, and natural areas will provide a 

net positive benefit to aquatic biota by maintaining or enhancing existing populations, providing 

recreational opportunities to residents and tourists, and ensuring that the potential impact of 

new projects near these areas are protective of the environment. Specific projects listed in 

Table 9-6 with the potential to provide a positive environmental benefit to aquatic resources are 

associated with the ongoing CERP. Examples include a proposed project to increase waterstorage capacity in the C-43 Basin (USACE and SFWMD 2014-TN3009); a project to improve 

the timing, quantity, and quality of freshwater flows into the Caloosahatchee River estuary 

(USACE and SFWMD 2014-TN3010); and various regional projects to improve surface-water 

management and reduce damaging flood releases (USACE and SFWMD 2014-TN3013; 

USACE and SFWMD 2014-TN3011; 78 FR 1164 [TN2991]). In addition, a proposed project to 

increase aquatic and wildlife habitat, regulate extreme fluctuations in Lake Okeechobee 

elevations, and reduce nutrient loading will likely improve water quality in adjacent canal 

systems as well as coastal areas east and west of the Glades site (USACE and SFWMD 2014-

TN3015). As discussed in Section 7.3.2, aquatic environments in this region of South Florida 

may also be affected by continued population growth and related development. Overall the 

review team concludes that the cumulative impacts on aquatic resources in the vicinity of the 

Glades site would be MODERATE. 

Summary Statement 

Based on a review of the information provided by FPL and the review team’s independent 

assessment, it is likely the building and operation of a nuclear generating plant at the Glades 

site would contribute only minimally to the cumulative effects on aquatic species likely to occur 

in that portion of South Florida. Although the building of nuclear units at the Glades site would 

displace some existing agricultural land, surface-water habitats would be likely minimally 

affected. During the normal operation of the plant, groundwater would be used for reactor 

cooling, and deep aquifer discharge of cooling-tower blowdown would be employed, eliminating 

the need for conventional surface-water intake and discharge structures. During periods of 

excess surface-water flow, cooling water from the C-43 Channel (Caloosahatchee Canal) would 

be withdrawn for cooling. Some impingement and entrainment losses would be expected; 

however, assuming a closed-cycle cooling system and compliance with the EPA’s 316(b) Phase 

I requirements for intake structures (66 FR 65256) (TN243), the intake is considered protective 

of aquatic life and the anticipated impacts attributed to impingement and entrainment are 

considered minimal. Furthermore, the intakes would likely be only operated intermittently 

throughout the year when surface water is available. Impingement or entrainment that does 

occur should not result in noticeable changes to aquatic biota species composition or 

abundance. Thus, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts of building and 

operation of two new nuclear reactors at the Glades site, combined with the other past, present, 

or reasonably foreseeable future activities on aquatic resources would be MODERATE, but 

building and operating two new nuclear units at the Glades site would not be a significant 

contributor to the MODERATE impact. 

9.3.2.5 Socioeconomics 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

affect socioeconomics, including other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-6. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-76 October 2016 

For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the Glades site, the geographic area of interest is 

considered to be the 50 mi region centered on the Glades site with special consideration of 

Glades, Hendry, Highland, Lee, and Okeechobee Counties because that is where the review 

team expects socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest. In evaluating the socioeconomic 

impacts of site development and operation at the Glades site near Moore Haven in Glades 

County, the review team used readily obtainable data from the Internet or published sources. 

Impacts from both building and station operation are discussed.

Physical Impacts 

People who work or live around the site would be exposed to noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous 

emissions from building and operations activities. Noise, dust, and air-pollution emissions 

generated within the boundaries of the Glades site would be expected to be similar to those for 

the Turkey Point site. Because the surrounding site is rural and sparsely populated and 

because noise and air-pollution impacts are attenuated by distance, members of the 

surrounding population exposed would be relatively few and the impacts would be expected to 

be negligible. Best practices and applicable regulations would be expected to protect building 

workers and personnel working onsite. Truck and vehicle traffic related to building and 

operations would generate noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous emissions offsite. In addition, 

offsite structures include a transmission line and intake/makeup pipelines (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

Because the area affected by offsite structures would be rural and sparsely populated and 

because FPL would be expected to implement a dust-control plan similar to that for the Turkey 

Point site, noise and air-pollution impacts from these offsite activities would be expected to be 

minor. 

Based on FPL’s conceptual site layout for the Glades site (FPL 2011-TN59) and on aerial 

photography, there is one structure within the boundaries of the proposed site. There are also 

agricultural crops that would be lost. Offsite project-related building activities include 

construction of an access road and widening of 1.9 mi of SR-78, and a 6.2 mi railway. The 

impact on road quality based on any road improvements made by the applicant to facilitate 

project-related traffic would only affect a small population base, and therefore that impact would 

be minor and beneficial. Offsite project-related building activities also includes construction of a 

121 mi transmission line, and intake/makeup pipelines (FPL 2014-TN4058). The conceptual 

design of these activities routes them, to the extent possible, along existing rights-of-way and 

avoids populated areas and residences (FPL 2014-TN4058). The physical impacts on existing 

structures and crops within the proposed site and offsite areas for supporting infrastructure 

would be minimal. 

The area around the site is relatively flat, sparsely populated, and is used mainly as farmland. 

Building would use cranes (which could exceed 400 ft in height) and would alter the regional 

viewscape. Construction of the transmission lines would pose similar impacts. The power plant 

and water-intake facilities would likely be visible from several angles and contrast highly with the 

present viewscape. Building and operation would noticeably alter the aesthetics of the area. 

Because of the sparse population, the negative impact would likely not interfere with the daily 

routine of local public around the Glades site and would not destabilize the aesthetic 

characteristics of the area. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-77 NUREG–2176 

Based on the information provided by FPL (2014-TN4058) and the review team’s independent 

analysis, the review team concludes that the overall physical impacts of building activities and 

operations would be minor and adverse, with the exceptions of minor and beneficial impacts on 

road quality and noticeable but not destabilizing adverse aesthetic impacts near the Glades site. 

Demography 

The Glades site is located in Glades County, 2.0 mi west of Moore Haven (2012 population 

2,700) and 45 mi east of Fort Myers (2012 population 63,427), the closest population center 

with more than 25,000 residents (FPL 2014-TN4058; USCB 2012-TN4098). The population 

distribution within and around the Glades site is typically rural with low population densities. 

There are 11 counties within the 50 mi area, but the review team estimates the areas in which 

workers would most likely live and from which they would commute are within Glades, Hendry, 

Highland, Okeechobee, Palm Beach, and Lee Counties, based on current commuter patterns(8)

(USCB 2011-TN4078). For the purposes of assessing potential socioeconomics impacts, the 

review team excluded Palm Beach County as a potential area of residence for construction and 

operation workers: the main residential areas in this county are along the coast, in cities such 

as West Palm Beach (at nearly a 2-hour driving distance), which would be less likely to 

accommodate workers than closer communities, such as Fort Myers, in Lee County. Because 

the population of Palm Beach would be over 60 percent of the population of the six counties 

together, the impacts would be distorted by the inclusion of Palm Beach County in the potential 

area of residence. The remainder of the analysis focuses on the five-county area 

encompassing Glades, Hendry, Highland, Okeechobee, and Lee Counties. 

FPL estimated the peak number of workers during building would be 3,983, including 33 

operation workers. The review team assumed that the share of construction and operation 

workers relocating from outside the five-county area would be 87 percent of the estimated peak 

number of workers. This assumption was reached by using the assumption made for the 

proposed Turkey Point site as a reference and assuming that the share of workers that would 

come from outside the region is inversely proportional to the population of the region(9) 

(USCB 2009-TN3395). As described in Section 4.4, 70 percent of the construction workforce 

and 100 percent of the operation workforce that moved to the area were assumed to bring their 

families. Based on these assumptions, a peak of 3,437 construction and 29 operation workers 

would relocate to the area during the project construction phase, and 2,435 of these workers 

would bring their families. Based on an average household size of 3.25 people, the total 

increase in population attributable to the peak total workforce at the Glades site would be 8,946 

people. An influx of 8,946 people represents a 1.1 percent increase in the five-county 2012 

population of 814,289. 

 

(8) Over 80 percent of the workers in Glade County currently reside in one of these six counties 

(USCB 2011-TN4078). 

(9) The proposed Turkey Point site analysis assumed 50 percent of the peak workers would come from 

outside the 50 mi region and that 83.3 percent of them would reside in Miami-Dade County; i.e., 

41.65 percent (0.5 × 0.833) of the peak workers would migrate into Miami-Dade County. Because 

the population of the five-county area is approximately 32 percent of that of Miami-Dade County 

(814,289/2,512,219; USCB 2012-TN4098), the review team assumed the share of peak workers 

migrating into the five-county area would be 1-(0.32 × 0.4165) ≈ 87 percent. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-78 October 2016 

FPL estimated the total onsite operations workforce to be 806 workers. As explained above, the 

review team assumed that 87 percent of these workers (702) would relocate from outside the 

five-county area. For this analysis, the review team assumed that 100 percent of operation 

workers who relocate would bring their families. Based on an average household size of 

3.25 people, the total population increase attributable to project operations is 2,282 (702 × 3.25) 

people. This represents a 0.3 percent increase in the five-county area. 

The review team concluded that the impact on the local demography would not be noticeable. 

Economic Impacts on the Community 

Economy 

FPL estimated the peak number of workers during building would be 3,983, including 33 

operation workers. Employment of 3,983 construction and operation workers would have 

positive economic impacts in the five-county area. Based on a multiplier of 1.7604 jobs (direct 

and indirect) for every construction job and 2.3016 for every operation job, 3,983 new 

construction and operation jobs would create 3,047 indirect jobs, for a total of 7,030 new jobs in 

the five-county area during peak employment (3,950 × 1.7604 + 33 × 2.3016) (FPL 2011-

TN56).(10) This represents a 2.0 percent increase in the total employment in the five-county 

area.(11) Peak employment would last 1 month and the average employment generated during 

the 10-year building period would be about half of that of peak employment. This added 

employment would generate added earnings to the economy of the five-county area, but the 

added employment and earnings would not be noticeable to most of those living or working in 

the area. 

An estimated 806 workers would be required for the operation of two nuclear power facilities. 

Based on a multiplier of 2.3016 jobs (direct and indirect) for every operations job at the new 

units (FPL 2011-TN56), an influx of 806 workers would create 904 indirect jobs for a total of 

1,855 new jobs in the region. This represents a 0.5 percent increase in the total employment in 

the five-county area. This added employment would also generate added earnings to the 

economy of the five-county area, but the added employment and earnings would not be 

noticeable to most of those living or working in the area. 

Taxes 

State corporate income taxes and sales and use taxes paid at the Glades site during 

construction and operations of the proposed units would be similar to those paid by the same 

units at the proposed Turkey Point site. As discussed in Sections 4.4 and 5.4, State taxes paid 

by the proposed units would not exceed 2 percent of the annual collected State corporate 

income and sales and use taxes. The impact would be minor and beneficial. County surtax 

rates in the five-county area are typically 1 percent, with the exception of Lee County, for which 

the rate is zero percent (FDOR 2014-TN3393). County surtax collections from the proposed 

units would be highest during construction when annual expenses related to the proposed units 

 

(10) Multipliers are for a four-county area (excluding Highlands County) and are used as an 

approximation. 

(11) Employment of 348,759 (BLS 2013-TN4085) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-79 NUREG–2176 

would be estimated to reach up to $1.56 billion (Section 4.4). A 1 percent sales surtax would 

generate $15.6 million in revenues for the five-county area.(12) This would correspond to 

approximately 1.1 percent of total County revenues in the five-county area for 2012.(13) The 

impact would be minor and beneficial. County and school district governments in Florida may 

levy taxes up to 10 mills each (1 percent) in property taxes (FDOR 2012-TN459). If the value of 

property taxes for the two nuclear reactors at the Glades site were the same as the value 

estimated for Units 6 and 7 at the Turkey Point site in Section 5.4.3.2, FPL would pay 

$20 million in property taxes to the Glades County School District and $20 million to Glades 

County. These payments would correspond to up to 1.7 times the Glades County School 

District 2011-2012 total revenues ($20 million compared $11.7 million) (FLDOE 2012-TN3391) 

and 0.8 times the Glades County 2011-2012 total revenues ($20 million compared to $26.3 

million) (FLDFS 2013-TN3392). Because property taxes paid to school districts are reallocated 

through Florida’s Education Finance Program, the benefit to the Glades County School District 

would be diluted to some extent, and the exact amount distributed to each school district is not 

known at this time. Because of the value of project-related property tax payments relative to 

current property taxes, the review team considers the impacts on tax revenues to both the 

Glades County School District and Glades County to be substantial and beneficial 

The review team concluded that the economic impact would not be noticeable and would be 

beneficial, with the exception of property tax revenues to Glades County and to the Glades 

County School District, which would be beneficial and substantially alter current property tax 

levels in Glades County and the Glades County School District. 

Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts 

Traffic 

Workforce access to the Glades site would occur through US-27 coming from the east and the 

west, and from the north through SR-78. The review team estimated the current level of service 

(LOS) of these roads at three Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) traffic-monitoring 

sites based on the peak hour directional traffic and FDOT LOS thresholds. Peak hour 

directional traffic information was obtained from FDOT Florida Traffic Online (FDOT 2013-

TN3558) and consists of the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) at each traffic-monitoring site, 

a Standard Peak Hour Factor (K) and a Directional Distribution Factor (D). The multiplication of 

these three elements (AADT × K × D) provides an estimate of the current peak hour directional 

traffic volume. The LOS was determined comparing this peak hour directional traffic volume 

with the maximum thresholds for each LOS in Table 9 (areas less than 5,000 population) of 

FDOTs Generalized Service Volume Tables (FDOT 2013-TN3297). The review team used 

FDOT’s 2011 LOS Reports by County (FDOT 2011-TN3557) to determine the correct 

classification of each road for the purposes of identification of the appropriate threshold in the 

Generalized Service Volume Tables (e.g., whether the road should be considered highway or a 

freeway; whether the area should be considered rural developed or rural undeveloped). Based 

on the procedure described above, the LOS at all three traffic-monitoring sites is B. To estimate 

 

(12) To the extent that some of the expenditures would be made in Lee County, and to the extent that the 

sales surtax rate in that County is kept at zero, the total sales surtax collected would be smaller. 

(13) $1,405 million (FLDFS 2013-TN3392). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-80 October 2016 

the project impact on the traffic LOS during the project’s peak workforce building period, the 

review team followed a methodology similar to that described in Section 4.4: The peak 

workforce of 3,983 construction and operation workers were divided into two shifts, with 

70 percent assigned to shift 1 (6:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) and 30 percent to shift 2 (5:00 p.m. to 

3:00 a.m.). The hour of peak commuting traffic would be 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The review 

team also assumed up to 36 trucks per hour. The project-related directional traffic during the 

peak commuting hour would be 2,824 vehicles (70 percent × 3,983 + 36). The review team 

assumed that one-third of the project-related traffic would come from each of the three 

directions—east, west, and north(14) (USCB 2011-TN4078). The results of this analysis are 

presented in Table 9-10 below. The additional building traffic would keep the roadway at a LOS 

classification of B in the western direction, and drop it to a LOS classification of C in the eastern 

direction. The LOS classification at the northern portion of SR-78 would drop the roadway to a 

LOS classification of D. The proposed widening of SR-78, however, would allow the LOS 

classification to remain at a B. 

Table 9-10. Peak Workforce Traffic LOS Analysis for the Glades Site 

Traffic-Monitoring 

Site 

Baseline 

Peak Hour 

Directional 

Traffic 

Baseline 

LOS 

Distribution 

of ProjectRelated 

Peak Traffic 

Added 

Peak Hour 

Directional 

Traffic 

Peak Hour 

Directional 

Traffic with 

Project 

LOS 

with 

Project 

US-27 west of site 376 B 0.33 932 1,308 B 

SR-78 north of site 145 B 0.33 932 1,077 D (B)(a)

US-27 east of site 533 B 0.33 932 1,465 C 

(a) LOS with proposed widening of road. 

Source: Review team calculations based on FDOT 2011-TN3557, FDOT 2013-TN3558 and FDOT 2013-TN3297 

FPL estimated the total onsite operations workforce to be 806 workers. If access of this 

workforce to the Glades site were distributed among the three directions equally, the LOS at 

each of the three monitoring sites would remain at B. 

Based on the above analysis, the review team concludes that the impact of building and 

operations of the proposed nuclear reactors at the Glades site would be minor, after widening of 

SR-78, although noticeable on US-27 east of the site during the building phase. 

Recreation 

The Glades site is located approximately 11 mi from Lake Okeechobee and the Lake 

Okeechobee Scenic Trail that circles the lake. The lake is used for boating, fishing, and duck 

hunting, and the scenic trail is used for hiking and bird watching (Palm Beach County 2013-

TN3298). The Nicodemus Slough is located at approximately 5 mi north of the site. Other 

parks and recreational areas exist within the county. The influx of project-related population to 

the five-county area would increase the number of local users of recreational facilities. Because 

the in-migrating population would be less than 2 percent of the local population, the review team 

expects the impact on current recreational infrastructure to be negligible. 

 

(14) Based on U.S. Census Bureau commuter patterns (USCB 2011-TN4078) it was not possible to 

determine the likely direction of outgoing project-related traffic. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-81 NUREG–2176 

Housing 

The review team estimates that 3,466 construction and operation workers would migrate into the 

five-county area, and each of these workers would need a place to live. Based on American 

Community Survey 2008–2012 5-Year estimates, within the five-county area, there are 466,004 

housing units of which 156,022 are vacant (33.5 percent). This includes housing that is 

designated as seasonal, recreational, or occasional use (USCB 2012-TN4089). The review 

team estimates that, in absolute numbers, the available housing would be sufficient to house the 

construction workforce. The in-migrating construction and operation workforce would occupy no 

more than 2.3 percent of vacant housing units in the five-county area. FPL estimated that 

approximately 806 workers would be needed for operation of two nuclear power facilities at the 

Glades site, and the review team assumed that 87 percent of these workers (702) would relocate 

from outside the region and would settle in the five-county area. Based on these assumptions, 

the entire operations workforce would occupy no more than 0.5 percent of vacant housing units 

in the five counties. The review team concludes that impact on housing would be minor. 

Public Services 

In-migrating construction workers and plant operations staff would also likely affect local 

municipal water, wastewater-treatment facilities, police and fire-protection services, and other 

public services in the region. These impacts would be expected to be in proportion with the 

demographic impacts experienced in the region. In-migration to the five-county area would 

represent an estimated 1.1 percent of the local population (less during operations). The review 

team concludes that the impact on public services would be minor. 

Education 

Based on data for the 2011-2012 school year, there are approximately 109,547 full-time 

equivalent students in public schools in the five-county area(15) (FLDOE 2013-TN3299). The 

review team estimated that 3,466 construction and operation workers would migrate to the area, 

and that 2,435 workers would bring a family. Based on an estimate of 0.8 school-aged children 

per family (Malhotra and Manninen 1981-TN1430), an estimated 1,948 (2,435 × 0.8) schoolaged children would be migrating into the five-county area. This would yield a 1.8 percent 

increase in the student population. During operations, the review team assumed that 702 

operation workers and their families would relocate from outside the region. This would include 

an estimated 562 (702 × 0.8) children in the PK-12 school range. This influx of students would 

increase the student population in the five-county area by 0.5 percent. The review team 

concludes that impact on education would be minor. 

Based on the information provided by FPL (2014-TN4058) and the review team’s independent 

analysis, the review team concludes that the overall infrastructure and community service 

impacts of building activities and operations at the Glades site would be minor except for 

noticeable, but not destabilizing adverse impacts on traffic. 

 

(15) Full-time equivalent (FTE) is a measure of enrollment based on the number of full-time students that 

it would take to fill the number of classes offered. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-82 October 2016 

Cumulative Impacts 

In addition to the socioeconomic impacts from building and operations of the proposed project at 

the Glades site, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that could have socioeconomic impacts. 

The socioeconomic impacts of past and present actions in the affected area are largely 

captured by the current baseline conditions used for analysis above of project impacts. For 

example, the impacts of past and present actions on the demography and economy of the area 

are largely captured by current baseline data on population, employment, and tax revenues, and 

are incorporated in the baseline and trend assessments of the Regional Input-Output Modeling 

System (RIMS II) multipliers. 

Reasonably foreseeable future actions are listed in Table 9-6. Several of these future actions 

would be expected to have cumulative socioeconomic impacts with the proposed project at the 

Glades site. The Southeastern Renewable Fuels Biorefinery and Cogeneration Plant is 

proposed for Hendry County, approximately 20 mi southeast of the Glades site. During 

construction the plant would generate local employment and earnings and construction traffic on 

nearby roads. When operational, it would purchase sorghum from adjacent agricultural fields, 

also generating local employment and earnings, and also generating truck traffic, particularly 

during harvest (FDEP 2010-TN3394). The Herbert Hoover Dike Rehabilitation Project and Dam 

Safety Modification Study will likely generate some local expenditures in the affected area. 

Other proposed projects that would generate employment and earnings during construction and 

operations include various proposed CERP water projects. The Florida Southeast Connection 

pipelines proposed through Highlands, Okeechobee, and Martin Counties (construction 2016–

2017; FSC 2014-TN3301) would not pass close enough to the Glades site to contribute to the a 

cumulative socioeconomic impact. 

Summary Statement 

The cumulative impact of the projects identified above with the proposed project at the Glades 

site would depend largely on the timing of construction, when employment and earnings impacts 

are expected to be highest. However, based on the location of the identified future projects and 

their magnitudes, the cumulative socioeconomic impacts would be expected to be SMALL and 

adverse; with the exception of MODERATE adverse physical impacts on roads, aesthetics, and 

traffic. However, as a result of road improvements there would be a SMALL beneficial physical 

impact on road quality near the Glades site The staff expects LARGE and beneficial impacts of 

property tax revenues to Glades County and to the Glades County School District. Building and 

operating two new nuclear units at the Glades alternative site would be a significant contributor 

to the MODERATE adverse impacts. 

9.3.2.6 Environmental Justice 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect 

environmental justice, including other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-6. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-83 NUREG–2176 

The 2008–2012 American Community Survey block groups were used to identify minority and 

low-income population distributions in the area (USCB 2012-TN4098). The census data for 

Florida characterizes 15.9 percent of the population as Black; 0.3 percent as American Indian or 

Alaskan Native; 2.5 percent as Asian; 0.1 percent as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; 

2.6 percent as other single minorities; 2.2 percent as multiracial; 22.5 percent as Hispanic 

ethnicity; and 42.2 percent as aggregate minority. There are 611 block groups within 50 mi of 

the Glades site. Following the criteria described in Section 2.6.1, Black minority populations 

exist in 64 block groups; American Indian or Alaskan Native minority populations exist in 1 block 

group; Asian minority populations exist in 5 block groups; other race minority populations exist in 

31 block groups; multiracial minority populations exist in 2 block groups; ethnic Hispanic minority 

populations exist in 99 block groups; and aggregate minority populations exist in 180 block 

groups. There are no block groups containing Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander minority 

populations within 50 mi of the Glades site. Three Indian Reservations lie within 50 mi of the 

Glades site: the Brighton Indian Reservation, the Big Cypress Indian Reservation, and a portion 

of the Miccosukee Indian Reservation. The locations of the aggregate minority populations and 

Indian Reservations within 50 mi of the Glades site are shown in Figure 9-7. The locations of 

Hispanic minority populations and Black minority populations within the 50 mi of the Glades site 

are shown in Figure 9-8 and Figure 9-9, respectively. 

The U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) data characterize 15.3 percent of Florida residents as low 

income (USCB 2012-TN4098). Out of a possible 611 block groups within 50 mi of the Glades 

site, 91 block groups contain low-income populations. The locations of the low-income 

populations within 50 mi of the Glades site are shown in Figure 9-10. 

The NRC’s environmental justice (EJ) methodology includes an assessment of affected 

populations of particular interest or with unusual circumstances, such as minority communities 

that are exceptionally dependent on subsistence resources or identifiable in compact locations 

(e.g., Native American reservations) and those that have a high density of minority or lowincome groups. Based on literature research, the review team did not identify high-density 

minority or low-income presence near the site, nor differentiated subsistence consumption of 

natural resources by EJ populations of interest. 

The analyses of impacts of building and operating new nuclear reactors at the Glades site 

identified noticeable adverse impacts on land use, terrestrial and wetland ecosystems, 

aesthetics, traffic, and historic and cultural resources. The review team did not identify any 

special pathways through which any impacts would disproportionately affect EJ populations of 

interest. Therefore, the review team concluded there would be no disproportionately high and 

adverse impacts on EJ populations of interest. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-84 October 2016 

Figure 9-7. Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups that Meet the 

Environmental Justice Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Glades 

Alternative Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-85 NUREG–2176 

Figure 9-8. Hispanic Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Glades Alternative Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-86 October 2016 

Figure 9-9. African American Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

Justice Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Glades Alternative Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-87 NUREG–2176 

Figure 9-10. Low-Income Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

Justice Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Glades Alternative Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-88 October 2016 

Cumulative Impacts 

In addition to the EJ impacts from building and operations of the proposed project at the Glades 

site, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions that could have EJ impacts. Based on a literature review of past and present 

actions in the affected area, and based on the reasonably foreseeable actions listed in 

Table 9-6, the review team found no evidence that the cumulative effects would 

disproportionately affect EJ populations. 

9.3.2.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 

The following cumulative impact analysis addresses building and operating two new nuclear 

generating units at the Glades site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect cultural resources, including other 

Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-6. For the analysis of 

cultural impacts at the Glades site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the Area 

of Potential Effect (APE) that would be defined for this proposed undertaking. This includes the 

direct effects APE, defined as the area physically affected by the site-development and 

operation activities at the site and transmission line corridors. The indirect effects APE is 

defined as the area visually affected and includes an additional 0.5 mi radius APE around the 

transmission line corridors and a 1 mi radius APE around the cooling towers. 

Reconnaissance activities in a cultural resource review have particular meaning. Typically, they 

include preliminary field investigations to confirm the presence or absence of cultural resources. 

However, in developing this EIS, the review team relied upon reconnaissance-level information 

to perform its alternative site evaluation in accordance with ESRP 9.3 (NRC 2000-TN614). 

Reconnaissance-level information consists of data that are readily available from agencies and 

other public sources. It can also include information obtained through visits to the site area. 

The following information was used to identify the historic and cultural resources at the Glades 

site: 

 NRC Alternative Sites Visit, July 2010 (NRC 2010-TN3304) 

 FPL ER Revision 6 (FPL 2014-TN4058) 

 Florida Historical Markers program (FDHR 2014-TN3875) 

 National Register of Historic Places database (NPS 2014-TN3879). 

The approximately 3,000 ac Glades site occurs in predominantly agricultural land. Historically, 

the Glades site and vicinity have remained largely undeveloped. Over time, the area has been 

disturbed by low-impact development including agriculture and low-density rural development, 

and it likely contains intact archaeological sites and other cultural resources associated with the 

past 10,000 years of human settlement. A search of the National Register shows that two 

significant historic districts are located within 10 mi of the Glades site (FPL 2014-TN4058; 

NPS 2014-TN3879). These two resources are the Glades Moore Haven Downtown Historic 

District and the Glades Moore Haven Residential Historic District, located several miles away. 

A total of 61 properties was found in four counties in the vicinity of the Glades site—Glades, 

Lee, Okeechobee, and Hendry Counties. A National Register search of the indirect effects APE 

for the proposed transmission line corridor shows that only the two properties noted above, the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-89 NUREG–2176 

Glades Moore Haven Downtown Historic District and the Glades Moore Haven Residential 

Historic District, are located along the route, though still outside the indirect effects APE. 

Numerous historic properties are located within the urban coastal area of Broward County, 

toward the southeastern end of the transmission line corridor, but these occur more than 10 mi 

from the APE. 

A search of the Florida Historical Markers Program revealed that there are two historic markers 

in Glades County (FDHR 2014-TN3875). One is for the “Lone Cypress” and Everglades 

Drainage in the city of Moore Haven. The marker is near the two Glades Moore Haven Historic 

Districts. The other is for the hurricane of 1924, and is located about 10 mi to the west of the 

Glades site. 

In 2006, FPL conducted background research for a proposed project located north of the 

Glades site (FPL 2014-TN4058). That work identified five prehistoric sites and one prehistoric 

archaeological district in the vicinity of that project, but none has been evaluated for National 

Register eligibility. The resources include primarily prehistoric habitation sites and burial 

mounds, as well as the Fort Center Archaeological District, which contains numerous prehistoric 

archaeological sites and a historic period Seminole War fort. None of these resources has been 

evaluated for eligibility for listing in the National Register. In addition, a historic district, the 

Herbert Hoover Dike, dating to the 1930s, is located in the area and has been determined 

eligible for listing in the National Register, but it is not listed. None of these resources is located 

within the direct effects APE of the Glades site, but they do indicate that archaeological sites 

and historical resources are located in the area. 

In addition, there are three Indian Reservations in the area. These include the Brighton 

Seminole Indian Reservation in Glades County approximately 12 mi to the northeast of the 

Glades site, the Big Cypress Seminole Reservation in Hendry and Palm Beach Counties, 

approximately 33 mi to the southeast, and the Miccosukee Indian Reservation 5 mi farther south 

in Broward County. A portion of the proposed transmission line for the Glades site passes 

through the northern portion of the Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation, and within 5 mi of 

the Miccosukee Indian Reservation, but in this area the proposed transmission line follows an 

existing transmission line corridor. 

While there are no known historic properties located within the direct effects APE of the Glades 

site, reconnaissance-level information shows that there are cultural, historic, and archaeological 

resources in the general vicinity of the site, including two historic districts located a few miles 

from the property (though outside the direct and indirect effects APE) and potentially significant 

archaeological resources associated with Lake Okeechobee, including burial mounds. No 

archaeological or architectural surveys have been conducted at the Glades site, and locating 

the nuclear plants there would require formal cultural resources survey and consultation with the 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Tribes, and other interested parties. If any 

significant cultural, historic, or archaeological resources are identified, the project could cause 

adverse effects and appropriate mitigation measures would need to be put in place before 

construction and operation. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-90 October 2016 

Building Impacts 

To accommodate the building of two nuclear units and associated facilities at the Glades site, 

FPL estimates that the total area of land that would be disturbed would involve approximately 

362 ac for the facility footprint. In addition, a 1.9 mi long paved road and a 6.2 mi long railroad 

spur would need to be constructed in the predominantly agricultural land (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

Further, portions of SR-78 would need to be widened. An additional 3.4 ac would be required 

for pipelines and associated facilities (FPL 2014-TN4058). If the Glades site were chosen for 

the proposed project, identification of cultural resources would be accomplished through 

additional cultural resource surveys and consultation with the SHPO, Tribes, and interested 

parties. The results would be used in the site-planning process to address cultural resources 

impacts. If significant cultural resources were identified by these surveys, the review team 

assumes that FPL would use the same protective measures used at the Turkey Point site, and 

therefore the impacts would be minimal. If direct effects on significant cultural resources could 

not be avoided, land-clearing, excavation, and grading activities could potentially destabilize 

important attributes of historic and cultural resources. 

There are no existing transmission lines connecting directly to the Glades site, and Section 

9.3.2.1 discusses the proposed transmission lines, which would extend for a total of 121 mi 

through areas likely containing cultural and historic resources. FPL has stated that 

consideration would be given to sensitive environmental and built resources in determining a 

route for the transmission lines (FPL 2014-TN4058), but visual impacts from transmission lines 

may result in significant alterations to the visual setting of cultural and historic resources within 

the geographic area of interest. These include the Glades Moore Haven Downtown Historic 

District and the Glades Moore Haven Residential Historic District, both listed in the National 

Register. While both districts are located outside the indirect effects APE, both the nuclear 

generating plant and the new transmission lines likely would be visible from them. The effects 

would be particularly noticeable given that the setting in the area is primarily rural, without 

existing industrial development. If the Glades site were chosen for the proposed project, the 

review team assumes that FPL would conduct its transmission line-related cultural resource 

surveys and procedures in a manner similar to that for the Turkey Point site. In addition, the 

review team assumes that the State of Florida’s final Conditions of Certification (State of 

Florida 2014-TN3637) regarding transmission line siting and building activities would also apply 

at this site. If direct effects on significant cultural resources could not be avoided, land-clearing, 

excavation, and grading activities could potentially destabilize important attributes of historic 

cultural resources. Similarly, both the transmission lines and nuclear generating units could 

indirectly affect cultural and historic resources through visual impacts on the setting of the 

resources. 

Operations Impacts 

Impacts on historic and cultural resources from operation of two new nuclear generating units at 

the Glades site include those associated with the operation of new units and maintenance of 

transmission lines. The review team assumes that the same procedures developed by FPL for 

the Turkey Point site, as well as the State of Florida’s final Conditions of Certification, would be 

used for onsite and offsite maintenance activities. Consequently, the incremental effects of the 

maintenance of transmission line corridors and operation of the two new units and associated 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-91 NUREG–2176 

impacts on the cultural resources would be negligible for the direct and indirect effects APEs. 

However, the indirect visual impacts would continue throughout the life of the transmission lines. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected historic and cultural 

resources include rural and agricultural development and activities associated with these landdisturbing activities such as road development. Table 9-6 lists past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects and other actions that may contribute to cumulative impacts on historic and 

cultural resources in the geographic area of interest. Projects from Table 9-6 that may fall within 

the geographic area of interest for cultural resources include the Ortona Sand Mine Expansion 

and future urbanization, such as new or expanded roads and other infrastructure. These 

projects may significantly affect historic and cultural resources in a manner similar to those 

associated with the building and operation of two new nuclear generating units. 

Long linear projects such as roadways and pipelines may intersect the proposed transmission 

line corridors. Because cultural resources can likely be avoided by long linear projects, impacts 

on cultural resources would likely be minimal. However, this is not necessarily the case for 

transmission lines, which can have indirect effects on cultural resources through alteration of the 

visual setting. If building associated with such activities results in significant alterations of 

cultural resources in the transmission line corridors, either physical or visual, then cumulative 

impacts on cultural and historic resources would be greater. 

Summary Statement 

Cultural resources are nonrenewable. Therefore, the impact of the destruction or visual 

alteration of cultural resources is cumulative. Based on the information provided by FPL and 

the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative 

impacts from building and operating two new nuclear generating units on the Glades site would 

be MODERATE. The impacts of building and operating the project at the Glades site would be 

a significant contributor to the MODERATE impact primarily because of the indirect viewshed 

impacts from the nuclear power-generating plant and transmission lines on historic properties. 

This impact-level determination is based on reconnaissance-level information and the review 

team assumes that, if the Glades site were to be developed, cultural resource surveys and 

evaluations would be conducted and FPL, in consultation with SHPO, Tribes, and interested 

parties, would assess and resolve any adverse effects of the undertaking. If additional cultural 

or historic resources are present, and if there are adverse effects to those resources, the project 

could result in greater cumulative impacts. 

9.3.2.8 Air Quality 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect air 

quality, including other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-6. As described in 

Section 9.3.2, Glades is a greenfield site; there are currently no nuclear facilities on the site. 

The geographic area of interest for the Glades site is Glades County, which is in the Southwest 

Florida Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.97) (TN255). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-92 October 2016 

Sections 4.7 and 5.7 discuss air-quality impacts during building and operation. The emissions 

related to building and operating a nuclear power plant at the Glades alternative site would be 

similar to those at the Turkey Point site. The air-quality attainment status for Glades County, as 

set forth in 40 CFR Part 81 (TN255), reflects the effects of past and present emissions from all 

pollutant sources in the region. Glades County is in attainment of all National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. 

As described in Chapters 4 and 5, the criteria pollutants from building and operation were found 

to have a SMALL impact on air quality. In Chapter 7, the cumulative impacts of criteria 

pollutants were evaluated and determined to be SMALL to MODERATE because of nearby 

emission sources. Reflecting on the projects listed in Table 9-6, there are no significant projects 

within the area of interest that would contribute in a meaningful way to the cumulative impacts of 

criteria pollutants for the Glades site. 

The air-quality impacts from development of the Glades site would be local and temporary. The 

applicant would develop a dust-control plan that identifies specific measures to minimize fugitive 

dust emissions during building activities. The distance from building activities to the site 

boundary would be sufficient to generally avoid significant air-quality impacts. There are no 

land uses or projects in Table 9-6 that would have emissions during site development that 

would, in combination with emissions from the Glades site, result in degradation of air quality in 

the region. Emissions from operation of two new nuclear units at the Glades site would be 

intermittent and made at low levels with little or no vertical velocity, similar to operational 

impacts at the Turkey Point site as discussed in Section 5.7, and the associated air-quality 

impacts would be SMALL. Other sources of emissions in Table 9-6 would likely have de 

minimis impacts due to their distance from the site. Given that these projects are subject to 

Clean Air Act permitting requirements, it is unlikely that the air quality in the region would 

degrade to the extent that the region would be in nonattainment of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. 

The cumulative impacts of GHG emissions related to nuclear power are discussed in Section 

7.6. The impacts of the emissions are not sensitive to location of the source. Consequently, the 

discussion in Section 7.6 is applicable to a nuclear power plant located at the Glades site. The 

review team concludes that the national and worldwide cumulative impacts of GHG emissions 

are noticeable but not destabilizing. The review team further concludes that the cumulative 

impacts would be noticeable but not destabilizing, with or without the GHG emissions of two 

new nuclear units at the Glades site. 

Summary Statement 

The review team concludes that cumulative impacts from other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions on air-quality resources in the geographic areas of interest would be 

SMALL for criteria pollutants and MODERATE for GHG emissions. The incremental 

contribution of impacts on air-quality resources from building and operating two units at the 

Glades site would not be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impacts. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-93 NUREG–2176 

9.3.2.9 Nonradiological Health Impacts 

The following analysis considers nonradiological health impacts from building and operating two 

new nuclear units at the Glades site. The analysis also includes past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative nonradiological health impacts on 

site workers (construction and operation workers) and members of the public, including other 

Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-6 within the geographic area 

of interest. Nonradiological health impacts at the Glades site are estimated based on 

information provided by FPL and the review team’s independent evaluation. For the analysis of 

nonradiological health impacts at the Glades site, the geographic area of interest is the site and 

the immediate vicinity (~2 mi radius) and the associated road and transmission line corridors. 

This geographic area of interest is based on the localized nature of nonradiological health 

impacts and is expected to encompass all nonradiological health impacts. 

Building activities that have the potential to affect the health of members of the public and 

workers at the Glades site include exposure to dust and vehicle exhaust, occupational injuries, 

noise, and increased traffic associated with the transport of construction materials and 

personnel to and from the site. The operations-related activities that have the potential to affect 

the health of members of the public and workers include exposure to etiological (diseasecausing) agents, noise, EMFs, occupational injuries, and impacts from the transport of workers 

to and from the site. 

Building Impacts 

Nonradiological health impacts on construction workers and members of the public from building 

two new nuclear units at the Glades site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 4.8 for 

the Turkey Point site. During the site-preparation and building phase FPL would comply with 

applicable Federal and State regulations on air quality and noise (FPL 2014-TN4058). The 

Glades site is located in a rural area, and building impacts would likely be negligible on the 

surrounding populations, which are classified as medium- and low-population areas. The 

incidence of construction worker accidents would be the same as that for the Turkey Point site. 

The review team concludes that nonradiological health impacts on construction workers and the 

public from building two new nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the Glades site 

would be minimal. Nonradiological health impacts associated with traffic accidents during 

building activities at the Glades alternative site were evaluated in Section 4.8.3 and the review 

team concludes that the impacts would be minimal. 

Operations Impacts 

Nonradiological health impacts on operation workers and members of the public would include 

those associated with the operation of cooling towers and transmission lines as described in 

Section 5.8. Based on the configuration of the proposed new units at the Glades site (see 

Chapter 3 for a detailed site layout description), etiological agents would not be an issue with 

regard to members of the public because cooling-tower blowdown would be discharged into 

deep-injection wells not into surface waters. Impacts on workers’ health from occupational 

injuries, noise, and EMFs would be similar to those described in Section 5.8 for the Turkey Point 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-94 October 2016 

site. Noise and EMF exposure would be monitored and controlled in accordance with 

applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. Although no 

detailed noise modeling has been performed for the Glades site, it is likely that noise impacts 

would be similar to those predicted for operations at the Turkey Point site. Effects of EMFs on 

human health would be controlled and minimized by conformance with National Electrical Safety 

Code criteria and adherence to the standards for transmission systems regulated by the FDEP. 

The review team concludes that nonradiological health impacts on workers and the public from 

operating two new nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the Glades site would be 

minimal. Impacts associated with traffic accidents during operations at the Glades alternative 

site were evaluated in Section 5.8.6 and the review team concludes that the impacts would be 

minimal. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Table 9-6 identifies no past or present projects within the geographic area of interest that could 

affect nonradiological human health in a way similar to the building of two nuclear units at the 

Glades site. All of the projects that could apply are more than 10 mi from the Glades site. 

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could affect nonradiological human health in a way similar 

to the building of two nuclear units at the Glades site identified in Table 9-6 include various 

transportation (roads, traffic, pedestrian) and mining/quarry projects that are planned throughout 

the region. 

There are no past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects within the geographic area of 

interest that would affect nonradiological human health in a way similar to operating two nuclear 

units at the Glades site. 

Summary Statement 

Impacts on nonradiological health from building and operation of two new units at the Glades 

site are estimated based in the information provided by FPL and the review team’s independent 

evaluation. Although some future activities in the geographical area of interest could affect 

nonradiological health in ways similar to the building and operation of two new units at the 

Glades site and associated offsite facilities, those impacts would be localized and managed 

through adherence to existing regulatory requirements. The review team concludes that 

nonradiological health impacts on workers and the public resulting from the building of two new 

nuclear units and associated road and transmission lines at the Glades site would be minimal. 

The review team expects that the nonradiological health impacts on the operations employees 

and the public of two new nuclear units at the Glades site would be minimal. Finally, the review 

team concludes that cumulative impacts on nonradiological health from past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions in the geographic area of interest would be SMALL. 

9.3.2.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect 

radiological health, including other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-6. As 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-95 NUREG–2176 

described in Section 9.3.2, Glades is a greenfield site; there are currently no nuclear facilities on 

the site. The geographic area of interest is the area within a 50 mi radius of the Glades site. 

There are no major facilities that potentially affect radiological health within the 50 mi radius of 

the Glades site. However, there are likely to be medical, industrial, and research facilities within 

50 mi of the Glades site that use radioactive materials. 

The radiological impacts of building and operating the two proposed Westinghouse AP1000 

nuclear power units at the Glades site include doses from direct radiation and liquid and 

gaseous radioactive effluents. These pathways would result in low doses to people and biota 

offsite that would be well below regulatory limits. These impacts are expected to be similar to 

those estimated for the Turkey Point site. 

The NRC staff concludes that the dose from direct radiation and effluents from hospitals and 

industrial facilities that use radioactive material would be an insignificant contribution to the 

cumulative impact around the Glades site. This conclusion is based on data from the 

radiological environmental monitoring programs conducted around currently operating nuclear 

power plants. 

Based on the information provided by FPL and the NRC staff's independent analysis, the NRC 

staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts from building and operating the two 

proposed Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear power units and other existing and planned projects 

and actions in the geographic area of interest around the Glades site would be SMALL. 

9.3.2.11 Postulated Accidents 

The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from postulated accidents from the 

operation of two nuclear units at the Glades alternative site. The analysis also considers other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect radiological health from 

postulated accidents, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 

Table 9-6. As described in Section 9.3.2, the Glades site is a greenfield site; there are currently 

no nuclear facilities at the site. The geographic area of interest considers all existing and 

proposed nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted 

consequences (i.e., risks) from a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the Glades 

alternative site. Facilities potentially affecting radiological accident risk within this geographic 

area of interest are the existing two units of St. Lucie—Units 1 and 2. 

As described in Section 5.11.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences 

of design basis accidents (DBAs) at the Turkey Point site would be minimal for AP1000 

reactors. DBAs are addressed specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust 

enough to meet NRC safety criteria. The environmental consequences of DBAs depend on the 

plant design and the atmospheric dispersion. The AP1000 design is independent of site 

conditions and the differences in the meteorology of the Glades alternative and Turkey Point 

sites are not significant with regard to the conditions that are important to assessing DBAs. 

Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences of DBAs at the 

Glades alternative site would be minimal. 

With a lower population density and the land-use values for the Glades alternative site, the NRC 

staff expects the risks from a severe accident for an AP1000 reactor located at the Glades 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-96 October 2016 

alternative site to be similar to or lower than those analyzed for the proposed Turkey Point site. 

The risks for the proposed Turkey Point site are presented in Tables 5-14 and 5-15 and are well 

below the median value for current-generation reactors. In addition, as discussed in Section 

5.11.2, estimates of average individual early fatality and latent cancer fatality risks are well 

below the Commission's safety goals (51 FR 30028) (TN594). For existing plants within the 

geographic area of interest (St. Lucie Units 1 and 2), the Commission has determined that the 

probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are small (10 CFR Part 51 [TN250], 

Appendix B, Table B-1). On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative risks from 

severe accidents at any location within 50 mi of the Glades alternative site would be SMALL. 

9.3.3 Martin Site 

This section covers the review team’s evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting 

a new two-unit nuclear power plant on the Martin site. The site is located in western Martin 

County, approximately 40 mi northwest of West Palm Beach, 5 mi east of Lake Okeechobee, 

and 7 mi northwest of Indiantown. The Miami load center is approximately 65 mi to the southsoutheast. The site is bounded on the west by the Florida East Coast Railway and the adjacent 

SFWMD L-65 Canal; on the south by the St. Lucie Canal (C-44 or Okeechobee Waterway); and 

on the northeast by SR-710 and the adjacent CSX Railroad (FPL 2014-TN4058). The Martin 

site is an 11,300 ac area that includes five fossil-fuel–fired power units and a solar unit. The 

majority of the site is currently used for agriculture. The elevation reaches as high as 28 ft 

above sea level (FPL 2011-TN40), and the entire site lies outside the 100-year floodplain (FPL 

2011-TN40). The location of the Martin site is shown in Figure 9-11. 

The facility footprint (Figure 9-12), including the power units, support buildings, switchyard, 

storage areas, stormwater-retention ponds, and other structures, would encompass an 

estimated 363 ac. Use of the Martin site would also require the development of a 31 mi 

transmission line corridor (763.6 ac), a 39.3 mi access road (473.3 ac), a 4.3 mi railway 

(51.5 ac), and an intake/makeup pipeline connected to the C-44 Canal/St. Lucie Canal 

(21.7 ac). These additional features (not counting the transmission line) would add an 

estimated 547 ac to the overall permanent footprint at the site, and an additional area (up to 

several hundred acres) would have to be temporarily disturbed for activities such as laydown 

areas, a batch plant, and spoil deposition. 

As discussed in Section 9.3.1.7, the review team considered an alternative configuration of the 

cooling system that FPL proposed. 

The following sections include a cumulative impact assessment conducted for each major 

resource area. The specific resources and components that could be affected by the 

incremental effects of the proposed action if implemented at the Martin site and other actions in 

the same geographic area were considered. This assessment includes the impacts of NRCauthorized construction and operations and impacts of preconstruction activities. Also included 

in the assessment are past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future Federal, non-Federal, 

and private actions that could have meaningful cumulative impacts when considered together 

with the proposed action if implemented at the Martin site. Other actions and projects 

considered in this cumulative analysis are described in Table 9-11. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-97 NUREG–2176 

Figure 9-11. Martin Site Region 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-98 October 2016 

Figure 9-12. Martin Site Footprint 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-99 NUREG–2176 

Table 9-11. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions in the 

Vicinity of Martin Site 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Energy Projects

St. Lucie Two 3,020 MW(t) 

nuclear power 

reactors 

28 mi NE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational, Units 1 

and 2 underwent 

license renewal in 

2003. Units 1 and 

2 completed 

320 MW(t) power 

uprates in 2013 

(NRC 2012-

TN1668; FPL 2014-

TN3360) 

West County Energy Center Three 1,250 MW 

natural-gas−powered 

units 

28 mi SE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational 

(FDEP 2013-

TN2965) 

Martin Approximately 4,300 

MW from five units, 3 

natural-gas and 2 oil 

units with a solar 

thermal facility 

generating 

supplemental steam. 

Combined naturalgas/oil and solar 

power-generating 

station 

Adjacent Operational 

(FPL 2016-

TN4579)

Indiantown Cogeneration Company 330 MW coal-fired 

power plant 

4 mi E of the 

Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational 

(FDEP 2013-

TN2967) 

Okeelanta Cogeneration Facility 140 MW biomass 

power-generation 

facility 

35 mi SW of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational 

(FDEP 2013-

TN2968) 

FPL pipeline 126 mi pipeline from 

Sabal Trail’s Central 

Florida Hub to FPL’s 

Martin Clean Energy 

Center 

Throughout 

region 

Proposed, 

construction set to 

begin 2016 

(FPL 2014-

TN2975) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-100 October 2016 

Table 9-11. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Floridian Natural Gas Storage 

Company – Natural Gas Storage 

Facility 

Storage of natural 

gas 

4 mi E of the 

Martin 

alternative 

site 

Proposed, FERC 

Order amending 

Certificate issued 

(FERC 2015-

TN4599) with 

associated 

Environmental 

Assessment 

(FERC 2015-

TN4600), 

amendment to 

modify application 

sent to FERC in 

2013 (78 FR 

58529) (TN3002) 

Southeastern Renewable Fuels 

Biorefinery and Cogeneration 

Plant 

30 MW biofuel using 

leftover sweet 

sorghum stalk fiber 

41 mi SW of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Proposed, final air 

permit issued by 

FDEP in 2010 

(FDEP 2010-

TN2970) 

Treasure Coast Energy Center 300 MW natural-gas 

power plant 

25 mi NE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational 

(FMPA 2014-

TN3029) 

Tom G. Smith Power Plant (Lake 

Worth) 

Three-unit, 105 MW 

gas- and oil-fired 

plant 

43 mi SE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational 

(EPA 2014-TN3031) 

INEOS New Planet Bioenergy Center 6.3 MW bioenergy 

facility 

37 mi NE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational (EPA 

2014-TN3032) 

Riviera Beach Energy Center 1,250 MW gas-fired 

plant 

37 mi SE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational and 

completed in 2014 

(FPL 2014-TN3033) 

Okeechobee Landfill energy Waste-to-Energy 

facility 

21 mi NW of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational (Waste 

Management 2014-

TN3034) 

Mining Projects

FiveStone Mining Stone/quarry mining 8 mi SW of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational 

(EPA 2013-TN2959) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-101 NUREG–2176 

Table 9-11. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Daniel Shell Pit, Phase 6 Stone/quarry mining 33 mi NW of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational 

(EPA 2013-TN2956) 

E R Jahna Industries Inc. – Ortona 

Mine 

Stone/quarry mining 48 mi SW of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational 

(EPA 2013-TN2958) 

Florida Rock Industries/Fort Pierce Stone/quarry mining 13 mi NE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational 

(EPA 2014-TN3038) 

Hammond Sand Mine Sand/quarry mining 44 mi NE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational 

(EPA 2014-TN3044) 

Various other mine and quarry 

projects 

Stone/quarry mining Throughout 

region 

Operational 

(FDEP 2010-

TN2966) 

Transportation Projects

Various Transportation 

Projects 

Road, traffic, 

pedestrian projects 

Throughout 

region 

Ongoing 

(FDOT 2012-

TN1132) 

Parks and Aquaculture Facilities

Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Activities include 

picnicking, boating, 

fishing, and hiking 

27-60 mi SE 

of the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Development likely 

limited within this 

area (FWS 2013-

TN2992) 

DuPuis Wildlife and Environmental 

Area 

Activities include 

bicycling, camping, 

hunting, fishing, and 

hiking 

3mi S of the 

Martin 

alternative 

site 

Development likely 

limited within this 

area (FFWCC 2014-

TN2977) 

Okeechobee Battlefield State Park Hiking, camping 17 mi NW of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Development likely 

limited within this 

area (FDEP 2010-

TN2971) 

Archbold Biological Station Ecological research 

station and preserve, 

organization owns 

and protects a 

5,193 ac globally 

significant Florida 

scrub preserve 

located on the 

southern end of the 

Lake Wales Ridge 

49 mi NW of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Development likely 

limited within this 

area (Archbold 

Biological 

Station 2014-

TN2954) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-102 October 2016 

Table 9-11. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Lake Okeechobee 730 mi2 freshwater 

lake, restoration and 

protection plan 

5−28 mi W of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Ongoing, Florida 

Legislature in 2007 

expanded the Lake 

Okeechobee 

Protection Act 

(SFWMD 2014-

TN2988) 

Johnathan Dickinson State Park Activities include 

bicycling, camping, 

boating, horseback 

riding, picnicking, 

fishing, and hiking 

28 mi E of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Development likely 

limited within this 

area (Florida State 

Parks 2014-

TN3048) 

Savannas Preserve State Park Activities include 

bicycling, boating, 

horseback riding, 

picnicking, fishing, 

and hiking 

24 mi NE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Development likely 

limited within this 

area (Florida State 

Parks 2014-

TN3050) 

Fort Pierce Inlet State Park Activities include 

bicycling, camping, 

boating, swimming, 

picnicking, fishing, 

and hiking 

33 mi NE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Development likely 

limited within this 

area (Florida State 

Parks 2014-

TN3053) 

Pepper Beach State Recreation Area Activities include 

swimming, picnicking, 

fishing, and hiking 

33 mi NE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Development likely 

limited within this 

area (St. Lucie 

County 2014-

TN3054) 

St. Sebastian River Preserve State 

Park 

Activities include 

bicycling, camping, 

boating, picnicking, 

fishing, and hiking 

49 mi N of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Development likely 

limited within this 

area (Florida State 

Parks 2014-

TN3055) 

Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge Activities include 

fishing, and hiking 

26 mi E of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Development likely 

limited within this 

area (FWS 2013-

TN3056) 

John D. Macarthur Beach State Park Activities include 

boating, swimming, 

picnicking, fishing, 

and hiking 

35 mi SE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Development likely 

limited within this 

area (Florida State 

Parks 2014-

TN3057) 

Peanut Island Park Activities include 

boating, picnicking, 

fishing, and hiking 

37 mi SE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Development likely 

limited within this 

area (Palm Beach 

County 2014-

TN3058) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-103 NUREG–2176 

Table 9-11. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Other State nature preserves and 

wildlife management areas 

Public recreational 

activities 

Throughout 

region 

Development likely 

limited within these 

areas 

(FFWCC 2014-

TN2981) 

Everglades Ecosystem Restoration and/or Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 

Projects (DOI 2016-TN4589)

Acme Basin B Goals of this project 

include capturing 

surface water for 

reuse for the Arthur 

R. Marshall 

Loxahatchee National 

Wildlife Refuge and 

the Lake Worth 

Drainage District 

municipal water 

supply that would 

otherwise be routed 

through Basin A to C51 and lost to tide; 

and to reduce harmful 

discharges to the 

Lake Worth Lagoon. 

35 mi SE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Proposed, project in 

Preconstruction, 

Engineering and 

Design phase 

(USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-

TN3045) 

Indian River Lagoon – South Project purpose is to 

improve surfacewater management in 

the C-23/C-24, C-25, 

and C-44 basins for 

habitat improvement 

in the Saint Lucie 

River Estuary and 

southern portions of 

the Indian River 

Lagoon. 

2 mi N of the 

Martin 

alternative 

site 

Proposed, project in 

Preconstruction, 

Engineering and 

Design phase 

(USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-

TN3013) 

Everglades Agricultural Area 

Storage Reservoirs 

The purpose of this 

project is to improve 

the timing of 

environmental 

deliveries to the 

Water Conservation 

Areas, including 

reducing damaging 

flood releases from 

the Everglades 

Agricultural Area to 

the Water 

Conservation Areas. 

Throughout 

region 

Proposed, Final 

Project 

Implementation 

Report submitted 

2012 (USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-

TN3011) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-104 October 2016 

Table 9-11. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Flows to Northwest and Central 

Water Conservation Areas 3A 

The purpose of this 

feature is to increase 

environmental watersupply availability, 

increase depths and 

extend wetland 

hydropatterns in the 

northwest corner and 

west-central portions 

of Water 

Conservation Area 

3A. 

50 mi S of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Proposed, project in 

Preconstruction, 

Engineering and 

Design phase 

(USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-

TN3012) 

Lake Okeechobee Aquifer 

Storage and Recovery 

A series of aquifer 

storage and recovery 

wells adjacent to 

Lake Okeechobee 

4 mi W of the 

Martin 

alternative 

site 

Proposed, project in 

Preconstruction, 

Engineering and 

Design phase 

(USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-

TN3014) 

Lake Okeechobee Watershed 

Project 

Project to increase 

aquatic and wildlife 

habitat, regulate 

extreme highs and 

lows in lake staging, 

reduce phosphorus 

loading and reduce 

damaging releases to 

the surrounding 

estuaries 

Throughout 

Okee-chobee 

County 

Proposed, project in 

Preconstruction, 

Engineering and 

Design phase 

(USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-

TN3015) 

Melaleuca eradication and other 

exotic plants 

The project includes 

(1) upgrading and 

retrofitting the current 

quarantine facility in 

Gainesville, and (2) 

large-scale rearing of 

approved biological 

control organisms for 

release at multiple 

sites within the South 

Florida ecosystem to 

control Melaleuca, 

Brazilian pepper, 

Australian pine, and 

Old World climbing 

fern. 

Throughout 

region 

Operational, facility 

completed in 2013 

(USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-

TN3020) 

Modify Holey Land Wildlife 

Management Area Operation 

Plan

Modification of the 

current operating plan 

and rules for Holey 

43 mi S of 

the Martin 

alternative 

Proposed, project in 

planning phase. 

(USACE and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-105 NUREG–2176 

Table 9-11. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Land Wildlife 

Management Area 

will be made to 

implement rain-driven 

operations for this 

area to improve the 

timing and location of 

water depths within 

this wildlife 

management area. 

site SFWMD 2014-

TN3017) 

Modify Rotenberger Wildlife 

Management Area Operation 

Plan

Modification to the 

current operating plan 

for the Rotenberger 

Wildlife Management 

Area will be made to 

implement rain-driven 

operations for this 

area as needed. 

Water deliveries are 

made to the 

Rotenberger Area 

from StormwaterTreatment Area 5. 

48 mi SW of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Proposed, project in 

planning phase. 

(USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-

TN3018) 

Palm Beach County Agriculture 

Reserve Aquifer Storage and 

Recovery 

Supplement water 

supplies for central 

and southern Palm 

Beach County by 

capturing and storing 

excess water 

currently discharged 

to the Lake Worth 

Lagoon. 

42 mi SE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Proposed, project in 

Preconstruction, 

Engineering and 

Design phase 

(USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-

TN3019) 

Palm Beach County Agriculture 

Reserve Reservoir 

Project to supplement 

water supplies for 

central and southern 

Palm Beach County 

by capturing and 

storing excess water 

currently discharged 

to the Lake Worth 

Lagoon 

42 mi SE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Proposed, project in 

Preconstruction, 

Engineering and 

Design phase 

(USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-

TN3019) 

Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge 

Internal Canal Structures 

Project to improve the 

timing and location of 

water depths within 

the Refuge 

28 mi NW of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Proposed, project in 

Preconstruction, 

Engineering and 

Design phase 

(USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-

TN3046) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-106 October 2016 

Table 9-11. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Strazzulla Wetlands Project to provide a 

hydrological and 

ecological connection 

to the Loxahatchee 

National Wildlife 

Refuge and expand 

the spatial extent of 

protected natural 

areas 

36 mi SE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Proposed, Project in 

Preconstruction, 

Engineering and 

Design phase 

(USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-

TN3047) 

Other Actions/Projects

Herbert Hoover Dike Major 

Rehabilitation Project 

Rehabilitation Project 

and Dam Safety 

Modification Study 

5–35 mi W of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Proposed - 

Environmental 

Assessment and 

FONSI issued in 

2015 

(USACE 2015-

TN4598), Draft 

Environmental 

Report issued 

(DOI 2016-TN4589) 

Comprehensive Shoreline Stabilization 

Project in Palm Beach County 

Discharge fill for the 

purpose of shoreline 

stabilization 

Shoreline of 

Palm Beach 

County 

USACE submitted 

Notice of Intent in 

2013 (78 FR 40128) 

(TN3059); EIS 

completed 

(CB&I 2014-

TN4015) 

Lake Worth Inlet Project Deepening and 

widening of the Lake 

Worth Inlet 

38 mi SE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

USACE completed 

integrated feasibility 

report and 

environmental 

impact statement in 

2014 

(USACE 2014-

TN4016); 

Kissimmee River Restoration When restoration is 

completed in 2017, 

more than 40 mi2 of 

river-floodplain 

ecosystem will be 

restored, including 

almost 20,000 ac of 

wetlands and 44 mi of 

historic river channel. 

Along 

Kissimmee 

River 

Ongoing 

(USACE 2014-

TN3061; DOI 2016-

TN4589) 

Other Actions/Projects

Atlantic Sugar Association Sugar manufacturing 26 mi SW of 

the Martin 

alternative 

Operational 

(FDEP 2013-

TN2964) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-107 NUREG–2176 

Table 9-11. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

site 

Southern Gardens Citrus Processing 

Corp. 

Food 

production/distribution 

41 mi SW of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational 

(FDEP 2013-

TN2969) 

United States Sugar Corporation 

Clewiston 

Sugar manufacturing 32 mi SW of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational 

(EPA 2014-TN2963) 

Harbor Branch Oceanographic 

Institute 

Oceanic science and 

research 

35 mi SE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational 

(EPA 2014-TN3071) 

Pratt & Whitney Aircraft engine and 

engine parts 

manufacturing 

19 mi SE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational 

(EPA 2014-TN3062) 

Maverick Boat Company Fiberglass boat 

manufacturing 

33 mi NE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational 

(EPA 2014-TN3063) 

Tropicana Products Inc. Citrus and animal 

feed 

24 mi NE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational 

(EPA 2014-TN3068) 

S2 Yachts Inc. Fiberglass boat 

manufacturing 

32 mi NE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational 

(EPA 2013-TN3069) 

Twin Vee Inc. Fiberglass boat 

manufacturing 

28 mi NE of 

the Martin 

alternative 

site 

Operational 

(EPA 2013-TN3070) 

Various wastewater-treatment plant 

facilities 

Sewage treatment Throughout 

region 

Operational 

Various hospitals using nuclear 

material 

Medical and other 

industrial isotopes 

Throughout 

region 

Ongoing 

Various water/flood-management 

projects 

Water and flood 

management 

Throughout 

region 

Ongoing 

(USACE 2012-

TN1133) 

Future urbanization Construction of 

housing units and 

associated 

commercial buildings; 

roads, bridges, and 

rail; construction of 

water- and/or 

wastewater-treatment 

Throughout 

region 

Construction would 

occur in the future, 

as described in 

State and local 

land-use planning 

documents 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-108 October 2016 

Table 9-11. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

and distribution 

facilities and 

associated pipelines, 

as described in local 

land-use planning 

documents 

The geographic area of interest for cumulative impacts considers all existing and proposed 

nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences 

(i.e., risks) of a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the Martin site. An accident at a 

nuclear plant within 100 mi of the Martin site could potentially increase this risk. However, other 

nuclear plants in Florida, Alabama, and Georgia that are more than 100 mi from the Martin site 

are not included in the cumulative impact analysis. 

9.3.3.1 Land Use 

The following analysis includes land-use impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

affect land use, including other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-11. For the 

analysis of land-use impacts at the Martin site and its associated transmission line corridors, the 

review team determined that a 10 mi radius, similar to that used for the Turkey Point site, would 

encompass an effective geographic area of interest for cumulative impact assessment for land 

use, because it would include the site and associated facilities. In evaluating the land-use 

impacts of using the Martin site, the review team used information from the project application 

and other readily obtainable data from the Internet or published sources, including aerial 

photographs of the site and vicinity, USDA soils information, local zoning and planning 

documents, and FLUCFCS data. Impacts from both building and station operation are 

discussed.

Existing land uses in the vicinity of the Martin alternative site consist predominantly of cultivated 

agriculture. The nearest community is Indiantown, approximately 7 mi to the southeast, an 

unincorporated town in Martin County of just under 7,000 population (Martin County 2014-

TN3306). The nearest incorporated city is Port St. Lucie, 20 mi to the east. The Martin 

alternative site is located approximately 5 mi east of Lake Okeechobee. 

Existing land uses at the Martin site consist of an operating power plant and other energygeneration uses FPL states in its application (FPL 2014-TN4058). In response to RAI EIS 

9.3.1-8 (eRAI 6353), FPL acknowledged that its solar facility used available lands and that 

additional new land would have to be acquired in order to develop the new units (FPL 2012-

TN1727). No commercial mineral resources are identified within the site and in the vicinity 

(Calver 1956-TN3752; Spencer 1993-TN3753). Based on a review of aerial photos available on 

Google Earth, no substantial areas of developed land uses other than existing energygenerating uses occur on or within the vicinity of the site (CleanEnergy 2012-TN3307). Wildlife 

management areas and recreational areas are located several miles from the alternative plant 

site. FPL has entered into a voluntary partnership with the Treasured Lands Foundation to 

protect approximately 400 ac of old-growth bald cypress swamp on the Martin site termed the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-109 NUREG–2176 

Barley Barber Swamp, and offers public tours of an interpretative boardwalk traversing the 

swamp (TLF and FPL 2014-TN3755). The Barley Barber Swamp is located on a peninsula on 

the western shore of a reservoir in the central part of the Martin site. 

Building and Operation Impacts 

The Martin County FLUM (Martin County 2014-TN3756) designates the site as “Major Power 

Generation” and the land in the vicinity of the site as “Agricultural.” Martin County zoning 

(Martin County 2012-TN3351) designates the site as a mix of industrial designations, and the 

vicinity as Agriculture. Therefore, the review team believes that use of the Martin alternative site 

for a power plant would be compatible with the Martin County FLUM. However, the review team 

notes that the applicant would have to acquire agricultural land adjoining the site in order to 

build and operate the proposed new facilities. 

Most of the soils on and in the vicinity of the plant site, with the exception of those areas 

developed for energy-generation and related facilities, are considered farmlands of Unique 

Importance. Unique farmland is defined in Section 2(c) of the Farmland Protection Policy Act 

(7 U.S.C. § 4201 et seq.) (TN708) as “land, other than Prime farmland, that has combined 

conditions to produce sustained high quality and high yields of specialty crops, such as citrus, 

nuts, fruits, and vegetables when properly managed.” No Prime farmland soils are identified in 

the vicinity (USDA 2014-TN3353). For the purposes of this analysis, the review team assumes 

that the entire site consists of farmland of Unique Importance. The plant site and transmission 

line corridors fall within the Coastal Zone (FPL 2014-TN4058). The site falls within an area 

designated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM; as shown on FEMA FIRM for Martin 

County Panel 250 of 527 dated October 4, 2002) as Zone X: areas of 500-year flood, areas of 

100-year flood with average depths of less than 1 ft or with drainage areas less than 1 mi2, and 

areas protected from the 100-year flood by levees (FEMA 2002-TN4119). 

Building and operation of the project at the Martin site would result in the conversion of existing 

land uses, including approximately 264 ac owned by FPL, and additional lands FPL would need 

to acquire, from agriculture to power-generation uses as shown in Table 9-12. 

Table 9-12. Martin Alternative Site Land-Use Impacts (acres) 

Agricultural 

Lands 

(FLUCFCS 

200 LandUse Series) 

Urban Developed 

Lands, including 

Power Generation 

(other than roads 

and pipelines) 

Other NonAgricultural 

Lands (all other 

FLUCFCS 

designations) Total 

Plant Site 60 260 0 320 

Access Roads 195 260 18 473 

Rail Corridor 1 50 0 52 

Intake Pipeline Corridor 0 1 0 1 

Makeup Pipeline Corridor 0 20 0 20 

Stormwater-Retention Ponds 8 34 0 42 

Total(a) 264 626 18 908 

Transmission Line Corridor 100 0 663 764 

Grand Total 364 627 680 1,672 

(a) Totals may not add due to rounding

Sources: FPL 2011-TN59 and FPL 2014-TN4058 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-110 October 2016 

Because this is a small amount of farmland in the context of the large amount of farmland under 

cultivation in Martin County, conversion of this amount of farmland to another use would not 

substantially affect the agricultural economy of the region. Although there could be a loss of 

more than 300 ac of farmlands of Unique Importance, the review team expects that the loss 

would not noticeably affect regional agriculture, considering the regional abundance of such 

farmland. However, because additional lands beyond those currently owned by FPL and used 

for power generation would have to be acquired, potentially noticeable land-use conflicts are 

possible. 

The review team does not expect building or operation of the new units on the Martin site to 

interfere with continued public tours of the Barley Barber Swamp and boardwalk. The swamp 

and boardwalk are already operated within the confines of a privately owned and operated 

power-generation facility, and the two new units would be built near the periphery of the FPLowned property and not immediately adjacent to the swamp. 

Additional land-use impacts include possible additional growth and land conversions in the 

vicinity to accommodate new workers and services (induced development). Because the 

workforce would be dispersed over larger geographic areas in the labor supply region, the 

impacts from land conversion for residential and commercial buildings induced by new workers 

relocating to the local area can be absorbed in the wider region. Therefore, the review team 

concludes that such impacts would be minimal. 

Use of the Martin site would also require the development of approximately 31 mi of 

transmission line corridor. FPL states in its application (FPL 2014-TN4058) that the new 

transmission lines would pass through the Coastal Zone. Approximately 763.6 ac of land would 

be at least temporarily affected by building and operating the transmission lines. Much of this 

land is agricultural land; the remainder is primarily open lands and roadways. The agricultural 

land within the transmission line corridors would be converted from agricultural use to 

transmission line use, although FPL states in its application (FPL 2014-TN4058) that agriculture 

could continue within and along the transmission line rights-of-way. The land uses along the 

conceptual corridors for new transmission lines to serve the Martin alternative site are identified 

in Table 9-12. 

Under the Florida Site Certification Application process explained in Chapter 4.1, the State 

approves a corridor and the applicant chooses a specific right-of-way within the approved 

corridor. The objective of this process, as stated in the electrical power plant and transmission 

line statute (Fla. Stat. 29-403.501 2011-TN1068) is “that the location of transmission line 

corridors and the construction, operation, and maintenance of electric transmission lines 

produce minimal adverse effects on the environment and public health, safety, and welfare” and 

“to fully balance the need for transmission lines with the broad interests of the public in order to 

effect a reasonable balance between the need for the facility as a means of providing reliable, 

economical, and efficient electric energy and the impact on the public and the environment 

resulting from the location of the transmission line corridor and the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the transmission lines.” Finalized siting plans and permitting conditions that 

would be imposed by the various affected State and local agencies would minimize impacts 

within the corridors. Engineering considerations and costs are likely to suggest designs that 

favor collocation with existing transmission lines in existing corridors. The siting criteria include 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-111 NUREG–2176 

land-use considerations to minimize potential disruption to areas such as national, state, and 

county parks; wildlife refuges; estuarine sanctuaries; landmarks; and historical sites. FPL states 

in its application that, in its development of the conceptual transmission line corridor for the 

Martin alternative site, it attempted to select corridors that would allow collocation with existing 

transmission line corridors and avoided populated areas or residential land uses to some extent 

(FPL 2014-TN4058). The State certification review process also includes a determination of 

land-use consistency with local land-use plans and zoning ordinances (Fla. Stat. 29-403.50665-

TN1470). 

The review team concludes that the land-use impacts from building and operating two new 

nuclear units at the Martin alternative site would be noticeable, primarily because of the lack of 

adequate land on the Martin site and the expected need for FPL to acquire additional offsite 

land, likely from private owners. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The review team expects that the principal contribution to cumulative land-use impacts in the 

geographic area of interest defined for the Martin site would be from the two subject nuclear 

units. Within the geographic area of interest, there are several other reasonably foreseeable 

projects with the potential to affect cumulative land-use impacts as listed in Table 9-11, 

including the Lake Point Mine project and other existing and proposed power-generation uses at 

the Martin site. In addition, the Martin County FLUM designates land for future industrial uses 

near the Martin alternative site. But because these other projects are consistent with the 

existing and planned uses in the geographic area of interest, the review team does not expect 

them to noticeably contribute to cumulative land-use impacts. 

Other linear projects are proposed for lands near the proposed conceptual corridor, including 

the Florida Gas Transmission Phase VIII Expansion Project, as listed in Table 9-11. However, 

the review team expects that the corridor would have only a minimal cumulative land-use 

impact. 

Summary Statement 

Based on the information provided by FPL and the review team’s independent review, the 

review team concludes that the cumulative land-use impacts of building and operating the 

power plant at the Martin alternative site would be MODERATE. Building and operating the 

proposed nuclear units at the Martin site would be a significant, and the principal, contributor to 

these impacts primarily because of the lack of adequate land on the Martin site and the 

expected need for FPL to acquire additional offsite land, likely from private owners. 

9.3.3.2 Water Use and Quality 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building and operating two new nuclear 

units at the Martin site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that affect water use and quality, including the other Federal and nonFederal projects listed in Table 9-11. The Martin site is located in rural Martin County in Florida 

near an existing power plant and approximately 5 mi east of Lake Okeechobee and 2 mi north 

of the St. Lucie Canal. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-112 October 2016 

The geographic area of interest for surface water at the Martin site is the KissimmeeOkeechobee-Everglades watershed because this is the resource that would be affected if the 

proposed project were located at the Martin site. The Kissimmee-Okeechobee-Everglades 

watershed includes an area of about 9,000 mi2 (McPherson and Halley 1996-TN98). For 

groundwater, the ROI includes (1) the surficial aquifer and the Upper Floridan aquifer at the site; 

(2) the APPZ of the Middle Floridan aquifer upgradient and downgradient of the site for water 

withdrawals; and (3) and the Boulder Zone of the Lower Floridan aquifer upgradient and 

downgradient of the site for disposal of blowdown water. 

Building Impacts 

Water use for building activities at the Martin site would be comparable to the proposed water 

use for building activities for the Turkey Point site. During building, water use is estimated to be 

565 gpm (0.8 Mgd) (see Table 3-4). The review team assumes that water for building the two 

units at the Martin site would come from a combination of surface water and groundwater. 

Surface water from the St. Lucie Canal or Lake Okeechobee may be available for building 

purposes during times of high surface-water flows. The peak water-use rate during the building 

phase is inconsequential when compared to the historic average monthly flows into Lake 

Okeechobee from the Kissimmee River; the rate of 0.8 Mgd is less than 1 percent of the river 

discharge for even the lowest month reported (January 1963). Surface water from stormwater 

ponds and groundwater from excavation dewatering may also be used, when available, for 

building purposes. Groundwater from the surficial aquifer would be used for building purposes 

when excess surface water is not available. The SFWMD would regulate any use of surface or 

shallow groundwater for plant construction. 

The review team concludes that the impact of surface-water use for building the potential units 

at the Martin site would be minimal for the following reasons: 

 Withdrawal is small compared to the water resources in the Lake Okeechobee watershed. 

 Any use of surface water or shallow groundwater would be regulated by SFWMD and limited 

to time periods when there would not be a negative impact on the Lake Okeechobee system 

or shallow aquifers. 

 Water use would be temporary and limited to the building period, and the peak use of 

0.8 Mgd is much less than the average 37.72 Mgd groundwater withdrawal rate reported for 

Martin County in 2005 (Marella 2009-TN1521). 

The review team assumes that the impact of dewatering the excavations needed for building 

two units at the site would be managed through the installation of diaphragm walls and grouting 

as is proposed for the Turkey Point site. Therefore, because groundwater withdrawal caused by 

dewatering would be controlled, the review team determined that there would be little or no 

impact on groundwater resources. 

Surface-water quality would potentially be affected by stormwater runoff during site preparation 

and the building of the facilities. The FDEP would require FPL to develop an erosion and 

sediment control plan and a SWPPP before initiation of site-disturbance activities (FPL 2014-

TN4058). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-113 NUREG–2176 

The plans would identify BMPs to control the impacts on surface-water quality caused by 

stormwater runoff. The review team anticipates that FPL would construct new 

detention/infiltration ponds and drainage ditches to control delivery of sediment from the 

disturbed area to onsite waterbodies. Sediment carried with stormwater from the disturbed area 

would settle in the detention ponds and the stormwater would infiltrate into the shallow aquifer. 

Implementation of BMPs should minimize impacts on surface waterbodies near the Martin site. 

Therefore, the impacts on surface-water-quality near the Martin site would be temporary and 

minimal. 

While building new nuclear units at the Martin site, groundwater quality may be affected by 

leaching of spilled effluents into the subsurface. The review team assumes that the BMPs FPL 

has proposed for the Turkey Point site would be in place during building activities and therefore 

the review team concludes that any spills would be quickly detected and remediated. In 

addition, groundwater impacts would be limited to the duration of these activities, and therefore, 

would be temporary. The review team reviewed the general BMPs that could be expected to be 

required at such a site (State of Florida 2014-TN3637). Because any spills related to building 

activities would be quickly remediated under BMPs, and the activities would be temporary, the 

review team concludes that the groundwater-quality impacts from building at the Martin site 

would be minimal. 

Wastewater streams from building activities could be injected to the Boulder Zone of the Lower 

Floridan aquifer as planned at Turkey Point (FPL 2014-TN4058). Construction and operation of 

the disposal wells would be performed under the conditions of a UIC permit issued by the 

FDEP, with the objective of protecting water quality within the APPZ and overlying aquifers. 

Operations Impacts 

FPL (2014-TN4058) indicates that the water needed to operate two units would be 

approximately 50,000 gpm or 72.7 Mgd. As indicated in Chapter 3, evaporative losses from 

cooling two units would be approximately 28,800 gpm (41.5 Mgd). The review team assumed 

that the two units at the Martin site would primarily use brackish groundwater from the 

permeable zone (APPZ) within the Avon Park formation for makeup-cooling water. This 

relatively permeable zone is considered part of the Middle Floridan aquifer and is more than 

1,000 ft below the ground surface near the Martin site. The SFWMD has informed the NRC that 

consumptive use of surface water from Lake Okeechobee or its tributaries would be limited 

(SFWMD 2012-TN3814). Use of water from Lake Okeechobee and the St. Lucie Canal would 

also have to avoid any negative impact on restoration projects in South Florida. Therefore, 

surface water from Lake Okeechobee and the St. Lucie Canal could be used only at times of 

excess surface-water flow that typically occur during the wet season. 

The APPZ aquifer is not generally used because of the salinity of its water (FPL 2013-TN3052). 

Therefore, current impacts of using this water for power production are minor. Because 

brackish or saline groundwater is not in demand, use of this resource will not result in water-use 

conflicts. However, groundwater in the Middle Floridan aquifer at this site is a potential source 

of brackish water for desalinization. If demand for desalinization source water increases, water 

for the plant may be obtained from deeper, more saline formations. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-114 October 2016 

Blowdown discharge and other wastewater streams would be pumped into the Boulder Zone of 

the Lower Floridan aquifer. The Boulder Zone is isolated from the APPZ by low-permeability 

units. Additional low-permeability confining units separate the APPZ from the overlying Upper 

Floridan aquifer. Construction and operation of the disposal wells would be performed under 

the conditions of an UIC permit issued by the FDEP. 

As indicated in Chapter 3, the consumptive water use due to evaporative losses from cooling 

two units would be approximately 28,800 gpm (41.5 Mgd). However, the review team assumed 

that surface water would only be consumed during periods of excess flow, thereby precluding 

water-use conflicts. 

During the operation of two new nuclear units at the Martin site, impacts on surface-water 

quality would be minimal because wastes would be injected into the Boulder Zone and not 

released to the surface water. FDEP would require FPL to develop a SWPPP (FPL 2014-

TN4058). These plans would identify measures to be used to control stormwater runoff. All 

discharges to surface waterbodies would be required to comply with limits established by FDEP 

in a NPDES permit. 

During the operation of the two units at the Martin site, impacts on groundwater quality could 

result from potential spills. Spills that might affect the quality of groundwater would be 

prevented and mitigated by BMPs. Like the proposed site, any wastewater at this inland 

alternative site would be combined with cooling-tower blowdown and discharged into Boulder 

Zone with no loss of beneficial uses of the water resource. 

Cumulative Impacts 

In addition to water-use and water-quality impacts from building and operations activities, 

cumulative analysis considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

affect the same water resources. 

For the cumulative analysis of impacts on surface water and groundwater at the Martin site, the 

geographic area of interest is the same as what was considered for building and operational 

impacts, and was defined earlier in this section. 

Actions that have past, present, and future potential impacts on water supply and water quality 

near the Martin site include existing agriculture and existing and future urbanization in the 

region. 

Cumulative Impacts on Water Use 

The impacts of the other projects listed in Table 9-11 are considered in the analysis included 

above or would have little or no adverse impact on surface-water use. The projects believed to 

have little impact are excluded from the analysis either because they are too distant from the 

Martin site, use relatively little or no surface water, or have little or no discharge to surface 

water. Some projects (for example park and forest management) are ongoing, and changes in 

their operations that could have large impacts on surface-water use appear unlikely. 

In 2000, the Florida Legislature passed the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act to establish a 

restoration and protection program for Lake Okeechobee (SFWMD et al. 2011-TN3087; 

SFWMD 2010-TN3086). Part of the focus of this act was to restore the natural hydrology of the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-115 NUREG–2176 

system after years of altering the natural drainage around the lake to permit development of the 

land and to reduce flood damage. The State of Florida and the Federal government are 

spending hundreds of millions of dollars to restore the Lake Okeechobee and other water 

resources in the watershed; therefore, the review team concluded that the cumulative impact on 

surface-water use would be MODERATE. 

Surface-water use during the building and operation of two units at the Martin site would be 

dominated by water use for operations. As discussed above, surface water would only be 

withdrawn during periods of excess flow. Therefore, the review team concluded that building 

and operating the proposed units at the Martin site would not be a significant contributor to the 

MODERATE impacts on surface-water use. 

As stated above, the review team assumed that any use of shallow groundwater to build the 

units at the Martin site would be regulated by the SFWMD. If this source is not available in 

sufficient quantity for building activities, brackish groundwater from the APPZ could be used for 

some building activities. Groundwater impacts from dewatering would be controlled with 

diaphragm walls and grouting. Groundwater from the APPZ would be used to operate the plant 

except when excess surface water is available. The APPZ aquifer is not generally used 

because of the salinity of its water (FPL 2013-TN3052). Because brackish or saline 

groundwater is not in demand, use of this resource will not result in water-use conflicts. 

The impacts of the other projects listed in Table 9-11 are considered elsewhere in this analysis 

or else would have little or no adverse impact on groundwater use. The projects believed to 

have little impact are excluded from the analysis either because they are too distant from the 

Martin site, or use relatively little or no groundwater. Some projects (for example park and 

forest management) are ongoing, and changes in their operations that would have large impacts 

on groundwater use appear unlikely. Therefore, the review team concludes that cumulative 

impacts on groundwater use would be SMALL. 

Cumulative Impacts on Water Quality 

Point and non-point source discharges have affected the surface-water quality of the Lake 

Okeechobee watershed upstream, and the St. Lucie Canal and other discharge canals 

downstream of the Martin site. Water-quality information presented above for the impacts of 

building and operating the proposed new units at the Martin site would also apply to evaluation 

of cumulative impacts. Lake Okeechobee has been the target of extensive efforts to reduce 

nutrient loading and improve water quality (SFWMD et al. 2011-TN3087). Therefore, the review 

team concluded that the cumulative impact on surface-water quality of the receiving waterbody 

would be MODERATE. During the operation of two new nuclear units at the Martin site, impacts 

on surface-water quality from the units would be minimal because plant discharges would be 

injected into the Boulder Zone and not released to the surface water. The State of Florida 

requires an applicant to develop a SWPPP (FPL 2014-TN4058) and all discharges to surface 

waterbodies would be required to comply with limits established by FDEP in a NPDES permit. 

Such permits are designed to protect water quality. The SWPPP would identify measures to be 

used to control stormwater runoff (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

The review team concluded that building and operating the proposed units at the Martin site 

would not be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impacts on surface-water quality, 

because industrial and wastewater discharges from the proposed units would be discharged 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-116 October 2016 

directly to the Boulder Zone and any stormwater runoff from the site during operations would be 

managed in compliance with the SWPPP (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

The APPZ aquifer is not generally used because of the salinity of its water (FPL 2013-TN3052). 

Because brackish or saline groundwater is not in demand, use of this resource would not result 

in water-use conflicts. The review team also concludes that with the implementation of BMPs, 

the impacts on shallow groundwater quality from building and operating two new nuclear units at 

the Martin site would likely be minimal. Therefore, the cumulative impact on groundwater 

quality would be SMALL. The impacts of other projects listed in Table 9-11 are either 

considered in the analysis included above or would have little or no impact on surface-water and 

groundwater quality. 

9.3.3.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources 

The following section addresses potential impacts on terrestrial resources from siting two new 

nuclear units on the Martin site and transmission line corridors, which cross through portions of 

Martin and Palm Beach Counties. The proposed Martin power plant site presently supports 

existing power units that occupy about 300 ac along with a 6,500 ac cooling-water reservoir 

serving those units (FPL 2014-TN4058). A 1,200 ac wetland mitigation site exists immediately 

north of the reservoir and contains a 400 ac wetland forest preserved as a natural area known 

as the Barley Barber Swamp (FPL 2014-TN3750). Other wetland habitats include freshwater 

marsh and wet prairie. A significant portion of the site and vicinity also exists as upland landcover classes including pine flatwoods, palmetto prairie, hardwood-conifer forest, and dry 

prairie. Habitats in the surrounding vicinity include pasture, rangeland, upland forest, wetland 

forest, freshwater marsh, and wet prairie.

Martin and Palm Beach Counties host multiple terrestrial species that are listed as Federally 

endangered or threatened (Table 9-13). Nine of the listed species also occur in Glades County. 

Habitat preferences for those nine species were discussed in the Glades alternative site section, 

and only the other nine species that are unique to Martin County are described here. Surveys 

were not conducted at the Martin site or along the conceptual transmission line corridor to 

determine the presence and distribution of listed species. Therefore, the staff determined the 

likelihood of occurrence at project sites based on habitat preferences of each species and the 

land-cover types expected to be affected at Martin site and within the conceptual transmission 

line corridor. Kirtland’s warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii) is a migrant songbird that does not nest in 

Florida and occurs there during spring and fall migration (FWS 1999-TN136). During migration, 

Kirtland’s warblers use dense scrub vegetation less than 1.5 m (5 ft) in height. The piping 

plover is a shorebird that overwinters in Florida on wide beaches, mudflats, and other open 

coastal wetlands (FWS 1999-TN136). The Miami blue (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri) is a 

butterfly that historically occurred in Martin County in tropical coastal hammocks, scrub, and 

pine rocklands (Daniels 2005-TN141). It is now only known to occur in on the Bahia Honda Key 

in Monroe County. The southeastern beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris) is 

found in sea oats (Uniola paniculata) and shrubs that grow on coastal sand dunes (FWS 1999-

TN136). Beach jacquemontia (Jacquemontia reclinata) is a coastal species found on sand 

dunes (FWS 1999-TN136). Florida perforate cladonia (Cladonia perforata) is a species of 

lichen that grows among scrub habitat found high sand dune ridges along the Atlantic Coast as 

well as the Lake Wales Ridges (FWS 1999-TN136). Four-petal pawpaw (Asimina tetramera) is 

a shrub or small tree that inhabits coastal scrub vegetation of pine, oak, or palmetto on the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-117 NUREG–2176 

Atlantic Coastal Ridge. This species is known to occur at one location each in northern and 

southern Martin County (CPC 2010-TN3729). Lakela’s mint (Decerandra immaculata) is a small 

shrub that grows in sand scrub (CPC 2010-TN3730). This species was translocated to the 

Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge in Martin County and this is the only location within Martin 

County this plant is known to occur (CPC 2010-TN3730). The tiny polygala (Polygala smalii) is 

a herbaceous plant species that occurs in very dry habitats prone to natural fire including pine 

rocklands, scrub vegetation, high pine, and coastal spoil found on the Atlantic Coastal Ridge 

(FWS 1999-TN136). 

Table 9-13. Federally Listed Terrestrial Species that May Occur on the Martin Site or 

within the Conceptual Transmission Line Corridor 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status 

Birds 

Polyborus plancus audubonii Audubon’s crested caracara Threatened 

Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus Everglade snail kite Endangered 

Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida scrub jay Threatened 

Campephilus principalis Ivory-billed woodpecker Endangered 

Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland’s warbler Endangered 

Charadrius melodus Piping plover Threatened 

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered 

Grus americana Whooping crane Endangered 

Mycteria americana Wood stork Threatened 

Calidris canutus rufa Red knot Threatened 

Mammals 

Puma concolor coryi Florida panther Endangered 

Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris Southeastern beach mouse Threatened 

Reptiles 

Drymarchon corais couperi Eastern indigo snake Threatened 

Invertebrates 

Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri Miami blue Endangered 

Strymon acis bartrami Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak(a) Endangered 

Anaea troglodyte floridalis Florida leafwing Endangered 

Plants 

Jacquemontia reclinata Beach jacquemontia Endangered 

Asimina tetramera Four-petal pawpaw Endangered 

Decerandra immaculata Lakela’s mint Endangered 

Polygala smallii Tiny polygala Endangered 

Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. 

okeechobeensis 

Okeechobee gourd(a) Endangered 

(a) Additional listed species occurring in Palm Beach County (FWS 2014-TN3759) 

Source: FWS 2014-TN3731 

The Martin site is dominated by a 6,500 ac water reservoir and supporting dikes that provide 

cooling water for five fossil-fuel power units. The site also has a solar power-generation unit. 

FPL assumed a footprint of 362 ac for the new nuclear power units. The proposed site of the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-118 October 2016 

new nuclear power units contains both upland and wetland habitats (FPL 2011-TN59). Upland 

cover types include palmetto prairie, pine flatwoods, hardwood-coniferous forest, shrub and 

brushland, dry prairie, upland hardwood forest, woodland pasture, and unimproved pasture. 

Wetland cover types include freshwater marsh, wet prairies, and mixed wetland hardwoods 

(FPL 2011-TN59). Wading birds have been observed using the stormwater basin and ditch 

system for the existing units. White ibis (Eudocimus albus), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), 

tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), snowy egret (Egretta thula), wood stork, and sandhill crane 

(Grus canadensis) have either been observed or would be expected to occur in the project area 

(FPL 2014-TN4058). Wading birds are an ecologically important group in the South Florida 

ecosystem, and both herons and ibises are considered ecological indicators (FWS 1999-

TN136). The wood stork is a Federally threatened species. Recreationally important species 

observed at the Martin site include white-tailed deer, feral hog, and turkey (Meleagris gallopavo 

osceola). Waterfowl are also hunted in Florida and numerous species could occur in suitable 

habitats on the Martin site.

Building Impacts 

Typical impacts from building nuclear units include permanent and temporary habitat loss from 

development, habitat fragmentation and degradation, disturbance and displacement of 

individuals, exposure of wildlife to increased noise levels and human presence, and increased 

risk of vehicle collision mortality. The conversion of fully developed and stable plant 

communities to earlier successional communities dominated by lower growing vegetation during 

development of linear transmission line or pipeline corridors often results in a high degree of 

habitat fragmentation within the landscape. 

FPL assumed a 362 ac area for the main power plant site within the Martin site for evaluating 

potential impacts of building two new nuclear power reactors and associated infrastructure and 

an additional 3,000 ac for a cooling-water storage reservoir (FPL 2014-TN4058). The review 

team determined cooling water could be obtained from groundwater beneath the Martin site and 

that the cooling-water storage reservoir was unnecessary. FPL stated offsite facilities and 

development would also be needed to construct and operate nuclear power plants at the Martin 

site. FPL estimated a 39 mi long corridor approximately 100 ft wide for road access and also 

plans to install 4.3 mi of rail line and pipeline corridors connecting the C-44 Canal to the site 

(assumed cooling-water source). 

Impacts from the plant area, access road, rail line, and pipeline corridors are discussed first 

below. Impacts from the transmission line are discussed in a separate section below. 

Plant Facilities 

If the nuclear power units, access road, rail line, and pipeline were built within the proposed 

footprint, an estimated total of 909 ac would be affected (Table 9-14). Approximately 362 ac of 

this area is naturally vegetated uplands, approximately 283 ac is currently used for agriculture, 

and approximately 151 ac is open water and wetlands (FPL 2011-TN59). Approximately 112 ac 

of the proposed footprint has been previously developed (FPL 2011-TN59). Although access to 

the Martin site is currently available to service the existing fossil units, SR-710 would require 

widening to accommodate additional traffic during construction of the new nuclear plant. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-119 NUREG–2176 

Additional acreage may be permanently or temporarily disturbed when used for laydown areas, 

a batch plant, and fill and spoil deposition. FPL would use cleared land to the greatest extent 

possible and temporary use areas would be reclaimed (FPL 2014-TN4058). Impacts from 

building the plant area, access road, rail line, and pipeline corridors are discussed first because 

most of these activities result in permanent habitat loss. Many of the impacts from building the 

transmission line represent habitat alteration rather than loss and are discussed in a separate 

section below. 

Table 9-14. Acreage within the Conceptual Footprint at the Martin Site 

FLUCFCS Code Description

Site and Offsite 

Non-Transmission (ac) Transmission (ac)

200-series Agriculture 283 100

300-series Uplands 162 288

400-series Forest 200 53

500-600 series Water and Wetlands 151 321

100, 700, and 800 series Developed 112 2

Total 908 764

Source: FPL 2011-TN59 

Surveys of the occurrence, abundance, and distribution of Federally listed species have not 

been performed for the Martin site. Only species that could be affected by the new nuclear 

power units at the Martin site are discussed here, because limited distribution and/or lack of 

suitable habitat likely preclude impacts on the ivory-billed woodpecker, piping plover, Miami 

blue, southeastern beach mouse, beach jacquemontia, Florida perforate cladonia, four-petal 

pawpaw, and Lakela’s mint. Audubon’s crested caracaras nest in palmetto prairie habitat and 

also use other open habitats such as both wet and dry prairie as well as improved pasture. 

Almost 87 ac of palmetto prairie at the Martin site would be permanently lost, as would 

approximately 169 ac of wet prairie, dry prairie, and improved pasture. Approximately 64 ac of 

freshwater marsh would also be lost. Everglade snail kites rely on freshwater marsh. Although 

their presence has not been documented at the site, the distribution of this species includes 

Lake Okeechobee and Martin County. Florida scrub jays and Kirtland’s warblers thrive in scrub 

vegetation, especially oak scrub. Preconstruction activities would eliminate 27 ac of shrub and 

brushland cover. The red-cockaded woodpecker nests in mature pine forest and forages in 

mixed pine forest. Pine flatwoods is the single most affected cover type that is found on the 

Martin site and FPL estimated 143 ac would be permanently lost during preconstruction 

activities, including 124 ac in the plant area. However the Martin site is not within the FWS redcockaded woodpecker consultation area so the loss of these habitats on the site should not 

affect this species (FWS 2014-TN3734). Whooping cranes use wetlands, including freshwater 

marsh and wet prairies, and the combined acreage expected to be permanently lost is 78 ac. 

The wood stork is the only species that has either been observed at the Martin site or would be 

expected to occur there (FPL 2014-TN4058) and the loss of freshwater marsh could also affect 

this species. Wood storks nest and forage in forested wetlands and 4 ac of mixed wetland 

hardwoods would be lost. Although no known stork nest colony is present on the site, the site 

lies within the core foraging area of at least one wood stork nest colony (FWS 2014-TN3732). 

The Florida panther uses many upland habitats, and preconstruction activities would 

permanently affect 320 ac of uplands within the FWS Florida panther consultation area 

(FWS 2012-TN3733). Eastern indigo snakes use a variety of upland habitats including pine 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-120 October 2016 

flatwoods, dry prairie, and edges of freshwater marsh. The permanent loss 320 ac of uplands 

including 143 ac of pine flatwoods and 15 ac of dry prairie would represent lost habitat for the 

eastern indigo snake. They would also be prone to increased mortality from off-road vehicle 

use during land clearing and increased traffic during construction and operation. The tiny 

polygala is known to occur in pine rocklands, scrub vegetation, and under upland pine forest 

(FWS 1999-TN136). Loss of shrub and brushland cover as well as pine flatwoods and other 

mixed pine forest would also represent lost habitat for the tiny polygala. 

The review team expects that the FWS would establish eastern indigo snake mitigation 

requirements similar to those established for the Turkey Point site, including preconstruction 

surveys, staff awareness training, and reporting mortality incidents (FPL 2014-TN4058; State of 

Florida 2014-TN3637). The 2013 Standard Protective Measures for the Indigo Snake are 

typically prescribed by FWS to conclude the Endangered Species Act consultation process 

(FWS 2013-TN3749). 

Loss of habitats would also affect local populations of wildlife not Federally listed, but expected 

to occur within the region in suitable habitat. However, these effects are not expected to be 

noticeable and would not destabilize even local populations of any of these animals. 

Transmission Lines and Access Roads 

Offsite facilities and development required to construct and operate nuclear power plants at the 

Martin site include transmission lines and an access road. FPL estimated the 39.3 mi of 

transmission line would occupy an additional 764 ac. Similar to the Martin plant site, much of 

the corridor is upland cover types. Uplands and forest compose 341 ac of the conceptual 

transmission corridor, with approximately 190 ac, being herbaceous dry prairie. Pine flatwoods, 

shrub and brushland, mixed rangeland, hardwood-coniferous forest, and a small amount of 

palmetto prairie would also be contained within the corridor. Wetlands and water compose 

approximately 42 percent of the conceptual transmission line corridor including 179 ac of 

freshwater marsh, 55 ac of wet prairie, 24 ac of mixed wetland hardwoods, 18 ac of emergent 

aquatic vegetation, and small amounts cypress and waterbodies such as lakes, streams, and 

waterways. Approximately 13 percent (100 ac) of the corridor is used for agriculture including 

79 ac of citrus groves, 14 ac of improved pasture, and 8 ac of field crops. Cover types that are 

dominated by low herbaceous vegetation, such as dry prairie, would not be altered extensively 

except where the tower pads would be placed and access roads created. Tall vegetation, 

including trees and wood brush, would have to be removed or mowed under power lines. 

Therefore, much of the pine flatwoods, hardwood-coniferous forest, palmetto prairie, mixed 

wetland hardwoods, cypress, and possibly the shrub and brushland would in essence be 

permanently lost when it would be converted to and maintained as low-growing vegetation 

cover. The likelihood of non-native plants being accidentally introduced would also increase 

and could result in habitat alteration. 

Loss or conversion of palmetto and dry prairie could reduce the quality of Audubon’s crested 

caracara habitat. Permanent loss from tower pads and access roads would occur and the risk 

of introducing non-native invasive plants would increase. However, plants within these cover 

types are low-growing and would not require clearing or vegetation control under transmission 

lines. In addition, the conversion of woody habitats into low-growing herbaceous habitats could 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-121 NUREG–2176 

increase the amount of habitat suitable for caracaras. Building transmission lines through 

179 ac of freshwater marsh would likely exclude Everglade snail kites from wetlands at least 

temporarily and could also permanently degrade habitat through uncontrolled runoff and 

erosion. Snail kites would not be particularly prone to electrocution or collision with power lines. 

Shrub and brushland is a component within the transmission line corridor, but the elimination of 

trees from this component should not substantially affect either the Florida scrub jay or 

Kirtland’s warbler and the conversion of forest cover to shrub-dominated habitats could result in 

a net increase of habitat for these two species within the transmission line corridor. Elimination 

of trees from 43 ac of pine flatwoods and 9 ac of mixed hardwood-coniferous forest could 

reduce the amount of habitat available to the red-cockaded woodpecker because the 

conceptual transmission line corridor is very near the border of the FWS red-cockaded 

woodpecker consultation area (FWS 2014-TN3734). Cutting a corridor through large patches of 

forest could also cause fragmentation and reduce the value of surrounding habitat. Freshwater 

marsh is a predominant habitat within the transmission line corridor, and approximately 55 ac 

wet prairie habitat would also exist within the corridor. Both of these habitats could potentially 

be used transiently by the whooping crane. These habitats would not necessarily be altered 

because they are already dominated by low-growing vegetation. 

Native upland forested habitats are preferred by the Florida panther. The Martin site is within 

the Florida Panther Secondary Management Zone. Although building a 39.3 mi long 

transmission line corridor would result in more habitat conversion than permanent habitat loss, 

the conversion of habitats would likely result in panther habitat fragmentation, degradation, and 

ultimately loss of habitat value. The tiny polygala is associated with pine rocklands and scrub 

vegetation. Periodic maintenance of vegetation within the transmission line corridor could mimic 

periodic disturbances necessary to inhibit succession of rockland and shrub habitats into forest, 

possibly increasing habitat suitability for the tiny polygala. The eastern indigo snake inhabits 

many upland habitats. Conversion of habitats from forest to low-growing vegetation would not 

decrease habitat suitability for this species, and increased heterogeneity within the landscape 

may actually increase habitat quality. FPL stated field surveys would be conducted for 

Federally listed and State-protected species as part of the permitting process before any 

preconstruction activities would occur at the Martin site (FPL 2014-TN4058). Preconstruction 

activities would be conducted in accordance with all Federal and State regulations, permit 

conditions, good construction practices, and BMPs including the use of directed drainage 

ditches and silt fencing. Acreage within the conceptual transmission line corridor was minimized 

to the extent possible by using the most direct route while avoiding areas with important 

resources and high biological value. FPL also stated that any wetland functions affected within 

the transmission line corridor would be replaced or restored. 

Operations Impacts 

The review team assumed the facility configuration and operation at the Martin site would be 

similar to that at the Turkey Point site. Operation of two nuclear units at the Martin site would 

create noise, fogging and dissolved solid deposition from cooling towers, runoff from increased 

impermeable surfaces, light pollution, and increased vehicle collision mortality to local wildlife 

populations. Operation of transmission lines could increase the risk of bird collision and 

electrocution mortality. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-122 October 2016 

Operational noise from the cooling towers would only displace individual animals from the 

immediate vicinity of the cooling towers, because the use of splash guards on air inlets and 

stacks on mechanical fans would limit cooling-tower noise to approximately 73 dBA at a 

distance of 200 ft from the cooling towers. The review team determined the salinity of the 

groundwater used for cooling would be less than or equal to that of seawater and salt deposition 

from cooling-tower drift at the Martin site would be similar in scale and intensity to deposition at 

the Turkey Point site if the radial collector wells were the sole cooling-water source. Most of the 

salt would be deposited on developed land very near the cooling towers, and concentrations as 

high as 10 kg/ha/mo that have resulted in observable effects on sensitive plant species could be 

expected as far as 1.25 mi from the cooling towers. The Barley Barber Swamp, located on a 

peninsula within the cooling pond for the existing power units and the Martin site, is more than 

1.25 mi from the existing plants and would be even farther from any new units at the Martin site 

and would not be expected to be affected by salt from cooling-tower drift. 

The creation of impermeable surfaces at the higher relative elevations of the Martin site would 

likely result in the concentration of stormwater runoff into surrounding wetlands, including the 

6,500 ac water reservoir and supporting dikes that provide cooling water for five fossil-fuel 

power units and perhaps affect the 400 ac Barley Barber Swamp within the 1,200 ac mitigation 

site. Other wetlands, including nearby freshwater marsh and wet prairie, would also receive 

runoff. Although BMPs would be expected to be followed, runoff could result in silt and pollutant 

deposition into these areas. 

Light pollution during facility operation could affect wildlife residing on or migrating through the 

Martin site. Design criteria could include minimization of upward lighting, turning off 

unnecessary lighting between 11 p.m. and sunrise, and luminary selection and mounting to 

provide light only where needed (FPL 2014-TN4058). If these actions are taken, the review 

team expects that impacts from light pollution on wildlife would be minimal. 

Proposed transmission lines to support additional units at the Martin site could pose a risk to 

listed wildlife. Direct mortality resulting from birds colliding with tall structures has been 

observed (Avatar et al 2004-TN892). Factors that appear to influence the rate of avian impacts 

with structures are diverse and related to bird behavior, structure attributes, and weather. 

Migratory flight by flocking birds during darkness has contributed to the largest mortality events. 

Tower height, location, configuration, and lighting also appear to play roles in avian mortality. 

Weather, such as low cloud ceilings, advancing fronts, and fog, also contribute to this 

phenomenon. Waterfowl may be particularly vulnerable due to their low, fast flight and flocking 

behavior (EPRI 1993-TN73). However, in NUREG–1437, the NRC staff concluded that the 

threat of avian collision as a biologically significant source of mortality is very low because only 

a small fraction of total bird mortality could be attributed to collision with nuclear power plant 

structures, including transmission line corridors with multiple transmission lines (NRC 2013-

TN2654). Although collision may contribute to local losses, thriving bird populations can 

withstand these losses without threat to their existence (EPRI 1993-TN73). Transmission line 

structures, conductors, and guy wires all pose a potential avian collision hazard for all resident 

birds that live in the vicinity of the transmission lines and for migratory birds that may pass 

through these areas. At least 41 species of birds are known to have been killed by interaction 

with Florida electrical utility structures, 20 of which have been killed by FPL electrical utility 

structures (FPL 2011-TN1283). Although the NRC (NRC 2013-TN2654) has concluded that 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-123 NUREG–2176 

bird collisions with transmission lines at existing U.S. nuclear power plants are of small 

significance, including transmission line corridors with variable numbers of transmission lines, 

listed wildlife including the wood stork, whooping crane, and Audubon’s crested caracara could 

still be at risk. Although endangered, whooping cranes in the Kissimmee Prairie in central 

Florida are the result of efforts to establish a nonmigratory whooping crane population officially 

designated as an experimental nonessential population (58 FR 5647) (TN3324). During 2001, 

additional efforts were initiated to establish a population of migratory whooping cranes that 

would winter on the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge in Citrus County, Florida. 

Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge is approximately 165 mi northwest of the Martin site, 

while Kissimmee Prairie Preserve State Park is approximately 50 mi northwest. Whooping 

cranes are large birds that travel long distances and the conceptual transmission line corridor 

supporting the Martin site contains suitable whooping crane habitats. Transmission lines 

connecting the Martin site to the Corbett substation would have to pass through the core 

foraging areas of multiple wood stork nesting colonies (FWS 2014-TN3732). However, like the 

whooping crane, the risk of collision and electrocution mortality for the wood stork increases if 

transmission lines are operated within their range and there is suitable habitat within the 

transmission right-of-way. The level of risk is commensurate with the location of the 

transmission lines and wood stork nesting colonies, foraging habitat, and travel corridors. 

Operational effects on other important species would be minimal. 

EMFs are unlike other agents that have an adverse impact (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing 

radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be demonstrated and long-term effects, if they 

exist, are subtle (NRC 2013-TN2654). A careful review of biological and physical studies of 

EMFs did not reveal consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures 

(NRC 2013-TN2654). The impacts of EMFs on terrestrial flora and fauna are of small 

significance at operating nuclear power plants, including transmission systems with variable 

numbers of power lines and lines energized at levels less than 765 kV (NRC 2013-TN2654). 

Since 1997, more than a dozen studies have been published that looked at cancer in animals 

that were exposed to EMFs for all or most of their lives (Moulder 2005-TN1329). These studies 

have found no evidence that EMFs cause any specific types of cancer in rats or mice (Moulder 

2005-TN1329). Therefore, the incremental EMF impact posed by operation of existing 

transmission lines and the addition of new lines for two new nuclear units would be negligible at 

the Martin alternative site. 

Transmission line corridor vegetation-management activities (cutting and herbicide application) 

and related impacts on floodplains and wetlands in transmission line corridors are of minor 

significance at operating nuclear power plants, including those with transmission line corridors 

of variable widths (NRC 2013-TN2654). Consequently, the incremental effects of transmission 

line corridor maintenance and associated impacts on floodplains and wetlands for two new 

nuclear units would be negligible at the Martin site. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The geographic area of interest for the assessment of the potential cumulative impacts of 

building and operating a new reactor at the Martin site and other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions on terrestrial resources and wetlands is defined as being within a 

50 mi radius around the Martin site. A list of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable actions 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-124 October 2016 

within 50 mi of the Martin site is presented in Table 9-11. This list includes a variety of energyproduction projects, stone mining, manufacturing, transportation and infrastructure-development 

projects, set-aside areas for recreation and conservation, CERP-related projects, and other 

miscellaneous activities that could affect terrestrial and wetland resources. 

Past land use in South Florida, especially agriculture and more recently urbanization, has 

greatly affected the distribution, quality, and quantity of plant and wildlife habitats still remaining. 

Development and urbanization of higher elevation lands for energy, infrastructure, and 

manufacturing projects have further reduced the amount of pine flatwoods and other remaining 

upland habitat. Ditching and draining created more dry land, reducing the amount of wetlands 

available as habitat. The continued operation and maintenance of existing facilities would likely 

not exacerbate the current situation with respect to terrestrial and wetland ecosystems. New 

mining activities have the potential to expand their footprint and development in general on the 

landscape, as does continued human population growth in South Florida. Lands set aside for 

recreation and conservation provide buffers against development, provide habitat for plants and 

animals, and serve to preserve fragments of the ecosystem of South Florida. Projects that 

continue to incrementally reverse changes in land cover due to man-made changes in surfacewater flow, including CERP-related activities, would continue to benefit both terrestrial and 

wetland ecology of the region. 

As described in Chapter 7, terrestrial and wetland environments in South Florida may also be 

affected by continued population growth and related development. The overall impact from 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities on regional terrestrial and wetland 

ecology is substantial. 

Summary Statement 

The landscape around the Martin site is composed mostly of upland cover types with scattered 

wetlands, in addition to a large cooling-water reservoir. Approximately 909 ac of upland and 

wetland habitat would be permanently lost at (and just outside of) the plant site, and 

approximately 764 ac of upland and wetland habitat would be affected by building and operating 

the transmission line corridor. Although the entire corridor would not be developed and all lands 

would not be lost as habitat, some portion would be lost to pole installation, road development, 

or altered to low-growing vegetation. Effects could involve the Florida panther, Audubon’s 

crested caracara, Everglade snail kite, wood stork, and eastern indigo snake among others. 

Although the 39.3 mi long conceptual transmission line corridor is relatively short compared to 

the other sites considered, upland habitat would still be degraded through fragmentation if it 

were developed. Whooping cranes from the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge could 

range south and risk collision with transmission lines. 

Based on the information provided by FPL and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

review team concludes that the cumulative impacts on terrestrial and wetland resources of 

building and operating two new nuclear units at the Martin alternative site, including impacts 

attributable to permanent conversion of habitat for the facility footprint as well as operation of 

the cooling towers and transmission lines, would be MODERATE. The incremental effect of the 

building and operation of two new nuclear units at the Martin site would be a significant 

contributor to this impact primarily because of the proposed impacts on undeveloped upland, 

forest, and wetland habitats and their respective species. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-125 NUREG–2176 

9.3.3.4 Aquatic Resources 

What follows is an assessment of the potential impacts on aquatic resources that may occur if 

the two nuclear reactors described by FPL (2014-TN4058) were constructed and operated at 

the Martin alternative site. Based on a review of potential cooling-water sources discussed in 

Section 9.3.3.2, the review team assumes no cooling ponds or reverse osmosis facilities would 

be required for the Martin site. Unless otherwise noted, the information presented in this section 

was obtained from FPL’s ER, Revision 6 (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

The Martin site is located in western Martin County, approximately 40 mi northwest of West 

Palm Beach, 5 mi east of Lake Okeechobee, and 7 mi northwest of Indiantown, Figure 9-11. 

The existing 22,300 ac site includes five fossil-fuel–fired electrical generating units and a solar 

unit. The site is bounded on the west by SFWMD L-65 Canal and on the south by the St. Lucie 

Canal, also known as the C-44 Canal or Okeechobee Waterway. Onsite surface waterbodies at 

the Martin site include an existing cooling pond and a makeup/discharge canal that supports the 

fossil units, Barley Barber Swamp, and the Northwest Parcel mitigation area. FPL indicated in 

its ER that a 1,200 ac area north of the proposed site has been set aside as a mitigation area 

(FPL 2014-TN4058). The facility footprint for the proposed units would occupy approximately 

362 ac. New transmission lines to support the nuclear power-generating units would be 31 mi 

long and encompass 764 ac that include previously disturbed areas, existing rights-of-way, 

forests, and agricultural land. As a basis for this assessment the review team assumes the 

primary water source for the reactor cooling system would be groundwater, with additional water 

obtained from the C-44 (St. Lucie) Channel during high-flow periods using a conventional 

intake. Cooling-tower blowdown would be injected into the Boulder Zone. 

The C-44 Channel connects to Lake Okeechobee just west of the Martin site, and likely contains 

aquatic resources that are similar to those in the lake. Lake Okeechobee is the largest lake in 

Florida, and the center of South Florida’s regional water-management system, providing 

commercial and sport fisheries, flood control, and a source of potable and irrigation water. The 

lake encompasses over 730 mi2, and has an average depth of about 9 ft (FFWCC 2013-

TN2842). Desired lake elevations (stages) are between 12.5 and 15.5 ft (USACE and 

SFWMD 2009-TN2848). Major natural tributaries to the lake are Fisheating Creek, Taylor 

Creek, and the Kissimmee River. Approximately 70 percent of the water entering the lake is 

associated with these tributaries; rainfall accounts for the remaining 30 percent. Evaporation 

accounts for about 70 percent of the water loss, and the remaining water exits the lake through 

engineered outfalls (FFWCC 2013-TN2842). 

As described in Section 2.4, water-management practices in South Florida over the past 100 

years have dramatically changed the regional hydrology and sheet-water flow, and influenced 

the aquatic plants and animals in the area. Creation of levees, canals, and channels to support 

agriculture and development has confined Lake Okeechobee to a smaller area than historically 

present, and resulted in a variety of water-management activities to maintain the lake level 

during the dry season and reduce flooding during the wet season. Lake Okeechobee and the 

connecting rivers, canals, channels, and engineered outfalls are also greatly affected by 

weather events. During the hurricane season of 2004, Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne created 

high water surges of over 18 ft, and created turbid conditions that affected submerged aquatic 

vegetation; the drought of 2006 lowered the level of Lake Okeechobee to an all-time record of 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-126 October 2016 

8.82 ft msl (FFWCC 2013-TN2842). Currently, the USACE is responsible for managing water 

levels in Lake Okeechobee between 12.5 and 15.5 ft NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum 

of 1929) to balance flood control, public safety, navigation, water supply, and public health 

(SFWMD 2012-TN2883). 

Based on the information provided by FPL (2014-TN4058), the facility footprint at the Martin site 

would encompass approximately 362 ac. Although the affected area is primarily farmland, 

building activities have the potential to directly or indirectly affect aquatic resources present in 

small streams or ponds at or near the site. Installation of the water-intake structure for 

intermittent cropping of water in the C-44 Channel may temporarily affect resident aquatic biota, 

and the construction of a water pipeline to the site may temporarily affect surface-water habitats. 

As described in FPL 2014 (TN4058), approximately 31 mi of transmission lines encompassing 

764 ac may also affect aquatic resources in areas where the transmission lines support 

structures or access roads are adjacent to surface-water habitats. During the operation of the 

nuclear reactors, cooling water obtained from two intake structures on the C-44 Channel during 

high-flow periods creates the potential for impingement and/or entrainment of aquatic biota 

present in the channel, or those entering the channel from Lake Okeechobee. Because Lake 

Okeechobee and the rivers, streams, channels, and canals in the vicinity of the Martin site are 

highly connected, it is assumed the biota present in the lake are indicative of the aquatic 

resources that might be affected by the building and operation of two nuclear reactors, as 

described below. 

Commercial and Recreational Species 

Because the St. Lucie and L-65 Canals both connect to Lake Okeechobee, it is assumed the 

aquatic biota are similar, and the general descriptions of fish and invertebrates presented for the 

Glades alternative site would apply (Section 9.3.2.4). Thus, the canal systems adjacent to the 

Martin site would likely support a diverse food web that includes smaller bait fish and larger 

piscivores, including Largemouth Bass, crappie, catfish, and bream, which have recreational 

and commercial importance. 

Important Species 

Based on the hydraulic connections described above, the important species described for the 

Martin site would be similar to those at the Glades site (Section 9.3.2.4). These would include a 

variety of forage fish, like Threadfin Shad and Inland Silversides, and larger predators like the 

Largemouth Bass and Black Crappie (USACE 2013-TN2847; Zhang and Sharfstein 2013-

TN2894). 

Non-Native or Nuisance Species 

As noted previously in the discussion of the Glades site (Section 9.3.2.4), Lake Okeechobee 

and the connecting canal systems contain a variety of non-native and nuisance species. Many 

of these species would likely be present in the St. Lucie and L-65 Canal systems. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-127 NUREG–2176 

Federally and State-Listed Species and Critical Habitat 

Based on information obtained from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory database (FNAI 2013-

TN2900) Federally and State-listed aquatic species and Species of Concern present in Martin 

County include a variety of species that are found at or near the site: Striped Croaker (Bairdiella 

sanctaeluciae), the Opossum Pipefish (Microphis brachyurus), the American alligator (Alligator 

mississippiensis), and four species of sea turtle—loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia 

mydas), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) 

(FNAI 2013-TN2900). FPL also noted the endangered Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata) 

and the threatened American crocodile has been reported from Martin County (FPL 2012-

TN2043). Of these species, only the manatee and alligator would likely occur near the Martin 

site. Critical habitat for manatee and crocodile is not present at the Martin site, but the manatee 

consultation area includes Lake Okeechobee (FWS 2003-TN2916). FPL has indicated no listed 

species have been observed in St. Lucie Canal near the Martin site (FPL 2012-TN2043). 

Building Impacts 

Building of the proposed nuclear units at the Martin site would occur primarily within the 

industrial area containing the existing fossil-fuel plants, or in small areas of farmland adjacent to 

the site. Some existing drainage ditches that support a seasonal population of some of the fish 

species listed above may be adversely affected. Building of the surface-water intake on the 

C-44 (St. Lucie) Canal would likely result in short-term turbidity and temporary displacement of 

aquatic resources, which would be expected to quickly recolonize after building is completed. 

Building activities related to the transmission lines would occur in previously disturbed areas, 

existing rights-of-way, and forest or agricultural land. FPL has indicated field surveys for 

Federally or State-listed species would be conducted prior to construction at the site or within 

transmission line corridors. Installation of the intake structure would use turbidity curtains, silt 

screens, or similar technology to minimize impacts. The use of BMPs during tower erection and 

conductor installation would minimize building-related impacts along transmission line corridors. 

Impacts would be comparable to those described for the Glades site (Section 9.3.2.4). 

Operations Impacts 

Based on the review team assumptions described above, the majority of the water required to 

operate the cooling-water system for the two nuclear facilities at the Martin site would be 

obtained from groundwater resources, limiting the potential for impingement or entrainment of 

aquatic biota to periods of surface-water use. During times of excess surface-water flow that 

typically occurs during the wet season, supplemental water would be obtained from a surfacewater intake located in the St. Lucie Canal. Impingement and entrainment of organisms from 

the intake canal would be the most likely operational impacts on aquatic populations that would 

occur. Assuming a closed-cycle cooling system and compliance with the EPA’s 316(b) Phase I 

requirements for intake structures (66 FR 65256) (TN243) the intake is considered protective of 

aquatic life. The anticipated impacts due to impingement and entrainment are considered by 

the review team to be minimal. Furthermore the intakes would likely be only operated 

intermittently throughout the year when excess surface water is available. Impingement or 

entrainment that does occur should not result in noticeable changes in aquatic biota species 

composition or abundance in the canal or Lake Okeechobee. Because cooling-tower blowdown 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-128 October 2016 

would be discharged into the Boulder Zone of the Lower Floridan aquifer via deep-injection 

wells, surface-water resources would not be adversely affected. There is no available 

information about biological communities that may be present in the Boulder Zone formations 

near the Martin site, so it is not possible to determine if a complete exposure pathway is present 

or assess potential biological effects. Thus, the potential risk of chemical exposure to aquatic 

resources resulting from discharge of cooling-tower blowdown cannot be determined. Based on 

an NRC assessment of a similar cooling system proposed at the Levy site in western Florida 

using brackish saltwater for cooling-tower makeup water (NRC 2012-TN1976), cooling-tower 

drift impacts on aquatic resources would likely be minimal, because deposition would be 

expected to occur primarily on plant property or adjacent agricultural lands. Impacts would be 

comparable to those described for the Glades site (Section 9.3.2.4). No detectable increase in 

surface-water salinity resulting from salt-drift deposition is anticipated. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Past, present, and reasonable foreseeable projects and other actions in the vicinity of the Martin 

site are presented in Table 9-11. As described above for the Glades site, these activities 

include existing and proposed energy projects, mining activities, transportation projects, parks 

and aquaculture facilities, and restoration activities associated with CERP goals and objectives 

that are designed to improve surface-water management practices, restore hydrologic and 

natural process, and protect and restore natural resources. With the exception of the St. Lucie 

nuclear facility, most energy projects in the vicinity of the Martin site use coal, natural gas, oil, or 

biomass/biofuel to produce electrical power. These facilities require pipelines, transmission 

lines, and access to water to function, resulting in permanent loss of habitat and disturbance to 

both terrestrial and aquatic resources. Rock mining is also common in areas near the Martin 

site (five project examples are included in Table 9-11). These sites have the potential to affect 

hydrological patterns as well as terrestrial and aquatic resources. Areas near the Martin site 

have also provided opportunities for outdoor recreation and ecological research. The continued 

existence of these areas will provide sanctuaries and refuges for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, 

and additional construction or development near these areas is expected to be limited. 

Restoration projects sponsored by CERP and others include integrated efforts to better manage 

surface-water resources, provide flood protection, and explore strategies for increasing aquifer 

storage. Given the proximity of the Martin site to Lake Okeechobee and the C-44 Canal, 

restoration activities designed to improve water quality and increase habitat in Lake 

Okeechobee and the adjacent canals, including the C-44 Canal, are expected to provide a 

positive benefit to both aquatic and terrestrial biota. 

As shown in Table 9-11, a variety of existing, pending, or proposed projects will contribute to the 

overall cumulative effects that will occur near the Martin site. In some cases, the projects will 

contribute to habitat loss and lack of hydrologic connectivity that has plagued South Florida 

since the beginning of the last century. In other cases, the projects will contribute to the 

overarching goal of CERP to restore lost hydrologic and ecological function, providing an overall 

positive environmental benefit. As discussed in Section 7.3.2, aquatic environments in this 

region of South Florida will also be affected by continued population growth and related 

development, and short- or long-term changes in climate that have the potential to alter weather 

patterns and influence hydrology. Overall, the review team concludes that the cumulative 

impacts to aquatic resources in the vicinity of the Martin site are MODERATE. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-129 NUREG–2176 

Summary Statement 

Based on a review of the information provided by FPL and the review team’s independent 

assessment, it is likely the building and operation of a nuclear generating plant at the Martin site 

would contribute only minimally to the cumulative effects on aquatic species likely to occur in 

that portion of South Florida. Although the building of nuclear units at the Martin site would 

displace some existing agricultural land, surface-water habitats would be likely minimally 

affected. During the normal operation of the plant, groundwater would be used for reactor 

cooling, and deep aquifer discharge of cooling-tower blowdown would be employed, eliminating 

the need for conventional surface-water intake and discharge structures. During periods of 

excess surface-water flow, cooling water from the C-44 Channel would be withdrawn for 

cooling. Some impingement and entrainment losses are expected, however assuming a closedcycle cooling system and compliance with the EPA’s 316(b) Phase I requirements for intake 

structures (66 FR 65256) (TN243) the intake is considered protective of aquatic life and the 

anticipated impacts due to impingement and entrainment are considered minimal. Furthermore, 

the intakes would likely be only operated intermittently throughout the year when surface water 

is available. Impingement or entrainment that does occur should not result in noticeable 

changes to aquatic biota species composition or abundance. Thus, the review team concludes 

that the cumulative impacts of building and operation of two new nuclear reactors at the Martin 

site, combined with the other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future activities on 

aquatic resources would be MODERATE. Building and operating two new nuclear units at the 

Martin site would not be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impact. 

9.3.3.5 Socioeconomics 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

affect socioeconomics, including other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-11. 

For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the Martin site, the geographic area of interest is 

considered to be the 50 mi region centered on the Martin site with special consideration of 

Martin, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, and Palm Beach Counties because that is where the review 

team expects socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest. In evaluating the socioeconomic 

impacts of site development and operation at the Martin site near Indiantown in Martin County, 

the review team used readily obtainable data from the Internet or published sources. 

Physical Impacts 

People who work or live around the site would be exposed to noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous 

emissions from building and operations activities. Noise, dust, and air-pollution emissions 

generated within the boundaries of the Martin site would be expected to be similar to those for 

the Turkey Point site. Because the surrounding site is rural and sparsely populated and 

because noise and air-pollution impacts are attenuated by distance, the surrounding population 

exposed would be relatively few and the impacts would be expected to be negligible. Best 

practices and applicable regulations would be expected to protect building workers and 

personnel working onsite. Truck and vehicle traffic related to building and operations would 

generate noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous emissions offsite. 

In addition, offsite structures include a transmission line and intake/makeup pipelines 

(FPL 2014-TN4058). Because the area affected by offsite structures and traffic would also be 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-130 October 2016 

rural and sparsely populated and because FPL would be expected to implement a dust-control 

plan similar to that for the Turkey Point site, noise and air-pollution impacts from these offsite 

activities would be expected to be minor. 

Offsite project-related building activities include widening of 39.1 mi of SR-710 and a 4.3 mi 

railway. The impact on road quality based on any road improvements made by the applicant to 

facilitate project-related traffic would be noticeable and beneficial. Other offsite project-related 

building activities include a 31 mi transmission line and intake/makeup pipelines (FPL 2014-

TN4058). The conceptual design of these activities routes them, to the extent possible, along 

existing rights-of-way and avoids populated areas and residences (FPL 2014-TN4058). The 

physical impacts on existing structures and crops within the proposed site and offsite areas for 

supporting infrastructure would be minor. 

The area around the site is relatively flat, sparsely populated, and is used mainly as farmland. 

Building would use cranes (which could exceed 400 ft in height) and would alter the regional 

viewscape. Construction of the transmission lines would pose similar impacts. The power plant 

and water-intake facilities would likely be visible from several angles. Building and operations 

would noticeably alter the aesthetics of the area. However, because there is already a power 

plant at the proposed site, the contrast with the existing viewscape would be somewhat 

attenuated. Because of the sparse population and existence of other power plants on the 

proposed site, the negative impact would likely not interfere with the daily routine of local public 

around the Martin site and would not destabilize the aesthetic characteristics of the area. 

Based on the information provided by FPL (2014-TN4058) and the review team’s independent 

analysis, the review team concludes that the overall physical impacts of building activities and 

operations would be minor and adverse, with the exceptions of noticeable and beneficial 

impacts on road quality and noticeable but not destabilizing adverse impacts on aesthetics near 

the Martin site. 

Demography 

The Martin site is located in Martin County, 7 mi northwest of Indiantown (2012 population 

6,730) and 20 mi southwest of Port St. Lucie (2012 population 163,748), the closest population 

center with more than 25,000 residents (FPL 2014-TN4058; USCB 2012-TN4098). The 

population distribution within and around the Martin site is typically rural with low population 

densities. There are nine counties within the 50 mi area, but the review team estimates the 

areas in which workers would most likely live in and from which they would commute are within 

Martin, St. Lucie, Palm Beach, and Okeechobee Counties, based on current commuter patterns 

of the FPL staff working on the existing Martin site power units.(16)

FPL estimated the peak number of workers during building would be 3,983, including 33 

operation workers. The review team assumed that the share of construction and operation 

workers relocating from outside the four-county area would be 70 percent of the estimated peak 

number of workers. This assumption was reached by using the assumption made for the 

proposed Turkey Point site as a reference and assuming that the share of workers that would 

 

(16) The entire workforce of these power units lives in this four-county area (FPL 2014-TN4058). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-131 NUREG–2176 

come from outside the region is inversely proportional to the population of the region.(17) As in 

Section 4.4, 70 percent of the construction workforce and 100 percent of the operation 

workforce that moved to the area were assumed to bring their families. Based on these 

assumptions, a peak of 2,765 construction and 24 operation workers would relocate to the area 

during the project construction phase, and 1,960 of these workers would bring their families. 

Based on an average household size of 3.25 people, the total increase in population attributable 

to the peak total workforce at the Martin site would be 6,370 people. An influx of 6,370 people 

represents a 0.4 percent increase in the four-county 2012 population of 1,788,607. 

FPL estimated the total onsite operations workforce to be 806 workers. As explained above, the 

review team assumed that 70 percent of these workers (565) would relocate from outside the 

four-county area. For this analysis, the review team assumed that 100 percent of operation 

workers who relocate would bring their families. Based on an average household size of 3.25 

people, the total population increase attributable to project operations is 1,837 (565 x 3.25) 

people. This represents a 0.1 percent increase in the four-county area. 

The review team concluded that the impact on local demography would not be noticeable. 

Economic Impacts on the Community 

Economy 

FPL estimated the peak number of workers during building would be 3,983, including 33 

operation workers. Employment of 3,983 construction and operation workers would have 

positive economic impacts in the four-county area. Based on a multiplier of 1.7289 jobs (direct 

and indirect) for every construction job and 2.2799 for every operation job, 3,983 new 

construction and operation jobs would create 3,047 indirect jobs, for a total of 7,104 new jobs in 

the four-county area during peak employment (3,950 × 1.7289 + 33 × 2.2799) (FPL 2011-

TN56). This represents a 0.9 percent increase in the total employment in the four-county 

area.(18) Peak employment would last 1 month and the average employment generated during 

the 10-year building period would be about half of that of peak employment. This added 

employment would generate added earnings to the economy of the four-county area, but the 

added employment and earnings would not be noticeable to most of those living or working in 

the area. 

An estimated 806 workers would be required for the operation of two nuclear power facilities. 

Based on a multiplier of 2.2799 jobs (direct and indirect) for every operations job at the new 

units (FPL 2011-TN56), an influx of 806 workers would create 1,032 indirect jobs for a total of 

1,838 new jobs in the region. This represents a 0.2 percent increase in the total employment in 

the four-county area. This added employment would also generate added earnings to the 

 

(17) The proposed Turkey Point site analysis assumed 50 percent of the peak workers would come from 

outside the 50-mi region and that 83.3 percent of those would reside in Miami-Dade County, i.e., 

41.65 percent (0.5 x 0.833) of the peak workers would migrate into Miami-Dade County. Because 

the population of the four-county area is approximately 71 percent of that of Miami-Dade County 

(USCB 2012-TN4098), the review team assumed the share of peak workers migrating into the fourcounty area would be 1-(0.71 x 0.4165) ≈ 70 percent. 

(18) Employment of 793,457 (BLS 2013-TN4085). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-132 October 2016 

economy of the four-county area, but the added employment and earnings would not be 

noticeable to most people living or working in the area. 

Taxes 

State corporate income taxes and sales and use taxes paid at the Martin site during 

construction and operations of the proposed units would be similar to those paid by the same 

units at the proposed Turkey Point site. As discussed in Sections 4.4 and 5.4, State taxes paid 

by the proposed units would not exceed 2 percent of the annual collected State corporate 

income and sales and use taxes. The impact would be minor and beneficial. County sales 

surtax rates in the four-county area for the 2014 calendar year are zero percent for Martin and 

Palm Beach Counties, one-half percent for St. Lucie, and 1 percent for Okeechobee County 

(FDOR 2014-TN3393). County surtax collections from the proposed units would be highest 

during construction when annual expenses related to the proposed units would be estimated to 

reach up to $1.56 billion (Section 4.4). A 1 percent sales surtax would generate $15.6 million in 

revenues for the four-county area.(19) This would correspond to less than 1 percent of total 

County revenues in the four-county area for 2014.(20) The impact would be minor and beneficial. 

County and school district governments in Florida may levy taxes up to 10 mills each (1 percent) 

in property taxes (FDOR 2012-TN459). If the value of property taxes for the two nuclear 

reactors at the Martin site were the same as the value estimated for Units 6 and 7 at the Turkey 

Point site in Section 5.4.3.2, FPL would pay $20 million in property taxes to the Martin School 

District and $20 million to Martin County during operations. These payments would correspond 

to 15.6 percent of the Martin School District 2011-2012 total revenues ($20 million compared to 

$128 million)(21) and to 6.2 percent the Martin County 2011-2012 total revenues ($20 million 

compared to $322.2 million).(22) Because property taxes paid to school districts are reallocated 

through Florida’s Education Finance Program, the benefit to the Martin School District would be 

diluted to some extent, and the exact amount distributed to each school district is not known at 

this time. Because of the value of project-related property tax payments relative to current 

property taxes, the review team considers the impacts on tax revenues to the Martin School 

District to be noticeable and beneficial. 

The review team concluded that the economic impact would not be noticeable and would be 

beneficial, with the exception of property tax revenues to the Martin School District, which would 

be noticeable and beneficial, but would not substantially alter current property tax levels in the 

Martin School District. 

Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts 

Traffic 

Workforce access to the Martin site would occur through SR-710 coming from the east and the 

west. The review team estimated the current LOS (Level of Service) of these roads at two 

FDOT traffic-monitoring sites based on the peak hour directional traffic and FDOT LOS 

 

(19) To the extent that some of the expenditures would be made outside Okeechobee County, and 

assuming the sales surtax rates are unchanged, the total sales surtax collected would be smaller. 

(20) $3,412 million (FLDFS 2013-TN3392). 

(21) FLDOE 2013-TN3299 

(22) FLDFS 2013-TN3392 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-133 NUREG–2176 

thresholds. Peak hour directional traffic information was obtained from FDOT Florida Traffic 

Online (FDOT 2013-TN3558) and consists of the AADT at each traffic-monitoring site, a 

Standard Peak Hour Factor (K) and a Directional Distribution Factor (D). The multiplication of 

these three elements (AADT × K × D) provides an estimate of the current peak hour directional 

traffic volume. The LOS was determined comparing this peak hour directional traffic volume 

with the maximum thresholds for each LOS in Table 9 (areas less than 5,000 population) of 

FDOTs Generalized Service Volume Tables (FDOT 2013-TN3297). Based on this procedure, 

the LOS at both traffic-monitoring sites is B. To estimate the project impact on traffic LOS 

during the project’s peak workforce building period, the review team followed a methodology 

similar to that described in Section 4.4: The peak workforce of 3983 construction and operation 

workers were divided into two shifts, with 70 percent assigned to shift 1 (6:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) 

and 30 percent to shift 2 (5:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m.). The hour of peak commute would be 4:30 

p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The review team also assumed up to 36 trucks per hour. The project-related 

directional traffic during the peak commute hour would be 2,824 vehicles (70 percent × 3,983 + 

36). The review team assumed that half of the project-related traffic would come from each 

direction, east and west.(23) Results of this analysis are presented in Table 9-15 below. The 

additional building traffic would drop the LOS classification at both traffic-monitoring sites to F. 

The proposed widening of SR-710 would bring the LOS classification to a C. 

Table 9-15. Peak Workforce Traffic LOS Analysis for the Martin Site 

Traffic-Monitoring Site 

Baseline 

Peak Hour 

Directional 

Traffic 

Baseline 

LOS 

Distribution 

of ProjectRelated Peak 

Traffic 

Added 

Peak Hour 

Directional 

Traffic 

Peak Hour 

Directional 

Traffic with 

Project 

LOS 

with 

Project 

SR-710 west of site 276 B 0.50 1,412 1,688 F (C)(a)

SR-710 east of site 364 B 0.50 1,412 1,776 F (C)(a)

(a) LOS classification with widening of SR 710 

Source: Review team calculations based on FDOT 2013-TN3297 and FDOT 2013-TN3558 

FPL estimated the total onsite operations workforce to be 806 workers. If access of this 

workforce to the Martin site were distributed among the two directions equally, the LOS at each 

of the two monitoring sites would drop to C. 

Based on the above analysis, the review team concludes that the impact of building and 

operation of the proposed nuclear reactors at the Martin site would be noticeable during 

building, although not destabilizing, after widening of SR-710. 

Recreation 

The Martin site is located within 2 mi from Lake Okeechobee and the Lake Okeechobee Scenic 

Trail that circles the lake. The lake is used for boating, fishing, and duck hunting, and the scenic 

trail is used for hiking and bird watching (Palm Beach County 2013-TN3298). The DuPuis 

Wildlife and Environmental Area is located just south of the Martin site. During building, access 

to these sites from some directions could be affected by increased traffic. Other parks and 

 

(23) Based on U.S. Census Bureau commuter patterns (USCB 2011-TN4078) it was not possible to 

determine the likely direction of outgoing project-related traffic. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-134 October 2016 

recreational areas exist within the county. The influx of project-related population to the fourcounty area would increase the number of local users of recreational facilities. Because the inmigrating population would be less than 1 percent of the local population, the review team 

expects the impact on current recreational infrastructure to be negligible. 

Housing 

The review team estimates that 2,789 construction and operation workers would migrate into 

the four-county area, and each of these workers would need a place to live. Based on 

American Community Survey 2008–2012 5-Year estimates, within the four-county area, there 

are 896,705 housing units of which 195,413 are vacant (21.8 percent). This includes housing 

that is designated as seasonal, recreational, or occasional use (USCB 2012-TN4089). The 

review team estimates that, in absolute numbers, the available housing would be sufficient to 

house the construction workforce. The in-migrating construction and operation workforce would 

occupy no more than 1.5 percent of vacant housing units in the four-county area. FPL 

estimated that approximately 806 workers would be needed for operation of two nuclear power 

facilities at the Martin site, and the review team assumed that 70 percent of these workers (565) 

would relocate from outside the region and would settle in the four-county area. Based on these 

assumptions, the entire operations workforce would occupy no more than 0.3 percent of vacant 

housing units in the four counties. The review team concludes that impact on housing would be 

minor. 

Public Services 

In-migrating construction workers and plant operations staff would also likely affect local 

municipal water, wastewater-treatment facilities, police and fire-protection services and other 

public services in the region. These impacts would be expected to be in proportion with the 

demographic impacts experienced in the region. In-migration to the four-county area would 

represent an estimated 0.4 percent of the local population (less during operations). The review 

team concludes that impact on public services would be minor. 

Education 

Based on data for the 2011-2012 school year, there are approximately 238,373 full-time 

equivalent students in public schools in the four-county area(FLDOE 2013-TN3299).(24) The 

review team estimated that 2,789 construction and operation workers would migrate into the 

area, and that 1,960 workers would bring their families. Based on an estimate of 0.8 schoolaged children per family (Malhotra and Manninen 1981-TN1430), an estimated 1,568 

(1,960 × 0.8) school-aged children would be migrating into the four-county area. This would 

yield a 0.7 percent increase in the student population. During operations, the review team 

assumed that 565 operation workers and their families would relocate from outside the region. 

This would include an estimated 452 (565 × 0.8) children in the PK-12 school range. This influx 

of students would increase the student population in the four-county area by 0.2 percent. The 

review team concludes that the impact on education would be minor. 

 

(24) FTE is a measure of enrollment based on the number of full-time students that it would take to fill the 

number of classes offered. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-135 NUREG–2176 

Based on the information provided by FPL (2014-TN4058) and the review team’s independent 

analysis, the review team concludes that the overall infrastructure and community service 

impacts of building activities and operations at the Martin site would be minor except for 

noticeable, but not destabilizing, adverse impacts on traffic. 

Cumulative Impacts 

In addition to the socioeconomic impacts from building and operation of the proposed project at 

the Martin site, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that could have socioeconomic impacts. 

The socioeconomic impacts of past and present actions in the affected area are largely 

captured by the current baseline conditions used for analysis above of project impacts. For 

example, the impacts of past and present actions on the demography and economy of the area 

are largely captured by current baseline data on population, employment, and tax revenues and 

are incorporated in the baseline and trend assessments of the RIMS II multipliers. 

Reasonably foreseeable future actions are listed in Table 9-11. Several of these future actions 

would be expected to have cumulative socioeconomic impacts with the proposed project at the 

Martin site. The proposed Floridian Natural Gas Storage Facility in Martin County would be 

located at Indiantown, 3 mi east of the proposed Martin site on SR-710. The construction would 

likely generate added traffic on SR-710. During construction it would also generate an 

estimated 1,000 jobs in Martin County during peak employment. An estimated 250 jobs would 

be supported statewide during operations (Stronge et al. 2007-TN3302). Other proposed 

projects that would generate employment and earnings during construction and operations 

include the Florida Southeast Connection pipelines proposed through Highlands, Okeechobee 

and Martin Counties (construction 2016-2017; FSC 2014-TN3301), and various proposed CERP 

water projects. The Herbert Hoover Dike Rehabilitation Project and Dam Safety Modification 

Study will likely also generate some local expenditures in the affected area. 

Summary Statement 

The cumulative impact of the projects identified above with the proposed project at the Martin site 

would depend largely on the timing of construction. In particular, cumulative impacts on traffic 

along SR-710 could add to the adverse impact that would be expected from the proposed project 

on the Martin site. Other potential cumulative impacts that would be beneficial include increased 

employment and earnings during construction and operations. Based on the location of the 

identified future projects and their magnitudes, the cumulative socioeconomic impacts would be 

expected to be SMALL and adverse, with the exception of MODERATE adverse physical impacts 

on aesthetics and traffic; and MODERATE and beneficial impacts of property tax revenues to the 

Martin School District and MODERATE and beneficial impacts on road quality near the Martin 

site. Traffic impacts on SR-710 could add to the already MODERATE impacts of the proposed 

project on the Martin site to the point of making them LARGE, depending on the timing of 

construction. Building and operating two new nuclear units at the Martin alternative site would be 

a significant contributor to the adverse impacts that are greater than SMALL. 

9.3.3.6 Environmental Justice 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect 

EJ, including other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-11. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-136 October 2016 

The 2008–2012 American Community Survey census block groups were used to identify 

minority and low-income population distributions in the area (USCB 2012-TN4098). The census 

data for Florida characterizes 15.9 percent of the population as Black; 0.3 percent as American 

Indian or Alaskan Native; 2.5 percent as Asian; 0.1 percent as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific 

Islander; 2.6 percent as other single minorities; 2.2 percent as multiracial; 22.5 percent as 

Hispanic ethnicity; and 42.2 percent as aggregate minority. There are 1,098 block groups within 

50 mi of the Martin site. Following the criteria described in Section 2.6.1, Black minority 

populations exist in 151 block groups; American Indian or Alaskan Native minority populations 

exist in 2 block groups; Asian minority populations exist in 3 block groups; other race minority 

populations exist in 11 block groups; multiracial minority populations exist in 2 block groups; 

ethnic Hispanic minority populations exist in 116 block groups; and aggregate minority 

populations exist in 323 block groups. There are no block groups containing Native Hawaiian or 

other Pacific Islander minority populations within 50 mi of the Martin site. The locations of the 

aggregate minority populations within 50 mi of the Martin site are shown in Figure 9-13. The 

locations of Hispanic minority populations and Black minority populations within the 50 mi of the 

Martin site are shown in Figure 9-14 and Figure 9-15, respectively. 

The USCB data characterize 15.3 percent of Florida residents as low-income (USCB 2012-

TN4098). Out of a possible 1,098 block groups, 108 block groups contain low-income 

populations. The locations of the low-income populations within 50 mi of the Martin site are 

shown in Figure 9-16. 

The analyses of impacts of building and operating new nuclear reactors at the Martin site 

identified noticeable adverse impacts on land use, terrestrial and wetland ecosystems, 

aesthetics, and traffic. The review team did not identify any special pathways through which 

any impacts would disproportionately affect EJ populations of interest. Therefore, the review 

team concluded there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on EJ 

populations of interest. 

The NRC’s EJ methodology includes an assessment of affected populations of particular 

interest or with unusual circumstances, such as minority communities that are exceptionally 

dependent on subsistence resources or identifiable in compact locations (e.g., Native American 

reservations) and those that have a high density of minority or low-income groups. Based on a 

literature research, the review team did not identify high-density minority or low-income 

presence in the proximity of the site, or any differentiated subsistence consumption of natural 

resources by EJ populations of interest. 

Cumulative Impacts 

In addition to the EJ impacts from building and operations of the proposed project at the Martin 

site, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions that could have EJ impacts. Based on a literature review of past and present 

actions in the affected area, and based on the reasonably foreseeable actions listed in 

Table 9-11, the review team found no evidence that the cumulative effects would 

disproportionately impact EJ populations of interest. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-137 NUREG–2176 

Figure 9-13. Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups that Meet the 

Environmental Justice Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Martin 

Alternative Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-138 October 2016 

Figure 9-14. Hispanic Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Martin Alternative Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-139 NUREG–2176 

Figure 9-15. African American Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

Justice Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Martin Alternative Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-140 October 2016 

Figure 9-16. Low-Income Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

Justice Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Martin Alternative Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-141 NUREG–2176 

9.3.3.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 

The following cumulative impact analysis addresses building and operating two new nuclear 

power-generating units at the Martin site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect cultural resources, including the other 

Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-11. For the analysis of cultural impacts at the 

Martin site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the APE that would be defined 

for this site. This includes the direct effects APE, defined as the area physically affected by the 

site-development and operation activities at the site and within transmission line corridors. The 

indirect effects APE is defined as the area visually affected and includes an additional 0.5 mi 

radius APE around the transmission line corridors and a 1 mi radius APE around the cooling 

towers. 

Reconnaissance activities in a cultural resource review have particular meaning. Typically, they 

include preliminary field investigations to confirm the presence or absence of cultural resources. 

However, in developing this EIS, the review team relied upon reconnaissance-level information 

to perform its alternative site evaluation in accordance with ESRP 9.3 (NRC 2000-TN614). 

Reconnaissance-level information consists of data that are readily available from agencies and 

other public sources. It can also include information obtained through visits to the site area. 

The following information was used to identify the historic and cultural resources at the Martin 

site: 

 NRC Alternative Sites Visit, July 2010 (NRC 2010-TN3304) 

 FPL ER Revision 6 (FPL 2014-TN4058) 

 Florida Historical Markers program (FDHR 2014-TN3876) 

 National Register of Historic Places database (NPS 2014-TN3880). 

The approximately 11,300 ac Martin site is an FPL-owned property located in predominantly 

forested land, scattered wetlands, and agricultural land. The site has been developed for power 

generation and contains five fossil-fule–fired power units, occupying 300 ac, and a 6,800 ac 

water reservoir. A solar unit was recently constructed (FPL 2014-TN4058). Historically, the 

Martin site and vicinity were largely undeveloped and likely contained intact archaeological sites 

associated with the past 10,000 years of human settlement. Over time, the area has been 

heavily disturbed by impacts related to agricultural and industrial development. 

A search of the National Register shows that one significant historic property, the Seminole Inn 

in Indiantown, is located within 10 mi of the Martin site (FPL 2014-TN4058; NPS 2014-TN3880). 

A total of 100 properties was found in the four counties in the vicinity of the Martin site, 

consisting of Martin, Palm Beach, St. Lucie, and Okeechobee Counties. A National Register 

search of the indirect effects APE for the proposed transmission line corridor shows that only 

the single property noted above, the Seminole Inn, occurs within the area. The property lies 

approximately 4 mi to the east of the proposed transmission line route. However, the proposed 

transmission line follows an existing transmission line corridor in this area and any impacts 

caused by the addition of a new transmission line would be negligible. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-142 October 2016 

A search of the Florida Historical Markers Program (FDHR 2014-TN3876) revealed that there 

are six historic markers in Martin County, but none are found within 10 mi of the Martin site. 

One marker, for the Jupiter Indiantown Road, is located just outside Indiantown, about 4 mi from 

the transmission line corridor. In addition, there is a known archaeological resource within the 

Barley Barber Swamp adjacent to the plant property, but the area is preserved as a nature area 

and will not be directly affected. 

In 1989, FPL conducted detailed cultural resources studies for an expansion of the Coal 

Gasification/Combined-Cycle facility located on the Martin site (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

Approximately 3,300 ac of FPL’s existing plant property were assessed. However, any 

additional property required for the new nuclear generating units was not surveyed as part of the 

1989 study. The study included a review of the Florida Master Site Files, and examination of 

historical and archaeological literature, historical records, maps, and photographs. Areas 

identified as archaeologically sensitive were systematically surveyed in the field. The research 

revealed that no archaeological sites have been recorded in the 3,300 ac study area for that 

project, and the archaeological survey did not identify any new resources. 

Reconnaissance-level information indicates that there are no known historic properties located 

within surveyed portions of the existing Martin plant. However, any additional land that would 

be acquired for the project has not been surveyed for archaeological or historical resources. 

Further, reconnaissance-level information shows that there are historic properties in the general 

vicinity of the site, including archaeological resources nearby and historic resources in the 

broader region. 

Building Impacts 

To accommodate the building of two nuclear generating units and associated facilities at the 

Martin site, FPL estimates that the total area of land that would be disturbed would be 

approximately 362 ac for the facility footprint. In addition, a 39.3 mi long paved road and a 

4.3 mi long railroad spur would need to be constructed through predominantly agricultural or 

undeveloped land (FPL 2014-TN4058). A portion of SR-710 would need to be widened, and 

21.7 ac would be disturbed for pipeline corridors and associated facilities (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

If the Martin site were chosen for the proposed project, identification of cultural resources would 

be accomplished through additional cultural resource surveys and consultation with the SHPO, 

Tribes, and interested parties. The results would be used in the site-planning process to 

address cultural resources impacts. If significant cultural resources were identified by these 

surveys, the review team assumes that FPL would use the same protective measures used at 

the Turkey Point site, and therefore the impacts would be minimal. If direct effects on significant 

cultural resources could not be avoided, land-clearing, excavation, and grading activities could 

potentially destabilize important attributes of historic and cultural resources. 

Section 9.3.3.1 describes the transmission line corridors, which will extend for a distance of 

31 mi following extant transmission line corridors for the existing Martin plant. FPL has stated 

that consideration would be given to sensitive environmental and built resources in determining 

a route for the transmission lines (FPL 2014-TN4058). If the Martin site were chosen for the 

proposed project, the review team assumes that FPL would conduct its transmission line related 

cultural resource surveys and procedures in a manner similar to that for the Turkey Point site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-143 NUREG–2176 

In addition, the review team assumes that the State of Florida’s final Conditions of Certification 

(State of Florida 2014-TN3637) regarding transmission line siting and building activities would 

also apply, and therefore impacts would be minimal. If direct effects on significant cultural 

resources could not be avoided, land-clearing, excavation, and grading activities could 

potentially destabilize important attributes of historic cultural resources. Similarly, both the 

transmission lines and nuclear power-generating units could indirectly affect cultural and historic 

resources through visual impacts on the setting of the resources. 

Operations Impacts 

Impacts on historic and cultural resources from operation of two new nuclear generating units at 

the Martin site include those associated with the operation of new units and maintenance of 

transmission lines. The review team assumes that the same procedures developed by FPL for 

the Turkey Point site, as well as the State of Florida’s final Conditions of Certification, would be 

used for onsite and offsite maintenance activities. Consequently, the incremental effects of the 

maintenance of transmission line corridors and operation of the two new units and associated 

impacts on the cultural resources would be negligible for the direct and indirect effects APEs. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected historic and cultural 

resources include rural, agricultural, and industrial development and associated activities such 

as road construction. Table 9-11 lists past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and 

other actions that may contribute to cumulative impacts on historic and cultural resources in the 

geographic area of interest. Projects from Table 9-11 that may fall within the geographic area of 

interest for cultural resources include the Florida Gas Transmission Expansion project, the 

Florida Natural Gas Storage Facility, the FPL Martin Next-Generation Solar Energy Center, 

various water-storage and water-treatment projects, the Lake Point Mine project, and future 

urbanization. These projects may significantly affect historic and cultural resources in a manner 

similar to those associated with the building and operation of two new nuclear generating units. 

Long linear projects such as new or expanded roads and pipelines may intersect the proposed 

transmission line corridors. Because cultural resources can likely be avoided by long linear 

projects, impacts on cultural resources would likely be minimal. If building associated with such 

activities results in significant alterations of cultural resources in the transmission line corridors, 

either physical or visual, then cumulative impacts on cultural and historic resources would be 

greater. 

Cultural resources are nonrenewable. Therefore, the impact of the destruction of cultural 

resources is cumulative. Based on the information provided by FPL and the review team’s 

independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts from building 

and operating two new nuclear generating units on the Martin site would be SMALL. This 

impact-level determination is based on reconnaissance-level information and reflects the fact 

that there are no known cultural resources on the proposed site. Although the proposed 

transmission line would extend approximately 31 mi, it would follow an existing transmission line 

corridor and would only incrementally add to potential visual impacts on cultural resources. The 

assessment also assumes that, if the Martin site were to be developed, cultural resource 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-144 October 2016 

surveys and evaluations would be conducted and FPL, in consultation with SHPO, Tribes, and 

interested parties, would assess and resolve any adverse effects of the undertaking. If cultural 

or historic resources are present, and if there are adverse effects on those resources, the 

project could result in greater cumulative impacts. 

9.3.3.8 Air-Quality Impacts 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect air 

quality, including other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-11. As described in 

Section 9.3.3, the Martin site area includes five fossil-fuel–fired (gas and oil) power units; there 

are no current nuclear facilities at the site. The geographic area of interest for the Martin site is 

Martin County, which is in the Southeast Florida Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 

81.49) (TN255). 

Sections 4.7 and 5.7 discuss air-quality impacts during building and operation. The emissions 

related to building and operating a nuclear power plant at the Martin alternative site would be 

similar to those at the Turkey Point site. The air-quality attainment status for Martin County, as 

set forth in 40 CFR Part 81 (TN255), reflects the effects of past and present emissions from all 

pollutant sources in the region. Martin County is in attainment of all National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. 

As described in Chapters 4 and 5, the criteria pollutants from building and operation were found 

to have a SMALL impact on air quality. In Chapter 7, the cumulative impacts of criteria 

pollutants were evaluated and also determined to be SMALL to MODERATE. Reflecting on the 

projects listed in Table 9-11, the most significant of the facilities operating in the county are the 

five fossil-fuel–fired (oil and gas) units (Martin plant), with a combined 3,734 MW capacity, 

operating at the Martin site and a 330 MW coal-fired power plant (Indiantown Cogeneration) 

located 4 mi east of the Martin site. Emissions from power plants such as these are released 

through stacks and with significant momentum and buoyancy. In addition, a proposed liquefied 

natural-gas storage and vaporization facility (Florida Natural Gas Storage Facility) with designed 

storage capacity of eight billion cubic feet will operate at a distance of about 2 mi from the 

Martin site. Other industrial projects listed in Table 9-11 would likely have de minimis impacts. 

Given that these projects are subject to Clean Air Act permitting requirements, it is unlikely that 

the air quality in the region will degrade to the extent that the region would be in nonattainment 

of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

The air-quality impact from development of the Martin site would be local and temporary. The 

applicant would develop a dust-control plan that identifies specific measures to minimize fugitive 

dust emissions during building activities. The distance from building activities to the site 

boundary would be sufficient to generally avoid significant air-quality impacts. There are no 

land uses or projects in Table 9-11, including the aforementioned sources, that would have 

emissions during site development that would, in combination with emissions from the Martin 

site, result in degradation of air quality in the region. Emissions from operation of two new 

nuclear units at the Martin site would be intermittent and made at low levels with little or no 

vertical velocity, similar to operational impacts at the Turkey Point site, as discussed in 

Section 5.7. The air-quality impacts of the Martin fossil-fuel units are included in the baseline 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-145 NUREG–2176 

air-quality status. The air-quality impacts of the Florida Natural Gas Storage Facility would be 

similar to the air-quality impacts of the natural-gas−fired power plant units discussed in 

Section 9.2.2.10, which would be noticeable but not destabilizing. The cumulative impacts from 

emissions of effluents from the Martin site and the aforementioned sources would be noticeable 

but not destabilizing. 

The cumulative impacts of GHG emissions related to nuclear power are discussed in 

Section 7.6. The impacts of the emissions are not sensitive to location of the source. 

Consequently, the discussion in Section 7.6 is applicable to a nuclear power plant located at the 

Martin site. The review team concludes that the national and worldwide cumulative impacts of 

GHG emissions are noticeable but not destabilizing. The review team further concludes that the 

cumulative impacts would be noticeable but not destabilizing, with or without the GHG 

emissions of the two new nuclear units at the Martin site. 

The review team concludes that cumulative impacts from other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions on air-quality resources in the geographic areas of interest would be 

SMALL to MODERATE for criteria pollutants and MODERATE for GHG emissions. The 

incremental contribution of impacts on air-quality resources from building and operating two units 

at the Martin site would not be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impacts. 

9.3.3.9 Nonradiological Health 

The following analysis considers nonradiological health impacts from building and operating two 

new nuclear units at the Martin site. The analysis also includes past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative nonradiological health impacts on 

site workers (construction and operation workers) and members of the public, including other 

Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-11 within the geographic 

area of interest. Nonradiological health impacts at the Martin site are estimated based on 

information provided by FPL and the review team’s independent evaluation. For the analysis of 

nonradiological health impacts at the Martin site, the geographic area of interest is the site and 

the immediate vicinity (~2 mi radius) and the associated road and transmission line corridors. 

This geographic area of interest is based on the localized nature of nonradiological health 

impacts and is expected to encompass all nonradiological health impacts. 

Building activities with the potential to affect the health of members of the public and workers at 

the Martin site include exposure to dust and vehicle exhaust, occupational injuries, noise, and 

increased traffic associated with the transport of construction materials and personnel to and from 

the site. The operations-related activities that have the potential to affect the health of members 

of the public and workers include exposure to etiological (disease-causing) agents, noise, EMFs, 

occupational injuries, and impacts from the transport of workers to and from the site. 

Building Impacts 

Nonradiological health impacts on construction workers and members of the public from building 

two new nuclear units at the Martin site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 4.8 for 

the Turkey Point site. During the site-preparation and building phase, FPL would comply with 

applicable Federal and State regulations on air quality and noise (FPL 2014-TN4058). The 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-146 October 2016 

Martin site is located in a rural area, and building impacts would likely be negligible on the 

surrounding populations, which are classified as medium- and low-population areas. The 

incidence of construction worker accidents would be the same as that for the Turkey Point site. 

The review team concludes that nonradiological health impacts on construction workers and the 

public from building two new nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the Martin site 

would be minimal. Nonradiological health impacts associated with traffic accidents during 

building activities at the Martin alternative site were evaluated in Section 4.8.3 and the review 

team concludes that the impacts would be minimal. 

Operations Impacts 

Nonradiological health impacts on operation workers and members of the public would include 

those associated with the operation of cooling towers and transmission lines as described in 

Section 5.8. Based on the configuration of the proposed new units at the Martin site (see 

Chapter 3 for detailed site layout description), etiological agents would not be an issue with 

regard to members of the public because cooling-tower blowdown would be discharged into 

deep-injection wells not into surface waters. Impacts on workers’ health from occupational 

injuries, noise, and EMFs would be similar to those described in Section 5.8 for the Turkey Point 

site. Noise and EMF exposure would be monitored and controlled in accordance with 

applicable OSHA regulations. Although no detailed noise modeling has been performed for the 

Martin site, it is likely that noise impacts would be similar to those predicted for operations at the 

Turkey Point site. The effects of EMFs on human health would be controlled and minimized by 

conformance with National Electrical Safety Code criteria and adherence to the standards for 

transmission systems regulated by the FDEP. 

The review team concludes that nonradiological health impacts on workers and the public from 

operating two new nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the Martin site would be 

minimal. Impacts associated with traffic accidents during operations at the Martin alternative 

site were evaluated in Section 5.8.6 and the review team concludes that the impacts would be 

minimal. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The past and present project that is within the geographic area of interest that could affect 

nonradiological human health in a way similar to the building of two nuclear units at the Martin 

site identified in Table 9-11 is a combined natural-gas/oil and solar power-generating station 

adjacent to the proposed Martin site, as well as various transportation (roads, traffic, pedestrian) 

and mining/quarry projects that have occurred and are ongoing throughout the region. 

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could affect nonradiological human health in a way similar 

to the building of two nuclear units at the Martin site identified in Table 9-11 include various 

transportation (roads, traffic, pedestrian) and mining/quarry projects that are planned throughout 

the region. 

Summary Statement 

Impacts on nonradiological health from building and operation of two new units at the Martin site 

are estimated based in the information provided by FPL and the review team’s independent 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-147 NUREG–2176 

evaluation. Although some future activities in the geographical area of interest could affect 

nonradiological health in ways similar to the building and operation of two new units at the 

Martin site and associated offsite facilities, those impacts would be localized and managed 

through adherence to existing regulatory requirements. The review team concludes that 

nonradiological health impacts on workers and the public resulting from the building of two new 

nuclear units and associated road and transmission lines at the Martin site would be minimal. 

The review team expects that the nonradiological health impacts on the operations employees 

and the public of two new nuclear units at the Martin site would be minimal. Finally, the review 

team concludes that cumulative impacts on nonradiological health from past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions in the geographic area of interest would be SMALL. 

9.3.3.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect 

radiological health, including other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-11. As 

described in Section 9.3.3, Martin is a fossil-fuel power plant and a solar power plant site; there 

are currently no nuclear facilities on the site. The geographic area of interest is the area within 

a 50 mi radius of the Martin site. St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 (i.e., two nuclear power plants) are the 

only major facilities within this geographic area of interest that potentially affect radiological 

health. In addition, there are likely to be medical, industrial, and research facilities within 50 mi 

of the Martin site that use radioactive materials. 

The radiological impacts of building and operating the two proposed Westinghouse AP1000 

nuclear power units at the Martin site include doses from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous 

radioactive effluents. These pathways would result in low doses to people and biota offsite that 

would be well below regulatory limits. These impacts are expected to be similar to those 

estimated for the Turkey Point site. 

The radiological impacts of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 include doses from direct radiation and liquid 

and gaseous radioactive effluents. These pathways result in low doses to people and biota 

offsite that are well below regulatory limits as demonstrated by the ongoing radiological 

environmental monitoring program conducted around St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. The NRC staff 

concludes that the dose from direct radiation and effluents from hospitals and industrial facilities 

that use radioactive material would be an insignificant contribution to the cumulative impact 

around the Martin site. This conclusion is based on data from the radiological environmental 

monitoring programs conducted around currently operating nuclear power plants. 

Based on the information provided by FPL and the NRC staff's independent analysis, the NRC 

staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts from building and operating the two 

proposed Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear power units and other existing and planned projects 

and actions in the geographic area of interest around the Martin site would be SMALL. 

9.3.3.11 Postulated Accidents 

The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from postulated accidents from the 

operation of two nuclear units at the Martin alternative site. The analysis also considers other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect radiological health from 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-148 October 2016 

postulated accidents, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 

Table 9-11. As described in Section 9.3.3, the Martin site is a brownfield site with existing solar 

power and fossil-fuel facilities. There are currently no nuclear facilities at the site. The 

geographic area of interest considers all existing and proposed nuclear power plants that have 

the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences (i.e., risks) from a severe 

accident at any location within 50 mi of the Martin alternative site. Facilities potentially affecting 

radiological accident risk within this geographic area of interest are the existing two units of 

St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. 

As described in Section 5.11.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences 

of DBAs at the Turkey Point site would be minimal for AP1000 reactors. DBAs are addressed 

specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet NRC safety criteria. 

The environmental consequences of DBAs depend on the plant design and the atmospheric 

dispersion. The AP1000 design is independent of site conditions and the differences in 

meteorology of the Martin alternative and Turkey Point sites are not significant with regard to the 

conditions that are important to assessing DBAs. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 

environmental consequences of DBAs at the Martin alternative site would be minimal. 

With the lower population density and land-use values for the Martin alternative site, the NRC 

staff expects the risks from a severe accident for an AP1000 reactor located at the Martin 

alternative site to be similar to or lower than those analyzed for the proposed Turkey Point site. 

The risks for the proposed Turkey Point site were presented in Tables 5-19 and 5-20 and are 

well below the median value for current-generation reactors. In addition, as discussed in 

Section 5.11.2, estimates of average individual early fatality and latent cancer fatality risks are 

well below the Commission's safety goals (51 FR 30028) (TN594). For existing plants within the 

geographic area of interest (St. Lucie Units 1 and 2), the Commission has determined that the 

probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are small (10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B, 

Table B-1) (TN250). On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative risks from 

severe accidents at any location within 50 mi of the Martin alternative site would be SMALL. 

9.3.4 Okeechobee 2 Site 

This section covers the review team’s evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting 

a new two-unit nuclear power plant at the Okeechobee 2 alternative site in central Florida. The 

site is located in a rural area in Okeechobee County east of the Kissimmee River and north of 

Lake Okeechobee. Okeechobee 2 is a greenfield site not currently owned by FPL (2014-

TN4058) The location of the Okeechobee 2 site is shown in Figure 9-17. 

The Okeechobee site is a 3,000 ac undeveloped greenfield site. The majority of the site is 

currently used for agriculture and contains a lot of pasture for cattle and dairy farms as well as 

citrus fields. Topography does not vary considerably over the site (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

FPL assumed the facility footprint (Figure 9-18) that would include the power units, support 

buildings, switchyard, storage areas, stormwater-retention ponds, and other structures would 

require 362 ac. Building at the Okeechobee site would also require the creation of a 

transmission line corridor of approximately 38 mi, a 9.3 mi access road (112.3 ac), installation of 

3.9 mi of railway (46.6 ac), and an intake/makeup pipeline (22.5 ac). The area permanently 

affected by these facilities and infrastructure (except the transmission line) is approximately 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-149 NUREG–2176 

Figure 9-17. Okeechobee 2 Site Region 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-150 October 2016 

Figure 9-18. Okeechobee 2 Site Footprint 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-151 NUREG–2176 

502 ac. The conceptual transmission line corridor would occupy an additional 3,022 ac. 

Additional area (up to several hundred acres) would be temporarily disturbed for activities such 

as laydown areas, a batch plant, and for fill and spoil deposition (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

As discussed in Section 9.3.1.7, the review team considered an alternative configuration of the 

cooling system that FPL proposed. 

The following sections include a cumulative impact assessment conducted for each major 

resource area. The specific resources and components that could be affected by the 

incremental effects of the proposed action if implemented at the Okeechobee 2 site and other 

actions in the same geographic area were considered. This assessment includes the impacts of 

NRC-authorized construction and operations and impacts of preconstruction activities. Also 

included in the assessment are past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future Federal, nonFederal, and private actions that could have meaningful cumulative impacts when considered 

together with the proposed action if implemented at the Okeechobee 2 site. Other actions and 

projects considered in this cumulative analysis are described in Table 9-16. 

The geographic area of interest for cumulative impacts considers all existing and proposed 

nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences 

(i.e., risks) from a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the Okeechobee 2 site. An 

accident at a nuclear plant within 100 mi of the Okeechobee 2 site could increase this risk. The 

St. Lucie nuclear plant is within 50 mi of the Okeechobee 2 site and is included in Table 9-16. 

Other nuclear plants in Florida, Alabama, and Georgia are more than 100 mi from the 

Okeechobee 2 site and are therefore not included in the cumulative impact analysis. 

Table 9-16. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions in 

the Vicinity of the Okeechobee 2 Site 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Energy Projects 

St. Lucie Two 3,020 MW(t) nuclear 

power reactors 

43 mi E of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational, Units 1 and 2 

underwent license renewal 

in 2003. Units 1 and 2 

completed 320 MW(t) power 

uprates in 2013 (NRC 2012-

TN1668; FPL 2014-

TN3360) 

West County 

Energy Center 

Three 1,250 MW naturalgas−powered units 

50 mi SE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (FDEP 2013-

TN2965) 

Martin Approximately 4,300 MW 

from five units, 3 natural-gas 

and 2 oil units with a solar 

thermal facility generating 

supplemental steam 

26 mi SE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (FPL 2016-

TN4579) 

Indiantown 

Cogeneration 

Company 

330 MW coal-fired power 

plant 

29 mi SE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (FDEP 2013-

TN2967) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-152 October 2016 

Table 9-16. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Okeelanta 

Cogeneration 

Facility 

140 MW biomass powergeneration facility 47 mi S of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (FDEP 2013-

TN2968) 

FPL pipeline 126 mi pipeline from 

Sabal Trail’s Central 

Florida Hub to FPL’s 

Martin Clean Energy 

Center 

Throughout 

region 

Proposed, construction set 

to begin 2016 (FPL 2014-

TN2975) 

Floridian Natural 

Gas Storage 

Company – Natural 

Gas Storage Facility 

Storage of natural gas 29 mi SE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Proposed, FERC Order 

amending Certificate issued 

(FERC 2015-TN4599) with 

associated Environmental 

Assessment (FERC 2015-

TN4600) 

Southeastern 

Renewable Fuels 

Biorefinery and 

Cogeneration Plant 

30 MW biofuel using 

leftover sweet sorghum 

stalk fiber 

45 mi S of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Proposed, final air permit 

issued by FDEP in 2010 

(FDEP 2010-TN2970) 

Treasure Coast 

Energy Center 

300 MW natural-gas–fired 

power plant 

35 mi E of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (FMPA 2014-

TN3029) 

INEOS New Planet 

Bioenergy Center 

6.3 MW bioenergy facility 36 mi NE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2014-

TN3032) 

Okeechobee 

Landfill Energy 

Waste-to-energy facility 16 mi NE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (Waste 

Management 2014-

TN3034) 

Mining Projects

Five Stone Mining Stone/quarry mining 29 mi SE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2013-

TN2959) 

Daniel Shell Pit, 

Phase 6 

Stone/quarry mining 4 mi SE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2013-

TN2956) 

E R Jahna 

Industries, Inc. – 

Ortona Mine 

Stone/quarry mining 37 mi SW of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2013-

TN2958) 

Florida Rock 

Industries/Fort 

Pierce 

Stone/quarry mining 25 mi E of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2014-

TN3038) 

Hammond Sand 

Mine 

Sand/quarry mining 41 mi NE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2014-

TN3044) 

Various other mine Stone/quarry mining Throughout Operational (FDEP 2010-
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-153 NUREG–2176 

Table 9-16. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

and quarry projects region TN2966) 

Transportation Projects

Various 

transportation 

projects 

Road, traffic, pedestrian 

projects 

Throughout 

region 

Ongoing (FDOT 2014-

TN4014)

Parks and Aquaculture Facilities

DuPuis Wildlife and 

Environmental Area 

Activities include 

bicycling, camping, 

hunting, fishing, and 

hiking 

27 mi SE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Development likely limited 

within this area 

(FFWCC 2014-TN2977) 

Okeechobee 

Battlefield State 

Park 

Hiking, camping 9 mi SE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Development likely limited 

within this area 

(FDEP 2010-TN2971) 

Archbold Biological 

Station 

Ecological research 

station and preserve, 

organization owns and 

protects a 5,193 ac 

globally significant Florida 

scrub preserve located on 

the southern end of the 

Lake Wales Ridge 

26 mi SW of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Development likely limited 

within this area (Archbold 

Biological Station 2014-

TN2954) 

Lake Okeechobee 730 mi2 freshwater lake, 

restoration and protection 

plan 

7-37 mi S and 

SW of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Ongoing, Florida 

Legislature in 2007 

expanded the Lake 

Okeechobee Protection Act 

(SFWMD 2014-TN2988)

Savannas Preserve 

State Park 

Activities include 

bicycling, boating, 

horseback riding, 

picnicking, fishing, and 

hiking 

38 mi E of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Development likely limited 

within this area (Florida 

State Parks 2014-TN3050) 

Fort Pierce Inlet 

State Park 

Activities include 

bicycling, camping, 

boating, swimming, 

picnicking, fishing, and 

hiking 

41 mi NE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Development likely limited 

within this area (Florida 

State Parks 2014-TN3053) 

Pepper Beach State 

Recreation Area 

Activities include 

swimming, picnicking, 

fishing, and hiking 

41 mi NE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Development likely limited 

within this area (St. Lucie 

County 2014-TN3054) 

St. Sebastian River 

Preserve State Park 

Activities include 

bicycling, camping, 

boating, picnicking, 

fishing, and hiking 

42 mi NE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Development likely limited 

within this area (Florida 

State Parks 2014-TN3055) 

Hobe Sound 

National Wildlife 

Activities include fishing, 

and hiking 

49 mi NE of the 

Okeechobee 

Development likely limited 

within this area (FWS 2013-
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-154 October 2016 

Table 9-16. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Refuge alternative site TN3056) 

 

Kissimmee Prairie 

Preserve State Park 

Activities include 

bicycling, horseback 

riding, camping, wildlife 

viewing, and hiking 

21 mi NW of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Development likely limited 

within this area (Florida 

State Parks 2014-TN3196) 

Other State nature 

preserves and 

wildlife 

management areas 

Public recreational 

activities 

Throughout 

region 

Development likely limited 

within these areas 

(FFWCC 2014-TN2981) 

Everglades Ecosystem Restoration and/or Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 

Projects (DOI 2016-TN4589) 

Indian River Lagoon 

-South 

Project purpose is to 

improve surface-water 

management in the C23/C-24, C-25, and C-44 

basins for habitat 

improvement in the Saint 

Lucie River Estuary and 

southern portions of the 

Indian River Lagoon. 

41 mi NE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Proposed, project in 

preconstruction, 

engineering and design 

phase (USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-TN3013) 

Everglades 

Agricultural Area 

Storage Reservoirs 

The purpose of this 

project is to improve the 

timing of environmental 

deliveries to the Water 

Conservation Areas, 

including reducing 

damaging flood releases 

from the Everglades 

Agricultural Area to the 

Water Conservation 

Areas. 

Throughout 

region 

Proposed, Final Project 

Implementation Report 

submitted 2012 (USACE 

and SFWMD 2014-TN3011) 

Lake Okeechobee 

Aquifer Storage and 

Recovery 

A series of aquifer 

storage and recovery 

wells adjacent to Lake 

Okeechobee 

6 mi SE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Proposed, project in 

preconstruction, 

engineering and design 

phase (USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-TN3014) 

Lake Okeechobee 

Watershed Project 

Project to increase 

aquatic and wildlife 

habitat, regulate extreme 

highs and lows in lake 

staging, reduce 

phosphorus loading, and 

reduce damaging 

releases to the 

Throughout 

Okeechobee 

County 

Proposed, project in 

preconstruction, 

engineering and design 

phase (USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-TN3015) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-155 NUREG–2176 

Table 9-16. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

surrounding estuaries 

Melaleuca 

eradication and 

other exotic plants 

The project includes (1) 

upgrading and retrofitting 

the current quarantine 

facility in Gainesville, and 

(2) large-scale rearing of 

approved biological 

control organisms for 

release at multiple sites 

within the South Florida 

ecosystem to control 

Melaleuca, Brazilian 

pepper, Australian pine, 

and Old World climbing 

fern. 

Throughout 

region 

Operational, facility 

completed in 2013 (USACE 

and SFWMD 2014-TN3020) 

Palm Beach County 

Agriculture Reserve 

Aquifer Storage and 

Recovery 

Supplement water 

supplies for central and 

southern Palm Beach 

County by capturing and 

storing excess water 

currently discharged to 

the Lake Worth Lagoon. 

35 mi SE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Proposed, project in 

preconstruction, 

engineering and design 

phase (USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-TN3019) 

Herbert Hoover 

Dike Major 

Rehabilitation 

Project 

Rehabilitation Project and 

Dam Safety Modification 

Study 

3-40 mi S of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Proposed – Environmental 

Assessment and FONSI 

issued in 2015 

(USACE 2015-TN4598) 

Draft Environmental Report 

issued (DOI 2016-TN4589) 

Comprehensive 

Shoreline 

Stabilization Project 

in Palm Beach 

County 

Discharge fill for the 

purpose of shoreline 

stabilization 

Shoreline of 

Palm Beach 

County 

USACE submitted Notice of 

Intent in 2013 (78 FR 

40128) (TN3059); EIS 

completed (CB&I 2014-

TN4015) 

Kissimmee River 

Restoration 

When restoration is 

completed in 2017, more 

than 40 mi2 of riverfloodplain ecosystem will 

be restored, including 

almost 20,000 ac of 

wetlands and 44 mi of 

historic river channel. 

Along 

Kissimmee River 

Ongoing (USACE 2014-

TN3061; DOI 2016-

TN4589) 

Other Actions/Projects

Atlantic Sugar 

Association 

Sugar manufacturing 41 mi SE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (FDEP 2013-

TN2964) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-156 October 2016 

Table 9-16. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Southern Gardens 

Citrus Processing 

Corp. 

Food 

production/distribution 

37 mi S of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (FDEP 2013-

TN2969) 

United States Sugar 

Corporation 

Clewiston 

Sugar manufacturing 35 mi S of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2014-

TN2963) 

Harbor Branch 

Oceanographic 

Institute 

Oceanic Science and 

Research 

41 mi NE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2014-

TN3071) 

Pratt & Whitney Aircraft engine and 

engine parts 

manufacturing 

45 mi SE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2014-

TN3062) 

Maverick Boat 

Company 

Fiberglass boat 

manufacturing 

39 mi NE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2014-

TN3063) 

Tropicana Products, 

Inc. 

Citrus and animal feed 34 mi NE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2014-

TN3068) 

S2 Yachts, Inc. Fiberglass boat 

manufacturing 

39 mi NE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2013-

TN3069) 

Twin Vee, Inc. Fiberglass boat 

manufacturing 

39 mi NE of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2013-

TN3070) 

Avon Park Air Force 

Range 

Military training facility 25 mi NW of the 

Okeechobee 

alternative site 

Operational (APAFR 2014-

TN3195) 

Various 

wastewatertreatment plant 

facilities 

Sewage treatment Throughout 

region 

Operational 

Various hospitals 

using nuclear 

material 

Medical and other 

industrial isotopes 

Throughout 

region 

Ongoing 

Various water/ 

flood-management 

projects 

Water and flood 

management 

Throughout 

region 

Ongoing (USACE 2012-

TN1133) 

Future urbanization Construction of housing 

units and associated 

commercial buildings; 

roads, bridges, and rail; 

construction of waterand/or wastewatertreatment and distribution 

facilities and associated 

Throughout 

region 

Construction would occur in 

the future, as described in 

State and local land-use 

planning documents 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-157 NUREG–2176 

Table 9-16. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

pipelines, as described in 

local land-use planning 

documents. 

9.3.4.1 Land Use 

The following analysis includes land-use impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

affect land use, including other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-16. For the 

analysis of land-use impacts at the Okeechobee 2 site and the area within the transmission line 

corridors, the review team determined that a 10 mi radius, similar to that used for the proposed 

Turkey Point plant site, would encompass an effective geographic area of interest for cumulative 

impact assessment for land use. It would include the site and associated facilities and the city 

of Okeechobee 8 mi to the east. In evaluating the land-use impacts of using the Okeechobee 2 

site, the review team used in addition to the project application, readily obtainable data from the 

Internet or published sources, including aerial photographs of the site and vicinity, USDA soils 

information, local zoning and planning documents, and FLUCFCS data. Impacts from both 

building and station operation are discussed. 

Building and Operation Impacts 

Okeechobee County is a rural county, largely devoted to agriculture and other rural land uses. 

Existing land uses in the vicinity of the Okeechobee 2 alternative site consist predominantly of 

agriculture. The nearest community is Okeechobee (2004 population under 5,500) 

(Okeechobee 2011-TN3308), the county seat of Okeechobee County, and the only incorporated 

city in Okeechobee County. The larger region is primarily devoted to agriculture, with scattered 

small rural communities. The closest population center with more than 25,000 population is 

Port St. Lucie, 80 mi to the east. The Okeechobee 2 alternative site is located approximately 

2 mi east of the Kissimmee River and 7.6 mi northwest of Lake Okeechobee 

(Okeechobee 2011-TN3308). 

Existing land uses at the Okeechobee 2 site consist of agriculture (FPL 2014-TN4058). No 

commercial mineral resources are identified in the site and vicinity (Calver 1956-TN3752; 

Spencer 1993-TN3753). No substantial areas of developed land uses occur on or within the 

vicinity of the site. Recreational areas, including the River Bluff Recreational Vehicle and 

Fishing Resort, are located to the west along the Kissimmee River. The Okeechobee County 

Comprehensive Plan identifies future land use on the FLUM (Okeechobee County 2012-

TN3347) at and in the vicinity of the Okeechobee 2 alternative site as “Rural Estate” (1 unit per 

5 ac) south of SR-70 and “Agriculture” north of SR-70. 

A Rural Activity Center, the River Oaks Rural Activity Center, is identified on the Okeechobee 

County FLUM near the Okeechobee alternative site. The Okeechobee County Comprehensive 

Plan Future Land Use Element defines a Rural Activity Center as follows (Okeechobee 

County 2009-TN3348): 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-158 October 2016 

Policy L1.4: Rural Activity Center: Rural Activity Centers accommodate low 

densities of development outside of the Urban Residential Mixed Use area. 

Public supply water and sewer facilities generally are not available, nor are they 

anticipated to be available during the planning period. Where appropriate or 

required, however, a developer may provide a package treatment plant or 

otherwise provide for adequate public supply potable water and sewage facilities. 

A Rural Activity Center generally acknowledges existing communities or 

subdivisions, and provides decentralized job creation and economic 

opportunities. A rural activity center can provide for self-supporting communities 

so as to reduce dependence on the one existing urban area in the County for all 

employment opportunities and goods and services. Accordingly, Rural Activity 

Centers allow for existing and future agricultural and residential uses, as well as 

for recreational, public, neighborhood commercial and light industrial uses that 

support or complement agricultural uses or residential and community 

development and that provide employment or economic opportunities. Specific 

locations of Rural Activity Centers are shown on the Future Land Use Map series 

and are intended to separate urban from non-urban uses. Additional Rural 

Activity Centers shall require an amendment to the Future Land Use Map series. 

The land uses and intensities of development permissible within a Rural Activity 

Center must meet the requirements of concurrency. 

A Rural Activity Center provides for agricultural, recreational, residential, 

neighborhood commercial and certain light industrial uses, subject to 

compatibility and buffering criteria provided in local land development 

regulations. Neighborhood commercial uses and, where permissible, 

light industrial uses, shall constitute no more than the greater of 30 acres 

or 5 percent of the total area of a Rural Activity Center; shall not exceed a 

floor area ratio of 1.0; and shall not exceed impervious surface coverage 

of 70 percent. Subject to density and intensity criteria as established by 

this Policy. 

The Okeechobee County Comprehensive Plan provides for the following for the River Oaks 

Rural Activity Center: 

River Oaks (J): Residential development not to exceed a density of 1 unit per 

gross acre, agricultural, recreational and public uses. 

The River Oaks Rural Activity Center would encompass the existing River Oaks development, 

through which roadways associated with the Okeechobee 2 alternative site would run, and for 

that reason, use of the Okeechobee 2 alternative site for a power plant may not be compatible 

with the Okeechobee County FLUM. For the other areas designated for rural residential land 

uses in the vicinity of the alternative site, the power plant use could be compatible, based on 

site design, but would represent a change in land use for the site and vicinity. 

None of the soils on the plant site are considered by USDA to be Prime farmlands (USDA 2014-

TN3349). Most of the soils in the vicinity of the plant site are not considered by USDA to be 

Prime farmlands, but small areas of soils in the vicinity are considered to be Unique farmlands 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-159 NUREG–2176 

(USDA 2014-TN3350). Unique farmland is defined in Section 2(c) of the Farmland Protection 

Policy Act (7 U.S.C. § 4201 et seq.) (TN708) as “land, other than Prime farmland, that has 

combined conditions to produce sustained high quality and high yields of specialty crops, such 

as citrus, nuts, fruits, and vegetables when properly managed.” Therefore, no Prime farmland 

soils and only a minimal amount of Unique farmland soils would be lost. No part of the site or 

vicinity falls within the Coastal Zone (FPL 2014-TN4058). As FPL states in its ER (FPL 2014-

TN4058) and as shown on the Okeechobee County FIRM map Panel 175 of 275 dated 

February 4, 1981, portions of the plant site fall within the 100-year flood zone, and as FPL 

states in its ER (FPL 2014-TN4058) some areas would require unspecified amounts of fill. 

Building and operation of the project at the Okeechobee 2 alternative site would result in the 

conversion of existing land uses, including approximately 149 ac from agriculture (on non-Prime 

farmlands) to power-generation uses as shown in Table 9-17 below. The new plant would also 

convert approximately 354 ac of other undeveloped lands to power-generation use. Roadways 

would run through approximately 40 ac of existing developed lands associated with the existing 

River Oaks housing and airport development (AirNav 2014-TN3309). The total land conversion 

on the site would be approximately 543 ac. 

Table 9-17. Okeechobee 2 Alternative Site Land-Use Impacts (acres) 

Agricultural 

Lands 

(FLUCFCS 200 

Land Use 

Series) 

Urban 

Developed 

Lands (other 

than roads 

and pipelines) 

Other NonAgricultural 

Lands (all other 

FLUCFCS 

designations) Total 

Plant Site 45 0 275 320 

Access Roads 50 40 22 112 

Rail Corridor 35 0 12 47 

Intake Pipeline Corridor 16 0 2 19 

Makeup Pipeline Corridor 3 0 0.4 4 

Stormwater-Retention Ponds 0 0 42 42 

Total(a) 149 40 354 543 

Transmission Line Corridor 2,431 0 592 3,022 

Grand Total 2,580 40 945 3,566 

(a) Totals may not add due to rounding 

Sources: FPL 2011-TN59 and FPL 2014-TN4058 

Additional land-use impacts include possible additional growth and land conversions in the 

vicinity to accommodate new workers and services (induced development). Because the 

workforce would be dispersed over larger geographic areas in the labor supply region, the 

impacts from land conversion for residential and commercial buildings induced by new workers 

relocating to the local area can be absorbed in the wider region. Therefore, the review team 

concludes that such impacts would be minimal. 

Approximately 38 mi of new transmission lines would have to be built to serve the plant. FPL 

states in its application (FPL 2014-TN4058) that some of the transmission lines would pass 

through the Coastal Zone. Approximately 3,022 ac of land would be at least temporarily 

affected. Of this land, approximately 2,431 ac are agricultural land, and the remainder is 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-160 October 2016 

primarily open lands and roadways. The agricultural land within the transmission line corridors 

would be converted from agricultural use to transmission line use, although FPL states in its ER 

(FPL 2014-TN4058) that agriculture could continue within and along the transmission line rightsof-way. 

Under the Florida Site Certification Application process explained in Chapter 4.1, the State 

approves a corridor and the applicant chooses a specific right-of-way within the approved 

corridor. The objective of this process, as stated in the electrical power plant and transmission 

line statute (Fla. Stat. 29-403.501 2011-TN1068) is “that the location of transmission line 

corridors and the construction, operation, and maintenance of electric transmission lines 

produce minimal adverse effects on the environment and public health, safety, and welfare” and 

“to fully balance the need for transmission lines with the broad interests of the public in order to 

effect a reasonable balance between the need for the facility as a means of providing reliable, 

economical, and efficient electric energy and the impact on the public and the environment 

resulting from the location of the transmission line corridor and the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the transmission lines.” FPL states in its application that, in its development of 

the conceptual transmission line corridor for the Okeechobee 2 alternative site, it attempted to 

select corridors that would allow collocation with existing transmission line corridors and avoided 

populated areas or residential land uses to some extent (FPL 2014-TN4058). The State 

certification review process also includes a determination of land-use consistency with local 

land-use plans and zoning ordinances (Fla. Stat. 29-403.50665-TN1470). 

The review team concludes that the land-use impacts from building and operating two new 

nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 alternative site would noticeably change the predominantly 

rural and agricultural character of the surrounding landscape and potentially result in conflicts 

with nearby rural residential and recreational areas, especially those associated with the River 

Oaks Rural Activity Center. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The review team expects that the principal contribution to cumulative land-use impacts in the 

geographic area of interest defined for the Okeechobee 2 site would be from the two subject 

nuclear units. There are no other reasonably foreseeable projects in the geographic area of 

interest with the potential to substantially contribute to cumulative land-use impacts. The 

Okeechobee County FLUM designates the land surrounding the Okeechobee 2 site for activities 

typical of rural areas. Other linear projects are proposed for lands near the proposed 

conceptual corridors for the transmission lines, including the Florida Gas Transmission Phase 

VIII Expansion Project. However, the review team expects that these corridors would have only 

a minimal cumulative land-use impact. 

Summary Statement 

Based on the information provided by FPL and the review team’s independent review, the 

review team concludes that the cumulative land-use impacts of building and operating the 

power plant at the Okeechobee 2 alternative site would be MODERATE. This conclusion 

primarily reflects the fact that plans do not call for large-scale establishment of industrial or 

urban land uses in the area surrounding the Okeechobee 2 site. Building and operating the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-161 NUREG–2176 

proposed nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 site would be a significant, and the principal, 

contributor to these impacts. 

9.3.4.2 Water Use and Quality 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building and operating two new nuclear 

units at the Okeechobee 2 site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect water use and quality, including the other 

Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-16. The Okeechobee 2 site is located in rural 

Okeechobee County in Florida near the Kissimmee River, which flows into Lake Okeechobee. 

The geographic area of interest for surface water at the Okeechobee 2 site is the KissimmeeOkeechobee-Everglades watershed because this is the resource that would be affected if the 

proposed project were located at the Okeechobee 2 site. The Kissimmee-OkeechobeeEverglades watershed includes an area of about 9,000 mi2 (McPherson and Halley 1996-TN98). 

For groundwater, the ROI includes (1) the surficial aquifer and the Upper Floridan aquifer at the 

site, (2) the APPZ of the Middle Floridan aquifer upgradient and downgradient of the site for 

water withdrawals, and (3) and the Boulder Zone of the Lower Floridan aquifer upgradient and 

downgradient of the site for disposal of blowdown water. 

Building Impacts 

Water use for building activities at the Okeechobee 2 site would be comparable to proposed 

water use for building activities for the Turkey Point site. During building, the peak water use is 

estimated to be 565 gpm (0.8 Mgd) (see Table 3-4). The review team assumes that water for 

building the two units at the Okeechobee 2 site would come from a combination of surface water 

and groundwater. Surface water from the Kissimmee River may be available for building 

purposes during times of high river flows. The peak water-use rate of 0.8 Mgd during the 

building phase is inconsequential when compared to the historic average monthly flow in the 

Kissimmee River; the water use rate is less than 1 percent of the river discharge for even the 

lowest month reported (January 1963). Surface water from onsite stormwater ponds and 

groundwater from excavation dewatering may also be used, when available, for building 

purposes. Groundwater from the surficial aquifer would be used for building purposes when 

excess surface water is not available. The SFWMD would regulate any use of surface or 

shallow groundwater for plant construction. 

The review team concludes that the impact of using surface-water and groundwater for building 

the proposed units at the Okeechobee 2 site would be minimal for the following reasons: 

 Withdrawal is inconsequential compared to the water resources in the Lake Okeechobee 

watershed. 

 Any use of surface water or shallow groundwater would be regulated by SFWMD and limited 

to time periods when there would not be a negative impact on the Lake Okeechobee system 

or shallow aquifers. 

 Water use for building would be limited to the building period and the peak use of 0.8 Mgd is 

much less than the average 46.51 Mgd groundwater withdrawal rate reported for 

Okeechobee County in 2005 (Marella 2009-TN1521). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-162 October 2016 

The review team assumes that the impact of dewatering the excavations needed for building 

two units at the site would be managed through the installation of diaphragm walls and grouting 

as proposed for the Turkey Point site. Therefore, because groundwater withdrawal caused by 

dewatering would be controlled, the review team determined that there would be little or no 

impact on groundwater resources. 

Surface-water quality would potentially be affected by surface-water stormwater runoff during 

site preparation and the building of the facilities. The FDEP would require FPL to develop an 

erosion and sediment control plan before initiation of site-disturbance activities (SWPPP) 

(FPL 2014-TN4058). 

The plans would identify BMPs to control the impacts on surface-water quality caused by 

stormwater runoff. The review team anticipates that FPL would construct new 

detention/infiltration ponds and drainage ditches to control delivery of sediment from the 

disturbed area to onsite waterbodies. Sediment carried with stormwater from the disturbed area 

would settle in the detention ponds and the stormwater would infiltrate into the shallow aquifer. 

Implementation of BMPs should minimize impacts on surface waterbodies near the 

Okeechobee 2 site. Therefore, the surface-water−quality impacts near the Okeechobee 2 site 

would be temporary and minimal. 

While building new nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 site, groundwater quality may be affected 

by leaching of spilled effluents into the subsurface. The review team assumes that the BMPs 

FPL has proposed for the Turkey Point site would be in place during building activities and 

therefore the review team concludes that any spills would be quickly detected and remediated. 

In addition, groundwater impacts would be limited to the duration of these activities, and 

therefore, would be temporary. The review team reviewed the general BMPs that could be 

expected to be required at such a site (State of Florida 2014-TN3637). Because any spills 

related to building activities would be quickly remediated under BMPs, and the activities would 

be temporary, the review team concludes that the groundwater-quality impacts on the surficial 

aquifer from building at the Okeechobee 2 site would be minimal. 

Wastewater streams from building activities could be injected into the Boulder Zone of the 

Lower Floridan aquifer as planned at Turkey Point (FPL 2014-TN4058). Construction and 

operation of the disposal wells would be performed under the conditions of a UIC permit issued 

by the FDEP, with the objective of protecting water quality within the APPZ and overlying 

aquifers. 

Operations Impacts 

FPL (2014-TN4058) indicates that the water needed to operate two units would be 

approximately 50,000 gpm or 72.7 Mgd. As indicated in Chapter 3, evaporative losses from 

cooling two units would be approximately 28,800 gpm (41.5 Mgd). 

The review team assumed that the two units at the Okeechobee 2 site would primarily use 

brackish groundwater from the APPZ within the Avon Park formation for makeup cooling water. 

This relatively permeable zone is considered part of the Middle Floridan aquifer and is more 

than 1,000 ft below the ground surface near the Okeechobee 2 site. The SFWMD has informed 

the NRC that consumptive use of surface water from Lake Okeechobee or its tributaries would 

be limited (SFWMD 2012-TN3814). Use of water from the Lake Okeechobee or the Kissimmee 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-163 NUREG–2176 

River would also have to avoid any negative impact on restoration projects including the 

Kissimmee River Restoration Project. Surface water could potentially be used only at times of 

excess surface-water flow that typically occur during the wet season. 

The APPZ aquifer is not generally used because of the salinity of its water (FPL 2013-TN3052). 

Therefore, current impacts of using this water for power production are minor. Because 

brackish or saline groundwater is not in demand, use of this resource would not result in wateruse conflicts. However, groundwater in the Middle Floridan aquifer at this site is a potential 

source of brackish water for desalinization. If demand for desalinization source water increases, 

water for the plant may be obtained from deeper, more saline formations. 

Blowdown discharge and other wastewater streams would be pumped into the Boulder Zone of 

the Lower Floridan aquifer. The Boulder Zone is isolated from the APPZ by low-permeability 

units. Additional low-permeability confining units separate the APPZ from the overlying Upper 

Floridan aquifer. Construction and operation of the disposal wells would be performed under 

the conditions of a UIC permit issued by the FDEP. 

As indicated in Chapter 3, the consumptive water use due to evaporative losses from cooling 

two units would be approximately 28,800 gpm (41.5 Mgd). However, the review team assumed 

that surface water would only be consumed during periods of excess flow, thereby precluding 

water-use conflicts. 

During the operation of two new nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 site, impacts on surfacewater quality would be minimal because wastes would be injected into the Boulder Zone and not 

released to the surface water. FPL has also indicated it would capture rainfall runoff to use in 

the cooling-water system (FPL 2013-TN3052), thereby minimizing the amount of discharge to 

surface water from stormwater runoff. The FDEP would require FPL to develop a SWPPP 

(FPL 2014-TN4058). These plans would identify measures to be used to control stormwater 

runoff. All discharges to surface waterbodies would be required to comply with limits 

established by FDEP in a NPDES permit. 

During the operation of the two units at the Okeechobee 2 site, impacts on groundwater quality 

could result from potential spills. Spills that might affect the quality of groundwater would be 

prevented and mitigated by BMPs. Like the proposed site, any wastewater at this inland 

alternative site would be combined with cooling-tower blowdown and discharged into the 

Boulder Zone with no loss of beneficial uses of the water resource. 

Cumulative Impacts 

In addition to water-use and water-quality impacts from building and operations activities, 

cumulative analysis considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

affect the same water resources. 

For the cumulative analysis of impacts on surface water and groundwater at the Okeechobee 2 

site, the geographic area of interest is the same as what was considered for building and 

operational impacts, and was defined earlier in this section. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-164 October 2016 

Actions that have past, present, and future potential impacts on water supply and water quality 

near the Okeechobee 2 site include existing agriculture and existing and future urbanization in 

the region. 

Cumulative Impacts on Water Use 

The impacts of the other projects listed in Table 9-16 are considered in the analysis included 

above or would have little or no adverse impact on surface-water use. The projects believed to 

have little impact are excluded from the analysis either because they are too distant from the 

Okeechobee 2 site, use relatively little or no surface water, or have little or no discharge to 

surface water. Some projects (for example park and forest management) are ongoing, and 

changes in their operations that would have large impacts on surface-water use appear unlikely. 

In 2000, the Florida Legislature passed the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act to establish a 

restoration and protection program for the lake (SFWMD et al. 2011-TN3087; SFWMD 2010-

TN3086). Part of the focus of this act was to restore the natural hydrology of the system after 

years of altering the natural drainage around the lake to permit development of the land and to 

reduce flood damage. The State of Florida and the Federal government are spending hundreds 

of millions of dollars to restore the Lake Okeechobee and other water resources in the 

watershed; therefore, the review team concluded that the cumulative impact on surface-water 

use would be MODERATE. 

Surface-water use during the building and operation of two units at the Okeechobee 2 site 

would consist of occasional water use for building and operations. As discussed above, surface 

water would only be withdrawn during periods of excess flow, such as storm runoff. Therefore, 

the review team concluded that building and operating the proposed units at the Okeechobee 2 

site would not be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impacts on surface-water use. 

As stated above, the review team assumed that any use of shallow groundwater to build the 

units at the Okeechobee 2 site would be regulated by the SFWMD. If this source is not 

available in sufficient quantity for building activities, brackish groundwater from the APPZ could 

be used for some building activities. Groundwater impacts from dewatering would be controlled 

with diaphragm walls and grouting. Brackish groundwater from the APPZ would be used to 

operate the plant except when excess surface water is available. The APPZ aquifer is not 

generally used because of the salinity of its water (FPL 2013-TN3052). Because brackish or 

saline groundwater is not in demand, use of this resource would not result in water-use conflicts. 

The impacts of the other projects listed in Table 9-16 are considered elsewhere in this analysis 

or else would have little or no adverse impact on groundwater use. The projects believed to 

have little impact are excluded from the analysis either because they are too distant from the 

Okeechobee 2 site, or use relatively little or no groundwater. Some projects (for example park 

and forest management) are ongoing, and changes in their operations that would have large 

impacts on groundwater use appear unlikely. Therefore, the review team concludes that 

cumulative impacts on groundwater use would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-165 NUREG–2176 

Cumulative Impacts on Water Quality 

Point and non-point discharges have affected the surface-water quality of the Lake Okeechobee 

watershed and the Kissimmee River upstream and downstream of the site. Water-quality 

information presented above for the impacts of building and operating the proposed new units at 

the Okeechobee 2 site would also apply to evaluation of cumulative impacts. The Kissimmee 

River appears on Florida’s list of impaired waters because of the presence of nutrients, fecal 

coliform, depressed dissolved oxygen, copper, and mercury in fish tissue (FDEP 2014-

TN4139). Lake Okeechobee has been the target of extensive efforts to reduce nutrient loading 

and improve water quality (SFWMD et al. 2011-TN3087). Therefore, the review team 

concluded that the cumulative impact on surface-water quality of the receiving waterbody would 

be MODERATE. During the operation of two new nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 site, 

impacts on surface-water quality from the units would be minimal because plant discharges 

would be injected into the Boulder Zone and not released to the surface water. The State of 

Florida requires an applicant to develop a SWPPP (FPL 2014-TN4058) and all discharges to 

surface waterbodies would be required to comply with limits established by FDEP in a NPDES 

permit. Such permits are designed to protect water quality. The SWPPP would identify 

measures to be used to control stormwater runoff (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

The review team concluded that building and operating the proposed units at the Okeechobee 2 

site would not be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impacts on surface-water quality, 

because industrial and wastewater discharges from the proposed units would be discharged 

directly to the Boulder Zone and any stormwater runoff from the site during operations would be 

managed in compliance with the SWPPP (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

The APPZ aquifer is not generally used due to the salinity of the water (FPL 2013-TN3052). 

Because brackish or saline groundwater is not in demand, use of this resource would not result 

in water-use conflicts. The review team also concludes that with the implementation of BMPs, 

the impacts on shallow groundwater quality from building and operating two new nuclear units at 

the Okeechobee 2 site would likely be minimal. Therefore, the cumulative impact on 

groundwater quality would be SMALL. The impacts of other projects listed in Table 9-16 are 

either considered in the analysis included above or would have little or no impact on surfacewater and groundwater quality. 

9.3.4.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources 

The following section addresses potential impacts on terrestrial resources from siting two new 

nuclear units on the Okeechobee 2 site and a conceptual transmission line corridor. A new 

corridor would have to be built crossing Okeechobee and St. Lucie Counties and would tie into 

an existing corridor that crosses Martin and Palm Beach Counties. Most of the Okeechobee 2 

site has been disturbed and is primarily used for pasture. Primary land-cover classes include 

improved pasture, unimproved pasture, woodland pasture, wet prairie, freshwater marsh, mixed 

wetland hardwoods, and citrus groves. These major land-cover classes compose most of the 

proposed footprint for the plant, access road, rail corridor, and pipeline corridor as well as most 

of the new portion of the conceptual transmission line corridor (FPL 2011-TN59). 

Information from the FWS indicates Okeechobee County hosts 11 terrestrial species listed as 

Federally endangered or threatened. Additional listed species occur in St. Lucie, Martin, and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-166 October 2016 

Palm Beach Counties through which the transmission line would pass. Surveys were not 

conducted at the Okeechobee 2 site or within conceptual transmission line corridors to 

determine the presence and distribution of listed species. To develop Table 9-18, the review 

team determined the likelihood of occurrence of listed species based on the habitat preferences 

of each species and the land-cover types expected. Habitat preferences for Audubon’s crested 

caracara, the Florida grasshopper sparrow, Everglade snail kite, Florida scrub jay, ivory-billed 

woodpecker, red-cockaded woodpecker, wood stork, whooping crane, Florida panther, and 

eastern indigo snake were discussed in the Glades alternative site section. Therefore only 

Florida bonneted bat (Eumpos floridanus) habitat preferences are discussed below. 

Table 9-18. Federally Listed Terrestrial Species that May Occur on the Okeechobee 2 Site 

or within the Conceptual Transmission Line Corridor

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status 

Birds 

Polyborus plancus audubonii Audubon’s crested caracara Threatened 

Ammodramus savannarum floridanus Florida grasshopper sparrow Endangered 

Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus Everglade snail kite Endangered 

Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida scrub jay Threatened 

Campephilus principalis Ivory-billed woodpecker Endangered 

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered 

Mycteria americana Wood stork Threatened 

Grus americana Whooping crane Endangered 

Dendroica kirdlandii Kirtland’s warbler(a) Endangered 

Charadrius melodus Piping plover(a) Threatened 

Calidris canutus rufa Red knot(a) Threatened 

Mammals 

Eumops floridanus Florida bonneted bat Endangered 

Puma concolor coryi Florida panther Endangered 

Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris Southeastern beach mouse(a) Threatened 

Reptiles 

Drymarchon corais couperi Eastern indigo snake Threatened 

Invertebrates 

Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri Miami blue(a) Endangered 

Strymon acis bartrami Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak(a) Endangered 

Anaea troglodyte floridalis Florida leafwing(a) Endangered 

Plants 

Jacquemontia reclinata Beach jacquemontia(a) Endangered 

Asimina tetramera Four-petal pawpaw(a) Endangered 

Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis Okeechobee gourd(a) Endangered 

Polygala smallii Tiny polygala(a) Endangered 

Cladonia perforata Florida perforate cladonia(a) Endangered 

(a) Additional listed species occurring in Palm Beach County (FWS 2014-TN3759). 

Relatively little is known about habitat preferences of the Florida bonneted bat. This bat species 

roosts in both natural and artificial structures including hollow trees, palm leaves, rock crevices, 

and artificial bat houses (78 FR 61004) (TN2659). They forage for flying insects high over 

freshwater wetlands, streams, and ponds. They are generally associated with pinelands, but 

have been observed in forested, suburban, and urban landscapes in South Florida. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-167 NUREG–2176 

Recreationally important species observed on the nearby Kissimmee River Public Use Area and 

expected to occur on the Okeechobee 2 site include white-tailed deer, feral hog, raccoon, 

turkey, opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), armadillo (Dasypus 

novemcinctus), beaver (Castor canadensis), coyote, bobcat, mourning dove, and bobwhite quail 

(FFWCC 2014-TN3004). Numerous waterfowl species would also be expected to occur in 

suitable habitats on the Okeechobee 2 site. 

Building Impacts 

Typical impacts from building nuclear units include permanent and temporary habitat loss from 

development, habitat fragmentation and degradation, disturbance and displacement of 

individuals, exposure of wildlife to increased noise levels and human presence, and increased 

risk of vehicle collision mortality. The conversion of fully developed and stable plant 

communities to earlier successional communities dominated by lower growing vegetation during 

development of linear transmission or pipeline corridors often results in a high degree of habitat 

fragmentation within the landscape. 

FPL assumed a 362 ac area within the Okeechobee 2 site for evaluating potential impacts of 

building two new nuclear power reactors and associated stormwater ponds and other 

infrastructure plus an additional 3,000 ac for a cooling-water storage reservoir (FPL 2014-

TN4058). The review team determined, however, that cooling water could be obtained from 

groundwater beneath the Okeechobee 2 site and that the cooling-water storage reservoir was 

unnecessary. FPL stated offsite facilities and development would also be required to construct 

and operate nuclear power plants at the Okeechobee 2 site. These include a 9.3 mi access 

road, 3.9 mi rail line, and pipeline corridors connecting the Kissimmee River to the site. The 

access road would add approximately 112 ac to the project footprint, the rail line would add 

approximately 47 ac, and the intake/makeup pipeline corridors would add approximately 23 ac. 

Because impacts from the plant area, access road, rail line, pipeline corridors, and stormwaterretention ponds result in permanent habitat loss they are discussed first. 

Plant Facilities 

If the plant facilities, access road, rail line, and pipelines were built within the proposed footprint, 

FPL estimated 543 ac would be affected (Table 9-19). Most of the affected habitat consists of 

wet prairie, improved pasture, and freshwater marsh (FPL 2011-TN59). 

Table 9-19. Acreage within the Conceptual Footprint at the Okeechobee 2 Site 

FLUCFCS Code Description 

Site and Non-Transmission 

(ac) 

Transmission 

(ac) 

200-series Agriculture 190 2,431 

300-series Uplands 5 22 

400-series Forest 1 25 

500-600 series Water and Wetlands 306 545 

100, 700, and 800 series Developed 40 0 

Total 542 3,023 

Source: FPL 2011-TN59
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-168 October 2016 

Surveys of the occurrence, abundance, and distribution of Federally listed species have not 

been performed for the Okeechobee 2 site. Most of the listed species that occur in Okeechobee 

County could potentially occur on the Okeechobee 2 site, because suitable habitats are likely 

present. The exception is the ivory-billed woodpecker because there are no large tracts of oldgrowth forested wetlands present. The Federally listed species that could be affected most by 

the building of two nuclear plants at the Okeechobee 2 site are Audubon’s crested caracara, 

Florida grasshopper sparrow, and the whooping crane because of the loss of a combined 

403 ac of wet prairie and improved pasture. However, the Florida grasshopper sparrow is only 

known to occur in Okeechobee County at the Kissimmee Prairie Preserve State Park 

approximately 20 mi north of the Okeechobee 2 site, so this species may not be affected by 

habitat loss at the site (FWS 2008-TN2516). Loss of freshwater wetlands could reduce foraging 

habitat for the wood stork because the Okeechobee 2 site lies within the core foraging area of 

an active wood stork colony (FWS 2014-TN3732). Loss of freshwater wetlands could also 

reduce the amount of habitat available to the Everglade snail kite, whooping crane, and the 

Florida bonneted bat. Dry prairies in the vicinity are interspersed with oak and could be suitable 

habitat for the Florida scrub jay, but only 2.1 ac of dry prairie would be lost (FPL 2011-TN59). 

Eastern indigo snakes are habitat generalists, are widely distributed, and likely occur on the 

Okeechobee 2 site. They would be prone to increased mortality from land clearing and 

increased traffic during construction and operation. As with use of the Turkey Point site, 

mitigation requirements by the FFWCC, including staff awareness training and reporting, would 

minimize negative impacts on the eastern indigo snake. Habitat loss would also affect local 

populations of wildlife expected to occur within the region in suitable habitat that are not 

Federally listed. However, these effects are not expected to be noticeable and would not 

destabilize even local populations of any of these animals. 

Transmission Lines and Access Roads 

FPL assumed a new 38 mi long conceptual transmission line corridor from the Okeechobee 2 

site to an existing corridor would be necessary to service power plants at the Okeechobee 2 

site. FPL estimated this corridor would occupy 3,022 ac of additional land (Table 9-19). The 

conceptual transmission line corridor is dominated by pasture cover; over half is improved 

pasture, which covers 1,611 ac. Unimproved pasture covers an additional 302 ac, and 

woodland pastures cover another 281 ac. The sum of these pasturelands is almost 73 percent 

of the corridor. The remaining area includes additional uplands as well as wetlands. Uplands 

that are currently used for agriculture include 122 ac of citrus groves, 79 ac of field crops, and 

36 ac of dairies. Undeveloped uplands within the corridor include 22 ac of dry prairie, 17 ac of 

live oak forest, 10 ac of hydric pine flatwoods, 6 ac of hardwood-coniferous forest, 2 ac of pine 

flatwoods, and a minor amount shrub and brushland. Wetland cover within the corridor includes 

196 ac of freshwater marsh, 91 ac of wet prairie, 50 ac of mixed forested wetlands, 13 ac of 

cypress, and minor amounts of small waterways (ditches and streams). Impacts of the 

transmission line corridor on habitat are mostly alteration and fragmentation. Trees could be 

removed from as much as 560 ac of forest cover within the corridor and replaced with lowgrowing vegetation, including 244 ac of various forested wetland cover types (FPL 2011-TN59). 

Because the conceptual transmission line corridor passes through a portion of St. Lucie, Martin, 

and Palm Beach Counties as well as Okeechobee County, the review team also considered 

impacts on Federally listed species and those species proposed for Federal listing known to 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-169 NUREG–2176 

occur in any of these counties. The piping plover, red knot, Florida grasshopper sparrow, 

southeastern beach mouse, Miami blue butterfly, Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly (Strymon 

acis bartrami), Florida leafwing butterfly (Anaea troglodyte floridalis), beach jacquemontia, 

Florida perforate cladonia, four-petal pawpaw, tiny polygala, and the Florida prairie-clover are 

not expected to occur near the conceptual transmission line corridor and would not be affected. 

Although a substantial portion of the conceptual transmission line corridor is likely suitable 

habitat for Audubon’s crested caracara, the installation and operation of transmission lines 

would not result in the permanent loss of all of the pasturelands that could provide habitat for 

this species. Habitat within the footprint of the tower pads and access road would be 

permanently lost but represents a small portion of the actual corridor. The likelihood of nonnative plants being accidentally introduced would also increase and could result in habitat 

alteration. Approximately 196 ac of the corridor would be freshwater marsh, the primary habitat 

for the Everglade snail kite and whooping crane that is also used by wood storks (FPL 2011-

TN59). Building a transmission line and access road through marsh habitat could lower habitat 

value by altering surface-water flow and increasing potential erosion. Removal of trees from the 

corridor could reduce nest sites within the freshwater marsh habitat for these three species. 

Elimination of trees from the live oak cover would measurably degrade the value of oak habitat 

to the Florida scrub jay, but this would only affect 17 ac (FPL 2011-TN59). The removal of trees 

from 18 ac of hardwood-coniferous forest, hydric pine flatwoods, and pine flatwoods could also 

lower the value of these habitats for the red-cockaded woodpecker. Removal of trees from the 

landscape could also result in less roosting habitat for the Florida bonneted bat. The Corbett 

substation is located southeast of Lake Okeechobee within a FWS Florida panther management 

zone. The landscape immediately around the substation and toward Lake Okeechobee 

appears to be used almost exclusively for agriculture. The installation of transmission lines here 

would likely not fragment potential panther habitat because the land-cover information within the 

corridor indicated it would not pass through the DuPuis Wildlife and Environmental Area, J.W. 

Corbett Wildlife Management Area, or the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife 

Refuge. The eastern indigo snake inhabits many upland habitats. Conversion of habitats from 

forest to low-growing vegetation would not necessarily decrease habitat suitability for this 

species, and increased heterogeneity within the landscape may actually increase habitat quality. 

FPL stated field surveys would be conducted for Federally listed and State-protected species as 

part of the permitting process before any preconstruction activities would occur at the 

Okeechobee 2 site (FPL 2014-TN4058). Site-preparation activities would be conducted in 

accordance with all Federal and State regulations, permit conditions, and BMPs, including the 

use of directed drainage ditches and silt fencing. Acreage within the conceptual transmission 

line corridor was minimized to the extent possible by using the most direct route while avoiding 

areas with important resources and high biological value. FPL also stated that any wetland 

functions affected within the transmission line corridor would be replaced or restored. 

Operations Impacts 

Operation of two nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 site would create noise, fogging and 

dissolved solid deposition from cooling towers, runoff from increased impermeable surfaces, 

light pollution, and increased vehicle collision mortality for local wildlife populations. Operation 

of transmission lines could increase the risk of bird collision and electrocution mortality. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-170 October 2016 

The review team assumed the facility configuration would be similar to building at the Turkey 

Point site. Operational noise from the cooling towers may displace individual animals from the 

immediate vicinity of the cooling towers. Salinity within cooling water obtained from 

groundwater beneath the Okeechobee 2 site is assumed by the staff to be equal to that of 

seawater. Vapor leaving a cooling tower contains dissolved solids including salt, and some 

vegetation can be sensitive to salt deposition. The review team also assumed salt deposition 

from cooling-tower drift at the Okeechobee 2 site would be similar in scale and intensity to 

deposition at the Turkey Point site. Most of the salt would likely be deposited on developed land 

near the cooling towers, and concentrations as high as 10 kg/ha/mo that have resulted in 

observable effects on sensitive plant species could be expected as far as 1.25 mi from the 

cooling towers. Unlike Turkey Point, the Okeechobee 2 site is located inland, and vegetation 

growing there would not be expected to be as tolerant to atmospheric-deposited salt. Some 

sensitive vegetation could be affected by salt drift, but the spatial extent would be limited and 

the humidity and frequent rainfall typical of South Florida would quickly dissipate salt deposited 

in the landscape and prevent salt accumulation to levels that could be harmful. 

The creation of impermeable surfaces and a stormwater runoff management system at the 

Okeechobee 2 site would likely result in changes in the surface-water flow pattern. Increases or 

decreases in the amount and timing of flow could result in changes in vegetative cover but 

would be limited to areas immediately surrounding developed areas. There is little relief at the 

site, so the potential for erosion and siltation of surrounding wetlands would be low. However, 

pollutants could be transported by runoff into the surrounding wetlands. 

Light pollution during facility operation could affect wildlife residing on or migrating through the 

Okeechobee site. Design criteria could include minimization of upward lighting, turning off 

unnecessary lighting between 11 p.m. and sunrise, and luminary selection and mounting to 

provide light only where needed (FPL 2014-TN4058). If these actions are taken, the review 

team expects that impacts from light pollution on wildlife would be minimal. 

Whooping cranes, wood storks, and Audubon’s crested caracaras have been killed by electric 

utility structures in Florida (FPL 2011-TN1283) and may be particularly prone to collision and 

electrocution mortality. A nonmigratory population of endangered whooping cranes has been 

established at the Kissimmee Prairie in central Florida approximately 20 mi north of the 

Okeechobee 2 site (58 FR 5647) (TN3324). This population is officially designated as an 

experimental nonessential population. The Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge 

approximately 140 mi northwest of the Okeechobee 2 site also supports migratory whooping 

cranes during the winter. Whooping cranes travel long distances and the conceptual 

transmission line corridor supporting the Okeechobee 2 site contains suitable whooping crane 

habitat. Transmission lines connecting the site to the Corbett substation in Palm Beach County 

would have to pass through core foraging areas of multiple wood stork nesting colonies 

(FWS 2014-TN3732). However, like the whooping crane, the risk of collision and electrocution 

mortality for the wood stork increases if transmission lines are operated within their range and 

there is suitable habitat within the transmission right-of-way. The level of risk is commensurate 

with the location of the transmission lines and wood stork nesting colonies, foraging habitat, and 

travel corridors. The review team assumed the FWS would regulate wire installation near wood 

stork colonies, foraging habitat, and flight corridors as it would at the Turkey Point site, but it 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-171 NUREG–2176 

could still affect local wood stork and snail kite populations. Operational effects on other 

important species would be minimal. 

EMFs are unlike other agents that have an adverse impact (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing 

radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be demonstrated and long-term effects, if they 

exist, are subtle (NRC 2013-TN2654). A careful review of biological and physical studies of 

EMFs did not reveal consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures 

(NRC 2013-TN2654). The impacts of EMFs on terrestrial flora and fauna are of small 

significance at operating nuclear power plants, including transmission systems with variable 

numbers of power lines and lines energized at levels less than 765 kV (NRC 2013-TN2654). 

Since 1997, more than a dozen studies have been published that looked at cancer in animals 

that were exposed to EMFs for all or most of their lives (Moulder 2005-TN1329). These studies 

have found no evidence that EMFs cause any specific types of cancer in rats or mice (Moulder 

2005-TN1329). Therefore, the incremental EMF impact posed by operation of existing 

transmission lines and the addition of new lines for two new nuclear units would be negligible at 

the Okeechobee 2 alternative site. 

Transmission line corridor vegetation-management activities (cutting and herbicide application) 

and related impacts on floodplains and wetlands in transmission line corridors are of minor 

significance at operating nuclear power plants, including those with transmission line corridors 

of variable widths (NRC 2013-TN2654). Consequently, the incremental effects of transmission 

line corridor maintenance and associated impacts on floodplains and wetlands for two new 

nuclear units would be negligible at the Okeechobee 2 site. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The geographic area of interest for the assessment of the potential cumulative impacts of 

building and operating a new reactor at the Okeechobee 2 site and other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions on terrestrial resources and wetlands is defined as being 

the 50 mi radius around the Okeechobee 2 site. A list of past, present, and reasonable 

foreseeable actions within 50 mi of the Okeechobee 2 site is presented in Table 9-16. This list 

includes a variety of energy-production projects, mining, manufacturing, transportation and 

infrastructure-development projects, set-aside areas for recreation and conservation, CERPrelated projects, and other miscellaneous activities that could affect terrestrial and wetland 

resources. 

Past land use in South Florida, especially agriculture and more recently urbanization, has 

greatly affected the distribution and abundance of unfragmented plant and wildlife habitats still 

remaining. Development and urbanization of higher elevation lands has further reduced the 

amount of valuable upland habitats remaining in the landscape. Ditching and draining created 

more dry land, reducing the amount of wetlands available as habitat and fragmenting the natural 

landscape. The continued operation and maintenance of existing facilities would likely not 

exacerbate the current situation with respect to terrestrial and wetland ecosystems. Mining 

activities have the potential to expand their footprint and development in general on the 

landscape, as does continued human population growth in South Florida. Lands set aside for 

recreation and conservation provide buffers against development, provide habitat for plants and 

animals, and serve to preserve the ecosystem remaining in South Florida. Projects that 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-172 October 2016 

continue to incrementally reverse changes in land cover due to man-made changes in surfacewater flow, including CERP-related activities, would continue to benefit the terrestrial and 

wetland ecology of the region. 

As described in Chapter 7, terrestrial and wetland environments in South Florida may also be 

affected by continued population growth and related development. The overall impact from 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities on regional terrestrial and wetland 

ecology is substantial. 

Summary Statement 

Fragmentation and loss of natural habitats from agriculture and urbanization have changed and 

will continue to change the ecology of South Florida. Although much of the landscape around 

the Okeechobee 2 site has already been converted to pastures, the Okeechobee 2 site is still 

dominated by wetland habitats. Habitats of significant ecological value in South Florida that 

would be affected by the construction and operation of new nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 

site include freshwater marsh, wet prairie, and bay swamp. Based on the information provided 

by FPL and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the 

cumulative impacts on terrestrial and wetland resources of building and operating two new 

nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 alternative site, including impacts attributable to permanent 

conversion of habitat for the facility footprint as well as operation of the cooling tower and 

transmission lines, would be MODERATE. The incremental effect of the building and operation 

of two new nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 site would be a significant contributor to this 

impact primarily because of the impacts on wetlands and intact upland habitat. 

9.3.4.4 Aquatic Resources 

What follows is an assessment of the potential impacts on aquatic resources that may occur if 

the two nuclear units described in FPL (2014-TN4058) were constructed and operated at the 

Okeechobee 2 site. Based on a review of potential cooling-water sources discussed in Section 

9.3.4.2, the review team assumes no cooling ponds or reverse osmosis facilities would be 

required for the Okeechobee 2 site. 

Okeechobee 2 is a 3,000 ac site located in Okeechobee County approximately 8 mi west of the 

town of Okeechobee (Figure 9-17). The property is not owned by FPL, and is currently used to 

support cattle and dairy operations, and citrus production. The Kissimmee River is 2 mi west of 

the site, and Lake Okeechobee is approximately 8 mi southeast. As described by FPL, the 

proposed facility would occupy approximately 362 ac, and the conceptual transmission line 

corridor would extend 38 mi and encompass approximately 3,022 ac. The site would also 

require approximately 112 ac for access roads, 47 ac for a rail line, and 23 ac for a pipeline 

extending from the plant to the Kissimmee, where cooling water would be withdrawn from a 

surface-water intake during high-flow events. Groundwater would be used for reactor cooling at 

other times. Several hundred additional acres may be required to support construction 

activities, including laydown areas, batch plants, and fill or spoil areas. 

As described elsewhere in this EIS, South Florida has undergone significant development and 

channelization to enable development and industry. Beginning in the 1960s and early 1970s, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-173 NUREG–2176 

the Kissimmee River was channelized, two-thirds of its floodplain was drained, and excavation 

of the canal and spoils disposal destroyed one-third of the river channel. These actions 

degraded the natural environment, significantly affected ecosystem function, and resulted in 

declines of waterfowl, wading birds, and fish. Subsequently, restoration actions by the USACE 

and others are occurring, with the goal of reestablishing the river’s historical hydrological 

patterns, creating more natural fluctuations of water levels, and enhancing fish and wildlife 

habitat. 

Commercial and Recreational Species 

Given its hydrological connection to Lake Okeechobee, aquatic species found in the Kissimmee 

River in the vicinity of the Okeechobee 2 site will likely be similar to those found in the lake. 

Thus, aquatic species in the Kissimmee River would likely include smaller bait fish and larger 

piscivores, including crappie, catfish, and bream, which have recreational and commercial 

importance. As described above, the goal of current and future restoration actions is to 

reestablish the river’s natural hydrologic patterns to enhance aquatic resource populations. 

Important Species 

Based on the hydraulic connections described above, the important species present in Lake 

Okeechobee are likely present in the portion of the Kissimmee River near the lake. These 

would include a variety of forage fish like Threadfin Shad and Inland Silversides, and larger 

predators like the Largemouth Bass and Black Crappie (USACE 2013-TN2847; Zhang and 

Sharfstein 2013-TN2894). Important species are similar to those listed for Glades in Section 

9.3.2.4. 

Non-Native or Nuisance Species 

As noted in the above summaries for the Glades and Martin sites, Lake Okeechobee and the 

connecting canal and river systems contain a variety of non-native and nuisance species. Many 

of these species would likely be present in the Kissimmee River near the Okeechobee 2 site. 

Federally and State-Listed Species and Critical Habitats 

Based on an FNAI search conducted by the review team, the only Federal and State-listed 

species likely to occur near the Okeechobee 2 site are the American alligator and the Florida 

manatee (FNAI 2013-TN2901). As described in Section 2.4.2, American alligators are found in 

swamps, rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds throughout the southeastern United States where 

fresh or brackish water is present. Florida manatee are found in shallow rivers, bays, estuaries 

and coastal waters, and have been observed in Lake Okeechobee. No designated critical 

habitat for either species is found near the Okeechobee 2 site, but the manatee consultation 

area includes Lake Okeechobee (FWS 2003-TN2916). 

Construction Impacts 

Based on information provided by FPL, the 362 ac required for the plant would primarily affect 

the existing farmland and agriculture present in the area. Some existing drainage ditches that 

support a seasonal population of some of the fish species listed above may be adversely 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-174 October 2016 

affected. Construction of the surface-water intake on the Kissimmee River may result in shortterm increases in water turbidity, and some disturbance of the shoreline area. Impacts would be 

temporary, largely mitigable, and minor. Construction of the surface-water intake on the 

Kissimmee River would result in temporary displacement of aquatic biota in the immediate area, 

and likely short-term increases in water turbidity. Construction of water pipelines would likely 

occur in previously disturbed areas, or locations where aquatic resources are not present. 

Construction of the proposed transmission lines would affect approximately 3,022 ac that would 

include previously disturbed areas, existing rights-of-way, forests, and agricultural land. FPL 

has indicated field surveys for Federally or State-listed species would be conducted prior to 

construction at the site or within transmission line corridors. Impacts would be the same as 

those described for the Glades site in Section 9.3.2.4. 

Operations Impacts 

As described in Section 9.3.4.2, the review team assumes groundwater would be the primary 

source of cooling water, with supplemental water from Lake Okeechobee or the Kissimmee 

River being available intermittently when excess surface water is available, typically during the 

wet season. Thus, the effects of impingement and entrainment of aquatic biota would be 

reduced. Assuming the intake conforms to current EPA standards, through-screen velocities 

are expected to be protective of the aquatic environment and any impingement or entrainment 

that does occur should not result in noticeable changes in aquatic biota species composition or 

abundance. It is assumed impingement and entrainment of biota from the river would not result 

in a noticeable impact on aquatic resources. Because cooling-tower blowdown would be 

discharged into the Boulder Zone of the Lower Floridan aquifer, surface-water resources would 

not be adversely affected. There is no available information about biological communities that 

may be present in Bounder Zone formations near the Okeechobee 2 site, so it is not possible to 

determine whether a complete exposure pathway is present or assess potential biological 

effects. Thus, the potential risk of chemical exposure to aquatic resources resulting from the 

discharge of cooling-tower blowdown cannot be determined 

Based on an NRC assessment of a similar cooling system proposed at the Levy site in western 

Florida using brackish saltwater for cooling-tower makeup water (NRC 2012-TN1976), coolingtower drift impacts on aquatic resources would likely be minimal, because deposition would be 

expected to occur primarily on plant property or adjacent agricultural lands. Impacts would be 

the same as those described for the Glades site in Section 9.3.2.4. No detectable increase in 

surface-water salinity resulting from salt-drift deposition is anticipated. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Table 9-16 summarizes the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and other 

actions in the vicinity of the Okeechobee 2 site. As previously noted, these activities include 

existing and proposed energy projects, rock-mining activities, transportation projects, parks and 

aquaculture facilities, and restoration activities funded by CERP or others. Existing or potential 

energy projects near the Okeechobee 2 site include one nuclear plant (St. Lucie), and a variety 

of others using fossil fuels, biofuels, or solar technologies. The area also supports numerous 

general aviation airports that may require limited expansion in response to population increases. 

Rock mining also occurs within 50 mi of the Okeechobee 2 site and is expected to continue. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-175 NUREG–2176 

This area of South Florida also includes dozens of parks, scenic trails, wildlife refuges, 

preserves, and environmental areas, which protect natural resources and provide a variety of 

recreational opportunities. This area will also benefit from a variety of existing or proposed 

restoration projects that focus on improving surface-water management and water quality, and 

those enhancing efforts to control invasive species. Ongoing restoration projects on the 

Kissimmee River north of the Okeechobee 2 site will provide a positive cumulative effect by 

restoring natural river flow and function that benefit aquatic and terrestrial resources. 

In addition to the projects described above that may result in negative, positive, or neutral 

cumulative impacts on aquatic biota, this part of South Florida will continue to experience 

increased population growth and development. Overall the review team concludes that the 

cumulative impacts on aquatic resources in the vicinity of the Okeechobee 2 site would be 

MODERATE. 

Summary Statement 

Based on a review of the information provided by FPL and the review team’s independent 

assessment, it is likely the construction and operation of a nuclear power-generating station, as 

described above for the Okeechobee 2 site, would contribute only minimally to the cumulative 

effects likely to occur in that portion of South Florida. Although the construction of nuclear units 

at the Okeechobee 2 site would affect existing agricultural and farm land, adverse effects on 

aquatic resources would be unlikely. Construction of the surface-water intake on the Kissimmee 

River may result in temporary, localized impacts that would not adversely affect aquatic 

resources in the river. The use of water from the Kissimmee River during high-flow events may 

relieve some of the flooding concerns associated with Lake Okeechobee and the connecting 

canals, and result in lower discharges into these systems to maintain lake level and protect the 

Herbert Hoover dike system. Some impingement and entrainment losses are expected, but 

assuming a closed-cycle cooling system and compliance with the EPA’s 316(b) Phase I 

requirements for intake structures (66 FR 65256) (TN243), the intake is considered protective of 

aquatic life and the anticipated impacts due to impingement and entrainment are considered 

minimal. Furthermore, the intakes would likely be only operated intermittently throughout the 

year when surface water is available. Impingement or entrainment that does occur should not 

result in noticeable changes in aquatic biota species composition or abundance. Thus, the 

review team concludes that the cumulative impacts of building and operatiing two new nuclear 

reactors at the Okeechobee 2 site, combined with the other past, present, or reasonably 

foreseeable activities on aquatic resources would be MODERATE, but building and operating 

two new nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 site would not be a significant contributor to the 

MODERATE impact. 

9.3.4.5 Socioeconomics 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

affect socioeconomics, including other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-16. 

For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the Okeechobee 2 site, the geographic area of 

interest is considered to be the 50 mi region centered on the Okeechobee 2 site with special 

consideration of Okeechobee, Glades, Highlands, Palm Beach, Indian River, Martin and St. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-176 October 2016 

Lucie Counties because that is where the review team expects socioeconomic impacts to be the 

greatest. In evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of site development and operation at the 

Okeechobee 2 site near Okeechobee in Okeechobee County, the review team used readily 

obtainable data from the Internet or published sources. Impacts from both building and station 

operation are discussed. 

Physical Impacts 

People who work or live around the site would be exposed to noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous 

emissions from building and operations activities. Noise, dust, and air-pollution emissions 

generated within the boundaries of the Okeechobee 2 site would be expected to be similar to 

those at the Turkey Point site. Because the surrounding site is rural and sparsely populated 

and because noise and air-pollution impacts are attenuated by distance, members of the 

surrounding population exposed would be relatively few and the impacts would be expected to 

be negligible. Best practices and applicable regulations would be expected to protect building 

workers and personnel working onsite. Truck and vehicle traffic related to building and 

operations would generate noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous emissions offsite. In addition, 

offsite structures include a transmission line and intake/makeup pipelines (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

Because the area affected by offsite structures and traffic would also be rural and sparsely 

populated and because FPL would be expected to implement a dust-control plan similar to that 

for the Turkey Point site, noise and air-pollution impacts from these offsite activities would be 

expected to be minor. 

Based on FPL’s conceptual site layout for the Okeechobee 2 site (FPL 2011-TN59) and on 

aerial photography, there is one structure within the boundaries of the proposed site. There are 

also pastures that would be lost. Offsite project-related building activities include widening of 

9.3 mi of SR-70 and a 3.9 mi railway. The impact on road quality based on any road 

improvements made by the applicant to facilitate project-related traffic would only affect a small 

population base, and therefore that impact would be minor and beneficial. Other offsite projectrelated building activities include a 38 mi transmission line and intake/makeup pipelines 

(FPL 2014-TN4058). The conceptual design of these activities routes them, to the extent 

possible, along existing rights-of-way and avoids populated areas and residences (FPL 2014-

TN4058). The physical impacts on existing structures and crops within the proposed site and 

offsite areas for supporting infrastructure would be minor. 

The area around the site is relatively flat, sparsely populated, and is used mainly as farmland. 

Building would use cranes (which could exceed 400 ft in height) and would alter the regional 

viewscape. Construction of the transmission lines would pose similar impacts. The power plant 

and water-intake facilities would likely be visible from several angles and contrast highly with the 

present viewscape. Building and operation would noticeably alter the aesthetics of the area. 

Because of the sparse population, the negative impact would likely not interfere with the daily 

routine of local public around the Okeechobee 2 site and would not destabilize the aesthetic 

characteristics of the area. 

Based on the information provided by FPL (2014-TN4058) and the review team’s independent 

analysis, the review team concludes that the overall physical impacts of building activities and 

operations would be minor and adverse, with the exceptions of noticeable but not destabilizing 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-177 NUREG–2176 

adverse impacts on aesthetics and minor and beneficial impacts on road quality near the 

Okeechobee 2 site. 

Demography 

The Okeechobee 2 site is located in Okeechobee County, 1.5 mi west of Okeechobee (2012 

population 5,632) and 30 mi west of Port St. Lucie (2012 population 163,748), the closest 

population center with more than 25,000 residents (FPL 2014-TN4058; USCB 2012-TN4098). 

The population distribution within and around the Okeechobee 2 site is typically rural with low 

population densities. There are 14 counties within the 50 mi area, but the review team 

estimates the areas in which workers would most likely live and from which they would commute 

are within Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Palm Beach, Highlands, Indian River, Martin, Glades, 

Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, based on current commuter patterns.(25) For the purposes 

of assessing potential socioeconomics impacts, the review team excluded Broward and MiamiDade Counties as potential areas of residence for construction and operation workers: these 

two counties are outside of the 50 mi region at driving distances approaching 2 hours or more 

and would be less likely to accommodate workers than closer communities. Because the 

population of Broward and Miami-Dade Counties would be over 60 percent of the population of 

the nine counties together, the impacts would be distorted by the inclusion of Broward and 

Miami-Dade Counties in the potential area of residence. The remainder of the analysis focuses 

on the seven-county area of Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Palm Beach, Highlands, Indian River, 

Martin, and Glades. 

FPL estimated the peak number of workers during building would be 3,983, including 33 

operation workers. The review team assumed that the share of construction and operation 

workers relocating from outside the seven-county area would be 66 percent of the estimated 

peak number of workers. This assumption was reached by using the assumption made for the 

proposed Turkey Point site as a reference and assuming that the share of workers that would 

come from outside the region is inversely proportional to the population of the region.(26) As in 

Section 4.4, 70 percent of the construction workforce and 100 percent of the operation 

workforce that moved into the area were assumed to bring their families. Based on these 

assumptions, a peak of 2,607 construction and 22 operation workers would relocate to the area 

during the project construction phase, and 1,847 of these workers would bring their families. 

Based on an average household size of 3.25 people, the total increase in population attributable 

to the peak total workforce at the Okeechobee 2 site would be 6,036 people. An influx of 6,036 

people represents a 0.3 percent increase in the seven-county 2012 population of 2,038,496. 

FPL estimated the total onsite operations workforce to be 806 workers. As explained above, the 

review team assumed that 66 percent of these workers (532) would relocate from outside the 

 

(25) Over 80 percent of the workers in Okeechobee County currently reside in one of these nine counties 

(USCB 2011-TN4078). 

(26) The proposed Turkey Point site analysis assumed 50 percent of the peak workers would come from 

outside the 50 mi region and that 83.3 percent of those would reside in Miami-Dade County; i.e., 

41.65 percent (0.5 × 0.833) of the peak workers would migrate into Miami-Dade County. Because 

the population of the seven-county area is approximately 81 percent of that of Miami-Dade County 

(USCB 2012-TN4098), the review team assumed the share of peak workers migrating into the 

seven-county area would be 1-(0.81 × 0.4165) ≈ 66 percent. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-178 October 2016 

seven-county area. For this analysis, the review team assumed that 100 percent of operation 

workers who relocate would bring their families. Based on an average household size of 3.25 

people, the total population increase attributable to project operations is 1,729 (532 × 3.25) 

people. This represents less than a 0.1 percent increase in the seven-county area. 

The review team concluded that the impact on local demography would not be noticeable. 

Economic Impacts on the Community 

Economy 

FPL estimated the peak number of workers during building would be 3,983, including 33 

operation workers. Employment of 3,983 construction and operation workers would have 

positive economic impacts in the seven-county area. Based on a multiplier of 1.6260 jobs 

(direct and indirect) for every construction job and 2.4679 for every operation job, 3,983 new 

construction and operation jobs would create 2,522 indirect jobs, for a total of 6,505 new jobs in 

the seven-county area during peak employment (3,950 × 1.6260 + 33 × 2.4679) (FPL 2011-

TN56).(27) This represents a 0.7 percent increase in the total employment in the seven-county 

area.(28) Peak employment would last 1 month and the average employment generated during 

the 10-year building period would be about half of that of peak employment. This added 

employment would generate added earnings to the economy of the seven-county area, but the 

added employment and earnings would not be noticeable to most of those living or working in 

the area. 

An estimated 806 workers would be required for the operation of two nuclear power facilities. 

Based on a multiplier of 2.4679 jobs (direct and indirect) for every operations job at the new 

units (FPL 2011-TN56), an influx of 806 workers would create 1,183 indirect jobs for a total of 

1,989 new jobs in the region. This represents a 0.2 percent increase in the total employment in 

the seven-county area. This added employment would also generate added earnings to the 

economy of the seven-county area, but the added employment and earnings would not be 

noticeable to most of those living or working in the area. 

Taxes 

State corporate income taxes and sales and use taxes paid at the Okeechobee 2 site during 

construction and operations of the proposed units would be similar to those paid by the same 

units at the proposed Turkey Point site. As discussed in Sections 4.4 and 5.4, State taxes paid 

by the proposed units would not exceed 2 percent of the annual collected State corporate 

income and sales and use taxes. The impact would be minor and beneficial. County sales 

surtax rates in the seven-county area for the 2014 calendar year are zero percent for Martin and 

Palm Beach Counties, one-half percent for St. Lucie, and 1 percent for the remaining four 

counties (FDOR 2014-TN3393). County surtax collections from the proposed units would be 

highest during construction when annual expenses related to the proposed units would be 

estimated to reach up to $1.56 billion (Section 4.4). A 1 percent sales surtax would generate 

 

(27) Multipliers are for a four-county area (excluding Martin, Indian River, and Palm Beach Counties) and 

are used as an approximation. 

(28) Employment of 892,793 (BLS 2013-TN4085). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-179 NUREG–2176 

$15.6 million in revenues for the seven-county area.(29) This would correspond to less than 

1 percent of total county revenues in the seven-county area for 2014.(30) The impact would be 

minor and beneficial. County and school district governments in Florida may levy taxes up to 

10 mills each (1 percent) in property taxes (FDOR 2012-TN459). If the value of property taxes 

for the two nuclear reactors at the Okeechobee site were the same as the value estimated for 

Units 6 and 7 at the Turkey Point site in Section 5.4.3.2, FPL would pay $20 million in property 

taxes to the Okeechobee School District and $20 million to Okeechobee County. These 

payments would correspond to 46.6 percent of the Okeechobee School District 2011-2012 total 

revenues ($20 million compared $42.9 million)(31) and 42.6 percent the Okeechobee County 

2011-2012 total revenues ($20 million compared to $46.9 million).(32) Because property taxes 

paid to school districts are reallocated through Florida’s Education Finance Program, the benefit 

to the Okeechobee School District would be diluted to some extent, and the exact amount 

distributed to each school district is not known at this time. Because of the value of projectrelated property tax payments relative to current property taxes, the review team considers the 

impacts on tax revenues to both the Okeechobee School District and Okeechobee County to be 

substantial and beneficial. 

The review team concluded that the economic impact would not be noticeable and would be 

beneficial, with the exception of property tax revenues to Okeechobee County and to the 

Okeechobee School District, which would be beneficial and substantially alter current property 

tax levels in Okeechobee County and the Okeechobee School District. 

Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts 

Traffic 

Workforce access to the Okeechobee 2 site would occur through SR-70 coming from the east 

and the west. The review team estimated the current LOS (Level of Service) of these roads at 

two FDOT traffic-monitoring sites based on the peak hour directional traffic and FDOT LOS 

thresholds. Peak hour directional traffic information was obtained from FDOT Florida Traffic 

Online (FDOT 2013-TN3558) and consists of the AADT at each traffic-monitoring site, a 

Standard Peak Hour Factor (K) and a Directional Distribution Factor (D). The multiplication of 

these three elements (AADT × K × D) provides an estimate of the current peak hour directional 

traffic volume. The LOS was determined comparing this peak hour directional traffic volume 

with the maximum thresholds for each LOS in Table 9 (areas less than 5,000 population) of 

FDOTs Generalized Service Volume Tables (FDOT 2013-TN3297). The review team used 

FDOT’s 2011 LOS Reports by County (FDOT 2011-TN3557) to determine the correct 

classification of each road for the purposes of identification of the appropriate threshold in the 

Generalized Service Volume Tables (e.g., whether the road should be considered highway or a 

freeway; whether the area should be considered rural developed or rural undeveloped). Based 

on this procedure, the LOS at both traffic-monitoring sites would be B. To estimate the project 

 

(29) To the extent that some of the expenditures would be made in Martin, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie 

Counties, and assuming the sales surtax rates are unchanged, the total sales surtax collected would 

be smaller. 

(30) $3412 million (FLDFS 2013-TN3392). 

(31) FLDOE 2012-TN3391. 

(32) FDOR 2014-TN3393. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-180 October 2016 

impact on traffic LOS during the project’s peak workforce building period, the review team 

followed a methodology similar to that described in Section 4.4: The peak workforce of 3,983 

construction and operation workers was divided into two shifts; 70 percent were assigned to 

shift 1 (6:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) and 30 percent to shift 2 (5:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m.). The hour of 

peak commute would be 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The review team also assumed up to 36 trucks 

per hour. The project-related directional traffic during the peak commute hour would be 2,824 

vehicles (70 percent × 3,983 + 36). The review team assumed that half of the project-related 

traffic would come from each direction, east and west.(33) The results of this analysis are 

presented in Table 9-20. The additional building traffic would drop the LOS classification at both 

traffic-monitoring sites to F. The proposed widening of SR-70 would bring the LOS classification 

to a C. 

Table 9-20. Peak Workforce Traffic LOS Analysis for the Okeechobee 2 Site 

Traffic-Monitoring 

Site 

Baseline 

Peak Hour 

Directional 

Traffic 

Baseline 

LOS 

Distribution 

of ProjectRelated 

Peak Traffic 

Added 

Peak Hour 

Directional 

Traffic 

Peak hour 

Directional 

Traffic 

with 

Project 

LOS 

with 

Project 

SR-70 west of site 246 B 0.50 1,412 1,658 F (C)(a)

SR-70 east of site 393 B 0.50 1,412 1,805 F (C)(a)

(a) LOS classification after widening of SR-70. 

Source: Review team calculations based on FDOT 2011-TN3557; FDOT 2013-TN3558; and 

USCB 2011-TN4078

FPL estimated the total onsite operations workforce to be 806 workers. If access of this 

workforce to the Okeechobee 2 site were distributed among the two directions equally, the LOS 

at each of the two monitoring sites would drop to C. 

Based on the above analysis, the review team concludes that the impact of the building and 

operations of the proposed nuclear reactors at the Okeechobee 2 site would be noticeable 

during building, although not destabilizing, after widening of SR-70. 

Recreation 

The Okeechobee 2 site is located approximately 4 mi from Lake Okeechobee and the Lake 

Okeechobee Scenic Trail that circles the lake. The lake is used for boating, fishing, and duck 

hunting, and the scenic trail is used for hiking and bird watching (Palm Beach County 2013-

TN3298). The Taylor Creek/Nubbins Slough Water Conservation Area is located approximately 

2 mi from the site. To the east, several recreational areas exist at approximately 2 mi along the 

Kissimmee River. During building, access to these sites from some directions could be affected 

by increased traffic. Other parks and recreational areas exist within the county. The influx of 

project-related population to the seven-county area would increase the number of local users of 

recreational facilities. Because the in-migrating population would be less than 1 percent of the 

local population, the review team expects the impact on current recreational infrastructure to be 

negligible. 

 

(33) Based on U.S. Census Bureau commuter patterns (USCB 2011-TN4078) it was not possible to 

determine the likely direction of outgoing project-related traffic. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-181 NUREG–2176 

Housing 

The review team estimates that 2,629 construction and operation workers would migrate into 

the seven-county area, and each of these workers would need a place to live. Based on 

American Community Survey 2008–2012 5-Year estimates, within the seven-county area there 

are 1,035,416 housing units of which 232,194 are vacant (22.4 percent). This includes housing 

that is designated as seasonal, recreational, or occasional use (USCB 2012-TN4089). The 

review team estimates that, in absolute numbers, the available housing would be sufficient to 

house the construction workforce. The in-migrating construction and operation workforce would 

occupy no more than 1.2 percent of vacant housing units in the seven-county area. FPL 

estimated that approximately 806 workers would be needed for operation of two nuclear power 

facilities at the Okeechobee 2 site, and the review team assumed that 66 percent of these 

workers (532) would relocate from outside the region and would settle in the seven-county area. 

Based on these assumptions, the entire operations workforce would occupy no more than 

0.3 percent of vacant housing units in the seven counties. The review team concludes that 

impact on housing would be minor. 

Public Services 

In-migrating construction workers and plant operations staff would also likely affect local 

municipal water, wastewater-treatment facilities, police, fire-protection services, and other public 

services in the region. These impacts would be expected to be in proportion with the 

demographic impacts experienced in the region. In-migration to the seven-county area would 

represent an estimated 0.3 percent of the local population (less during operations). The review 

team concludes that the impact on public services would be minor. 

Education 

Based on data for the 2011-2012 school year, there are approximately 269,566 full-time 

equivalent students in public schools in the seven-county area (FLDOE 2013-TN3299).(34) The 

review team estimated that 2,629 construction and operation workers would migrate into the 

area, and that 1,847 workers would bring their families. Based on an estimate of 0.8 schoolaged children per family (Malhotra and Manninen 1981-TN1430), an estimated 1,478 

(1,847 × 0.8) school-aged children would be migrating into the seven-county area. This would 

yield a 0.5 percent increase in the student population. During operations, the review team 

assumed that 532 operation workers and their families would relocate from outside the region. 

This would include an estimated 426 (532 × 0.8) children in the PK-12 school range. This influx 

of students would increase the student population in the seven-county area by 0.2 percent. The 

review team concludes that the impact on education would be minor. 

Based on the information provided by FPL (2014-TN4058) and the review team’s independent 

analysis, the review team concludes that the overall infrastructure and community service 

impacts of building activities and operations at the Okeechobee 2 site would be minor except for 

noticeable, but not destabilizing, adverse impacts on traffic. 

 

(34) FTE is a measure of enrollment based on the number of full-time students that it would take to fill the 

number of classes offered. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-182 October 2016 

Cumulative Impacts 

In addition to the socioeconomic impacts from building and operations of the proposed project at 

the Okeechobee 2 site, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that could have socioeconomic impacts. 

The socioeconomic impacts of past and present actions in the affected area are largely 

captured by the current baseline conditions used for analysis above of project impacts. For 

example, the impacts of past and present actions on the demography and economy of the area 

are largely captured by current baseline data on population, employment, and tax revenues and 

are incorporated in the baseline and trend assessments of the RIMS II multipliers. 

Reasonably foreseeable future actions are listed in Table 9-16. Future actions that would be 

expected to have cumulative socioeconomic impacts with the proposed project at the 

Okeechobee 2 site would be several that would generate additional employment and earnings 

in the area. These include the Herbert Hoover Dike Rehabilitation Project and Dam Safety 

Modification Study, the Florida Southeast Connection pipelines proposed through Highlands, 

Okeechobee and Martin Counties (construction 2016-2017; FSC 2014-TN3301), the Floridian 

Natural Gas Storage Facility in Martin County, and various proposed CERP water projects. 

Based on the location of the identified future projects and their magnitudes, the cumulative 

socioeconomic impacts of the projects identified above with the proposed project at the 

Okeechobee 2 site would be expected to be SMALL and adverse, with the exception of 

MODERATE and adverse impacts on aesthetics and traffic; SMALL and beneficial physical 

impacts on road quality; and LARGE and beneficial impacts of property tax revenues to 

Okeechobee County and to the Okeechobee School District. Building and operating two new 

nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 alternative site would be a significant contributor to the 

MODERATE adverse impacts. 

9.3.4.6 Environmental Justice 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

impact EJ, including other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-16. 

The 2008–2012 American Community Survey block groups were used to identify minority and 

low-income population distributions in the area (USCB 2012-TN4098). The census data for 

Florida characterizes 15.9 percent of the population as Black; 0.3 percent as American Indian or 

Alaskan Native; 2.5 percent as Asian; 0.1 percent as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; 

2.6 percent as other single minorities; 2.2 percent as multiracial; 22.5 percent as Hispanic 

ethnicity; and 42.2 percent as aggregate minority. There are 526 block groups within 50 mi of 

the Okeechobee 2 site. Following the criteria described in Section 2.6.1, Black minority 

populations exist in 57 block groups; American Indian or Alaskan Native minority populations 

exist in 2 block groups; other race minority populations exist in 12 block groups; multiracial 

minority populations exist in 2 block groups; Hispanic ethnicity minority populations exist in 

38 block groups; and aggregate minority populations exist in 116 block groups. There are no 

block groups containing Asian minority populations or Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-183 NUREG–2176 

minority populations within 50 mi of the Okeechobee 2 site. The Brighton Seminole Indian 

Reservation is approximately 10 mi southwest of the Okeechobee 2 site. The locations of the 

minority populations within 50 mi of the Okeechobee 2 site and the Brighton Seminole Indian 

Reservation are shown in Figure 9-19. The locations of Hispanic minority populations and Black 

minority populations within the 50 mi of the Okeechobee 2 site are shown in Figure 9-20 and 

Figure 9-21, respectively. 

The USCB data characterize 15.3 percent of Florida residents as low income (USCB 2012-

TN4098). Out of a possible 526 block groups, 69 block groups contain low-income populations. 

The locations of the low-income populations within 50 mi of the Okeechobee 2 site are shown in 

Figure 9-22. 

The analyses of the impacts of building and operating new nuclear reactors at the Okeechobee 

2 site identified noticeable impacts on land use, terrestrial and wetland ecosystems, aesthetics, 

and traffic. The review team did not identify any special pathways through which these 

noticeable impacts would disproportionately affect EJ populations of interest. Therefore, the 

review team concluded there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on EJ 

populations of interest. 

The NRC’s EJ methodology includes an assessment of affected populations of particular 

interest or with unusual circumstances, such as minority communities that are exceptionally 

dependent on subsistence resources or identifiable in compact locations (e.g., Native American 

reservations) and those that have a high density of minority or low-income groups. Based on a 

literature research, the review team did not identify high-density minority or low-income 

presence in the proximity of the site, nor differentiated subsistence consumption of natural 

resources by EJ populations of interest. 

Cumulative Impacts 

In addition to the EJ impacts from building and operations of the proposed project at the 

Okeechobee 2 site, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that could have EJ impacts. Based on a literature review of past and 

present actions in the affected area, and based on the reasonably foreseeable actions listed in 

Table 9-16, the review team found no evidence that the cumulative effects would 

disproportionately affect EJ populations of interest. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-184 October 2016 

Figure 9-19. Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups that Meet the 

Environmental Justice Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Okeechobee 2 

Alternative Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-185 NUREG–2176 

Figure 9-20. Hispanic Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Okeechobee 2 Alternative Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-186 October 2016 

Figure 9-21. African American Populations in Block Groups that Meet the 

Environmental Justice Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Okeechobee 2 

Alternative Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-187 NUREG–2176 

Figure 9-22. Low-Income Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

Justice Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the Okeechobee 2 Alternative Site 

9.3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 

The following cumulative impact analysis addresses building and operating two new nuclear 

generating units at the Okeechobee 2 site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect cultural resources, including the other 

Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-16. For the analysis of cultural impacts at the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-188 October 2016 

Okeechobee 2 site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the APE that would be 

defined for this site. This includes the direct effects APE, defined as the area physically affected 

by the site-development and operation activities at the site and within transmission line 

corridors. The indirect effects APE is defined as the area visually affected and includes an 

additional 0.5 mi radius APE around the transmission line corridors and a 1 mi radius APE 

around the cooling towers. 

Reconnaissance activities in a cultural resource review have particular meaning. Typically, the 

activities include preliminary field investigations to confirm the presence or absence of cultural 

resources. However, in developing this EIS, the review team relied upon reconnaissance-level 

information to perform its alternative site evaluation in accordance with ESRP 9.3 (NRC 2000-

TN614). Reconnaissance-level information consists of data that are readily available from 

agencies and other public sources. It can also include information obtained through visits to the 

site area. The following information was used to identify the historic and cultural resources at 

the Okeechobee 2 site: 

 NRC Alternative Sites Visit, July 2010 (NRC 2010-TN3304) 

 FPL ER Revision 6 (FPL 2014-TN4058) 

 Florida Historical Markers Program (FDHR 2014-TN3877) 

 National Register of Historic Places database (NPS 2014-TN3881). 

The approximately 3,000 ac Okeechobee 2 site occurs in predominantly agricultural land that is 

used for cattle, dairy, and citrus operations. Historically, the Okeechobee 2 site and vicinity 

were largely undeveloped and likely contained intact archaeological sites associated with the 

past 10,000 years of human settlement. Over time, the area has been disturbed by low-impact 

development including agriculture, roadways, and low-density rural development. A search of 

the National Register shows that two significant historic properties are located within 10 mi of 

the Okeechobee 2 site (FPL 2014-TN4058; NPS 2014-TN3881), as well as several 

archaeological resources. The two historic properties are the Freedman-Raulerson House and 

the Okeechobee Battlefield site. The Okeechobee Battlefield is also a National Historic 

Landmark. A total of 34 properties were found in the four counties in the vicinity of the 

Okeechobee 2 site (Okeechobee, Glades, Highlands, and St. Lucie Counties). A National 

Register search of the indirect effects APE for the transmission lines shows that, while no 

properties are recorded within the APE, these same two historic properties, the FreedmanRaulerson House and the Okeechobee Battlefield site, are located roughly 4 mi and 7 mi to the 

south, respectively, from the corridor. In addition, the Brighton Seminole Indian Reservation is 

located roughly 7 mi to the south of the Okeechobee 2 site. 

A search of the Florida Historical Markers Program (FDHR 2014-TN3877) by the review team 

revealed that there is one historic marker in Okeechobee County—a marker near the 

courthouse in the city of Okeechobee commemorating the founding of the county. The marker 

is not near the Okeechobee 2 site. 

While there are no known historic properties located within the direct effects APE of the 

Okeechobee 2 site, reconnaissance-level information shows that there are historic properties in 

the general vicinity of the site, including potentially significant archaeological resources 

associated with Lake Okeechobee. No archaeological or architectural surveys have been 

conducted at the Okeechobee 2 site, and locating the nuclear plants there would require formal 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-189 NUREG–2176 

cultural resources survey and consultation with SHPO, Tribes, and other interested parties. If 

any significant cultural, historic, or archaeological resources are identified, those resources 

could be adversely affected and appropriate mitigation measures would need to be put in place 

before construction and operation. 

Building Impacts 

To accommodate the building of two nuclear units and associated facilities at the Okeechobee 2 

site, FPL estimates that the total area of land that would be disturbed would be approximately 

362 ac for the facility. In addition, a 9.3 mi long road and a 3.9 mi long railroad spur would need 

to be constructed in the predominantly agricultural land. A portion of SR-70 would need to be 

widened. An additional 22.5 ac would be disturbed for pipelines and associated facilities 

(FPL 2014-TN4058). If the Okeechobee 2 site were chosen for the proposed project, 

identification of cultural resources would be accomplished through additional cultural resource 

surveys and consultation with the SHPO, Tribes, and interested parties. The results would be 

used in the site-planning process to address cultural resources impacts. If significant cultural 

resources were identified by these surveys, the review team assumes that FPL would use the 

same protective measures used at the Turkey Point site, and therefore the impacts would be 

minimal. If direct effects on significant cultural resources could not be avoided, land-clearing, 

excavation, and grading activities could potentially destabilize important attributes of historic and 

cultural resources. 

There are no existing transmission line corridors connecting to the Okeechobee 2 site. Section 

9.3.4.1 describes the proposed transmission line corridors, which would consist of new 

transmission lines extending a total of 38 mi before connecting to an existing network. FPL has 

stated that consideration would be given to sensitive environmental and built resources in 

determining a route for the transmission lines (FPL 2014-TN4058), but visual impacts from 

transmission lines may result in significant alterations to the visual setting of cultural and historic 

resources within the geographic area of interest, particularly in undeveloped portions of the 

project area around the nuclear power-generating facility and around the transmission lines in 

the vicinity of the city of Okeechobee. These indirect effects would be particularly noticeable 

given that the setting around the Okeechobee 2 site is largely undeveloped, without existing 

industrial development. If the Okeechobee 2 site were chosen for the proposed project, the 

review team assumes that FPL would conduct its transmission line−related cultural resource 

surveys and procedures in a manner similar to that for the Turkey Point site. In addition, the 

review team assumes that the State of Florida’s Final Order on Certification (State of 

Florida 2014-TN3637) regarding transmission line siting and building activities would also apply, 

and therefore impacts would be minimal. If direct effects on significant cultural resources could 

not be avoided, land-clearing, excavation, and grading activities could potentially destabilize 

important attributes of historic cultural resources. Similarly, both the transmission lines and 

nuclear power-generating units could indirectly effect cultural and historic resources through 

visual impacts on the setting of the resources. 

Operations Impacts 

Impacts on historic and cultural resources from operation of two new nuclear generating units at 

the Okeechobee 2 site include those associated with the operation of new units and 

maintenance of transmission lines. The review team assumes that the same procedures 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-190 October 2016 

developed by FPL for the Turkey Point site, as well as the State of Florida’s Final Order on 

Certification, would be used for onsite and offsite maintenance activities. Consequently, the 

incremental effects of the maintenance of transmission line corridors and operation of the two 

new units and associated impacts on the cultural resources would be negligible for the direct 

and indirect effects APEs. However, the indirect visual impacts would continue throughout the 

life of the transmission lines. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected historic and cultural 

resources include rural and agricultural development and activities associated with these landdisturbing activities such as road development. Table 9-16 lists past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects and other actions that may contribute to cumulative impacts on historic and 

cultural resources in the geographic area of interest. Projects from Table 9-16 that are relevant 

to the cultural resources cumulative analysis include the Florida Gas Transmission project, the 

Highlands Ethanol Facility, the Lake Okeechobee Watershed project, and future urbanization, 

such as new or expanded roads. 

Long linear projects such as new or expanded roads, pipelines, and railway lines may intersect 

the proposed transmission line corridors. Because cultural resources can likely be avoided by 

long linear projects, impacts on cultural resources would likely be minimal. If building 

associated with such activities results in significant alterations of cultural resources in the 

transmission line corridors, either physical or visual, then cumulative impacts on cultural and 

historic resources would be greater. 

Cultural resources are nonrenewable. Therefore, the impact of the destruction of cultural 

resources is cumulative. Based on the information provided by FPL and the review team’s 

independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts from building 

and operating two new nuclear generating units on the Okeechobee 2 site would be 

MODERATE. The impacts of building and operating the project at the Okeechobee 2 site would 

be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impact due primarily to indirect viewshed impacts 

from the nuclear power-generating plant and transmission lines on historic properties, though 

direct impacts could occur as well. This impact-level determination is based on 

reconnaissance-level information and reflects the fact that there are no known cultural 

resources on the proposed site. It also assumes that, if the Okeechobee 2 site were to be 

developed, cultural resource surveys and evaluations would be conducted and FPL, in 

consultation with SHPO, Tribes, and interested parties, would assess and resolve any adverse 

effects of the undertaking. If cultural or historic resources are present, and if there are adverse 

effects on those resources, the project could result in greater cumulative impacts. 

9.3.4.8 Air-Quality Impacts 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect air 

quality, including other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-16. As described in 

Section 9.3.4, Okeechobee 2 is a greenfield site; there are currently no nuclear facilities on the 

site. The geographic area of interest for the Okeechobee 2 site is Okeechobee County, which is 

in the Southeast Florida Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.49) (TN255). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-191 NUREG–2176 

Sections 4.7 and 5.7 discuss air-quality impacts during building and operation. The emissions 

related to building and operating a nuclear power plant at the Okeechobee 2 alternative site 

would be similar to those at the Turkey Point site. The air-quality attainment status for 

Okeechobee County, as set forth in 40 CFR Part 81 (TN255), reflects the effects of past and 

present emissions from all pollutant sources in the region. Okeechobee County is in attainment 

of all National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

As described in Chapters 4 and 5, the criteria pollutants from building and operation were found 

to have a SMALL impact on air quality. In Chapter 7, the cumulative impacts of criteria 

pollutants were evaluated and also determined to be SMALL to MODERATE. Reflecting on the 

projects listed in Table 9-16, the most significant is the nearby proposed landfill gas-to-energy 

project (Okeechobee Landfill) because of its proximity to the Okeechobee 2 site. Emissions 

from a facility such as this are released through stacks and with significant momentum and 

buoyancy. Other industrial projects listed in Table 9-16 would likely have de minimis impacts 

due to their distance from the site. Given that these projects are subject to Clean Air Act 

permitting requirements, it is unlikely that the air quality in the region would degrade to the 

extent that the region would be in nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

The air-quality impact from development of the Okeechobee 2 site would be local and 

temporary. The applicant would develop a dust-control plan that identifies specific measures to 

minimize fugitive dust emissions during building activities. The distance from building activities 

to the site boundary would be sufficient to generally avoid significant air-quality impacts. There 

are no land uses or projects in Table 9-16, including the aforementioned source, that would 

have emissions during site development that would, in combination with emissions from the 

Okeechobee 2 site, result in degradation of air quality in the region. Emissions from operation 

of two new nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 site would be intermittent and made at low levels 

with little or no vertical velocity, similar to operational impacts at the Turkey Point site as 

discussed in Section 5.7. The air-quality impacts of the Okeechobee Landfill Gas-to-Energy 

project would be similar to the air-quality impacts of a landfill gas facility discussed in Section 

9.2.2.8, which would be noticeable but not destabilizing. The cumulative impacts from 

emissions of effluents from the Okeechobee 2 site and the aforementioned source would be 

noticeable but not destabilizing. 

The cumulative impacts of GHG emissions related to nuclear power are discussed in Section 

7.6. The impacts of the emissions are not sensitive to the location of the source. Consequently, 

the discussion in Section 7.6 is applicable to a nuclear power plant located at the Okeechobee 2 

site. The review team concludes that the national and worldwide cumulative impacts of GHG 

emissions are noticeable but not destabilizing. The review team further concludes that the 

cumulative impacts would be noticeable but not destabilizing, with or without the GHG 

emissions of two new nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 site. 

The review team concludes that cumulative impacts from other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions on air-quality resources in the geographic areas of interest would be 

SMALL to MODERATE for criteria pollutants and MODERATE for GHG emissions. The 

incremental contribution of impacts on air-quality resources from building and operating two units 

at the Okeechobee 2 site would not be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impacts for 

GHG emissions. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-192 October 2016 

9.3.4.9 Nonradiological Health 

The following analysis considers nonradiological health impacts from building and operating two 

new nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 site. The analysis also includes past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative nonradiological health 

impacts on site workers (construction and operation workers) and members of the public, 

including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-16 within the 

geographic area of interest. Nonradiological health impacts at the Okeechobee 2 site are 

estimated based on information provided by FPL and the review team’s independent evaluation. 

For the analysis of nonradiological health impacts at the Okeechobee 2 site, the geographic 

area of interest is the site and the immediate vicinity (~2 mi radius) and the associated road and 

transmission line corridors. This geographic area of interest is based on the localized nature of 

nonradiological health impacts and is expected to encompass all nonradiological health impacts. 

Building activities with the potential to affect the health of members of the public and workers at 

the Okeechobee 2 site include exposure to dust and vehicle exhaust, occupational injuries, 

noise, and increased traffic associated with the transport of construction materials and 

personnel to and from the site. The operations-related activities that have the potential to affect 

the health of members of the public and workers include exposure to etiological (diseasecausing) agents, noise, EMFs, occupational injuries, and impacts from the transport of workers 

to and from the site. 

Building Impacts 

Nonradiological health impacts on construction workers and members of the public from building 

two new nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 

4.8 for the Turkey Point site. During the site-preparation and building phase, FPL would comply 

with applicable Federal and State regulations on air quality and noise (FPL 2014-TN4058). The 

Okeechobee 2 site is a greenfield site located in a rural area, and building impacts would likely 

be negligible on the surrounding area, which is classified as a medium- and low-population 

area. The incidence of construction worker accidents would be the same as that for the Turkey 

Point site. 

The review team concludes that nonradiological health impacts on construction workers and the 

public from building two new nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the Okeechobee 

2 site would be minimal. Nonradiological health impacts associated with traffic accidents during 

building activities at the Okeechobee 2 alternative site were evaluated in Section 4.8.3 and the 

review team concludes that the impacts would be minimal. 

Operations Impacts 

Nonradiological health impacts on operation workers and members of the public would include 

those associated with the operation of cooling towers and transmission lines as described in 

Section 5.8. Based on the configuration of the proposed new units at the Okeechobee 2 site 

(see Chapter 3 for a detailed site layout description), etiological agents would not be an issue 

with regard to members of the public because cooling-tower blowdown would be discharged into 

deep-injection wells not into surface waters. Impacts on workers’ health from occupational 

injuries, noise, and EMFs would be similar to those described in Section 5.8 for the Turkey Point 

site. Noise and EMF exposure would be monitored and controlled in accordance with 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-193 NUREG–2176 

applicable OSHA regulations. Although no detailed noise modeling has been performed for the 

Okeechobee 2 site, it is likely that noise impacts would be similar to those predicted for 

operations at the Turkey Point site. The effects of EMFs on human health would be controlled 

and minimized by conformance with National Electrical Safety Code criteria and adherence to 

the standards for transmission systems regulated by the FDEP. 

The review team concludes that nonradiological health impacts on workers and the public from 

operating two new nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the Okeechobee 2 site 

would be minimal. Impacts associated with traffic accidents during operations at the 

Okeechobee 2 alternative site were evaluated in Section 5.8.6 and the review team concludes 

that the impacts would be minimal. 

Cumulative Impacts 

There are no past or present projects identified in Table 9-16 within the geographic area of 

interest that could affect nonradiological human health in a way similar to the building of two 

nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 site. All of the projects that could apply are more than 10 mi 

from the Okeechobee 2 site. 

Reasonably foreseeable projects in Table 9-16 that could affect nonradiological human health in 

a way similar to the building of two nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 site include various 

transportation (roads, traffic, pedestrian) and mining/quarry projects that are planned throughout 

the region. 

There are no past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects planned within the geographic 

area of interest that would affect nonradiological human health in a way similar to operating two 

nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 site. 

The review team concludes that the cumulative impacts on nonradiological health from building 

and operating two new nuclear units and associated road and transmission lines at the 

Okeechobee 2 site would be minimal. 

Summary Statement 

Impacts on nonradiological health from building and operation of two new units at the 

Okeechobee 2 site are estimated based on the information provided by FPL and the review 

team’s independent evaluation. Although there could be some future activities in the 

geographical area of interest that could affect nonradiological health in ways similar to the 

building and operation of two new units at the Okeechobee 2 site and associated offsite 

facilities, those impacts would be localized and managed through adherence to existing 

regulatory requirements. The review team concludes that nonradiological health impacts on 

workers and the public resulting from the building of two new nuclear units and associated road 

and transmission lines at the Okeechobee 2 site would be minimal. The review team expects 

that the nonradiological health impacts on the operations employees and the public of two new 

nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 site would be minimal. Finally, the review team concludes 

that cumulative impacts on nonradiological health from past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions in the geographic area of interest would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-194 October 2016 

9.3.4.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect 

radiological health, including other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-16. As 

described in Section 9.3.4, Okeechobee 2 is a greenfield site; there are currently no nuclear 

facilities on the site. The geographic area of interest is the area within a 50 mi radius of the 

Okeechobee 2 site. St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 (i.e., two nuclear power plants) are the only major 

facilities within this geographic area of interest that potentially affect radiological health within 

the 50 mi radius of the Okeechobee 2 site. In addition, there are likely to be medical, industrial, 

and research facilities within 50 mi of the Okeechobee 2 site that use radioactive materials. 

The radiological impacts of building and operating the two proposed Westinghouse AP1000 

nuclear power units at the Okeechobee 2 site include doses from direct radiation and liquid and 

gaseous radioactive effluents. These pathways would result in low doses to people and biota 

offsite that would be well below regulatory limits. These impacts are expected to be similar to 

those estimated for the Turkey Point site. 

The radiological impacts of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 include doses from direct radiation and liquid 

and gaseous radioactive effluents. These pathways result in low doses to people and biota 

offsite that are well below regulatory limits as demonstrated by the ongoing radiological 

environmental monitoring program conducted around St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. The NRC staff 

concludes that the dose from direct radiation and effluents from hospitals and industrial facilities 

that use radioactive material would be an insignificant contribution to the cumulative impact 

around the Okeechobee 2 site. This conclusion is based on data from the radiological 

environmental monitoring programs conducted around currently operating nuclear power plants. 

Based on the information provided by FPL and the NRC staff's independent analysis, the NRC 

staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts from building and operating the two 

proposed Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear power units and other existing and planned projects 

and actions in the geographic area of interest around the Okeechobee 2 site would be SMALL. 

9.3.4.11 Postulated Accidents 

The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from postulated accidents from the 

operation of two nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 alternative site. The analysis also considers 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect radiological health from 

postulated accidents, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 

Table 9-16. As described in Section 9.3.4, the Okeechobee 2 site is a greenfield site; there are 

currently no nuclear facilities at the site. The geographic area of interest considers all existing 

and proposed nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted 

consequences (i.e., risks) from a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the 

Okeechobee 2 alternative site. Facilities potentially affecting radiological accident risk within 

this geographic area of interest are the existing two units of St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2. 

As described in Section 5.11.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences 

of DBAs at the Turkey Point site would be minimal for AP1000 reactors. DBAs are addressed 

specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet NRC safety criteria. 

The environmental consequences of DBAs depend on the plant design and the atmospheric 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-195 NUREG–2176 

dispersion. The AP1000 design is independent of site conditions and the differences in 

meteorology of the Okeechobee 2 alternative and Turkey Point sites are not significant with 

regard to the conditions that are important to assessing DBAs. Therefore, the NRC staff 

concludes that the environmental consequences of DBAs at the Okeechobee 2 alternative site 

would be minimal. 

With a lower population density and land-use values for the Okeechobee 2 alternative site, the 

NRC staff expects the risks from a severe accident for an AP1000 reactor located at the 

Okeechobee 2 alternative site to be similar to or lower than those analyzed for the proposed 

Turkey Point site. The risks for the proposed Turkey Point site were presented in Tables 5-19 

and 5-20 and are well below the median value for current-generation reactors. In addition, as 

discussed in Section 5.11.2, estimates of average individual early fatality and latent cancer 

fatality risks are well below the Commission's safety goals (51 FR 30028) (TN594). For existing 

plants within the geographic area of interest (St. Lucie Units 1 and 2), the Commission has 

determined that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are small (10 CFR 

Part 51 [TN250], Appendix B, Table B-1). On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the 

cumulative risks from severe accidents at any location within 50 mi of the Okeechobee 2 

alternative site would be SMALL. 

9.3.5 St. Lucie Site 

This section covers the review team’s evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting 

a new two-unit nuclear power plant at the St. Lucie alternative site on the eastern coast of 

central Florida. The site is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the east and the Indian River 

Lagoon to the west. The nearest municipalities are Fort Pierce, approximately 7 mi northwest; 

Port St. Lucie, approximately 4.5 mi to the west; and Stuart, approximately 8 mi to the south. 

The nominal site elevation is 0 to 5 ft above sea level, which falls within the 100-year floodplain. 

The 1,130 ac St. Lucie site is an FPL-owned nuclear power-generation station on Hutchinson 

Island in St. Lucie County. St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 and associated support facilities occupy less 

than half of the 1,130 ac site (FPL 2014-TN4058). The location of the St. Lucie site is shown in 

Figure 9-23. 

FPL assumed the facility footprint, including the power units, support buildings, switchyard, 

storage areas, stormwater-retention ponds, and other structures, would require an estimated 

357 ac. Building at the St. Lucie site would also require the creation of a transmission line 

corridor of approximately 63 mi (2,187 ac), widening of 22 mi of SR-A1A (266.8 ac [a two-lane 

roadway parallel to the dunes on the barrier island]), a heavy-haul road 0.5 mi (6.3 ac), and an 

intake/makeup pipeline (10.5 ac) (Figure 9-24). Additional area would be temporarily disturbed 

for activities such as laydown areas, a batch plant, and for fill and spoil deposition (FPL 2014-

TN4058). 

The following sections include a cumulative impact assessment conducted for each major 

resource area. The specific resources and components that could be affected by the 

incremental effects of the proposed action if implemented at the St. Lucie site and other actions 

in the same geographic area were considered. This assessment includes the impacts of NRCauthorized construction and operations and impacts of preconstruction activities. Also included 

in the assessment are past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future Federal, non-Federal, 

and private actions that could have meaningful cumulative impacts when considered together 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-196 October 2016 

with the proposed action if implemented at the St. Lucie site. Other actions and projects 

considered in this cumulative analysis are described in Table 9-21. 

Figure 9-23. St. Lucie Site Region 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-197 NUREG–2176 

Figure 9-24. St. Lucie Site Footprint 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-198 October 2016 

Table 9-21. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions in the 

Vicinity of the St. Lucie Site 

Project Name 

Summary of 

Project Location Status 

Energy Projects 

St. Lucie Two 3,020 MW(t) 

nuclear power 

reactors 

Adjacent Operational, Units 1 and 2 

underwent license renewal in 2003. 

Units 1 and 2 completed 320 MW(t) 

power uprates in 2013 (NRC 2012-

TN1668; FPL 2014-TN3360) 

West County 

Energy Center 

Three 1,250 MW 

natural-gas− 

powered units 

28 mi SW of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Operational (FDEP 2013-TN2965) 

Martin Approximately 4,300 

MW from 5 units, 3 

natural-gas and 2 oil 

units with a solar 

thermal facility 

generating 

supplemental steam 

28 mi SW of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Operational (FPL 2016-TN4579) 

Indiantown 

Cogeneration 

Company 

330 MW coal-power 

plant 

26 mi SW of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Operational (FDEP 2013-TN2967) 

FPL pipeline 126 mi pipeline from 

Sabal Trail’s Central 

Florida Hub to FPL’s 

Martin Clean Energy 

Center 

Throughout region Proposed, construction set to begin 

2016 (FPL 2014-TN2975) 

Floridian Natural 

Gas Storage 

Company – Natural 

Gas Storage 

Facility 

Storage of natural 

gas 

26 mi SW of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Proposed, FERC Order amending 

Certificate issued (FERC 2015-

TN4599) with associated 

Environmental Assessment 

(FERC 2015-TN4600) 

Treasure Coast 

Energy Center 

300 MW natural-gas 

power plant 

9 mi SW of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Operational (FMPA 2014-TN3029) 

INEOS New Planet 

Bioenergy Center 

6.3 MW bioenergy 

facility 

22 mi NW of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2014-TN3032) 

Riviera Beach 

Energy Center 

1,250 MW gas-fired 

plant 

41 mi S of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Operational, completed in 2014 

(FPL 2014-TN3360) 

Okeechobee 

Landfill Energy 

Waste-to-energy 

facility 

27 mi W of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Operational (Waste 

Management 2014-TN3034) 

Sea Gen St. Lucie 

Project 

A generation farm 

containing 20 to 40 

submerged SeaGen 

twin rotor machine 

generating units 

having a total 

installed capacity of 

20 to 40 MW 

Offshore of St. Lucie 

County 

Proposed, preliminary permit 

submitted to FERC in 2004. (69 FR 

61829) (TN3097) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-199 NUREG–2176 

Table 9-21. (contd) 

Project Name 

Summary of 

Project Location Status 

Mining Projects

Five Stone Mining Stone/quarry 

mining 

35 mi SW of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2013-TN2959) 

Daniel Shell Pit, 

Phase 6 

Stone/quarry 

mining 

41 mi W of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2013-TN2956) 

Florida Rock 

Industries/Fort Pierce 

Stone/quarry 

mining 

18 mi W of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2014-TN3038) 

Hammond Sand 

Mine 

Sand/quarry 

mining 

29 mi NW of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2014-TN3044) 

Various other mine 

and quarry projects 

Stone/quarry 

mining 

Throughout region Operational (FDEP 2010-TN2966) 

Transportation Projects

Various 

transportation 

projects 

Road, traffic, 

pedestrian projects 

Throughout region Ongoing (FDOT 2012-TN1132) 

Parks and Aquaculture Facilities

DuPuis Wildlife and 

Environmental Area 

Activities include 

bicycling, camping, 

hunting, fishing, 

and hiking 

33 mi SW of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Development likely limited within 

this area (FFWCC 2014-TN2977) 

Okeechobee 

Battlefield State Park 

Hiking, camping 35 mi SW of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Development likely limited within 

this area (FDEP 2010-TN2971) 

Lake Okeechobee 730 mi2 freshwater 

lake, restoration 

and protection plan 

31−54 mi SW of the 

St. Lucie alternative 

site 

Ongoing, Florida Legislature in 

2007 expanded the Lake 

Okeechobee Protection Act 

(SFWMD 2014-TN2988) 

Johnathan Dickinson 

State Park 

Activities include 

bicycling, camping, 

boating, horseback 

riding, picnicking, 

fishing, and hiking 

23 mi S of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Development likely limited within 

this area (Florida State Parks 2014-

TN3048) 

Savannas Preserve 

State Park 

Activities include 

bicycling, boating, 

horseback riding, 

picnicking, fishing, 

and hiking 

2 mi W of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Development likely limited within 

this area (Florida State Parks 2014-

TN3050) 

Fort Pierce Inlet 

State Park 

Activities include 

bicycling, camping, 

boating, swimming, 

picnicking, fishing, 

and hiking 

10 mi N of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Development likely limited within 

this area (Florida State Parks 2014-

TN3053) 

Pepper Beach State 

Recreation Area 

Activities include 

swimming, 

11 mi N of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Development likely limited within 

this area (St. Lucie County 2014-
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-200 October 2016 

Table 9-21. (contd) 

Project Name 

Summary of 

Project Location Status 

picnicking, fishing, 

and hiking 

TN3054) 

St. Sebastian River 

Preserve State Park 

Activities include 

bicycling, camping, 

boating, picnicking, 

fishing, and hiking 

34 mi NW of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Development likely limited within 

this area (Florida State Parks 2014-

TN3055) 

Hobe Sound National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Activities include 

fishing, and hiking 

16−26 mi NW of the 

St. Lucie alternative 

site 

Development likely limited within 

this area (FWS 2013-TN3056) 

John D. Macarthur 

Beach State Park 

Activities include 

boating, swimming, 

picnicking, fishing, 

and hiking 

38 mi NW of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Development likely limited within 

this area (Florida State Parks 2014-

TN3057) 

Peanut Island Park Activities include 

boating, picnicking, 

fishing, and hiking 

41 mi NW of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Development likely limited within 

this area (Palm Beach 

County 2014-TN3058) 

Blue Cypress 

Conservation Area 

Activities include 

boating, fishing, 

and wildlife viewing 

37 mi NW of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Development likely limited within 

this area (SJRWMD 2014-TN3100) 

Pelican Island 

National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Activities include 

boating, fishing, 

and wildlife viewing 

33 mi NW of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Development likely limited within 

this area (FWS 2011-TN3101) 

Sebastian Inlet State 

Park 

Activities include 

boating, swimming, 

picnicking, fishing, 

bicycling, camping, 

surfing, wildlife 

viewing, and hiking 

37 mi N of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Development likely limited within 

this area (Florida State Parks 2014-

TN3102) 

Archie Carr National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Activities include 

Hiking, fishing, and 

wildlife viewing 

40−50 mi N of the 

St. Lucie alternative 

site 

Development likely limited within 

this area (FWS 2011-TN3103) 

Indian River Lagoon 

Preserve State Park 

Activities include 

hiking, swimming, 

picnicking, fishing, 

bicycling, and 

wildlife viewing 

43 mi N of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Development likely limited within 

this area (FDEP 2014-TN3104) 

Other State nature 

preserves and 

wildlife management 

areas 

Public recreational 

activities 

Throughout region Development likely limited within 

these areas (FFWCC 2014-

TN2981) 

Everglades Ecosystem Restoration and/or Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Projects 

(DOI 2016-TN4589)

Indian River Lagoon 

– South 

Project purpose is 

to improve surface16 mi SW of the St. Lucie alternative site 

Proposed, project in 

preconstruction, engineering and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-201 NUREG–2176 

Table 9-21. (contd) 

Project Name 

Summary of 

Project Location Status 

water management 

in the C-23/C-24, 

C-25, and C-44 

basins for habitat 

improvement in the 

Saint Lucie River 

Estuary and 

southern portions 

of the Indian River 

Lagoon. 

design phase (USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-TN3013) 

Everglades 

Agricultural Area 

Storage Reservoirs 

The purpose of this 

project is to 

improve the timing 

of environmental 

deliveries to the 

Water 

Conservation 

Areas, including 

reducing damaging 

flood releases from 

the Everglades 

Agricultural Area to 

the Water 

Conservation 

Areas. 

Throughout region Proposed, Final Project 

Implementation Report submitted 

2012 (USACE and SFWMD 2014-

TN3011) 

Lake Okeechobee 

Aquifer Storage and 

Recovery 

A series of aquifer 

storage and 

recovery wells 

adjacent to Lake 

Okeechobee 

30 mi SW of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Proposed, project in 

preconstruction, engineering and 

design phase (USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-TN3014) 

Lake Okeechobee 

Watershed Project 

Project to increase 

aquatic and wildlife 

habitat, regulate 

extreme highs and 

lows in lake 

staging, reduce 

phosphorus 

loading and reduce 

damaging releases 

to the surrounding 

estuaries. 

Throughout 

Okeechobee County 

Proposed, project in 

preconstruction, engineering and 

design phase (USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-TN3015) 

Melaleuca 

eradication and other 

exotic plants 

The project 

includes (1) 

upgrading and 

retrofitting the 

current quarantine 

Throughout region Operational, facility completed in 

2013 (USACE and SFWMD 2014-

TN3020) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-202 October 2016 

Table 9-21. (contd) 

Project Name 

Summary of 

Project Location Status 

facility in 

Gainesville, and (2) 

large-scale rearing 

of approved 

biological control 

organisms for 

release at multiple 

sites within the 

South Florida 

ecosystem to 

control Melaleuca, 

Brazilian pepper, 

Australian pine, 

and Old World 

climbing fern. 

Palm Beach County 

Agriculture Reserve 

Aquifer Storage and 

Recovery 

Supplement water 

supplies for central 

and southern Palm 

Beach County by 

capturing and 

storing excess 

water currently 

discharged to the 

Lake Worth 

Lagoon. 

Palm Beach County Proposed, project in 

preconstruction, engineering and 

design phase (USACE and 

SFWMD 2014-TN3019) 

Herbert Hoover Dike 

Major Rehabilitation 

Project 

Rehabilitation 

Project and Dam 

Safety Modification 

Study 

30−60 mi W of the 

St. Lucie alternative 

site 

Proposed - Environmental 

Assessment and FONSI issued in 

2015 (USACE 2015-TN4598), Draft 

Environmental Report issued 

(DOI 2016-TN4589) 

Comprehensive 

Shoreline 

Stabilization Project 

in Palm Beach 

County 

Discharge fill for 

the purpose of 

shoreline 

stabilization 

Shoreline of Palm 

Beach County 

USACE submitted Notice of Intent 

in 2013 (78 FR 40128) (TN3059); 

EIS completed (CB&I 2014-

TN4015) 

Lake Worth Inlet 

Project 

Deepening and 

widening of the 

Lake Worth Inlet 

41 mi S of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

USACE developed integrated 

feasibility report in 2013 

(USACE 2014-TN4016) 

Kissimmee River 

Restoration 

When restoration is 

completed in 2017, 

more than 40 mi2

of river-floodplain 

ecosystem will be 

restored, including 

almost 20,000 ac 

of wetlands and 44 

Along Kissimmee 

River 

Ongoing (USACE 2014-TN3061; 

DOI 2016-TN4589) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-203 NUREG–2176 

Table 9-21. (contd) 

Project Name 

Summary of 

Project Location Status 

mi of historic river 

channel. 

Other Actions/Projects

Harbor Branch 

Oceanographic 

Institute 

Oceanic Science 

and Research 

15 mi N of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2014-TN3071) 

Pratt & Whitney Aircraft engine and 

engine parts 

manufacturing 

30 mi SW of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2014-TN3062) 

Maverick Boat 

Company 

Fiberglass boat 

manufacturing 

12 mi N of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2014-TN3063) 

Tropicana Products, 

Inc. 

Citrus and animal 

feed 

10 mi W of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2014-TN3068) 

S2 Yachts, Inc. Fiberglass boat 

manufacturing 

12 mi N of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2013-TN3069) 

Twin Vee, Inc. Fiberglass boat 

manufacturing 

7 mi N of the St. 

Lucie alternative site 

Operational (EPA 2013-TN3070) 

Various wastewatertreatment plant 

facilities 

Sewage treatment Throughout region Operational 

Various hospitals 

using nuclear 

material 

Medical and other 

industrial isotopes 

Throughout region Ongoing 

Various water/floodmanagement 

projects 

Water and flood 

management 

Throughout region Ongoing (USACE 2012-TN1133) 

Future urbanization Construction of 

housing units and 

associated 

commercial 

buildings; roads, 

bridges, and rail; 

construction of 

water-treatment 

and/or wastewatertreatment and 

distribution 

facilities and 

associated 

pipelines, as 

described in local 

land-use planning 

documents 

Throughout region Construction would occur in the 

future, as described in State and 

local land-use planning documents 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-204 October 2016 

The geographic area of interest for cumulative impacts considers all existing and proposed 

nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences 

(i.e., risks) from a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the St. Lucie site (Figure 9-23). 

An accident at a nuclear plant within 100 mi of the St. Lucie site could increase this risk. Other 

nuclear plants in Florida, Alabama, and Georgia are more than 100 mi from the St. Lucie site 

and are therefore not included in the cumulative impact analysis. 

9.3.5.1 Land Use 

The following analysis includes land-use impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

affect land use, including other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-21. For the 

analysis of land-use impacts at the St. Lucie site and the area within the transmission line 

corridors, the review team determined that a 10 mi radius, similar to that used for the proposed 

Turkey Point plant site, would encompass an effective geographic area of interest for cumulative 

impact assessment for land use, because it would include the site and associated facilities and 

the nearby urban area surrounding the city of Port St. Lucie. In evaluating the land-use impacts 

of using the St. Lucie site, the review team used, in addition to the project application, readily 

obtainable data from the Internet or published sources, including aerial photographs of the site 

and vicinity, USDA soils information, local zoning and planning documents, and FLUCFCS data. 

Impacts from both building and station operation are discussed.

Building and Operations Impacts 

The St. Lucie alternative site is the site of an existing nuclear power-generating station situated 

on a barrier island. Approximately 103.8 ac of the alternative plant site are currently devoted to 

developed uses associated with the existing electrical power-generation facility. FPL states in 

its application (FPL 2014-TN4058) that the undeveloped land area at the St. Lucie alternative 

site is adequate for construction and operation of another power plant, but that there would be 

site-planning constraints related to the site being located on a long and narrow island. In 

addition, widening of SR-A1A would be required, and as stated in Section 9.3.5.5, the 

conceptual design route of the access road and widening of SR-A1A would lead to the 

displacement of approximately 202 structures, based on aerial view of rooftops (FPL 2011-

TN59). Thus, the road widening would have land-use impacts that would be noticeable and 

would alter considerably the physical attributes of the residential neighborhoods they cross. 

Existing land uses in the vicinity of the St. Lucie alternative site, in addition to developed areas 

of the city of Port St. Lucie, consist predominantly of water, because it is adjacent to the Atlantic 

Ocean and Indian River Lagoon, mangrove swamps, and many State and Federal parks and 

preserves. The St. Lucie alternative site is located within the Coastal Zone (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

The closest population center with more than 25,000 population are Port St. Lucie, 4.5 mi to the 

west and Fort Pierce 7 mi northwest (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

No soils classified as Prime or Unique farmlands are found at the site, which is situated on a 

barrier island. Areas in agriculture in the vicinity of the site are classified as Unique farmlands 

(USDA 2014-TN3354; USDA 2014-TN3355). No commercial mineral resources are identified in 

the site and vicinity (Calver 1956-TN3752; Spencer 1993-TN3753). Many wildlife management 

areas and recreational areas are located in the vicinity of the alternative site, including the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-205 NUREG–2176 

Savannas Preserve State Park, which is a 5,400 ac freshwater marsh preserve and park that 

includes multi-use recreational areas (Florida State Parks 2014-TN3050); Blind Creek Riverside 

North, a 50 ac wetland preserve on Indian River Lagoon (St. Lucie County 2014-TN4017); and 

Walton Rocks Beach/Dog Park, a 24 ac public park at the beach with multi-use recreational 

facilities (St. Lucie County 2014-TN4017). 

The alternative site is located within the 100-year flood zone (St. Lucie County 2010-TN4020), 

and FPL states (FPL 2014-TN4058) that development of the site would require approximately 

15 ft of fill to bring the site to 20 ft msl. The review team believes that such extensive fill could 

substantially alter localized coastal flooding patterns. The effect could be exacerbated by the 

substantial loss of tidal wetlands. 

The St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element refers to the St. Lucie 

alternative site as follows: “...two miles of oceanfront property are owned by the Florida Power 

& Light Company, and are to be maintained in their present natural state in conjunction with the 

operation of the St. Lucie Power Plant facilities.” The Comprehensive Plan designates the site 

as Transportation/Utilities (T/U) and states that “the purpose of this district is to recognize the 

Transportation or Utility use of property.” 

Therefore, use of the St. Lucie alternative site for a power plant could be considered to be 

compatible with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan designations for the site, if it did not 

interfere with the preservation of the oceanfront area identified by the Comprehensive Plan in a 

natural state. The review team expects that, if built in accordance with FPL’s present concept, 

the project would not interfere with ongoing preservation of the oceanfront area in a mostly 

natural state. 

St. Lucie County zoning for the alternative plant site and some area to the north and south is 

U, Utilities. The St. Lucie County zoning code describes this zone as follows: 

U UTILITIES 

Purpose. The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment 

suitable for utilities, transportation, and communication facilities, together with 

such other uses as may be compatible with utility, transportation, and 

communication facility surroundings 

The zoning designation for the lands to the north and south of the industrially zoned lands is 

R/C, Residential/Conservation. The St. Lucie County zoning code describes this zone as 

follows: 

R/C RESIDENTIAL/CONSERVATION. 

Purpose. The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment 

suitable for single-family dwellings at a maximum gross density of one (1) 

dwelling unit per five (5) gross acres, together with such other uses as may be 

necessary for and compatible with low density residential surroundings. 

Therefore, the use of the St. Lucie alternative site for a power plant would be compatible with 

the zoning for the site and nearby lands. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-206 October 2016 

Building and operation of the project at the St. Lucie site would result in the conversion of 

approximately 536 ac of undeveloped land to power-generation uses (Table 9-22). It would also 

require the reuse of approximately 104 ac of existing developed land, for a total land 

commitment of approximately 640 ac for the new plant. 

Table 9-22. St. Lucie Alternative Site Land-Use Impacts (Acres) 

Agricultural 

Lands 

(FLUCFCS 200 

Land Use 

Series) 

Urban Developed 

Lands (other 

than roads and 

pipelines)(a)

All Other nonAgricultural Lands 

(all other FLUCFCS 

designations) Total 

Plant Site 0 0 320 320 

Access Roads 0 104 163 267 

Rail Corridor 0 0.2 6 6 

Intake Pipeline Corridor 0 0 4 4 

Makeup Pipeline Corridor 0 0.1 6 6 

Stormwater-Retention Ponds 0 0 37 37 

Total(b) 0 104 536 640 

Transmission Line Corridor 507 20 2,167 2,187 

Grand Total 507 124 2,704 2,827 

(a) Includes power-generation uses 

(b) Totals may not add due to rounding 

Sources: FPL 2011-TN59 and FPL 2014-TN4058 

Additional land-use impacts include possible additional growth and land conversions in the 

vicinity to accommodate new workers and services. Because the alternative site is located near 

the urban area of Port St. Lucie and other urban and suburban areas along the coast, and the 

workforce would be dispersed over larger geographic areas in the labor supply region, the 

impacts from land conversion for residential and commercial buildings induced by new workers 

relocating to the local area could be absorbed in the wider region. Therefore, the review team 

concludes that such impacts would be minimal. 

Approximately 63 mi of new transmission system infrastructure would have to be built to serve 

the plant. Given the location of the alternative site, and as FPL states in its ER (FPL 2014-

TN4058), the transmission lines would pass through the Coastal Zone. Approximately 2,187 ac 

of land would be at least temporarily affected. Of this land, approximately 507 ac are in 

agricultural uses, 20 ac are currently devoted to urban uses, including electrical power 

generation, and the remainder is primarily open lands and roadways. The agricultural land 

within the transmission line corridors would be converted from agricultural use to transmission 

line use, although FPL states in its ER (FPL 2014-TN4058) that agriculture could continue within 

and along the transmission line rights-of-way. The land uses along the conceptual corridors for 

new transmission lines to serve the St. Lucie alternative site are identified in Table 9-22. 

Under the Florida Site Certification Application process explained in Chapter 4.1, the State 

approves a corridor and the applicant chooses a specific right-of-way within the approved 

corridor. The objective of this process, as stated in the electrical power plant and transmission 

line statute (FDEP 2013-TN2629) is “that the location of transmission line corridors and the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of electric transmission lines produce minimal 

adverse effects on the environment and public health, safety, and welfare” and “to fully balance 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-207 NUREG–2176 

the need for transmission lines with the broad interests of the public in order to effect a 

reasonable balance between the need for the facility as a means of providing reliable, 

economical, and efficient electric energy and the impact on the public and the environment 

resulting from the location of the transmission line corridor and the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the transmission lines.” FPL states in its application that, in its development of 

the conceptual transmission line corridor for the St. Lucie alternative site, it attempted to select 

corridors that would allow collocation with existing transmission line corridors and avoided 

populated areas or residential land uses to some extent (FPL 2014-TN4058). The State 

certification review process also includes a determination of land-use consistency with local 

land-use plans and zoning ordinances (Fla. Stat. 29-403.50665-TN1470). 

The review team concludes that the land-use impacts from building and operating two new 

nuclear units at the St. Lucie alternative site would be noticeable, but not destabilizing. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Within the geographic area of interest, the only reasonably foreseeable activities shown on 

Table 9-21 that would have the potential to affect cumulative land-use impacts is future 

urbanization. The existing St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 contribute to the cumulative land-use 

impacts. 

In the area affected by the transmission lines, other linear projects are proposed, including the 

Florida Gas Transmission Phase VIII Expansion Project, as shown in Table 9-21. The review 

team expects that these corridors, if combined with building and operating the proposed 

transmission lines for nuclear plants at the St. Lucie site, would have a minimal cumulative landuse impact on the local area. 

Summary Statement 

Based on the information provided by FPL and the review team’s independent review, the 

review team concludes that the cumulative land-use impacts of building and operating the 

power plant at the St. Lucie alternative site would be MODERATE. This conclusion primarily 

reflects the project’s use of the St. Lucie alternative site, specifically the extensive modification 

needed to a narrow barrier island setting subject to coastal flooding and the potential for siteplanning constraints related to a major industrial development on a long and narrow island. The 

conclusion also reflects the need to widen a 22 mi segment of SR-A1A, a two-lane roadway 

parallel to the dunes on the barrier island, to provide access for building and operation of the 

subject nuclear plant. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable urban development in relative 

confined yet environmentally sensitive barrier island setting also contribute to the MODERATE 

conclusion. The incremental effect of building and operating the new nuclear units at the St. 

Lucie site would however be a significant contributor to the MODERATE conclusion. 

9.3.5.2 Water Use and Quality 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

could affect water use and quality, including the other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in 

Table 9-21. The St. Lucie site is located on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-208 October 2016 

The geographic area of interest for surface water at the St. Lucie site includes the Atlantic 

Ocean, Indian River watershed and the small watershed on Hutchinson Island in the vicinity of 

the site and for groundwater, the surficial aquifer at the site and the Upper Floridan aquifer 

within 20 mi of the site. These regions are of interest because they represent the water 

resource potentially affected by building and operating the proposed project at the St. Lucie site. 

Building Impacts 

Consistent with the proposed water use at the Turkey Point site, the review team assumed that 

no surface water would be used to build the units at the St. Lucie site. Therefore, the review 

team determined that there would be no impacts on surface-water use. Water for building 

activities would be obtained from the City of Fort Pierce and the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority. 

Potable water for service uses (totaling 131,500 gpd) at St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 currently comes 

from this source (FPL 2014-TN4058). The Fort Pierce Utilities Authority draws water from 41 

wells completed in the surficial aquifer and 9 wells completed in the Floridan aquifer. The 

utilities authority has a water-use permit from the SFWMD district to withdraw up to 21.13 Mgd 

of groundwater (FPUA 2013-TN2978). 

Groundwater use for building activities at the St. Lucie site would be similar to the proposed 

water use for building activities for the Turkey Point site. During building, water use is estimated 

to be 565 gpm (0.8 Mgd) (see Table 3-4). This would represent approximately 3 percent of the 

current capacity of the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority water-supply system. 

Surface-water quality would most likely be affected by surface-water runoff during site 

preparation and the building of the facilities. The FDEP would require FPL to develop an erosion 

and sediment control plan and a SWPPP (FPL 2014-TN4058). These plans would be developed 

before initiation of site-disturbance activities and would identify measures to be used during sitepreparation activities to mitigate erosion and control stormwater runoff (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

The plans would identify BMPs to control the impacts of stormwater runoff. The review team 

anticipates that FPL would construct new detention/infiltration ponds and drainage ditches to 

control delivery of sediment from the disturbed area to onsite waterbodies. Sediment carried 

with stormwater from the disturbed area would settle in the detention ponds and the stormwater 

would infiltrate into the shallow aquifer. Implementation of BMPs should minimize impacts on 

surface waterbodies near the St. Lucie site. Therefore, the surface-water-quality impacts near 

the St. Lucie site would be temporary and minimal. 

While building new nuclear units at the St. Lucie site, groundwater quality may be affected by 

leaching of spilled effluents into the subsurface. The review team assumes that the BMPs FPL 

has proposed for the Turkey Point site would be in place during building activities and therefore 

the review team concludes that any spills would be quickly detected and remediated. In 

addition, groundwater impacts would be limited to the duration of these activities, and therefore, 

would be temporary. The review team reviewed the general BMPs that could be expected to be 

required at such a site (State of Florida 2014-TN3637). Because any spills related to building 

activities would be quickly remediated under BMPs, and the activities would be temporary, the 

review team concludes that the groundwater-quality impacts from building at the St. Lucie site 

would be minimal. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-209 NUREG–2176 

Operations Impacts 

FPL has indicated that a closed-cycle cooling system would be used for new units at the 

St. Lucie site. The system would use cooling towers with the makeup water coming from the 

Atlantic Ocean and blowdown water being returned to the Atlantic Ocean. The review team 

assumed that the makeup-water withdrawal rate and the blowdown discharge rate would be the 

same as that at the Turkey Point site when the proposed units at that site were operating on the 

backup water system, specifically 86,400 gpm (124 Mgd) and 58,922 gpm (85 Mgd), 

respectively. 

Because the Atlantic Ocean is a virtually unlimited source of water, the review team determined 

that the use of Atlantic Ocean waters for cooling the additional units at the St. Lucie site would 

have a minimal impact. Therefore, the impact on surface-water resources due to plant use 

during operations would not be noticeable. 

During operations of the new units at the St. Lucie site, potable water and water for service uses 

would come from the City of Fort Pierce and the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority. The review team 

assumed that the water consumed for the two new units would be equivalent to the amount 

used at the existing plants or 131,500 gpd. As mentioned above, this water comes from 

groundwater wells and the anticipated consumption is approximately 0.6 percent of the current 

authorized withdrawal for the Fort Pierce system. Therefore, the impact on groundwater 

resources due to plant use during operations would not be noticeable. 

During the operation of the additional units at the St. Lucie site, impacts on surface-water quality 

could result from stormwater runoff, discharges of treated sanitary and other wastewater, and 

blowdown from cooling towers into the Atlantic Ocean. The FDEP would require FPL to develop 

a SWPPP (FPL 2014-TN4058). The plan would identify measures to be used to control 

stormwater runoff (FPL 2014-TN4058). The blowdown would be regulated by FDEP pursuant to 

40 CFR Part 423 (TN253), and all discharges would be required to comply with limits 

established by FDEP in an NPDES permit. 

During the operation of the additional units at the St. Lucie site, impacts on groundwater quality 

could result from accidental spills. Because BMPs would be used to quickly remediate spills 

and no intentional discharge to groundwater would occur, the review team concludes that the 

groundwater-quality impacts from operation of the additional units at the St. Lucie site would be 

minimal. 

Cumulative Impacts 

In addition to water-use and water-quality impacts from building and operations activities, 

cumulative analysis considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

affect the same water resources. 

The geographic area of interest for surface water includes the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of 

the St. Lucie site. The geographic area of interest for groundwater includes the surficial aquifer 

and the Upper Floridan aquifer in the region. These areas are of interest because they 

represent the water resource potentially affected by building and operating the additional units 

at the St. Lucie site. Key actions that have past, present, and future potential impacts on water 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-210 October 2016 

supply and water quality near the St. Lucie site include the operation and decommissioning of 

the existing units at the St. Lucie site and existing and future urbanization in the region. 

Cumulative Impacts on Water Use 

The only surface-water−use impacts of building and operating the additional units at this site are 

the water demands occurring during operation. Because the Atlantic is a virtually unlimited 

source of water supply compared to the makeup-water requirements for additional units at the 

site and the makeup-water requirements for the other units at the St. Lucie site the review team 

determined that the use of water from the Atlantic Ocean would have essentially no impact on 

surface-water use. Therefore, the review team concludes that cumulative impacts on surfacewater use would be SMALL. 

Groundwater supplied by the City of Fort Pierce and the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority would be 

used during the building and operation of additional units at the St. Lucie site. Groundwater 

would continue to be used by the existing units at the site for potable and service-water 

systems. There is increasing demand for potable water in St. Lucie County because of 

continuing development, population growth, and urbanization. Most of the population growth is 

occurring along the coast and the I-95 corridor. To meet this demand, the County plans to build 

additional water-treatment plants (St. Lucie County 2010-TN4020). Most of the potable water in 

the area has historically come from the surficial aquifer. However, brackish water from the 

deeper Floridan aquifer is now being withdrawn and desalinated to provide additional supplies 

of potable water. As mentioned above, the City of Fort Pierce and the Fort Pierce Utilities 

Authority currently have permits to withdraw 21.13 Mgd. Water use at the St. Lucie site while 

operating Units 1 and 2 (131,500 gpd or 0.13 Mgd) and building the two proposed units (565 

gpm or 0.81 Mgd) would be 0.94 Mgd. This is less than 4.4 percent of the permitted withdrawal 

for the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority. Groundwater use with the existing and new units operating 

would be 263,000 gpd (0.26 Mgd), which is approximately 1 percent of the permitted withdrawal 

for the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority. Therefore, the review team concludes that cumulative 

impacts on groundwater use would be SMALL. The impacts of other projects listed in 

Table 9-21 are either considered in the analysis included above or would have little or no impact 

on surface-water and groundwater use. 

Cumulative Impacts on Water Quality 

As described above, the impacts from building and operating two additional units at the 

St. Lucie site on surface-water quality would be minimal. Other present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions in the geographic area of interest of the St. Lucie site include the 

operation of existing units at the site. The areal extent of the influence of these facilities on 

water quality is small, and the influence of these facilities would be limited to Hutchinson Island. 

The FDEP, under the Clean Air Act Section 305(b) (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) (TN662), 

prepares a statewide Water Quality Inventory. The FDEP also identifies impaired waterbodies 

during this process and lists them on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list impaired and threatened 

waters. 

The Atlantic Ocean in areas of southern Florida has been listed on the 303(d) list as impaired 

because of the presence of mercury in fish, bacteria in shellfish, and fecal coliform. Therefore, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-211 NUREG–2176 

the review team concludes that past and present actions in the region have noticeably affected 

the water quality adversely. Based on its evaluation, the review team concludes that the 

cumulative surface-water−quality impacts would be MODERATE. Building and operating the 

proposed units at the St. Lucie alternative site would not be a significant contributor to these 

impacts on surface-water quality, because industrial and wastewater discharges from the 

proposed units would comply with NPDES permit limitations and any stormwater runoff from the 

site during operations would comply with the SWPPP (FPL 2014-TN4058). Like many areas of 

southeast Florida, groundwater quality in St. Lucie County has been affected by saltwater 

intrusion from the Atlantic because of (1) the channeling of surface runoff to the ocean through 

drainage canals, and (2) the pumping of groundwater. The water quality of the surficial aquifer 

in some areas of the county has also been degraded by the infiltration of brackish water used 

for irrigation (St. Lucie County 2010-TN4020). However, these issues are being addressed by 

service providers and local agencies, and would not make the cumulative impacts on 

groundwater greater than small. The review team also concludes that with the implementation 

of BMPs, the impacts on groundwater quality from building and operating two additional units at 

the St. Lucie site would likely be minimal, and therefore, the cumulative impact on groundwater 

quality would be SMALL. The impacts of other projects listed in Table 9-21 are either 

considered in the analysis included above or would have little or no impact on surface-water and 

groundwater quality. 

9.3.5.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources 

The following section addresses potential impacts on terrestrial and wetland resources from 

siting two new nuclear units at the St. Lucie site in South Florida and within a conceptual 

transmission line corridor, which begins in St. Lucie County and passes through portions of 

Martin and Palm Beach Counties. The St. Lucie site is an 1,130 ac site that already contains 

two operating nuclear power units. It is located on Hutchinson Island formed by the Atlantic 

Ocean to the east and the Indian River Lagoon to the west. The site lies within the 100-year 

floodplain and, other than sand dunes, topography does not vary considerably over the site 

(FPL 2014-TN4058). 

Information from the FWS indicates St. Lucie County hosts multiple terrestrial species that are 

listed as Federally endangered or threatened (Table 9-23). Surveys were conducted in the past 

at the St. Lucie site in conjunction with license renewal activities (NRC 2003-TN3152). Although 

the eastern indigo snake was not observed on the site, it has been observed on Hutchinson 

Island and suitable habitat is present within site boundaries so it was assumed to be present. 

Wood storks have also been occasionally observed at the site (NRC 2003-TN3152). The 

Florida scrub jay is known to inhabit the existing transmission line corridor near Savannas State 

Preserve (on the mainland west of Hutchinson Island) and Audubon’s crested caracara and the 

Everglade snail kite are suspected to occur there as well (NRC 2003-TN3152). Habitat 

preferences for all of the species except the fragrant prickly-apple (Cereus eriphorus var. 

fragrans) were discussed in previous alternative site sections, so habitat preferences for only 

this species are discussed here. The fragrant prickly-apple is a tree cactus that grows in coastal 

hammocks along the east side of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge (FWS 1999-TN136). It was listed 

as potentially occurring within the existing transmission line corridor (NRC 2003-TN3152) and is 

confirmed to occur in only 10 locations, 9 of which are in the Savannas Preserve State Park 

immediately across the Indian River Lagoon from the St. Lucie site (FWS 2010-TN3049). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-212 October 2016 

Although it is not known to occur on Hutchinson Island, future management actions call for 

surveys for it on the south part of the island. The four-petal pawpaw may also occur within the 

existing transmission line corridor (NRC 2003-TN3152). 

Table 9-23. Federally Listed Terrestrial Species that May Occur on the St. Lucie Site or 

within the Conceptual Transmission Line Corridor

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status 

Birds 

Polyborus plancus audubonii Audubon’s crested caracara Threatened 

Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus Everglade snail kite Endangered 

Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida scrub jay Threatened 

Campephilus principalis Ivory-billed woodpecker Endangered 

Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland’s warbler Endangered 

Charadrius melodus Piping plover Threatened 

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered 

Calidris canutus rufa Red knot(a) Threatened 

Mycteria americana Wood stork Threatened 

Grus americana Whooping crane Endangered 

Mammals 

Puma concolor coryi Florida panther Endangered 

Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris Southeastern beach mouse Threatened 

Reptiles 

Drymarchon corais couperi Eastern indigo snake Threatened 

Invertebrates 

Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri Miami blue Endangered 

Strymon acis bartrami Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak(a) Endangered 

Anaea troglodyte floridalis Florida leafwing(a) Endangered 

Plants 

Cereus eriphorus var. fragrans Fragrant prickly-apple Endangered 

Decerandra immaculate Lakela’s mint Endangered 

Polygala smallii Tiny polygala Endangered 

Jacquemontia reclinata Beach jacquemontia(a) Endangered 

Asimina tetramera Four-petal pawpaw(a) Endangered 

Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. 

okeechobeensis 

Okeechobee gourd(a) Endangered 

(a) Additional listed species occurring in Martin and/or Palm Beach County (FWS 2014-TN3731; FWS 2014-

TN3759). 

Source: FWS Natural Resources of Concern Information, Planning, and Conservation System Website (FWS 2014-

TN3762). 

FPL assumed the facility footprint, which would include the power units, support buildings, 

switchyard, storage areas, parking areas, water intake and discharge canals, and other 

structures, would require approximately 357 ac, mostly on the west side of SR-A1A 

(Table 9-22). Building at the St. Lucie site would also require approximately 267 ac to widen a 

stretch of SR-A1A, 6.3 ac for a heavy-haul road from the barge slip, and 10.5 ac for 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-213 NUREG–2176 

intake/blowdown pipeline corridors. There is no current rail access to the St. Lucie site, but rail 

access would not be needed. Additional acreage would be temporarily required for laydown 

areas, a batch plant, and spoil deposition. 

The conceptual transmission line corridor was assumed to be 63 mi long to connect the St. 

Lucie site with the Corbett substation in Palm Beach County. This corridor would vary from 

approximately 200−660 ft in width and require an additional 2,187 ac of land. 

The following sections describe a cumulative impact assessment conducted for terrestrial and 

wetland resources. The review team assessed the specific resources that could be affected by 

the incremental effects of the proposed action if it were sited at the St. Lucie site as well as 

other actions in the same geographic area. This assessment includes the impacts from building 

activities and operations. Also included are other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future Federal, non-Federal, and private actions that could have meaningful cumulative impacts 

along with the proposed action. Other actions and projects considered in this cumulative 

analysis are described in Table 9-21. 

Most of the St. Lucie site that would be developed for new nuclear units is classified as either 

wetlands or previously developed lands. Mangrove swamp is the most abundant wetland type 

and the most predominant land cover found on the site. Embayments within the Indian River 

Lagoon are also a prominent land cover. Significant amounts of previously developed lands are 

also present. Land cover within the conceptual transmission line corridor differs from the site 

and includes more uplands than wetlands as well as lands used for agriculture. 

Building Impacts 

FPL estimated that 2,827 ac of land would be affected if two new nuclear units were built at the 

St. Lucie site (Table 9-24). Preconstruction and construction activities would include clearing, 

grading, excavation, and spoil deposition and dewatering. Typical impacts from nuclear unit 

preconstruction and construction to terrestrial resources and wetlands include permanent and 

temporary habitat loss from development, habitat fragmentation and degradation, disturbance 

and displacement of individual wildlife, and increased risk of vehicle collision mortality to local 

wildlife populations. The conversion of fully developed and stable plant communities to earlier 

successional communities dominated by lower growing vegetation during development of linear 

transmission or pipeline corridors often results in a high degree of habitat fragmentation within 

the landscape. FPL included 2,187 ac of land within a conceptual transmission line corridor, 

including 1,525 ac of uplands and 684 ac of wetlands (FPL 2011-TN59). The conceptual 

transmission line corridor includes approximately 392 ac of dry prairie, 261 ac of pine flatwoods, 

and lesser amounts of shrub and brushland, mixed rangeland, hydric pine flatwoods, palmetto 

prairie, and woodland pasture. Wetlands within the conceptual transmission line corridor 

include approximately 283 ac of freshwater marsh, 157 ac of embayments, 78 ac of wet prairie, 

63 ac of mixed wetland hardwoods, 41 ac of coastal scrub, 32 ac of emergent aquatic 

vegetation, and 15 ac of mangrove swamp. Impacts from transmission line corridor 

development and operation on habitat are mostly from alteration and fragmentation rather than 

complete and permanent loss and are discussed in a separate section below. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-214 October 2016 

Table 9-24. Acreage within the Conceptual Footprint at the St. Lucie Site 

FLUCFCS Code Description 

Site and Non-Transmission 

(ac) Transmission (ac) 

200-series Agriculture 0 507 

300-series Uplands 8 643 

400-series Forest 35 311 

500-600 series Water and Wetlands 478 684 

100, 700, and 800 series Developed 120 42 

Total(a) 640 2,187 

(a) The review team acknowledges a discrepancy of approximately 23 ac in the terrestrial versus land-use figures and 

has determined that this discrepancy is inconsequential to the analyses and conclusions. 

Source: FPL 2011-TN59 

Plant Facilities 

If the nuclear power units, access road, rail line, and pipeline were built within the proposed 

footprint, an estimated total of 640 ac would be affected (Table 9-24). Much of the area within 

the St. Lucie conceptual footprint is currently classified as mangrove swamp (FPL 2011-TN59). 

FPL anticipated 246 ac of mangrove swamp would be permanently developed by building within 

the plant area, and an additional 110 ac would be permanently developed by widening SR-A1A. 

Other wetlands affected include embayments and coastal scrub. The sum of lost wetland 

habitat from development of the plant area, immediate surrounding area, and the SR-A1A 

corridor is approximately 478 ac. Approximately 39 ac of upland habitat would also be 

permanently lost, including 21 ac of upland hardwood forest and minor amounts of cabbage 

palm, dry prairie, and areas of non-native tree cover. Preconstruction activities would be 

conducted in accordance with all Federal and State regulations, permit conditions, and BMPs, 

including the use of directed drainage ditches and silt fencing. Acreage within the conceptual 

transmission line corridor was minimized to the extent possible by using the most direct route 

while avoiding areas with important resources and high biological value. FPL also stated that 

any wetland functions affected within the transmission line corridor would be replaced or 

restored (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

The supplement for relicensing of the existing St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant did not report the 

occurrence of Federally listed species on the site (NRC 2003-TN3152). The distribution and 

abundance of species on the site are however unknown, and there may still be some Federally 

listed threatened or endangered species onsite (FPL 2014-TN3792). No part of Hutchinson 

Island has been designated as critical habitat for any listed species, but much of the island 

including the St. Lucie site is located within the core foraging area of two nearby wood stork 

colonies, so loss of shallow-water habitats could reduce forage available to wood storks. The 

loss of mangrove swamps and embayments could eliminate stopover habitat used by the red 

knot during migration. Loss of upland habitats containing gopher tortoise (Gopherus 

polyphemus) burrows could eliminate eastern indigo snake habitat. The southeastern beach 

mouse (Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris) occurs in sand dune habitat. Although sand dune 

habitat is present at the St. Lucie site on the east side of SR-A1A and elsewhere on Hutchinson 

Island, the southeastern beach mouse is not known to occur anywhere on Hutchinson Island 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-215 NUREG–2176 

and may have been locally extirpated (NRC 2003-TN3152). The nearest known population is at 

Fort Pierce Inlet State Park located roughly 9 mi north across Fort Pierce Inlet on North 

Hutchinson Island (FWS 2008-TN3073). The unique setting and habitats on a barrier island 

would preclude most of the other Federally listed species known to occur in St. Lucie County 

from actually occurring at the St. Lucie site or being noticeably affected by proposed actions at 

the site or immediate vicinity. However, impacts from the development and operation of a 

transmission line corridor could affect listed species. 

Transmission Lines and Access Roads 

Field surveys dated 2001 report the occurrence or expected occurrence of certain Federally 

listed species in the transmission line corridor for those units but not on the site (NRC 2003-

TN3152). The new units may use this existing transmission line corridor. Approximately 720 ac 

of habitat potentially suitable for Audubon’s crested caracara is contained within the conceptual 

transmission line corridor. Habitats preferred by the Everglade snail kite total almost 315 ac 

within the corridor. Approximately 169 ac of scrub habitat is also within the corridor. The 

Florida scrub jay thrives in scrub habitat, but it is not known whether the potentially affected 

scrub habitats also contain oak that is favored by this bird species. Kirtland’s warbler uses 

scrub habitat in Florida, and the alteration of scrub within the corridor could result in less 

available habitat. Loss and degradation of mangroves, freshwater marsh, and embayments 

within the conceptual corridor could reduce the amount of migratory stopover habitat for the red 

knot. Wet prairie and freshwater marsh habitats frequented by whooping cranes total 

approximately 361 ac. Wood stork nesting colonies are located along the North Fork of the St. 

Lucie River and at Sewall’s Point, approximately 7 mi southwest and 11 mi south-southeast 

from the St. Lucie site. Approximately 402 ac of land cover suitable for wood stork foraging 

exists within the conceptual transmission line corridor, and an unknown portion of this would lie 

within the 18.6 mi core foraging area of both of these colonies and possibly others (FWS 2010-

TN3080). A considerable amount of upland cover would also be suitable for the eastern indigo 

snake, including more than 1,000 ac within the conceptual transmission line corridor. The 

existing corridor passes through portions of a red-cockaded woodpecker occurrence area 

(FWS 2014-TN3734). The removal of trees from a portion of the 544 ac of forested land cover 

within the corridor could result in the loss of red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. Changes in 

habitats within the conceptual transmission line corridor, including ground clearing, elimination 

of woody vegetation, and planting and maintenance of low-growing vegetation such as grass, 

would affect the habitat suitability of these areas to the aforementioned Federally listed species 

and could increase the likelihood of non-native plants being accidentally introduced. 

Because the conceptual transmission line corridor also passes through Martin County and a 

portion of Palm Beach County, the review team also considered impacts on additional Federally 

listed species and those species proposed for Federal listing known to occur in those counties. 

Bartram’s hairstreak, the Florida leafwing, Florida perforate cladonia, Florida prairie-clover, fourpetal pawpaw, and Okeechobee gourd would not be affected by the transmission line. Either 

they do not occur in the vicinity, or the habitats that they prefer are not represented in landcover information FPL stated could be affected.

Increased traffic on transmission access roads could also contribute to the spread of non-native 

plant or animal species within these habitats. Increased traffic could also increase the risk of 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-216 October 2016 

vehicle strike mortality to the eastern indigo snake. The snake would be prone to increased 

mortality from off-road vehicle use during land clearing and increased traffic during construction 

and operation. As with construction and operation at the Turkey Point site, mitigation 

requirements by the FFWCC including staff awareness training and reporting would minimize 

negative impacts on the eastern indigo snake. Habitat fragmentation and loss would also affect 

local populations of plants and wildlife expected to occur within the region in suitable habitat that 

are not Federally listed. However, these effects are not expected to be noticeable and would 

not destabilize even local populations of any of these animals. Additional Federally listed 

species not expected to be affected are the ivory-billed woodpecker, Miami blue butterfly, 

Florida panther, fragrant prickly-apple, Lakela’s mint, and tiny polygala. The St. Lucie site lies 

outside all designated management zones for the Florida panther. The Corbett substation is 

approximately 2 mi inside of the outermost management zone, and habitats between the 

substation and the zone boundary are either already developed or highly fragmented. Locations 

at which all of the other species are known to occur would not be affected. 

Operations Impacts 

Operation of two nuclear units at the St. Lucie site would create noise, fogging and dissolved 

solid deposition from cooling towers, runoff from increased impermeable surfaces, light 

pollution, and increased vehicle collision mortality to local wildlife populations. Operation of 

transmission lines could increase the risk of bird collision and electrocution mortality. 

Operational noise from the cooling towers may displace individual animals from the immediate 

vicinity of the cooling towers. Salinity levels within cooling water would be equal to seawater. 

Vapor leaving a cooling tower contains dissolved solids including salt, and some vegetation can 

be sensitive to salt deposition. The review team assumed salt deposition from cooling-tower 

drift at the St. Lucie site would be similar in scale and intensity to deposition at the Turkey Point 

site. Most of the salt would likely be deposited on developed land near the cooling towers, and 

concentrations as high as 10 kg/ha/mo that have resulted in observable effects to sensitive plant 

species could be expected as far as 1.25 mi from the cooling towers. Like the Turkey Point site, 

the St. Lucie site is a coastal site and the vegetation in the vicinity would already be adapted to 

a high-salt environment, so the effects from additional salt deposition from the cooling towers on 

vegetation would likely not be noticeable beyond the boundaries of the site. 

The creation of impermeable surfaces and a stormwater runoff management system at the 

St. Lucie site would likely result in changes in surface-water flow patterns into the Indian River 

Lagoon. Increases or decreases in the amount and timing of flow could result in changes in 

vegetative cover but would be limited to areas immediately surrounding developed areas. 

Erosion and sedimentation of wetlands could result during facility building activities. Pollutants 

could also be transported by runoff into the surrounding wetlands. BMPs would be expected to 

be followed with respect to protecting wetlands. 

Light pollution during facility operation could affect wildlife residing on or migrating through the 

St. Lucie site. The St. Lucie site already has operating power units and the incremental 

increase in light would not be expected to noticeable alter local wildlife distribution or 

abundance. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-217 NUREG–2176 

EMFs are unlike other agents that have an adverse impact (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing 

radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be demonstrated and long-term effects, if they 

exist, are subtle (NRC 2013-TN2654). A careful review of biological and physical studies of 

EMFs did not reveal consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures 

(NRC 2013-TN2654). The impacts of EMFs on terrestrial flora and fauna are of small 

significance at operating nuclear power plants, including transmission systems with variable 

numbers of power lines and lines energized at levels less than 765 kV (NRC 2013-TN2654). 

Since 1997, more than a dozen published studies have looked at cancer in animals that were 

exposed to EMFs for all or most of their lives (Moulder 2005-TN1329). These studies have 

found no evidence that EMFs cause any specific types of cancer in rats or mice (Moulder 2005-

TN1329). Therefore, the incremental EMF impact posed by operation of existing transmission 

lines and the addition of new lines for two new nuclear units would be negligible at the St. Lucie 

alternative site. 

Transmission line corridor vegetation-management activities (cutting and herbicide application) 

and related impacts on floodplains and wetlands in transmission line corridors are of minor 

significance at operating nuclear power plants, including those with transmission line corridors 

of variable widths (NRC 2013-TN2654). The presence of overhead wires above and guy wires 

within habitat potentially suitable for the whooping crane, wood stork, Audubon’s crested 

caracara, and the Everglade snail kite could increase their risk of electrocution and collision 

mortality. The existing transmission line corridor from the St. Lucie site exits the site westward 

across the Indian River Lagoon, then turns south and eventually southeast to the Corbett 

substation. The wood stork colony at Sewall’s Point lies southwest between the St. Lucie site 

and the Corbett substation, but if the conceptual corridor follows the existing path, wires would 

not pass within approximately 5 mi of an existing wood stork colony. Transmission lines 

connecting the St. Lucie site to the Corbett substation would pass through core foraging areas 

of multiple wood stork colonies (FWS 2014-TN3732). The risk of collision and electrocution 

mortality for the wood stork increases if transmission lines are operated within their range and 

there is suitable habitat within the transmission right-of-way. The level of risk is commensurate 

with the location of the transmission lines and wood stork nesting colonies, foraging habitat, and 

travel corridors. The review team assumed the FWS would regulate wire installation in 

proximity to wood stork colonies, foraging habitat, flight corridors (Section 9.3.2.3), and 

important snail kite habitats as it does at the Turkey Point site, but wire installation could still 

affect local wood stork, whooping crane, crested caracara, and snail kite populations. 

Operational effects on other important species would be minimal. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The geographic area of interest for the assessment of the potential cumulative impacts of 

building and operating a new reactor at the St. Lucie site and other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions on terrestrial resources and wetlands is defined as the 

50 mi radius around the St. Lucie site. A list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions within 50 mi of the St. Lucie site is presented in Table 9-21. This list includes a variety 

of energy-production projects, mining, manufacturing, infrastructure-development projects, setaside areas for recreation and conservation, CERP-related projects, and other watermanagement actions. Other miscellaneous activities that could affect terrestrial and wetland 

resources in the region include the creation of the 2,700 ac stormwater-treatment area 1E. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-218 October 2016 

Past land use in South Florida, especially agriculture and more recently urbanization, has 

greatly affected the distribution and abundance of unfragmented plant and wildlife habitats still 

remaining. Development and urbanization of higher elevation lands has drastically reduced the 

amount of pine flatwoods, coastal scrub, and other remaining upland habitat. Ditching and 

draining created more dry land, reducing the amount of wetlands available as habitat. The 

continued operation and maintenance of existing facilities would likely not exacerbate the 

current situation with respect to terrestrial and wetland ecosystems. Numerous mining projects 

exist in the vicinity, and expansion of these as well as the creation of the Lake Point Mine has 

the potential to increase their footprint and development in general on the landscape, as does 

continued human population growth in South Florida. Lands set aside for recreation and 

conservation would continue to provide buffers against development, provide habitat for plants 

and animals, and serve to preserve the remaining ecosystem of South Florida. Projects that 

incrementally reverse changes in land cover due to man-made changes in surface-water flow, 

including CERP-related activities, would also continue to benefit both terrestrial and wetland 

ecology of the region. 

As described in Chapter 7, terrestrial and wetland environments in South Florida have been 

affected by continued population growth and related development. The overall impact from 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities on regional terrestrial and wetland 

ecology is substantial. 

Summary Statement 

The loss of more than 600 ac of habitat, much of it mangrove forest, on the ecologically 

sensitive barrier island containing the St. Lucie site would be noticeable. Furthermore, the 

building and operation of a 63 mi long transmission line corridor to service two new units at the 

St. Lucie site would produce noticeable impacts on terrestrial ecological resources and wetlands 

both on the barrier island and on the mainland landscape to the west. Approximately 482 ac of 

wetland habitats including more than 400 ac of mangrove swamp and smaller areas of 

freshwater marsh would be permanently lost to build the transmission line. FPL included over 

2,187 ac of land within a 63 mi long conceptual transmission line corridor that was 200−660 ft 

wide. The corridor contained 986 ac of uplands as well as 607 ac of forested cover. These 

figures do not account for uplands that have been developed or are currently used for 

agriculture or pasture. Although the entire corridor would not be developed and all lands would 

not be lost as habitat, some portion would be lost to pole installation, road development, or 

altered to low-growing vegetation. Habitats of significant ecological value in South Florida that 

could be affected include mangrove swamp, freshwater marsh, herbaceous prairie, and pine 

flatwoods. Impacts on Federally listed terrestrial species and their habitats would be noticeable 

and would require mitigation. 

Based on the information provided by FPL and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

review team concludes that the cumulative impacts on terrestrial and wetland resources of 

building and operating two new nuclear units at the St. Lucie alternative site, including impacts 

attributable to permanent conversion of habitat for the facility footprint as well as operation of 

the cooling tower and transmission lines would be MODERATE. The incremental effect of the 

building and operation of two new nuclear units at the St. Lucie site would be a significant 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-219 NUREG–2176 

contributor to this impact, primarily because of effects on mangroves and the proposed 

transmission line corridor impacts on forest habitat. 

9.3.5.4 Aquatic Resources 

What follows is an assessment of the potential impacts on aquatic resources that may occur if 

the two nuclear units described by FPL (2014-TN4058) were constructed and operated at the 

St. Lucie alternative site. It is also assumed the existing infrastructure at the St. Lucie site, 

including the intake and discharge structures systems and components used by the existing 

nuclear units at this location, would have sufficient excess capacity to support two additional 

closed-cycle cooling units. Unless otherwise noted, the information presented in this section 

was obtained from FPL’s ER, Revision 6 (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

The St. Lucie alternative site is an 1,130 ac industrial site owned by FPL and located on 

Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida (Figure 9-24). The site currently supports two 

operating nuclear units that were relicensed in 2003 for an additional 20 years of operation after 

completion and publication of a supplemental EIS by the NRC (2003-TN3152). The site is 

situated between two major aquatic ecosystems: the Atlantic Ocean to the east and the Indian 

River Lagoon to the west. The site is approximately 7 mi southeast of Fort Pierce, and 4 mi 

east of the city of St. Lucie, and is situated on the west side of SR-A1A. Two county parks with 

beach access (Blind Creek Pass Park and Walton Rocks Park) are within the St. Lucie Units 1 

and 2 property boundary. The Indian River Lagoon to the west of the St. Lucie site is a long, 

shallow estuary that extends along the central east coast of Florida. Near the St. Lucie site, the 

lagoon is approximately 7,200 ft wide. The Jensen Beach to Jupiter Island Aquatic Preserve is 

adjacent to the site. To the east, the ocean floor is composed of unconsolidated sediment 

containing quartz and calcareous sand, and shell fragments. Water depths approximately 1 mi 

from shore are less than 40 ft. A complete description of the existing units is found in 

NRC (2003-TN3152). The existing Units 1 and 2 use a once-through cooling-water system that 

withdraws from and discharges into the Atlantic Ocean via offshore intake and discharge 

structures. The plant can withdraw water for station cooling from the Indian River Lagoon via 

Big Mud Creek under emergency conditions (NRC 2003-TN3152). For the purpose of this 

review, it is assumed that water for the closed-cycle cooling system proposed for the new 

reactors would use the existing intake and discharge canals that support Units 1 and 2. The 

review team also assumes the facility footprint would require 357 ac, and the conceptual 

transmission line corridor to support the new units would be 63 mi long and occupy 2,187 ac. 

As described in NUREG–1437, Supplement 11 (NRC 2003-TN3152), extensive environmental 

studies were conducted in the Atlantic Ocean and the Indian River Lagoon near the St. Lucie 

site prior to construction and operation of Units 1 and 2. What follows is a brief description of 

the information presented by the NRC (2003-TN3152) and more recent studies conducted by 

FPL, as described in ER Revision 6 (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

Commercial and Recreational Species 

Based on the information presented by the NRC (2003-TN3152), invertebrate species with 

commercial or recreational value present in the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of St. Lucie 

included the Atlantic calico scallop (Argopecten gibbus), various shrimp of the family Penaeidae, 

and the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus). These species were generally collected infrequently 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-220 October 2016 

and in small numbers. Fish species with commercial or recreational value included the Bluefish 

(Pomatomus saltatrix), Spanish Mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus), and King Mackerel 

(Scomberomorus cavalla). These species are highly migratory, spawn in coastal waters from 

late summer into winter (depending on species), and migrate northward along the East Coast 

during the warmer season. Recreationally important fish species present near the St. Lucie site 

included Ladyfish (Elops saurus), Common Snook (Centropomus undecimalis), and various 

billfish species. As reported by FPL (2014-TN4058), tilefish (Caulolatilus spp.) and Swordfish 

(Xiphias gladius) are also present near the St. Lucie site. 

Important Species 

Atlantic Ocean 

Extensive environmental baseline studies conducted at Atlantic Ocean sites near St. Lucie 

included surveys of zooplankton, phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates, and fish communities. 

The results of some of these studies are described in detail by the NRC (2003-TN3152), and 

additional discussion is provided by FPL (2014-TN4058). Initial baseline monitoring established 

that there were three subtidal microhabitats near the plant: shallow beach terrace, offshore 

shoal, with a deep trough between the two. These microhabitats contained different sediment 

compositions, which influence invertebrate and fish abundance and diversity. Phytoplankton 

communities were dominated by diatoms; zooplankton communities were generally dominated 

by copepods and reflected species that spend their entire lifecycle in the water column. 

Baseline data described 127 species of arthropods and nearly 300 species of mollusks. As 

described above, the calico scallop, blue crab, and a variety of shrimp were of commercial 

value. Baseline studies also identified more than 900 taxa of benthic macroinvertebrates in 

ocean waters near St. Lucie. Fish sampling methods during baseline studies included bottom 

trawls and beach seines. Bottom trawls during early baseline studies were generally ineffective, 

catching fewer than 40 fish during one eight-month sampling effort. Beach seines collected 

over 11,500 fish in November 1971, and Cuban and Longnose Anchovies (Anchoa cubana and 

A. nasuta) dominated the samples. As noted by the NRC (2003-TN3152), offshore fish 

communities were generally transitional assemblages of temperate and tropical forms. To avoid 

affecting species attracted to reef structures, FPL sited the intake and discharge structures for 

St. Lucie Unit 1 and 2 in areas where reef systems were not present. 

Indian River Lagoon 

As described by the NRC (2003-TN3152), environmental studies were conducted in the Indian 

River Lagoon from the late 1960s to the 1980s near the site of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. This 

portion of the estuary contains extensive growths of manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme) that 

supports a variety of species, including amphipods, shrimp, isopods, crab, and juvenile fish. 

A diverse assemblage of fish species are present in the area, including Red Drum, Spotted 

Seatrout, Common Snook, Sheepshead Minnows, and Gray Snapper. 

Essential Fish Habitats 

A variety of managed species under the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council (SAFMC) are present near the St. Lucie site (Table 9-25). Although there is no 

designated essential fish habitat (EFH) for Coastal Marine Pelagics near the St. Lucie site, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-221 NUREG–2176 

SAFMC has identified habitats of particular concern (HAPCs) in the Atlantic Ocean and Indian 

River Lagoon near the site. Coral/Coral Reef EFH is identified in the Atlantic Ocean near the 

site, and HAPC is designated in ocean and lagoon areas near the site. Snapper-Grouper EFH 

and HAPC are present in both waterbodies, and Spiny Lobster EFH is also present at both 

locations. Shrimp EFH is designated in both Atlantic and Indian River Lagoon areas near the 

site, and HAPC is designated in the Indian River Lagoon. 

Table 9-25. Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Present near 

the St. Lucie Site 

Applicable Fishery Management Plan 

Atlantic Ocean Indian River Lagoon 

EFH HAPC EFH HAPC 

Coastal Marine Pelagic No Yes No Yes 

Coral/Coral Reef Yes Yes No Yes 

Snapper/Grouper Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Spiny Lobster Yes No Yes No 

Shrimp Yes No Yes Yes 

Source: SAFMC EFH Viewer (SAFMC 2014-TN2946) 

Non-Native or Nuisance Species 

Non-native or nuisance species that have been observed in the Indian River Lagoon near 

St. Lucie include the Brown Hoplo (Hoplosternum littorale) and green mussel (Perna viridis) 

(FISP 2009-TN3064). In addition, the FFWCC has identified the Lionfish (Pterois volitans), 

which is known to occur along the coast of Florida, as a threat to saltwater fish and wildlife 

(FFWCC 2014-TN3065). 

Federally and State-Listed Species and Critical Habitats 

Federal or State-listed species and Species of Concern that could be present near the St. Lucie 

site are listed in Table 9-26. Large whales are known to occur along the coast of South Florida, 

and may, on occasion, occur close to the St. Lucie facility. The five species of sea turtles listed 

in Table 9-26 have been reported on Hutchinson Island, where the loggerhead sea turtle is the 

most common. As described by the NRC (2003-TN3152), between 5,000 and 8,000 loggerhead 

nests have been reported on Hutchinson Island. Green and leatherback turtle nests have also 

been documented on the island. FPL (2014-TN4058) indicated Kemp’s ridley and hawksbill sea 

turtle nests have not been reported near St. Lucie. The discovery of a Smalltooth Sawfish in the 

St. Lucie intake canal on May 16, 2005, during the course of normal sea turtle netting activities

prompted the development of a biological assessment that was submitted to National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) in November 2005 (FPL 2005-TN3156). A biological assessment 

related to sea turtle capture during normal operations at St. Lucie was developed by the NRC in 

2007 (NRC 2007-TN3074) and consultation with NMFS was concluded and a biological opinion

was issued on March 24, 2016 (NMFS 2016-TN4778). The NRC also provided an EFH 

assessment in 2012 related to the power uprate proposed by FPL for Units 1 and 2 (NRC 2012-

TN3155). Additional information about the operation of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 may be found in 

FPL (2014-TN3917). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-222 October 2016 

Table 9-26. Federally or State-Listed Species and Species of Concern Likely to Occur at 

or near the St. Lucie Site 

Common Name Scientific Name Classification 

Federal 

Designation 

State 

Designation 

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Mammal Endangered(a) Endangered(a)

Finback whale Balaenoptera phusalus Mammal Endangered(a) Endangered(a)

North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis Mammal Endangered(a) Endangered(a)

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeaniae Mammal Endangered(a) Endangered(a)

Sperm whale Physetercatodon Mammal Endangered(a) Endangered(a)

Florida manatee Trichechus manatus 

latirostris 

Mammal Endangered(b) Endangered(b)

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Reptile Endangered(b) Endangered(b)

Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochlys imbricata Reptile Endangered(b) Endangered(b)

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii Reptile Endangered(b) Endangered(b)

Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Reptile Endangered(b) Endangered(b)

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea Reptile Endangered(b) Endangered(b)

American alligator Alligator mississippiensis Reptile Threatened(c) 

SOA(d) 

Threatened(c)

SOA(d)

Smalltooth Sawfish Pristis pectinata Fish Endangered(c) Endangered(c)

Mangrove Rivulus Rivulus marmoratus Fish Species of 

Concern(b)

Species of 

Special 

Concern(b)

Johnson’s Seagrass Halophila johnsonii Plant Threatened(a) - 

(a) ML031360705, St. Lucie Relicensing SEIS (NRC 2003-TN3152) 

(b) FNAI 2013-TN3066 

(c) FFWCC 2013-TN3075 

(d) SOA = similarity of appearance to American crocodile 

Building Impacts 

Based on the information provided by FPL, a total of 357 ac would be required for the main 

power plant site, and an additional 2,187 ac would be required to support transmission lines. 

The facility footprint would primarily affect mangrove swamp habitat, resulting in a permanent 

loss of resource. Transmission line construction would likely affect existing agricultural 

activities, and would likely require water crossings that could temporarily affect aquatic 

resources during tower construction. Because the review team assumes that the existing intake 

and discharge canal structures used by St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 would support the cooling of the 

new units, building impacts on nearshore areas would be greatly reduced, and would likely be 

primarily associated with stormwater management that would be mitigated through BMPs and 

compliance with NPDES permits. As noted by FPL, Coastal Zone Management certification 

would be required, given the proximity of the St. Lucie site to the Atlantic Ocean. Building 

activities would be mainly confined to the western portions of the existing site and are not 

expected to affect nesting turtles or turtle movements in the Atlantic or Indian River Lagoon. 

FPL has indicated field surveys for Federally or State-listed species would be conducted prior to 

building activities at the site or within transmission line corridors. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-223 NUREG–2176 

Operations Impacts 

Assuming the cooling systems used at the St. Lucie site for the new reactors would be similar to 

those described in Section 3.4.5 for proposed Units 6 and 7 at Turkey Point when saltwater is 

used, the maximum water withdrawal rate would be approximately 86,400 gpm and the 

maximum blowdown discharge would be approximately 58,922 gpm. The existing St. Lucie 

Units 1 and 2 once-through cooling system requires between 800,000 to 1,120,000 gpm, 

depending on condenser cleanliness (NRC 2003-TN3152), and these units received license 

renewals by the NRC on November 2, 2003 (NRC 2013-TN3079). The recent extended power 

uprate granted in 2012 for these units increased water discharge temperatures by 

approximately 3C, but did not increase flow (NRC 2012-TN3153). Comparing the maximum 

water withdrawal rate for the proposed to units to the range of once-through water flow for the 

existing units shows the new units would increase the existing intake flow rate by between 7.7 

and 10.8 percent. This would likely result in some increase in impingement and entrainment 

losses related to the existing intake. Blowdown contributions to the existing discharge canal 

and outfall would represent increases in flow rates ranging from approximately 5 to 7 percent, 

depending on actual water flow of the Unit 1 and 2 cooling system. Blowdown discharges may 

contribute to both discharge water temperature and contaminant load, and would be subject to 

NPDES permitting. Assuming a closed-cycle cooling system and compliance with the EPA’s 

316(b) Phase I requirements for intake structures (66 FR 65256) (TN243), the intake is 

considered protective of aquatic life. The review team considers the anticipated impacts of 

impingement and entrainment to be minimal. 

Also, operation of the cooling towers may increase nearby salt deposition. The effects of 

additional salt deposition are likely to not be significant for surface-water habitats near the area, 

because the salt content of the air is already high at this coastal location and biota are 

preadapted to high salt depositional rates. 

Operational impacts associated with the St. Lucie site after Unit 1 and 2 license expiration (2036 

and 2043, respectively) would likely decrease, because intake and discharge water volumes 

through the existing infrastructure would be significantly reduced when once-through cooling is 

no longer required. The review team assumed FPL would obtain a revised NPDES permit at 

that time for continued operation of the new units. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Table 9-21 presents past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and other actions in the 

vicinity of the St. Lucie alternative site. As described in previous sections, a variety of energy, 

transportation, mining, and infrastructure improvement projects are occurring or may occur. 

These projects may place increasing demands on groundwater and surface-water resources, 

temporarily or permanently alter wetland and surface-water habitats, or require additional 

protection from storm events or sea-level rise in the coming decades. Table 9-21 also provides 

a list of parks and preserves that will continue to exist during that time, providing protected 

habitat for terrestrial and aquatic biota, and recreational opportunities for residents of South 

Florida and visiting tourists. It is expected that limited development will occur near these 

protected areas, providing an overall positive cumulative ecological benefit. In addition, a 

variety of restoration projects currently under way or planned are intended to restore historical 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-224 October 2016 

hydrologic connectivity, enhance habitats that promote species diversity, improve water quality 

and water management, and control exotic or invasive species that threaten native plants and 

biota. 

As discussed in Section 7.3.2, aquatic environments in this region of South Florida may also be 

affected by continued population growth. Overall, the review team concludes that the 

cumulative impacts on aquatic resources in the vicinity of the St. Lucie site would be SMALL to 

MODERATE. 

Summary Statement 

Based on a review of the information provided by FPL and its independent assessment, the 

review team concludes that the operation of two nuclear units at the St. Lucie site, in addition to 

the existing units, would contribute minimally to adverse cumulative effects on aquatic 

resources. The presence of two new units would result in some detectable increases in 

impingement and entrainment, but would not result in a noticeable change in aquatic resources. 

Cooling-tower blowdown would contribute minimally to water temperature or contaminant levels 

of water discharged into the Atlantic Ocean, and would be regulated via an NPDES permit. 

Thus, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts of the building and operation of 

two new nuclear reactors at the St. Lucie site, combined with the other past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable activities on aquatic resources would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

Building and operating two new nuclear units at the St. Lucie site would not be a significant 

contributor to the MODERATE impact. 

9.3.5.5 Socioeconomics 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

affect socioeconomics, including other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-21. 

For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the St. Lucie site, the geographic area of interest 

is considered to be the 50 mi region centered on the St. Lucie site with special consideration of 

St. Lucie, Martin, Indian River, and Palm Beach Counties, because that is where the review 

team expects socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest. In evaluating the socioeconomic 

impacts of site development and operation at the St. Lucie site near Port St. Lucie in St. Lucie 

County, the review team used readily obtainable data from the Internet or published sources. 

Physical Impacts 

People who work or live around the St. Lucie site would be exposed to noise, fugitive dust and 

gaseous emissions from building and operations activities. Noise, dust, and air-pollution 

emissions generated within the boundaries of the St. Lucie site would be expected to be similar 

to those for the Turkey Point site. The two closest residential areas lie to the west and south of 

the proposed location. The first is approximately 1.5 mi west of the proposed site across the 

Indian River Lagoon, and the second is approximately 2 mi south of the proposed site boundary. 

Because noise and air-pollution impacts are attenuated by distance, the noise and air-pollution 

impacts would be minor. Best practices and applicable regulations would be expected to 

protect building workers and personnel working onsite. Offsite structures include widening of a 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-225 NUREG–2176 

transmission line, and intake/makeup pipelines (FPL 2014-TN4058). Building of these offsite 

structures would generate noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous emissions. The impact would be 

temporary and best practices would minimize the impacts on the public. Truck and vehicle 

traffic related to building and operations would also generate noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous 

emissions offsite. Vehicle traffic would be concentrated during the commute hours of the day. 

Truck traffic would be up to 36 trucks per hour during the building period and would traverse 

urban residential areas to the north and south of the site. The review team expects best 

practices to keep emissions within regulations, which would result in minor impacts on the 

community. 

The St. Lucie site is owned by FPL. Offsite project-related building activities include the 

widening of a 22 mi long portion of SR-A1A and a 0.5 mi heavy-haul road connecting the barge 

access location to the project site (FPL 2014-TN4058). The conceptual design route of the 

access road and widening of SR-A1A would lead to the displacement of approximately 202 

structures, based on aerial view of rooftops (FPL 2011-TN59). Such displacement would 

constitute a noticeable and destabilizing adverse impact on buildings in the St. Lucie area. 

While other physical impact analyses in this EIS consider only the impacts of changes in road 

quality, the new roads near the St. Lucie site would alter considerably the demographic 

characteristics of the residential neighborhoods they cross. Therefore, the review team must 

also consider the demographic impacts caused by the relocation of over two hundred 

households. The physical impacts from road quality changes would be noticeable and 

beneficial near the St. Lucie site. The demographic impacts from those roads are discussed 

below under Demography. 

Other offsite project-related activities include, a 63 mi transmission line and intake/makeup 

pipelines. The new nuclear plants would be visible from the surrounding area, including 

recreational areas next to the site and the residential areas on the coast across from the Indian 

River Lagoon. However, because of the distance from the residential areas, and because of the 

already existing nuclear plants on the St. Lucie site, the new nuclear plants would not contrast 

with current viewscape, which would result in minor impacts on the community. 

Based on the information provided by FPL (2014-TN4058) and the review team’s independent 

analysis, the review team concludes that the overall physical impacts of building activities would 

be minor, with the exceptions of noticeable and destabilizing adverse impacts on buildings, a 

noticeable and beneficial impact on road quality, and minor adverse impacts for all other 

physical impact categories at the St. Lucie site. 

Demography 

The St. Lucie site is located in St. Lucie County, 4.5 mi east of Port St. Lucie (2012 population 

163,748) the closest population center with more than 25,000 residents (FPL 2014-TN4058; 

USCB 2012-TN4098). Fort Pierce, also with a population larger than 25,000, is 7 mi northwest 

of the site (2012 population 42,350; USCB 2012-TN4098). There are 10 counties within the 

50 mi area, but the review team estimates the areas in which workers would most likely live and 

from which they would commute are within St. Lucie, Martin, Indian River, and Palm Beach 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-226 October 2016 

Counties, based on current commuter patterns of the FPL staff working on the existing St. Lucie 

nuclear power Units 1 and 2.(35)

FPL estimated the peak number of workers during building would be 3,983, including 33 

operation workers. The review team assumed that the share of construction and operation 

workers relocating from outside the four-county area would be 69 percent of the estimated peak 

number of workers. This assumption was reached by using the assumption made for the 

proposed Turkey Point site as a reference and assuming that the share of workers that would 

come from outside the region is inversely proportional to the population of the region.(36) As 

stated in Section 4.4, 70 percent of the construction workforce and 100 percent of the 

operations workforce that moved to the area were assumed to bring their families. Based on 

these assumptions, a peak of 2,726 construction and 23 operation workers would relocate to the 

area during the project building phase, and 1,932 of these workers would bring their families. 

Based on an average household size of 3.25 people, the total increase in population attributable 

to the peak total workforce at the St. Lucie site would be 6,279 people. An influx of 6,279 

people represents a 0.3 percent increase in the four-county 2012 population of 1,887,031. 

FPL estimated the total onsite operations workforce to be 806 workers, and that 69 percent of 

these workers (557) would relocate from outside the four-county area. For this analysis, the 

review team assumed that 100 percent of operation workers who relocate would bring their 

families. Based on an average household size of 3.25 people, the total population increase 

attributable to project operations would be 1,811 (557 × 3.25) people. This represents less than 

a 0.1 percent increase in the four-county area. 

Building and operations would require widening SR-A1A and would displace an approximate 

202 structures located north of the site, approaching the town of Fort Pierce, and south of the 

site, approaching the town of Stuart (FPL 2014-TN4058). The presence of high-density 

dwellings suggests the number of households displaced would be considerably larger, because 

many buildings would house more than one household. Residential displacements would 

noticeably alter the affected residential neighborhoods. 

The review team concluded that the impact on local demographic resources would not be 

noticeable and would be minor, except for the impact on the displaced residents along SR-A1A, 

which would have a noticeable and destabilizing effect on a substantial number of households. 

 

(35) Approximately 97 percent of the workforce of these power units lives in this four-county area 

(FPL 2014-TN4058). 

(36) The proposed Turkey Point site analysis assumed 50 percent of the peak workers would come from 

outside the 50 mi region and that 83.3 percent of those would reside in Miami-Dade County, i.e., 

41.65 percent (0.5 × 0.833) of the peak workers would migrate into Miami-Dade County. Because 

the population of the four-county area is approximately 75 percent of that of Miami-Dade County 

(USCB 2012-TN4098), the review team assumed the share of peak workers migrating into the fourcounty area would be 1-(0.75 × 0.4165) ≈ 69 percent. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-227 NUREG–2176 

Economic Impacts on the Community 

Economy 

FPL estimated the peak number of workers during building would be 3,983, including 33 

operation workers. Employment of 3,983 construction and operation workers would have 

positive economic impacts in the four-county area. Based on a multiplier of 1.7136 jobs (direct 

and indirect) for every construction job and 2.2500 for every operation job, 3,983 new 

construction and operation jobs would create 2,860 indirect jobs, for a total of 6,843 new jobs in 

the four-county area during peak employment (3,950 × 1.7136 + 33 × 2.2500) (FPL 2011-

TN56). This represents a 0.8 percent increase in the total employment in the four-county 

area.(37) Peak employment would last 1 month and the average employment generated during 

the 10-year building period would be about half of that of peak employment. This added 

employment would generate added earnings to the economy of the four-county area, but the 

added employment and earnings would not be noticeable to most of those living or working in 

the area. 

An estimated 806 workers would be required for the operation of two nuclear power facilities. 

Based on a multiplier of 2.2500 jobs (direct and indirect) for every operations job at the new 

units (FPL 2011-TN56), an influx of 806 workers would create 1,008 indirect jobs for a total of 

1,814 new jobs in the region. This represents a 0.2 percent increase in the total employment in 

the four-county area. This added employment would also generate added earnings to the 

economy of the four-county area, but the added employment and earnings would not be 

noticeable to most of those living or working in the area. 

Taxes 

State corporate income taxes and sales and use taxes paid at the St. Lucie site during 

construction and operations of the proposed units would be similar to those paid by the same 

units at the proposed Turkey Point site. As discussed in Sections 4.4 and 5.4, State taxes paid 

by the proposed units would not exceed 2 percent of the annual collected State corporate 

income and sales and use taxes. The impact would be minor and beneficial. County sales 

surtax rates in the four-county area for the 2013 calendar year were zero percent for Martin and 

Palm Beach Counties, one-half percent for St. Lucie, and 1 percent for Indian River County 

(FDOR 2014-TN3393). County surtax collections from the proposed units would be highest 

during construction when annual expenses related to the proposed units would be estimated to 

reach up to $1.56 billion (Section 4.4). A 1 percent sales surtax would generate $15.6 million in 

revenues for the four-county area.(38) This would correspond to less than 1 percent of total 

county revenues in the four-county area for 2014.(39) The impact would be minor and beneficial. 

County and school district governments in Florida may levy taxes up to 10 mills each (1 percent) 

in property taxes (FDOR 2012-TN459). If the value of property taxes for the two nuclear 

reactors at the St. Lucie site were the same as the value estimated for Units 6 and 7 at the 

 

(37) Employment of 834,072 (BLS 2013-TN4085). 

(38) To the extent that some of the expenditures would be made in Martin, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie 

Counties, and assuming the sales surtax rates are unchanged, the total sales surtax collected would 

be smaller. 

(39) $3,598 million (FLDFS 2013-TN3392). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-228 October 2016 

Turkey Point site in Section 5.4.3.2, FPL would pay $20 million in property taxes to the St. Lucie 

School District and $20 million to St. Lucie County. These payments would correspond to 7.6 

percent the St. Lucie School District 2011-2012 total revenues ($20 million compared $262.5 

million)(40) and 6.3 percent of the St. Lucie County 2011-2012 total revenues ($20 million 

compared to $320 million).(41) Because property taxes paid to school districts are reallocated 

through Florida’s Education Finance Program, the benefit to the St. Lucie School District would 

be diluted to some extent, and the exact amount distributed to each school district is not known 

at this time. Because of the value of project-related property tax payments relative to current 

property taxes, the review team considers the impacts on tax revenues to both the St. Lucie 

School District and St. Lucie County to be minor and beneficial. 

The review team concluded that the economic impact would not be noticeable and would be 

minor and beneficial. 

Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts 

Traffic 

Workforce access to the St. Lucie site would occur via SR-A1A coming from the north and the 

south. The review team estimated the current LOS (Level of Service) of these roads at two 

FDOT traffic-monitoring sites based on the peak hour directional traffic and FDOT LOS 

thresholds. Peak hour directional traffic information was obtained from FDOT Florida Traffic 

Online (FDOT 2013-TN3558) and consists of the AADT at each traffic-monitoring site, a 

Standard Peak Hour Factor (K) and a Directional Distribution Factor (D). The multiplication of 

these three elements (AADT × K × D) provides an estimate of the current peak hour directional 

traffic volume. The LOS was determined comparing this peak hour directional traffic volume 

with the maximum thresholds for each LOS in Table 7 (urbanized areas) of FDOTs Generalized 

Service Volume Tables (FDOT 2013-TN3297). Based on this procedure, the LOS at both 

traffic-monitoring sites is C. To estimate the project impact on traffic LOS during the project’s 

peak workforce building period, the review team followed a methodology similar to that 

described in Section 4.4: The peak workforce of 3,983 construction and operation workers was 

divided into two shifts, with 70 percent assigned to shift 1 (6:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) and 

30 percent to shift 2 (5:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m.). The hour of peak commute would be 4:30 p.m. to 

5:30 p.m. The review team also assumed up to 36 trucks per hour. The project-related 

directional traffic during the peak commute hour would be 2,824 vehicles (70 percent × 

3,983 + 36). The review team assumed that half of the project-related traffic would come from 

each direction, north and south.(42) The results of this analysis are presented in Table 9-27 

below. The additional building traffic would drop the LOS classification at both traffic-monitoring 

sites to F. Widening of SR-A1A would bring the LOS classification to a C north of the site and to 

a D south of the site. 

 

(40) FLDOE 2013-TN3299 

(41) FLDFS 2013-TN3392 

(42) Based on U.S. Census Bureau commuter patterns (USCB 2011-TN4078) it was not possible to 

determine the likely direction of outgoing project-related traffic. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-229 NUREG–2176 

Table 9-27. Peak Workforce Traffic LOS Analysis for the St. Lucie Site 

Traffic-Monitoring 

Site 

Baseline 

Peak Hour 

Directional 

Traffic 

Baseline 

LOS 

Distribution 

of ProjectRelated 

Peak Traffic 

Added 

Peak Hour 

Directional 

Traffic 

Peak Hour 

Directional 

Traffic 

with 

Project 

LOS 

with 

Project 

SR-A1A north of site 562 C 0.50 1,412 1,974 F (C)(a)

SR-A1A south of site 811 C 0.50 1,412 2,223 F (D)(a)

(a) LOS classification after widening of SR-A1A 

Source: Review team calculations based on FDOT 2013-TN3297 and FDOT 2013-TN3558 

FPL estimated the total onsite operations workforce to be 806 workers. If access of this 

workforce to the St. Lucie site were distributed among the two directions equally, the LOS at 

traffic-monitoring site north of the St. Lucie site would drop to D, and the LOS at the trafficmonitoring site south of the St. Lucie site would drop to E. Widening of SR-A1A would bring the 

LOS classification to C north and south of the site. 

Based on the above analysis, the review team concludes that the impact of the building and 

operations of the proposed nuclear reactors at the St. Lucie site would be noticeable during both 

building and operations, although not destabilizing, after widening of SR-A1A. 

Recreation 

Blind Creek Park, Big Mud Creek Park, and the stretch of lagoon designated as the Jensen 

Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve are adjacent to the site. The Savannas Preserve State 

Park is located approximately 2 mi west of the site, across the lagoon. Other parks and 

recreational areas exist within the county. The influx of project-related population to the fourcounty area would increase the number of local users of recreational facilities. Because the inmigrating population would be less than 1 percent of the local population, the review team 

expects the impact on current recreational infrastructure to be negligible. 

Housing 

The review team estimates that 2,749 construction and operation workers would migrate into 

the four-county area, and each of these workers would need a place to live. Based on 

American Community Survey 2008−2012 5-Year estimates, within the four-county area, there 

are 954,759 housing units of which 208,508 are vacant (21.8 percent). This includes housing 

that is designated as seasonal, recreational, or occasional use (USCB 2012-TN4089). The 

review team estimates that, in absolute numbers, the available housing would be sufficient to 

house the construction workforce. The in-migrating construction and operations workforce 

would occupy no more than 1.4 percent of vacant housing units in the four-county area. FPL 

estimated that approximately 806 workers would be needed for operation of two nuclear power 

facilities at the St. Lucie site, and assumed that 69 percent of these workers (557) would 

relocate from outside the region and would settle in the four-county area. Based on these 

assumptions, the entire operations workforce would occupy no more than 0.3 percent of vacant 

housing units in the four counties. The review team concludes that impact on housing would be 

minor. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-230 October 2016 

Public Services 

In-migrating construction workers and plant operations staff would also likely affect local 

municipal water, wastewater-treatment facilities, police and fire-protection services, and other 

public services in the region. These impacts would be expected to be in proportion with the 

demographic impacts experienced in the region. In-migration to the four-county area would 

represent an estimated 0.3 percent of the local population (less during operations). The review 

team concludes that the impact on public services would be minor. 

Education 

Based on data for the 2011-2012 school year, there are approximately 249,523 full-time 

equivalent students in public schools in the four-county area(43) (FLDOE 2013-TN3299). The 

review team estimated that 2,749 construction and operation workers would migrate into the 

area, and that 1,932 workers would bring their families. Based on an estimate of 0.8 schoolaged children per family (Malhotra and Manninen 1981-TN1430), an estimated 1,546 (1,932 × 

0.8) school-aged children would be migrating into the four-county area. This would yield a 0.6 

percent increase in the student population. During operations, the review team assumed that 

557 operation workers and their families would relocate from outside the region. This would 

include an estimated 446 (557 × 0.8) children in the PK-12 school range. This influx of students 

would increase the student population in the four-county area by 0.2 percent. The review team 

concludes that the impact on education would be minor. 

Based on the information provided by FPL (2014-TN4058) and the review team’s independent 

analysis, the review team concludes that the overall infrastructure and community service 

impacts of building activities and operations at the St. Lucie site would be minor except for 

noticeable, but not destabilizing, adverse impacts on traffic. 

Cumulative Impacts 

In addition to the socioeconomic impacts from the building and operations of the proposed 

project at the St. Lucie site, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that could have socioeconomic impacts. 

The socioeconomic impacts of past and present actions in the affected area are largely 

captured by the current baseline conditions used for analysis above of project impacts. For 

example, the impacts of past and present actions on the demography and economy of the area 

are largely captured by current baseline data on population, employment, and tax revenues. 

Reasonably foreseeable future actions are listed in Table 9-21. Several of these future actions 

would be expected to have cumulative socioeconomic impacts with the proposed project at the 

St. Lucie site. Other proposed projects that would generate employment and earnings during 

construction and operations include the proposed Floridian Natural Gas Storage Facility in 

Martin County, the Florida Southeast Connection pipelines proposed through Highlands, 

Okeechobee and Martin Counties, the Riviera Beach Next-Generation Clean Energy Center in 

Palm Beach County and several CERP Projects. 

 

(43) FTE is a measure of enrollment based on the number of full-time students that it would take to fill the 

number of classes offered. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-231 NUREG–2176 

Based on the location of the identified future projects and their magnitudes, the cumulative 

socioeconomic impacts of the projects identified above with the proposed project at the St. 

Lucie site would be expected to be SMALL and adverse, with the exception of MODERATE and 

adverse impacts on traffic, LARGE and adverse physical impacts on buildings, and a LARGE 

demographic impact on displaced residents due to the widening of SR-A1A. However, areas 

adjacent to the St. Lucie site would experience MODERATE beneficial impacts on road quality 

due to the wideing of SR-A1A near the St. Lucie site. Building and operating two new nuclear 

units at the St. Lucie alternative site would be a significant contributor to the adverse impacts 

that are greater than SMALL. 

9.3.5.6 Environmental Justice 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect 

EJ, including other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-21. 

The 2008–2012 American Community Survey block groups were used to identify minority and 

low-income population distributions in the area (USCB 2012-TN4098). The census data for 

Florida characterizes 15.9 percent of the population as Black, 0.3 percent as American Indian or 

Alaskan Native; 2.5 percent as Asian, 0.1 percent as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 

2.6 percent as other single minorities, 2.2 percent as multiracial, 22.5 percent as Hispanic 

ethnicity; and 42.2 percent as aggregate minority. There are 801 block groups within 50 mi of 

the St. Lucie site. Following the criteria described in Section 2.6.1, Black minority populations 

exist in 103 block groups, American Indian or Alaskan Native minority populations exist in 2 

block groups; Asian minority populations exist in 2 block groups; other race minority populations 

exist in 9 block groups; multiracial minority populations exist in 2 block groups; Hispanic 

ethnicity minority populations exist in 66 block groups; and aggregate minority populations exist 

in 207 block groups. There are no block groups containing Native Hawaiian or other Pacific 

Islander populations within 50 mi of the St. Lucie site. A portion of the Brighton Seminole Indian 

Reservation is 50 mi west-southwest of the St. Lucie site. The locations of the minority 

populations within 50 mi of the St. Lucie site and the Brighton Indian Reservation are shown in 

Figure 9-25. The locations of Hispanic minority populations and Black minority populations 

within the 50 mi of the St. Lucie site are shown in Figure 9-26 and Figure 9-27, respectively. 

The USCB data characterize 15.3 percent of Florida households as low income (USCB 2012-

TN4098). Out of a possible 801 block groups, 72 block groups contain low-income populations. 

The locations of the low-income populations within 50 mi of the St. Lucie site are shown in 

Figure 9-28. 

The analyses of the impacts of building and operating new nuclear reactors at the St. Lucie site 

identified noticeable adverse impacts on land use, terrestrial and wetland ecosystems, and 

traffic, and substantial adverse impacts on buildings and people through displacements. The 

review team did not identify any special pathways through which any impacts would 

disproportionately affect EJ populations of interest. Therefore, the review team concluded there 

would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on EJ populations of interest. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-232 October 2016 

Figure 9-25. Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups that Meet the 

Environmental Justice Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the St. Lucie 

Alternative Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-233 NUREG–2176 

Figure 9-26. Hispanic Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the St. Lucie Alternative Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-234 October 2016 

Figure 9-27. African American Populations in Block Groups that Meet the 

Environmental Justice Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the St. Lucie 

Alternative Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-235 NUREG–2176 

Figure 9-28. Low-Income Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

Justice Selection Criteria within 50 mi of the St. Lucie Alternative Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-236 October 2016 

The NRC’s EJ methodology includes an assessment of affected populations of particular 

interest or with unusual circumstances, such as minority communities that are exceptionally 

dependent on subsistence resources or identifiable in compact locations (e.g., Native American 

reservations) and those that have a high density of minority or low-income groups. Based on a 

literature research, the review team did not identify high-density minority or low-income 

presence in the proximity of the site, nor differentiated subsistence consumption of natural 

resources by EJ populations of interest. 

Cumulative Impacts 

In addition to the EJ impacts from building and operations of the proposed project at the St. 

Lucie site, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that could have EJ impacts. Based on a literature review of past and 

present actions in the affected area, and based on the reasonably foreseeable actions listed in 

Table 9-21, the review team found no evidence that the cumulative effects would 

disproportionately affect EJ populations of interest. 

9.3.5.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 

The following cumulative impact analysis addresses building and operating two new nuclear 

generating units at the St. Lucie site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect cultural resources, including other 

Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-21. For the analysis of 

cultural impacts at the St. Lucie site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the APE 

that would be defined for this site. This includes the direct effects APE, defined as the area 

physically affected by the site-development and operation activities at the site and within 

transmission line corridors. The indirect effects APE is defined as the area visually affected and 

includes an additional 0.5 mi radius APE around the transmission line corridors and a 1 mi 

radius APE around the cooling towers. 

Reconnaissance activities in a cultural resource review have particular meaning. Typically, they 

include preliminary field investigations to confirm the presence or absence of cultural resources. 

However, in developing this EIS, the review team relied upon reconnaissance-level information 

to perform its alternative site evaluation in accordance with ESRP 9.3 (NRC 2000-TN614). 

Reconnaissance-level information consists of data that are readily available from agencies and 

other public sources. It can also include information obtained through visits to the site area. 

The following information was used to identify the historic and cultural resources at the St. Lucie 

site: 

 NRC Alternative Sites Visit, July 2010 (NRC 2010-TN3304) 

 FPL ER Revision 6 (FPL 2014-TN4058) 

 Florida Historical Markers Program (FDHR 2014-TN3878) 

 National Register of Historic Places database (NPS 2014-TN3882). 

The approximately 1,130 ac St. Lucie site is an FPL-owned property with an existing nuclear 

power-generation station, located adjacent to the shoreline and a lagoon on Hutchinson Island. 

Two county parks are located within the property. The two existing units occupy less than half 

of the site. Historically, the St. Lucie site and vicinity were largely undeveloped and likely 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-237 NUREG–2176 

contained intact archaeological sites associated with human settlement dating back millennia. 

Over time, the area has been heavily disturbed by impacts related to industrial and urban 

development. In 2001, as part of the license renewal for the existing St. Lucie reactors, the 

Florida SHPO indicated that undeveloped portions of the plant site have a moderate to high 

probability for containing significant archaeological resources, particularly since there are known 

archaeological remains along the northern end of the facility property, approximately 1 mi from 

the St. Lucie site (FPL 2014-TN4058; NRC 2003-TN3152). 

A search of the National Register shows that 15 significant historic properties are located within 

10 mi of the St. Lucie site (FPL 2014-TN4058; NPS 2014-TN3882). None, however, occurs on 

Hutchinson Island, where the St. Lucie site is located. A total of 124 properties were found in 

the four counties in the vicinity of the St. Lucie site—St. Lucie, Palm Beach, Martin, and Indian 

River Counties. 

A search of the Florida Historical Markers Program (FDHR 2014-TN3878) revealed that there is 

one historic marker in St. Lucie County—a marker in Fort Pierce commemorating the founding 

of the county and Fort Pierce, the county seat. The marker is not near the St. Lucie site. 

A National Register search of the indirect effects APE for the proposed transmission line 

corridor shows that, while no historic properties occur within the APE, two fall within several 

miles (NPS 2014-TN3882). The Captain Hammond House, in White City, lies roughly 1 mi to 

the north of the transmission line corridor as it proceeds east from the St. Lucie site. The 

Seminole Inn, in Indiantown, lies approximately 4 mi to the east of the corridor as it passes 

southward through Martin County. 

While reconnaissance-level information indicates that there are no known historic properties 

located within the physical APE of the new plant, reconnaissance-level information shows that 

historic properties within 10 mi of the site and within 1 mi of the transmission line corridor are 

listed in the National Register. From previous studies on plant property, archaeological 

resources are known to occur approximately 1 mi to the north of the site. That said, no 

archaeological or architectural surveys have been conducted at the St. Lucie site for the current 

project, and locating the nuclear plants there would require formal cultural resources survey and 

consultation with SHPO, Tribes, and other interested parties. If any significant cultural, historic, 

or archaeological resources were identified, appropriate mitigation measures would need to be 

put in place before construction and operation. 

Building Impacts 

To accommodate the building of two nuclear units and associated facilities at the St. Lucie site, 

FPL estimates that the total area of land that would be disturbed would be approximately 357 ac 

for the facility itself. Because the site is within the 100-year floodplain of the Indian River 

Lagoon, FPL assumed in its ER that it would be necessary to import fill material from offsite. In 

addition, a 0.5 mi long heavy-haul road would need to be constructed, and a 22 mi long portion 

of SR-A1A would need to be widened. Cooling water would be drawn from the Atlantic Ocean, 

adjacent to the property, and would require approximately 10.5 ac of disturbance for required 

facilities. If the St. Lucie site were chosen for the proposed project, identification of cultural 

resources would be accomplished through additional cultural resource surveys and consultation 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-238 October 2016 

with the SHPO, Tribes, and interested parties. The results would be used in the site-planning 

process to address cultural resources impacts. If significant cultural resources were identified 

by these surveys, the review team assumes that FPL would use the same protective measures 

used at the Turkey Point site, and therefore the impacts would be minimal. If direct effects on 

significant cultural resources could not be avoided, land-clearing, excavation, and grading 

activities could potentially destabilize important attributes of historic and cultural resources. 

Section 9.3.5.1 describes the proposed transmission line corridors, which will extend for a 

distance of 63 mi, following existing corridors whenever possible. FPL has stated that 

consideration would be given to sensitive environmental and built resources in determining a 

route for the transmission lines (FPL 2014-TN4058), but visual impacts from transmission lines 

may result in significant alterations of the visual setting of cultural and historic resources within 

the geographic area of interest. Two properties listed in the National Register fall along the 

proposed transmission line corridor, though none occurs within the indirect effects APE. The 

Captain Hammond House lies roughly 1 mi from the transmission line corridor and the Seminole 

Inn lies roughly 4 mi from the corridor. In both of these areas, the proposed transmission line 

follows an existing transmission line corridor and any impacts stemming from the addition of 

another transmission line likely would be minor. If the St. Lucie site were chosen for the 

proposed project, the review team assumes that FPL would conduct its transmission line-related 

cultural resource surveys and procedures in a manner similar to that for the Turkey Point site. 

In addition, the review team assumes that the State of Florida’s Final Order on Certification 

(State of Florida 2014-TN3637) regarding transmission line siting and building activities would 

also apply, and therefore impacts would be minimal. If direct effects on significant cultural 

resources could not be avoided, land-clearing, excavation, and grading activities could 

potentially destabilize important attributes of historic cultural resources. Similarly, both the 

transmission lines and nuclear power-generating units could indirectly affect cultural and historic 

resources through visual impacts on the setting of the resources. However, because the St. 

Lucie site is an existing power plant in an urban setting, and the transmission line corridor would 

follow an existing corridor where possible, construction of the new units at the St. Lucie site 

would not alter land use and likely would have a minimal impact on the industrial and urban 

character of the immediate area. While an estimated 202 structures would be displaced for the 

widening of SR-A1A, as discussed in Section. 9.3.5.5, none of these structures has been 

identified as a significant historic resource based on reconnaissance-level data. 

Operations Impacts 

Impacts on historic and cultural resources from the operation of two new nuclear powergenerating units at the St. Lucie site include those associated with the operation of new units 

and maintenance of transmission lines. The review team assumes that the same procedures 

developed by FPL for the Turkey Point site, as well as the State of Florida’s Final Order on 

Certification, would be used for onsite and offsite maintenance activities. Consequently, the 

incremental effects of the maintenance of transmission line corridors and operation of the two 

new units and associated impacts on the cultural resources would be negligible for the direct 

and indirect effects APEs. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-239 NUREG–2176 

Cumulative Impacts 

Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected historic and cultural 

resources include rural and agricultural development and activities associated with these landdisturbing activities such as road development. Table 9-21 lists past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects and other actions that may contribute to cumulative impacts on historic and 

cultural resources in the geographic area of interest. Projects from Table 9-21 that are relevant 

to the cultural resources cumulative analysis include the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail 

and future urbanization, such as new or expanded roads. These projects may significantly 

affect historic and cultural resources in a manner similar to those associated with the building 

and operation of two new nuclear power-generating units. 

Long linear projects such as new or expanded roads and railway lines may intersect the 

proposed transmission line corridors. Because cultural resources can likely be avoided by long 

linear projects, impacts on cultural resources would likely be minimal. If building associated with 

such activities results in significant alterations of cultural resources in the transmission line 

corridors, either physical or visual, then cumulative impacts on cultural and historic resources 

would be greater. 

Summary Statement 

Cultural resources are nonrenewable. Therefore, the impact of the destruction of cultural 

resources is cumulative. Based on the information provided by FPL, and the review team’s 

independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts from building 

and operating two new nuclear generating units on the St. Lucie site would be SMALL. This 

impact-level determination is based on reconnaissance-level information and reflects the fact 

that there are no known cultural resources on the proposed site, and that the proposed 

transmission line corridor would follow an existing corridor, meaning indirect impacts on the 

visual setting would be negligible. It also assumes that, if the St. Lucie site were to be 

developed, cultural resource surveys and evaluations would be conducted and FPL, in 

consultation with SHPO, Tribes, and interested parties, would assess and resolve any adverse 

effects of the undertaking. If cultural or historic resources are present, including any of the 

buildings that would be removed by the widening of SR-A1A, and if there are adverse effects on 

those resources, the project could result in greater cumulative impacts. 

9.3.5.8 Air Quality Impacts 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect air 

quality, including other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-21. As described in 

Section 9.3.5, the St. Lucie site area includes two current nuclear power plants—St. Lucie Units 

1 and 2. The geographic area of interest for the St. Lucie site is St. Lucie County, which is in 

the Southeast Florida Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.49) (TN255). 

Section 4.7 and 5.7 discuss air-quality impacts during building and operations. The emissions 

related to building and operating an additional nuclear power plant at the St. Lucie alternative 

site would be similar to those at the Turkey Point site. The air-quality attainment status for St. 

Lucie County, as set forth in 40 CFR Part 81 (TN255), reflects the effects of past and present 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-240 October 2016 

emissions from all pollutant sources in the region. St. Lucie County is in attainment of all 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

As described in Chapters 4 and 5, the criteria pollutants from building and operation were found 

to have a SMALL impact on air quality. In Chapter 7, the cumulative impacts of criteria 

pollutants were evaluated and also determined to be SMALL to MODERATE. Reflecting on the 

projects listed in Table 9-21 the most significant is the 300 MW natural-gas−fired plant (Florida 

Municipal Power – Treasure Coast Energy Center) operating 9 mi to the southwest of the 

St. Lucie alternative site. Emissions from power plants such as these are released through 

stacks and with significant momentum and buoyancy. Other industrial projects listed in 

Table 9-21 would likely have de minimis impacts because of their distance from the site. Given 

that these projects are subject to Clean Air Act permitting requirements, it is unlikely that the air 

quality in the region would degrade to the extent that the region would be in nonattainment of the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

The air-quality impact from development of the St. Lucie site would be local and temporary. The 

applicant would develop a dust-control plan that identifies specific measures to minimize fugitive 

dust emissions during building activities. The distance from building activities to the site 

boundary would be sufficient to generally avoid significant air-quality impacts. There are no land 

uses or projects in Table 9-21, including the aforementioned sources, that would have emissions 

during site development that would, in combination with emissions from the St. Lucie site, result 

in degradation of air quality in the region. Emissions from operation of two new nuclear units at 

the St. Lucie site would be intermittent and made at low levels with little or no vertical velocity, 

similar to operational impacts at the Turkey Point site, as discussed in Section 5.7. The airquality impacts of the Florida Municipal Power natural-gas−fired plant are included in the 

baseline air-quality status. The cumulative impacts from emissions of effluents from the

St. Lucie site and the aforementioned sources would be noticeable but not destabilizing. 

The cumulative impacts of GHG emissions related to nuclear power are discussed in Section 

7.6. The impacts of the emissions are not sensitive to the location of the source. Consequently, 

the discussion in Section 7.6 is applicable to a nuclear power plant located at the St. Lucie site. 

The review team concludes that the national and worldwide cumulative impacts of GHG 

emissions are noticeable but not destabilizing. The review team further concludes that the 

cumulative impacts would be noticeable but not destabilizing, with or without the GHG emissions 

of two new nuclear units at the St. Lucie site.

The review team concludes that cumulative impacts from other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions on air-quality resources in the geographic areas of interest would be 

SMALL to MODERATE for criteria pollutants and MODERATE for GHG emissions. The 

incremental contribution of impacts on air-quality resources from building and operating two units 

at the St. Lucie site would not be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impacts. 

9.3.5.9 Nonradiological Health 

The following analysis considers nonradiological health impacts from building and operating two 

new nuclear units at the St. Lucie site. The analysis also includes past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative nonradiological health impacts on 

site workers (construction and operation workers) and members of the public, including other 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-241 NUREG–2176 

Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-21 that are within the 

geographic area of interest. Nonradiological health impacts at the St. Lucie site are estimated 

based on information provided by FPL and the review team’s independent evaluation. For the 

analysis of nonradiological health impacts at the St. Lucie site, the geographic area of interest is 

the site and the immediate vicinity (~2 mi radius) and the associated road and transmission line 

corridors. This geographic area of interest is based on the localized nature of nonradiological 

health impacts and is expected to encompass all nonradiological health impacts. 

Building activities that have the potential to affect the health of members of the public and 

workers at the St. Lucie site include exposure to dust and vehicle exhaust, occupational injuries, 

noise, and increased traffic associated with the transport of construction materials and 

personnel to and from the site. The operations-related activities that have the potential to affect 

the health of members of the public and workers include exposure to etiological (diseasecausing) agents, noise, EMFs, occupational injuries, and impacts from the transport of workers 

to and from the site. 

Building Impacts 

Nonradiological health impacts on construction workers and members of the public from building 

two new nuclear units at the St. Lucie site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 4.8 for 

the Turkey Point site. During the site-preparation and building phase FPL would comply with 

applicable Federal and State regulations on air quality and noise (FPL 2014-TN4058). The 

St. Lucie site is located in the vicinity of residential and commercial area. The distance between 

the site activities and the nearest residences (Section 9.3.5.5) is great enough that there should 

be no nonradiological health impacts from building and operating the units. The incidence of 

construction worker accidents would be the same as that for the Turkey Point site. 

The review team concludes that nonradiological health impacts on construction workers and the 

public from building two new nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the St. Lucie site 

would be minimal. Nonradiological health impacts associated with traffic accidents during 

building activities at the St. Lucie alternative site were evaluated in Section 4.8.3 and the review 

team concludes that the impacts would be minimal. 

Operations Impacts 

Nonradiological health impacts on operation workers and members of the public would include 

those associated with the operation of cooling towers and transmission lines. Based on the 

configuration of the proposed new unit at the St. Lucie site (see Section 9.3.5), etiological 

agents may increase in the thermal plume area. The blowdown would be regulated by FDEP 

pursuant to 40 CFR Part 423 (TN253), and all discharges would be required to comply with 

limits established by FDEP in an NPDES permit. Impacts on workers’ health from occupational 

injuries, noise, and EMFs would be similar to those described in Section 5.8 for the Turkey Point 

site. Noise and EMF exposure would be monitored and controlled in accordance with 

applicable OSHA regulations. Although no detailed noise modeling has been performed for the 

St. Lucie site, it is likely that noise impacts would be similar to those predicted for operations at 

the Turkey Point site. Effects of EMFs on human health would be controlled and minimized by 

conformance with National Electrical Safety Code criteria and adherence to the standards for 

transmission systems regulated by the FDEP. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-242 October 2016 

The review team concludes that nonradiological health impacts on workers and the public from 

operating two new nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the St. Lucie site would be 

minimal. Impacts associated with traffic accidents during operations at the St. Lucie alternative 

site were evaluated in Section 5.8.6 and the review team concludes that the impacts would be 

minimal. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The past project identified in Table 9-21 within the geographic area of interest that could affect 

nonradiological human health in a similar way to the building of two nuclear units at the St. Lucie 

site is the two existing nuclear power reactors located adjacent to the proposed St. Lucie 

alternative site. There are no current construction projects occurring within the geographical 

area of interest that would affect nonradiological human health in a way similar to the building of 

two new nuclear units. 

Reasonably foreseeable projects identified in Table 9-21 that could affect nonradiological 

human health at the St. Lucie site include various transportation (roads, traffic, pedestrian) 

projects that are planned throughout the region. 

The past and present project within the geographic area of interest that could affect 

nonradiological human health in a way similar to operating two nuclear units at the St. Lucie site 

that was identified in Table 9-21 is the two existing and operational nuclear power reactors 

located adjacent to the proposed St. Lucie alternative site. There are no reasonably 

foreseeable future projects planned within the geographic area of interest that would affect 

nonradiological human health in a way similar to the operation of two new nuclear units at the 

St. Lucie site. 

The review team concludes that the cumulative impacts on nonradiological health from building 

and operating two new nuclear units and associated road and transmission lines at the St. Lucie 

site would be minimal. 

Summary Statement 

Impacts on nonradiological health from the building and operation of two new units at the St. 

Lucie site are estimated based on the information provided by FPL and the review team’s 

independent evaluation. Although there could be some future activities in the geographical area 

of interest could affect nonradiological health in ways similar to the building and operation of two 

new units at the St. Lucie site and associated offsite facilities, those impacts would be localized 

and managed through adherence to existing regulatory requirements. The review team 

concludes that nonradiological health impacts on workers and the public resulting from the 

building of two new nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the St. Lucie site would 

be minimal. The review team expects that the nonradiological health impacts on the operations 

employees and the public of two new nuclear units at the St. Lucie site would be minimal. 

Finally, the review team concludes that cumulative impacts on nonradiological health from past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the geographic area of interest would be 

SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-243 NUREG–2176 

9.3.5.10 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations. The 

analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect 

radiological health, including other Federal and non-Federal projects listed in Table 9-21. As 

described in Section 9.3.5, St. Lucie is a nuclear power plant site; St. Lucie 1 and 2 are currently 

the two nuclear facilities (i.e., nuclear power plants) on the site. The geographic area of interest 

is the area within a 50 mi radius of the St. Lucie site. St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 are the only major 

facilities within this geographic area of interest that potentially affect radiological health within 

the 50 mi radius of the St. Lucie site. However, there are likely to be medical, industrial, and 

research facilities within 50 mi of the St. Lucie site that use radioactive materials. 

The radiological impacts of building and operating the two proposed Westinghouse AP1000 

nuclear power units at the St. Lucie site include doses from direct radiation and liquid and 

gaseous radioactive effluents. These pathways would result in low doses to people and biota 

offsite that would be well below regulatory limits. These impacts are expected to be similar to 

those estimated for the Turkey Point site. 

The radiological impacts of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 include doses from direct radiation and liquid 

and gaseous radioactive effluents. These pathways result in low doses to people and biota 

offsite that are well below regulatory limits as demonstrated by the ongoing radiological 

environmental monitoring program conducted around St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. The NRC staff 

concludes that the dose from direct radiation and effluents from hospitals and industrial facilities 

that use radioactive material would be an insignificant contribution to the cumulative impacts 

around the St. Lucie site. This conclusion is based on data from the radiological environmental 

monitoring programs conducted around currently operating nuclear power plants. 

Based on the information provided by FPL and the NRC staff's independent analysis, the NRC 

staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts from building and operating the two 

proposed Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear power units and other existing and planned projects 

and actions in the geographic area of interest around the St. Lucie site would be SMALL. 

9.3.5.11 Postulated Accidents 

The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from postulated accidents from the 

operation of two nuclear units at the St. Lucie alternative site. The analysis also considers other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect radiological health from postulated 

accidents, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 

Table 9-21. As described in Section 9.3.5, the St. Lucie site is a brownfield site; two nuclear 

units are currently located at the site. The geographic area of interest considers all existing and 

proposed nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted 

consequences (i.e., risks) from a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the St. Lucie 

alternative site. Facilities potentially affecting radiological accident risk within this geographic 

area of interest are the existing two units—St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. 

As described in Section 5.11.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences 

of DBAs at the Turkey Point site would be minimal for AP1000 reactors. DBAs are addressed 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-244 October 2016 

specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet NRC safety criteria. 

The environmental consequences of DBAs depend on the plant design and the atmospheric 

dispersion. The AP1000 design is independent of site conditions and the meteorology of the St. 

Lucie alternative and Turkey Point sites are similar; therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 

environmental consequences of DBAs at the St. Lucie alternative site would be minimal. 

Because the meteorology, population density, and land values for the St. Lucie alternative site 

are similar to those of the proposed Turkey Point site, risks from a severe accident for an 

AP1000 reactor located at the St. Lucie alternative site are expected to be similar to those 

analyzed for the proposed Turkey Point site. The risks for the proposed Turkey Point site were 

presented in Tables 5-19 and 5-20 and are well below the median value for current-generation 

reactors. In addition, as discussed in Section 5.11.2, estimates of average individual early 

fatality and latent cancer fatality risks are well below the Commission's safety goals (51 FR 

30028) (TN594). For existing plants within the geographic area of interest (St. Lucie Units 1 and 

2), the Commission has determined that the probability-weighted consequences of severe 

accidents are small (10 CFR Part 51) (TN250), Appendix B, Table B-1). On this basis, the NRC 

staff concludes that the cumulative risks from severe accidents at any location within 50 mi of 

the St. Lucie alternative site would be SMALL. 

9.3.6 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and the Alternative Sites 

This section summarizes the review team’s characterization of the cumulative impacts related to 

locating a two-unit AP1000 nuclear power facility at the proposed Turkey Point site and at each 

alternative site. The four sites selected for detailed review as part of the alternative sites 

environmental analysis included the Glades site in Glades County, the Martin site in Martin 

County, the Okeechobee 2 site in Okeechobee County, and the St. Lucie site in St. Lucie 

County. Comparisons are made between the proposed site and alternatives to evaluate 

whether one of the alternative sites is environmentally preferable to the proposed site. The 

NRC’s determination is independent of the USACE’s determination under the 404 Guidelines of 

whether the Turkey Point site is the least environmentally damaging practical alternative 

(LEDPA). The USACE will conclude its analysis of both offsite and onsite alternatives in its 

Record of Decision. The need to compare the proposed site with alternative sites arises from 

the requirement in NEPA Section 102(2)(C)(iii) (42 U.S.C. § 4332 et seq.) (TN661) that EISs 

include an analysis of alternatives to the proposed action. The NRC criterion to be used in 

assessing whether a proposed site is to be rejected in favor of an alternative site is based on 

whether the alternative site is “obviously superior” to the site proposed by the applicant 

(NRC 1977-TN3867). An alternative site is “obviously superior” to the proposed site if it is 

“clearly and substantially” superior to the proposed site (NRC 1978-TN2636). The standard of 

obviously superior “...is designed to guarantee that a proposed site will not be rejected in favor 

of an alternate unless, on the basis of appropriate study, the Commission can be confident that 

such action is called for” (NECNP v. NRC 1978-TN2632). 

The “obviously superior” test is appropriate for two reasons. First, the analysis performed by the 

NRC in evaluating alternative sites is necessarily imprecise. Key factors considered in the 

alternative site analysis, such as population distribution and density, hydrology, air quality, 

aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources, aesthetics, land use, and socioeconomics are 

difficult to quantify in common metrics. Given this difficulty, any evaluation of a particular site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-245 NUREG–2176 

must have a wide range of uncertainty. Second, the applicant’s proposed site has been 

analyzed in detail, with the expectation that most of the adverse environmental impacts 

associated with the site have been identified. The alternative sites have not undergone a 

comparable level of detailed study. For these reasons, a proposed site may not be rejected in 

favor of an alternative site when the alternative site is marginally better than the proposed site, 

but only when it is obviously superior (NRC 1978-TN2636). NEPA does not require that a 

nuclear plant be constructed on the single best site for environmental purposes. Rather, “...all 

that NEPA requires is that alternative sites be considered and that the effects on the 

environment of building the plant at the alternative sites be carefully studied and factored into 

the ultimate decision” (NECNP v. NRC 1978-TN2632). 

Section 9.3.6.1 discusses the process the review team used to compare cumulative impacts of 

the alternative sites to the proposed Turkey Point site and provides the final cumulative impact 

for each resource category. Cumulative impact levels from Chapter 7 (for the Turkey Point site), 

and the four alternative sites (from Sections 9.3.2 through 9.3.5) are listed in Table 9-28. 

Section 9.3.6.2 discusses the cumulative impacts of the proposed project located at the Turkey 

Point site and at the alternative sites as they relate to a determination of environmental 

preference or obvious superiority. 

9.3.6.1 Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the Proposed and Alternative Sites 

The following section summarizes the review team’s independent assessment of the proposed 

and alternative sites. The team characterized the expected cumulative environmental impacts 

of building and operating two new units at the Turkey Point site and alternative sites; these 

impacts are summarized by category in Table 9-28. Full explanations of the specific impact 

characterizations are provided cumulatively in Chapter 7 for the proposed site and in Sections 

9.3.2, 9.3.3, 9.3.4, and 9.3.5 for each of the alternative sites. The review team’s impact 

category levels are based on professional judgment, experience, and consideration of controls 

likely to be imposed under Federal, State, or local permits that would be acquired throughout 

the course of the COL application and review process. The considerations and assumptions 

were similarly applied at each of the alternative sites to provide a common basis for comparison. 

In the following discussion, the review team compares the impact levels between the proposed 

site and each alternative site. 

The cumulative environmental impact areas listed in the table have been evaluated using the 

NRC’s three-level standard of significance: SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. These levels 

were developed using CEQ guidelines and are set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR 

Part 51 (TN250), Subpart A, Appendix B: 

 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 

 MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize 

important attributes of the resource. 

 LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

important attributes of the resource. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-246 October 2016 

Table 9-28. Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the Turkey Point and Alternative Sites

Resource Category 

Turkey Point 

Site Glades Martin Okeechobee 2 St. Lucie 

Land Use MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

Water-Related 

Surface-water use SMALL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE SMALL 

Groundwater use SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Surface-water 

quality 

MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

Groundwater quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Ecology 

Terrestrial and 

wetland 

ecosystems 

MODERATE to 

LARGE 

MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

Aquatic ecosystems MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE SMALL to

MODERATE 

Socioeconomics 

Physical impacts SMALL adverse 

except for 

MODERATE 

beneficial 

impacts on road 

quality 

MODERATE 

adverse to 

SMALL 

beneficial 

impacts on road 

quality 

MODERATE 

adverse to 

MODERATE 

beneficial 

impacts on road 

quality 

MODERATE 

adverse to 

SMALL 

beneficial 

impacts on road 

quality 

LARGE adverse to 

MODERATE 

beneficial 

impacts on road 

quality 

Demography SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL, except for 

LARGE residential 

displacement 

impacts 

Economic impacts 

on the community 

SMALL and 

beneficial 

SMALL and 

beneficial, except 

for LARGE and 

beneficial 

property tax 

revenues for 

Glades County 

and School 

District 

SMALL and 

beneficial, except 

for MODERATE 

and beneficial 

property tax 

revenues for 

Martin County 

and School 

District 

SMALL and 

beneficial, except 

for LARGE and 

beneficial 

property tax 

revenues for 

Okeechobee 

County and 

School District 

SMALL and 

beneficial 

Infrastructure and 

community services 

SMALL except 

for MODERATE 

adverse impacts 

on traffic. 

SMALL except 

for MODERATE 

adverse impacts 

on traffic. 

SMALL except for 

MODERATE 

adverse impacts 

on traffic. 

SMALL except for 

MODERATE 

adverse impacts 

on traffic. 

SMALL except for 

MODERATE 

adverse impacts 

on traffic. 

Environmental 

Justice 

None(a) None(a) None(a) None(a) None(a)

Historic and Cultural 

Resources 

MODERATE MODERATE SMALL MODERATE SMALL 

Air Quality 

Criteria pollutants SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Greenhouse gas 

emissions 

MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

Nonradiological 

Health 

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Radiological Health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Postulated Accidents SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

(a) A determination of “NONE” for Environmental Justice analyses does not mean there are no adverse impacts on minority or lowincome populations from the proposed project. Instead, an indication of “NONE” means that while there are adverse impacts, 

the impacts do not affect minority or low-income populations in any disproportionate manner, relative to the general population. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-247 NUREG–2176 

9.3.6.2 Environmentally Preferable Sites 

As shown in Table 9-28, the cumulative impacts of building and operating two new units at the 

proposed site and the alternative sites are characterized as SMALL for many resource areas. 

The resource areas for which the impact level at an alternative site is the same as that for the 

proposed site do not contribute to the alternative site being judged to be environmentally 

preferable to the proposed site. Therefore, these resource areas are not discussed further in 

determining whether an alternative site is environmentally preferable to the proposed site. The 

resource areas for which an alternative site has a different impact level than the proposed site 

are discussed further to determine whether an alternative site is environmentally preferable to 

the proposed site. Where there is a range of impacts for a resource, the upper value of the 

impacts is used for the comparison. In addition, for the cases in which the cumulative impacts 

for a resource are greater than SMALL, consideration is given to those cases in which the 

impacts of the project at the specific site do not make any significant contribution to the 

cumulative impact level. As shown in Table 9-28, there are some differences in impacts among 

the sites. 

Glades Site 

The cumulative impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the Glades site 

shown in Table 9-28 are similar to those for the Turkey Point site with six exceptions. The 

cumulative impacts for surface-water use are MODERATE at the Glades site, and SMALL at the 

Turkey Point site. However, building and operating new nuclear units at the Glades site would 

not be a significant contributor to the cumulative surface-water use impacts. Regarding the 

impacts on terrestrial ecology and wetlands, the impacts at the Glades site are shown as 

MODERATE, while the impacts at the Turkey Point site are shown as MODERATE to LARGE. 

However, the impacts directly attributable to the new plants at the Turkey Point site would be 

MODERATE. LARGE impacts, if they occur, would be as a result of impacts from other 

projects, and would occur regardless of whether Units 6 and 7 are built. Aesthetic impacts 

would be MODERATE at the Glades site because of the contrast with the surrounding 

environment, but they would be SMALL at the Turkey Point site. The post-construction physical 

impacts on road quality would be SMALL and beneficial at the Glades site but MODERATE and 

beneficial at the Turkey Point site. Regarding economic impacts on the community, the impacts 

at the Glades site are shown as SMALL and beneficial in the region, but LARGE and beneficial 

for the county and school district. For the Turkey Point site, the impacts are shown as SMALL 

and beneficial. The amount of taxes contributed by the new plants at the two sites would be the 

same and the difference occurs because the beginning tax base in Glades County is much 

smaller than in Miami-Dade County. Regarding the impacts of criteria pollutants, the impacts at 

the Glades site are shown as SMALL, while the impacts at the Turkey Point site are shown as 

SMALL to MODERATE. But the potential MODERATE impacts at the Turkey Point site are 

related to the existing gas-fired Unit 5, and are not related to the new nuclear units. Based on 

all of the information above, the NRC staff concludes that the differences between the two sites 

do not support a determination that the Glades site is environmentally preferable to the Turkey 

Point site. As discussed in Section 9.3.1.7, if it turns out that a water-storage reservoir would be 

required at the Glades site, then the impacts on some resources, particularly land use and 

terrestrial ecology, would be increased. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-248 October 2016 

Martin Site 

The cumulative impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the Martin site shown 

in Table 9-28 are similar to those for the Turkey Point site with six exceptions. The cumulative 

impacts for surface-water use are MODERATE at the Martin site, and SMALL at the Turkey 

Point site. However, building and operating new nuclear units at the Martin site would not be a 

significant contributor to the cumulative surface-water use impacts and, therefore, there is little 

real difference between these sites for this resource area. Regarding the impacts on terrestrial 

ecology and wetlands, the impacts at the Martin site are shown as MODERATE, while the 

impacts at the Turkey Point site are shown as MODERATE to LARGE. However, the impacts 

directly attributable to the new plants at the Turkey Point site would be MODERATE. LARGE 

impacts, if they occur, would be a result of impacts from other projects and would occur 

regardless of whether Units 6 and 7 are built. Aesthetic impacts would be MODERATE at the 

Martin site because of the contrast with the surrounding environment, but they would be SMALL 

at the Turkey Point site. Regarding economic impacts on the community, the impacts at the 

Martin site are shown as SMALL and beneficial in the region, but MODERATE and beneficial for 

the county and school district. For the Turkey Point site, the impacts are shown as SMALL and 

beneficial. The amount of taxes contributed by the new plants at the two sites would be the 

same and the difference occurs because the beginning tax base in Martin County is much 

smaller than in Miami-Dade County. The impacts of traffic at the Martin site are MODERATE to 

LARGE (depending on the timing of other projects in the area), while the impacts at the Turkey 

Point site are MODERATE. Finally, impacts on cultural and historic resources at the Turkey 

Point site are MODERATE because of visual impacts along the eastern corridor, while the 

impacts at the Martin site are SMALL because the new transmission lines are expected to follow 

the path of existing lines. Based on all of the information above, the NRC staff concludes that 

the differences between the two sites do not support a determination that the Martin site is 

environmentally preferable to the Turkey Point site. As discussed in Section 9.3.1.7, if it turns 

out that a water-storage reservoir would be required at the Martin site, then the impacts on 

some resources, particularly land use and terrestrial ecology, would be increased. 

Okeechobee 2 Site 

The cumulative impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the Okeechobee 2 

site shown in Table 9-28 are similar to those for the Turkey Point site with five exceptions. The 

cumulative impacts for surface-water use are MODERATE at the Okeechobee 2 site, and 

SMALL at the Turkey Point site. However, building and operating new nuclear units at the 

Okeechobee 2 site would not be a significant contributor to the cumulative surface-water use 

impacts and, therefore, there is little real difference between these sites for this resource area. 

Regarding the impacts on terrestrial ecology and wetlands, the impacts at the Okeechobee 2 

site are shown as MODERATE, while the impacts at the Turkey Point site are shown as 

MODERATE to LARGE. However, the impacts directly attributable to the new plants at the 

Turkey Point site would be MODERATE and would occur regardless of whether Units 6 and 7 

are built. LARGE impacts, if they occur, would be a result of impacts from other projects. 

Aesthetic impacts would be MODERATE at the Okeechobee 2 site because of the contrast with 

the surrounding environment, but they would be SMALL at the Turkey Point site. The postconstruction physical impacts on road quality would be SMALL and beneficial at the 

Okeechobee 2 site, but MODERATE and beneficial at the Turkey Point site. Regarding 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-249 NUREG–2176 

economic impacts on the community, the impacts at the Okeechobee 2 site are shown as 

SMALL and beneficial in the region, but LARGE and beneficial for the county and school district. 

For the Turkey Point site, the impacts are shown as SMALL and beneficial. The amount of 

taxes contributed by the new plants at the two sites would be the same and the difference 

occurs because the beginning tax base in Okeechobee County is much smaller than in MiamiDade County. Based on all of the information above, the NRC staff concludes that the 

differences between the two sites do not support a determination that the Okeechobee 2 site is 

environmentally preferable to the Turkey Point site. As discussed in Section 9.3.1.7, if it turns 

out that a water-storage reservoir would be required at the Okeechobee 2 site, then the impacts 

on some resources, particularly land use and terrestrial ecology, would be increased. 

St. Lucie Site 

The cumulative impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the St. Lucie site 

shown in Table 9-28 are similar to those for the Turkey Point site with five exceptions. 

Regarding the impacts on terrestrial ecology and wetlands, the impacts at the St. Lucie site are 

shown as MODERATE, while the impacts at the Turkey Point site are shown as MODERATE to 

LARGE. However, the impacts directly attributable to the new plants at the Turkey Point site 

would be MODERATE and would occur regardless of whether Units 6 and 7 are built. LARGE 

impacts, if they occur, would be a result of impacts from other projects. Aquatic ecology 

impacts at the Turkey Point site would be MODERATE in comparison to the SMALL to 

MODERATE determination at St. Lucie. This primarily reflects the uncertainty related to the 

magnitude and extent of coastal environmental stressors that may occur in the future. All of the 

impacts that are greater than SMALL for these resource areas are a result of building and 

operating new units at these sites and so reflect a real difference in impacts. Regarding 

physical impacts on buildings, because of the extensive road widening on SR-A1A, impacts at 

the St. Lucie site would be LARGE and adverse, while there would be no similar impacts at the 

Turkey Point site. Regarding economic impacts on the community, the impacts at the St. Lucie 

site are shown as SMALL and beneficial in the region, but LARGE and beneficial for the county 

and school district. For the Turkey Point site, the impacts are shown as SMALL and beneficial. 

The amount of taxes contributed by the new plants at the two sites would be the same and the 

difference occurs because the beginning tax base in St. Lucie County is much smaller than in 

Miami-Dade County. Finally, the impacts on cultural and historic resources at the Turkey Point 

site are MODERATE because of visual impacts along the eastern corridor, while the impacts at 

the St. Lucie site are SMALL because the new transmission lines are expected to follow the 

path of existing lines. Based on all of the information above, the NRC staff concludes that the 

differences between the two sites do not support a determination that the St. Lucie site is 

environmentally preferable to the Turkey Point site. 

9.3.6.3 Obviously Superior Sites 

Because NRC staff determined that none of the alternative sites is environmentally preferable to 

the proposed site, none could be obviously superior, and no additional evaluations in that regard 

are required. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-250 October 2016 

9.4 System Design Alternatives 

The review team considered a variety of heat-dissipation systems and circulating-water system 

(CWS) alternatives. While other heat-dissipation systems and water systems are part of a 

nuclear power plant, the largest and most capable of causing environmental impacts is the CWS 

that cools and condenses the steam for the turbine generator. Other water systems, such as 

the service-water system, are much smaller than the CWS. As a result, the review team only 

considers alternative heat-dissipation and water-treatment systems for the CWS. The proposed 

CWS for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 is a closed-cycle system that uses mechanical draft cooling 

towers for heat dissipation (FPL 2014-TN4058). The proposed system is discussed in detail in 

Chapter 3. 

9.4.1 Heat-Dissipation Systems 

About two-thirds of the heat from a commercial nuclear reactor is rejected as heat to the 

environment. The remaining one-third of the reactor-generated heat is converted into electricity. 

Normal heat-sink cooling systems transfer the rejected heat load into the atmosphere and/or 

nearby waterbodies, primarily as latent heat exchange (evaporating water) or sensible heat 

exchange (warmer air or water). Different heat-dissipation systems rely on different exchange 

processes. The following sections describe alternative heat-dissipation systems considered by 

the review team for proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. 

In its ER, FPL considered a range of CWS heat-dissipation systems, including a once-through 

cooling system and several closed-cycle cooling systems. In addition to the closed-cycle 

mechanical draft cooling towers selected, FPL considered natural draft cooling towers, 

once-through cooling into Biscayne Bay, cooling ponds, spray ponds, dry cooling towers, fanassisted natural draft cooling towers, and a hybrid (combination wet-dry) cooling-tower system 

(FPL 2014-TN4058). In addition, the review team considered mechanical draft cooling towers 

with plume abatement. 

9.4.1.1 Natural Draft Cooling Towers 

Natural draft cooling towers, which use about the same amount of water as the proposed 

mechanical draft cooling towers, induce airflow up through large (e.g., 600 ft tall and 400 ft in 

diameter) towers by cascading warm water downward in the lower portion of the cooling tower. 

As heat transfers from the water to the air in the tower, the air becomes more buoyant and rises. 

This buoyant circulation induces more air to enter the tower through its open base. The 

environmental aspects of natural draft cooling towers and mechanical draft cooling towers are 

very similar (FPL 2014-TN4058). Because both rely on evaporation to dissipate the heat, water 

use is similar between natural and mechanical draft cooling towers; therefore, intake and 

discharge effects on aquatic biota would be similar. Notable differences include the fact that the 

natural draft cooling towers can be seen from a great distance and that the additional height 

increases the potential for avian collisions and bat collisions (NRC 2013-TN2654). It is unclear 

whether salt deposition from natural draft cooling towers would be greater than the deposition 

from mechanical draft cooling towers. However, the review team expects that all or most of the 

deposition would take place over nearby mangrove forests, which are adapted to high levels of 

sea spray. Therefore, the review team has determined that it is unlikely that the terrestrial 

impacts would be noticeably different. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-251 NUREG–2176 

Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 would be located adjacent to Biscayne National Park and natural 

draft cooling towers would impose a greater aesthetic impact. Also, the energy savings from 

using natural draft versus mechanical draft cooling towers are minimal. Therefore, the review 

team determined that natural draft cooling towers would not be an environmentally preferable 

alternative for the Turkey Point site. 

9.4.1.2 Fan-Assisted Natural Draft Cooling Towers 

Fan-assisted natural draft cooling towers are smaller than natural draft cooling towers but are 

designed to obtain a natural draft effect. The movement of air through the water being cooled is 

enhanced by fans arranged around the circumference of the cooling-tower shell. FPL indicates 

that for the Turkey Point site, fan-assisted natural draft cooling towers are a feasible alternative 

to the proposed design, although the power consumption to operate the towers would be higher 

and the noise levels generated would be slightly higher (FPL 2014-TN4058). Notable 

differences include the fact that the natural draft cooling towers can be seen from a greater 

distance and that the additional height increases the potential for avian collisions and bat 

collisions (NRC 1996-TN288). It is unclear whether salt deposition from fan-assisted natural 

draft cooling towers would be greater than the deposition from mechanical draft cooling towers. 

However, the review team expects that all or most of the deposition would take place over 

nearby mangrove forests, which are adapted to high levels of sea spray. Therefore the review 

team has determined that it is unlikely that the terrestrial impacts would be noticeably different. 

The review team concludes that, because the impacts of mechanical draft and fan-assisted 

natural draft cooling towers are similar, fan-assisted natural draft cooling towers would not be an 

environmentally preferable alternative for the Turkey Point site. 

9.4.1.3 Once-Through Cooling 

Once-through cooling systems withdraw water from the source waterbody and return virtually 

the same volume of water to the receiving waterbody at an elevated temperature. Typically the 

source waterbody and the receiving waterbody are the same body, and the intake and 

discharge structures are separated to limit recirculation. While there is essentially no 

consumptive use of water in a once-through heat-dissipation system, the elevated temperature 

of the receiving waterbody would result in some induced evaporative loss that decreases the net 

water supply. The elevated temperature can also adversely affect the biota of the receiving 

waterbody. The large intake flows would result in impingement and entrainment losses. Based 

on recent changes to implementation plans to meet Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act 

(33 U.S.C. § 1344 et seq.) (TN1019), the review team has determined that once-through cooling 

systems for new nuclear reactors are unlikely to be permitted in the future, except in rare and 

unique situations. 

If proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 were to use once-through cooling with two 

AP1000 reactors, the review team determined that the water-supply needs for the two units 

would be approximately 1,700,000 gpm (FPL 2014-TN4058). FPL has determined that the only 

waterbody in the vicinity of Units 6 and 7 that could supply this quantity of water is Biscayne 

Bay, which is a National Park and has been designated as an aquatic preserve. For this 

reason, in addition to the Clean Water Act 316(b) considerations (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) 

 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-252 October 2016 

(TN662), the review team determined that once-through designs were not a feasible alternative 

design and eliminated them from further consideration as part of the Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 

cooling system. 

9.4.1.4 Cooling Pond 

Existing Units 1 through 4 at the Turkey Point site use cooling canals to meet condenser cooling 

needs. The existing canals cover 5,900 ac. A pond approaching the size of the existing canals 

would be needed to support the proposed units (FPL 2014-TN4058). The dedication of an area 

of this size was weighed against the environmental impact from the selected design of the 

Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 cooling system. The review team determined that because of the 

impact of the loss of land and natural habitat, including designated critical habitat, associated 

with development of additional cooling ponds, a cooling system using a recirculating cooling 

pond was not an environmentally preferable alternative at the Turkey Point site. 

9.4.1.5 Spray Ponds 

Spray-pond cooling systems use manufactured ponds to cool water and enhance evaporative 

cooling by spraying water into the atmosphere. In addition to evaporation, heat transfer from 

the spray ponds to the atmosphere occurs through black-body radiation and conduction. A 

spray-pond system alternative was evaluated for cooling proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, 

and it would require a 160 ac pond (FPL 2014-TN4058). Based on the additional land and 

natural habitat, including designated critical habitat, requirements to build the spray pond, and 

the possible impact from spray drift, the review team concludes that use of a spray pond would 

not be an environmentally preferable alternative for the Turkey Point site. 

9.4.1.6 Dry Cooling Towers 

Dry cooling towers have never been used to cool nuclear or fossil-fuel facilities of this size 

(i.e., approximately 2,400 MW(e). Dry cooling towers would eliminate virtually all water-related 

impacts from the cooling-system operation. No makeup water would be needed for cooling, and 

no blowdown water would be generated. This alternative could reduce water-use impacts. Dry 

cooling systems would be larger than the proposed cooling-tower systems, and would require 

more onsite land to accommodate the large dry cooling structures. Dry cooling systems can 

result in a significant loss of dependable electrical generation capacity, particularly during higher 

ambient temperature conditions, because the theoretical approach temperature is limited to the 

dry-bulb temperature and not the lower wet-bulb temperature. In other words, the temperature 

of the cooling water going back to the condenser can be no lower than the ambient air 

temperature. The review team determined that historical local air temperatures would result in 

the loss of generation at critical times of high demand for electricity due to the loss of sufficient 

condenser vacuum. The dry cooling-system design would not allow the plant to meet its stated 

goal as a baseload power source. Additional electrical losses occur with dry cooling because of 

the parasitic energy requirements of the large array of fans involved. This loss in generation 

efficiency translates into increased impacts on the fuel cycle. The review team therefore 

determined that building and operation of dry cooling towers would not be an environmentally 

preferable alternative for the Turkey Point site because of the loss of dependable electrical 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-253 NUREG–2176 

generation capacity, particularly during higher ambient temperature conditions and reduced 

capacity, as well as inefficiencies in energy-production resulting in higher fuel-cycle impacts. 

9.4.1.7 Combination Wet/Dry Cooling-Tower System 

Combination wet/dry hybrid cooling towers have never been used to cool nuclear or fossil-fuel 

facilities of the size proposed by FPL (i.e., approximately 2,400 MW(e)). A mechanical draft 

wet/dry hybrid cooling-tower system uses both wet and dry cooling cells to limit consumption of 

cooling water, often with the added benefit of reducing plume visibility. Water used to cool the 

turbine generators generally passes first through the dry portion of the cooling tower where heat 

is removed by drawing air at ambient temperature over tubes through which the water is 

moving. Cooling water leaving the dry portion of the tower then passes through the wet tower 

where the water is sprayed into a moving air stream and additional heat is removed through 

evaporation and sensible heat transfer. When ambient air temperatures are low, the dry portion 

of these cooling towers may be sufficient to meet cooling needs. The use of the dry portion of 

the system would result in a loss in generating efficiency that would translate to increased 

impacts on the fuel cycle. As discussed in Chapter 5, the impacts of operating the proposed 

cooling system (mechanical draft tower) for aquatic ecology, water use, and water quality are 

SMALL. While a combination wet/dry cooling system would reduce water use, there would be 

an increase in fuel-cycle impacts because of the increased use of resources to generate 

electricity. Therefore, the review team concludes that the building and operation of a combined 

wet/dry cooling-tower system would not be an environmentally preferable alternative for the 

Turkey Point site. 

9.4.1.8 Mechanical Draft Towers with Plume Abatement 

Adding additional heat to a saturated cooling-tower exhaust, without adding additional water, 

would result in subsaturated water vapor. Subsaturated water vapor reduces the potential for a 

visible plume. The concept behind a mechanical draft cooling tower with plume abatement is 

similar to the wet/dry hybrid cooling system described above; the design parameters are focused 

on reducing the visual plume. Such designs may also result in slightly less consumptive water 

use. However, there is sufficient water at Turkey Point site for use of a mechanical draft cooling 

system without plume abatement. The aesthetic impacts at the Turkey Point site with a 

mechanical draft cooling tower without plume abatement were determined to be SMALL; 

therefore, a mechanical draft tower with plume abatement offers no significant advantage. 

These towers often have a larger footprint and require additional energy to operate, resulting in a 

net loss of energy available to meet the demand for power. For these reasons, the review team 

concludes that the building and operation of mechanical draft cooling towers with plume 

abatement would not be an environmentally preferable alternative for the Turkey Point site. 

9.4.2 Circulating-Water Systems 

The review team also evaluated alternatives to the proposed intakes and discharges for the 

normal heat-sink cooling system, based on the proposed heat-dissipation system water 

requirements. The capacity requirements of the intake and discharge system are defined by the 

proposed heat-dissipation system. For Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, the proposed heatdissipation system is a closed-loop system that uses mechanical draft cooling towers for heat 

dissipation. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-254 October 2016 

As indicated in Table 3-5, the maximum makeup water taken from the South District 

Wastewater Treatment Plant (SDWWTP) for two AP1000 units at the site would be 50,481 gpm 

(112 cfs) if reclaimed water is used (FPL 2014-TN4058) and the maximum makeup water 

withdrawn from radial collector wells would be 86,400 gpm (193 cfs) if saltwater is used 

(FPL 2014-TN4058). 

9.4.2.1 Water Supplies 

The proposed water supplies for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 are described in detail in Chapter 3. 

Reclaimed water from the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD) would provide 

raw water to the CWSs of the proposed units under normal conditions. Saltwater obtained 

through radial collector wells with laterals extending beneath Biscayne Bay would provide raw 

water when water of sufficient quantity or quality is not available from the MDWASD (FPL 2014-

TN4058). The impacts associated with the proposed water sources are discussed in Sections 

4.2, 4.3, 5.2, and 5.3. As discussed in these sections, the overall impacts of the selected watersupply options would be SMALL. 

Alternatives to the Primary Cooling-Water Supply 

As mentioned above, reclaimed water from the MDWASD would provide raw water to the CWSs 

of the proposed units under normal conditions. In addition to the MDWASD, a broad range of 

water sources have been considered including marine sources, other surface-water sources, 

and groundwater sources. 

Withdrawal of water from marine sources, including Biscayne Bay, Card Sound, and the Atlantic 

Ocean (including locations such as the barge-turning basin or Card Sound Canal), using 

conventional intake structures would result in some impingement and entrainment of aquatic 

species. In addition, activities associated with building a surface-water intake including 

dredging would also result in environmental disturbance and would be in conflict with 

Rule 62-4.242, “Antidegradation Permitting Requirements; Outstanding Florida Waters; 

Outstanding National Resource Waters; Equitable Abatement,” of the Florida Administrative 

Code (Fla. Admin. Code 62-4 -TN1084). As a result, the review team determined that these 

water sources are not environmentally preferable to the selected water source for the primary 

cooling-water supply. 

Other surface-water sources, including the cooling canals of the industrial wastewater facility 

(IWF), and offsite sources such as a new freshwater reservoir were also considered. 

Withdrawal of cooling water from the cooling canals would induce groundwater from the 

Biscayne aquifer to flow into the cooling canals (FPL 2014-TN4058). In addition this would 

likely be considered to be in violation of Miami-Dade County Resolution Z-56-07, which requires 

that the operation of the proposed units does not withdraw any water from the Biscayne aquifer 

(Miami-Dade County 2007-TN1085). Use of fresh surface water from a new offsite reservoir or 

existing freshwater sources would likely have a greater environmental impact than the proposed 

alternative and is unlikely because SFWMD plans and Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Projects require use of freshwater for public water supply and environmental restoration. As a 

result it is unlikely that the required water volume would be permitted for industrial use. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-255 NUREG–2176 

Therefore, the review team determined that there were no alternative fresh surface-water 

sources that would be environmentally preferable to the proposed primary cooling-water source. 

The review team considered several groundwater sources, including the Biscayne aquifer, the 

Upper Floridan aquifer, and the zone of the Lower Floridan aquifer that is commonly referred to 

as the Boulder Zone. Withdrawal of the large volumes of water needed to meet primary coolingwater needs for the proposed units from either the Biscayne aquifer or the Upper Floridan 

aquifer would certainly have an impact on water supply available to local users of these two 

resources and could potentially affect the quality of water in these aquifers. These impacts 

would exceed the impacts associated with the proposed primary cooling-water source and 

would be in violation of Miami-Dade County Resolution Z-56-07, which requires that the 

operation of the proposed units does not withdraw any water from the Biscayne aquifer or affect 

current users of the Floridan aquifer (Miami-Dade County 2007-TN1085). 

The APPZ is a productive aquifer over 500 ft thick in some parts of Florida. However, the APPZ 

is thinner and less permeable near Turkey Point, where Reese and Richardson (2008-TN3436) 

show the APPZ being less than 100 ft thick and pinching out to the east. Therefore, the APPZ 

does not appear to be a viable option as a water source at the Turkey Point site. 

The Boulder Zone is a zone of highly transmissive, cavernous limestone and dolomites located 

approximately 3,000 ft below land surface at the Turkey Point site. Water in the Boulder Zone 

has a salinity near that of seawater and approximately 37,000 mg/L total dissolved solids. FPL 

indicates that a well field would be constructed adjacent to the nuclear island if this alternative 

were selected (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

The high transmissivities and cavernous nature of Boulder Zone indicate that 100 percent of the 

cooling-tower makeup water could be obtained from this source. No other withdrawals are 

made from this zone within 5 mi of the Turkey Point site, but this zone is used for wastewater 

disposal by the SDWWTP located 9 mi north of the site (FPL 2014-TN4058). Because FPL is 

planning to dispose of blowdown water to the Boulder Zone, sufficient separation between the 

deep-injection UIC wells and the withdrawal wells would need to be considered to prevent 

drawing the wastewater into the cooling-water intake wells. The construction of the pipelines 

needed to provide that separation and the disturbance of the land surface to construct either the 

UIC or withdrawal well field some distance from the site of Units 6 and 7 would have an 

environmental impact that would need to be considered. Use of the Boulder Zone as the 

primary water source would eliminate the environmental benefit of reducing direct ocean 

discharge that comes with the use of water from the MDWASD. Use of water from the Boulder 

Zone as the primary source of cooling water would be in violation of Miami-Dade County 

Resolution Z-56-07, which requires that the primary source of cooling water for the proposed 

units be reclaimed water from the MDWASD (Miami-Dade County 2007-TN1085). There is also 

a strong likelihood of recirculation occurring between the UIC wells used for disposal of 

blowdown and water-supply wells in the Boulder Zone and a likelihood of extracting water from 

the Boulder Zone containing contaminants injected through other UIC wells in the vicinity 

(FPL 2011-TN52). Withdrawal of water from either of these sources would be problematic for 

the cooling-water system. Therefore, the review team determined that there were no alternative 

groundwater sources that would be environmentally preferable to the proposed primary coolingwater source. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-256 October 2016 

Alternatives to the Backup Cooling-Water Supply 

As mentioned above, saltwater obtained through radial collector wells with laterals (horizontal 

collector lines) extending beneath Biscayne Bay would provide raw water when sufficient water 

is not available from the MDWASD. The review team considered a broad range of sources for 

water, including marine sources, other surface-water sources, and groundwater sources. Based 

on the analysis presented above for the primary cooling-water sources, the only sources 

identified for further consideration as backup water sources are the Boulder Zone and 

alternative locations for radial collector wells. Alternative locations of radial collector wells would 

require installation of a longer pipeline to transport cooling water to Units 6 and 7 with the 

associated environmental impacts. Neither of these options was identified by the review team 

as environmentally preferable to the use of radial collector wells as a backup water supply. 

9.4.2.2 Intake Alternatives 

The proposed systems to supply raw water for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 are described in 

detail in Section 3.2.2.1. Reclaimed water from the MDWASD would provide raw water to the 

CWSs of the proposed units under normal conditions. Saltwater obtained through radial 

collector wells with laterals extending beneath Biscayne Bay would provide raw water when 

water of sufficient quality or quantity is not available from the MDWASD (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

These proposed raw water sources do not require cooling-water intake structures as defined by 

40 CFR 125.83 (TN254). The environmental impacts of installing and operating these systems 

are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

Surface-Water Intake Structures 

In addition to the radial collector well system selected by FPL, two alternative intake systems 

were considered: a shoreline intake structure and a passive offshore intake. 

Shoreline Intake Structure 

FPL identified the east bank of Card Sound Canal just south of the existing cooling canal 

system as a possible location for a conventional shoreline intake structure. The intake structure 

would be a conventional intake with a trash rack and traveling screens to keep material out of 

the pump forebays. The structure would include two forebays, each of which would contain 

three pumps. Two pumps from each set would supply water to one of the proposed units; the 

third pump in each bay would be on standby (FPL 2014-TN4058). Intake velocity would be less 

than 0.5 fps and the intake structure would have fish-return capability. The intake system would 

meet the requirements of Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act related to impingement, 

entrainment, and aquatic monitoring (FPL 2014-TN4058). The structure would be 

approximately 60 ft wide and extend 50 ft back from the openings to Card Sound Canal 

(FPL 2014-TN4058). FPL indicates that excavation and installation of an intake structure at the 

Card Sound Canal location would affect wetlands (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

Passive Offshore Intake 

Generally, an offshore intake alternative has advantages if existing shoreline structures would 

conflict with a shoreline intake or if bathymetry or vegetation considerations make a shoreline 

intake less desirable. At the Turkey Point site, the conditions that would make an offshore 

intake advantageous in this way do not occur. However, the offshore intake design proposed by 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-257 NUREG–2176 

FPL has certain advantages. FPL describes the proposed offshore intake system in the 

following way, “An alternate intake system on Card Sound Canal would consist of passive panel 

screens with polyhedron-shaped screens supported on a stainless steel frame and an air 

backwash unit. The polyhedron sides that are directed to the water surface are equipped with 

the screen panels made with special cling-free elements. The sides that are directed to the 

canal bed remain closed to avoid debris (sediment) ingress from the bed and for the optimum 

performance of air backwash. Air spray nozzles are arranged inside the polyhedron enabling a 

particularly effective screen backwash by pressurized air pulses” (FPL 2014-TN4058). Water 

would move from the offshore screen system to a wet well onshore that would house the pumps 

for pumping the water to proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. The wet well structure would 

also contain the compressor for the air backwash system. The onshore structure associated 

with this intake design would be approximately the same size as the shoreline intake structure 

described above. 

Environmental impacts from installation of the intakes and pipelines for the shoreline intake and 

the passive offshore intake would be equivalent because of the similar size of the onshore 

structure. Impacts on aquatic species due to entrainment and impingement may be less if the 

passive offshore intake were to be used, but in either case compliance with Section 316(b) of 

the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) (TN662) related to impingement, entrainment, 

and aquatic monitoring would result in minor impacts because of operation of either of these 

designs. The review team determined that neither of these intake designs would be 

environmentally preferable to the radial collector well system proposed by FPL because the land 

disturbance required for the radial collector well system is less than the land disturbance 

required to build the pipelines and intake structures associated with either the shoreline intake 

or the passive offshore intake located on Card Sound Canal. 

9.4.2.3 Discharge Alternatives 

FPL proposes to discharge blowdown from Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 to the Boulder Zone of 

the Lower Floridan aquifer through a series of UIC wells. A detailed description of the proposed 

discharge system is presented in Section 3.2.2.2. The impacts associated with the proposed 

discharge system are discussed in Sections 4.2, 4.3, 5.2, and 5.3. As discussed in these 

sections, the overall impacts of the deep-well injection discharge option would be SMALL. 

A broad range of discharge alternatives for the cooling-water system have been considered, 

including discharge to the Atlantic Ocean, Biscayne Bay, Card Sound, the barge-turning basin, 

Card Sound Canal, the cooling canals of the IWF, rehydration of wetlands, and returning the 

water to the SDWWTP for disposal. Alternatives including discharge to the Atlantic Ocean, 

Biscayne Bay, and Card Sound are not considered environmentally preferable because of the 

anticipated environmental impacts of building and operating discharge facilities in these 

environments including the disturbance to the seafloor required to build the discharge facilities. 

In addition, Rule 62-4.242 of the Florida Administrative Code (Fla. Admin. Code 62-4 -TN1084) 

prohibits activities such as the dredging required to construct a shoreline or offshore diffuser 

that would degrade the water quality of Outstanding Florida Waters. Discharge to Card Sound 

Canal and the barge-turning basin are not considered environmentally preferable to the selected 

alternative because these waterbodies discharge directly to Card Sound or Biscayne Bay and 

the discharge of heated water to these waterbodies would likely have a greater environmental 

impact than the selected alternative. When saline water from the radial collector wells is used 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

NUREG–2176 9-258 October 2016 

for cooling, the blowdown water would also have a salinity higher than the receiving water, 

which would likely contribute to a higher environmental impact than the selected alternative. 

Blowdown water would likely not meet acceptance criteria for rehydration of wetlands or return 

of the water to the SDWWTP, especially when saltwater was being used as the source of 

cooling water (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

Discharge of cooling water to the cooling canals of the IWF would contribute to existing 

concerns that hypersaline water from the cooling canals is degrading water quality in the 

Biscayne aquifer in the vicinity of the Turkey Point site. Therefore, the review team determined 

that there were no alternative discharge designs that would be environmentally preferable to the 

proposed discharge design. 

9.4.2.4 Water Treatment 

Both inflow and effluent water may require treatment to ensure that they meet plant water needs 

and effluent water standards. As described in Section 3.4.2.2, FPL proposes to add chemicals 

to plant water to meet appropriate water-quality process needs. Deep-injection well discharge 

would be subject to the provisions of the UIC Rule in 62-528 of the Florida Administrative Code 

(Fla. Admin. Code 62-528 -TN556) and the conditions of the UIC permit (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

The largest chemical inputs are required to maintain the appropriate chemistry in the cooling 

towers to preclude biofouling. Mechanical treatment is generally not a viable option in coolingtower designs. Other alternatives to preclude biofouling, such as ultraviolet treatment, are 

feasible, but would not eliminate the need for some chemical treatment. Chemical treatment is 

a reliable and well-established engineering practice that has been shown to provide minimal 

impacts in a variety of settings. The review team identified no environmentally preferable 

alternative to FPL’s proposed chemical water treatment. 

9.4.3 Summary Statement 

The review team considered various alternative systems designs, including eight alternative 

heat-dissipation systems and multiple alternative intake, discharge, and water-supply systems. 

The review team identified no alternatives that were environmentally preferable to the proposed 

Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 plant systems design. 

9.5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alternatives Evaluation 

The 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230) (TN427) require that no discharge of dredged or fill 

material into waters of the United States (including jurisdictional wetlands) shall be permitted if 

there is a practicable alternative that would have a less adverse impact on the aquatic 

environment, as long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental 

consequences. An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being implemented 

after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project 

purposes. If it is otherwise a practicable alternative, an area not presently owned by the 

applicant that could reasonably be obtained, used, expanded, or managed in order to fulfill the 

basic purpose of the proposed activity may be considered. Thus, this analysis is necessary to 

determine which alternative is the LEDPA (least environmentally damaging practicable 

alternative) that meets the project purpose and need. Even if an applicant’s proposed 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

October 2016 9-259 NUREG–2176 

alternative is determined to be the LEDPA, the USACE must still determine whether the LEDPA 

is contrary to the public interest. The USACE Public Interest Review, described in 

33 CFR 320.4 (TN424) (and further discussed in Appendix I), directs the USACE to consider a 

number of factors in a balancing process to determine whether a proposed project is contrary to 

the public interest. A permit would not be issued for an alternative that is not the LEDPA, nor 

would a permit be issued for an activity that is determined to be contrary to the public interest. 

The USACE will conclude its Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and public interest 

analyses in its Record of Decision. 

October 2016 10-1 NUREG–2176 

10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 

By letter dated June 30, 2009 (FPL 2009-TN1229), as supplemented by a letter dated August 7, 

2009 (FPL 2009-TN1230), the Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) applied to the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) for two combined construction 

permits and operating licenses (combined licenses or COLs) for the proposed Turkey Point 

Units 6 and 7 (COL application). The NRC review team’s evaluation of the environmental 

impacts of the proposed action is based on the October 29, 2014 revision of the COL 

application (FPL 2014-TN4102), including the Environmental Report (ER) (FPL 2014-TN4058), 

responses to requests for additional information, and supplemental information. Documents 

supporting the review team’s evaluation are listed as references where appropriate. 

The site proposed by FPL for the two new nuclear units is the Turkey Point site in southeastern 

Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Turkey Point site is an approximately 9,460 ac site that 

includes five existing power plants. Units 1 and 2 have been operated as natural-gas/oil steamgenerating units. Unit 2 was converted to operate in synchronous condenser mode. Unit 1 will 

be converted to operate in synchronous condenser mode in late 2016 (FPL 2016-TN4579). In 

the synchronous condenser mode, the generators help stabilize and optimize grid performance 

but do not generate power. Units 3 and 4 are nuclear pressurized water reactors, and Unit 5 is 

a natural-gas combined-cycle steam-generating unit. The proposed plant area is south of 

Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 on approximately 218 ac of the Turkey Point site property (FPL 

2014-TN4058). The proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 would be owned by FPL (2014-

TN4058). With the exception of the transmission systems needed to route power from the 

proposed units, and the pipelines needed to bring reclaimed water to the Turkey Point site, all of 

the construction and operation related to proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 would be 

completely within the confines of the Turkey Point site (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

On June 30, 2009, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) received a Department of the 

Army (DA) permit application from FPL to construct the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, 

reclaimed-water facility, access roads, radial collector wells, pipelines, transmission lines, and 

other related infrastructure. The proposed work would result in the alteration of waters of the 

United States, including wetlands. The USACE is participating as a cooperating agency with 

the NRC in preparing this environmental impact statement (EIS). The USACE published a 

public notice of FPL’s DA permit application on March 9, 2015. The USACE’s consideration of 

public comments received in response to this public notice will be reflected in the public interest 

review and Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(b)(1) analysis in the USACE’s Record of 

Decision. 

On June 30, 2009, FPL submitted a Site Certification Application (SCA) to the State of Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection for the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 and 

ancillary facilities (FPL 2010-TN1231). The SCA process provides a Certification that 

encompasses all licenses and permits needed for affected Florida State, regional, and local 

agencies. It also includes any regulatory activity that would be applicable under these agencies’ 

regulations for proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 (FDEP 2013-TN2629). On May 19, 2014, 

the State of Florida issued final Conditions of Certification to FPL authorizing construction, 

operation, and maintenance of proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 and associated facilities 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

NUREG–2176 10-2 October 2016 

(State of Florida 2014-TN3637). The final Conditions of Certification issued are binding and 

subject to the requirements listed in State of Florida (2014-TN3637). Although the opinion 

remands the Conditions of Certification to the Florida Siting Board for consideration of the 

possibility of burying a portion of the transmission lines and reconsideration of the specified 

mitigation measures, the NRC staff understands that the court’s opinion is not yet final as of this 

writing (October 3, 2016). Accordingly, for the purposes of the FEIS evaluation of impacts, the 

NRC staff considers the transmission line route and conditions reviewed and approved by the 

Florida Siting Board as the most current information regarding the transmission line and 

associated potential mitigation measures. Even if the Conditions of Certification are revisited, 

the NRC staff considers it reasonable to expect that Conditions of Certification similar to or no 

less effective than those originally issued will be in place before construction and operation of 

the proposed units begins. 

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 

§ 4321 et seq.) (TN661) directs that an EIS is required for a major Federal action that 

significantly affects the quality of the human environment. Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires 

that an EIS include information about the following: 

 the environmental impact of the proposed action 

 any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be 

implemented 

 alternatives to the proposed action 

 the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity 

 irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved if the 

proposed action is implemented. 

NRC has included regulatory provisions for meeting NEPA in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Part 51. In 10 CFR 51.20 (TN250), the NRC requires preparation of an EIS 

for issuance of a COL. Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 52 (TN251) contains the NRC regulations 

related to applications for COL’s. 

The proposed actions related to the Units 6 and 7 application are (1) the NRC issuance of COLs 

for construction and operation of two new nuclear units at the Turkey Point site in Miami-Dade 

County, Florida, and (2) DA authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act (Clean Water Act), as amended (33 U.S.C. § 1344) (TN662), Section 10 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 403) (TN4768), and Section 14 of the Rivers and 

Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 408) (TN4769). The DA permit application requests 

authorization to discharge fill into approximately 1,000 ac of waters of the United States, 

including jurisdictional wetlands, to construct structures beneath navigable waters of the United 

States such as radial collector wells, and to expand the existing barge-unloading area in 

navigable waters of the United States. The environmental review described in this EIS was 

conducted by a review team consisting of NRC staff, its contractor’s staff, and staff from the 

USACE. During the course of preparing this EIS, the review team reviewed the ER submitted 

by FPL (FPL 2014-TN4058) and supplemental documentation; consulted with Federal, State, 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

October 2016 10-3 NUREG–2176 

Tribal, and local agencies; and followed the guidance set forth in NUREG–1555, Environmental 

Standard Review Plans (NRC 2000-TN614), and NUREG–0800, Standard Review Plan for the 

Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 2007-TN613). In addition, 

the NRC considered the public comments related to the environmental review received during 

the scoping process. The public comments are provided in Appendix D. 

Included in this EIS are (1) the results of the NRC staff’s analyses, which consider and weigh 

the environmental effects of the proposed action and of constructing and operating two new 

nuclear units at the Turkey Point site; (2) mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse 

effects; (3) the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and (4) the NRC 

staff’s recommendation regarding the proposed action based on its environmental review. The 

COL application references a specific reactor design. 

The USACE is a cooperating agency with the NRC, which is serving as the lead agency in the 

development of this EIS. The USACE has participated as a member of the review team. In 

carrying out its regulatory responsibilities, the USACE will complete an independent evaluation 

of the applicant’s DA permit application to determine whether to issue, issue with modifications, 

or deny a DA permit for this project. This decision will be documented in the USACE’s Record 

of Decision (ROD). The decision about whether to issue a DA permit will be based on an 

evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and 

its intended effect on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts that the proposed 

activities may have on the public interest requires a careful weighing of all of the factors relevant 

in each particular case. A decision by the USACE to authorize this proposal, and if so, the 

conditions under which it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of 

this general balancing process. 

By acting as a cooperating agency on the development of the EIS, USACE plans to adopt the 

EIS in its ROD. The USACE will also include any additional information and analyses required 

to support its permit decision to issue the DA permit, deny the DA permit, or issue the DA permit 

with modifications. The USACE’s role as a cooperating agency in the preparation of this EIS is 

to ensure to the maximum extent practicable that the information presented is adequate to fulfill 

the requirements of USACE regulations. The Clean Water Act, Section 404(b)(1) “Guidelines 

for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material” (40 CFR Part 230) (TN427), 

contains the substantive environmental criteria used by USACE in evaluating proposed 

discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. USACE’s Public Interest 

Review (PIR) (33 CFR § 320.4) (TN424) directs the USACE to consider a number of factors as 

part of a balanced evaluation process in order to determine whether the proposed project is 

contrary to the public interest. USACE’s Section 404(b)(1) analysis and PIR will be part of its 

ROD and will not be addressed in this EIS. The following general criteria are considered in the 

evaluation of every application: 

 the relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed structure or work; 

 where there are unresolved conflicts about resource use, the practicability of using 

practicable and reasonable alternative locations and methods to accomplish the objective of 

the proposed structure or work; and 

 the extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental effects that the proposed 

structure or work is likely to have on the public and private uses to which the area is suited. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

NUREG–2176 10-4 October 2016 

As part of the USACE public comment process, USACE published a public notice on March 9, 

2015 to solicit comments from the public regarding FPL’s DA permit application for proposed 

work at the Turkey Point site. The USACE’s consideration of the public comments received in 

response to this public notice will be reflected in the PIR and CWA Section 404(b)(1) analysis in 

the USACE’s ROD. 

Environmental issues are evaluated using the three-level standard of significance—SMALL, 

MODERATE, or LARGE—developed by the NRC based on the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) guidelines (40 CFR 1508.27) (TN428). Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250), 

Subpart A, Appendix B, provides the following definitions of the three significance levels: 

SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they 

would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the 

resource. 

MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 

destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 

destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

Mitigation measures were considered for each environmental issue and are discussed in the 

appropriate sections. During its environmental review, the review team considered planned 

activities and actions that FPL indicates it and others would likely take if FPL receives the COLs. 

In addition, FPL provided estimates of the environmental impacts resulting from the building and 

operation of two new nuclear units on the Turkey Point site. 

10.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action 

In a final rule dated October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57416) (TN260), the Commission limited the 

definition of “construction” to those activities that fall within its regulatory authority (10 CFR 51.4) 

(TN250). Many of the activities undertaken to build a nuclear power plant do not have any 

effect on nuclear safety issues, are not within the NRC’s licensing authority over nuclear power 

reactors and, therefore, are not part of the NRC action to license the plant Turkey Point Units 6 

and 7. The activities associated with building the plant that are not within the purview of the 

NRC are grouped under the term “preconstruction.” Preconstruction activities include clearing 

and grading, excavating, erection of support buildings and transmission lines, and other 

associated activities. To at least some extent, these activities would be necessary to build any 

thermal power plant. Because preconstruction activities are not part of the NRC action, their 

impacts are not reviewed as a direct effect of the NRC action. Rather, the impacts of the 

preconstruction activities are considered in the context of cumulative impacts. Although the 

preconstruction activities are not part of the NRC action, certain preconstruction activities 

require permits from the USACE, as well as other Federal, State, and local agencies. 

Chapter 4 describes the relative magnitude of impacts related to preconstruction and 

construction activities and provides a summary of impacts in Table 4-19. Impacts associated 

with operation of the proposed facilities are discussed in Chapter 5 and are summarized in 

Table 5-24. Chapter 6 describes the impacts associated with the fuel cycle, transportation, and 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

October 2016 10-5 NUREG–2176 

decommissioning. Chapter 7 describes the impacts associated with preconstruction and 

construction activities and operation of Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 when considered along with 

the cumulative impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the 

geographical region around the Turkey Point site. 

10.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 

Section 102(2)(C)(ii) of NEPA (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (TN661) requires that an EIS include 

information about any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposal is 

implemented. Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts are the potential impacts of the 

NRC and USACE actions that cannot be avoided and for which no practical means of mitigation 

are available. 

The unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the granting of the COLs for 

Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 would include impacts of both construction and operation. 

10.2.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts during Construction and Preconstruction 

Activities 

Chapter 4 discusses in detail the potential impacts from construction and preconstruction of the 

proposed Units 6 and 7 at the Turkey Point site and presents mitigation and controls intended to 

lessen the adverse impacts. Table 10-1 presents adverse impacts associated with construction 

and preconstruction activities on each of the resource areas evaluated in this EIS as well as the 

mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts. The impacts remaining after mitigation has 

been applied are identified in the table as the unavoidable adverse impacts. Unavoidable 

adverse impacts are the result of both construction and preconstruction activities, unless 

otherwise noted. The impact determinations in Table 10-1 are for the combined impacts of 

construction and preconstruction, but the impact determinations for NRC-regulated construction 

are the same for water use, water quality, aquatic ecology, socioeconomic and environmental 

justice, air quality, and nonradiological and radiological health resource areas. The impact 

determinations for preconstruction activities and NRC-related construction are different for land 

use, terrestrial and wetland ecosystems, and historic and cultural resources. For the impact 

determinations that differ for the NRC-regulated activities, the impacts from the NRC-regulated 

activities are discussed below the table. 

The unavoidable adverse impacts are primarily attributable to preconstruction activities due to 

the initial land disturbance from clearing the land, land use, excavation, excavation dewatering, 

filling wetlands and waterways, adding impervious surfaces, and dredging. NRC-authorized 

construction activities partially contribute to most of the unavoidable adverse impacts. 

Approximately 585 ac within the Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 project boundary would be 

permanently disturbed. Areas disturbed to build these project features would be permanently 

converted to structures, pavement, and intensively maintained exterior grounds. These onsite 

disturbances would be in close proximity to, and visible from, portions of Biscayne National 

Park. Building and operating offsite facilities such as transmission lines, pipelines, and access 

roads would require the loss and fragmentation of mangrove forests, pine rocklands, and other 

natural habitats offsite, and these linear facilities could interfere with urban land uses adjacent to 

or traversed by the rights-of-way. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

NUREG–2176 10-6 October 2016 

Table 10-1. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Construction and

Preconstruction Activities

Resource Area Impacts Mitigation Measures Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Land Use MODERATE 

(NRC-authorized 

construction impact 

level is SMALL) 

Comply with requirements 

of applicable Federal, 

State, and local permits 

and the State final 

Conditions of 

Certification. 

The project would require a 

permanent commitment (through 

decommissioning) of approximately 

585 ac of land on the Turkey Point 

site. Additional areas of land 

offsite would be occupied by rightsof-way accommodating various 

pipelines, transmission lines, and 

access roads. Land uses not 

related to facility operation (e.g., 

agriculture) in the rights-of-way 

would be limited but not 

necessarily precluded. 

Water Use SMALL Comply with requirements 

of applicable Federal, 

State, and local permits 

and the State final 

Conditions of 

Certification. 

Limited withdrawal of small 

amounts of groundwater from the 

Biscayne aquifer from excavation 

dewatering when building the 

plants. 

Water Quality SMALL Comply with requirements 

of applicable Federal, 

State, and local permits 

and the State final 

Conditions of 

Certification. 

Ecological 

(Terrestrial) 

MODERATE 

(NRC-authorized 

construction impact 

level is SMALL) 

Compensatory mitigation 

for unavoidable wetland 

impacts through Federally 

approved mitigation bank, 

in-lieu fee program, or 

permittee responsible 

mitigation. Additional 

mitigation measures 

tailored to specific 

species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act 

are expected to be 

required by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Permanent loss of mangroves and 

other wetland habitats and pine 

rockland and other upland habitats, 

habitat fragmentation by pipelines 

and transmission lines, and 

increased mortality risk to certain 

listed species. 

Ecological 

(Aquatic) 

SMALL to 

MODERATE

Follow FPL and other 

agency protocols and 

requirements for 

protecting American 

crocodile, Smalltooth 

Sawfish, Nassau 

Grouper, manatees, and 

sea turtles. 

Permanent loss of some onsite 

aquatic environments, some 

disturbance, and possible 

disturbance of manatees, 

Smalltooth Sawfish, Nassau 

Grouper, and sea turtles. 270 ac of 

permanent critical habitat loss and 

211 ac that would be adversely 

affected for resident American 

crocodiles. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

October 2016 10-7 NUREG–2176 

Table 10-1. (contd)

Resource Area Impacts Mitigation Measures Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Socioeconomics 

Physical 

Impacts 

SMALL (adverse) 

to MODERATE 

(beneficial) 

Physical impacts attenuate 

rapidly with distance, 

intervening foliage, and 

terrain. No mitigation 

beyond that identified by 

the applicant would be 

warranted. 

All adverse physical impacts 

would be minor. 

Demography SMALL Impacts would be minor 

and no mitigation would be 

warranted. 

Minor impacts on the 

demographics of Miami-Dade 

County, and the communities of 

Homestead and Florida City. 

Economic 

Impacts on 

Community 

SMALL (beneficial) None. None. 

Infrastructure 

and 

Community 

Services 

SMALL (adverse) 

to MODERATE 

(beneficial) 

Road improvements would 

mitigate but not eliminate 

adverse traffic-related 

impacts during construction. 

Those impacts would stop 

when construction is 

complete, so no further 

mitigation beyond that 

identified by the applicant 

would be warranted. 

Noticeable but not destabilizing 

impacts on traffic near the plant 

during construction. All other 

infrastructure impacts would be 

minor. 

Environmental 

Justice 

NONE(a) Mitigation would not be 

warranted, given the lack of 

environmental justice 

impacts. 

There are no pathways by which 

minority or low-income 

populations would receive a 

disproportionately high and 

adverse impact. 

Historic and 

Cultural 

Resources 

MODERATE 

(NRC-authorized 

construction impact 

level is SMALL)

Construction-related 

impacts on cultural 

resources likely would 

consist of indirect visual 

impacts on historic built 

resources within the APEs 

for the transmission line 

corridors. The USACE 

would develop mitigation 

measures in consultation 

with the Florida (FL) SHPO. 

Further, in consultation 

between FPL and the FL 

SHPO, FPL has agreed to 

develop a work plan for 

additional cultural resources 

studies that are required for 

the transmission line 

Based on NRC’s evaluation, it is 

anticipated that there would be 

indirect visual impacts on 

National Register-eligible built 

resources in the transmission line 

corridor. Specific impacts are to 

be determined, based on USACE 

evaluation of impacts of 

transmission lines on cultural 

resources. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

NUREG–2176 10-8 October 2016 

Table 10-1. (contd)

Resource Area Impacts Mitigation Measures Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

corridors and other offsite 

facilities. Prior to 

construction, FPL has also 

agreed to develop an 

unanticipated discovery 

plan for the treatment of 

cultural resources 

inadvertently discovered 

during construction or 

maintenance. 

Meteorology and 

Air Quality 

SMALL Implement a dust-control 

plan prior to site 

preparation. Obtain 

required air-quality permits.

None 

Nonradiological 

Health 

SMALL Comply with Federal, State, 

and local regulations 

governing construction 

activities and construction 

vehicle emissions; comply 

with Federal and local 

noise-control ordinances; 

comply with Federal and 

State occupational safety 

and health regulations; and 

implement traffic 

management plan. 

Dust emissions, noise, 

occupational injuries, traffic 

accidents. 

Radiological 

Health 

SMALL Maintain doses to 

construction workers below 

NRC public dose limits. 

Small doses to construction 

workers that would be less than 

NRC public dose limits. 

Nonradioactive 

Waste 

SMALL Manage hazardous and 

nonhazardous solid wastes 

according to county, State, 

and Federal handling and 

transportation regulations; 

implement recycling and 

BMPs to minimize waste 

generation. 

Minor decrease in available 

capacity of waste treatment and 

disposal facilities. Minor 

stormwater, wastewater, and 

atmospheric discharges. 

APE = Area of Potential Effect 

BMP = Best Management Practice 

SHPO = State Historic Preservation Office. 

SWPPP = Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. 

(a) A determination of “NONE” for environmental justice analyses does not mean there are no adverse impacts on 

minority or low-income populations from the proposed project. Instead, an indication of “NONE” means that 

while there are adverse impacts, those impacts do not affect minority or low-income populations in any 

disproportionate manner, relative to the general population. 

Unavoidable adverse impacts on terrestrial resources and wetlands include permanent loss of 

wetlands and uplands. Both Federally and State-listed species would be affected, in addition to 

other important species such as wading birds. Transmission line construction would fragment 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

October 2016 10-9 NUREG–2176 

habitat and permanently affect pine rocklands that are designated as critical habitat for listed 

species. Preconstruction surveys would be conducted to determine final effects as well as to 

support appropriate minimization and avoidance activities. 

Adverse impacts on aquatic resources are generally minor with exceptions of noticeable 

changes in the critical habitat of the American crocodile. Additional crocodile takes also could 

occur during preconstruction and construction. All other adverse impacts, such as noise and 

vibration affecting sea turtles, would likely be undetectable, temporary, or so minor that they 

would not noticeably alter the resource. Mitigation would be required by the State (State of 

Florida 2014-TN3637) and other Federal agencies. 

Adverse socioeconomic impacts are generally minor for all categories, with the exceptions of 

noticeable but not destabilizing traffic-related impacts near the site (primarily at construction 

worker shift change). Traffic impacts without mitigation as described by the applicant would be 

destabilizing. The review team identified no pathways by which any minority or low-income 

populations would experience a disproportionately high and adverse impact, so there are no 

environmental justice impacts warranting mitigation. 

Anticipated impacts on cultural resources would likely result from indirect visual impacts on 

above-ground resources within or within the vicinity of the transmission lines corridors. Because 

building of transmission lines is not an NRC-regulated activity, and because no cultural 

resources have been identified within the Units 6 and 7 plant area, impacts on historic and 

cultural resources from NRC-regulated activities would be small, and no mitigation beyond 

FPL’s commitment to develop an unanticipated discoveries plan would be warranted. 

Air-quality impacts include temporary degradation due to vehicle emissions and fugitive dust 

emissions during ground clearing, grading, excavation activities, and operation of other 

temporary sources. Fugitive dust from land disturbances and building activities would be 

mitigated by the dust-control plan. 

10.2.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts during Operation 

Chapter 5 provides a detailed discussion of the potential impacts from operation of proposed 

Units 6 and 7 at the Turkey Point site and presents anticipated mitigation and controls intended 

to lessen the adverse impacts. Table 10-2 presents the adverse impacts on each of the 

resource areas evaluated in this EIS associated with operation of the two proposed units, and 

the anticipated mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts. The impacts remaining after 

mitigation is applied are identified in the table as the unavoidable adverse impacts. 

The unavoidable adverse impacts from operation for land use would be minimal and are 

associated with making land unavailable for other uses until after decommissioning of the two 

proposed units.

Unavoidable adverse impacts on land use resulting from operation of proposed Turkey Point 

Units 6 and 7 would be minimal because the land to be used for operations is land that has 

been previously disturbed and established for power-generation purposes and associated 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

NUREG–2176 10-10 October 2016 

activities. Operation and maintenance of permanent site-access roadways and pipelines would 

be compatible with the current land uses and would not affect any existing or planned land uses. 

Operation and maintenance of transmission lines would also be generally compatible with the 

current land uses and would not substantially affect any existing or planned land uses. 

However, Miami-Dade County and cities within the county have raised issues related to the 

aesthetic compatibility of parts of the proposed new transmission lines with some urban areas. 

In addition, the National Park Service has raised compatibility questions regarding where parts 

of the proposed transmission lines would be situated adjacent to Everglades National Park. 

Table 10-2. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation 

Resource Area Impacts Mitigation Measures Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Land Use MODERATE Comply with requirements 

of applicable Federal, 

State, and local permits 

and the State final 

Conditions of Certification. 

Transmission lines in urban areas 

and near the Everglades National 

Park could conflict with existing land 

uses. Onsite facilities would be in 

close proximity to Biscayne National 

Park. 

Water Use SMALL Comply with requirements 

of applicable Federal, 

State, and local permits 

and the State final 

Conditions of Certification. 

Additional demand for potable water 

from the Miami-Dade Water and 

Sewer Department. 

Limited withdrawal of small amounts 

of groundwater from the Biscayne 

aquifer when radial collector wells 

are operated. 

Water Quality SMALL Comply with requirements 

of applicable Federal, 

State, and local permits 

and the State final 

Conditions of Certification. 

Cooling-tower drift deposition of 

small amounts of chemical 

contaminants on portions of 

Biscayne Bay. 

Ecological 

(Terrestrial) 

MODERATE Prescribed listed speciesspecific management. 

Transmission line marking 

and wood stork behavioral 

observation. 

Right-of-way maintenance activities 

in or near wetlands and proposed 

critical habitat. Increased vehicle 

collision risk mortality to the Florida 

panther, vegetation-control effects 

on listed plants, and transmission 

system impacts on wood storks and 

Everglade snail kites. 

Ecological (Aquatic) SMALL Comply with requirements, 

including those for 

protected species and 

habitats, of applicable 

Federal, State, and local 

permits and the State final 

Conditions of Certification. 

During limited radial collector well 

operation, there would not be 

noticeable increases in salinity 

above normal background variation. 

Additional crocodile takes may 

occur, and cooling-tower drift 

deposition effects are expected to 

be minor. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

October 2016 10-11 NUREG–2176 

Table 10-2. (contd)

Resource Area Impacts Mitigation Measures Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Socioeconomic 

Physical 

impacts 

SMALL 

(adverse) to 

MODERATE 

(beneficial) 

Physical impacts attenuate 

rapidly with distance, 

intervening foliage, and 

terrain. No mitigation 

beyond that which the 

applicant has identified is 

warranted. 

All adverse physical impacts would 

be minor. 

Demography SMALL Impacts would be minor 

and no mitigation would be 

warranted. 

Minor impacts on the demographics 

of Miami-Dade County, and the 

communities of Homestead, and 

Florida City. 

Economic 

Impacts on 

Community and 

Taxes 

SMALL 

(beneficial) 

None None 

Infrastructure 

and Community 

Services 

SMALL 

(adverse) to 

MODERATE 

(beneficial) 

Road improvements would 

mitigate but not eliminate 

adverse traffic-related 

impacts during operations. 

All infrastructure and community 

service impacts would be minor 

during operations, except for 

noticeable impacts on traffic. 

Environmental 

Justice 

NONE(a) Mitigation would not be 

warranted, given the lack 

of environmental justice 

impacts. 

None. (There are no pathways by 

which minority or low-income 

people would receive a 

disproportionately high and adverse 

impact.) 

Historic and 

Cultural 

SMALL Operation-related impacts 

on cultural resources likely 

would consist of 

inadvertent discoveries 

during maintenance 

activities. The USACE 

would develop mitigation 

measures in consultation 

with the FL SHPO. 

Further, in consultation 

between FPL and the FL 

SHPO, FPL has agreed to 

develop an unanticipated 

discovery plan for the 

treatment of cultural 

resources inadvertently 

discovered during 

construction or 

maintenance. 

None 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

NUREG–2176 10-12 October 2016 

Table 10-2. (contd)

Resource Area Impacts Mitigation Measures Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Meteorology and 

Air Quality 

SMALL Compliance with Federal, 

State, and local air-quality 

permits and regulations. 

Slight increases in certain criteria 

pollutants and greenhouse gas 

emissions due to plant auxiliary 

combustion equipment (e.g., 

standby diesel generators), and 

plumes and drift deposition from 

cooling towers. 

Nonradiological 

Health 

SMALL Monitor chemical and 

etiological agents in 

cooling tower and 

condenser, maintain 

reclaimed water (i.e., 

tertiary) -treatment facility, 

use physical and 

administrative controls on 

exposure to cooling 

system discharge, comply 

with Federal and local 

noise regulations, comply 

with OSHA standards for 

Turkey Point operational 

workers, and transmission 

line design would be 

compliant with Electric 

Safety Code standards. 

Cooling tower and pump noise, 

minor increases in the potential for 

occupational injuries and traffic 

accidents. 

Radiological Health SMALL Doses to members of the 

public would be 

maintained below NRC 

and EPA standards; 

worker doses would be 

maintained below NRC 

limits and ALARA; doses 

to biota other than humans 

would be maintained 

below NCRP and IAEA 

guidelines. 

Small radiation doses to members 

of the public, below NRC and EPA 

standards; ALARA doses to 

workers; and biota doses less than 

NCRP and IAEA guidelines. 

Fuel cycle, 

Transportation, and 

Decommissioning 

SMALL Comply with the NRC and 

DOT regulations. 

Small impacts from fuel cycle as 

presented in Table S-3, 10 CFR 

Part 51 (TN250). 

Small impacts from carbon dioxide, 

radon, and technetium-99. 

Small radiological doses that are 

within the NRC and DOT 

regulations for transportation of fuel 

and radioactive waste. 

Small impacts from 

decommissioning as presented in 

NUREG–0586 (NRC 2002-TN665). 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

October 2016 10-13 NUREG–2176 

Table 10-2. (contd)

Resource Area Impacts Mitigation Measures Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Nonradioactive 

Waste 

SMALL Manage all waste in 

compliance with applicable 

Federal, State, and local 

requirements. Implement 

recycling and waste 

minimization program. 

Minor decrease in the available 

capacity of waste treatment and 

disposal facilities. Minor discharges 

to atmosphere and minor impacts 

on groundwater from UIC well 

discharges. 

ALARA = as low as is reasonably achievable 

DOT = U.S. Department of Transportation 

EAB = exclusion area boundary 

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

IAEA = International Atomic Energy Agency 

NCRP = National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 

OSHA = Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

SHPO = State Historic Preservation Office 

SWPPP = Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

UIC = Underground Injection Control 

(a) A determination of “NONE” for environmental justice analyses does not mean there are no adverse impacts 

on minority or low-income populations from the proposed project. Instead, an indication of “NONE” means 

that while there are adverse impacts, those impacts do not affect minority or low-income populations in any 

disproportionate manner, relative to the general population. 

Unavoidable, but small, adverse impacts on groundwater users would occur from additional 

demand for potable water from the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD). The 

increased demand would be about 1.5 Mgd based on normal use of 936 gpm with an occasional 

maximum use of 2,553 gpm for operating the proposed units (FPL 2014-TN4069). Nearly all of 

this water comes from the Biscayne aquifer in Miami-Dade County. Use of reclaimed water 

from the MDWASD for cooling makeup water would cause no new withdrawals from 

groundwater, so there would be no impact on groundwater users from the use of reclaimed 

water. Operation of the radial collector wells would also result in withdrawal of small amounts of 

groundwater from the Biscayne aquifer. However, based on the staff’s evaluation of the 

reliability of the reclaimed-water system, the radial collector wells are expected to be used 

infrequently as a backup water supply and for durations much shorter than the 60 days allowed 

per year by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection final Conditions of Certification 

(State of Florida 2014-TN3637). Therefore, the impact on groundwater users would be minor. 

Unavoidable adverse impacts on terrestrial ecology resources would include increased risks of 

bird collisions with structures and transmission lines—notably wood storks, Everglade snail 

kites, and wading birds. Other impacts of operations would include reduced wildlife use or 

avoidance of some habitats due to noise and disturbance, and vegetation-control effects on 

listed plants. Increased vehicle collision risk mortality to the Florida panther is anticipated. 

Post-construction research, monitoring, and mitigation would be conducted to determine final 

effects and to offset adverse impacts. 

Adverse impacts on aquatic resources would be generally minor. However, additional crocodile 

takes could occur during operation. All other adverse impacts, such as cooling-tower drift 

deposition, are so minor that they would not create unsuitable aquatic habitat or noticeably 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

NUREG–2176 10-14 October 2016 

affect populations. Mitigation and monitoring would be required by State (State of Florida 2014-

TN3637) and Federal agencies. 

Adverse socioeconomic impacts during operations are generally minor for all categories, with 

the exceptions of a noticeable but not destabilizing impacts on traffic near the site. The review 

team identified no pathways by which any minority or low-income populations would experience 

a disproportionately high and adverse impact, so there would be no environmental justice 

impacts warranting mitigation. 

Unavoidable adverse impacts from operation on cultural resources likely would involve the 

inadvertent discovery of cultural resources during maintenance activities. For other potential 

operation-related impacts, FPL has agreed to develop an unanticipated discovery plan for the 

treatment of cultural resources inadvertently discovered during construction or maintenance, 

thereby providing mitigation to avoid adverse impacts. 

Air-quality impacts are expected to be negligible, and pollutants emitted during operations would 

be insignificant. Nonradiological and radiological health impacts would be minimal. 

Nonradiological health impacts on members of the public from operation, including etiological 

agents, noise, electromagnetic fields, occupational health, and transportation of materials and 

personnel would be minimal because FPL would apply controls and measures to ensure 

compliance with Federal and State regulations. Radiological doses to members of the public 

from operation of the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 would be below annual exposure 

limits set to protect the public. Doses to biota other than humans would be maintained below 

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and International Atomic Energy 

Agency guidelines. 

10.3 Relationship between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the 

Human Environment 

Section 102(2)(C)(iv) of NEPA (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (TN661) requires that an EIS include 

information about the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. 

The local use of the human environment by the proposed project can be summarized in terms of 

the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of construction and operation and the 

irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. With the exception of the consumption 

of depletable resources as a result of plant construction and operation, these uses may be 

classified as short term. The principal benefit of the plant is represented by the production of 

electrical energy. The benefit of electricity production would be significantly greater than the 

benefits of agriculture or other probable uses for the site. 

Most long-term impacts resulting from land-use preemption by plant structures can be 

eliminated by removing these structures or by converting them to other productive uses. Once 

the plants are shut down, they would be decommissioned according to NRC regulations. Once 

decommissioning is complete and the NRC licenses are terminated, the site would be available 

for other uses. The greatest adverse impact on productivity would result between plant closure 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

October 2016 10-15 NUREG–2176 

and the completion of decommissioning, when the land occupied by the plant structures would 

not be available for any other use. 

The review team concludes that the positive long-term enhancement of regional productivity 

through the generation of electrical energy would outweigh any negative aspects of plant 

construction and operation as they affect the human environment. 

10.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Section 102(2)(C)(v) of NEPA (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (TN661) requires that an EIS include 

information about any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would occur 

if the proposed actions are implemented. The term “irreversible commitments of resources” 

refers to environmental resources that would be irreparably changed by the new units and that 

could not be restored at some later time to the resource’s state before the relevant activities. 

“Irretrievable commitments of resources” refers to materials that would be used for or consumed 

by the new units in such a way that they could not, by practical means, be recycled or restored 

for other uses. The resources discussed in this section are the environmental resources 

discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. 

10.4.1 Irreversible Commitments of Resources 

Irreversible commitments of environmental resources resulting from Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, 

in addition to the materials used for the nuclear fuel, are described below. 

10.4.1.1 Land Use 

Although the review team’s analysis considers land uses attributable to Units 6 and 7 to be 

effectively permanent for the foreseeable time horizon, none of the land used for Units 6 and 7 

is irreversibly committed because once the units cease operations and are decommissioned in 

accordance with NRC requirements, the land could be returned to other industrial and nonindustrial uses. 

10.4.1.2 Water Use 

Because the water in the Biscayne aquifer is replenished by infiltration of precipitation, the 

withdrawals of groundwater from the aquifer are reversible. 

10.4.1.3 Ecological Resources 

Construction activities would cause temporary and long-term changes to both the aquatic and 

terrestrial biota at the plant site and facilities. 

10.4.1.4 Socioeconomic Resources 

The NRC staff expects no irreversible socioeconomic commitments would be made because 

resources would be reallocated for other purposes once the plant is decommissioned. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

NUREG–2176 10-16 October 2016 

10.4.1.5 Historical and Cultural Resources 

There are no known irreversible commitments of historical or cultural resources due to the 

building and operation of Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. Visual impacts could be reversed if the 

intrusive visual elements (e.g., transmission lines) were removed. 

10.4.1.6 Air and Water 

Dust and other emissions such as vehicle exhaust would be released to the air during 

construction and preconstruction. During operations, vehicle exhaust emissions would continue 

and other air pollutants and chemicals, including very low concentrations of radioactive gases 

and particulates, would be released from the facility to the air and surface water. The review 

team expects no irreversible commitment to air or water resources because all proposed 

releases at Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 would be made in accordance with duly issued permits. 

10.4.2 Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

FPL states in Table 10.2-1 of its ER that construction of the proposed two new units at Turkey 

Point would involve 154,400 yd3 of concrete, 20,000 T of rebar, 12,800 T of structural steel, 1.6 

million feet of power cable, 460,000 ft of small (less than 3 in. in diameter) piping, and 136,000 ft 

of large bore piping (FPL 2014-TN4058). Construction would also use small quantities of 

aluminum, copper, other metals and alloys, and large quantities of quarry materials (nuclear and 

construction grade fill material, aggregate, sand, etc.). The review team expects that the use of 

construction materials in the quantities associated with those expected for Turkey Point Units 6 

and 7, while irretrievable, would be of small consequence with respect to the availability of such 

resources. 

The main resource that would be irretrievably committed during operation of the new nuclear 

units would be uranium, which FPL states would amount to about 25.35 T/yr, or 1,014 T over 

the life of the permit. The World Nuclear Association claims the world’s known and recoverable 

stockpile of uranium is over 5.3 million tons (WNA 2012-TN1498). Given a current world-wide 

consumption of uranium of about 68,000 T/yr and known reserves, there is about 80 years’ 

worth of uranium available. Therefore, the review team concludes that while irreversible, the 

consumption of uranium for the proposed Units 6 and 7 at Turkey Point would have a negligible 

impact on known reserves. 

10.5 Alternative to the Proposed Actions 

Alternatives to the proposed action are discussed in Chapter 9 of this EIS. Alternatives 

considered include the no-action alternative, energy alternatives that do not require additional 

generating capacity, energy production alternatives, system design alternatives, and alternative 

sites. 

The no-action alternative, described in Section 9.1, refers to a scenario in which the NRC would 

deny the request for COLs or USACE would deny FPL’s permit request. In either case, 

construction of the two new units would not proceed as proposed. If no other power plants were 

built or electrical power supply strategy was implemented to replace the proposed action, the 

electrical capacity to be provided by the project would not become available. In that case, the 

need for power would not be met, the benefits (electricity generation) associated with the 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

October 2016 10-17 NUREG–2176 

completed project would not occur, and the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council region would 

become vulnerable to grid instability, brownouts, and blackouts. Failure to supply the needed 

electricity would have significant adverse impacts within the region of interest and the staff 

expects that the Florida Public Service Commission would take steps to confirm that the need 

for power would be met. 

Alternative energy sources are described in Section 9.2 of this EIS. Alternatives not involving 

additional generating capacity are described in Section 9.2.1. Alternatives requiring new 

generating capacity, including detailed analyses of coal-fired and natural-gas–fired alternatives, 

are provided in Section 9.2.2. Other energy sources, including renewable energy sources, are 

discussed in Section 9.2.3, and a combination of energy alternatives (involving a combination of 

fossil fuel and renewable energy generation sources) is discussed in Section 9.2.4. The review 

team concluded by comparative analysis presented in Section 9.2.5 that none of the alternative 

power production options are environmentally preferable to the proposed action. 

Alternative sites are discussed in Section 9.3 of this EIS. Cumulative impacts in the vicinity of 

the Turkey Point site, including the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, are compared with the 

cumulative impacts from building and operating the same physical facilities and adequate 

support facilities at each of the alternative sites. Section 9.3.6 (Table 9-28) summarizes the 

NRC staff’s characterization of cumulative impacts at the proposed and alternative sites. Based 

on this review, the NRC staff concludes that none of the alternative sites are environmentally 

preferable or obviously superior to the Turkey Point site. The NRC’s determination is 

independent of USACE’s determination of whether there is a least environmentally damaging 

practicable alternative pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. USACE will 

conclude its analysis of both offsite and onsite alternatives in its ROD. 

Alternative system designs, focusing on alternative cooling-system designs, are discussed in 

Section 9.4 of this EIS. The staff determined that none of the alternative system designs is 

environmentally preferable to the proposed design. 

10.6 Benefit-Cost Balance 

NEPA requires that all agencies of the Federal Government prepare detailed environmental 

statements on proposed major Federal actions that can significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment. A principal objective of NEPA is to require each Federal agency to 

consider, in its decision-making process, the environmental impacts of each proposed major 

action and the available alternative actions. In particular, Section 102 of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 

§ 4321 et seq.) (TN661) requires all Federal agencies to the fullest extent possible: 

(B) identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation with the 

Council on Environmental Quality established by Title II of this Act, which will 

insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be 

given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and 

technical considerations. (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. [TN661]; CEQ 1997-TN452) 

However, neither NEPA nor CEQ requires the costs and benefits of a proposed action be 

quantified in dollars or any other common metric. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

NUREG–2176 10-18 October 2016 

The purpose of this section is not to identify and quantify all of the potential societal benefits of 

the proposed actions and compare these to the potential costs of the proposed actions. 

Instead, this section focuses on only those benefits and costs of such magnitude or importance 

that their inclusion in this analysis can inform the decision-making process. This section 

compiles and compares the pertinent analytical conclusions reached in earlier chapters of this 

EIS. It gathers all of the expected impacts from building and operations of the proposed Turkey 

Point Units 6 and 7 and aggregates them into two final categories: (1) the expected 

environmental and economic costs and (2) the expected benefits to be derived from approval of 

the proposed action. As such, costs and benefits include the costs and benefits of 

preconstruction activities and NRC-authorized construction and operations activities. 

Although the analysis in this section is conceptually similar to a purely economic benefit-cost 

analysis, which determines the net present dollar value of a given project, the purpose of this 

section is to identify all potential societal benefits of the proposed actions and compare them to 

the potential internal (i.e., private) and external (i.e., societal) costs of the proposed actions. 

The purpose of this assessment is to generally inform the COL process by gathering and 

reviewing information that demonstrates the likelihood that the benefits of the proposed actions 

outweigh the aggregate costs. 

Whether FPL is profitable and other similar issues are outside NRC’s mission and authority and, 

thus, would not be considered in this EIS. Issues related to the financial qualifications of FPL, 

however, will be addressed in the NRC staff’s Safety Evaluation Report. It is not possible to 

quantify and assign a value to all benefits and costs associated with the proposed action. This 

analysis, however, attempts to identify, quantify, and provide monetary values for benefits and 

costs when reasonable estimates are available. 

Section 10.6.1 discusses the benefits associated with the proposed action. Section 10.6.2 

discusses the costs associated with the proposed action. A summary of benefits is shown in 

Table 10-3. Section 10.6.3 provides a summary of the impact assessments, bringing previous 

sections together to establish a general impression of the relative magnitude of the proposed 

actions’ costs and benefits. 

10.6.1 Benefits 

The most apparent benefit from a power plant is that it generates power and provides thousands 

of residential, commercial, and industrial consumers with electricity. Maintaining an adequate 

supply of electricity in any given region has social and economic importance because adequate 

electricity is the foundation for economic stability and growth and fundamental to maintaining our 

current standard of living. Because the focus of this EIS is on the proposed expansion of Turkey 

Point’s generating capacity, this section focuses primarily on the relative benefits of the Turkey 

Point option rather than the broader, more generic benefits of electricity supply. 

10.6.1.1 Societal Benefits 

For the production of electricity to be beneficial to a society, there must be a corresponding 

demand, or “need for power,” in the region. Chapter 8 defines and discusses the need for 

power in more detail. From a societal perspective, nuclear power offers two primary benefits 

relative to most other generating systems: (1) long-term price stability and (2) energy security 

through fuel diversity. These benefits are described in this subsection. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

October 2016 10-19 NUREG–2176 

Table 10-3. Summary of the Benefits of the Proposed Action 

Benefit 

Category Description

Monetized Value or 

Impact Assessment

Benefits

Electricity 

generated 

16,400,000 to 17,900,000 MWh/yr for the 40-year life of the 

plant (assuming capacity factors in the range of 85−93 percent). 

Generating 

capacity 

2,200 MW(e) (two units at 1,100 MW(e) each). 

Employment At peak employment, the review team estimates there would be 

3,290 new workers moving into the local area and would 

generate economic activity that would support an additional 

3,137 indirect jobs during the entire building period. Of the 806 

operations workers, 671 would move into the local area and 

support an additional 1,456 indirect jobs in their communities. 

Fuel diversity 

and energy 

security 

Nuclear power provides diversity to the FRCC inventory, which 

consists primarily of fossil-fuel-powered baseload generation. 

Reduces exposure to supply and price risk associated with 

reliance on any single fuel source. 

Tax revenues FPL would pay corporate income taxes to the State of Florida 

upon operation of Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. In addition, the

State and Miami-Dade County would collect sales and use taxes 

on locally purchased goods and services during construction 

and from construction and operations worker purchases. 

Finally, Units 6 and 7 would generate property taxes over the 

40-year life of the plant, which would be paid to Miami-Dade 

County, the Miami-Dade Public School District and possibly to 

special taxing units. 

Approximately $50 million 

in property taxes annually 

(Miami-Dade County would 

receive the majority of this 

tax revenue); $12.5 million 

in sales taxes statewide 

annually over a 12-year 

licensing and construction 

period. 

Local economy Building the two proposed units would require the short-term 

addition of up to 3,983 workers (3,950 construction workers and

33 operations workers) and a 40-year operations workforce of 

806 workers. The increase in local indirect jobs created by the 

presence of these workers and the contribution of these workers

to the tax base of Miami-Dade County and the local school 

district and communities would benefit the area economically 

and stimulate the economy of the region (see Sections 4.4.3.1 

and 5.4.3.1). 

806 operations workers 

and over 1,456 indirect 

jobs added over 40-year 

life of plant; $140 million 

income per year in the 

region during 40-year life 

of plant.

Price volatility Nuclear power has the lowest portion of its variable cost 

attributed to fuel costs. In addition, nuclear fuel has the most 

stable long-term price. In combination, these characteristics 

would help stabilize the market price of electricity and mitigate 

future electricity price volatility. 

Electrical 

reliability 

Nuclear power plants provide the most power per unit of any 

baseload unit and run at some of the highest capacity factors. 

These characteristics enhance the stability and reliability of the 

electricity supply. 

FRCC = Florida Reliability Coordinating Council 

Long-Term Price Stability 

Because of its relatively low and nonvolatile fuel costs, nuclear energy is a dependable 

generator of electricity that can provide electricity to the consumer at relatively stable prices 

over a long period of time. Unlike some other energy sources, nuclear energy is generally not 

subject to unreliable weather or climate conditions, unpredictable cost fluctuations, and is less 

dependent on potentially unstable foreign suppliers than other energy sources. Nuclear power 

plants are generally not subject to fuel price volatility like natural gas and oil power plants. In 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

NUREG–2176 10-20 October 2016 

addition, uranium fuel constitutes only 3 percent to 5 percent of the cost of a kilowatt-hour of 

nuclear-generated electricity. Doubling the price of uranium increases the cost of electricity by 

about 9 percent; while doubling the price of gas would add about 66 percent to the price of 

electricity, and doubling the cost of coal would add about 31 percent to the price of electricity 

(WNA 2014-TN4111). 

Energy Security through Fuel Diversity

Currently, more than 70 percent of the electricity generated in the United States is generated 

with fossil-based technologies; thus, non-fossil-based generation, such as nuclear generation, is 

essential to maintaining diversity in the aggregate power-generation fuel mix (DOE/EIA 2006-

TN718). Nuclear power contributes to the diverse U.S. energy mix, hedging the risk of 

shortages and price fluctuations for any one power-generation system and reducing the nation’s 

dependence on imported fossil fuels. 

A diverse fuel mix helps to protect consumers from contingencies such as fuel shortages or 

disruptions, price fluctuations, and changes in regulatory practices. FPL’s 2006 fuel mix was 

made up of 50 percent natural gas, 21 percent nuclear power, and 18 percent coal (FPL 2014-

TN4058). Chapter 8 of this EIS discusses the State of Florida’s finding that a need exists for 

Units 6 and 7 as proposed by FPL. The proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 would generate 

approximately 2,200 MW(e) net, which would help meet this baseload need in the region. 

Assuming a reasonably low capacity factor of 85 percent, the plant’s average annual electrical 

energy generation would be about 16,400,000 MWh. A reasonably high-capacity factor of 93 

percent would result in slightly more than 17,900,000 MWh of electricity. 

10.6.1.2 Regional Benefits 

Regional benefits of the proposed construction and operation of Units 6 and 7 include enhanced 

tax revenues, regional productivity, and community impacts. 

Tax Revenue Benefits 

As discussed in Section 4.4.3.2, the staff determined that the annual sales and use taxes for 

local purchases of nonexempt materials for use in the construction of Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 

for the State of Florida and Miami-Dade County would be about $12.5 and $2.1 million, 

respectively. These revenues would not be expected to provide significant local revenues in the 

affected region. Florida does not collect income taxes. 

As discussed in Section 5.4.3.2, the staff also determined that once both units become 

operational, Miami-Dade County would receive approximately $50 million in property tax 

revenues collected annually over the 40-year license period, and an additional $1.5 million to $2 

million in sales and use taxes from FPL for operations related materials and supplies annually. 

This stream of revenue represents a less than 1 percent increase over recent Miami-Dade 

County total revenue levels. 

Regional Productivity and Community Impacts 

The new units would employ an operating workforce of 806, of whom 671 would reside in 

Miami-Dade County and support 1,456 indirect jobs (Section 5.4) within the local area that 

would be maintained throughout the life of the plant. The economic multiplier effect of the 

increased spending by the direct and indirect workforce created as a result of two new units 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

October 2016 10-21 NUREG–2176 

would increase the economic activity in the region, most noticeably in the communities near the 

proposed site. Sections 4.4.3.1 and 5.4.3.1 provide additional information about the economic 

impacts of constructing and operating proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. 

10.6.2 Costs 

Internal costs to FPL of proposed Units 6 and 7 as well as external costs to the surrounding 

region and environment would be incurred during the construction, preconstruction, and 

operation of two new units at the site. A summary of the costs is shown in Table 10-4. 

Table 10-4. Summary of the Costs of Preconstruction, Construction, and Operation 

Cost Category Description

Impact 

Assessment(a)

Internal Costs(b)

Overnight Cost of 

Construction(c)

$7.9 to $11.4 billion (2012$) NA 

Total Estimated Project Cost(c) $12.8 to $18.7 billion (2012$) NA 

Operating cost $743.8 to $994.7 million per year 

(8.3 to 11.1 cents per kWh levelized cost of electricity 

in 2007$. Includes fuel cost at about 0.7 cents per 

kWh)(d)

NA 

Spent fuel management(e) $8.9 million per year NA 

Decommissioning(f) $8.9 to $17.9 million per year 

Approximately one- to two-tenths of one cent per kWh 

NA 

External Costs 

Land use Approximately 585 ac of land on a site already 

established for the purpose of accommodating electric 

generation facilities would be occupied on a long-term 

basis. Additional offsite lands would be occupied on a 

long-term basis as rights-of-way for transmission lines, 

pipelines, and access roads. While the land-use 

impacts from building the proposed facilities on the 

Turkey Point site would generally be minimal and 

compatible with FPL’s existing and other reasonably 

foreseeable uses of property on the site, some of the 

proposed associated offsite work may noticeably 

affect adjoining land uses. In particular, new 

transmission lines built in the East corridor would 

traverse densely developed urban areas, and new 

transmission lines built in the West corridor come 

close to the eastern boundary of Everglades National 

Park. 

MODERATE 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

NUREG–2176 10-22 October 2016 

Table 10-4. (contd) 

Cost Category Description

Impact 

Assessment(a)

Air quality Emissions from diesel generators, auxiliary boilers 

and equipment, cooling towers, and vehicles to the 

air would have a small impact on workers and local 

residents. With the exception of the cooling towers, 

emissions sources would be operated 

intermittently. Emissions from all sources would be 

within Federal, State, and local air-quality limits. 

Negligible impacts of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, 

carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and particulate 

emissions relative to other baseload fossil-fired 

generation (see Sections 4.7 and 5.7). 

SMALL 

Terrestrial Ecology Construction and preconstruction activities would 

noticeably affect wetlands, wildlife, and Federally 

and State-listed plant and animal species at the 

Turkey Point site, in the vicinity of the site, and at or 

in the vicinity of all associated offsite facilities. 

Operation of Units 6 and 7 may increase vehicle 

collision mortality to the Florida panther, 

vegetation-control effects on listed plants, and 

transmission system impacts on wood storks and 

Everglade snail kites. 

MODERATE 

Aquatic Ecology Construction and preconstruction activities would 

result in permanent loss of and impact on critical 

habitat for the American crocodile; possible takes 

of American crocodile and may affect manatees, 

Smalltooth Sawfish, and sea turtles. During radial 

collector well operation salinity fluctuations at 

nearshore areas immediately north of the Turkey 

Point site would not be noticeable above normal 

background variation. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE

Socioeconomics Most adverse socioeconomic impacts from the 

proposed Units 6 and 7 would be minor, with the 

exception of traffic-related noticeable impacts 

during construction and operations. 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Environmental Justice The review team identified no pathways by which a 

minority or low-income population would receive a 

disproportionately high and adverse impact 

NONE(g)

Nonradioactive waste Minor, localized, and temporary air emissions from 

construction equipment and temporary stationary 

sources. Creation of solid wastes, causing minor 

consumption of local or regional landfill space, 

offset by payment of tipping fees for waste 

disposal. Generation of small amounts of 

hazardous and mixed wastes leading to minor 

consumption of regional hazardous waste 

treatment or disposal capacity, offset by treatment, 

recycling, and disposal costs (see Sections 4.10 

and 5.10) 

SMALL 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

October 2016 10-23 NUREG–2176 

Table 10-4. (contd) 

Cost Category Description

Impact 

Assessment(a)

Uranium fuel cycle Minor impacts distributed across multiple locations 

throughout the United States from the mining, 

milling, and enrichment of uranium, from fuel 

fabrication, from transportation of radioactive 

material, and from management of radioactive 

wastes (see Chapter 6). 

SMALL 

Historic and cultural 

resources 

Construction of offsite transmission lines would 

result in potential visual impacts on National 

Register-eligible built resources, including buildings 

and historic districts. The impact of operation 

would be SMALL 

MODERATE 

Health impacts 

(nonradiological and 

radiological) 

Radiological doses and nonradiological health 

hazards to the public and occupational workers 

would be monitored and controlled in accordance 

with regulatory limits (see Sections 4.8, 4.9, 5.8, 

and 5.9). 

SMALL 

Materials, energy, and 

uranium 

Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 

materials and energy, including depletion of 

uranium. Construction materials include concrete, 

aggregate, rebar, conduit, cable, piping, building 

supplies, and tools. Equipment needs include 

cranes, cement trucks, excavation equipment, 

dump trucks, and graders. 

SMALL 

Hazardous and radioactive 

waste 

Mixed waste stored, transported, treated, and 

disposed in compliance with both NRC and EPA 

regulations would consume some regional or 

national waste treatment or disposal capacity, 

offset by treatment and disposal costs (see 

Sections 4.10 and 5.10). 

SMALL 

Water use and water quality Water usage during construction and operations 

would have a minor impact on the availability and 

quality of the water resources in the area. 

Reclaimed water from the Miami-Dade Water and 

Sewer Department would be used as cooling water 

for normal operations. Approximately 29,230 gpm 

would be lost through evaporation and drift. An 

additional 12,461 gpm would be discharged to the 

Boulder Zone as blowdown from the cooling 

system. Onsite groundwater withdrawals would be 

limited to temporary dewatering during 

construction. Water for potable and sanitary uses 

would be from a municipal supply (see Sections 4.2 

and 5.2). 

SMALL 

(a) Impact assessments are listed for all impacts evaluated in detail as part of this EIS. The details on impact 

assessments are found in the indicated sections of this EIS. 

(b) Internal costs are those incurred by FPL to implement proposed building and operation of the Turkey Point site. 

Note that no impact assessments are provided for these private financial impacts. 

(c) FPL 2014-TN4058; overnight construction costs include transmission line construction costs; total project costs 

include finance costs 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

NUREG–2176 10-24 October 2016 

Table 10-4. (contd) 

Cost Category Description

Impact 

Assessment(a)

(d) Review team calculation of price per kilowatt-hour based on MIT 2009-TN448. 

(e) The U.S. used-fuel program is funded by a 0.1 cent/kWh charge. 

(f) USA experience (WNA 2014-TN4111). 

(g) A determination of “NONE” for environmental justice analyses does not mean there are no adverse impacts on 

minority or low-income populations from the proposed project. Instead, an indication of “NONE” means that 

while there are adverse impacts, those impacts do not affect minority or low-income populations in any 

disproportionate manner, relative to the general population. 

Internal costs include all of the costs included in a total capital cost assessment—the direct and 

indirect cost to physically build the power plant (capital costs), plus the annual costs of operation 

and maintenance, fuel costs, waste disposal, and decommissioning costs. In accordance with 

the NRC staff’s guidance in NUREG–1555 (NRC 2000-TN614), the internal costs of the 

proposed project are presented in monetary terms. External costs include all costs imposed on 

the environment and region surrounding the plant that are not internalized by the company and 

may include such things as a loss of regional productivity, environmental degradation, or loss of 

wildlife habitat. The external costs listed in Table 10-4 summarize environmental impacts on 

resources that could result from preconstruction, construction, and operation of the proposed 

Units 6 and 7. 

10.6.2.1 Internal Costs 

The most substantial monetary cost associated with nuclear energy is the cost of capital. 

Nuclear power plants have relatively high capital costs for building the plant but low operating 

costs relative to alternative power-generation systems. Fluctuations in the real prices of key 

heavy construction commodities, such as cement, steel, and copper, can have a significant 

impact on nuclear plant capital costs (although it should be noted that these price changes 

would change construction costs for non-nuclear power plants as well). Construction delays 

can add significantly to the cost of a plant. Because of the large capital costs for nuclear power, 

and the relatively long construction period before revenue is returned, servicing the capital costs 

of a nuclear power plant also is a key factor in determining the economic competitiveness of 

nuclear energy. Because a power plant does not yield profits during construction, longer 

construction times mean a longer time before any costs can be offset by revenues. 

Furthermore, the longer it takes to build the plant, the higher would be the interest expenses on 

borrowed construction funds. 

Construction Costs 

In evaluating monetary costs related to constructing proposed Units 6 and 7, FPL reviewed 

recent published literature, vendor information, internally generated financial information, and 

internally generated, site-specific information. The review team also compared recent cost 

estimates with FPL’s. These estimates are based on a number of studies that were conducted 

by government agencies, universities, and other entities; the estimates include a significant 

contingency to account for uncertainty. Capital costs are costs incurred during construction, 

including preconstruction, when the actual outlays for equipment and construction and 

engineering are made. “Overnight capital costs” include engineering, procurement, and 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

October 2016 10-25 NUREG–2176 

construction costs; however, it is presumed that the plant is constructed overnight; thus, interest 

is not included. FPL based its estimates of overnight capital costs for construction and 

preconstruction on analysis of four comprehensive studies of nuclear plant costs (University of 

Chicago 2004-TN719; MIT 2003-TN720; Dominion et al. 2004-TN721; OECD 2005-TN722), in 

which estimates ranged from $1,100 per kilowatt to $2,500 per kilowatt (in 2002 dollars). FPL 

estimates that overnight cost range to be $3,570 to $5,190 per kilowatt in 2012 dollars. On this 

basis, FPL estimates an overnight capital cost for the two Turkey Point units of between $7.9 

billion and $11.4 billion in 2012 dollars (FPL 2014-TN4058). In addition to the studies FPL 

used, the review team also considered more recent studies: construction costs from other 

applicants and a 2009 update to the 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study on 

the cost of nuclear power (MIT 2009-TN448). 

 Tennessee Valley Authority estimated its per kilowatt cost of construction for two new 

proposed AP1000 units at its Bellefonte site in Alabama between $2,850 and $3,200/kW 

(TVA 2008-TN4140), which if applied to proposed Units 6 and 7 at FPL (installed capacity of 

2,200 MW(e)), would yield an overnight capital cost of $6.2 to $7 billion. 

 Southern Nuclear Operating Company estimated the overnight cost of construction for two 

AP1000 units at its Vogtle site in Georgia to be between $3,200 and $3,500/kW (SNC 2008-

TN4141), which if applied to proposed Units 6 and 7 at FPL would yield an overnight capital 

cost of $7 billion to $7.7 billion. 

 The MIT Update (MIT 2009-TN448) estimated the overnight construction cost at $4,000/kW 

in 2007 dollars or about $8.8 billion for 2,200 MW(e) in 2008 dollars. 

Except for the Keystone study, the general studies do not present the total cost of construction 

(i.e., overnight costs do not include interest expense). Keystone presented a range of 

approximately $4,300 to $4,800/kW in 2007 dollars (Keystone 2007-TN724). FPL’s estimated 

“all-in” construction cost for Units 6 and 7 ranges from $5,823 to $8,497/kW in 2012 dollars 

leading to total construction costs of $12.8 to $18.7 billion (FPL 2014-TN4058). 

Operation Costs 

Operation costs are frequently expressed as levelized cost of electricity, which is the lowest 

price per kilowatt-hour of producing electricity that covers operating costs, maintenance costs, 

fuel expenditures, and annualized capital costs over the life of the project. For nuclear power 

plants, overnight capital costs typically account for a third of the levelized cost, and interest 

costs on the overnight costs account for another 25 percent (University of Chicago 2004-

TN719). FPL noted that the four studies mentioned above estimate levelized cost for Turkey 

Point Units 6 and 7 to be in the range of $36 to $83/MWh (3.6 to 8.3 cents/kWh) (FPL 2014-

TN4058; University of Chicago 2004-TN719; MIT 2003-TN720; Dominion et al. 2004-TN721; 

OECD 2005-TN722). In addition, the review team examined the update to the MIT study 

(MIT 2009-TN448) which re-evaluated the overnight levelized cost of electricity at 8.4 cents/kWh 

(2007$). However, the Keystone study estimates the levelized cost for their low and high 

construction-cost estimates to range from $0.083 to $0.111/kWh (Keystone 2007-TN724). 

Factors affecting the range include choices for discount rate, construction duration, plant life 

span, capacity factor, cost of debt and equity, and split between debt and equity financing, 

depreciation time, tax rates, and premium for uncertainty. Estimates include decommissioning 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

NUREG–2176 10-26 October 2016 

but, because of the effect of discounting a cost that would occur as much as 40 years or more in 

the future, decommissioning costs have relatively little effect on the levelized cost. 

Fuel Costs 

The cost of fuel is included in the calculation of levelized cost. Based on the 2009 MIT study 

(MIT 2009-TN448), the review team estimates nuclear fuel costs to be 0.7 cents/kWh. 

Waste Disposal 

The back-end costs of nuclear power contribute a very small share of the total cost because of 

both the long lifetime of a nuclear reactor and the fact that provisions for waste-related costs 

can be accumulated over that time. Spent fuel management costs are estimated to be onetenth of a cent per kilowatt-hour (WNA 2014-TN4111; DOE 2008-TN725). It should be 

recognized, however, that radioactive nuclear waste poses unique disposal challenges for longterm management. While spent fuel and radioactive nuclear waste are being stored 

successfully in onsite facilities, the United States has yet to implement final disposition of spent 

fuel or high-level radioactive waste streams created at various stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. 

Decommissioning 

The NRC has requirements for licensees at 10 CFR 50.75 (TN249) to provide reasonable 

assurance that funds would be available for the decommissioning process. Because of the 

effect of discounting a cost that would occur as much as 40 years in the future, 

decommissioning costs have relatively little effect on the levelized cost of electricity generated 

by a nuclear power plant. Decommissioning costs are about 9 to 15 percent of the initial capital 

cost of a nuclear power plant. However, when discounted, they contribute only a few percent to 

the investment cost and even less to generation cost. In the United States, these costs account 

for one to two-tenths of a cent per kilowatt-hour (WNA 2014-TN4111). 

10.6.2.2 External Costs 

External costs are related to the social and/or environmental effects that would be caused by 

the construction of and generation of power by two new reactors at the Turkey Point site. This 

EIS includes the review team’s analysis that considers and weighs the environmental impacts of 

building and operating new nuclear units at the Turkey Point site or at alternative sites and 

mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding these adverse impacts. It also includes 

the NRC staff’s recommendation to the Commission regarding the proposed action. 

Environmental and Social Costs 

Chapter 4 describes the impacts of building proposed Units 6 and 7 on the environment with 

respect to the land, water, ecology, socioeconomics, radiation exposure to construction workers, 

and measures and controls to limit adverse impacts during building of the proposed new units at 

the Turkey Point site. Chapter 5 examines environmental issues associated with operation of 

the proposed new nuclear Units 6 and 7 for an initial 40-year period. Potential operational 

impacts on land use, air quality, water, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, socioeconomics, 

historic and cultural resources, environmental justice, nonradiological and radiological health 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

October 2016 10-27 NUREG–2176 

effects, postulated accidents, and applicable measures and controls that would limit the adverse 

impacts of station operation during the 40-year operating period are considered. In accordance 

with 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250), all impacts identified in Chapters 4 and 5 have been analyzed, 

and a significance level of potential adverse impacts (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has 

been assigned. 

Chapter 6 addresses the environmental impacts from (1) the uranium fuel cycle and solid-waste 

management, (2) the transportation of radioactive material, and (3) the decommissioning of 

nuclear units at the Turkey Point site. Chapter 9 includes the review team's review of alternative 

sites and alternative power-generation systems. 

Unlike generation of electricity from coal and natural gas, normal operation of a nuclear power 

plant does not result in any emissions of criteria (e.g., oxides of nitrogen or sulfur dioxide), 

methyl mercury, or greenhouse gases associated with global warming and climate change. 

Chapter 9 analyzes coal-fired and natural-gas–fired alternatives to the building and operation of 

proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. Air emissions from these alternatives and nuclear power 

are summarized in Chapters 5 and 9 of this EIS. 

10.6.3 Summary of Benefits and Costs 

FPL’s business decision to pursue generating capacity by adding two nuclear reactors at the 

Turkey Point site is an economic decision based on private financial factors subject to regulation 

by the Florida Public Utility Commission. Florida Public Utility Commission’s issuance of a 

determination of need provides great weight to the NRC’s decision regarding whether there is a 

need for the power that would be generated by the construction and operation of the two 

proposed units at the Turkey Point site. The internal costs to construct additional units appear 

to be substantial; however, FPL’s decision to pursue this expansion implies that it has 

concluded that the internal benefits of the proposed facility (production of 16,400,000 to 

17,900,000 MWh/yr for the 40-year life of the plant and 2,200 MW of baseload capacity) 

outweigh the internal costs. In comparison, the external socio-environmental costs imposed on 

the region appear to be relatively minor. Although no specific monetary values could 

reasonably be assigned to the identified societal benefits, the review team determined it is not 

unreasonable to conclude that the potential societal benefits of the proposed Units 6 and 7, 

including the primary benefit of the generated power and baseload capacity, outweigh the 

potential social and private costs of the proposed action. 

Table 10-4 includes a summary of both internal and external costs of the proposed activities at 

the Turkey Point site for Units 6 and 7, and Table 10-3 identifies the benefits. The tables 

include a reference to other sections of this EIS where more detailed analyses and impact 

assessments are available for specific topics. 

On the basis of the assessments summarized in this EIS, the review team concludes that 

building and operating the proposed Units 6 and 7, with the anticipated mitigation measures 

identified by the review team, would have accrued benefits that most likely would outweigh the 

economic, environmental, and social costs. For the NRC-proposed action (NRC-authorized 

construction and operation) the accrued benefits would also outweigh the costs of construction 

and operation of Units 6 and 7. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

NUREG–2176 10-28 October 2016 

10.7 NRC Staff Recommendation 

The NRC staff’s recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental aspects of the 

proposed action is that the COLs should be issued. The NRC staff’s evaluation of the safety 

aspects of the proposed action will be addressed in the Safety Evaluation Report that is 

anticipated to be published in November 2016 (NRC 2016-TN4619). 

The staff’s recommendation is based on (1) the ER submitted by FPL (2014-TN4058); 

(2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; (3) the review team’s 

independent review; (4) the consideration of public comments received on the environmental 

review and; (5) the assessments summarized in this EIS, including the potential mitigation 

measures identified in the ER and this EIS. In addition, in making its recommendation, the NRC 

staff determined that none of the alternative sites assessed is obviously superior to the Turkey 

Point site. 

The NRC’s determination is independent of the USACE’s permit decision, which will be 

documented in the USACE’s ROD. 
October 2016 11-1 NUREG–2176 

11.0 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation." Washington, D.C. TN283. 

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities." Washington, D.C. TN249. 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental 

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions." 

Washington, D.C. TN250. 

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Licenses, 

Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants." Washington, D.C. TN251. 

10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 9671, "Packaging and 

Transportation of Radioactive Material." Washington, D.C. TN301. 

10 CFR Part 73. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 73, "Physical Protection of 

Plants and Materials." Washington, D.C. TN423. 

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, "Reactor Site 

Criteria." Washington, D.C. TN282. 

10 CFR Part 961. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 961, "Standard Contract 

for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste." Washington, D.C. 

TN300. 

24 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 24, Housing and Urban Development, Part 

51, "Environmental Criteria and Standards." Washington, D.C. TN1016. 

29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, "Occupational 

Safety and Health Standards." Washington, D.C. TN654. 

33 CFR Part 320. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

Part 320, "General Regulatory Policies." Washington, D.C. TN424. 

33 CFR Part 328. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

Part 328, “Definition of Waters of the United States.” Washington, D.C. TN1683. 

33 CFR Part 329. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

Part 329, "Definition of Navigable Waters of the United States." Washington, D.C. TN4770. 

33 CFR Part 332. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

Part 332, "Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources." Washington, D.C. 

TN1472. 

33 CFR Parts 320–332. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable 

Waters, Part 320, "General Regulatory Policies" through Part 332. Washington, D.C. TN4127. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-2 October 2016 

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

Part 800, "Protection of Historic Properties." Washington, D.C. TN513. 

40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50, 

"National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards." Washington, D.C. TN1089. 

40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51, 

"Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans." Washington, 

D.C. TN1090. 

40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60, 

"Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources." Washington, D.C. TN1020. 

40 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 63, 

"National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories." 

Washington, D.C. TN1403. 

40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, 

"Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes." Washington, D.C. TN255. 

40 CFR Part 93. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 93, 

"Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans." 

Washington, D.C. TN2495. 

40 CFR Part 112. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 112, 

"Oil Pollution Prevention." Washington, D.C. TN1041. 

40 CFR Part 125. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 125, 

"Criteria and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System." Washington, 

D.C. TN254. 

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 

"Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations." Washington, 

D.C. TN739. 

40 CFR Part 204. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 204, 

"Noise Emission Standards for Construction Equipment." Washington, D.C. TN653. 

40 CFR Part 230. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 230, 

"Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material." 

Washington, D.C. TN427. 

40 CFR Part 423. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 423, 

"Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category." Washington, D.C. TN253. 

40 CFR Part 1502. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 

1502, "Environmental Impact Statement." Washington, D.C. TN2123. 

40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 

1508, "Terminology and Index." Washington, D.C. TN428. 
References 

October 2016 11-3 NUREG–2176 

41 FR 41914. September 24, 1976. "Determination of Critical Habitat for American Crocodile, 

California Condor, Indiana Bat, and Florida Manatee." Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Washington, D.C. TN275. 

51 FR 30028. August 21, 1986. "Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants; 

Policy Statement; Correction and Republication." Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, D.C. TN594. 

58 FR 5647. January 22, 1993. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Establishment of an Experimental Nonessential Population of Whooping Cranes in Florida." 

Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. TN3324. 

59 FR 7629. February 16, 1994. "Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations." Federal Register, 

Office of the President, Washington, D.C. TN1450. 

61 FR 65120. December 10, 1996. "Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne Effluents of 

Radioactive Materials; Clean Air Act." Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, D.C. TN294. 

65 FR 17786. April 5, 2000. "Designation of Critical Habitat: Critical Habitat for Johnson's 

Seagrass." Federal Register, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, 

D.C. TN273. 

65 FR 34909. May 26, 2000. "Marine Protected Areas." Executive Order 13158. Federal 

Register, Presidential Documents, Washington, D.C. TN3454. 

65 FR 79825. December 20, 2000. "Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of Hazardous Air 

Pollutants from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units." Federal Register, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. TN2536. 

66 FR 65256. December 18, 2001. "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: 

Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities." Federal Register, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. TN243. 

68 FR 23673. May 5, 2003. "Underground Injection Control Program—Relative Risk 

Assessment of Management Options for Treated Wastewater in South Florida; Notice of 

Availability." Federal Register, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C. TN3658. 

68 FR 55905. September 29, 2003. "Nuclear Energy Institute; Denial of Petition for 

Rulemaking." Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. TN733. 

69 FR 52040. August 24, 2004. "Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice 

Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions." Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, D.C. TN1009. 

69 FR 61829. October 21, 2004. "Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting 

Motions to Intervene, Protests, and Comments—Project: Sea Gen St Lucie Project." Federal 

Register, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. TN3097. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-4 October 2016 

71 FR 4464. January 27, 2006. "AP1000 Design Certification." Federal Register, Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. TN258. 

72 FR 13027. March 20, 2007. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Reclassification of the American Crocodile Distinct Population Segment in Florida From 

Endangered to Threatened." Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

TN274. 

72 FR 57416. October 9, 2007. "Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants." 

Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. TN260. 

74 FR 45353. September 2, 2009. "Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for 

the Endangered Distinct Population Segment of Smalltooth Sawfish." Federal Register,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. TN271. 

74 FR 56260. October 30, 2009. "Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases." Federal 

Register, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. TN1024. 

74 FR 66496. December 15, 2009. "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for 

Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act." Federal Register, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. TN245. 

75 FR 6616. February 10, 2010. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Notice of 90-Day 

Finding on a Petition to List 83 Species of Corals as Threatened or Endangered Under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA)." Federal Register, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Washington, D.C. TN1516. 

75 FR 12598. March 16, 2010. "Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Listing of 

Nine Distinct Population Segments of Loggerhead Sea Turtles as Endangered or Threatened." 

Federal Register, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. TN2763. 

75 FR 31514. June 3, 2010. "Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse 

Gas Tailoring Rule." Federal Register, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

TN1404. 

75 FR 33851. June 15, 2010. "Florida Power & Light Company; Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7; 

Combined License Application, Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 

and Conduct Scoping Process." Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, D.C. TN511. 

75 FR 59690. September 28, 2010. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Notice of 90-Day 

Finding on a Petition to List Warsaw Grouper as Threatened or Endangered Under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA)." Federal Register, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Washington, D.C. TN4100. 

76 FR 66370. October 26, 2011. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of 

Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of 

Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions." Federal 

Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. TN1011. 
References 

October 2016 11-5 NUREG–2176 

76 FR 82079. December 30, 2011. "AP1000 Design Certification Amendment." Federal 

Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. TN248. 

77 FR 16082. March 19, 2012. "In the Matter of All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of 

Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status: Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to 

Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation (Effective Immediately)." Federal Register, Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. TN1424. 

77 FR 16091. March 19, 2012. "Order Modifying Licenses With Regard to Requirements for 

Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events (Effective Immediately)." 

Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. TN2476. 

77 FR 16098. March 19, 2012. "In the Matter of All Operating Boiling Water Reactor Licensees 

With Mark I and Mark II Containments; Order Modifying Licenses With Regard to Reliable 

Hardened Containment Vents (Effective Immediately)." Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, D.C. TN2477. 

77 FR 20059. April 3, 2012. "License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Reactor Power 

Level, Florida Power & Light Company, Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4." Federal Register, Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. TN1001. 

77 FR 60750. October 4, 2012. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 

Endangered Species Status for the Florida Bonneted Bat." Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Washington, D.C. TN2276. 

77 FR 61559. October 10, 2012. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition to List Nassau Grouper as Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species 

Act." Federal Register, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. 

TN3238. 

78 FR 1164. February 15, 2013. "Intent to Prepare a Draft and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Herbert Hoover Dike Major Rehabilitation Project and Dam Safety 

Modification Study, Okeechobee, Glades, Hendry, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties." Federal 

Register, Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. TN2991. 

78 FR 24073. April 24, 2013. "Reconsideration of Certain New Source Issues: National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, IndustrialCommercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating 

Units." Federal Register, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. TN3051. 

78 FR 40128. July 3, 2013. "Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the Reaches 8, 9, and 10 Comprehensive Shoreline Stabilization Project in 

Palm Beach County, Florida." Federal Register, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. 

TN3059. 

78 FR 49832. August 15, 2013. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 

Designation of Critical Habitat for Florida Leafwing and Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak Butterflies." 

Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. TN2845. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-6 October 2016 

78 FR 49878. August 15, 2013. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered 

Status for the Florida Leafwing and Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak Butterflies." Federal Register, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. TN2844. 

78 FR 58529. September 24, 2013. "Floridian Natural Gas Storage Company, LLC; Notice of 

Application." Federal Register, Federal Energy Control Commission, Washington, D.C. 

TN3002.

78 FR 60024. September 30, 2013. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Proposed Threatened Status for the Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)." Federal Register, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. TN3199. 

78 FR 61004. October 2, 2013. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered 

Species Status for the Florida Bonneted Bat." Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, D.C. TN2659. 

78 FR 61293. October 3, 2013. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation 

of Critical Habitat for Brickellia mosieri (Florida Brickell-bush) and Linum carteri var. carteri

(Carter's Small-flowered Flax)." Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

TN2912. 

78 FR 63796. October 24, 2013. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Determination of Endangered Status for Chromolaena frustrata (Cape Sable Thoroughwort), 

Consolea corallicola (Florida Semaphore Cactus), and Harrisia aboriginum (Aboriginal PricklyApple). Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. TN4628. 

79 FR 37077. June 30, 2014. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Reclassification of the U.S. Breeding Population of the Wood Stork from Endangered to 

Threatened." Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. TN4039. 

79 FR 39855. July 10, 2014. "Endangered and Threatened Species: Critical Habitat for the 

Northwest Atlantic Ocean Loggerhead Sea Turtle Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and 

Determination Regarding Critical Habitat for the North Pacific Ocean Loggerhead DPS." 

Federal Register, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. TN4032. 

79 FR 41211. July 15, 2014. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 

Critical Habitat for Brickellia mosieri (Florida Brickell-bush) and Linum carteri var. carteri

(Carter's Small-flowered Flax)." Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

TN3725. 

79 FR 47180. August 12, 2014. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation 

of Critical Habitat for Florida Leafwing and Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak Butterflies." Federal 

Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. TN3727. 

79 FR 47222. August 12, 2014. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered 

Status for the Florida Leafwing and Bartram's Scrub-Hairstreak Butterflies." Federal Register, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. TN3726. 
References 

October 2016 11-7 NUREG–2176 

79 FR 52567. September 4, 2014. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Endangered Species Status for Brickellia mosieri (Florida Brickell-bush) and Linum carteri var. 

carteri (Carter's Small-flowered Flax)." Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, 

D.C. TN4068. 

79 FR 53851. September 10, 2014. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final 

Listing Determinations on Proposal to List 66 Reef-Building Coral Species and to Reclassify 

Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals." Federal Register, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Washington, D.C. TN4097. 

80 FR 30501. May 28, 2015. "Combined License Application for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, 

Units 6 and 7 [Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Request for Comment; Reopening of 

Comment Period]." Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

TN4614. 

80 FR 49845. August 17, 2015. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation 

of Critical Habitat for Brickellia mosieri (Florida Brickell-bush) and Linum carteri var. carteri 

(Carter's Small-flowered Flax)." Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

TN4493. 

80 FR 60439. October 6, 2015. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered 

Species Status for Trichomanes punctatum ssp. floridanum (Florida Bristle Fern)." Federal 

Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. TN4492. 

80 FR 64509. October 23, 2015. "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units; 

Final Rule." Federal Register, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. TN4388. 

80 FR 79533. December 22, 2015. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day 

and 12-Month Findings on a Petition to List the Miami Tiger Beetle as an Endangered or 

Threatened Species; Proposed Endangered Species Status for the Miami Tiger Beetle." 

Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. TN4578. 

5 Stat. 502. 1842. Armed Occupation Act of 1842. TN4113. 

7 U.S.C. § 4201 et seq. Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. TN708. 

16 U.S.C. § 668-668d et seq. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. TN1447. 

16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. TN1243. 

16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. Endangered Species Act of 1973. TN1010. 

16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. TN1060. 

16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 

1996. TN1061. 

16 U.S.C. § 410r-5 et seq. Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989. 

TN4096. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-8 October 2016 

22 U.S.C. § 3201 et seq. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978. TN737. 

26 U.S.C. § 1. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. TN1250. 

33 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. TN660. 

33 U.S.C. § 403. U.S. Code Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Section 403 

"Obstruction of Navigable Waters Generally; Wharves; Piers, etc.; Excavations and Filing in." 

TN4768. 

33 U.S.C. § 408. U.S. Code Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Section 408 "Taking 

Possession of, Use of, or Injury to Harbor or River Improvements." TN4769. 

33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 [also referred to as Clean 

Water Act]. TN662. 

33 U.S.C. § 1341. U.S. Code Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Chapter 26, "Water 

Pollution Prevention and Control," Subchapter IV, Permits and Licenses, Section 1341 

"Certification." TN4764. 

33 U.S.C. § 1342. U.S. Code Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Chapter 26, "Water 

Pollution Prevention and Control," Subchapter IV, Permits and Licenses, Section 1342, 

"National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System." TN4765. 

33 U.S.C. § 1344 et seq. Federal Water Pollution Control Act [also referred to as Clean Water 

Act]. "Permits for Dredged or Fill Material." TN1019. 

33 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. Water Resources Development Act of 2000. TN1037. 

42 U.S.C. § 82 et seq. Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. TN1032. 

42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq. Atomic Energy Act of 1954. TN663. 

42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. 

TN661. 

42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). TN1281. 

42 U.S.C. § 6921 et seq. Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. TN1033. 

42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. Clean Air Act. TN1141. 

42 U.S.C. § 10101 et seq. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. TN740. 

42 U.S.C. § 15801 et seq. Energy Policy Act of 2005. TN738. 

42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq. Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended. TN1337. 

54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq. National Historic Preservation Act. TN4157. 
References 

October 2016 11-9 NUREG–2176 

ACHP (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation). 2010. Letter from C.D. Hall to L. Bauer 

(NRC), dated July 8, 2010, regarding "Florida Power & Light's Application for Two New Nuclear 

Power Plants, Turkey Point Site, Homestead, Florida." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML101900325. TN1456. 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). 1972. Environmental Survey of Transportation of 

Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants. WASH–1238, Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML14092A626. TN22. 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). 1972. Final Environmental Statement Related to 

Operation of Turkey Point Plant. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14342A041. TN999. 

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). 1974. Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel 

Cycle. WASH–1248, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14092A628. TN23. 

AirNav (AirNav, LLC). 2014. "River Oak Airport, Okeechobee, Florida, USA." Atlanta, Georgia. 

Available at http://www.airnav.com/airport/00FL. TN3309. 

APAFR (Avon Park Air Force Range). 2014. "APAFR Fish, Wildlife & Outdoor Recreation 

Program." Polk and Highlands Counties, Florida. Accession No. ML14342A042. TN3195. 

Archbold Biological Station. 2014. "Archbold Biological Station." Venus, Florida. Available at 

http://www.archbold-station.org/. TN2954. 

Aronson, R., A. Bruckner, J. Moore, B. Precht, and E. Weil. 2014. "Oculina varicosa." The 

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2014.3, Washington, D.C. Available at 

www.iucnredlist.org. TN4101. 

Avatar Environmental, LLC, EDM International, Inc., and Pandion Systems, Inc. 2004. Notice 

of Inquiry Comment Review Avian/Communication Tower Collision. Federal Communication 

Commission, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14345A999. TN892. 

Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. 462 U.S. 87 

(1983). United States Supreme Court Decision June 6, 1983. United States Reports 462:87. 

Accession No. ML14091A199. TN1054. 

Bancroft, C.T. 1989. "Status and Conservation of Wading Birds in the Everglades." American 

Birds 43(5):1258–1265, Albuquerque, New Mexico. TN3571. 

Bander, T.J. 1982. PAVAN: An Atmospheric-Dispersion Program for Evaluating Design-Basis 

Accidental Releases of Radioactive Materials from Nuclear Power Stations. NUREG/CR–2858, 

Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Accession No. ML12045A149. TN538. 

Barber, J.R., K.R. Crooks, and K.M. Fristrup. 2010. "The Costs of Chronic Noise Exposure for 

Terrestrial Organisms." Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25(3):180–189, Oxford, United 

Kingdom. TN4045. 

BEA (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2012. RIMS II—An Essential Tool for Regional 

Developers and Planners. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14309A040. TN1569. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-10 October 2016 

BEA (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2012. "Total Full-Time and Part-Time Employment 

by NAICS Industry—Florida and Miami-Dade County." CA25N, Washington, D.C. Accession 

No. ML14338A460. TN4074. 

BEA (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2014. "Bearfacts: Miami-Dade County, Florida 

Personal Income." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14338A461. TN4075. 

Beacon Council. 2013. "Major Private and Public Employers in Miami-Dade County." Miami, 

Florida. Available at http://www.beaconcouncil.com/meet-miami-dade-county/private-employers 

and http://www.beaconcouncil.com/meet-miami-dade-county/public-employers. TN4076. 

BEBR (Bureau of Economic and Business Research). 2004. Historical Census Counts for 

Florida and its Counties 1830 through 2000. Gainesville, Florida. Accession No. 

ML12192A295. TN438. 

BEBR (Bureau of Economic and Business Research). 2011. "Projections of Florida Population 

by County, 2010–2040." Florida Population Studies 44, Bulletin 159, June 2011, Gainesville, 

Florida. Accession No. ML12192A294. TN437. 

BEBR (Bureau of Economic and Business Research). 2014. "Florida County Population 

Projections." University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Available at 

http://www.bebr.ufl.edu/content/florida-county-population-projections-free-download. TN4077. 

Beissinger, S.R. 1983. "Hunting Behavior, Prey Selection, and Energetics of Snail Kites in 

Guyana: Consumer Choice by a Specialist." The Auk 100:84–92, Berkeley, California. 

TN2383. 

Bellmund, S. 2011. Biscayne Bay Salinity Presentation to The Biscayne Bay Regional 

Restoration Coordination Team, January 14, 2011. Biscayne National Park, Homestead, 

Florida. Accession No. ML14219A465. TN1317. 

Bellmund, S. 2012. Personal Communication from S. Bellmund to S. Breithaupt, dated April 

11, 2012, regarding "Salinity Sampling Locations Near the Turkey Point Site." National Park 

Service, Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML14345A281. TN4118. 

Bellmund, S., G. Graves, S. Krupa, H. Jobert, G. Garis, and S. Blair. 2008. Effects of 

Groundwater on Salinity in Biscayne Bay. Naples, Florida. Accession No. ML12193A330. 

TN123. 

Bezdek, R.H. and R.M. Wendling. 2006. "The Impacts of Nuclear Facilities on Property Values 

and Other Factors in the Surrounding Communities." International Journal of Nuclear 

Governance, Economy and Ecology 1(1):122–144, Geneva, Switzerland. TN2748. 

Bixler, N.E., S.A. Shannon, C.W. Morrow, B.E. Meloche, and J.N. Ridgely. 2003. 

SECPOP2000: Sector Population, Land Fraction, and Economic Estimation Program. 

NUREG/CR–6525, Revision 1, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Accession No. ML032310279. TN3636. 
References 

October 2016 11-11 NUREG–2176 

Bloetscher, F., J.D. Englehardt, D.A. Chin, J.B. Rose, G. Tchobanoglous, V.P. Amy, and S. 

Gokgoz. 2005. "Comparative Assessment of Municipal Wastewater Disposal Methods in 

Southeast Florida." Water Environment Federation 77(5):480-490, Alexandria, Virginia. 

TN4756. 

Blower, D. and A. Matteson. 2003. Evaluation of the Motor Carrier Management Information 

System Crash File, Phase One. UMTRI–2003–06, University of Michigan Transportation 

Research Institute, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Accession No. ML112650033. TN410. 

BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2012. "Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities Industry Injury 

and Illness Data." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML12212A056. TN668. 

BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2012. Average Energy Prices in Miami-Fort 

Lauderdale—January 2012. Southeast Information Office, Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No. 

ML14309A044. TN447. 

BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2012. "Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities State 

Occupational Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML12212A055. TN669. 

BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2012. "Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages 

Private NAICS 6-Digit Industries, U.S. Total 2012 Annual Averages." Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML14338A436. TN4083. 

BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2012. "Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 

Miami-Dade County, Florida—Total Covered, All Industry Aggregations, and Private, NAICS 

Sub-Sectors, 2012 Annual Averages." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14338A437. 

TN4084. 

BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2013. "Local Area Unemployment Statistics—Labor 

Force Data by County, 2013 Annual Averages, Florida." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14338A438. TN4085. 

BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2013. "May 2013 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan 

Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL 

Metropolitan Division." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14338A439. TN4086. 

BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2014. "Household Data Annual Averages: Employment 

Status of Civilian Noninstitutional Population, 1943 to Date." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14309A045. TN3674. 

Brack, W., S. Ait-Aissa, R.M. Burgess, W. Busch, N. Creusot, C. DiPaolo, B.I. Esher, L.M. 

Hewitt, K. Hilscherova, J. Hollender, H. Hollert, W. Jonker, J. Kool, M. Lamoree, M. Muschket, 

S. Neumann, P. Rostkowski, C. Ruttkies, J. Schollee, E.L. Schymanski, T. Schulze, T. Seiler, 

A.J. Tindall, G. Umbuzeiro, B. Vrana, and M. Krauss. 2016. "Effect-Directed Analysis 

Supporting Monitoring of Aquatic Environments—An In-Depth Overview." Science of the Total 

Environment 544:1073-1118. TN4448. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-12 October 2016 

Brainard, R.E., C. Birkeland, C.M. Eakin, P. McElhany, M.W. Miller, M. Patterson, and G.A. 

Piniak. 2011. Status Review Report of 82 Candidate Coral Species Petitioned Under the U.S. 

Endangered Species Act. NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-27, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Honolulu, Hawaii. Accession No. ML14290A602. TN1517. 

Brausch, J.M. and G.M. Rand. 2011. "A Review of Personal Care Products in the Aquatic 

Environment: Environmental Concentrations and Toxicity." Chemosphere 82:1518–1532, New 

York, New York. TN1002. 

Broward County. 2010. 1989 Broward County Land Use Plan. Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14290A597. TN1505. 

Browder, J.A., R. Alleman, S. Markley, P. Ortner and P.A. Pitts. 2005. "Biscayne Bay 

Conceptual Ecological Model." Wetlands 25(4):854–869, Fargo, North Dakota. TN151. 

Brzoska, D., C.B. Knisley, and J. Slotten. 2011. "Rediscovery of Cicindela scabrosa floridana

Cartwright (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) and Its Elevation to Species Level." Insecta Mundi 

0162:1–7 [April 15, 2011], Gainesville, Florida. Available at 

http://journals.fcla.edu/mundi/article/view/76230. TN4494. 

Caldwell, D.J., F. Mastrocco, E. Nowak, J. Johnston, H. Yekel, D. Pfeiffer, M. Hoyt. B.M. 

DuPlessie, and P.D. Anderson. 2010. "An Assessment of Potential Exposure and Risk from 

Estrogens in Drinking Water." Environmental Health Perspectives 118:338–344, Cary, North 

Carolina. TN1276. 

Calver, J.L. 1956. "Mineral Resources and Industries of Florida [Map]." Florida Geological 

Survey, Tallahassee, Florida. Available at http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00015022/00001/1j. TN3752. 

Canfield, J.E. 1984. Elk Habitat Use and the Impact of the Construction and Energization of a 

50-KV AC Powerline on the North Boulder Winter Range, Montana. Master of Science Thesis, 

Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana. TN4548. 

Cantillo, A.Y., K. Hale, E. Collins, L. Pikula, and R. Caballero. 2000. Biscayne Bay: 

Environmental History and Annotated Bibliography. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS 

NCCOS CCMA 145, Silver Spring, Maryland. Accession No. ML14188C466. TN108. 

CB&I (CB&I Company). 2014. Southern Palm Beach Island Comprehensive Shoreline 

Stabilization Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) SBEACH Analysis Report. Coastal 

Planning & Engineering, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida. Available at 

http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Portals/44/docs/regulatory/Items%20of%20Interest/Palm%20Bea

ch%20Island%20shoreline%20stabilization/20140305_SPBI_EIS_SBEACH_Report.pdf. 

TN4015. 

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2008. "Surveillance for Waterborne 

Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Recreational Water Use and Other Aquatic FacilityAssociated Health Events—United States, 2005–2006" and "Surveillance for Waterborne 

Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water and Water not Intended for Drinking—

United States, 2005–2006." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 57(SS-9):1–70, Atlanta, 

Georgia. Accession No. ML12207A497. TN557. 
References 

October 2016 11-13 NUREG–2176 

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2011. "Surveillance for Waterborne 

Disease Outbreaks and Other Health Events Associated with Recreational Water—United 

States, 2007–2008" and "Surveillance for Waterborne Disease Outbreaks Associated with 

Drinking Water—United States, 2007–2008." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 60(12):1–

75, Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No. ML12207A494. TN558. 

CDM (Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.). 2008. Miami Dade County Water Supply Facilities 

Support Data. Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML14342A043. TN442. 

Center for Biological Diversity. 2009. Petition to List 83 Coral Species under the Endangered 

Species Act. San Francisco, California. Accession No. ML14342A044. TN1518. 

CEPP (Central Everglades Planning Project). 2011. Facts & Information Getting to the Heart of 

CERP. West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12269A200. TN107. 

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Washington D.C. Accession No. ML103430030. TN452. 

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 2005. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural 

Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML16075A235. TN1394. 

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 2016. Memorandum from C. Goldfuss to Heads of 

Federal Departments and Agencies, dated August 1, 2016, regarding "Final Guidance for 

Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the 

Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews." Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML16266A244. TN4732. 

CERP (Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan). 2012. "About CERP: Brief Overview." 

West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12269A241. TN1035. 

Chalmers, J.A. and F.A. Voorvaart. 2009. "High-Voltage Transmission Lines: Proximity, 

Visibility, and Encumbrance Effects." The Appraisal Journal, Summer 2009:227–245, Chicago, 

Illinois. TN4395. 

Chanin, D. and M.L. Young. 1998. Code Manual for MACCS2: Volume 1, User's Guide. 

NUREG/CR–6613, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Accession No. 

ML110600923. TN66. 

Chepesiuk, R. 2009. "Missing the Dark: Health Effects of Light Pollution." Environmental 

Health Perspectives 117(1):A22–A27, Washington, D.C. TN1326. 

Chin, D.A. 2016. The Cooling-Canal System at the FPL Turkey Point Power Station. MiamiDade County, Miami, Florida. Accessed March 23, 2016, at 

http://www.miamidade.gov/environment/library/reports/cooling-canal-system-at-the-fpl-turkeypoint-power-station.pdf. TN4529. 

City of Homestead. 2012. City of Homestead Adopted Operating and Capital Budget 2012. 

Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML14287A736. TN1465. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-14 October 2016 

City of Homestead. 2012. "City of Homestead 2012 Water Quality Report." Homestead, 

Florida. Available at http://www.cityofhomestead.com/DocumentCenter/View/181. TN3648. 

CleanEnergy (CleanEnergy Action Project). 2012. "FPL Martin Next Generation Solar Energy 

Center—Case Study." Available at 

http://www.cleanenergyactionproject.com/CleanEnergyActionProject/CS.FPL_Martin_Next_Gen

eration_Solar_Energy_Center___Concentrating_Solar_Power_Case_Studies.html. TN3307. 

Collier County (Collier County, Florida). 2012. Growth Management Plan, Future Land Use 

Element. Collier County Planning Services Department, Naples, Florida. Available at 

http://www.colliergov.net/index.aspx?page=257. TN1506. 

Conner, A.M. and J.E. Francfort. 1998. U.S. Hydropower Resources Assessment for Florida. 

DOE/ID-10430(FL), Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, 

Idaho. Accession No. ML14280A609. TN1367. 

Cooper, H.H. and C.E. Jacob. 1953. A Generalized Graphical Method of Evaluating Formation 

Constants and Summarizing Well-Field History. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML14300A262. TN1508. 

CPC (Center for Plant Conservation). 2010. "Asimina tetramera: CPC National Collection 

Plant Profile." St. Louis, Missouri. Accession No. ML14342A046. TN3729. 

CPC (Center for Plant Conservation). 2010. "Dicerandra immaculate: CPC National Collection 

Plant Profile." St. Louis, Missouri. Accession No. ML14342A047. TN3730. 

Cunningham, K.J. 2013. Integrating Seismic-Reflection and Sequence-Stratigraphic Methods 

to Characterize the Hydrogeology of the Floridan Aquifer System in Southeast Florida. U.S. 

Geological Survey Open File Report 2013-1181, Reston, Virginia. Accession No. 

ML16172A124. TN4573. 

Cunningham, K.J. 2014. Integration of Seismic-Reflection and Well Data to Assess the 

Potential Impact of Stratigraphic and Structural Features on Sustainable Water Supply from the 

Floridan Aquifer System. Open-File Report 2014–1136, U.S. Geological Survey, Davie, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14342A048. TN4051. 

Cunningham, K.J. 2015. Seismic-Sequence Stratigraphy and Geologic Structure of the 

Floridan Aquifer System Near "Boulder Zone" Deep Wells in Miami-Dade County, Florida. U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2015-5013, Reston, Virginia. Accession No. 

ML16172A125. TN4574. 

Cunningham, K.J. and M.C. Sukop. 2011. Multiple Technologies Applied to Characterization of 

the Porosity and Permeability of the Biscayne Aquifer, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey, Report 

2011–1037, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Accession No. ML14223A029. TN1339. 
References 

October 2016 11-15 NUREG–2176 

Cunningham, K.J., C. Walker, and R.L. Westcott. 2012. "Near-Surface, Marine SeismicReflection Data Define Potential Hydrogeologic Confinement Bypass in the Carbonate Floridan 

Aquifer System, Southeastern Florida." In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2012, 

Society of Exploration Physicists, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Available at 

http://library.seg.org/doi/abs/10.1190/segam2012-0638.1. TN4576. 

Daniels, J.C. 2005. "Blues: Miami Blue (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri)." In Red List of 

Pollinator Insects of North America. Xerces Society, Portland, Oregon. Available at 

http://www.xerces.org/miami-blue/. TN141. 

Dausman, A.M., C. Langevin, M.C. Sukop, and V. Walsh. 2008. "Saltwater/Freshwater 

Interface Movement in Response to Deep-Well Injection in a Coastal Aquifer." In Proceedings 

of the 20th Salt Water Intrusion Meeting, June 23-27, 2008, Naples, Florida. Accessed 

September 9, 2016, at http://conference.ifas.ufl.edu/swim/papers.pdf. TN4757. 

Dausman, A.M., J. Doherty, C.D. Langevin, J. Dixon. 2010. "Hypothesis Testing of Buoyant 

Plume Migration Using a Highly Parameterized Variable-Density Groundwater Model at a Site in 

Florida, USA." Hydrogeology Journal 18(1):147-160. Available at 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10040-009-0511-6. TN4760. 

Dineer, J. 2001. Thalassia testudinum (Turtle Grass). Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort 

Pierce, Florida. Available at http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/thalas_testud.htm. TN1013. 

DOA (Department of the Army). 2016. Letter from M. Clouser to Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of 

Florida, dated March 7, 2016, regarding U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit Application SAJ2009-02417, FPL Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, Miami, 

Florida. Accession No. ML16172A120. TN4601. 

DOA (Department of the Army) and DOI (Department of the Interior). 2016. 2015 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Report to 

Congress. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML16172A126. TN4580. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2002. A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk 

Assessment. DOE/EM/NTP/HB-01, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML12192A286. TN418. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2002. Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic 

Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca 

Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0250, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14024A327. TN1236. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2008. Yucca Mountain Repository. Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML100600704. TN725. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2008. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive 

Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0250F-S1, Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML14024A329. TN1237. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-16 October 2016 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2008. Geothermal Technologies Program—Geothermal 

Resource Maps. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML102070308. TN1409. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2008. State Energy Alternatives: Biomass Energy. Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML100490483. TN1416. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2008. Fuel Cell Technology Challenges. Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML102070314. TN1417. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2009. DOE Standard Radiological Control. DOE-STD1098-2008, Change Notice 1, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14287A421. TN1426. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2010. "U.S. Department of Energy's Motion to Withdraw 

[Yucca Mountain]." Docket No. 63-001, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML100621397. 

TN1239. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2010. Alternative Energy Resources in Florida. Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML102070317. TN1411. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2010. EERE Project Management Center, NEPA 

Determination, SDWWTP-Installation of Co-Gen Units 4 & 5 and Landfill Gas Pipeline 

Construction. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14287A775. TN1476. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2011. "Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA)." 

Office of Fossil Energy, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14093A257. TN2083. 

DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 1995. Electricity 

Generation and Environmental Externalities: Case Studies. Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14029A023. TN2996. 

DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2006. Energy Power 

Annual, Electric Power Industry 2007: Year in Review. Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML100600709. TN718. 

DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2009. Electric 

Power Annual—Receipts and Quality of Coal Delivered for the Electric Power Industry. 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML102030434. TN1415. 

DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2010. Annual 

Energy Outlook 2011—Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources. DOE/EIA-0383(2010), 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML11294A611. TN1401. 

DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2011. Renewable 

Energy Generating Capacity and Generation. DOE/EIA–0384(2010), Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML14280A611. TN1368. 

DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2013. "Net 

Generation by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors), 2003–May 2013." Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML13233A154. TN2540. 
References 

October 2016 11-17 NUREG–2176 

DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2016. "Electric 

Power Industry Generation by Primary Energy Source, 1990–2014, Florida." Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML16172A123. TN4584. 

DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2016. Annual 

Energy Outlook 2016 Early Release: Annotated Summary of Two Cases; Data Table 8, 

"Electricity Supply, Disposition, Prices, and Emissions." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML16216A209. TN4620. 

DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2016. Annual 

Energy Outlook 2016 Early Release: Annotated Summary of Two Cases; Data Table 9, 

"Electricity Generating Capacity." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML16216A210. TN4621. 

DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2016. Annual 

Energy Outlook 2016 Early Release: Annotated Summary of Two Cases; Data Table 58, 

"Renewable Energy Generation by Fuel." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML16216A211. 

TN4622. 

DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2016. Annual 

Energy Outlook 2016 Early Release: Annotated Summary of Two Cases; Data Table 58.2, 

"Renewable Energy Generation by Fuel: Florida Reliability Coordinating Council." Washington, 

D.C. Accession No. ML16216A207. TN4623. 

DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2016. State 

Electricity Profiles: Florida Electricity Profile 2014; Table 3, "Top Five Retailers of Electricity, 

with End Use Sectors, 2014, Florida." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML16216A208. 

TN4624. 

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 2012. National Atlas. Reston, Virginia. Accession No. 

ML14267A009. TN1335. 

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 2016. "EvergladesRestoration.gov: Restoring America's 

Everglades." Davie, Florida. Accession No. ML16216A212. TN4589. 

DOL (U.S. Department of Labor). 2012. "Legionnaires' Disease: Section II: A. Cooling 

Towers, Evaporative Condensers, and Fluid Coolers." Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14217A118. TN1274. 

Dominion Energy, Inc., Bechtel Power Corporation, TLG Services, and MPR Associates. 2004. 

Study of Construction Technologies and Schedules, O&M Staffing and Cost, Decommissioning 

Costs and Funding Requirements for Advanced Reactor Designs. Volume 1, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML101820632. TN721.

Dorcas, M.E., J.D. Willson, R.N. Reed, R.W. Snow, M.R. Rochford, M.A. Miller, W.E. Meshaka, 

Jr., P.T. Andreadis, F.J. Mazzotti, C.M. Romagosa, and K.M. Hart. 2011. "Severe Mammal 

Declines Coincide with Proliferation of Invasive Burmese Pythons in Everglades National Park." 

In Proceedings from the National Academy of Sciences, Stanford, California. Available at 

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/23/1115226109.full.pdf+html. TN241. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-18 October 2016 

DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2003. "From Home to Work, the Average Commute 

is 26.4 Minutes." OmniStats 3(4), Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML100621425. TN297. 

DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2003. What Aircrews Should Know About Their 

Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. DOT/FAA/AM-03/16, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Accession No. ML12192A288. TN419. 

DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2008. Traffic Safety Facts, Florida, 2004–2008. 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML12192A280. TN411. 

DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2008. Traffic Safety Facts, Miami-Dade County, 

Florida, 2004–2008. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML12192A257. TN412. 

DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2008. Traffic Safety Facts, Martin County, Florida 

2004–2008. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML12192A260. TN413. 

DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2008. Traffic Safety Facts, Glades County, Florida, 

2004–2008. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML12292A272. TN414. 

DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2008. Traffic Safety Facts, Okeechobee County, 

Florida, 2004–2008. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML12192A277. TN415. 

DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2008. Traffic Safety Facts, St. Lucie County, 

Florida, 2004–2008. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML12192A280. TN416. 

DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2010. National Transportation Statistics 2010. 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML12192A251. TN408. 

Douglas, R.H. and G Jeffery. 2014. "The Spectral Transmission of Ocular Media Suggests 

Ultraviolet Sensitivity is Widespread Among Mammals." Proceedings of the Royal Society B

281:20132995, London, United Kingdom. TN4547. 

Duke (Duke Energy Corporation). 2013. "Project Overview: Edwardsport Generating Station." 

Charlotte, North Carolina. Available at http://www.duke-energy.com/about-us/edwardsportoverview.asp. TN2662. 

EAF (Everglades Alligator Farm). 2014. "Everglades Alligator Farm." Homestead, Florida. 

Available at http://www.everglades.com/. Accession No. ML14342A015. TN3659. 

EAI (Ecological Associates, Inc.). 2009. Letter from M.S. Mohlmann to M. Raffenberg, dated 

October 2, 2009, regarding "Nearshore Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Biscayne Bay and Card 

Sound." Jensen Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12193A209. TN97. 
References 

October 2016 11-19 NUREG–2176 

EAI (Ecological Associates, Inc.). 2009. Turkey Point Peninsula Seagrass Survey. Jensen 

Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12240A279. TN153. 

EAI (Ecological Associates, Inc.). 2009. Species and Relative Abundances of Fish and 

Shellfish in the Vicinity of the Turkey Point Plant Based on Recent Collections. Jensen Beach, 

Florida. Accession No. ML12240A280. TN154. 

Eckerman, K.F. and J.C. Ryman. 1993. External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, and 

Soil. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Guidance Report No. 12, EPA-402-R-93-

081, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML111930454. TN3955. 

Eckerman, K.F., A.B. Wolbarst, and A.C.B. Richardson. 1988. Limiting Values of Radionuclide 

Intake and Air Concentrations and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and 

Ingestion. EPA-520/1-88-020, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML111990404. TN68. 

EDR (Office of Economic and Demographic Research). 2011. Demographic Estimating 

Conference Executive Summary. Florida Legislature, Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/conferences/population/index.cfm. TN454. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. AERMOD: Latest Features and 

Evaluation Results. EPA-454/R-03-003, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina. Accession No. ML14342A017. TN1310. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. Relative Risk Assessment of 

Management Options for Treated Wastewater in South Florida. EPA-816-R-03-010, 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML16266A248. TN4759. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. Fact Sheet: "EPA Provides a Regulatory 

Alternative for Class I Municipal Disposal Wells in Specific Counties in Florida." EPA 815-F-05-

033, Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No. ML16266A249. TN4766. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. "Technology Transfer Network Support 

Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling, Preferred/Recommended Models, CALPUFF 

Modeling System." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14287A766. TN1474. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Biomass Combined Heat and Power 

Catalog of Technologies. Combined Heat and Power Partnership, Washington, D.C. Accession 

No. ML14097A248. TN2660. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Clean Energy—Municipal Solid Waste. 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML093280400. TN1413. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Non-Hazardous Waste—Combustion. 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML100280908. TN1412. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. "Technology Transfer Network Support 

Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling, Preferred/Recommended Models, AERMOD 

Modeling System." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14290A596. TN1501. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-20 October 2016 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Risk Management Program Guidance for 

Offsite Consequence Analysis. EPA 550-B-99-009, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML112720461. TN3954. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant 

Emission Factors, Volume I. Fifth Edition, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Accession 

No. ML13072A613. TN1088. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Water: Science & Technology, 

Contaminants of Emerging Concern. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML12269A202. 

TN1018. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Permit Compliance System 

(PCS) Plant Information: Homestead Power Plant." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML13072A634. TN1082. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Air Facility System (AFS) 

Plant Information: Contender Boats Incorporated." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML13072A599. TN1092. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Air Facility System (AFS) 

Plant Information: Cemex Construction Materials." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML13072A578. TN1093. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Air Facility System (AFS) 

Plant Information: Aero Kool Corp." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML13072A527. 

TN1094. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Air Facility System (AFS) 

Plant Information: Flexible Foam Products Inc." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML13072A527. TN1095. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Air Facility System (AFS) 

Plant Information: Dyplast Products." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML13072A501. 

TN1096. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Air Facility System (AFS) 

Plant Information: Exteria Building Products, LLC." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML13072A455. TN1097. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Permit Compliance System 

(PCS) Detailed Reports: AAR Landing Gear Services." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML13070A193. TN1098. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Toxic Release Inventory 

(TRI) Report: American Whirlpool Products Inc." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML13070A168. TN1099. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Toxic Release Inventory 

(TRI) Report: Angler Boat Corp." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14189A229. TN1100. 
References 

October 2016 11-21 NUREG–2176 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Toxic Release Inventory 

(TRI) Report: Benada Aluminum of Florida." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14190B036. 

TN1101. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Toxic Release Inventory 

(TRI) Report: Bertram Yacht Inc." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14190B041. TN1102. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Air Facility System (AFS) 

Plant Information: Fine Art Lamps." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14190B046. 

TN1103. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Toxic Release Inventory 

(TRI) Report: DM Industries, LTD." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14190B054. TN1104. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Permit Compliance System 

(PCS) Detailed Reports: Dusky Marine Inc." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14190B067. 

TN1105. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Air Facility System (AFS) 

Plant Information: Eastern Aero Marine, Inc." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14190B147. 

TN1106. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Toxic Release Inventory 

(TRI) Report: Engelhard Hexcore." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14190B151. TN1107. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Toxic Release Inventory 

(TRI) Report: U.S. Holding Corp." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14190B176. TN1108. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Homestead Air Reserve Base." 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14309A050. TN1109. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Permit Compliance System 

(PCS) Detailed Reports: Florida Rock And Sand." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14192B098. TN1110. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Air Facility System (AFS) 

Plant Information: Rinker Materials of Florida, Inc." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14192B100. TN1111. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Air Facility System (AFS) 

Plant Information: Custom Crushing & Material." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14192B106. TN1112. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Air Facility System (AFS) 

Plant Information: Florida Rock Industries, Inc." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14192B113. TN1113. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Air Facility System (AFS) 

Plant Information: White Rock Quarries." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14192B177. 

TN1114. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-22 October 2016 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Envirofacts Air Facility System (AFS) 

Plant Information: Florida Rock Industries/Sawgrass." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14192B190. TN1115. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Lead 2008 Standard Nonattainment 

Area/State/County Report." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14216A531. TN1245. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Drinking Water: Water Trivia Facts." 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14216A614. TN1267. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Summary for Current LMOP Landfill and 

LFG Eneregy Project Database—Florida. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14287A411. 

TN1414. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "ECOTOX Database." Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML14301A008. TN1525. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. "Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program." 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14279A252. TN1670. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Protecting Drinking Water Through 

Underground Injection Control. EPA 816-K-10-004, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML16278A744. TN4782. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. "Clean Energy: Calculations and 

References." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML13205A377. TN2505. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. "Regulatory Actions—Final Mercury and 

Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for Power Plants." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML15211A629. TN2537. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2011. EPA 430-R-13-001, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML13331A473. TN2815. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. "Envirofacts ICIS Detailed Reports: 

Daniel Shell Pit, Phase 6." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14309A051. TN2956. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. "Envirofacts ICIS Detailed Reports: ER 

Jahna Industries Inc.—Ortona Mine." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14309A053. 

TN2958. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. "Envirofacts ICIS Detailed Reports: Five 

Stone Mine." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML15026A500. TN2959. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. "Envirofacts ICIS Detailed Reports: 

Florida Shell and Rock." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14309A054. TN2960. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. "Envirofacts ICIS Detailed Reports: Jay 

Rock Mine." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14309A055. TN2962. 
References 

October 2016 11-23 NUREG–2176 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. "Envirofacts AFS Plant Information: S2 

Yachts, Inc." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14309A056. TN3069. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. "Envirofacts AFS Plant Information: Twin 

Vee, Inc." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14309A057. TN3070. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. "Envirofacts AFS Plant Information: 

Bonita Grande Properties LP." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14309A058. TN2955. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. "Envirofacts AFS Plant Information: 

Florida Rock Industries Inc., Fort Myers, Florida." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14309A059. TN2961. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. "Envirofacts AFS Plant Information: U.S. 

Sugar Corporation." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14309A060. TN2963. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. "Envirofacts ICIS Detailed Reports: Tom 

G Smith Power Plant." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14309A062. TN3031. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. "Envirofacts ICIS Detailed Reports: Ineos 

New Planet Bioenergy Center." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14309A063. TN3032. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. "Envirofacts AFS Plant Information: 

Florida Rock Industries, Inc.—Port St. Lucie." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14309A064. 

TN3038. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. "Envirofacts ICIS Detailed Reports: 

Hammond Sand Mine." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14309A066. TN3044. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. "Envirofacts ICIS Detailed Reports: Pratt 

& Whitney (Industrial Wastewater)." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14309A067. TN3062. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. "Envirofacts ICIS Detailed Reports: 

Maverick Boat Company." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14309A068. TN3063. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. "Envirofacts ICIS Detailed Reports: 

Tropicana Products Inc." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14309A069. TN3068. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. "Envirofacts ICIS Detailed Reports: 

Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute Inc.—Fort Pierce." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14309A070. TN3071. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. "National Recommended Water Quality 

Criteria." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14309A072. TN3295. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. "Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)." 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14302A595. TN3962. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-24 October 2016 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012. EPA 430-R-14-003, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14308A134. TN4008. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. Memo from J.G. McCabe and C. Giles to 

Regional Administrators, Regions 1–10, dated July 24, 2014, regarding "Next Steps and 

Preliminary Views on the Application of Clean Air Act Permitting Programs to Greenhouse 

Gases Following the Supreme Court's Decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group 1." Washington, 

D.C. Accession No. ML14345A292. TN4116. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. "Prepublication Copy Notice: Hazardous 

and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric 

Utilities." EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640, Washington, D.C. Available at 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-12/documents/ccr_finalrule_prepub.pdf. 

TN4164. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2015. "Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)." 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML15239A598. TN4307. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2015. "Green Book—Nonattainment Areas—

Sulfur Dioxide (2010) State/Area/County Report." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML16167A510. TN4515. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2015. Clean Water Act Section 404(q) Dispute 

Resolution Process. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML16216A213. TN4626. 

EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 1993. Proceedings: Avian Interactions with Utility 

Structures International Workshop. EPRI TR–103268, Palo Alto, California. Accession No. 

ML14345A998. TN73. 

EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2002. Siting Guide: Site Selection and Evaluation 

Criteria for an Early Site Permit Application. Available at 

http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000000001006878. 

TN1799. 

ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.). 2012. "GIS Enhances STEM 

Learning." ESRI ArcView 10, Redlands, California. TN1469. 

Exponent. 2012. White Paper on High-Voltage Direct Current Transmission Lines and 

Electronic Devices. Technical Memorandum, Bowie, Maryland. Available at 

http://www.plainsandeasterncleanline.com/sites/plains_eastern/media/docs/ElectronicDevicesW

hitepaper_1.pdf. TN3710. 

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2012. "Cultured Aquatic 

Species Information Programme. Penaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931)." Fisheries and 

Aquaculture Department, Rome, Italy. Available at 

http://www.fao.org/fishery/culturedspecies/Litopenaeus_vannamei/. TN155. 
References 

October 2016 11-25 NUREG–2176 

FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation). 2009. "Full-Time Law Enforcement Employees by 

Population Group, Percent Male and Female, 2009." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14342A018. TN4082. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2007. "Report to the Governor and 

Legislature, Hazardous Waste Management Needs Assessment Report." Tallahassee, Florida. 

Available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publications/shw/hazardous/2007HazardousWast

eManagementNeedsAssessmentReport.pdf. TN1478. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2010. "About the Biscayne Bay 

Aquatic Preserve." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/sites/biscayne/info.htm. TN156. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2010. "Final Lists of Impaired Waters 

for the Group 4 (Cycle 2) Basins, Southeast Coast—Biscayne Bay." Watershed Assessment 

Program, Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/assessment/docs/303d/group4/adopted/cycle2/scb

b-delist-c2.xls. TN1253. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2010. "Project: Class V Group 9 

Exploratory Well and Dual Zone Monitoring Well, Final Permit." West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Available at 

http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/Siting/Outgoing/FPL_Turkey_Point/Units_6_7/UIC%20Applicatio

n/FPL_Turkey_Point_Exp_Well_final_permit_May2010.pdf. TN1578. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2010. "Florida's Minerals: Making 

Modern Life Possible." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/geologictopics/minerals.htm. TN2966. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2010. Letter from J. Kahn to 

Southeast Renewable Fuels (SRF), LLC, dated December 22, 2010, regarding "Final Air 

Construction Permit 0510032-001-AC." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Air/emission/bioenergy/southern_renewables/FPERMIT412.PDF. 

TN2970. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2010. Okeechobee Battlefield 

Historic State Park Approved Unit Management Plan. Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/parkplans/ 

OkeechobeeBattlefieldHistoricStatePark.pdf. TN2971. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2010. Inventory of Florida 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990–2007. Division of Air Resource Management, Tallahassee, 

Florida. Available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/about_air/climate/FLGHG%20Inventory_1990thru2007.doc. 

TN2997. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-26 October 2016 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2010. "Emission Sources: NSR/PSD 

Construction Permits—Southeastern Renewable Fuels, Hendry County." Tallahassee, Florida. 

Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Air/emission/bioenergy/southern_renewables.htm. 

TN3394. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2012 . "Facility Detail Report, 

Homestead City Utilities Gordon W. Ivey Power Plant." Tallahassee, Florida. Accessed June 

11, 2012, at http://appbeta.dep.state.fl.us/air/emission/aces/ACES_facility.asp?txtFacID=2692. 

TN1083. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2012. "Underground Injection Control 

Program." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Water/uic/index.htm. 

TN1280. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2012. "Best Management Practices, 

Public Information, and Environmental Education Resources: Urban Stormwater Management 

and Urban Stormwater/Nonpoint Source BMP Research." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/pubs.htm. TN1539. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2012. "Florida Coastal Management 

Program Guide: A Guide to the Federally Approved Florida Coastal Management Program." 

Tallahassee, Florida. Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cmp/default.htm. TN1544. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2013. "Siting Coordination." 

Tallahassee, Florida. Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/default.htm. TN2629. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2013. "Solid Waste Management in 

Florida 2012 Annual Report; Table 4A-1: Total tons of MSW Managed in Florida Facilities 

(2012)." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/12_data.htm. TN2949. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2013. "Source Water Assessment & 

Protection Program: Atlantic Sugar Association Inc." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

https://tlhwww4.dep.state.fl.us/swapp/DisplayPWS.asp?pws_id=4501640&odate=01-OCT-12. 

TN2964. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2013. "Emission Sources: NSR/PSD 

Construction Permits—FPL West County Energy Center, Palm Beach County." Tallahassee, 

Florida. Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/emission/construction/westcounty.htm. 

TN2965. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2013. "Indiantown Cogeneration 

Plant." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/certified_facilities_map/power_plants/SED/indiantown.htm. 

TN2967. 
References 

October 2016 11-27 NUREG–2176 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2013. "Okeelanta Cogeneration 

Facility." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/certified_facilities_map/power_plants/SED/okeelanta.htm. 

TN2968. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2013. "Emission Sources Air 

Compliance and Enforcement Search (ACES): Southern Gardens Citrus Processing Corp." 

Tallahassee, Florida. Accessed March 22, 2013, at 

http://appprod.dep.state.fl.us/air/emission/aces/ACES_facility.asp?txtFacID=3322. TN2969. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2013. "Emission Sources: NSR/PSD 

Construction Permits—FPL Fort Myers Combustion Turbine Project." Tallahassee, Florida. 

Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/emission/construction/fort_meyers.htm. TN3003. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2013. Notice of Permit: Permit 

Number 293962-002-UC, UIC—FPL Turkey Point, Class I Injection Well, July 29, 2013. 

Southeast District Office, West Palm Beach, Florida. Available at 

http://webapps.dep.state.fl.us/DepStaging/api/dms/35.83109.1. Accession No. ML16278A746. 

TN4784.

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2014. "Indian River Lagoon 

Preserve." Florida Communities Trust Parks Directory, Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://webapps.dep.state.fl.us/DslParks/details/831. TN3104. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2014. "Turkey Point Power Plant." 

Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/certified_facilities_map/power_plants/SED/turkey_point.htm. 

TN3676. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2014. "Statewide Comprehensive 

Verified List of Impaired Waters." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/assessment/docs/303d/Comp-Verified-List2014.xlsx. TN4139. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2014. Administrative Order from 

FDEP to Florida Power & Light Company, dated December 23, 2014, regarding "Cooling Canal 

System Salinity Management Plan." Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML15026A548. 

TN4144. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2014. Conditions of Certification, 

Florida Power & Light Company, Turkey Point Plant Units 6 & 7. PA 03-45A3, Tallahassee, 

Florida. Available at 

http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/Siting/Outgoing/Web/Certification/pa03_45_2014_units6_7.pdf. 

TN4371. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-28 October 2016 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2016. Consent Order between the 

State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Florida Power & Light Company 

regarding settlement of Matters at Issue [Westward Migration of Hypersaline Water from the 

Turkey Point Facility and Potential Releases to Deep Channels on the Eastern and Southern 

Side of the Facility]. OGC File Number 16-0241, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. 

ML16216A216. TN4625. 

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2016. Letter from J. Haberfeld to 

Florida Power & Light Company, Inc., dated May 25, 2016, regarding "Minor Modification to 

FDEP Permit 0293962-002-UC to allow the Inclusion of Biscayne Aquifer Groundwater Disposal 

Directed to the Injection Well." Miami-Dade County UIC Permit ID Number: 0293962-003-

UC/MM. Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML16278A745. TN4787. 

FDHR (Florida Division of Historical Resources). 2010. Letter from L.A. Kimmerer to NRC, 

dated July 28, 2010, regarding "Florida Power & Light Company—Notification and Request for 

Consultation and Participation in the Scoping Process for the Environmental Review of the 

Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7 Combined License Application." DHR Project File Number 2010–

3097, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML102220345. TN1455. 

FDHR (Florida Division of Historical Resources). 2014. "Florida Historical Markers Program—

Glades." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.flheritage.com/preservation/markers/markers.cfm?ID=glades. TN3875. 

FDHR (Florida Division of Historical Resources). 2014. "Florida Historical Markers Program—

Martin." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.flheritage.com/preservation/markers/markers.cfm?ID=martin. TN3876. 

FDHR (Florida Division of Historical Resources). 2014. "Florida Historical Markers Program—

Okeechobee." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.flheritage.com/preservation/markers/markers.cfm?ID=Okeechobee. TN3877. 

FDHR (Florida Division of Historical Resources). 2014. "Florida Historical Markers Program—

St. Lucie." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.flheritage.com/preservation/markers/markers.cfm?ID=StLucie. TN3878. 

FDOH (Florida Department of Health). 2012. "Food and Waterborne Disease Program Annual 

Reports." Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14342A019. TN667. 

FDOR (Florida Department of Revenue). 2010. "Documentary Stamp Tax on Deeds and Other 

Documents that Transfer Interest in Real Property—Reference Sheet." Tallahassee, Florida. 

Available at http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/doc_stamp.html. TN458. 

FDOR (Florida Department of Revenue). 2011. Revenue Collection Report, June 2011. Office 

of Tax Research, Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/pdf/mcr0611.pdf. TN460. 

FDOR (Florida Department of Revenue). 2012. "Florida's Corporate Income Tax." 

Tallahassee, Florida. Available at http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/corporate.html. TN450. 
References 

October 2016 11-29 NUREG–2176 

FDOR (Florida Department of Revenue). 2012. "Florida's Sales and Use Tax." Tallahassee, 

Florida. Available at http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/sales_tax.html. TN456. 

FDOR (Florida Department of Revenue). 2012. "Communications Services Tax." Tallahassee, 

Florida. Available at http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/cst.html. TN457. 

FDOR (Florida Department of Revenue). 2012. "Property Tax Information, Information for Tax 

Payers." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/property/. TN459. 

FDOR (Florida Department of Revenue). 2014. "Forms and Publications—Discretionary Sales 

Surtax Rates for 2014." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/forms/. 

TN3393. 

FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation). 2011. "County Level of Service Spreadsheet—

Glades and Okeechobee Counties." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/programs/sm/los/districts/district1/default.shtm. 

TN3557. 

FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation). 2012. "Major Construction Projects on Florida's 

Highways." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/publicinformationoffice/moreDOT/majorprojects.shtm. TN1132. 

FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation). 2013. 2013 Quality Level of Service Handbook. 

Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/programs/sm/los/pdfs/2013%20QLOS%20Handboo

k.pdf. TN3297. 

FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation). 2013. "2013 FDOT Florida Traffic Online." 

Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML15036A339. TN3558. 

FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation). 2014. "Major Construction Projects on Florida's 

Highways." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/publicinformationoffice/moreDOT/majorprojects.shtm. TN4014. 

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2002. "Flood Insurance Rate Map, Martin 

County, Florida and Incorporated Areas, Panel 250 of 527. Map Number 12085C0250F." 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14345A282. TN4119. 

FERA (Fire and Environmental Research Application Team). 2014. "Piled Fuels Biomass and 

Emissions Calculator Procedures for Estimating Pile Volume, Biomass, and Emissions." 

Seattle, Washington. Available at 

http://depts.washington.edu/nwfire/piles/support/pile_proc.pdf. TN4002. 

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2015. Order Amending Certificate: Floridian 

Natural Gas Storage Company, LLC, Docket No. CP13-541-000. 152 FERC ¶ 61,041, 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML16216A218. TN4599. 

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2015. Floridian Natural Gas Amendment 

Project Environmental Assessment. FERC Docket No. CP13-541-000, Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML16216A219. TN4600. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-30 October 2016 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2008. "Bald Eagle 

Management." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://myfwc.com/media/427567/Eagle_Plan_April_2008.pdf. TN1448. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2010. "Shortnose Sturgeon 

Population Evaluation in the St. Johns River, Florida." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/sturgeon/research/population-evaluation/. TN160. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2010. Manatee Mortality Winter 

2008–2009. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Florida. Available at 

http://myfwc.com/research/manatee/rescue-mortality-response/mortality-statistics/winter-2008-

2009/. TN161. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2010. "Blue Crab, Callinectes 

sapidus, Rathbun, 1896." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/status-trends/invertebrates/blue-crab/. TN162. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2010. "Statement on Estimating 

Panther Population Size." Tallahassee, Florida. Accessed April 18, 2014, at 

http://myfwc.com/news/resources/fact-sheets/panther-population/. TN3438. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2010. "Caribbean Spiny 

Lobster, Panulirus argus." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://myfwc.com/media/195820/caribbean_spiny_lobster.pdf. TN4071. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2011. Florida's Endangered and 

Threatened Species. Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://myfwc.com/media/1515251/threatened_endangered_species.pdf. TN158. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2011. "Saltwater." Fish and 

Wildlife Research Institute, Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/. TN159. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2011. Letter from J. Walsh to 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, dated June 13, 2011, regarding "Site 

Certification Application, Florida Power & Light, Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, Miami-Dade 

County, Florida; PA03-45A3, Agency Report, Transmission Line Portion." Tallahassee, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14328A281. TN554. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2011. Supplemental Information 

for the Everglades Mink Biological Status Review Report. Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://myfwc.com/media/2273466/Everglades-Mink-Supplemental-Information.pdf. TN643. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2011. Annual Report on the 

Research and Management of Florida Panthers: 2010–2011. Naples, Florida. Available at 

http://www.floridapanthernet.org/index.php/reports/. TN1579. 
References 

October 2016 11-31 NUREG–2176 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2011. "Sea Stats, Blue Crab." 

Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Florida. Available at 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34983418/Sea-Stats-Blue-Crab. TN2220. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2012. "Alligator Facts." 

Tallahassee, Florida. Available at http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/managed/alligator/facts/. 

TN163. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2012. "American Crocodiles, 

Crocodylus acutus." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/profiles/reptiles-and-amphibians/reptiles/american-crocodiles. 

TN164. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2012. Letter from S. Sanders to 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, dated March 23, 2012, regarding "Site 

Certification Application, Florida Power & Light, Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, Miami-Dade 

County, Florida; PA03-45A3, Agency Report, Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Site Portion." 

Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14328A282. TN520. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2012. Email from R. Hardy to J. 

Ward and R. Trindell, dated November 28, 2012, regarding "Question on FFWCC Sea Turtle 

GIS Mapping Website." Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14345A283. TN4120. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2013. Email from J. Goff to C. 

Duberstein, dated March 14, 2013, regarding "Review of Snail Kite Locations and the Proposed 

Power Line through Everglades National Park and Water Conservation Area 3B." West Palm 

Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14328A283. TN2339. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2013. "Lake Okeechobee." 

Tallahassee, Florida. Available at http://myfwc.com/fishing/freshwater/sites-forecast/s/lakeokeechobee. TN2842. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2013. Florida's Endangered and 

Threatened Species, Updated January 2013. Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://myfwc.com/media/1515251/threatened_endangered_species.pdf. TN3075. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2014. "DuPuis Wildlife and 

Environmental Area." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://myfwc.com/viewing/recreation/wmas/cooperative/dupuis. TN2977. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2014. "Enjoying Your Wildlife 

Management Areas." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at http://myfwc.com/viewing/recreation/. 

TN2981. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2014. "Kissimmee River Public 

Use Area." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://myfwc.com/viewing/recreation/wmas/cooperative/kissimmee-river. TN3004. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-32 October 2016 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2014. "Lionfish—Pterois 

volitans." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/nonnatives/marine-species/lionfish/. TN3065. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2014. "Florida Manatee Yearly 

Mortality Summaries, 1974–2011." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.myfwc.com/research/manatee/rescue-mortality-response/mortality-statistics/yearly/. 

TN3478. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2014. "Florida Sea Turtle 

Nesting Beach Monitoring Program." Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Tallahassee, 

Florida. Available at http://ocean.floridamarine.org/SeaTurtle/nesting/FlexViewer/. TN3530. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2014. "Burrowing Owl: Athene 

cunicularia." Available at http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/profiles/birds/owls/burrowing-owl/. 

TN3570. 

FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2014. "Tegus in Florida." 

Tallahassee, Florida. Available at http://www.myfwc.com/media/2380549/Tegu-brochure.pdf. 

TN4048. 

Fischer, L.E., C.K. Chou, M.A. Gerhard, C.Y. Kimura, R.W. Martin, R.W. Mensing, M.E. Mount, 

and M.C. Witte. 1987. Shipping Container Response to Severe Highway and Railway Accident 

Conditions. NUREG/CR–4829, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California. 

Accession Nos. ML070810403, ML070810404. TN4105. 

Fish, J.E. and M. Stewart. 1991. Hydrogeology of the Surficial Aquifer System, Dade County, 

Florida. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4108, Tallahassee, 

Florida. Accession No. ML14267A010. TN1340. 

FISP (Florida Invasive Species Partnership). 2009. "Treasure Coast Cooperative Invasive 

Management Area Distribution Maps." Jensen Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14342A020. 

TN3064. 

FKAA (Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority). 2014. "Where Does Our Water Come From?" Key 

West, Florida. Accession No. ML14342A021. TN3649. 

Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 25-22. 1981. Chapter 25-22, "Rules Governing Practice and 

Procedure." Florida Administrative Code Annotated, Tallahassee, Florida. TN1056. 

Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 62-17. 2012. Chapter 62-17, "Electrical Power Plant Siting." Florida 

Administrative Code Annotated, Tallahassee, Florida. TN1247. 

Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 62-296. 2012. Chapter 62-296, "Stationary Sources—Emission 

Standards." Florida Administrative Code Annotated, Tallahassee, Florida. TN555.

Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 62-302. 2009. Chapter 62-302, "Surface Water Quality Standards." 

Florida Administrative Code Annotated, Tallahassee, Florida. TN776. 
References 

October 2016 11-33 NUREG–2176 

Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 62-4. 2012. Chapter 62-4, "Permits." Florida Administrative Code 

Annotated, Tallahassee, Florida. TN1084. 

Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 62-520. 2012. Chapter 62-520, "Ground Water Classes, Standards, 

and Exemptions." Florida Administrative Code Annotated, Tallahassee, Florida. TN1252 

Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 62-528. 2012. Chapter 62-528, "Underground Injection Control." 

Florida Administrative Code Annotated, Tallahassee, Florida. TN556. 

Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 62-600. 2006. Chapter 62-600, "Domestic Wastewater Facilities." 

Florida Administrative Code Annotated, Tallahassee, Florida. TN1268. 

Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 62-610. 2012. Chapter 62-610, "Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land 

Application." Florida Administrative Code Annotated, Tallahassee, Florida. TN1269. 

Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 62-621. 2011. Chapter 62-621, "Generic Permits." Florida 

Administrative Code Annotated, Tallahassee, Florida. TN709. 

Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 62-814. 2008. Chapter 62-814, "Electric and Magnetic Fields." 

Florida Administrative Code Annotated, Tallahassee, Florida. TN644. 

Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 64E-6. 2010. Chapter 64E-6, "Standards for Onsite Sewage 

Treatment and Disposal Systems." Florida Administrative Code Annotated, Tallahassee, 

Florida. TN642. 

Fla. Stat. 14. 2012. "Florida Statutes Chapters Relating to Ad Valorem Taxation: Title XIV: 

Taxation and Finance." Florida Statutes, Tallassee, Florida. TN1585. 

Fla. Stat. 11-163.3164. 2010. "Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land 

Development Regulation Act." Florida Statutes, Tallahassee, Florida. TN1240. 

Fla. Stat. 28-380. 2011. "Land and Water Management." Florida Statutes, Tallahassee, 

Florida. TN1147. 

Fla. Stat. 29-403.501. 2009. "Electrical Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting [also known 

as Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act]." Florida Statutes, Tallahassee, Florida. TN1068. 

Fla. Stat. 29-403.50665. 2011. "Land Use Consistency." Florida Statutes, Tallahassee, 

Florida. TN1470. 

Fla. Stat. 29-403.519. 2011. "Exclusive Forum for Determination of Need." Florida Statutes,

Tallahassee, Florida. TN1057. 

Fla. Stat. 29-403.814. 2011. "Public Health, Environmental Control, Environmental Regulation, 

General Permits; Delegations." Florida Statutes, Tallahassee, Florida. TN1259. 

Fla. Stat. 8-187. 2011. "State Comprehensive Plan." Florida Statutes, Tallahassee, Florida. 

TN1503. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-34 October 2016 

FLDFS (Florida Department of Financial Services). 2013. "Local Government Financial 

Reporting—Total Revenues." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at

https://apps.fldfs.com/LocalGov/Reports/AdHoc.aspx. TN3392. 

FLDOE (Florida Department of Education). 2011. "Traditional Schools 2010–2011 Class Size 

Averages and FTE/Classes Over Cap." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.fldoe.org/fefp/fte1.asp. TN1491. 

FLDOE (Florida Department of Education). 2012. "Florida's Class Size Reduction Amendment 

History." Available at http://www.fldoe.org/classsize/. Tallahassee, Florida. TN1490. 

FLDOE (Florida Department of Education). 2012. "Florida Public Schools Full-Time Equivalent 

(FTE)." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at http://www.fldoe.org/fefp/ftel.asp. TN1492. 

FLDOE (Florida Department of Education). 2012. "School District Summary Budget, Glades, 

Martin, Okeechobee, and St. Lucie School Districts." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.fldoe.org/fefp/sdsb.asp. TN3391. 

FLDOE (Florida Department of Education). 2013. "Financial Profiles of Florida School Districts, 

2011–2012 Financial Data Statistical Report." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7506/urlt/0084488-11-12profiles.pdf. TN3299. 

FLEPPC (Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council). 2011. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's 2011 

List of Invasive Plant Species. Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Accession No. ML12195A228. 

TN240. 

Flint, R.W. and R.D. Kalke. 1986. "Biological Enhancement of Estuarine Benthic Community 

Structure." Marine Ecology—Progress Series 31:23–33, Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany. TN1003. 

Florida State Parks. 2012. "Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammock Botanical State Park." 

Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14195A287. TN1119. 

Florida State Parks. 2012. "The Barnacle Historic State Park." Tallahassee, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14195A319. TN1120. 

Florida State Parks. 2012. "Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park." Tallahassee, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14195A349. TN1121. 

Florida State Parks. 2012. "John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park." Tallahassee, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14195A386. TN1122. 

Florida State Parks. 2012. "Lignumvitae Key Botanical State Park." Tallahassee, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14195A425. TN1123. 

Florida State Parks. 2012. "Long Key State Park." Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14206B105. TN1124. 

Florida State Parks. 2012. "San Pedro Underwater Archaeological Preserve State Park." 

Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14206B121. TN1125. 
References 

October 2016 11-35 NUREG–2176 

Florida State Parks. 2012. "Indian Key Historic State Park." Tallahassee, Florida. Accession 

No. ML14206B131. TN1126. 

Florida State Parks. 2012. "Windley Key Fossil Reef Geological State Park." Tallahassee, 

Florida. Accession No. ML14206B139. TN1127. 

Florida State Parks. 2012. "Oleta River State Park." Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14206B145. TN1128. 

Florida State Parks. 2012. "John U. Lloyd Beach State Park." Tallahassee, Florida. Accession 

No. ML14211A391. TN1129. 

Florida State Parks. 2014. "Highland Hammock State Park." Tallahassee, Florida. Accession 

No. ML14342A012. TN2972. 

Florida State Parks. 2014. "Lake June-in-Winter Scrub State Park." Tallahassee, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14342A013. TN2973. 

Florida State Parks. 2014. "Jonathan Dickinson State Park." Tallahassee, Florida. Available 

at http://www.floridastateparks.org/jonathandickinson/. TN3048. 

Florida State Parks. 2014. "Savannas Preserve State Park." Tallahassee, Florida. Available 

at https://www.floridastateparks.org/park/Savannas. TN3050. 

Florida State Parks. 2014. "Fort Pierce Inlet State Park." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

https://www.floridastateparks.org/park/Fort-Pierce-Inlet. TN3053. 

Florida State Parks. 2014. "St. Sebastian River Preserve State Park." Tallahassee, Florida. 

Available at https://www.floridastateparks.org/park/St-Sebastian-River. TN3055. 

Florida State Parks. 2014. "John D. MacArthur Beach State Park." Tallahassee, Florida. 

Available at https://www.floridastateparks.org/park/MacArthur-Beach. TN3057. 

Florida State Parks. 2014. "Sebastian Inlet State Park." Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

https://www.floridastateparks.org/park/Sebastian-Inlet. TN3102. 

Florida State Parks. 2014. "Kissimmee Prairie Preserve State Park." Tallahassee, Florida. 

Available at https://www.floridastateparks.org/park/Kissimmee-Prairie. TN3196. 

FMNH (Florida Museum of Natural History). 2010. "Biological Profiles Mangrove Rivulus." 

Ichthyology at the Florida Museum of National History, Gainesville, Florida. Available at 

https://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/MangroveRivulus/MangroveRivulus.html. 

TN165. 

FMNH (Florida Museum of Natural History). 2010. "Biological Profiles Dusky Shark." 

Ichthyology at the Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, Florida. Available at 

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/duskyshark/duskyshark.html. TN166. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-36 October 2016 

FMNH (Florida Museum of Natural History). 2012. "Ichthyology at the Florida Museum of 

Natural History Biological Profiles." Gainesville, Florida. Available at 

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Education/bioprofile.htm. TN167.

FMNH (Florida Museum of Natural History). 2012. "Seagrass Species Profiles." South Florida 

Aquatic Environments, Gainesville, Florida. Available at 

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/southflorida/seagrass/profiles.html. TN1014. 

FMPA (Florida Municipal Power Agency). 2014. "Treasure Coast Energy Center." Orlando, 

Florida. Available at http://fmpa.com/fort-pierce-power-plant-makes-electricity-more-affordablereliable/. TN3029. 

FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2000. Field Guide to the Rare Plants and Animals of 

Florida. Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML12193A519. TN139. 

FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2009. Letter from A. Newberry to Golder Associates, 

dated December 1, 2009, regarding "Crystal River Energy Complex—Brookridge Substation."

Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML110840158. TN815. 

FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2010. Development of a Cooperative Land Cover Map: 

Final Report. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14336A379. TN3515. 

FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2012. "Florida's Conservation Lands [interactive map]." 

Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14287A531. TN1445. 

FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2013. "FNAI Tracking List: Glades County." 

Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A380. TN2850. 

FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2013. "FNAI Tracking List: St. Lucie County." 

Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A381. TN3066. 

FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2014. "FNAI—Element Tracking Summary, 2014–07–

10." Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A382. TN3666. 

FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2014. "FNAI Tracking List: Miami-Dade County." 

Tallahassee, Florida. Available at http://fnai.org/trackinglist.cfm. TN3668. 

FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2013. "FNAI Tracking List: Martin County." 

Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A383. TN2900. 

FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2013. "FNAI Tracking List: Okeechobee County." 

Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A378. TN2901. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2000. Letter from P.C. Hindes to Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission, dated December 12, 2000, regarding "Activity Report for 

Permit #WX95031." L-2011-218, Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML11168A043. TN202. 
References 

October 2016 11-37 NUREG–2176 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2000. Florida Power & Light Company Application for 

Renewed Operating Licenses, Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, Applicant's Environmental Report—

Operating License Renewal Stage, Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. Florida Power & Light Company 

Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Revision 1, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML003749667. TN3947. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2003. Letter from J. Wasilewski to State of Florida Fish 

& Wildlife, dated February 27, 2003, regarding "Turkey Point Plant Annual American Crocodile 

Report 2001." L-2011-218, Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML11168A043. TN168. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2003. Letter from J. Wasilewski to State of Florida Fish 

& Wildlife, dated February 27, 2003, regarding "Turkey Point Plant Annual American Crocodile 

Monitoring Report 2002." L-2011-218, Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML11168A043. 

TN203. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2003. Letter from J. Wasilewski to State of Florida Fish 

& Wildlife, dated September 26, 2003, regarding "Turkey Point Plant Annual American Crocodile 

Monitoring Report 2003." L-2011-218, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11168A043. 

TN204. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2003. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2002 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. L-2003-112, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession 

No. ML031350617. TN1369. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2003. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2002 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. Revision 1, L-2003-238, Juno Beach, Florida. 

Accession No. ML032810469. TN1370. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2003. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2002 Radioactive 

Effluent Release Report. L-2003-077, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML030920504. 

TN1380. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2003. Site Certification Application, Turkey Point 

Expansion Project. Volume 1, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A328. TN3437. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2004. Letter from J. Wasilewski to State of Florida Fish 

& Wildlife, dated September 15, 2004, regarding "Turkey Point Plant Annual American Crocodile 

Monitoring Report 2004." L-2011-218, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11168A043. 

TN205. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2004. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2003 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. L-2004-097, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession 

No. ML041400119. TN1371. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2004. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2003 Radioactive 

Effluent Release Report. L-2004-077, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML040930368. 

TN1381. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-38 October 2016 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2005. Letter from S.M. Foster to U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, dated December 15, 2005, regarding "Turkey Point Plant Annual American Crocodile 

Monitoring Report (2005)." L-2011-218, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11168A043. 

TN206. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2005. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2004 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. L-2005-098, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession 

No. ML051440525. TN1372. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2005. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2004 Radioactive 

Effluent Release Report. L-2005-066, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML050960370. 

TN1382. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2005. Letter from W. Jefferson, Jr., to NRC, dated 

December 12, 2005, regarding "St. Lucie Units 1 and 2, Biological Assessment Regarding 

Smalltooth Sawfish Event." L-2005-249, Jensen Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML053560209. 

TN3156. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2006. FPL Turkey Point Plant Annual American 

Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) Report. L-2011-218, Permit WS03357, Juno Beach, Florida. 

Accession No. ML11168A043. TN207. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2006. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2005 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. L-2006-107, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession 

No. ML061430276. TN1373. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2006. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2005 Radioactive 

Effluent Release Report. L-2006-090, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML060940646. 

TN1383. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2007. FPL Turkey Point Plant Annual American 

Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) Report. L-2011-218, Permits WS06468 and WX06467, Juno 

Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11180A084. TN208. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2007. Before the Florida Public Service Commission, 

Docket No. 070659-EI, In Re: Florida Power & Light Company's Petition to Determine Need for 

Turkey Point Nuclear Units 6 and 7 Electrical Power Plant—Need Study for Electrical Power, 

Appendices A–K. Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML083080627. TN445. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2007. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2006 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. L-2007-053, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession 

No. ML071360135. TN1375. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2007. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2006 Radioactive 

Effluent Release Report. L-2007-054, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML070920509. 

TN1384. 
References 

October 2016 11-39 NUREG–2176 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2007. Before the Florida Public Service Commission, 

Docket No. 07-El, In Re: Florida Power & Light Company's Petition to Determine Need for 

Turkey Point Nuclear Units 6 and 7 Electrical Power Plant—Direct Testimony and Exhibits 

(Illustrative Deployment Process Timeline, Project Bluegrass Site Selection Study Report, and 

FPL Technology Review) of S.D. Scroggs. Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A329. 

TN3854. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2008. FPL Turkey Point Plant Annual American 

Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) Report. L-2011-218, Permit TE092945-1, Juno Beach, Florida. 

Accession No. ML11180A084. TN209. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2008. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2007 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. L-2008-115, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession 

No. ML081490348. TN1376. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2008. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2007 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report Resubmittal. L-2008-170, Juno Beach, Florida. 

Accession No. ML082270382. TN1377. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2008. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2007 Radioactive 

Effluent Release Report. L-2008-061, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML080940605. 

TN1385. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2008. "Request for Information on Federal Listed 

Species in Miami-Dade County, Florida." FLNA-08-0288, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14336A330. TN1897. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2009. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2008 Annual 

Radioactive Effluent Release Report. L-2009-044, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML090760628. TN100. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2009. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2008 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. L-2009-096, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession 

No. ML091470288. TN101. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2009. Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Barge Delivery Plan 

Barge Facility. Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML12240A281. TN169. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2009. Final Fish Surveys of the Turkey Point Property 

Associated with Units 6 & 7, June 23–24, 2009. L-2011-218, Homestead, Florida. Accession 

No. ML11168A043. TN201. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2009. FPL Turkey Point Plant Annual American 

Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) Report. L-2011-218, Federal Permit TE092945-1, State Permits 

WS06468a and WX06467a, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11180A084. TN210. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-40 October 2016 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2009. Final Summary Report Botanical Survey for 

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants—Turkey Point Proposed Transmission Lines. L2011-163, Tetra Tech EC, Inc., Stuart, Florida. Accession Nos. ML11118A173, ML11118A174. 

TN657. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2009. Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Completeness 

Responses—Plant and Non-Transmission Associated Facilities. 0938-7652, Juno Beach, 

Florida. Accession No. ML14336A331. TN974. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2009. Letter from B.P. Linkiewicz to T. Vielhauer, dated 

June 29, 2009, regarding "Air Permit Application and Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Analysis." FPLNNP-09-0497, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12269A220. TN1023. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2009. Letter from M. Nazar to NRC, dated June 30, 

2009, regarding "Application for Combined License for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7." L-2009-

144, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML091830589. TN1229. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2009. Letter from M. Gettler to NRC, dated August 7, 

2009, regarding "Supplemental Meteorological Data in Support of Application for Combined 

License." L-2009-146, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML092250585. TN1230. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2009. Baseline Noise Report Florida Power & Light 

Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Homestead, Florida. Revision 0, Golder Associates, Inc., Jacksonville, 

Florida. Accession No. ML14216A546. TN1246. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2009. Turkey Point Exploratory Drilling and Aquifer 

Performance Test Program. HDR Engineering, Inc., West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML110820053. TN1263. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2009. Avian Surveys of the Turkey Point Property 

Associated with Units 6 & 7, June 23–24, 2009. L-2011-163, Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, 

South Carolina. Accession Nos. ML11118A175, ML111180713. TN1334. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2009. Mammal Trapping and Herpetology Report 

Turkey Point Property Associated with Units 6 & 7, April 13–16, 2009. L-2011-163, Tetra Tech 

NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. Accession Nos. ML11118A175, ML111180713. TN1444. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2009. Threatened and Endangered Fauna Species 

Survey of Planned Transmission Corridors Levee to Pennsuco and Davis to Miami Turkey Point 

Property Associated with Units 6 & 7. L-2011-163, Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South 

Carolina. Accession Nos. ML11118A175, ML111180713. TN1449. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2009. Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Work 

Plan for the Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Site and Associated Non-Linear Facilities. L-2011-095, 

Janus Research, Tampa, Florida. Accession No. ML11109A021. TN1513. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2009. Preliminary Cultural Resources Report for the 

Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Associated Linear Facilities [Redacted]. L-2011-095, Janus Research, 

Tampa, Florida. Accession No. ML11109A022. TN1514. 
References 

October 2016 11-41 NUREG–2176 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2009. Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Work 

Plan for the Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Associated Linear Facilities [Redacted]. L-2011-095, 

Janus Research, Tampa, Florida. Accession No. ML11109A022. TN1515. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2009. "Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Industrial Wastewater 

Facility Permit Application." FL0001562-004-IWIN, Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14300A267. TN1520. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2009. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated November 

24, 2009, regarding "Revised Hydrology Response to NRC Information Request in COL 

Application Acceptance Review Letter." L-2009-265, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML093310169. TN2474. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2010. FPL Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Threatened and 

Endangered Species Evaluation and Management Plan. Revision 1, Homestead, Florida. 

Accession No. ML12240A282. TN170. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2010. FPL Turkey Point Plant Annual American 

Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) Report. L-2011-218, Federal Permit TE092945-1, State Permits 

WS06468a and WX06467a, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11180A084. TN211. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2010. Site Certification Application Turkey Point Units 6 

& 7, Amendment, Revision 1. 0938-7652/230, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14336A332. TN272. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2010. Letter from B. Linkiewicz to Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection, dated May 7, 2012, regarding "FPL Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 

Project, Amendment to Site Certification Application (PA03-45A3)." FPLNNP-10-0125, Juno 

Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14216A492. TN1231. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2010. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated November 

1, 2010, regarding "Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, NRC June 2010 Environmental Audit, 

Supplemental Information Request Response 1." L-2010-172, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession 

No. ML103080837. TN1365. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2010. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2009 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. L-2010-077, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession 

No. ML101440205. TN1378. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2010. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2009 Radioactive 

Effluent Release Report Re-Submittal. L-2010-262, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML103630562. TN1388. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2010. Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Site Certification 

Application: Plant and Non-Transmission Facilities 2nd Round Completeness Responses, Part 

B. 0938-7652, Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A333. TN3664. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-42 October 2016 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated September 

1, 2011, regarding "Response to NRC Environmental Request for Additional Information Letter 

1104071 (RAI 5588) Environmental Standard Review Plan Section 9.3.1—Alternative Site 

Selection Process." L-2011-336, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11250A130. TN36. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated September 

30, 2011, regarding "Response to NRC Environmental Request for Additional Information Letter 

1104121 (RAI 5589) Environmental Standard Review Plan Section 9.3—Alternative Sites." L2011-395, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11277A003. TN40. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated April 15, 

2011, regarding "Response to NRC Environmental Request for Additional Information Letter 

1102233 (RAI 5482) Environmental Standard Review Plan Section 3.1—External Appearance 

and Plant Layout." L-2011-130, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11108A146. TN42. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated June 20, 

2011, regarding "Response to NRC Environmental Request for Additional Information Letter 

1105043 (RAI 5707) Environmental Standard Review Plan Section 4.3.2—Aquatic Impacts." L2011-227, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11172A285. TN43. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated September 

12, 2011, regarding "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter 1107271 (RAI 

5767 Revision 2) Related to ESRP Section 5.2—Water Related Impacts." L-2011-376, Juno 

Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11257A133. TN51. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated July 28, 

2011, regarding "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter 2011001 (RAI 

5770) EIS 9.4—System Design Alternatives, Environmental Report Section 9.4." L-2011-285, 

Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11213A095. TN52. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated April 25, 

2011, regarding "Response to NRC Environmental Request for Additional Information Letter 

1103091 (RAI 5594) Environmental Standard Review Plan Section 5.3.4—Non-Radiological 

Health." L-2011-158, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11116A161. TN55. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated April 26, 

2011, regarding "Response to NRC Environmental Request for Additional Information Letter 

1103102 (RAI 5570) Environmental Standard Review Plan Section 2.5—Socioeconomics." L2011-162, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11118A177. TN56. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated September 

2, 2011, regarding "Response to NRC Environmental Request for Additional Information Letter 

1103094 (RAI 5563) Environmental Standard Review Plan Section 9.3—Alternative Sites." L2011-335, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11251A209. TN59. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated April 26, 

2011, regarding "Response to NRC Environmental Request for Additional Information Letter 

1103101 (RAI 5562) Environmental Standard Review Plan Section 2.4.1—Terrestrial and 

Wetlands Ecology." L-2011-163, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML111180713. TN94. 
References 

October 2016 11-43 NUREG–2176 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated April 15, 

2011, regarding "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter 1102231 (eRAI 

5480) Environmental Standard Review Plan Section 2.7—Cultural Resources." L-2011-095, 

Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML111090274. TN95. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4, 2010 Annual 

Radioactive Effluent Release Report. L-2011-045, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML110680196. TN119. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Letter from M.K. Nazar to NRC, dated December 

16, 2011, regarding "Combined License Application Submittal 9, Submittal of the Annual Update 

of the COL Application—Revision 3 and the Semi-Annual Update of the Departures Report." L2011-529, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11361A102. TN127. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Turkey Point Plant Units 6 and 7 COL 

Application, Part 2—Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 3, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession 

No. ML11362A143. TN128. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2010 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. L-2011-160, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession 

No. ML11140A084. TN267. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Stormwater Management Plan and Calculations. 

Golder Associates, Jacksonville, Florida. Accession No. ML12192A238. TN303. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Personal Communications with Miccosukee 

Tribe of Indians of Florida, Metro Miami Action Plan Trust and Miami-Dade Office of Community 

Advocacy. L-2011-162, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML11118A177. TN435. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Site Certification 

Application Plant and Non-Transmission Facilities 4th Round Completeness Responses. 0938-

7652, Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A334. TN495. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Mitigation Plan. 

Revision 2, 093-87652, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12269A222. TN1012. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Conceptual Earthwork and Materials Disposal 

Plan. FPLMDC-11-0232, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12269A221. TN1042. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. FPL Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Threatened and 

Endangered Species Evaluation and Management Plan. Revision 1, Homestead, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14217A138. TN1283. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Project Tree Survey. 

Golder Associates, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida. Accession No. ML14217A580. TN1312. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Section 404(b)(1) 

Alternatives Analysis. L-2011-477, 093-87652, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML11319A035. TN1374. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-44 October 2016 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated February 

28, 2011, regarding "Submittal of Groundwater Model Development and Analysis: Units 6 & 7 

Dewatering and Radial Collector Well Simulations, Revision 1." L-2011-082, Juno Beach, 

Florida. Accession Nos. ML110610723, ML110610724, ML110610726. TN1440. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. "Table 4-MDC-D-11: Tree Survey." Golder 

Associates, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida. Accession No. ML14287A752. TN1471. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Cultural Resource Assessment Survey for the 

Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Site, Associated Non-Linear Facilities, and Spoils Areas on Plant 

Property. L-2011-095, Janus Research, Tampa, Florida. Accession Nos. ML11109A019, 

ML11109A017. TN1512. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2011. Letter from J. Lindsay to E. Haubold, dated 

December 30, 2011, regarding "Annual American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) Report, 

Federal Permit TE092945-2, State Permits WS06462a and WX06467a." Juno Beach, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14336A335. TN2471. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated January 23, 

2012, regarding "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter 1112081 (RAI 

5765) Related to ESRP Section 4.2—Water-Related Impacts." L-2012-031, Juno Beach, 

Florida. Accession No. ML12025A263. TN126. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated March 7, 

2012, regarding "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter 1112081 (RAI 

5765) ESRP Section 4.2—Water-Related Impacts." L-2012-101, Juno Beach, Florida. 

Accession No. ML12074A041. TN263. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. "Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant Fact Sheet." 

Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12269A229. TN1058. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. "Port Everglades Next Generation Clean Energy 

Center." Juno Beach, Florida. Accessed June 11, 2012 at 

http://www.fpl.com/environment/plant/port_everglades.shtml. TN1081. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated May 21, 

2012, regarding "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter 1221031 (RAI 

5766, Rev. 2) ESRP Section 5.2—Water-Related Impacts." L-2012-217, Juno Beach, Florida. 

Accession No. ML12143A357. TN1262. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated March 7, 

2012, regarding "Submittal of Underground Injection Control Exploratory Well Final Casing 

Setting Depth Recommendation." L-2012-089, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML12069A266. TN1264. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated February 

13, 2012, regarding "Submittal of Underground Injection Control Exploratory Well Weekly 

Construction Summaries—#37, #38, and #39." L-2012-055, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession 

No. ML120461014. TN1265. 
References 

October 2016 11-45 NUREG–2176 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated May 21, 

2012, regarding "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter 120403 (RAI 6350 

Rev. 1) Related to ESRP Section 5.8.1—Etiological Agents." L-2012-225, Juno Beach, Florida. 

Accession No. ML12143A356. TN1270. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2011 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. L-2012-189, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession 

No. ML12138A137. TN1379. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2011 Radioactive 

Effluent Release Report. L-2012-070, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12083A053. 

TN1389. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated June 13, 

2012, regarding "Supplemental Updated Ecology Information for the Combined License 

Application Part 3—Environmental Report." L-2012-252, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML12167A300. TN1446. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated September 

12, 2012, regarding "Clarification Information for the Combined License Application, Part 3—

Environmental Report, Subsection 4.4.2.2.4—Transportation." L-2012-345, Juno Beach, 

Florida. Accession No. ML12261A403. TN1463. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated April 3, 

2012, regarding "Updated Ecology Information for the Combined License Application Part 3—

Environmental Report." L-2012-142, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12096A039. 

TN1468. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Report on the Construction and Testing of Class 

V Exploratory Well EW-1 at the Florida Power & Light Company Turkey Point Units 6 & 7. 

McNabb Hydrogeologic Consulting, Inc., Jupiter, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A337. 

TN1577. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Federal Biological 

Assessment for Six Listed Species. L-2012-432, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML123390437. TN1618. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated December 

12, 2012, regarding "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter 120830 (eRAI 

6353 Rev. 2) Related to ESRP Section 9.3.1—Alternative Site Selection." L-2012-440, Juno 

Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12349A243. TN1727. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Turkey Point Plant, Units 6 and 7 COL 

Application, Part 3—Environmental Report. Revision 4, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14336A338. TN2043. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Letter from J. Lindsay to L. Williams, dated 

December 20, 2012, regarding "Annual American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) Report, 

Federal Permit TE092945-2." Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A341. TN2470. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-46 October 2016 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Letter from M.J. Raffenberg to C. Mulkey, dated 

November 12, 2012, regarding "FPL Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Project Amendment to Site 

Certification Application (PA 03-45A3)." FPLDEP-12-0370, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14336A342. TN2582. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated October 17, 

2012, regarding "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter 120329, (eRAI 

6354 Rev 0) Related to ESRP Section 2.3.1—Hydrology." L-2012-337, Juno Beach, Florida. 

Accession No. ML12293A236. TN2688. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Project Manatee 

Protection Plan. Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A343. TN2768. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Turkey Point Plant Comprehensive Pre-Uprate 

Monitoring Report, Units 3 and 4 Uprate Project. Ecology and Environment, Inc., Lancaster, 

New York. Accession No. ML15026A503. TN3439. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Report on the Construction and Testing of DualZone Monitor Well DZMW-1 at the Florida Power & Light Company, Turkey Point Units 6 & 7. 

McNabb Hydrogeologic Consulting, Inc., Jupiter, Florida. Accession No. ML14342A010. 

TN4053. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2012. Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Mitigation Plan (USACE 

Supplement). Revision 2, 093-87652, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML16216A222. 

TN4629. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2013. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2012 Radioactive 

Effluent Release Report. L-2013-085, Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML13071A554. 

TN2578. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2013. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2012 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. L-2013-159, Homestead, Florida. Accession No. 

ML13177A107. TN2579. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2013. Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 2013–2022. 

Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A344. TN2630. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2013. Letter from FPL to NRC, dated December 16, 

2013, regarding "Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Combined License Application Submittal 

12, Submittal of the Annual Update of the COL Application—Revision 5 and the Semi-Annual 

Update of the Departures Report." L-2013-312, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML13357A664. TN2885. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2013. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated November 

5, 2013, regarding "Florida Power & Light Company Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, 

Docket Nos. 52-040 and 52-041, Supplemental Transmission Corridor Information for the 

Combined License Application Part 3—Environmental Report." L-2013-311, Juno Beach, 

Florida. Accession No. ML13311A105. TN2941. 
References 

October 2016 11-47 NUREG–2176 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2013. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated July 8, 

2013, regarding "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter 121114 (eRAI 

6879) Related to ESRP Section 9.3.1—Alternative Site Selection." L-2013-213, Juno Beach, 

Florida. Accession No. ML13196A064. TN3052. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2013. Turkey Point Plant, Units 6 & 7 COL Application, 

Part 7—Departures and Exemption Requests. Revision 5, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML13357A454. TN3083. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2013. Letter from J. Lindsay to R. Hinzman, dated 

December 30, 2013, regarding "2013 Annual Report for the Federal Fish and Wildlife 

Endangered Species Permit, TE092945-2." Juno Beach, Florida. TN3232. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2013. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated February 

12, 2013, regarding "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter No. 58 (eRAI 

6434)—Concerning Implementation of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendations." 

L-2013-047, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML13064A141. TN3241. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2013. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated March 26, 

2013, regarding "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter 120830 (eRAI 

6353 Rev. 2) Related to ESRP Section 9.3.1—Alternative Site Selection." L-2013-100, Juno 

Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML13087A196. TN3546. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2013. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated August 9, 

2013, regarding "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter No. 072 (eRAI 

6985)—SRP Section 11.02—Liquid Waste Management Systems." L-2013-216, Juno Beach, 

Florida. Accession No. ML13225A029. TN3931. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2013. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual for Gaseous 

and Liquid Effluents from the Turkey Point Plant Units 3 and 4. Revision 20, Juno Beach, 

Florida. Accession No. ML14070A086. TN3944. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. "Solar Energy Centers." Juno Beach, Florida. 

Available at http://www.fpl.com/environment/solar/projects.shtml. TN2974. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. "Sabal Trail Transmission & Florida Southeast 

Connection." Juno Beach, Florida. Available at 

http://www.fpl.com/environment/lines/pipeline_projects.shtml. TN2975. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. "Riviera Beach Next Generation Clean Energy 

Center." Juno Beach, Florida. Available at http://www.fpl.com/environment/plant/riviera.shtml. 

TN3033. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 2014–2023. 

Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A345. TN3360. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-48 October 2016 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated March 17, 

2014, regarding "Florida Power & Light Company Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, Docket 

Nos. 52-040 and 52-041, Removal of the FPL-Owned Fill Source from the Combined License 

Application Part 3—Environmental Report." L-2014-076, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14078A052. TN3569. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. Letter from S. Franzone to NRC, dated February 

24, 2014, regarding "Florida Power & Light Company Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, 

Docket Nos. 52-040 and 52-041, Updated MACCS2 Input/Output Files." L-2014-058, Juno 

Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14063A251. TN3660. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2013 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. L-2014-086, Homestead, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14139A082. TN3661. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2013 Annual 

Radioactive Effluent Release Report. L-2014-044, Homestead, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14070A082. TN3662. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated August 12, 

2014, regarding "Florida Power & Light Company Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, Docket 

Nos. 52-040 and 52-041, Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Assessment Report for the 

Combined License Application Part 3—Environmental Report." L-2014-260, Juno Beach, 

Florida. Accession No. ML14336A346. TN3717. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. "Preserving the Barley Barber Swamp." Juno 

Beach, Florida. Accessed September 5, 2014, at 

http://www.fpl.com/environment/swamp/history_of_the_barely_barber_swamp.shtml. TN3750. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. "About St. Lucie." Juno Beach, Florida. 

Available at http://www.fpl.com/environment/nuclear/about_st_lucie.shtml. TN3792. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. St. Lucie Plant 2013 Annual Environmental 

Operating Report. L-2014-107, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14129A281. TN3917. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated January 15, 

2014, regarding "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter No. 072 (eRAI 

6985)—SRP Section 11.02—Liquid Waste Management Systems." L-2014-002, Juno Beach, 

Florida. Accession Nos. ML14017A018, ML14017A019, ML14017A020. TN3932. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. Turkey Point Plant, Units 6 and 7 COL 

Application, Part 3—Environmental Report. Revision 6, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14342A011. TN4058. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. Turkey Point Plant, Units 6 and 7 COL 

Application, Part 2—Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 6, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession 

No. ML14311A247. TN4069. 
References 

October 2016 11-49 NUREG–2176 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. Letter from M.K. Nazar to NRC, dated October 

29, 2014, regarding "Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Combined License Application 

Submittal 13, Submittal of the Annual Update of the COL Application—Revision 6 and the SemiAnnual Update of the Departures Report." L-2014-316, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14311A715. TN4102. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. Turkey Point Plant, Units 6 & 7 COL Application, 

Part 1—General and Financial Information. Revision 6, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14311A173. TN4103. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. "Benefits of Wetland Mitigation." Juno Beach, 

Florida. Available at http://www.fpl.com/environment/emb/benefits.shtml. TN4112. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. Letter from M. Kiley to NRC, dated July 10, 

2014, regarding "License Amendment Request No. 231, Application to Revise Technical 

Specifications to Revise Ultimate Heat Sink Temperature Limit." L-2014-216, Juno Beach, 

Florida. Accession No. ML14196A006. TN4565. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. Florida Power & Light Company Turkey Point 

Plant Annual American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) Report 2014. Federal Permit TE092945-

2, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML16216A223. TN4607. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2015. "Proven Water Conservation Plan." Juno Beach, 

Florida. Available at http://www.fpl.com/environment/nuclear/tp67_water_conservation.shtml. 

TN4148. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2015. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2014 Annual 

Radioactive Effluent Release Report. L-2015-038, Homestead, Florida. Accession No. 

ML15072A014. TN4407. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2015. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2014 Annual 

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. L-2015-102, Homestead, Florida. Accession No. 

ML15147A515. TN4408. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2015. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated November 

18, 2015, regarding "Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, Docket Nos. 52-040 and 52-042, 

Observations on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Comments Submitted to the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and/or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by Other Parties." 

L-2015-280, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML15324A106. TN4417. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2015. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated December 

9, 2015, regarding "Florida Power & Light Company Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, 

Docket Nos. 52-040 and 52-041, Response to NRC Environmental Request for Additional 

Information Letter 150211 (eRAI 8374, 8376) Related to Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology." L2015-0282, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML15348A405. TN4442. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2015. Turkey Point Plant Units 6 and 7 COL 

Application, Part 2—Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 7, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession 

No. ML15301A339. TN4502. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-50 October 2016 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2015. Letter from M.K. Nazar to NRC, dated October 

14, 2015, regarding "Florida Power & Light Company Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, 

Docket Nos. 52-040 and 52-041, Combined License Application Submittal 15, Submittal of the 

Annual Update of the COL Application—Revision 7 and the Semi-Annual Update of the 

Departures Report." Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML15301A741. TN4586. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2015. Email on behalf of FPL from J.S. Mier, Next Era 

Energy to FWS, dated December 9, 2015, regarding Commitments from the September 16, 

2015 Meeting Concerning the Mitigation Plan, with Attachments. Juno Beach, Florida. 

Accession No. ML16216A224. TN4630. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2016. Letter from M. Raffenberg to Miami-Dade County 

Environmental Monitoring and Restoration Division, dated March 17, 2016, regarding FPL’s 

Response to Dr. Chin’s Report. Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML16216A225. TN4530. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2016. Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 2016–2025. 

Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML16216A227. TN4579. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2016. Letter from M.J. Raffenberg to Jacksonville 

USACE, dated March 31, 2016, regarding "FPL Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Project (SAJ-2009-

02417) FPL Observations on the Seminole Tribe of Florida, October 5, 2015, Comment Letter." 

FPLACE-16-0130, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML16095A127. TN4581. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2016. Florida Power & Light Company Turkey Point 

Plant Annual American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) Report. Federal Permit TE092945-3, 

Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML16216A228. TN4606. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2016. Turkey Point Plant Comprehensive Post-Uprate 

Monitoring Report, Units 3 and 4 Uprate Project. Ecology and Environment, Inc., Lancaster, 

New York. Accession No. ML16216A230. TN4615. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2016. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2015 Annual 

Radioactive Effluent Release Report. L-2016-029, Homestead, Florida. Accession No. 

ML16109A044. TN4617. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2016. Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 2015 Annual

Radiological Environmental Operating Report. L-2016-106, Homestead, Florida. Accession No. 

ML16144A790. TN4618. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light). 2016. Letter from M.J. Raffenberg to U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, dated June 28, 2016, regarding "Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Summary of Project 

Mitigation and Conservation Commitments, Response to Request for Additional Information." 

Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML16216A231. TN4713. 

FPL (Florida Power & Light Company). 2016. Letter from M.J. Raffenberg to FDEP—UIC 

Program, dated April 13, 2016, regarding "Supporting Information for a Request to Modify 

Florida Power & Light Company Turkey Point Injection Well System Construction Permit No. 

293962-002-UC.” Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML16278A747. TN4785. 
References 

October 2016 11-51 NUREG–2176 

FPSC (Florida Public Service Commission). 2008. Final Order Granting Petition for 

Determination of Need for Proposed Power Plants. Docket No. 070650-EI, Order No. PSC-08-

0237-FOF-EI, Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

http://www.psc.state.fl.us/dockets/orders/SingleDisplay.aspx?OrderNumber=PSC-08-

0237&Method=ByNumber. TN735. 

FPSC (Florida Public Service Commission). 2011. Notice of Proposed Agency Action Order 

Modifying and Approving Demand-Side Management Plan. Docket No. 100155-EG, Order No. 

PSC-11-0346-PAA-EG, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14223A053. TN1357. 

FPSC (Florida Public Service Commission). 2011. Order Denying Protests, Consummating 

Proposed Agency Action Orders, and Closing Dockets. Docket Nos. 100155-EG and 100160-

EG, Order No. PSC-11-0590-FOR-EG, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14223A057. 

TN1358. 

FPUA (Fort Pierce Utility Authority). 2013. "Our Community Utility." Fort Pierce, Florida. 

Available at http://www.fpua.com/about/community_utility.php. TN2978 

FRA (Federal Railroad Administration). 2012. "Florida High Speed Rail: Tampa–Orlando." 

Jacksonville, Florida. Accession No. ML14217A456. TN1297. 

Francis, C.D., C.P. Ortega, and A. Cruz. 2009. "Noise Pollution Changes Avian Communities 

and Species Interactions." Current Biology 19:1415–1419, Maryland Heights, Missouri. 

TN4046. 

FSC (Florida Southeast Connection). 2014. "Welcome to the Florida Southeast Connection 

Pipeline." Juno Beach, Florida. Available at http://www.floridasoutheastconnection.com/. 

TN3301. 

Fuller, P.L. and A.J. Benson. 1999. Nonindigenous Species Introduced into South Florida. 

U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML12240A283. TN171. 

Fuller, P.L. and L.G. Nico. 1999. Nonindigenous Fishes of Florida With a Focus on South 

Florida. U.S. Geological Survey, Gainesville, Florida. Accession No. ML12240A284. TN172. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997. Revised Recovery Plan for the U.S. Breeding 

Population of the Wood Stork. Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No. ML12195A232. TN225. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1999. South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan. 

Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No. ML12193A340. TN136. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2001. Florida Manatee Recovery Plan (Trichechus 

manatus latirostris). Third Revision, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No. 

ML12198A135. TN223. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. Migratory Bird Mortality: Many Human-Caused 

Threats Afflict Our Bird Populations. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 

Accession No. ML14262A482. TN1327. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-52 October 2016 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003. Draft Snail Kite Consultation Area Map. South 

Florida Ecological Field Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12198A158. 

TN227. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services). 2003. "West Indian Manatee Consultation Area Map." 

South Florida Ecological Services Offices, Vero Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14309A092. 

TN2916. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern 

Indigo Snake. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML101960348. TN779. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006. Letter from P. Souza to F. Gillespie, dated May 5, 

2006, regarding "Biological Opinion of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) 

Renewal of Operating Licenses for the Two Nuclear-Powered Generating Units Located at the 

Turkey Point Power Plant in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and Its Effects on the Endangered 

American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus)." South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero 

Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12194A659. TN832. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. Letter from P. Souza to D.S. Hobbie, dated 

February 19, 2007, regarding "Florida Panther Effect Determination Key." South Florida 

Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12198A091. TN230. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. Florida Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) 5–

Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Southeast Region, Jacksonville Ecological Services 

Field Office, Jacksonville, Florida. Accession No. ML14309A094. TN2517. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. Garber's Spurge Chamaesyce garberi 5–Year 

Review: Summary and Evaluation. South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, 

Florida. Accession No. ML14309A095. TN3529. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Florida Panther Recovery Plan (Puma concolor 

coryi). Third Revision, Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No. ML14309A096. TN1580. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Florida Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus 

saannarum floridanus) 5–Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Southeast Region, South 

Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14309A097. 

TN2516. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Southeastern Beach Mouse (Peromyscus 

polionotus niveiventris) 5–Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Southeast Region, 

Jacksonville, Florida. Accession No. ML14309A098. TN3073. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. Accession No. ML16167A516. TN4438. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Letter from P. Souza to D. Kinard, dated May 18, 

2010, regarding "Minor Errors Identified in the January 25, 2010 Wood Stork Key." South 

Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14309A099. TN226. 
References 

October 2016 11-53 NUREG–2176 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow (Ammodramus 

maritimus mirabilis) 5–Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. South Florida Ecological 

Services Field Office, Vero Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12198A160. TN256. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Species Assessment and 

Listing Priority Assignment Form: Everglades Bully. Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 

Accession No. ML12194A658. TN833. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Species Assessment and 

Listing Priority Assignment Form: Florida Bristle Fern. Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 

Accession No. ML12194A660. TN834. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Species Assessment and 

Listing Priority Assignment Form: Chromolaena frustrata (Cape Sable Thoroughwort). 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14231B324. TN1323. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Recovery Plan for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

(Campephilus principalis). Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No. ML14309A100. 

TN2574. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Fragrant Prickly-Apple (Cereus eriophorus var. 

fragrans) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. South Florida Ecological Services Field 

Office, Vero Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14309A102. TN3049. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. "Florida Wood Stork Colonies and Core Foraging 

Areas [Map]." Southeast Region, Jacksonville, Florida. Accession No. ML14309A103. 

TN3080. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species 

Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form: Florida Bonneted Bat. Arlington, Virginia. 

Accession No. ML12193A526. TN147. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011. "Lake Wales Ridge NWR." Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML14309A105. TN2993. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011. "Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge." Atlanta, 

Georgia. Accession No. ML14309A106. TN3101. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011. "Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge." Atlanta, 

Georgia. Accession No. ML14309A107. TN3103. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Natural Resources of Concern Miami-Dade, 

Florida. South Florida Ecological Services, Vero Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12193A319. 

TN117. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Species Profile Red Knot (Calidris canutus ssp. 

rufa). Environmental Conservation Online System, Arlington, Virginia. Accession No. 

ML12193A526. TN146. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-54 October 2016 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Species Profile Florida Leafwing Butterfly (Anaea 

troglotyta floridalis). Environmental Conservation Online System, Arlington, Virginia. Accession 

No. ML12193A532. TN148. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Florida Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus 

savannarum floridanus). Environmental Conservation Online System, Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML12198A164. TN284. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Florida Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens). 

Environmental Conservation Online System, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML12198A167. 

TN285. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Ivory-Billed Woodpecker (Campephilus 

principalis). Environmental Conservation Online System, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML12198A335. TN286. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis). 

Environmental Conservation Online System, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML12198A172. 

TN287. 

FWS (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). 2012. Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge Recreation 

& Education Opportunities. Key Largo, Florida. Accession No. ML12194A585. TN706. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Email from W. Hobgood to C. Duberstein, dated 

April 13, 2012, regarding "Florida Panther Core Area and Expansion Area within Consultation 

Area." South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14309A109. TN3733. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. "Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife 

Refuge." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14309A075. TN2992.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. "Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge." 

Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No. ML14309A076. TN3056. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Rufa Red Knot Ecology and Abundance. 

Supplement to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status 

for the Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa). Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2013-0097, Washington 

D.C. Accession No. ML14309A077. TN3202. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern 

Indigo Snake. North Florida Ecological Services Office, Jacksonville, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14309A078. TN3749. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. Natural Resources of Concern, Turkey Point, 

Miami-Dade Counties, Florida. South Florida Ecological Services, Vero Beach, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14309A079. TN2918. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. "Trust Resources List for Martin and Palm Beach 

Counties, Florida." South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, Vero Beach, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14309A080. TN3731. 
References 

October 2016 11-55 NUREG–2176 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. "Wood Stork Nesting Colonies and Core Foraging 

Areas Active Within 2004–2013 in Florida [Map]." South Florida Ecological Services Field 

Office, Vero Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14309A082. TN3732. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. "Red-cockaded Woodpecker Occurrence Area: 

South Florida Ecological Services Consultation Map." South Florida Ecological Services Office, 

Vero Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14309A084. TN3734. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. "Trust Resources List for Palm Beach County, 

Florida." South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, Vero Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14309A086. TN3759. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. "Trust Resources List for Hendry County, Florida." 

South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, Vero Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14309A087. TN3760. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. "Trust Resources List for Broward County, 

Florida." South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, Vero Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14309A088. TN3761. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. "Trust Resources List for St. Lucie County, 

Florida." South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, Vero Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14309A089. TN3762. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2016. "Wetlands Mapper: Turkey Point Peninsula." 

Falls Church, Virginia. Accession No. ML16216A234. TN4583. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2016. Email from J. Wrublik to NRC, dated July 28, 

2016, regarding "List of Mitigation and Conservation Commitments for Units 6 and 7." Vero 

Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML16217A197. TN4728. 

Gabbard, A. 1993. "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger." ORNL Review 26(3&4), 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Accession No. ML093280447. TN1144. 

Gann, G.D., K.A. Bradley, and S.W. Woodmansee. 2012. Floristic Inventory of South Florida 

Database Online. Institute of Regional Conservation, Miami, Florida. Available at 

http://regionalconservation.org/ircs/database/database.asp. TN137. 

Gann, G.D., K.A. Bradley, and S.W. Woodmansee. 2012. "Chamaesyce deltoidea, Pineland 

deltoid spurge, Pineland sandmat." The Floristic Inventory of South Florida Database Online, 

Institute for Regional Conservation, Miami, Florida. Available at 

http://regionalconservation.org/ircs/database/plants/PlantPage.asp?TXCODE=Chamdeltpine. 

TN1322. 

GCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States: The Third National Climate Assessment. J.M. Melillo, T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe 

(editors). U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14129A233. 

TN3472. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-56 October 2016 

Glades County (Glades County, Florida). 2010. 2020 Comprehensive Plan, Goals, Objectives 

and Policies. Moore Haven, Florida. Available at 

http://www.myglades.com/departments/community_development/comprehensive_plan.php. 

TN3303. 

Golden, J., R.P. Ouellette, S. Saari, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1979. Environmental Impact Data 

Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan. TN3873. 

Golder (Golder Associates, Inc.). 2008. Cooling Canal System Modeling Report. Atlanta, 

Georgia. Accession No. ML13072A713. TN1072. 

Gray, J.S. and M. Elliot. 2009. Ecology of Marine Sediments. Second Edition, Oxford 

University Press, New York, New York. TN1007. 

Griego, N.R., J.D. Smith, and K.S. Neuhauser. 1996. Investigation of RADTRAN Stop Model 

Input Parameters for Truck Stops. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Accession No. ML14111A188. TN69. 

HAFRC (Headquarters Air Force Reserve Command). 2007. Air Installation Compatible Use 

Zone (AICUZ) Study for the Homestead Air Reserve Base. Robins Air Force Base, Georgia. 

Accession No. ML14287A435. TN1427. 

Hantush, M.S. 1964. "Drawdown Around Wells of Variable Discharge." Journal of Geophysical 

Research 69(20):4203–4420, Malden, Massachusetts. TN3655. 

Hantush, M.S. 1967. "Growth and Decay of Groundwater Mounds in Response to Uniform 

Percolation." Water Resources Research 3(1):227–234, Malden, Massachusetts. TN1860. 

HARB (Homestead Air Reserve Base). 2012. "Fact Sheet—History of Homestead Air Reserve 

Base." Homestead ARB, Florida. Accession No. ML14342A024. TN3551. 

Harvey, R.G., W.F. Loftus, J.S. Rehage, and F.J. Mazzotti. 2010. "Effects of Canals and 

Levees on Everglades Ecosystems." WEC304, University of Florida IFAS Extension, 

Gainesville, Florida. Available at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw349. TN3158. 

HDR (HDR Engineering, Inc.). 2009. Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Roads and Bridges Conceptual 

Design Report. Omaha, Nebraska. Accession No. ML12269A236. TN1040. 

HDR (HDR Engineering, Inc.). 2009. Cooling Water Supply and Disposal Conceptual Design 

Report, Florida Power & Light Proposed Units 6 & 7 at Turkey Point. West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14181B095. TN1073. 

Hill, K. 2001. Rhizophora mangle (Red Mangrove). Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort Pierce, 

Florida. Available at http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Rhizop_mangle.htm. TN1015. 

Hines, A.H. and K.L. Comtois. 1985. "Vertical Distribution of Infauna in Sediments of a 

Subestuary of Central Chesapeake Bay." Estuaries 8(3):296–304, Port Republic, Maryland. 

TN1004. 
References 

October 2016 11-57 NUREG–2176 

Horvath, G., G. Kriska, and B. Robertson. 2009. "Polarized Light Pollution: A New Kind of 

Ecological Photopollution." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(6):317–325, 

Washington, D.C. TN897. 

HPA (Health Protection Agency). 2006. Power Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, Melatonin 

and Risk of Breast Cancer, Report of an Independent Advisory Group on Non-Ionising 

Radiation. London, United Kingdom. Available at 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140714084352/http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/hpawe

bfile/hpaweb_c/1204286180274. TN1273.

Hughes, J.D., C.D. Langevin, and L. Brakefield-Goswami. 2010. "Effect of Hypersaline Cooling 

Canals on Aquifer Salinization." Hydrogeology Journal 18(1):25–38, New York, New York. 

TN1545. 

HydroDynamics (HydroDynamics Incorporated). 2007. State of Florida Erosion and Sediment 

Control Designer and Reviewer Manual. Parker, Colorado. Available at 

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/Engineers/Environment/PagesErosionSedimentManual_0

309.pdf. TN3678. 

IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and 

Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards. Technical Report Series 

332, Vienna, Austria. TN712. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection). 2007. The 2007 

Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP 

Publication 103, Elsevier, Maryland Heights, Missouri. Available at 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01466453/37/2-4. TN422. 

IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.). 2007. National Electrical Safety 

Code C2-2007. New York, New York. TN1087. 

IES (Illuminating Engineering Society). 2012. "Tools and Guides." New York, New York. 

Available at http://www.ies.org/. TN1044. 

INEEL (Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory). 2003. Early Site Permit 

Environmental Report Sections and Supporting Documentation. EDF-3747, Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

Accession No. ML14098A017. TN71. 

Jablon, S., Z. Hrubec, J.D. Boice, Jr., and B.J. Stone. 1990. Cancer in Populations Living Near 

Nuclear Facilities, Volume 1—Report and Summary; Volume 2—Individual Facilities: Cancer 

Before and After Start-up; and Volume 3—Individual Facilities: Cancer by 5-Year Time 

Intervals. NIH Publication No. 90-874, National Institutes of Health, Washington, D.C. TN1257. 

Jarvinen, B.R., C.J. Neumann, and M.A. Davis. 1984. A Tropical Cyclone Data Tape for the 

North Atlantic Basin, 1886–1983; Contents, Limitations, and Uses. National Hurricane Center, 

Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML12195A248. TN276. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-58 October 2016 

Johnson, P.E. and R.D. Michelhaugh. 2003. Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic 

Information System (TRAGIS) User's Manual. ORNL/NTRC–006, Revision 0, Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Accession No. ML113260107. TN1234. 

Jow, H.N., J.L. Sprung, J.A. Rollstin, L.T. Ritchie, and D.I. Chanin. 1990. MELCOR Accident 

Consequence Code System (MACCS), Model Description. NUREG/CR–4691, Volume 2, 

Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Accession No. ML063560409. 

TN526. 

Kautz, R., R. Kawula, T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey, D. Jansen, D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti, 

R. McBride, L. Richardson, and K. Root. 2006. "How Much is Enough? Landscape-scale 

Conservation for the Florida Panther." Biological Conservation 130:118–133, New York, New 

York. TN3440. 

Keystone (The Keystone Center). 2007. Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding. Keystone, 

Colorado. Accession No. ML112940552. TN724. 

KLD (KLD Engineering, P.C.). 2012. Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant Development of 

Evacuation Time Estimates. Revision 3, Hauppauge, New York. Accession No. ML12363A169. 

TN3244. 

Klein, H. and J.E. Hull. 1978. Biscayne Aquifer, Southeast Florida. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 78-107, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14223A049. TN1351. 

Knapen, D., L. Vergauwen, D.L. Villeneuve, and G.T. Ankley. 2015. "The Potential of AOP 

Networks for Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Assay Development." Reproductive 

Toxicology 56:52-55. TN4449. 

Land, E.D., D.B. Shindle, R.J. Kawula, J.F. Benson, M.A. Lotz, and D.P. Onorato. 2008. 

"Florida Panther Habitat Selection Analysis of Concurrent GPS and VHF Telemetry Data." 

Journal of Wildlife Management 72(3):633–639, Malden, Massachusetts. TN4439 

Langevin, C.D. 2001. Simulation of Ground-Water Discharge to Biscayne Bay, Southeastern 

Florida. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4251, Tallahassee, 

Florida. Accession No. ML14223A024. TN1338. 

Langevin, C.D. 2003. "Simulation of Submarine Ground Water Discharge to a Marine Estuary: 

Biscayne Bay, Florida." Ground Water 41(6):758–771, Westerville, Ohio. TN4568. 

Lee County (Lee County, Florida). 2014. "The Lee County Waste-to-Energy Facility." Fort 

Myers, Florida. Available at 

http://www.leegov.com/gov/dept/SolidWaste/Facilities/Pages/WastetoEnergyFacility.aspx. 

TN2984. 

Lietz, A.C. and M.T. Meyer. 2006. Evaluation of Emerging Contaminants of Concern at the 

South District Wastewater Treatment Plant Based on Seasonal Sampling Events, Miami-Dade 

County, Florida, 2004. Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5240, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Reston, Virginia. TN1005. 
References 

October 2016 11-59 NUREG–2176 

Lirman, D., B. Orlando, S. Macia, D. Manzello, L. Kaufman, P. Biber, and T. Jones. 2003. 

"Coral Communities of Biscayne Bay, Florida and Adjacent Offshore Areas; Diversity, 

Abundance, Distribution, and Environmental Correlates." Aquatic Conservation: Marine and 

Freshwater Ecosystems 13(2003):121–135, Malden, Massachusetts. TN1519. 

Lohmann, M.A., E.D. Swain, J.D. Wang, and J. Dixon. 2012. Evaluation of Effects of Changes 

in Canal Management and Precipitation Patterns on Salinity in Biscayne Bay, Florida, Using an 

Integrated Surface-Water/Groundwater Model. Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5099, 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Accession No. ML14287A448. TN1429. 

Malhotra, S. and D. Manninen. 1981. Migration and Residential Location of Workers at Nuclear 

Power Plant Construction Sites. NUREG/CR–2002, Volumes 1–2, Pacific Northwest 

Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Accession No. ML112840173. TN1430. 

Maliva, R.G., W. Guo, and T. Missimer. 2007. "Vertical Migration of Municipal Wastewater in 

Deep Injection Well Systems, South Florida, USA." Hydrogeology Journal 15:1387–1396, New 

York, New York. TN1483. 

Marella, R.L. 2009. Water Withdrawals, Use, and Trends in Florida, 2005. U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5125, Reston, Virginia. Accession No. 

ML14300A270. TN1521. 

Marten, J. 2007. Population Ecology and Conservation of the Snail Kite. Ph.D. Dissertation, 

University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Available at 

http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0019653/martin_j.pdf. TN4041. 

Martin County (Martin County, Florida). 2012. Martin County Zoning [Map]. Stuart, Florida. 

Available at http://www.martin.fl.us/web_docs/its/web/GIS/Maps_Other/zoning_full_county.pdf. 

TN3351. 

Martin County (Martin County, Florida). 2014. "Martin County, Florida, Community 

Development—Indiantown, Florida." Stuart, Florida. Available at 

http://www.martin.fl.us/portal/page?_pageid=339,1&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL. TN3306. 

Martin County (Martin County, Florida). 2014. "Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, 

County of Martin, Florida." Stuart, Florida. Available at 

https://www.municode.com/library/fl/martin_county/codes/comprehensive_plan. TN3756. 

McAdory, R., T.C. Pratt, M.T. Hebler, T.L. Fagerburg, and R. Curry. 2002. Biscayne Bay Field 

Data, Volume 1, Main Text. ERDC/CHL TR-02-8, U.S. Army Engineer Research and 

Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Accession No. ML14211A617. TN1155. 

McNeill, D.F. 2000. A Review of Upward Migration of Effluent Related to Subsurface Injection 

at Miami-Dade Water and Sewer South District Plant. Final Report, Coral Gables, Florida. 

TN4572. 

McNeill, D.F. 2002. A Geological Review of the Confining Capability of a Regional Dolomite 

Unit: Application to the MDWAS South District WWTP. Coral Gables, Florida. TN4571. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-60 October 2016 

McPherson, B.F. and R. Halley. 1996. The South Florida Environment—A Region Under 

Stress. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1134, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML12193A218. TN98. 

M-DCPS (Miami-Dade County Public Schools). 2011. "Executive Summary, Tentative Budget 

for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2012." Miami, Florida. Available at 

http://financialaffairs.dadeschools.net/ES11-12/. TN1493. 

M-DCPS (Miami-Dade County Public Schools). 2012. "Five-Year Capital Plan, Fiscal Years 

2011–2016." Miami, Florida. Available at http://facilities.dadeschools.net/capital/index.asp. 

TN1493. 

MDX (Miami-Dade Expressway Authority). 2013. "SR 836/Dolphin Expressway Southwest 

Extension." Project Fact Sheet, MDX Project No. 83618, Miami, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14342A025. TN3728. 

Mendelson, M., T. Lowder, and B. Canavan. 2012. Utility-Scale Concentrating Solar Power 

and Photovoltaics Projects: A Technology and Market Overview. NREL/TP-6A20-51137, 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. Accession No. ML14282A867. 

TN1399. 

Meyer, F.W. 1988. Summary of Well Construction, Testing, and Preliminary Findings from the 

Alligator Alley Test Well, Broward County, Florida. Open-File Report 87-551, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14342A005. TN2475. 

Meyer, F.W. 1989. Hydrogeology, Ground-Water Movement, and Subsurface Storage in the 

Florida Aquifer System in Southern Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-

G, Reston, Virginia. Accession No. ML14342A006. TN2255. 

MHC (McNabb Hydrogeologic Consulting, Inc.). 2014. Letter from D. McNabb to Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection, dated April 1, 2014, regarding "Florida Power & Light 

Company Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Class I Injection Well DIW-1 Short-Term Injection Test 

Technical Memorandum; Permit #293962-002-UC." Jupiter, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14342A026. TN4052. 

Miami Dade County. 2013. Ocean Outfall Legislation Compliance Plan, Chapter 2008-232 

Laws of Florida Wastewater Disposal/Ocean Outfalls [Section 403.086 (9), Florida Statutes and 

Amendment CS/SB 444]. Miami Florida. Accessed September 22, 2016, at 

https://www.miamidade.gov/water/library/reports/ocean-outfall-legislation.pdf. Accession No. 

ML16278A748. TN4786. 

Miami Dade County v. Florida Power & Light. 2015. Consent Agreement Concerning Water 

Quality Impacts Associated with the Cooling Canal System at Turkey Point Power Plant. 

Accession No. ML15286A366. TN4505. 

Miami-Dade Code of Ordinances 21-28. "Noises; Unnecessary and Excessive Prohibited." 

Miami-Dade County, Florida Code of Ordinances. Tallahassee, Florida. TN1017. 
References 

October 2016 11-61 NUREG–2176 

Miami-Dade Code of Ordinances 24-49. "Tree Preservation and Protection." Miami-Dade 

County, Florida Code of Ordinances. Tallahassee, Florida. TN1168. 

Miami-Dade Code of Ordinances 33-196. "Standards for Determining Zoning Regulations to be 

Applied to GU Property." Miami-Dade County, Florida Code of Ordinances. Tallahassee, 

Florida. TN1241. 

Miami-Dade Code of Ordinances Chapter 33B. "Areas of Critical Environmental Concern." 

Article II, East Everglades. Miami-Dade County, Florida Code of Ordinances. Tallahassee, 

Florida. TN4570. 

Miami-Dade County. 2007. "Permitting, Environment and Regulatory Affairs, Zoning Hearing 

Record Resolution Z-56-07 for Florida Power & Light Company, dated June 6, 2007 (Process 

Number 2007000207)." Miami, Florida. Available at 

http://www.miamidade.gov/cob/library/Registry/Resolutions/Zoning/2007/Z-56-07.pdf. TN1085. 

Miami-Dade County. 2007. "Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Reuse Feasibility Study." 

Miami, Florida. Available at http://www.miamidade.gov/water/reuse-feasiblity-study.asp. 

TN1496. 

Miami-Dade County. 2010. Letter from K. Kauffman to NRC, dated August 12, 2010, regarding 

"Florida Power & Light Company—Notification and Request for Consultation and Participation in 

the Scoping Process for the Environmental Review of Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7 Combined 

License Application in Miami-Dade County." Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML102390102. 

TN1459. 

Miami-Dade County. 2010. Solid Waste Management Master Plan, Planning for a Sustainable 

Future in Solid Waste Management. Miami, Florida. Available at 

http://www.miamidade.gov/publicworks/library/presentations/solid-waste-master-plan.pdf. 

TN2953. 

Miami-Dade County. 2011. "Water & Wastewater Services, Water Quality, Reclaimed Water." 

Available at http://www.miamidade.gov/water/reclaimed-water-about.asp. TN461. 

Miami-Dade County. 2011. Miami-Dade County Tree Removal Permits. Miami-Dade County 

Permitting, Environment and Regulatory Affairs, Miami, Florida. Available at 

http://www.miamidade.gov/permits/tree-removal.asp. TN601. 

Miami-Dade County. 2011. Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Rehydration Pilot Project Pilot 

Plant Closeout Report. Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Department, Miami, Florida. 

Accession No. ML12269A237. TN1006. 

Miami-Dade County. 2011. "Summary of Final Actions by Board of County Commissioners, 

Adopted Homestead-Miami Speedway, LLC, Application to Amend the Comprehensive 

Development Master Plan for Miami-Dade County (Ordinance No. 11–36; July 2011)." Miami, 

Florida. Available at http://www.miamidade.gov/planning/cdmp/speedway/summary-of-finalactions.pdf. TN1504. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-62 October 2016 

Miami-Dade County. 2012. FY2011–2012 Volume 1—Adopted Budget and Multi-Year Capital 

Plan. Miami, Florida. Available at http://www.miamidade.gov/budget/FY2011-12/FY11-12-

adopted-volume1.asp. TN462. 

Miami-Dade County. 2012. "Open Burn Permits." Miami-Dade Fire Rescue, Miami, Florida. 

Available at http://www.miamidade.gov/fire/open-burn-permits.asp. TN1039. 

Miami-Dade County. 2012. "Resources Recovery Facility." Miami, Florida. Available at 

http://www.miamidade.gov/publicworks/resources-recovery.asp. TN1077. 

Miami-Dade County. 2012. "Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP)." Miami, 

Florida. Available at http://www.miamidade.gov/planning/cdmp.asp. TN1150. 

Miami-Dade County. 2012. "Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP): II. 

Transportation Element." Miami, Florida. Available at 

http://www.miamidade.gov/planning/library/reports/planning-documents/transportation.pdf. 

TN1495. 

Miami-Dade County. 2012. "Miami-Dade Solid Waste Master Plan." Miami, Florida. Available 

at http://www.miamidade.gov/publicworks/master-plan.asp. TN2951. 

Miami-Dade County. 2012. "Resolution No. Z-1-13 for Florida Power & Light Company, dated 

January 10, 2012." Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, 

Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML14342A027. TN3638. 

Miami-Dade County. 2013. "Miami-Dade County Public Works and Waste Management 

Commercial Disposal Facilities, Resources Recovery Facility, North Dade Landfill, South Dade 

Landfill." Miami, Florida. Available at http://www.miamidade.gov/publicworks/disposalfacilities.asp. TN2950. 

Miami-Dade County. 2013. "Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) Adopted 

Components." Miami, Florida. Accessed April 5, 2016, at 

http://www.miamidade.gov/planning/cdmp-adopted.asp. TN4563. 

Miami-Dade County. 2014. "Water Supply & Treatment." Miami, Florida. Available at 

http://www.miamidade.gov/water/water-supply-treatment.asp. TN3647. 

Miami-Dade County. 2014. "Regulatory & Economic Resources, Environment—Surface Water 

Quality." Miami, Florida. Available at http://www.miamidade.gov/environment/surface-waterquality.asp. TN3663. 

Miami-Dade County. 2014. "Notice of Proposed Property Taxes and Proposed or Adopted 

Non-Ad Valorem Assessments, Miami-Dade County Taxing Authorities: Florida Power & Light 

Company." Miami, Florida. Available at 

http://www.miamidade.gov/paportal/trimpdf/MakePPTrim.aspx. TN4079. 

Miami-Dade County. 2014. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department Comprehensive Annual 

Financial Report for the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2014 and 2013. Controller Division 

and Public Affairs Section, Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML16266A252. TN4758. 
References 

October 2016 11-63 NUREG–2176 

Miami-Dade County. 2015. Letter from B. Brown to NextEra Energy, Inc. and Florida Power & 

Light Company, dated October 2, 2015, regarding "FPL Turkey Point Power Plant Facility 

Located at, Near or in the Vicinity of 9700 SW 344 Street, Unincorporated, Miami-Dade County, 

Florida: Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action." Division of Environmental 

Resources Management, Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML15286A365. TN4575. 

Miami-Dade County. 2016. Memorandum from C.A. Gimenez to J. Monestime and Members of 

the Board of County Commissioners, dated March 7, 2016, regarding "Report on Recent 

Biscayne Bay Water Quality Observations Associated with Florida Power and Light Turkey Point 

Cooling Canal System Operations—Directive 152884." Miami, Florida. Accession No. 

ML16167A518. TN4510. 

Miami-Dade County Public Schools. 2012. Statistical Highlights 2011–2012. Miami, Florida. 

Available at http://drs.dadeschools.net. TN463. 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. 2011. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. 

Miccosukee Reservations, Florida. Available at http://www.miccosukee.com/tribe. TN464. 

Michaels, T. 2014. The 2014 ERC Directory of Waste-To-Energy Facilities. Energy Recovery 

Council, Arlington, Virginia. Available at 

http://www.energyrecoverycouncil.org/userfiles/files/ERC_2014_Directory.pdf. TN3849. 

Miller, M.W. 1983. "Biological Effects from Exposure to Transmission Line Electromagnetic 

Fields." Right of Way 30(3):8–15, Gardena, California. TN1328. 

Miller, J.A. 1990. Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and 

South Carolina. HA 730-G, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Accession No. 

ML101930591. TN550. 

MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). 2003. The Future of Nuclear Power. Cambridge, 

Massachusetts. Accession No. ML100600694. TN720. 

MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). 2006. The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact 

of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century. Cambridge, 

Massachusetts. Accession No. ML093280492. TN1410. 

MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). 2009. The Future of Nuclear Power, An 

Interdisciplinary MIT Study [2009 Update to the 2003 Report]. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Accession No. ML100600694. TN448. 

MMS (Minerals Management Service). 2009. Cape Wind Energy Project Final Environmental 

Impact Statement [excerpts]. MMS EIS-EA, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML11294A623. TN1402. 

Monroe County (Monroe County, Florida). 2012. "Monroe County Comprehensive Plan 

Update, Future Land Use." Key West, Florida. Available at http://www.monroecountyfl.gov/index.aspx?NID=180. TN1507. 

Moulder, J.E. 2005. "Powerlines and Cancer FAQs." Version 10.1.2, Medical College of 

Wisconsin, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. Accession No. ML100670532. TN1329. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-64 October 2016 

MPC (Mississippi Power Company). 2014. "Kemper Project Reaches Another Milestone with 

Commercial Operation of Combined Cycle Unit." Gulfport, Mississippi. Available at 

http://mississippipowernews.com/2014/08/14/kemper-project-reaches-another-milestone-withcommercial-operation-of-combined-cycle-unit/. TN3776. 

Munford, B.A., L.A. Frye, J.N. Tuk, and M.G. Hyland. 2008. Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant 

Combined License Application Part 11I, Revision 0: Management Summary Phase Ib Cultural 

Resources Investigation Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. ER 

81–06580079, GAI Consultants, Homestead, Pennsylvania. Accession No. ML082890759. 

TN478. 

National Research Council. 2006. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing 

Radiation BEIR VII Phase 2. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Available at 

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=1. TN296.

National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second 

Biennial Review—2008. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. TN666. 

National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third 

Biennial Review—2010. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. TN1036. 

National Research Council. 2012. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Fourth 

Biennial Review—2012. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. TN2685. 

National Research Council. 2014. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Fifth 

Biennial Review—2014. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. TN4608. 

NatureServe. 2010. An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Arlington, Virginia. Available at 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm. TN140. 

NCDC (National Climatic Data Center). 2008. 2008 Local Climatological Data Annual 

Summary with Comparative Data, Miami, Florida (KMIA). Asheville, North Carolina. Accession 

No. ML14342A028. TN540. 

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). 1991. Effects of Ionizing 

Radiation on Aquatic Organisms. NCRP Report No. 109, Bethesda, Maryland. TN729. 

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). 1995. Principles and 

Applications of Collective Dose in Radiation Protection. NCRP Report No. 121, Bethesda, 

Maryland. TN728. 

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). 2009. Ionizing Radiation 

Exposure of the Population of the United States. NCRP Report No. 160, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Available at http://app.knovel.com/web/toc.v/cid:kpIREPUS05. TN420. 

NECNP v. NRC (New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission). 582 F.2d 87 (1st Circuit 1978). U.S. Court of Appeals First Circuit Decision, 

August 22, 1978. TN2632. 
References 

October 2016 11-65 NUREG–2176 

NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2009. Generic FSAR Template Guidance for Life Cycle 

Minimization of Contamination. NEI 08–08A, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML093220530. 

TN1277. 

NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2009. Generic FSAR Template Guidance for Radiation 

Protection Program Description. NEI 07-03A, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML091490684. 

TN1279. 

Nelson, D.M., M.E. Monaco, E.A. Irlandi, L.R. Settle, and L. Coston-Clements. 1991. 

Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Southeast Estuaries. ELMR Report 

Number 9, NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

Accession No. ML12240A286. TN174. 

NERC (North American Electric Reliability Corporation). 2008. 2008 Long-Term Reliability 

Assessment, 2008–2017. Princeton, New Jersey. Available at 

http://www.nerc.com/files/LTRA2008.pdf. TN734. 

NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory). 2010. Cost and Performance Baseline for 

Fossil Energy Plants, Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity. Revision 2, 

DOE/NETL–2010/1397, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. ML13274A052. TN1423. 

NextEra (NextEra Energy Resources, LLC). 2012. Solar Electric Generating Systems. Juno 

Beach, Florida. Available at http://www.nexteraenergyresources.com/home/index.shtml. 

TN1400. 

NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences). 1999. NIEHS Report on Health 

Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. NIH Publication 

No 99–4493, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Accession 

No. ML093240277. TN78. 

Niles, L.J., H.P. Sitters, A.D. Dey, P.W. Atkinson, A.J. Baker, K.A. Bennett, R. Carmona, K.E. 

Clark, N.A. Clark, C. Espoz, P.M. Gonzalez, B.A. Harrington, D.E. Hernandez, K.S. Kalasz, 

R.G. Lathrop, R.N. Matus, C.D. Minton, R.I. Morrison, M.K. Peck, W. Pitts, R.A. Robinson, and 

I.L. Serrano. 2008. Status of the Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) in the Western Hemisphere. 

Studies in Avian Biology No. 36, Cooper Ornithological Society, Riverside, California. TN143. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2006. Letter from S. Norton to H. Nash, dated 

December 19, 2006, regarding "Draft Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and 

Conditions for Smalltooth Sawfish and the Continued Operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Power 

Plant (SLNPP)." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML063620017. TN3077. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2006. "Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish 

Construction Conditions." St. Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. ML14328A348. TN3451. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. Memorandum from M. Barnette to D. 

Bernhart, dated January 12, 2009, regarding "Threats and Effects Analysis for Protected 

Resources on Vessel Traffic Associated with Dock and Marina Construction." F/SER31:MCB, 

St. Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. ML14287A774. TN1475. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-66 October 2016 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2016. National Marine Fisheries Service 

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Biological Opinion on the Continued Operation of St. Lucie 

Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 in St. Lucie County, Florida. SER-2006-832, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. Accession No. ML16084A616. TN4778. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1986. "NAD 83–NAD 27 Datum 

Shifts in Seconds of Arc." North American Datum Conversion Utility, National Geodetic Survey, 

Silver Spring, Maryland. Accession No. ML14216A474. TN1163. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2002. Final Recovery Plan for 

Johnson's Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii Eiseman). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver 

Spring, Maryland. Accession No. ML12240A285. TN173. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2007. Endangered Species Act 5–

Year Review Johnson's Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii Eiseman). National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. Accession No. ML12240A273. TN187. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2007. Coastal Zone Management 

Program Strategic Plan: Improving Management of the Nation's Coastal Areas, FY 2007–2012. 

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Silver Spring, Maryland. Accession No. 

ML14216A529. TN1244. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009. Bottlenose Dolphin 

(Tursioips truncates) Biscayne Bay Stock. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, 

Maryland. Accession No. ML12240A287. TN175. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009. NOAA Species of Concern 

Mangrove Rivulus (Rivulus marmoratus). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, 

Maryland. Accession No. ML12240A288. TN176. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009. NOAA Species of Concern 

Opossum Pipefish (Microphis brachyurus lineatus). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver 

Spring, Maryland. Accession No. ML12240A312. TN188. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009. NOAA Species of Concern 

Speckled Hind (Epinepheuls drummondhayi). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, 

Maryland. Accession No. ML12240A311. TN189. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009. Species of Concern Nassau 

Grouper (Epinephelus striatus). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

Accession No. ML12240A309. TN191. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010. Critical Habitat. Office of 

Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland. Accession No. ML12240A292. TN179. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010. Johnson's Seagrass 

(Halophila johnsonii). Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland. Accession No. 

ML12240A293. TN180. 
References 

October 2016 11-67 NUREG–2176 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010. NOAA Species of Concern 

Sand Tiger Shark (Carcharius taurus). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, 

Maryland. Accession No. ML12240A310. TN190. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010. Letter from M.M. Croom to 

NRC, dated August 5, 2010, regarding "Review of Letter dated June 23, 2010 and Federal 

Register Announcement dated June 15, 2010." National Marine Fisheries Service, St. 

Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. ML102250231. TN835. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010. Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis 

pectinata Latham) 5–Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, St. Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. ML14279A311. TN1724. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2011. Biscayne Bay Bottlenose 

Dolphin Photo ID Project. Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Florida. Accession No. 

ML12240A294. TN182. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2011. Atlantic Tracks File 1851–

2011. National Hurricane Center, Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML12208A286. TN541. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2011. "Condition Report 2011 for 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary." Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Key West, 

Florida. Accession No. ML14309A278. TN1847. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2012. "Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary: About the Marine Zoning and Regulatory Review Process." Key West, 

Florida. Accession No. ML14192B239. TN1117. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2012. "Record of Climatological 

Observations: Homestead General Aviation." National Climate Data Center, Asheville, North 

Carolina. Accession No. ML14219A457. TN1316. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2012. "Tides and Currents Virginia 

Key, Florida." Silver Spring, Maryland. Accession No. ML14231B322. TN1321. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2013. "Proactive Conservation 

Program: Species of Concern." NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Species, Silver Spring, 

Maryland. Accession No. ML14338A617. TN4099. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2014. "Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary." National Marine Sanctuary Program, Silver Spring, Maryland. Accession 

No. ML14309A282. TN3201. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2014. "Estuarine Bathymetry Data, 

Biscayne Bay, Florida (S200)." Silver Spring, Maryland. Accession No. ML14309A284. 

TN3665. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2014. "Corals Proposed for Listing 

Under the ESA." National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. Accession No. 

ML14345B001. TN3712. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-68 October 2016 

NOAA Fisheries (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries 

Service). 2014. "NOAA Lists 20 New Corals as Threatened Under the Endangered Species 

Act." Silver Spring, Maryland. Accession No. ML14345A272. TN4022. 

NOAA Fisheries (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries 

Service). 2014. "Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta)." Silver Spring, Maryland. 

Accession No. ML14345A273. TN4028. 

NPCC (Northwest Power and Conservation Council). 2005. The Fifth Northwest Electric Power 

and Conservation Plan. Portland, Oregon. Accession No. ML083260734. TN1406. 

NPCC (Northwest Power and Conservation Council). 2006. Biennial Assessment of the Fifth 

Power Plan: Assessment of Other Generating Technologies. Portland, Oregon. Accession No. 

ML093280634. TN1408. 

NPS (National Park Service). 1979. Everglades National Park Master Plan. Homestead, 

Florida. Accession No. ML12193A250. TN104. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2006. Ecological Targets for Western Biscayne National Park. 

SFNRC Technical Services 2006:2, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML12240A295. TN183. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2010. Biscayne Bay National Park Map. Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML12240A308. TN192. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2010. Everglades National Park Animals. Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML12240A302. TN194. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2011. Biscayne National Park Draft General Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML12193A232. 

TN103. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2011. Biscayne National Park Nature & Science. Washington, 

D.C. Accession No. ML12240A276. TN184. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2011. Exotic Animals in Biscayne National Park. Washington, 

D.C. Accession No. ML12240A275. TN185. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2011. Biscayne National Park Species Focus: Loggerhead Sea 

Turtles. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML12240A301. TN195. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2011. East Everglades Expansion Area. Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML12195A245. TN242. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2012. "Biscayne National Park—Park Statistics." Washington, 

D.C. Accession No. ML14328A532. TN465. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2012. Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida. Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML12194A603. TN707. 
References 

October 2016 11-69 NUREG–2176 

NPS (National Park Service). 2012. "Biscayne National Park Florida Fishery Management 

Plan." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14192B226. TN1116. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2012. "Everglades National Park Florida." Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML14211A560. TN1130. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2012. "Big Cypress National Preserve Florida." Washington, 

D.C. Accession No. ML14211A596. TN1131. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2012. "Biscayne National Park Florida." Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML142217A141. TN1284. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2014. "Big Cypress National Preserve—Backcountry Access 

Plan—Document List." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14328A534. TN3754. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2014. "National Register of Historic Places: Moore Haven 

Downtown Historic District and Moore Haven Residential Historic District, Glade County, 

Florida." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14328A536. TN3879. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2014. "National Register of Historic Places: Seminole Inn, Martin 

County." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14328A537. TN3880.

NPS (National Park Service). 2014. "National Register of Historic Places: FreedmanRaulerson House and Okeechobee Battlefield, Okeechobee County." Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML14328A538. TN3881. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2014. "National Register of Historic Places: Captain Hammond 

House and Seminole Inn, Martin County." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14328A539. 

TN3882. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2014. Fishery Management Plan Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML14342A030. TN4073. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2015. Acquisition of Florida Power & Light Company Land in the 

East Everglades Expansion Area Final Environmental Impact Statement. Homestead, Florida. 

Accession No. ML16167A520. TN4437. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2016. Record of Decision: Acquisition of Florida Power & Light 

Company Land in the East Everglades Expansion Area Environmental Impact Statement, 

Everglades National Park, Florida. Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML16167A522. 

TN4532. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1975. Environmental Survey of Transportation of 

Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1. NUREG–75/038, 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14091A176. TN216. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1976. Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing 

and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle. W.P. Bishop and F.J. Miraglia, Jr. 

(editors). NUREG–0116 (Supplement 1 to WASH–1248), Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14098A013. TN292. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-70 October 2016 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1977. Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from 

Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix I. Regulatory Guide 1.109, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML003740384. TN90. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1977. Methods for Estimating Atmospheric 

Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled 

Reactors. Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML003740354. TN91. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1977. Final Environmental Statement on the 

Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes. NUREG–0170, Volume 1, 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML12192A283. TN417. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1977. Public Comments and Task Force 

Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management 

Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle. NUREG–0216 (Supplement 2 to WASH–1248), Washington, 

D.C. Accession No. ML14091A203. TN1255. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1977. "In the Matter of Public Service Company 

of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2), CLI–77–8." 5 NRC 503, Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML14286A093. TN3867. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1978. "Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 

Board Order In the Matter of Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, et al." ALAB–502, 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML13274A004. TN2636. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1980. Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of 

Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power 

Plants. NUREG–0654/FEMA–REP–1, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML040420012. TN512. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1981. Final Environmental Statement Related to 

the Operation of Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit No. 2. NUREG–0769, Washington, 

D.C. Accession No. ML12209A107. TN675. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1983. Atmospheric Dispersion Models for 

Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 

1.145, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML003740205. TN279. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1989. Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRCApproved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites, Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML083190229. TN3714. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1990. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment 

for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG–1150, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML040140729. TN525. 
References 

October 2016 11-71 NUREG–2176 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1993. Effect of Hurricane Andrew on Turkey 

Point Nuclear Generating Station and Lessons Learned. NRC Information Notice 93-53, 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML031070364. TN542. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Volumes 1 and 2, NUREG–1437, Washington, D.C. 

Accession Nos. ML040690705, ML040690738. TN288. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1997. Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation 

Handbook. NUREG/BR–0184, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML050190193. TN676. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1998. General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear 

Power Stations. Regulatory Guide 4.7, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML003739894. 

TN1008. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Addendum to Main Report. NUREG–1437, Volume 1, 

Addendum 1, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML040690720. TN289. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2000. Alternative Radiological Source Terms for 

Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors. Regulatory Guide 1.183, 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML003716792. TN517. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan—

Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG–1555, 

Main Report and 2007 Revisions, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1555/toc/. TN614. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2001. Design Guidance for Radioactive Waste 

Management Systems, Structures, and Components Installed in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear 

Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.143, Revision 2, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML013100305. TN1134. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002. Final Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement of Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Regarding the Decommissioning of 

Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG–0586, Supplement 1, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

Accession Nos. ML023470327, ML023500228. TN665. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 5 Regarding Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. 

NUREG–1437, Final Report, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML020280236. TN2605. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2003. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 11 Regarding St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. 

NUREG-1437, Final Report, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML031360705. TN3152. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2004. "Severe Accidents." Chapter 19 in Final 

Safety Evaluation Report Related to Certification of the AP1000 Standard Design. NUREG–

1793 Initial Report, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML043450290. TN3253. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-72 October 2016 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2005. "Environmental Assessment by the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Relating to the Certification of the AP1000 Standard Plant 

Design, Docket No. 52-006." Enclosure 2, Washington D.C. Accession No. ML053250292. 

TN3252. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2006. Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site, Final Report. NUREG–1811, Washington, 

D.C. Accession No. ML063470314. TN7. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2006. Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Exelon ESP Site. NUREG–1815, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, 

D.C. Accession Nos. ML061930264, ML061930275. TN672. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2006. Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Grand Gulf ESP Site. NUREG–1817, Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML060900037. TN674. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2006. Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons 

Learned Task Force Final Report. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML083220312. TN1000. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007. Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC North 

Anna ESP Site Docket No. 52-008 Early Site Permit. Early Site Permit No. ESP-003. 

Accession No. ML073180440. TN4. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007. Meteorological Monitoring Programs for 

Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.23, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML070350028. TN278. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007. Standard Review Plan for the Review of 

Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR Edition. NUREG–0800, Washington, 

D.C. Accession No. ML070660036. TN613. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007. Biological Assessment St. Lucie Nuclear 

Power Plant Unit 1 and 2 Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation to Include Sea Turtles. 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML071700161. TN3074. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2008. Interim Staff Guidance Probabilistic Risk 

Assessment Information to Support Design Certification and Combined License Applications. 

DC/COL–ISG–03, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML081430675. TN671. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle ESP Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG–1872, 

Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML090120011. TN673. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009. "Memorandum and Order in the Matter of 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and Tennessee Valley Authority." CLI–09–21, Rockville, 

Maryland. Accession No. ML093070690. TN539. 
References 

October 2016 11-73 NUREG–2176 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009. Procedural Guidance for Preparing 

Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues. NRR Office Instruction 

Change Notice, LIC-203, Revision 2, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML080840323. 

TN1242. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009. Letter from A. Snyder to Florida Power & 

Light Company, dated September 4, 2009, regarding "Combined License Application 

Acceptance Review for Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Nuclear Power Plants." Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML092380248. TN1667. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009. Memorandum from J. Nguyen to S.M. 

Coffin, dated April 21, 2009, regarding "Summary of March 26, 2009, Category 1 Public Meeting 

with the Florida Power & Light Company to Discuss Underground Injection Control, Limited 

Work Authorization Overview, and Seismic Characteristics of Turkey Point Site for the Proposed 

AP1000 Pressurized Water Reactor Units 6 and 7." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML091130079. TN2257. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010. Staff Memorandum from A.J. Kugler to R. 

Whited, dated December 1, 2010, regarding "Scoping Summary Report Related to the 

Environmental Scoping Process for the Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Combined License 

Application." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML103130610. TN515. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping 

Process Summary Report Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Combined Licenses Miami-Dade County, 

Florida. Rockville, Maryland. Accession No. ML103130612. TN516. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010. Letter from NRC to L.A. Kammerer, dated 

June 29, 2010, regarding "Notification and Request for Consultation and Participation in the 

Scoping Process for the Environmental Review of the Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7 Combined 

License Application." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML101690480. TN1453. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010. Letter from L. Bauer to R. Nelson, dated 

June 23, 2010, regarding "Request for Participation in the Scoping Process for the Turkey Point 

Units 6 and 7 Combined License Application Review." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML101610537. TN1454. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010. Memo from A. Kugler to R. Whited, dated 

September 21, 2010, regarding "Summary of the Environmental Site Audit Related to the 

Review of the Combined License Application for Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7." Washington, 

D.C. Accession No. ML101880786. TN1457. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010. Letter from L. Bauer to K. Kauffman, dated 

July 1, 2010, regarding "Notification and Request for Consultation and Participation in the 

Scoping Process for the Environmental Review of the Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7 Combined 

License Application." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML101690468. TN1458. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010. Email from A. Kugler dated December 8, 

2010, regarding "Summary of October 20, 2010 Meeting Between Seminole Tribe and NRC and 

Corps." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML103420623. TN1460. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-74 October 2016 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010. Memo from T. Terry to R. Whited, dated 

October 21, 2010, regarding "Summary of the Environmental Alternative Sites Audit Related to 

the Review of the Combined License Application for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7." Washington, 

D.C. Accession No. ML102660659. TN3304. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. Staff Memorandum from B. Clayton to 

S.C. Flanders, dated March 4, 2011, regarding "Revision 1—Addressing the Construction and 

Preconstruction Activities, Greenhouse Gas Issues, General Conformity Determinations, 

Environmental Justice, the Need for Power, Cumulative Impact Analysis and Cultural/Historical 

Resources Analysis Issues In Environmental Impact Statements." Washington, D.C. Accession 

No. ML110380369. TN9. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor 

Safety in the 21st Century: The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima 

Dai-Ichi Accident. SECY–11–0093, NRC Task Force, Washington, D.C. Accession No.

ML111861807. TN684. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to 

Certification of the AP1000 Standard Plant Design. NUREG–1793, Supplement 2, Washington, 

D.C. Accession No. ML112061231. TN2479. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

Combined Licenses (COLs) for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4. NUREG–

1943, Volume 1, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML11131A001. TN3675. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. Letter from A. Kugler to M. Nazar, dated 

April 6, 2011, regarding "Environmental Request for Additional Information Letter 1104071 

Related to ESRP Section 9.3.1, Alternative Site Selection Process, for the Combined License 

Application Review for Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Nuclear Power Plants." Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML110960520. TN3751. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. Email from A. Kugler to M. Masnik, P. 

Doub, and R. Bryce, dated November 18, 2011, regarding "Crocodile Fatality at TP." 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14345A284. TN4121. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. "Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3." 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14217A379. TN1298. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. "Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit 4." 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14217A573. TN1299. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. Letter from J.C. Paige to Florida Power & 

Light Company, dated June 15, 2012, "Turkey Point Units 3 and 4—Issuance of Amendments 

Regarding Extended Power Uprate (TAC Nos. ME4907 and ME4908)." Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML11293A365. TN1438. 
References 

October 2016 11-75 NUREG–2176 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. Letter from T. Orf to Florida Power & Light 

Company, dated July 9, 2012, regarding "St. Lucie Plant, Unit 1—Issuance of Amendment 

Regarding Extended Power Uprate (TAC No. ME5091)." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML12191A019. TN1668. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. Environmental Impact Statement for 

Combined Licenses (COLs) for Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, Final Report. NUREG–1941, 

Volumes 1, 2, and 3. Washington, D.C. Accession Nos. ML12100A063, ML12100A068, 

ML12100A070. TN1976. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. Letter from T.J. Orf to EPA, dated July 7, 

2012, regarding "St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2—Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact Related to the Proposed Extended Power Uprate (TAC Nos. ME5091 and 

ME5843)." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML12195A168. TN3153. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. Letter from A.S. Imboden to National 

Marine Fisheries Service, dated March 20, 2012, regarding "Request to Initiate Abbreviated 

Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Proposed Extended Power Uprate at St. Lucie Plant, 

Units 1 and 2 (TAC NO. ME5091)." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML12053A345. TN3155. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. Letter from E. Leeds and M. Johnson to All 

Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status, 

dated March 12, 2012, regarding "Issuance of Order to Modify Licenses with Regard to Reliable 

Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML12054A679. TN3236. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. Letter from E. Leeds and M. Johnson to All 

Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status, 

dated March 12, 2012, regarding "Issuance of Order to Modify Licenses with Regard to 

Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events." Washington, 

D.C. Accession No. ML12054A735. TN3237. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. Email from M. Comar to M. Nazar, dated 

May 1, 2012, regarding "Request for Additional Information Letter No. 58 Concerning 

Implementation of Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendations for the Turkey Point 

Units 6 and 7 Combined License Application." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML12122A973. TN3239. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. Letter from J.C. Paige to M. Nazar, dated 

March 27, 2012, regarding "Turkey Point Units 3 and 4—Environmental Assessment and 

Findings of No Significant Impact Related to the Proposed Extended Power Uprate (TAC Nos. 

ME4907 and ME4908)." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML12074A248. TN3579. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013. Memorandum from G.M. Tracy to R.W. 

Borchardt, dated August 1, 2013, regarding "Approval of a Memorandum of Agreement 

Between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. National Park Service, and the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission on an Environmental Review Related to the Issuance of 

Authorizations to Build and Operate Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 6 and 7." Washington, 

D.C. Accession Nos. ML12172A173, ML12172A375. TN2518. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-76 October 2016 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants [GEIS]. NUREG–1437, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML13107A023. TN2654. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. "St. Lucie, Units 1 & 2—License Renewal 

Application [Summary]." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14338A555. TN3079. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013. Email from M. Comar to Florida Power & 

Light, dated February 20, 2013, regarding "Request for Additional Information Letter No. 072 

Related to SRP Section 11.02 Liquid Waste Management Systems for the Turkey Point Units 6 

and 7 Combined License Application." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML13051A779. 

TN3937. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Estimated Effects of Proposed Radial 

Collector Well Pumpage Near Turkey Point Nuclear Facility, Miami-Dade County, Florida. In 

conjunction with the U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Accession No. ML14345A290. 

TN3078. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Spent Fuel Transportation Risk 

Assessment. NUREG–2125, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14031A323. TN3231. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. "Event Notification Report: Offsite 

Notification due to Deceased American Crocodile." July 25, 2014, Number 50306, Washington, 

D.C. Accession No. ML14338A557. TN3718. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Interim Staff Guidance on Environmental 

Issues Associated with New Reactors, COL/ESP–ISG–026. Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14092A402. TN3767. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. "Major Uranium Recovery Licensing 

Applications." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14338A558. TN4054. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Letter from J.L. Dixon-Herrity to R. Nelson, 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, dated October 23, 2014, regarding "Status Update 

Regarding the Environmental Review for the Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Combined 

License Application." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14269A049. TN4055. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Letter from J.L. Dixon-Herrity to R. Carr, 

Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, dated October 23, 2014, regarding "Status Update 

Regarding the Environmental Review for the Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Combined 

License Application." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14269A067. TN4056. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Letter from J.L. Dixon-Herrity to R. 

Bendus, Florida Division of Historical Resources, dated October 23, 2014, regarding "Status 

Update Regarding the Environmental Review for the Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 

Combined License Application." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14269A082. TN4057. 
References 

October 2016 11-77 NUREG–2176 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Letter from J.L. Dixon-Herrity to K. 

Kaufmann, Miami-Dade County Historical and Archaeological Resources, dated October 23, 

2014, regarding "Status Update Regarding the Environmental Review for the Proposed Turkey 

Point Units 6 and 7 Combined License Application." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14281A278. TN4059. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Letter from J.L. Dixon-Herrity to R. 

Ammirato, Homestead Community Redevelopment Agency, dated October 23, 2014, regarding 

"Status Update Regarding the Environmental Review for the Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 

7 Combined License Application." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14281A316. TN4060. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Letter from J.L. Dixon-Herrity to C. Brimo, 

City of South Miami Planning, dated October 23, 2014, regarding "Status Update Regarding the 

Environmental Review for the Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Combined License 

Application." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14283A124. TN4061. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Letter from J.L. Dixon-Herrity to D. Spain, 

Coral Gables Historic Preservation Officer, dated October 23, 2014, regarding "Status Update 

Regarding the Environmental Review for the Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Combined 

License Application." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14283A127. TN4062. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Letter from J.L. Dixon-Herrity to P. 

Backhouse, Seminole Tribe of Florida, dated October 23, 2014, regarding "Status Update 

Regarding the Environmental Review for the Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Combined 

License Application." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14283A141. TN4063. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Letter from J.L. Dixon-Herrity to E. Spain, 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation, dated October 23, 2014, regarding "Status Update Regarding the 

Environmental Review for the Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Combined License 

Application." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14283A151. TN4064. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Letter from J.L. Dixon-Herrity to M. Cross 

Schmitt, City of Miami Preservation Officer, dated October 23, 2014, regarding "Status Update 

Regarding the Environmental Review for the Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Combined 

License Application." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14283A175. TN4065. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Letter from J.L. Dixon-Herrity to T. 

Parsons, Cultural and Historical Programs, Florida Division of Historical Resources, dated 

October 23, 2014, regarding "Status Update Regarding the Environmental Review for the 

Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Combined License Application." Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML14296A592. TN4066. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Memo from A. Williamson to J.L. DixonHerrity, dated November 14, 2014, regarding "Supplemental Site Audit Related to the 

Environmental Review of the Proposed Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant Units 6 and 7." 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14311A792. TN4115. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-78 October 2016 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel. Final Report, NUREG–2157, Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML14198A440. TN4117. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2015. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 

Combined Licenses (COLs) for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 6 and 7. NUREG-2176, 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML15055A103, ML15055A109. TN4444. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2015. "Logbook Entry 08/07/2015, Turkey Point 

Non-Emergency Notification of Deceased American Crocodile." Washington, D.C. Accession 

No. ML15226A465. TN4594. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2015. "Logbook Entry 11/14/2015, Turkey Point 

Non-Emergency Notification of Deceased American Crocodile." Washington, D.C. Accession 

No. ML15320A285. TN4595. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2015. In the Matter of Florida Power & Light 

Company Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 (Combined License Application), "Florida Power & Light 

Company's Motion for Summary Disposition of Joint Intervenor’s Amended Contention 2.1." 

Submitted December 15, 2015 before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Docket Nos. 52-

040-COL and 52-050-041, ASLBP No. 10-903-02-COL. Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML15349A986. TN4773. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016. "Logbook Entry 01/20/2016, Turkey Point 

Non-Emergency Notification of Deceased American Crocodile." Washington, D.C. Accession 

No. ML16028A269. TN4596. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016. "Logbook Entry 02/23/2016, Turkey Point 

Non-Emergency Notification of Deceased American Crocodile." Washington, D.C. Accession 

No. ML16056A169. TN4597. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016. Letter from F.M. Akstulewicz to FPL, dated 

May 13, 2016, regarding "Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Combined License Application Review 

Schedule Update." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML16117A553. TN4619. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016. "Memorandum and Order in the Matter of 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)." CLI-16-07, 

Rockville, Maryland. Accession No. ML16125A150. TN4631. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016. Occupational Radiation Exposure at 

Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities, 2014: Forty-Seventh Annual Report. 

NUREG–0713, Volume 36, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML16112A230. TN4761. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016. Advanced Safety Evaluation for Turkey 

Point Units 6 and 7 Combined License Application, Chapter 2: "Site Characteristics." 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML15096A254. TN4775. 
References 

October 2016 11-79 NUREG–2176 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016. Letter from A. Fetter to U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, dated September 28, 2016, regarding "Response to Comments Received from 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Biological Assessment for the Proposed Turkey Point 

Units 6 & 7." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML16237A312. TN4801. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016. Letter from A. Fetter to National Marine 

Fisheries Service, dated October 11, 2016, regarding "Response to Essential Fish Habitat 

Conservation Recommendations Regarding Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7." 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML16272A258. TN4802. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016. Memorandum from F.A. Akstulewicz to 

A.V. Valentin, dated July 14, 2016, regarding "Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 Combined License 

Application - Advanced Safety Evaluation with No Open Items for Chapter 19, "Probabilistic Risk 

Assessment,” Appendix 19.A, “Loss of Large Areas of the Plant Due to Explosions or Fires 

(LOLA),” and Attachment A to Appendix 19.A.” Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML16190A106. TN4805. 

NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 1993. Profiles in Renewable Energy. Golden, 

Colorado. Accession No. ML14097A242. TN2661. 

NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2009. United States—Wind Resource Map. 

Golden, Colorado. Accession No. ML12026A744. TN1396. 

NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2009. "Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the 

United States—Map 3-36: Florida Annual Average Wind Power." Renewable Resource Data 

Center, Golden, Colorado. Accession No. ML13274A049. TN1397. 

NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2011. A Review of Operational Water 

Consumption and Withdrawal Factors for Electricity Generating Technologies. NREL/TP–

6A20–50900, Golden, Colorado. Accession No. ML14286A088. TN3850. 

NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2012. United States—Land-Based and 

Offshore Annual Average Wind Speed at 80m. Golden, Colorado. Accession No. 

ML14282A864. TN1395. 

NSC (National Safety Council). 2010. "Summary from Injury Facts, 2010 Edition." 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14085A444. TN3240. 

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development). 2005. Projected Costs of 

Generating Electricity, 2005 Update. Paris, France. Accession No. ML100050351. TN722. 

Ogden, J.C., S.M. Davis, K.J. Jacobs, T. Barnes, and H.E. Fling. 2005. "The Use of 

Conceptual Ecological Models to Guide Ecosystem Restoration in South Florida." Wetlands

25(4):795–809, Fargo, North Dakota. TN196. 

Ogden, J.C., S.M. Davis, T.K. Barnes, K.J. Jacobs, and J.H. Gentile. 2005. "Total System 

Conceptual Ecological Model." Wetlands 25(4):955–979, Fargo, North Dakota. TN197. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-80 October 2016 

Ohs, C.L., S.W. Grabe, and M.A. DiMaggio. 2010. Candidate Species for Florida Aquaculture: 

Pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides. FA168, University of Florida IFAS Extension, Gainesville, 

Florida. Accession No. ML12198A127. TN219. 

Okeechobee (City of Okeechobee, Florida). 2011. City of Okeechobee, Florida 

Comprehensive Plan. Okeechobee, Florida. Accession No. ML14338A492. TN3308. 

Okeechobee County (Okeechobee County, Florida). 2009. Okeechobee County 

Comprehensive Plan, Goals, Objectives and Policies. Section 2, Future Land Use Element. 

Okeechobee, Florida. Accession No. ML14338A490. TN3348. 

Okeechobee County (Okeechobee County, Florida). 2012. "Okeechobee County Conceptual 

Future Land Use 2020, Map 2.1." Planning and Development, Okeechobee, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14338A491. TN3347. 

Oostrom, M. and L. Vail. 2016. Review Team Focused Modeling Analysis of Radial Collector 

Well Operation on the Hypersaline Groundwater Plume beneath the Turkey Point Site near 

Homestead, Florida. PNNL-25755, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, 

Washington. Accession No. ML16278A742. TN4739. 

Opler, P.A., K. Lotts, and T. Naberhaus, coordinators. 2012. "Attributes of Strymon acis." 

Butterflies and Moths of North America. Accession No. ML12193A520. TN142. 

Palacas, J.G. 1978. "Preliminary Assessment of Organic Carbon Content and Petroleum 

Source Rock Potential of Cretaceous and Lower Tertiary Carbonates, South Florida Basin." 

Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions 28:357–381, Austin, Texas. 

TN2473. 

Palm Beach County (Palm Beach County, Florida). 2013. "Lake Okeechobee Scenic Trail 

(LOST)." Palm Beach, Florida. Available at 

http://www.pbcgov.com/touristdevelopment/guide/scenictrails.htm. TN3298. 

Palm Beach County (Palm Beach County, Florida). 2014. "Peanut Island Park." Palm Beach, 

Florida. Available at http://www.co.palm-beach.fl.us/parks/peanutisland/#.VNJjv00cTcs. 

TN3058. 

Palmer, A.N. 2016. "Sulfuric Acid vs. Epigenic Carbonic Acid in Cave Origin and Morphology." 

In: Proceedings of DeepKarst 2016: Origins, Resources, and Management of Hypogene Karst. 

Chavez, T. and P. Reehling (editors). April 11–14, 2016, Carlsbad, New Mexico: NCKRI 

Symposium 6. Carlsbad, New Mexico. Available at 

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/deepkarst_2016/2016proceedings.pdf. TN4755. 

PNNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory). 2013. Phone/Conference Call Record from C. 

Duberstein to file, dated March 26, 2013, regarding "Everglade Snail Kite Biology." Richland, 

Washington. Accession No. ML14342A031. TN2466. 

PNNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory). 2015. Phone/Conference Call Record from A. 

Miracle to File, dated December 10, 2015, regarding "Crocodile Status Call Between NRC and 

Dr. Mazzotti." Richland, Washington. Accession No. ML16167A503. TN4446. 
References 

October 2016 11-81 NUREG–2176 

Pressler, E.D. 1947. "Geology and Occurrence of Oil in Florida." AAPG Bulletin 31:1851–

1862, Alexandria, Virginia. TN2472. 

Prinos, S.T., M.A. Wacker, K.J. Cunningham, and D.V. Fitterman. 2014. Origins and 

Delineation of Saltwater Intrusion in the Biscayne Bay Aquifer and Changes in the Distribution of 

Saltwater in Miami-Dade County, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2014-5025, Reston, Virginia. Accession No. ML16216A235. TN4569. 

Public Law 110–161. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. TN1485. 

Ramsdell, J.V. and J.P. Rishel. 2007. Tornado Climatography of the Contiguous United States. 

NUREG/CR–4461, Revision 2, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. 

Accession No. ML070810400. TN277. 

RECOVER (Restoration Coordination and Verification). 2005. The Recover Team's 

Recommendations for Interim Goals and Interim Targets for the Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan. Restoration Coordination and Verification (RECOVER), Central and Southern 

Florida Project. Available at 

http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/recover/recover_docs/igit/igit_mar_2005_report/ig_it_rpt_mai

n_report.pdf. TN4031. 

Reed, E. 2007. Preventing and Controlling Cancer, The Nation's Second Leading Cause of 

Death. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No. 

ML14282A749. TN523. 

Reese, R.S. 1994. Hydrogeology and the Distribution and Origin of Salinity in the Floridan 

Aquifer System, Southeastern Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 94–4010, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14287A476. TN1439. 

Reese, R.S. and E. Richardson. 2008. Synthesis of the Hydrogeologic Framework of the 

Floridan Aquifer System and Delineation of a Major Avon Park Permeable Zone in Central and 

Southern Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5207, Reston, 

Virginia. Accession No. ML14342A007. TN3436. 

Reichert, B., C. Cattau, W. Kitchens, R. Fletcher, J. Olbert, K. Pias, and C. Zweig. 2011. Snail 

Kite Demography Annual Report 2011. U.S. Geological Survey-Florida Cooperative Fish and 

Wildlife Research Unit, Gainesville, Florida. Accession No. ML14342A032. TN2467. 

Reisman, J. and G. Frisbie. 2002. Calculating Realistic PM10 Emissions from Cooling Towers. 

Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc., Sacramento, California. Available at 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/palomar/documents/applicants_files/Data_Request_Resp

onse/Air%20Quality/Attachment%204-1.pdf. TN1022. 

Renken, R.A., J. Dixon, J. Koehmstedt, S. Ishman, A.C. Lietz, R.L. Marella, P. Telis, J. Rodgers, 

and S. Memberg. 2005. Impact of Anthropogenic Development on Coastal Ground-Water 

Hydrology in Southeastern Florida, 1900–2000. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1275, Reston, 

Virginia. Accession No. ML14189A209. TN110. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-82 October 2016 

Roberts, B. 2011. Potential for Photovoltaic Solar Installation in Non-Irrigated Corners of 

Center Pivot Irrigation Fields in the State of Colorado. NREL/TP-6A20-51330, National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. Accession No. ML14282A866. TN1398. 

Robles, M.D., T. Armentano, D. DiResta, M.R. Lara, D.L. Jones, and M.J. Butler. 2005. 

Condition of the Natural Resources of Biscayne National Park. National Parks Conservation 

Association, Washington, D.C. Available at 

http://www.marine.usf.edu/user/djones/pubs/Robles_etal_2005b.pdf. TN198. 

Rybicki, N.B., J.T. Reel, H.A. Ruhl, P.T. Gammon, V. Carter, and J.K. Lee. 2000. Sawgrass 

Density, Biomass, and Leaf Area Index: A Flume Study in Support of Research on Wind 

Sheltering Effects in the Florida Everglades. Open-File Report 00–172, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Reston, Virginia. Accession No. ML14342A008. TN4003. 

Sadovy, Y. and A.M. Eklund. 1999. Synopsis of Biological Data on the Nassau Grouper,

Epinephelus striatus (Bloch 1792), and the Jewfish, E. itajara (Lichtenstein, 1822). NOAA 

Technical Report NMFS 146, Seattle, Washington. Accession No. ML12240A298. TN200. 

SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 1998. Final Habitat Plan for the South 

Atlantic Region. Charleston, South Carolina. Accession No. ML15026A499. TN212. 

SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2014. "Online Mapping: SAFMC 

Habitat and Ecosystem ATLAS." North Charleston, South Carolina. Accession No. 

ML14342A033. TN2946. 

Sagendorf, J.F., J.T. Goll, and W.F. Sandusky. 1982. XOQDOQ: Computer Program for the 

Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Stations. 

NUREG/CR–2919, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Accession No. 

ML081360412. TN280. 

Saricks, C.L. and M.M. Tompkins. 1999. State-Level Accident Rates of Surface Freight 

Transportation: A Reexamination. ANL/ESD/TM-150, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 

Illinois. Accession No. ML091060020. TN81. 

Schwab, A.C. and P.A. Zandbergen. 2010. "Vehicle-Related Mortality and Road Crossing 

Behavior of the Florida Panther." Applied Geography 31:859–870, Oxford, United Kingdom. 

TN4047. 

Seminole Tribe of Florida. 2010. Letter from W. Steele to A. Kugler, dated September 14, 

2010, regarding "Assessment of Effects for the Proposed Construction of Two Additional 

Nuclear Reactors at Turkey Point, Miami-Dade County, Florida." Clewiston, Florida. Accession 

No. M102660296. TN1452. 

Seminole Tribe of Florida. 2012. Seminole Tribe of Florida. Hollywood, Florida. Available at 

http://www.semtribe.com. TN466. 

Seminole Tribe of Florida. 2015. Letter from B.M. Mueller to USACE, Jacksonville District, 

dated October 5, 2015, regarding "Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Transmission Line Corridors, 

THPO#: 0006365." Clewiston, Florida. Accession No. ML15289A368. TN4587. 
References 

October 2016 11-83 NUREG–2176 

Seminole Tribe of Florida. 2016. Letter from B.M. Mueller to Jacksonville District, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, dated August 2, 2016, regarding "Proposed Turkey Point Cultural 

Resources Assessment Survey Work Plan." Clewiston, Florida. Accession No. ML16266A253. 

TN4727. 

Serafy, J.E., M. Valle, C.H. Faunce, and J. Luo. 2007. "Species-Specific Patterns of Fish 

Abundance and Size Along a Subtropical Mangrove Shoreline: An Application of the Delta 

Approach." Bulletin of Marine Science 80(3):609–624, Miami, Florida. TN215. 

SFRPC (South Florida Regional Planning Council). 2004. "Strategic Regional Policy Plan." 

Hollywood, Florida. Accession No. ML14211A615. TN1151. 

SFRPC (South Florida Regional Planning Council). 2008. "City of Homestead Proposed 

Comprehensive Plan Amendment." Hollywood, Florida. Accession No. ML14287A785. 

TN1497. 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2003. Lake Okeechobee Protection 

Program Exotic Species Plan. West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14328A516. 

TN2852. 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2005. South Dade Wetlands Conceptual 

Land Management Plan 2005–2010. West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML12198A094. TN217. 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2009. FPL Turkey Point Power Plant 

Groundwater, Surface Water, and Ecological Monitoring Plan. West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Accession No. ML12193A539. TN149. 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2010. Letter from J.J. Golden to NRC, 

dated October 6, 2010, regarding "Progress Energy Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 & 2 Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement Combined License Application Review." West Palm Beach, 

Florida. Accession No. ML102871136. TN3086. 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2014. "Atlantic Civil Mine; SFWMD 

Permit (13–01409–S)." Presentation to South Miami-Dade Water Issues Roundtable, October 

4, 2010, West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14328A517. TN3553. 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2010. "Water Use Permit No. Re-Issue 

12–00054–W to CEMEX Construction Materials Florida LLC for FEC Quarry Plant Site." Issued 

May 17, 2010, West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14328A518. TN3556. 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2012. "Project Information—Biscayne 

Bay Monitoring." West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14224A673. TN1318. 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2012. "Records Search—

Application/Permit." West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14224A674. TN1319. 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2012. "Station Information: BBCW10 

Station—Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands, Site 10 Surface Water." West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14224A677. TN1320. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-84 October 2016 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2012. 2012 Potable Water Desalination 

Plants within the South Florida Water Management District. West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14300A284. TN1522. 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2012. "DBHYDRO (Environmental 

Data)." West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14300A370. TN1523. 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2012. "Lake Okeechobee Operations: 

Goals, Roles and Responsibilities." West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14328A519. 

TN2883. 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2012. Letter from R.A. Braun to NRC, 

dated June 29, 2012, regarding "Florida Power & Light Combined License Application for 

Turkey Point Units 6 & 7—Water Availability at Alternative Sites." West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Accession No. ML12191A171. TN3085. 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2012. Letter from R.A. Braun to NRC, 

dated February 23, 2012, regarding "Florida Power & Light Combined License Application for 

Turkey Point 6 & 7—Water Availability at Alternative Sites." West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Accession No. ML12068A433. TN3814. 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2012. "Water Use Permit No. Re-Issue 

13–00017–W, Non-Assignable." Issued July 16, 2012, West Palm Beach, Florida. Available at 

http://www.miamidade.gov/water/library/reports/water-use-permit-2012.pdf. TN4114. 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2013. South Florida Water Management 

District Patrol Summary, Model Lands October 18–31, 2013. West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14328A521. TN2917. 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2013. 2013 Lower East Coast Water 

Supply Plan Update. West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14328A522. TN3461. 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2013. South Florida Wading Bird Report. 

Volume 19, M.I. Cook (editor), West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14342A034. 

TN4034. 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2014. "Lake Okeechobee." West Palm 

Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14328A523. TN 2988. 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2014. "Okaloacoochee Slough Wildlife 

Management Area." West Palm Beach, Florida. Available at 

http://www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/pg_grp_sfwmd_landresources/pg_sfwmd_landresourc

es_recopps_sw_okalo. TN3005. 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2014. "EPermitting: South Florida Water 

Management District—Mining Permits Issued and Applications Received by SFWMD for MiamiDade, January 1, 1980–June 3, 2014." West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14328A524. TN3554. 
References 

October 2016 11-85 NUREG–2176 

SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District), FDEP (Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection), and FDACS (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services). 2011. Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan Update. West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14328A515. TN3087. 

Shih, S.F. 1981. "Evapotranspiration as Related to Climatic Factors in South Florida." Florida 

Scientist 44(2):109–118, Gainesville, Florida. TN4070. 

Simard, M., K. Zhang, V.H. Rivera-Monroy, M.S. Ross, P.L. Ruiz, E. Castañeda-Moya, R.R. 

Twilley, and E. Rodriguez. 2006. "Mapping Height and Biomass of Mangrove Forests in 

Everglades National Park with SRTM Elevation Data." Photogrammetric Engineering and 

Remote Sensing 72(3):299–311, Bethesda, Maryland. TN4001. 

SJRWMD (St. Johns River Water Management District). 2014. "Blue Cypress Conservation 

Area." Palatka, Florida. Available at http://floridaswater.com/recreationguide/bluecypress/. 

TN3100. 

Smith, K.N. 1993. Manatee Habitat and Human-Related Threats to Seagrass in Florida: A 

Review. Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. 

ML12198A099. TN218. 

Smith, S.K. and C. McCarthy. 1996. "Demographic Effects of Natural Disasters: A Case Study 

of Hurricane Andrew." Demography 33(2):265–275, Silver Spring, Maryland. TN467. 

Smith, T.S., III, J.H. Hudson, M.B. Robblee, G.V. Powell, and P.J. Isdale. 1989. "Freshwater 

Flow from the Everglades to Florida Bay: A Historical Reconstruction Based on Fluorescent 

Banding in the Coral Solenastrea bournoni." Bulletin of Marine Science 44(1):274–282, Miami, 

Florida. TN122. 

SNC (Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.). 2008. Letter from M.M. Caston to NRC, 

dated June 26, 2008, regarding "Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Response to NRC 

Questions from April 23, 2008 Environmental Conference Call." Birmingham, Alabama. 

Accession No. ML081790598. TN4141. 

Soldat, J.K., N.M. Robinson, and D.A. Baker. 1974. Models and Computer Codes for 

Evaluating Environmental Radiation Doses. BNWL-1754, Battelle, Pacific Northwest 

Laboratories, Richland, Washington. Accession No. ML12223A187. TN710. 

Solo-Gabriele, H. and W. Wilcox. 2000. An Isotopic Study of Northeast Everglades National 

Park and Adjacent Urban Areas. Third Interim Technical Report for Isotopic Study, Phase I, 

South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach Florida. Accession No. 

ML14345A280. TN4110. 

Spencer, S.M. 2013. "Industrial Mineral Operations in Florida [Map]." Florida Geological 

Survey, Tallahassee, Florida. Available at http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00015030/00001. TN3753. 

Sprandel, G.L., J.A. Gore, and D.T. Cobb. 2000. "Distribution of Wintering Shorebirds in 

Coastal Florida." Journal of Field Ornithology 71(4):708–720, Ames, Iowa. TN3203. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-86 October 2016 

Sprung, J.L., D.J. Ammerman, N.L. Breivik, R.J. Dukart, F.L. Kanipe, J.A. Koski, G.S. Mills, K.S. 

Neuhauser, H.D. Radloff, R.F. Weiner, and H.R. Yoshimura. 2000. Reexamination of Spent 

Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates. NUREG/CR–6672, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico. Accession No. ML003698324. TN222. 

SREL (Savannah River Ecology Laboratory). 2012. American Alligator (Alligator 

mississippiensis). Herpetology Program, Aiken, South Carolina. Accession No. ML12198A134. 

TN221. 

SSI (Solar Southwest Initiative). 2010. "Baseload and Dispatchable Power." Tampa, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14107A328. TN1405. 

St. Lucie County (St. Lucie County, Florida). 2010. "Comprehensive Plan Adopted 2010." Fort 

Pierce, Florida. Available at http://www.stlucieco.gov/planning/comp_plan. TN4020. 

St. Lucie County (St. Lucie County, Florida). 2014. "Pepper Park Beachside." Ft. Pierce, 

Florida. Available at http://www.stlucieco.gov/living-in-st-lucie-county/beach-information/pepperpark-beachside. TN3054. 

St. Lucie County (St. Lucie County, Florida). 2014. "Walton Rocks Beach/Dog Park." Fort 

Pierce, Florida. Available at http://www.stlucieco.gov/living-in-st-lucie-county/beachinformation/walton-rocks-beach-dog-park. TN4017. 

Stalker, J.C., R.M. Price, and P.K. Swart. 2009. "Determining Spatial and Temporal Inputs of 

Freshwater, Including Submarine Groundwater Discharge, to a Subtropical Estuary Using 

Geochemical Tracers, Biscayne Bay, South Florida." Estuaries and Coasts 32:694–708, Port 

Republic, Maryland. TN124. 

Starr, R.C., T.S. Green, and L.C. Hull. 2001. Evaluation of Confining Layer Integrity Beneath 

the South District Wastewater Treatment Plant, Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department, 

Dade County, Florida. INEEL/EXT-01-00046, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 

Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Accession No. ML14216A601. TN1251. 

State of Florida. 1984. Renewable Energy: Energy from Geothermal Resources, Geothermal 

Energy. Governor's Energy Office, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14287A415. 

TN1422. 

State of Florida. 2011. "City of Coral Gables, Notice of Filing Agency Report Regarding Turkey 

Point Nuclear Power Plant Expansion—Transmission Lines Component of the Project Site 

Certification Application—Eastern Corridor." Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 09–

03575–EPP, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14209A004. TN1260. 

State of Florida. 2011. "Village of Pinecrest Agency Report on the Effect of FPL's East 

Preferred Corridor." Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 09-03575–EPP, Tallahassee, 

Florida. Accession No. ML14216A609. TN1261. 
References 

October 2016 11-87 NUREG–2176 

State of Florida. 2012. Miami-Dade County Agency Report and Proposed Conditions for FPL 

Proposed Transmission Lines for Turkey Point Nuclear Units 6 & 7. Division of Administrative 

Hearings, Case No. 09–03575–EPP, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14216A578. 

TN1248. 

State of Florida. 2014. "Final Order on Certification, In Re: Florida Power & Light Company 

Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Power Plant Siting Application No. PA 03–45A3." State of Florida 

Siting Board, OGC Case No. 09–3107, Division of Administrative Hearings, Case No. 09–

03575–EPP, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14345A291. TN3637. 

State of Florida. 2016. Third District Court of Appeal, Miami-Dade County, et al., vs. In Re: 

Florida Power & Light Company, etc., et al. Opinion Filed April 20, 2016, Appealing the Final 

Order on Certification. Accession No. ML161126A339. TN4781. 

Strenge, D.L., R.A. Peloquin, and G. Whelan. 1986. LADTAP II—Technical Reference and 

User Guide. NUREG/CR–4013, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. 

Accession No. ML14098A069. TN82. 

Strenge, D.L., T.J. Bander, and J.K. Soldat. 1987. GASPAR II—Technical Reference and User 

Guide. NUREG/CR–4653, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Accession No. 

ML14098A066. TN83. 

Stronge, W.B., L. Alpert, and R.M. Kalin. 2007. Socioeconomic Study of Indiantown Natural 

Gas Storage Facility. Boca Raton, Florida. Available at 

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=11495533. TN3302. 

Sykes, R.W., Jr. 1979. "Status of the Everglade Kite in Florida 1968–1978." The Wilson 

Bulletin 91(4):495–652, Lincoln, Nebraska. Available at https://sora.unm.edu/node/129672. 

TN4040. 

Taylor, S. 2009. "Hydrogeological Site Features, Turkey Point Units 6 & 7." Florida Power & 

Light, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML090960663. TN2256. 

TECO (TECO Energy). 2014. "J.H. Phillips Power Station." Tampa, Florida. Available at 

http://www.tampaelectric.com/company/ourpowersystem/powerstations/jhphillips/. TN4125. 

Terzagian, R. 2011. Primary Amebic Meningoencephalitis (PAM). Florida Department of 

Health, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14342A036. TN998. 

Tetra Tech. 2014. Technical Memorandum from P.F. Andersen and J.L. Ross to FPL, dated 

May 9, 2014, regarding "Evaluation of Required Floridan Water for Salinity Reduction in the 

Cooling Canal System." Pasadena, California. Accession No. ML14279A555. TN4126. 

Tipler, P.A. and G. Mosca. 2008. Physics for Scientists and Engineers. Sixth Edition, W.H. 

Freeman and Company, New York, New York. TN1467. 

TLF and FPL (Treasured Lands Foundation and Florida Power & Light Company). 2014. 

"Barley Barber Swamp." Stuart, Florida (TLF) and Juno, Florida (FPL). Accession No. 

ML14342A037. TN3755. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-88 October 2016 

Traf Tech (Traf Tech Engineering, Inc.). 2009. Turkey Point Power Plant Peak Construction 

Analysis, Traffic Study. Tamarac, Florida. Accession No. ML16167A504. TN1266. 

TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority). 2008. Bellefonte Units 3 and 4 COL Application, Part 3—

Environmental Report. Revision 1, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Accession No. ML083100559. 

TN4140. 

United States of America v. Florida Power & Light Company. Civil Action No. 70-328-CA (S.D. 

Fla September 10, 1971). Final Judgment. Accessed July 29, 2016, at 

http://elr.info/sites/default/files/litigation/1.20461.htm. TN4726. 

University of Chicago. 2004. The Economic Future of Nuclear Power. Chicago, Illinois. 

Accession No. ML100600700. TN719. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 

Central and Southern Florida Project 2010 Report to Congress. Washington, D.C. Accession 

No. ML12193A277. TN113. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. Letter from D.W. Kinard to CEMEX Materials 

of Florida—FEC Quarry, dated February 3, 2010, transmitting Department of the Army Permit 

SAJ–2000–2373. Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, Miami, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14328A477. TN3555. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. Letter from D.W. Kinard to White Rock 

Quarries, dated August 5, 2010, transmitting Department of the Army Permit SAJ–2000–2346. 

Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML14328A478. 

TN3559. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. Letter from D.W. Kinard to Tarmac America, 

LLC, dated March 25, 2010, transmitting Department of the Army Permit SAJ–2000–02287. 

Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML14328A479. 

TN3560. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. Letter from D.W. Kinard to APAC Southeast, 

Inc., dated March 17, 2010, transmitting Department of the Army Permit SAJ–2000–2366. 

Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML14328A481. 

TN3561. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. "HEC-RAS River Analysis System." Version 

4.1, CPD-68, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, California. Accession No. ML14345B004. 

TN4128. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2012. "Project Fact Sheets." Jacksonville District 

Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida. Accession No. ML14211A607. TN1133. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2013. "8.5 Square-Mile Area & Tamiami Trail: 

Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park Fact Sheet." Jacksonville District Corps 

of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida. Accession No. ML14328A485. TN2468. 
References 

October 2016 11-89 NUREG–2176 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2013. "Fish Species of Lake Okeechobee and the 

Okeechobee Waterway." Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14328A486. TN2847. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2013. Letter from D. Kinard to Atlantic Civil, Inc., 

dated July 18, 2013, transmitting Department of the Army Permit SAJ–1995–6797. Jacksonville 

District Corps of Engineers, Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML14328A487. TN3473. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2014. "Kissimmee River Restoration Project." 

Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida. Accession No. ML14328A488. 

TN3061. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2014. Final Integrated Feasibility Report and 

Environmental Impact Statement, Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach Harbor Palm Beach Country, 

Florida. Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14328A490. TN4016. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2015. Herbert Hoover Dike Major Rehabilitation, 

Palm Beach County, Florida: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. 

Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida. Accession No. ML16216A236. TN4598. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2015. Public Notice dated March 13, 2015, to 

Announce the Release and Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for 

the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 6 and 7, Prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the National Park Service (NPS). SAJ2009-02417 (SP-MLC), Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida. Accession No. 

ML16216A200. TN4627. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2016. "South Florida Ecosystem Restoration (SFER) 

Program Overview." Jacksonville District, Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML16216A201. 

TN4588. 

USACE and NRC (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 

2008. "Memorandum of Understanding Between U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Environmental Reviews Related to the Issuance of 

Authorizations to Construct and Operate Nuclear Power Plants." Washington, D.C. Accession 

No. ML082540354. TN637. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulator Commission). 2015. 

"Note to File: Turkey Point National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation 

Meetings with the Seminole Tribe of Florida, June 23, 2015." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML16266A254. TN4735. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulator Commission). 2015. 

"Note to File: Turkey Point National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation 

Meetings with the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, June 24, 2015." Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML16266A255. TN4736. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-90 October 2016 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and SFWMD (South Florida Water Management 

District). 1999. Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML12193A285. TN116. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and SFWMD (South Florida Water Management 

District). "RECOVER: 2009 System Status Report, Lake Okeechobee Native Fish Results." 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14328A497. TN2848. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and SFMWD (South Florida Water Management 

District). 2011. Central and Southern Florida Project, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan, Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase 1 Final Integrated Project Implementation Report 

and Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1—Main Report. Jacksonville District, 

Jacksonville, Florida. Accession No. ML12270A058. TN1038. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and SFMWD (South Florida Water Management 

District). 2011. Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project Final Integrated Project Implementation Report 

and Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1—Main Report. Jacksonville, Florida. 

Accession No. ML14267A007. TN1330. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and SFWMD (South Florida Water Management 

District). 2014. "CERP Project: C-43 Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery." Washington D.C. 

Accession No. ML14328A498. TN3009. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and SFWMD (South Florida Water Management 

District). 2014. "CERP Project: Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir 

and Caloosahatchee Watershed." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14328A499. TN3010. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and SFWMD (South Florida Water Management 

District). 2014. "CERP Project: Everglades Agriculture Area Storage Reservoirs." 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14328A500. TN3011. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and SFWMD (South Florida Water Management 

District). 2014. "CERP Project: Flows to Northwest (NW) and Central Water Conservation 

Areas (WCA) 3A." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14328A501. TN3012. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and SFWMD (South Florida Water Management 

District). 2014. "CERP Project: Indian River Lagoon—South." Washington, D.C. Accession 

No. ML14328A502. TN3013. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and SFWMD (South Florida Water Management 

District). 2014. "CERP Project: Lake Okeechobee Aquifer Storage and Recovery." 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14328A503. TN3014. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and SFWMD (South Florida Water Management 

District). 2014. "CERP Project: Lake Okeechobee Watershed." Washington, D.C. Accession 

No. ML14328A504. TN3015. 
References 

October 2016 11-91 NUREG–2176 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and SFWMD (South Florida Water Management 

District). 2014. "CERP Project: Miccosukee Tribe Water Management Plan." Washington, 

D.C. Accession No. ML14328A505. TN3016. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and SFWMD (South Florida Water Management 

District). 2014. "CERP Project: Modify Holey Land Wildlife Management Area Operation Plan." 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14328A506. TN3017. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and SFWMD (South Florida Water Management 

District). 2014. "CERP Project: Modify Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area Operation 

Plan." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14328A507. TN3018. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and SFWMD (South Florida Water Management 

District). 2014. "CERP Project: PBC Agriculture Reserve Aquifer Storage and Recovery." 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14328A508. TN3019. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and SFWMD (South Florida Water Management 

District). 2014. "CERP Project: Melaleuca Eradication and Other Exotic Plants." Washington, 

D.C. Accession No. ML14328A509. TN3020. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and SFWMD (South Florida Water Management 

District). 2014. "CERP Project: Acme Basin B Discharge." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14328A511. TN3045. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and SFWMD (South Florida Water Management 

District). 2014. "CERP Project: Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge Internal Canal 

Structures." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14328A512. TN3046. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and SFWMD (South Florida Water Management 

District). 2014. "CERP Project: Strazzulla Wetlands." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14328A513. TN3047. 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2000. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 

(Broward, Collier, Miami-Dade, Monroe counties Florida). Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14328A464. TN470. 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2009. "2005–2009 American Community Survey 5–Year 

Estimates Demographics 50–Mile Area." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14287A731. 

TN1462. 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2009. "2005–2009 American Community Survey 5–Year 

Estimates—Total Population for Florida Counties." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14328A469. TN3395. 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2010. "American Fact Finder—2010 Census Summary File 1 for 

Florida Counties." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14338A472. TN4087. 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2011. U.S. Census Bureau Delivers Florida's 2010 Census 

Population Totals, Including First Look at Race and Hispanic Origin Data for Legislative 

Redistricting. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14328A471. TN472. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-92 October 2016 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2011. "On the Map: Where Workers Live that are Employed in 

the Selection Area by Counties, Cities, CDPs, etc.—Home and Work Destinations." Center for 

Economic Studies, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Washington, D.C. Accession 

No. ML14338A473. TN4078. 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2012. "American Community Survey 5–Year Estimates: 

Selected Social Characteristics in the United States: 2008–2012, Florida." Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML14338A474. TN4080. 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2012. "2008–2012 American Community Survey 5–Year 

Estimates: Commuting Characteristics by Sex." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14338A475. TN4088. 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2012. "Selected Housing Characteristics, 2008–2012 American 

Community Survey 5–Year Estimates for Florida Counties." Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14338A476. TN4089. 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2012. "American Community Survey 5–Year Estimates: Total 

Population, Florida Counties." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14338A477. TN4098. 

USCG (U.S. Coast Guard). 2012. Letter from D. Patterson to J. Ward, dated May 25, 2012, 

regarding "Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request Concerning Barge/Tug or Large Vessel 

Groundings Near the Turkey Point Site from 1992 to Present." Washington, D.C. Accession 

No. ML12269A239. TN1063. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture: Florida State and 

County Data. AC-07-A-9, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14279A234. TN1669. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2012. Custom Soil Resource Report for Miami-Dade 

County Area, Florida. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Accession 

No. ML14217A581. TN1314. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2012. "2012 Census, Volume 1, Chapter 2: County 

Level Data—Florida." Census of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14342A038. 

TN4081. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2014. "Web Soil Survey, National Cooperative Soil 

Survey 2014 Soil Map—Okeechobee County, Florida (Okeechobee 2 Vicinity), Map Scale 

1:14,900. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14328A454. TN3349. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2014. "Web Soil Survey, National Cooperative Soil 

Survey 2014 Soil Map—Okeechobee County, Florida (Okeechobee 2 Vicinity), Map Scale 

1:6,640. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML14328A455. TN3350. 
References 

October 2016 11-93 NUREG–2176 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2014. "Web Soil Survey, National Cooperative Soil 

Survey 2014 Soil Map—Martin County, Florida (Martin Alternative Site), Map Scale 1:20,000." 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14328A456. 

TN3353. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2014. "Web Soil Survey, National Cooperative Soil 

Survey 2014 Soil Map—St. Lucie County, Florida (St. Lucie Site), Map Scale 1:18,300." Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14328A457. TN3354. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2014. "Web Soil Survey, National Cooperative Soil 

Survey 2014 Soil Map—St. Lucie County, Florida (St. Lucie Site), Map Scale 1:52,200." Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14328A458. TN3355. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2014. "Web Soil Survey, National Cooperative Soil 

Survey 2014 Soil Map—Glades County, Florida (Glades Alternative Site), Map Scale 1:24,000." 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14328A459. 

TN3358. 

USEC (U.S. Enrichment Corporation). 2013. Letter from S. Toelle to C. Haney, dated June 3, 

2013, regarding "Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Docket No. 70-7001, Certificate No. GDP-1, 

Notification of Termination of Uranium Enrichment." Bethesda, Maryland. Accession No. 

ML13176A151. TN2765. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2003. "Ecosystems of South Florida: Coast Ecosystems—

Mangroves and Salt Marshes." Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14217A579. TN1304. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2004. Mineral Resources. South Florida Information Access, 

Reston, Virginia. Accession No. ML12209A092. TN678. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2004. Hard Limestone Resource Map. Reston, Virginia. 

Accession No. ML14328A446. TN680. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2011. "USGS Florida Water Science Center, Digital Spatial 

Data Sets: SaltlineBuscayne2011_arc." Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14345B000. TN1801. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2012. "An Integrated Model of Surface-Water and 

Groundwater Flow for Evaluating the Effects of Competing Water Demands in Miami-Dade 

County, Florida." Florida Water Science Center, Tampa, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14287A481. TN1441. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2014. "National Water Information System: Mapper." 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14328A448. TN3575. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2014. "Candid Camera—Tegus Caught Preying on the 

Natives." Gainesville, Florida. Accession No. ML14342A003. TN4049. 
References 

NUREG–2176 11-94 October 2016 

Walsh, V.M. and R.M. Price. 2008. "Tracing Vertical and Horizontal Migration of Injected Fresh 

Wastewater into a Deep Saline Aquifer using Natural Chemical Tracers." In 20th Salt Water 

Intrusion Meeting Proceedings, June 23–27, 2008, Naples, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey, Ft. 

Lauderdale, Florida. Accession No. ML15026A504. TN3657. 

Walsh, V.M. and R.M. Price. 2010. "Determination of Vertical and Horizontal Pathways of 

Injected Fresh Wastewater into a Deep Saline Aquifer (Florida, USA) using Natural Chemical 

Tracers." Hydrogeology Journal 18(4):1027–1042, New York, New York. TN3656. 

Wang, J.D., J. Luo, and J.S. Ault. 2003. "Flows, Salinity, and Some Implications for Larval 

Transport in South Biscayne Bay, Florida." Bulletin of Marine Science 72(3):695–723, Miami, 

Florida. TN105. 

Warren, G.L., E.B. Nelson, J.L. Bernatis, and D.A. Holt. 2009. Structural Dynamics of Benthic 

Invertebrate Communities of the Lake Okeechobee Pelagic Region. Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Gainesville, Florida. Accession No. 

ML14342A039. TN2846. 

Wasilewski, J.A. and B. Enloe. 2006. The Status of American Crocodiles (Crocodylus acutus)

at Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant, Florida, USA. Florida Power & Light Company, Florida 

City, Florida. Accession No. ML11168A043. TN979. 

Waste Management (Waste Management, Inc. of Florida). 2010. Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Application for Landfill Gas-to-Energy Plant at the Medley Landfill. Golder 

Associates, Gainesville, Florida. Accession No. ML13072A693. TN1079. 

Waste Management (Waste Management, Inc.). 2014. "Okeechobee Landfill." Houston, 

Texas. Available at https://www.wmsolutions.com/locations/details/id/116. TN3034. 

Weiner, R.F., D.M. Osborn, D. Hinojosa, T.J. Heames, J. Penisten, and D. Orcutt. 2008. 

RADCAT 2.3 User Guide. SAND2006–6315, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. Accession No. ML12192A238. TN302. 

Weiner, R.F., D. Hinojosa, T.J. Heames, C. Ottinger Farnum, and E.A. Kalinina. 2013. 

RADTRAN 6/RadCat 6 User Guide. SAND2013–8095, Sandia National Laboratories, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. Accession No. ML14286A092. TN3390. 

Westinghouse (Westinghouse Electric Company LLC). 2005. AP1000 Design Control 

Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 15, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. 

ML053480403. TN3242. 

Westinghouse (Westinghouse Electric Company LLC). 2008. AP1000 Design Control 

Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. 

ML083230868. TN496. 

Westinghouse (Westinghouse Electric Company LLC). 2009. Letter from R. Sisk to NRC, 

dated December 1, 2009, regarding "Revision to AP1000 COL Standard Technical Report 

Submittal of APP-PRA-GER-001 (TR 135)." Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. 

ML093380308. TN3243. 
References 

October 2016 11-95 NUREG–2176 

Westinghouse (Westinghouse Electric Company LLC). 2010. AP1000 Design Control 

Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 18, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. 

ML103480572. TN3251. 

Westinghouse (Westinghouse Electric Company LLC). 2011. AP1000 Design Control 

Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 19, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. 

ML11171A500. TN261. 

Wheelabrator (Wheelabrator Technologies Inc.). 2012. "Wheelabrator South Broward Inc. 

[Plant]." Hampton, New Hampshire. Accession No. ML13072A625. TN1086. 

WHO (World Health Organization). 2007. Extremely Low Frequency Fields. Environmental 

Health Criteria 238, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at http://www.who.int/pehemf/publications/elf_ehc/en/. TN1272. 

Williams, L.J. and E.L. Kuniansky. 2015. Revised Hydrogeologic Framework of the Floridan 

Aquifer System in Florida and Parts of Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina. U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1807, Reston, Virginia. Accession No. ML16266A243. TN4577. 

Wiser, R. and M. Bolinger. 2011. 2010 Wind Technologies Market Report. U.S. Department of 

Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Accession No. 

ML14267A014. TN1361. 

WNA (World Nuclear Association). 2012. "Supply of Uranium." London, United Kingdom. 

Available at http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supplyof-Uranium/. TN1498. 

WNA (World Nuclear Association). 2014. "The Economics of Nuclear Power." London, United 

Kingdom. Available at http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-ofNuclear-power/. TN4111. 

Zhang, J. and B. Sharfstein. 2013. "Lake Okeechobee Watershed Protection Program." 

Chapter 8 in 2013 South Florida Environmental Report. South Florida Water Management 

District, West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14342A040. TN2894. 

Zilkoski, D.B., J.H. Richards, and G.M. Young. 1992. "Results of the General Adjustment of the 

North American Vertical Datum of 1988." Surveying and Land Information Systems 52(3):133–

149, Gaithersburg, Maryland. TN1232. 

October 2016 12-1 NUREG–2176 

12.0 Index 

A 

Access roads, ix, xii, xxiv, xxvi, 2-17, 2-117, 3-16, 

3-23, 4-9, 4-10, 4-44, 4-61, 4-65, 4-67, 5-4, 9-

55, 9-66, 9-109, 9-120, 9-159, 9-168, 9-206, 9-

215, D-45, E-104, E-179, E-241, E-243, E-258, 

E-262, K-16

Accident, xiv, xv, xxvi, xxvii, xxviii, xlviii, 2-215, 2-

221, 3-30, 4-84, 4-113, 4-133, 4-134, 4-135, 4-

136, 5-87, 5-108, 5-110, 5-111, 5-130, 5-132, 

5-133, 5-134, 5-135, 5-136, 5-137, 5-138, 5-

139, 5-141, 5-142, 5-144, 5-145, 5-146, 5-147, 

5-149, 5-150, 5-154, 5-157, 6-16, 6-17, 6-19, 

6-23, 6-25, 6-26, 6-27, 6-33, 6-34, 6-35, 6-36, 

6-38, 7-41, 7-42, 7-43, 9-53, 9-93, 9-94, 9-95, 

9-96, 9-108, 9-146, 9-148, 9-151, 9-192, 9-

193, 9-194, 9-195, 9-204, 9-241, 9-242, 9-243, 

9-244, 10-8, 10-12, 11-32, 11-58, 11-70, 11-

71, 11-74, 11-82, A-4, D-7, D-15, D-106, E-26, 

E-27, E-69, E-86, E-96, E-102, E-103, E-129, 

E-132, E-309, E-341, E-344, E-345, E-346, E347, E-351, E-354, E-355, E-356, E-357, E358, E-360, E-361, E-362, E-364, E-365, E366, E-367, E-368, E-369, E-370, E-378, E379, E-380, E-383, E-394, E-448, E-460, E462, E-468, E-477, E-483, E-485, E-491, E493, E-494, E-496, E-501, E-517, E-520, E521, E-527, E-528, E-529, E-530, E-533, E534, E-544, E-546, E-550, E-551, E-552, E553, E-554, E-2, E-10, G-52, G-53, I-12, I-13, 

I-14, I-15

Design basis, xliv, 2-215, 5-94, 5-132, 5-133, 5-

154, 5-157, 7-41, 9-95, E-309, E-354, E355, E-550, E-551, I-13

MACCS, xlviii, 5-137, 5-138, 5-140, 5-141, 5-

142, 5-143, 5-147, 5-149, 5-150, 11-58, E357, G-53, G-54

SAMDAs, xxvii, xxviii, lii, 1-9, 5-144, 5-147, 5-

148, 5-149, 5-150, G-52, G-53, G-54

Severe, xiv, xxvii, 5-136, 5-139, 5-141, 5-146, 5-

147, 5-154, 5-157, 11-70, 11-71, A-2, E-368, 

G-57

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP), xxxi, xliii, 2-205, 2-207, 11-9, 11-76, B1, C-3, C-5, C-22, F-1, F-2

Aesthetics, vii, x, xiii, 2-168, 2-178, 4-2, 4-15, 4-98, 

4-102, 4-103, 4-119, 4-146, 4-148, 5-2, 5-4, 5-

5, 5-6, 5-80, 5-81, 5-155, 7-29, 7-31, 9-3, 9-14, 

9-21, 9-22, 9-30, 9-76, 9-77, 9-82, 9-83, 9-130, 

9-135, 9-136, 9-176, 9-177, 9-182, 9-183, 9-

244, 9-247, 9-248, 9-251, 9-253, 10-10, D-34, 

D-64, D-94, D-113, D-114, E-81, E-244, E-307, 

E-308, E-309, E-318, I-8, I-9, K-18

Air quality, vii, xviii, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvi, xxxviii, xl, xliii, 

l, 2-1, 2-211, 2-214, 2-217, 2-218, 2-220, 2-

226, 3-39, 3-41, 4-3, 4-99, 4-119, 4-120, 4-

125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-141, 5-1, 5-

79, 5-93, 5-97, 5-98, 5-101, 5-109, 5-130, 5-

156, 7-29, 7-34, 7-35, 7-37, 7-45, 7-46, 9-8, 9-

11, 9-15, 9-17, 9-22, 9-29, 9-31, 9-34, 9-91, 9-

92, 9-93, 9-144, 9-145, 9-190, 9-191, 9-192, 9-

239, 9-240, 9-241, 9-244, 9-246, 10-5, 10-8, 

10-12, 10-22, 10-26, 11-2, 11-19, A-1, A-4, C8, C-10, C-24, C-25, D-12, D-15, D-97, D-98, 

D-99, D-100, E-47, E-69, E-106, E-176, E-244, 

E-324, E-331, E-332, E-334, E-335, E-415, E424, E-535, E-7, I-8, I-11

Alternative, iii, v, xiv, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxi, xxiii, xxiv, 

xxvii, xxviii, xxix, xxxi, xxxii, xxxvi, xxxvii, xxxviii, 

xxxix, xl, xli, xlviii, lii, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-8, 1-9, 

1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 2-24, 2-61, 2-76, 2-181, 

2-212, 2-223, 3-16, 3-30, 4-2, 4-12, 4-24, 4-29, 

4-133, 4-135, 5-15, 5-17, 5-20, 5-42, 5-102, 5-

108, 5-110, 5-111, 5-112, 5-134, 5-147, 5-148, 

5-149, 5-150, 6-16, 6-18, 6-19, 6-20, 6-22, 6-

23, 6-24, 6-25, 6-26, 6-27, 6-28, 6-30, 6-31, 6-

32, 6-33, 6-35, 6-36, 6-37, 6-38, 6-40, 7-1, 7-

27, 7-36, 7-37, 8-4, 8-5, 8-8, 8-9, 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, 

9-4, 9-5, 9-6, 9-7, 9-8, 9-9, 9-13, 9-16, 9-17, 9-

18, 9-22, 9-23, 9-24, 9-25, 9-26, 9-27, 9-28, 9-

29, 9-30, 9-31, 9-32, 9-33, 9-34, 9-35, 9-41, 9-

42, 9-43, 9-44, 9-47, 9-48, 9-49, 9-50, 9-51, 9-

52, 9-53, 9-54, 9-56, 9-59, 9-69, 9-70, 9-82, 9-

84, 9-85, 9-86, 9-87, 9-88, 9-92, 9-93, 9-94, 9-

95, 9-96, 9-99, 9-100, 9-101, 9-102, 9-103, 9-

104, 9-105, 9-106, 9-107, 9-108, 9-109, 9-110, 

9-111, 9-114, 9-116, 9-123, 9-124, 9-125, 9-

126, 9-135, 9-137, 9-138, 9-139, 9-140, 9-141, 

9-144, 9-146, 9-147, 9-148, 9-151, 9-152, 9-

153, 9-154, 9-154, 9-155, 9-156, 9-157, 9-158, 

9-159, 9-160, 9-163, 9-166, 9-171, 9-172, 9-

182, 9-184, 9-185, 9-186, 9-187, 9-188, 9-191, 

9-192, 9-193, 9-194, 9-195, 9-198, 9-199, 9-

200, 9-201, 9-202, 9-203, 9-204, 9-205, 9-206, 

9-207, 9-211, 9-217, 9-218, 9-219, 9-223, 9-
Index 

NUREG–2176 12-2 October 2016 

231, 9-232, 9-233, 9-234, 9-235, 9-236, 9-239, 

9-240, 9-241, 9-242, 9-243, 9-244, 9-245, 9-

246, 9-247, 9-249, 9-250, 9-251, 9-252, 9-253, 

9-254, 9-255, 9-256, 9-257, 9-258, 10-2, 10-3, 

10-16, 10-17, 10-24, 10-26, 10-27, 10-28, 11-

16, 11-19, 11-42, 11-43, 11-45, 11-47, 11-71, 

11-74, 11-84, 11-93, A-1, A-3, C-6, C-8, C-9, 

C-11, C-12, C-13, C-14, C-15, C-17, C-18, C19, C-20, C-21, D-7, D-15, D-18, D-23, D-24, 

D-30, D-33, D-36, D-37, D-38, D-39, D-40, D41, D-44, D-45, D-46, D-48, D-61, D-63, D-66, 

D-68, D-69, D-76, D-84, D-91, D-93, D-101, D109, D-116, D-122, D-123, D-124, D-125, D126, D-127, D-128, D-129, D-130, D-131, D132, D-133, D-134, D-136, D-137, E-28, E-32, 

E-33, E-35, E-70, E-76, E-77, E-78, E-81, E83, E-84, E-85, E-91, E-95, E-98, E-105, E106, E-109, E-110, E-111, E-113, E-136, E138, E-148, E-150, E-152, E-156, E-162, E168, E-176, E-177, E-179, E-182, E-199, E212, E-216, E-218, E-220, E-225, E-226, E229, E-231, E-233, E-235, E-239, E-244, E245, E-246, E-247, E-279, E-280, E-297, E303, E-308, E-310, E-314, E-317, E-318, E357, E-368, E-377, E-385, E-387, E-389, E391, E-392, E-393, E-394, E-395, E-396, E397, E-398, E-399, E-400, E-401, E-402, E403, E-405, E-406, E-407, E-408, E-411, E412, E-413, E-414, E-415, E-416, E-418, E419, E-420, E-421, E-422, E-423, E-424, E425, E-426, E-427, E-428, E-429, E-431, E438, E-440, E-441, E-442, E-444, E-445, E446, E-448, E-449, E-455, E-459, E-461, E462, E-471, E-473, E-474, E-476, E-490, E491, E-492, E-495, E-496, E-498, E-500, E501, E-511, E-522, E-524, E-528, E-529, E533, E-534, E-537, E-538, E-95, E-3, E-4, E-5, 

G-52, G-53, G-54, I-14, 1, K-1, K-4, K-7, K-8, 

K-9, K-10, K-15, K-16, K-20, K-21, K-22

Alternatives 

Candidate site, 9-33, 9-34, 9-35, 9-40, E-438, 

E-445, E-446

Environmentally preferable, xxxvi, xxxvii, xxxviii, 

5-15, 5-17, 9-5, 9-31, 9-32, 9-33, 9-34, 9-42, 

9-43, 9-244, 9-247, 9-248, 9-249, 9-251, 9-

252, 9-253, 9-254, 9-255, 9-256, 9-257, 9-

258, 10-17, D-18, D-130, D-133, D-134, E177, E-182, E-200, E-212, E-216, E-218, E220, E-225, E-226, E-229, E-231, E-233, E235, E-393, E-419, E-420, E-421, E-423, E427, E-429, E-431, E-433, E-441, E-443, E445, E-454, E-459

No action, xxxvi, 1-4, 1-11, 7-27, 9-1, 9-2, 10-

16, D-123, D-130, E-393, E-429, K-10, K-21

Obviously superior, 9-33

Potential site, 1-11, 9-33, 9-34, 9-37, 9-39, 9-

40, E-438, E-446, E-534

Site comparison, E-431, E-445

Site-selection process, 9-1, 9-33, 9-34, 9-35, 9-

37, D-134

Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), 9-6, 9-23, 9-25, 9-

26, 11-16, 11-17

Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report, 2-

229, 5-126

Annual Radiological Environmental Operating 

Report, 2-230, 5-127, 11-37, 11-38, 11-39, 11-

41, 11-43, 11-45, 11-46, 11-48, 11-49, 11-50, 

G-16

Aquatic biota, 2-159, 4-80, 4-86, 5-43, 5-70, 5-71, 

5-76, 5-126, 7-26, 9-71, 9-72, 9-74, 9-75, 9-

126, 9-127, 9-129, 9-174, 9-175, 9-223, 9-250, 

D-77, E-244, G-18

Aquatic resources, 2-80, 2-109, 2-119, 2-122, 2-

123, 2-126, 2-128, 2-131, 2-134, 2-160, 4-35, 

4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 

4-85, 4-86, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-146, 5-11, 5-59, 

5-67, 5-68, 5-69, 5-70, 5-74, 5-75, 5-76, 5-77, 

5-78, 5-153, 5-155, 7-24, 7-26, 7-27, 7-28, 7-

29, 7-47, 9-70, 9-71, 9-73, 9-74, 9-75, 9-125, 

9-126, 9-127, 9-128, 9-129, 9-172, 9-173, 9-

174, 9-175, 9-219, 9-222, 9-224, 10-9, 10-13, 

D-80, D-81, D-85, E-76, E-81, E-84, E-85, E102, E-128, E-133, E-180, E-211, E-247, E264, E-286, E-290, E-293, E-294, E-296, E298, E-300, E-301, E-302, E-304, E-306, E311, E-383, I-8

Aquifer, xxi, xliii, 2-24, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 2-

47, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 2-51, 2-53, 2-54, 2-55, 2-

56, 2-57, 2-58, 2-59, 2-60, 2-61, 2-68, 2-70, 2-

71, 2-73, 2-75, 2-160, 2-181, 2-209, 3-2, 3-8, 

3-10, 3-24, 4-21, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-29, 4-30, 

4-31, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-143, 5-7, 5-8, 5-13, 5-

14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 5-19, 5-21, 5-22, 5-

23, 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-28, 5-33, 5-34, 5-35, 5-

36, 5-38, 5-39, 5-40, 5-41, 5-42, 5-44, 5-67, 5-

68, 5-69, 5-77, 5-103, 5-104, 5-118, 7-3, 7-13, 

7-14, 7-16, 7-17, 7-18, 7-38, 9-43, 9-50, 9-51, 

9-52, 9-57, 9-58, 9-59, 9-60, 9-61, 9-75, 9-104, 

9-105, 9-112, 9-113, 9-114, 9-115, 9-116, 9-

128, 9-129, 9-154, 9-155, 9-161, 9-162, 9-163, 

9-164, 9-165, 9-201, 9-202, 9-208, 9-209, 9-
Index 

October 2016 12-3 NUREG–2176 

210, 9-211, 9-254, 9-255, 9-258, 10-6, 10-10, 

10-13, 10-15, 11-15, 11-32, 11-40, 11-57, 11-

60, 11-81, 11-90, 11-91, 11-94, D-24, D-39, D45, D-46, D-49, D-50, D-51, D-52, D-53, D-54, 

D-55, D-56, D-57, D-58, D-59, D-61, D-62, D63, D-64, D-66, D-82, D-103, D-104, D-111, D113, D-115, D-116, D-127, E-91, E-110, E112, E-113, E-114, E-116, E-120, E-124, E145, E-148, E-152, E-153, E-154, E-155, E156, E-157, E-158, E-159, E-162, E-163, E165, E-166, E-167, E-169, E-172, E-173, E176, E-177, E-183, E-184, E-185, E-186, E187, E-188, E-189, E-190, E-191, E-192, E193, E-194, E-195, E-196, E-197, E-198, E199, E-200, E-201, E-202, E-203, E-205, E206, E-207, E-208, E-210, E-213, E-214, E215, E-217, E-219, E-220, E-221, E-223, E224, E-227, E-228, E-229, E-230, E-232, E233, E-234, E-236, E-274, E-276, E-283, E298, E-305, E-438, E-441, E-501, E-509, E511, E-530, E-4, E-11, G-4, G-22, G-23, G-24, 

G-25, G-26, G-27, G-28, G-29, G-30, G-31, G33, G-34, G-35, G-40, G-46, G-47, G-48, G-49, 

G-50, G-51, G-52, G-55, G-56, I-6

Archaeological resource, vii, xxxi, 2-201, 2-202, 2-

205, 2-206, 2-207, 4-124, 5-97, 7-28, 9-15, 9-

21, 9-30, 9-89, 9-142, 9-188, 9-237, 11-77, B2, C-4, C-5, D-95, D-96, E-327, F-1, F-2

Area of Potential Effects (APE), xliii, 2-197, 2-201, 

2-202, 2-203, 2-204, 4-123, 4-124, 5-95, 5-96, 

5-97, 7-32, 7-33, 9-88, 9-89, 9-90, 9-91, 9-141, 

9-143, 9-188, 9-190, 9-236, 9-237, 9-238, 10-

7, 10-8, D-96, E-325, E-326, E-327, E-328

B 

Barge slip (unloading facility), 1-10, 2-126, 2-159, 

2-160, 3-15, 3-21, 3-22, 3-26, 4-31, 4-82, 4-89, 

4-98, 9-212, D-80, D-81, E-241, E-297

Best management practices (BMPs), xliii, 2-160, 4-

8, 4-17, 4-19, 4-22, 4-26, 4-29, 4-30, 4-32, 4-

33, 4-34, 4-40, 4-43, 4-61, 4-64, 4-70, 4-73, 4-

78, 4-80, 4-81, 4-86, 4-90, 4-94, 4-96, 4-97, 4-

120, 4-142, 4-143, 4-147, 5-4, 5-32, 5-34, 5-

37, 5-50, 5-52, 5-65, 5-66, 5-70, 5-151, 5-152, 

5-153, 7-22, 9-10, 9-11, 9-18, 9-58, 9-59, 9-61, 

9-69, 9-73, 9-113, 9-114, 9-116, 9-121, 9-122, 

9-127, 9-162, 9-163, 9-165, 9-169, 9-208, 9-

209, 9-211, 9-214, 9-216, 9-222, 10-8, 11-26, 

D-83, E-168, E-173, E-178, E-205, E-237, E261, E-278, E-329

Biological Assessment (BA), xliii, 1-12, 2-84, 2-

144, 2-146, 2-147, 2-148, 2-151, 2-156, 2-215, 

4-45, 4-87, 4-90, 4-94, 4-95, 4-97, 5-58, 5-63, 

5-133, 7-41, 9-8, 9-9, 9-11, 9-18, 9-32, 9-95, 9-

221, 11-38, 11-45, 11-72, 11-79, C-21, C-22, 

C-25, E-178, E-245, E-249, E-251, E-252, E253, E-254, E-263, E-271, E-272, E-273, E274, E-275, E-276, E-278, E-282, E-289, E290, E-291, E-292, E-293, E-294, E-300, E304, E-305, E-557, E-6, F-1, F-3, I-13

Biological Opinion (BO), 2-148, 9-221, 11-52, 11-

66, E-294

Biota, xiv, xxii, xxvii, 2-119, 5-47, 5-50, 5-66, 5-67, 

5-69, 5-113, 5-115, 5-116, 5-119, 5-125, 5-

126, 5-153, 5-156, 6-13, 7-19, 7-20, 7-22, 7-

23, 7-40, 9-72, 9-74, 9-95, 9-126, 9-127, 9-

128, 9-147, 9-174, 9-194, 9-223, 9-224, 9-243, 

9-251, 10-12, 10-14, 10-15, D-80, D-101, D104, E-150, E-222, E-244, E-350, E-351, G-4, 

G-10, G-18, G-19, G-20, G-21, I-13

Birds, 2-10, 2-11, 2-79, 2-82, 2-83, 2-91, 2-92, 2-

93, 2-95, 2-97, 2-98, 2-104, 2-106, 2-107, 2-

108, 2-109, 2-111, 2-117, 2-129, 2-133, 2-139, 

2-142, 2-148, 2-179, 2-226, 4-51, 4-53, 4-54, 

4-55, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-69, 4-84, 4-88, 4-90, 

5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-47, 5-49, 5-51, 5-52, 5-53, 

5-55, 5-56, 5-57, 5-62, 5-63, 5-64, 5-65, 5-66, 

7-19, 7-22, 9-62, 9-63, 9-64, 9-66, 9-67, 9-68, 

9-80, 9-117, 9-118, 9-121, 9-122, 9-133, 9-

166, 9-169, 9-173, 9-180, 9-212, 9-215, 9-216, 

10-8, 10-13, 11-9, 11-32, 11-51, 11-52, 11-84, 

D-30, D-34, D-67, D-72, D-75, D-76, D-77, D83, D-112, E-102, E-106, E-107, E-109, E-179, 

E-242, E-246, E-247, E-249, E-252, E-255, E256, E-257, E-264, E-265, E-266, E-268, E269, E-270, E-275, E-277, E-279, E-285, E286, E-289, E-319, E-320, E-437, E-440, E492, E-493, E-500, E-6, H-5, H-7, I-7, K-9, K12, K-13, K-14, K-15, K-16, K-17, K-18, K-19, 

K-20, K-21, K-22, K-23

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 2-112, 

11-7

Eagles, 2-95, 2-112, 4-61, 5-62, 11-30, D-75, 

E-20, H-5, K-9

Migratory, 2-79, 2-91, 2-92, 2-93, 2-94, 2-96, 4-

50, 4-61, 4-69, 5-53, 5-61, 5-63, 9-67, 9-

122, 9-170, 9-215, 9-220, 11-51, 11-52, D30, D-34, D-68, D-75, D-76, E-242, E-249, 

E-255, E-256, E-265, E-266, E-275, E-320, 

H-5, H-7, I-4
Index 

NUREG–2176 12-4 October 2016 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), E-255, E275

Biscayne Aquifer, ix, xii, 2-47, 2-49, 2-60, 4-23, 5-

13, 5-41, 11-14, 11-28, 11-58, D-19, D-48, D51, D-53, D-54, D-55, D-56, D-57, D-59, D-61, 

D-62, D-63, D-65, D-66, D-86, D-117, D-132, 

E-114, E-120, E-130, E-134, E-151, E-152, E155, E-159, E-162, E-164, E-165, E-167, E168, E-176, E-178, E-184, E-185, E-186, E187, E-190, E-194, E-198, E-200, E-201, E202, E-203, E-206, E-207, E-208, E-210, E220, E-221, E-222, E-235, E-298, E-340, E389, E-438, E-501, E-509, E-532, G-22, G-26

Biscayne National Park, 1-8, 2-4, 2-10, 2-11, 2-

12, 2-24, 2-79, 2-84, 2-86, 2-110, 2-118, 2-

119, 2-128, 2-129, 2-131, 2-137, 2-139, 2-140, 

2-147, 2-155, 2-156, 2-157, 2-159, 2-167, 2-

178, 2-179, 2-231, 4-8, 4-13, 4-19, 4-41, 4-47, 

4-57, 4-68, 4-81, 4-82, 4-88, 4-96, 4-113, 4-

129, 4-143, 5-5, 5-10, 5-49, 5-51, 5-59, 5-67, 

5-69, 5-79, 5-87, 7-5, 7-11, 7-15, 7-20, 7-23, 7-

24, 7-26, 7-27, 7-28, 7-29, 7-44, 9-12, 9-19, 9-

251, 10-5, 10-10, 11-10, 11-68, 11-69, 11-82, 

B-2, D-23, D-28, D-29, D-35, D-36, D-46, D-51, 

D-55, D-57, D-63, D-65, D-67, D-68, D-69, D75, D-80, D-81, D-82, D-84, D-91, D-92, D-97, 

D-100, D-102, D-110, D-112, D-114, D-116, D123, D-133, D-134, D-138, E-87, E-109, E118, E-123, E-125, E-126, E-127, E-130, E144, E-147, E-148, E-149, E-150, E-151, E152, E-156, E-159, E-163, E-165, E-174, E184, E-185, E-186, E-187, E-195, E-199, E210, E-215, E-222, E-233, E-240, E-242, E276, E-281, E-284, E-285, E-286, E-287, E295, E-296, E-298, E-299, E-300, E-307, E308, E-309, E-310, E-320, E-322, E-339, E362, E-382, E-408, E-431, E-432, E-433, E434, E-435, E-436, E-437, E-439, E-440, E441, E-442, E-443, E-444, E-454, E-459, E500, E-501, E-502, E-503, E-504, E-505, E506, E-507, E-508, E-509, E-511, E-514, E532, E-539, I-8, K-19

Boulder Zone, ix, xii, 2-24, 2-46, 2-54, 2-55, 2-56, 

2-57, 2-58, 2-60, 2-61, 2-71, 2-75, 2-122, 2-

209, 3-9, 3-10, 3-17, 3-32, 3-37, 4-21, 4-25, 4-

33, 4-35, 5-7, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 5-24, 5-

25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-28, 5-37, 5-39, 5-41, 5-42, 5-

93, 5-103, 5-115, 5-118, 5-123, 7-16, 7-17, 7-

18, 9-13, 9-19, 9-43, 9-57, 9-58, 9-59, 9-60, 9-

61, 9-71, 9-74, 9-112, 9-113, 9-114, 9-115, 9-

116, 9-125, 9-128, 9-161, 9-162, 9-163, 9-165, 

9-174, 9-255, 9-256, 9-257, 10-23, 11-14, D17, D-49, D-50, D-60, D-79, D-115, E-111, E113, E-114, E-115, E-116, E-117, E-153, E161, E-168, E-177, E-179, E-180, E-189, E190, E-191, E-192, E-193, E-194, E-204, E205, E-206, E-213, E-214, E-215, E-221, E237, E-311, E-3, G-4, G-5, G-6, G-48, G-50, G51

Burnup, 6-6, 6-18

C 

census block group (CBG), 2-165, 2-166, 2-188, 2-

190, 4-122, 5-93, 7-31, 9-35, 9-136, E-444

Chronic effects, 2-229, 5-107, 5-108, 5-112, 7-38

Clean Air Act (CAA), xliv, 3-39, 7-34, 9-8, 9-9, 9-

10, 9-17, 9-32, 9-92, 9-144, 9-191, 9-210, 9-

240, 11-3, 11-4, 11-8, 11-24, I-11, I-17

Clean Water Act (CWA), iii, xxxii, xli, xliv, xlvi, 1-1, 1-

2, 1-3, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-10, 1-11, 2-62, 4-2, 4-

20, 4-39, 4-41, 4-43, 4-66, 4-69, 4-71, 5-6, 5-

130, 9-1, 9-210, 9-251, 9-256, 9-257, 9-259, 

10-1, 10-2, 10-3, 10-4, 10-17, 11-8, 11-24, D17, D-64, D-69, D-75, E-76, E-84, E-85, E-110, 

E-128, E-134, E-178, E-210, E-240, E-241, E270, E-276, E-296, E-303, E-331, E-441, H-3, 

K-1, K-16, K-20

Climate change, xx, 1-13, 2-212, 2-214, 9-42, 11-

13, 11-55, A-1, D-117, D-118, E-36, E-70, E120, E-127, E-132, E-134, E-136, E-137, E138, E-139, E-140, E-141, E-144, E-146, E148, E-155, E-179, E-288, E-331, E-363, E376, E-378, E-452, E-504, E-524, E-540, E553, E-555, E-7, 1, I-1, I-2, I-3, I-5, I-6, I-7, I-8, 

I-10, I-11, I-16, I-17, I-18, J-3, J-4, J-5

Closed-cycle cooling, 2-42, 2-43, 3-37, 5-74, 5-

112, 9-13, 9-29, 9-74, 9-75, 9-127, 9-129, 9-

175, 9-209, 9-219, 9-223, 9-250, E-169, E-286

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 2-6, 11-7, 

D-16

Combined License (COL), iii, v, xxxi, xxxii, xxxvi, xl, 

xli, xliv, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 

1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 2-1, 2-118, 2-197, 2-

201, 2-202, 2-204, 2-206, 2-207, 2-208, 2-231, 

3-1, 3-5, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-20, 4-134, 4-142, 5-1, 

5-6, 5-113, 5-130, 5-132, 5-137, 5-140, 5-141, 

5-144, 5-145, 5-146, 5-147, 5-150, 6-1, 6-6, 6-

14, 6-18, 6-31, 6-39, 7-1, 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, 9-4, 9-

7, 9-16, 9-23, 9-33, 9-35, 9-41, 9-42, 9-245, 

10-1, 10-2, 10-3, 10-4, 10-5, 10-16, 10-18, 10-

28, 11-4, 11-7, 11-28, 11-40, 11-41, 11-43, 11-
Index 

October 2016 12-5 NUREG–2176 

45, 11-46, 11-47, 11-48, 11-49, 11-50, 11-61, 

11-64, 11-72, 11-73, 11-74, 11-75, 11-76, 11-

77, 11-78, 11-79, 11-83, 11-84, 11-88, 11-94, 

C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9, C11, C-12, C-13, C-15, C-16, C-17, C-18, C-19, 

C-20, C-21, C-22, C-24, C-25, D-1, D-2, D-13, 

D-15, D-16, D-17, D-18, D-23, D-44, D-55, D56, D-60, D-63, D-98, D-109, D-119, D-128, D129, D-131, D-132, D-133, D-134, D-138, E-3, 

E-63, E-69, E-70, E-72, E-74, E-75, E-76, E77, E-79, E-82, E-83, E-84, E-113, E-120, E141, E-180, E-210, E-239, E-255, E-274, E328, E-330, E-331, E-355, E-365, E-369, E431, E-454, E-459, E-461, E-471, E-485, E500, E-509, E-537, E-548, E-550, E-554, E-3, 

E-5, E-6, E-7, E-8, E-9, F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, G53, G-56, G-57, G-58, H-1, H-2, H-12, I-1, I-2, 

I-3, I-14, I-17, I-18, J-2, K-22

Consumptive use, 3-32, 4-20, 5-6, 5-44, 7-12, 7-

14, 9-58, 9-113, 9-162, 9-251, D-48, D-63, D66, E-181, E-190, E-203

Continued storage, 6-14, 6-15, 7-42, E-373, E376, E-378, E-553

Cooling canal, ix, xii, xxi, xxii, xxvii, 2-1, 2-7, 2-18, 

2-31, 2-39, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 2-46, 2-51, 

2-53, 2-70, 2-71, 2-73, 2-77, 2-119, 2-159, 2-

161, 3-2, 3-15, 3-19, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-

28, 3-30, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-26, 4-27, 4-

29, 4-30, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-75, 4-80, 4-

81, 4-93, 4-144, 4-145, 5-7, 5-8, 5-10, 5-11, 5-

12, 5-14, 5-16, 5-18, 5-19, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-

32, 5-33, 5-71, 5-76, 5-101, 7-3, 7-13, 7-14, 7-

15, 7-16, 7-18, 7-22, 7-25, 9-13, 9-252, 9-254, 

9-256, 9-257, 9-258, 11-27, 11-56, 11-57, 11-

60, 11-63, 11-87, D-23, D-38, D-45, D-48, D49, D-51, D-52, D-53, D-56, D-57, D-59, D-60, 

D-61, D-64, D-77, D-117, D-118, D-119, D123, E-91, E-113, E-117, E-120, E-136, E-147, 

E-150, E-154, E-155, E-156, E-159, E-160, E162, E-163, E-164, E-165, E-166, E-167, E168, E-169, E-170, E-171, E-177, E-178, E179, E-184, E-185, E-186, E-188, E-195, E196, E-197, E-198, E-199, E-200, E-201, E202, E-203, E-206, E-207, E-208, E-209, E211, E-216, E-217, E-218, E-220, E-221, E223, E-224, E-227, E-229, E-230, E-231, E232, E-233, E-234, E-236, E-241, E-254, E273, E-274, E-275, E-281, E-282, E-289, E292, E-294, E-295, E-298, E-299, E-300, E305, E-333, E-334, E-338, E-382, E-465, E466, E-503, E-507, E-508, E-510, E-530, E531, E-532, E-541, E-10, G-26, G-27, G-28, G31, G-32, G-33, G-35, G-47, G-48, G-56, I-5

Cooling system, viii, 2-41, 2-42, 2-217, 3-2, 3-8, 3-

9, 3-29, 3-30, 4-35, 4-36, 4-38, 5-10, 5-43, 5-

44, 5-67, 5-68, 5-74, 5-77, 5-78, 5-89, 5-97, 5-

99, 5-102, 5-109, 5-112, 5-133, 5-155, 6-33, 7-

25, 7-26, 9-13, 9-43, 9-44, 9-74, 9-96, 9-125, 

9-128, 9-151, 9-174, 9-223, 9-250, 9-251, 9-

252, 9-253, 10-12, 10-23, D-50, D-97, D-98, D99, D-101, E-70, E-147, E-152, E-153, E-158, 

E-165, E-166, E-176, E-182, E-186, E-187, E188, E-195, E-196, E-197, E-204, E-206, E239, E-281, E-287, E-302, E-332, E-361, E424, E-429, E-493, E-545, E-548, E-549, E550, I-6, I-11

Cooling tower, viii, xix, xxii, xxxii, 2-24, 2-58, 2-67, 

2-218, 2-223, 2-225, 3-2, 3-8, 3-9, 3-14, 3-16, 

3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-31, 3-32, 4-4, 4-

36, 4-39, 4-131, 5-2, 5-7, 5-10, 5-11, 5-20, 5-

29, 5-31, 5-33, 5-37, 5-44, 5-45, 5-47, 5-49, 5-

55, 5-56, 5-57, 5-58, 5-59, 5-65, 5-66, 5-67, 5-

68, 5-71, 5-78, 5-80, 5-93, 5-94, 5-97, 5-98, 5-

99, 5-100, 5-101, 5-102, 5-103, 5-104, 5-105, 

5-109, 5-112, 5-154, 6-2, 6-8, 7-13, 7-23, 7-25, 

7-34, 9-13, 9-21, 9-29, 9-43, 9-66, 9-67, 9-70, 

9-88, 9-93, 9-121, 9-122, 9-124, 9-141, 9-146, 

9-169, 9-170, 9-172, 9-188, 9-192, 9-209, 9-

216, 9-218, 9-223, 9-236, 9-241, 9-250, 9-251, 

9-252, 9-253, 9-258, 10-12, 10-22, 11-17, 11-

81, D-17, D-21, D-22, D-23, D-44, D-50, D-79, 

D-85, D-97, D-98, D-99, D-100, D-101, D-114, 

E-131, E-135, E-136, E-161, E-165, E-168, E172, E-173, E-174, E-175, E-176, E-178, E179, E-182, E-191, E-192, E-201, E-204, E207, E-215, E-236, E-255, E-271, E-274, E283, E-292, E-300, E-310, E-332, E-333, E334, E-337, E-338, E-339, E-377, E-9, I-11

Drift (salt deposition, fogging, icing), xxii, xxvii, 2-

67, 2-218, 2-222, 3-32, 3-41, 5-2, 5-7, 5-8, 

5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-

32, 5-33, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-47, 5-50, 5-55, 

5-56, 5-57, 5-58, 5-59, 5-60, 5-65, 5-66, 5-

67, 5-68, 5-69, 5-70, 5-71, 5-72, 5-74, 5-76, 

5-93, 5-98, 5-99, 5-100, 5-101, 5-103, 5-

104, 5-108, 5-109, 5-110, 5-112, 7-15, 7-23, 

7-34, 7-39, 9-13, 9-43, 9-66, 9-67, 9-74, 9-

121, 9-122, 9-128, 9-169, 9-170, 9-174, 9-

216, 9-223, 9-250, 9-251, 9-252, 10-10, 10-

12, 10-13, 10-23, D-79, D-97, D-98, D-99, 

D-101, E-117, E-158, E-168, E-169, E-172, 

E-173, E-174, E-175, E-178, E-179, E-182, 
Index 

NUREG–2176 12-6 October 2016 

E-187, E-200, E-201, E-207, E-229, E-232, 

E-236, E-264, E-283, E-291, E-300, E-301, 

E-302, E-332, E-333, E-334, E-337, E-338, 

E-339, E-340, I-11

Core damage frequency, xliv, 5-138, 5-139, 5-140, 

5-141, 5-142, 5-144, 5-145, 5-146, 5-149, 5-

150, E-129, E-355, E-360, E-361, E-362, E363, G-54, I-14

Costs, v, xx, xxix, xl, xliii, 2-173, 4-13, 4-108, 4-

113, 4-118, 5-84, 5-87, 5-137, 5-139, 5-148, 6-

1, 7-27, 8-5, 8-8, 8-9, 9-5, 9-14, 9-20, 9-28, 9-

29, 9-33, 9-43, 9-56, 9-110, 10-17, 10-18, 10-

19, 10-21, 10-22, 10-23, 10-24, 10-25, 10-26, 

10-27, 11-9, 11-17, 11-79, D-89, D-94, D-103, 

D-108, D-109, D-128, D-135, D-136, D-137, D138, E-87, E-93, E-94, E-96, E-99, E-103, E139, E-142, E-154, E-286, E-310, E-315, E321, E-357, E-367, E-368, E-379, E-385, E387, E-390, E-391, E-394, E-404, E-407, E410, E-413, E-416, E-419, E-446, E-447, E448, E-449, E-450, E-451, E-452, E-456, E461, E-462, E-463, E-525, G-53, I-4, I-9, I-14, 

I-15

Crocodiles, 2-111, 2-123, 2-126, 2-134, 2-148, 2-

150, 2-151, 2-161, 2-229, 4-27, 4-70, 4-74, 4-

76, 4-78, 4-80, 4-86, 4-90, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-

96, 4-97, 4-145, 5-10, 5-29, 5-32, 10-6, 11-31, 

11-94, D-68, D-81, E-275, E-286, E-289, E290, E-293, E-294, E-300, E-303, E-304, E465, E-556, G-20, G-55, G-57

Crud, 6-33, 6-34

Cultural resource, vii, xi, xiii, xvi, xviii, xix, xxxiv, 

xxxv, xxxvi, xxxviii, xl, 2-1, 2-80, 2-197, 2-198, 2-

201, 2-202, 2-203, 2-204, 2-205, 2-206, 2-207, 

2-208, 3-18, 4-2, 4-3, 4-122, 4-123, 4-124, 4-

125, 4-146, 4-148, 5-1, 5-53, 5-95, 5-96, 5-97, 

5-153, 5-156, 7-31, 7-32, 7-33, 7-46, 7-47, 9-

15, 9-16, 9-21, 9-22, 9-30, 9-31, 9-34, 9-83, 9-

88, 9-89, 9-90, 9-91, 9-141, 9-142, 9-143, 9-

187, 9-188, 9-189, 9-190, 9-236, 9-237, 9-238, 

9-239, 9-246, 10-5, 10-7, 10-9, 10-11, 10-14, 

10-16, 10-23, 10-26, 11-40, 11-41, 11-43, 11-

44, 11-64, 11-83, A-1, A-2, A-4, C-5, C-7, C-9, 

C-25, D-10, D-15, D-34, D-95, D-96, D-97, D132, E-40, E-69, E-325, E-326, E-327, E-328, 

E-329, E-330, E-444, E-4, E-5, H-8, I-10

D 

Decommissioning, xv, xvi, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvi, 1-12, 

2-217, 4-1, 5-105, 6-1, 6-3, 6-7, 6-39, 6-40, 7-

1, 7-2, 7-9, 7-30, 7-35, 7-36, 7-41, 7-42, 7-45, 

7-46, 9-31, 9-32, 9-42, 9-43, 9-210, 10-5, 10-6, 

10-9, 10-12, 10-14, 10-21, 10-24, 10-25, 10-

26, 10-27, 11-17, 11-71, A-2, D-8, D-15, D108, D-109, E-36, E-70, E-147, E-331, E-351, 

E-377, E-381, E-382, E-403, E-405, E-409, E499, E-514, E-515, E-527, E-536, E-539, E553, J-1, J-2, J-3, J-5

Deep-well injection, 2-53, 2-54, 2-57, 3-25, 4-74, 

4-76, 4-138, 5-21, 5-29, 5-40, 5-41, 5-70, 5-

104, 5-112, 5-113, 5-115, 5-118, 5-123, 5-125, 

7-11, 7-15, 7-18, 9-43, 9-257, D-22, D-48, D49, D-50, D-60, D-61, D-85, D-105, E-112, E114, E-117, E-176, E-191, E-192, E-193, E194, E-203, E-204, E-205, E-214, E-215, E282, E-286, G-4, G-5, G-6, G-18, I-13

Demography, x, xiii, xxxv, xxxvi, xxxvii, 4-103, 4-

148, 5-81, 5-155, 7-46, 9-77, 9-78, 9-82, 9-

130, 9-131, 9-135, 9-177, 9-178, 9-182, 9-225, 

9-230, 9-246, 10-7, 10-11, 11-81, 11-85, A-2

Design basis accident, xliv, 2-215, 5-94, 5-131, 5-

132, 5-133, 5-145, 5-154, 5-157, 7-41, 9-95, E136, E-309, E-354, E-355, E-360, E-361, E363, E-370, E-550, E-551, E-553, I-13

Direct impacts, 4-94, 5-63, 5-64, 9-29, 9-190, D67, D-114, E-261, E-316, E-332, I-2

Discharges, xix, xxxviii, l, 1-2, 1-6, 1-7, 1-11, 2-11, 

2-24, 2-31, 2-33, 2-35, 2-39, 2-41, 2-44, 2-49, 

2-51, 2-53, 2-70, 2-73, 2-122, 2-128, 2-133, 2-

142, 2-144, 2-160, 2-222, 2-223, 2-229, 3-15, 

3-20, 3-23, 3-26, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-34, 3-35, 

3-37, 3-39, 3-41, 4-2, 4-12, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-

24, 4-26, 4-27, 4-29, 4-32, 4-33, 4-35, 4-39, 4-

78, 4-80, 4-82, 4-86, 4-93, 4-94, 4-97, 4-136, 

4-137, 4-140, 5-6, 5-13, 5-20, 5-29, 5-32, 5-33, 

5-34, 5-35, 5-37, 5-38, 5-50, 5-54, 5-66, 5-67, 

5-68, 5-91, 5-103, 5-105, 5-118, 5-127, 5-128, 

5-129, 5-130, 5-154, 5-157, 6-6, 6-8, 6-9, 6-32, 

6-35, 7-2, 7-14, 7-15, 7-22, 7-25, 7-26, 7-27, 7-

28, 7-38, 7-47, 9-1, 9-2, 9-12, 9-13, 9-19, 9-42, 

9-43, 9-59, 9-60, 9-61, 9-74, 9-75, 9-103, 9-

106, 9-112, 9-114, 9-115, 9-125, 9-128, 9-129, 

9-155, 9-161, 9-163, 9-164, 9-165, 9-174, 9-

175, 9-202, 9-209, 9-211, 9-212, 9-219, 9-220, 

9-222, 9-223, 9-241, 9-250, 9-251, 9-253, 9-

255, 9-257, 9-258, 10-2, 10-3, 10-8, 10-12, 10-

13, 11-2, 11-3, 11-8, 11-56, 11-58, 11-86, 11-

91, D-16, D-17, D-40, D-43, D-44, D-48, D-50, 

D-57, D-60, D-61, D-63, D-64, D-69, D-79, D119, E-72, E-86, E-105, E-113, E-114, E-157, 

E-161, E-163, E-167, E-168, E-169, E-171, E-
Index 

October 2016 12-7 NUREG–2176 

173, E-177, E-178, E-189, E-190, E-191, E197, E-200, E-201, E-202, E-204, E-207, E217, E-218, E-219, E-226, E-229, E-232, E238, E-241, E-247, E-261, E-279, E-282, E287, E-292, E-298, E-299, E-311, E-340, E483, G-4, G-6, G-31, G-32, G-35, G-51, G-52, 

H-3, H-12, K-1

Dose rate, 4-137, 5-115, 5-122, 5-126, 5-137, 5-

139, 5-143, 6-20, 6-21, 6-23, 6-24, 6-28, 6-29, 

6-32, E-347, E-380, G-16, G-18, I-15

Dredging, 2-119, 2-142, 2-154, 3-15, 3-22, 3-26, 

4-2, 4-22, 4-31, 4-75, 4-82, 4-87, 4-89, 4-90, 4-

91, 4-92, 4-96, 4-97, 4-139, 4-145, 4-146, 7-

25, 9-254, 9-257, 10-5, D-47, D-81, E-211, E297, E-298, E-299, E-303, E-304

Drilling, 2-49, 2-54, 2-57, 3-25, 4-20, 4-23, 4-25, 

4-33, 4-81, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-89, 4-92, 5-6, 5-

39, 5-103, 5-123, 11-40, D-53, D-55, D-126, E164, E-186, E-191, E-208, E-237, E-284, E293, E-302, E-4, G-55

Dust, 2-218, 4-5, 4-98, 4-99, 4-115, 4-120, 4-125, 

4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-133, 4-139, 4-

141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-146, 4-149, 7-38, 9-76, 9-

92, 9-93, 9-129, 9-130, 9-144, 9-145, 9-176, 9-

191, 9-192, 9-224, 9-240, 9-241, 10-8, 10-9, 

10-16, E-20

E 

Eagles, 2-95, 2-112, 4-61, 5-62, 11-30, D-75, E20, H-5, K-9

Economic impact area, 2-162, 2-168, 2-196, 4-98, 

4-106, 4-116, 4-119, 5-83, I-9

Economy, vii, x, xiii, 2-168, 2-200, 2-201, 4-106, 4-

119, 5-82, 5-83, 6-5, 7-29, 7-30, 8-5, 9-22, 9-

55, 9-78, 9-82, 9-110, 9-131, 9-132, 9-135, 9-

178, 9-182, 9-227, 9-230, 10-19, 11-10, D-31, 

D-40, D-86, D-87, D-88, D-89, D-90, D-94, D124, E-96, E-149, E-243, E-308, E-311, E-313, 

E-314, E-315, E-317, E-318, E-319, E-325, E385, E-386, E-405, E-406, E-419, E-420, E421, E-433, E-434, E-456, E-460, E-462, E466, E-467, E-487, E-501, E-504, E-527, E543, E-544

Education, x, xiii, xlvi, 2-10, 2-154, 2-168, 2-173, 

2-184, 2-187, 4-50, 4-59, 4-110, 4-115, 4-118, 

4-119, 4-145, 5-61, 5-86, 5-91, 5-92, 7-26, 7-

29, 9-79, 9-81, 9-132, 9-134, 9-179, 9-181, 9-

228, 9-230, 11-26, 11-34, 11-36, 11-54, A-1, 

D-120, E-80, E-286, E-403, E-458, E-467

Effluent, xi, xiv, xv, xxvi, xxvii, 2-24, 2-56, 2-67, 2-

216, 2-223, 2-229, 2-230, 3-2, 3-8, 3-10, 3-17, 

3-20, 3-29, 3-30, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-37, 3-39, 

3-41, 4-33, 4-78, 4-80, 4-82, 4-88, 4-93, 4-94, 

4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-24, 5-

25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-28, 5-37, 5-40, 5-42, 5-45, 5-

102, 5-103, 5-109, 5-110, 5-113, 5-114, 5-115, 

5-118, 5-119, 5-120, 5-121, 5-122, 5-123, 5-

124, 5-125, 5-127, 5-128, 5-129, 5-130, 5-154, 

6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-8, 6-9, 6-10, 6-11, 7-15, 7-

17, 7-34, 7-37, 7-40, 9-7, 9-58, 9-95, 9-113, 9-

145, 9-147, 9-162, 9-191, 9-194, 9-208, 9-240, 

9-243, 9-258, 11-3, 11-37, 11-38, 11-39, 11-

41, 11-43, 11-45, 11-46, 11-47, 11-48, 11-49, 

11-50, 11-59, 11-70, 11-82, D-19, D-27, D-38, 

D-44, D-60, D-61, D-63, D-64, D-98, D-103, D104, D-105, D-106, E-111, E-112, E-113, E114, E-115, E-116, E-117, E-156, E-161, E174, E-178, E-180, E-190, E-191, E-192, E193, E-194, E-204, E-205, E-214, E-215, E348, E-349, E-351, E-376, E-7, G-4, G-5, G-6, 

G-7, G-8, G-10, G-12, G-13, G-14, G-15, G-16, 

G-17, G-18, G-19, G-21, G-48, G-57, G-58, I12, I-13

Electromagnetic fields, xlv, 2-217, 2-228, 2-229, 

5-43, 5-44, 5-54, 5-102, 5-107, 5-108, 5-112, 

5-156, 7-38, 9-67, 9-69, 9-93, 9-123, 9-145, 9-

146, 9-171, 9-192, 9-217, 9-241, 10-14, D-101, 

E-336, I-12

Emissions, xvi, xxvi, xxvii, xxviii, xxix, xxxviii, xliii, 

xliv, 2-178, 2-212, 2-217, 2-218, 2-220, 2-227, 

3-20, 3-39, 3-40, 4-87, 4-95, 4-99, 4-102, 4-

113, 4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-131, 

4-139, 4-141, 4-142, 4-146, 4-148, 4-149, 5-

78, 5-79, 5-87, 5-93, 5-94, 5-97, 5-98, 5-99, 5-

100, 5-101, 5-108, 5-109, 5-127, 5-129, 5-130, 

5-153, 5-154, 5-156, 6-2, 6-8, 6-9, 6-10, 6-16, 

6-40, 7-33, 7-34, 7-35, 7-36, 7-37, 7-38, 7-48, 

8-7, 8-9, 9-4, 9-6, 9-7, 9-8, 9-9, 9-10, 9-11, 9-

12, 9-13, 9-16, 9-17, 9-18, 9-19, 9-21, 9-22, 9-

23, 9-26, 9-27, 9-29, 9-30, 9-31, 9-32, 9-33, 9-

76, 9-92, 9-129, 9-144, 9-145, 9-176, 9-191, 9-

224, 9-239, 9-240, 9-246, 10-8, 10-9, 10-12, 

10-16, 10-22, 10-27, 11-2, 11-3, 11-5, 11-7, 

11-13, 11-17, 11-20, 11-22, 11-24, 11-25, 11-

26, 11-27, 11-29, 11-32, 11-81, D-22, D-97, D98, D-99, D-100, D-103, D-108, D-118, D-120, 

E-84, E-86, E-138, E-139, E-180, E-324, E331, E-332, E-333, E-334, E-341, E-344, E347, E-348, E-376, E-377, E-380, E-409, E420, E-421, E-424, E-451, E-456, E-460, E-
Index 

NUREG–2176 12-8 October 2016 

463, E-464, E-465, E-524, E-9, H-6, H-7, I-1, I2, I-3, I-11, I-17, J-1, J-2, J-3, J-4, J-5, K-18

Endangered species, 2-10, 2-15, 2-84, 2-85, 2-86, 

2-87, 2-88, 2-89, 2-90, 2-91, 2-92, 2-93, 2-95, 

2-96, 2-97, 2-106, 2-113, 2-114, 2-115, 2-133, 

2-134, 2-135, 2-148, 4-45, 4-65, 4-72, 4-73, 4-

132, 5-54, 5-70, 5-105, 5-151, 9-13, 9-16, 9-

20, 9-35, 9-214, D-34, D-36, D-68, D-69, D-70, 

D-71, D-73, D-76, D-78, D-80, D-81, E-87, E102, E-187, E-242, E-246, E-248, E-252, E267, E-283, E-286, E-289, E-322, E-444, H-4, 

K-16

Endangered Species Act (ESA), xlv, 2-84, 2-97, 2-

146, 2-147, 2-154, 2-156, 2-161, 4-45, 4-70, 4-

85, 5-63, 9-120, 10-6, 11-4, 11-5, 11-7, 11-12, 

11-13, 11-66, 11-67, 11-68, C-5, E-81, E-86, 

E-182, E-241, E-245, E-246, E-252, E-253, E256, E-274, E-276, E-278, E-289, E-290, E293, E-300, E-304, E-305, E-557, H-3, H-12, 

K-20, K-21

Environmental justice (EJ), vii, x, xi, xiii, xvi, xviii, 

xxii, xxiii, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvi, xxxviii, xl, xlv, 2-1, 2-

162, 2-187, 2-188, 2-189, 2-192, 2-193, 2-194, 

2-195, 2-196, 4-3, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121, 4-122, 

4-146, 4-148, 4-149, 5-1, 5-92, 5-93, 5-94, 5-

95, 5-153, 5-156, 5-157, 7-29, 7-31, 7-46, 9-

14, 9-16, 9-21, 9-22, 9-30, 9-31, 9-34, 9-82, 9-

83, 9-84, 9-85, 9-86, 9-87, 9-88, 9-135, 9-136, 

9-137, 9-138, 9-139, 9-140, 9-182, 9-183, 9-

184, 9-185, 9-186, 9-187, 9-231, 9-232, 9-233, 

9-234, 9-235, 9-236, 9-246, 10-5, 10-7, 10-8, 

10-9, 10-11, 10-13, 10-14, 10-22, 10-24, 10-

26, 11-3, 11-13, 11-74, A-1, A-4, E-39, E-69, 

E-310, E-323, E-324, I-10

Erosion, 3-22, 3-23, 4-2, 4-17, 4-29, 4-30, 4-32, 

4-38, 4-40, 4-64, 4-77, 4-78, 4-120, 4-126, 4-

129, 4-141, 4-143, 5-4, 5-37, 5-52, 5-151, 6-

40, 9-13, 9-57, 9-112, 9-121, 9-162, 9-169, 9-

170, 9-208, 9-216, 11-57, D-83, E-110, E-137, 

E-138, E-139, E-261, E-262, E-273

Essential Fish Habitat, xxv, xxix, xlv, 1-12, 2-123, 

2-136, 2-157, 2-158, 2-159, 4-75, 4-86, 4-96, 

5-68, 5-70, 5-77, 5-78, 9-220, 9-221, 11-75, 

11-79, A-1, C-22, C-25, D-41, D-47, D-65, D66, D-79, D-83, D-84, D-85, E-86, E-237, E270, E-291, E-292, E-293, E-298, E-299, E302, E-304, E-306, F-1, F-4

Eutrophication, E-247, E-289

Evacuation, 5-138, 6-35, 11-58, E-94, E-356, E357, E-360, E-367, E-438, E-497, E-532, E533, E-534, E-535, I-14

evaporative loss, 2-35, 3-31, 4-23, 5-10, 6-8, 9-

58, 9-59, 9-113, 9-114, 9-162, 9-163, 9-251, E169, G-40

Everglades National Park, xxxi, xlv, 1-3, 1-8, 2-10, 

2-11, 2-13, 2-15, 2-16, 2-23, 2-25, 2-28, 2-31, 

2-59, 2-80, 2-81, 2-84, 2-85, 2-86, 2-88, 2-89, 

2-93, 2-110, 2-111, 2-118, 2-119, 2-128, 2-

134, 2-135, 2-150, 2-166, 2-168, 2-178, 2-179, 

2-201, 2-204, 2-215, 2-231, 4-8, 4-13, 4-15, 4-

19, 4-46, 4-47, 4-57, 4-60, 4-62, 4-68, 4-72, 4-

73, 4-75, 4-85, 4-102, 4-113, 5-4, 5-5, 5-33, 5-

49, 5-59, 5-66, 5-67, 5-69, 5-70, 5-81, 5-87, 7-

6, 7-11, 7-18, 7-21, 7-22, 7-23, 7-24, 7-31, 9-

10, 9-12, 9-14, 9-19, 9-66, 10-10, 10-21, 11-7, 

11-17, 11-31, 11-68, 11-69, 11-85, 11-88, A-1, 

B-2, D-18, D-28, D-30, D-33, D-35, D-36, D-46, 

D-66, D-68, D-76, D-91, D-92, D-109, D-110, 

D-131, D-134, D-137, D-138, E-99, E-101, E102, E-105, E-106, E-107, E-108, E-109, E110, E-156, E-174, E-176, E-202, E-233, E242, E-244, E-252, E-256, E-268, E-271, E295, E-298, E-308, E-321, E-323, E-367, E431, E-432, E-433, E-434, E-435, E-439, E441, E-442, E-443, E-453, E-476, E-500, E501, E-503, E-504, E-508, E-509, E-513, E-8, 

H-3, H-4, I-8, K-4, K-11, K-12, K-14, K-22

Exhaust, 2-217, 2-218, 3-35, 4-98, 4-99, 4-125, 4-

128, 4-130, 4-137, 7-34, 9-21, 9-93, 9-145, 9-

192, 9-241, 9-253, 10-16, D-98, E-335, E-423

F 

Farmlands, xliv, 2-12, 4-7, 4-9, 4-12, 4-13, 4-17, 

4-18, 4-24, 5-3, 5-137, 5-139, 5-150, 9-54, 9-

55, 9-71, 9-76, 9-109, 9-110, 9-126, 9-127, 9-

130, 9-158, 9-159, 9-173, 9-176, 9-204, 11-7, 

D-51, E-438, E-462, G-53, G-54

Prime, 2-12, 2-167, 4-7, 4-9, 4-12, 4-17, 4-18, 

5-3, 9-54, 9-109, 9-158, 9-159, 9-204, D108, E-130, E-316, E-358, E-393, E-414, E446

Unique, iii, xi, xiii, xxxi, 1-8, 2-11, 2-12, 2-85, 2-

123, 2-146, 2-147, 2-196, 4-7, 4-9, 4-12, 4-

17, 4-18, 4-30, 4-38, 4-57, 4-120, 4-122, 5-

3, 5-94, 5-115, 8-6, 9-54, 9-109, 9-110, 9-

116, 9-158, 9-204, 9-215, 9-251, 10-26, D25, D-54, E-4, E-79, E-81, E-106, E-173, E183, E-242, E-268, E-298, E-308, E-309, E323, E-390, E-433, E-434, E-438, E-441, E453, E-490, E-503, E-557, G-4, G-31, I-8
Index 

October 2016 12-9 NUREG–2176 

Fish, xxii, xxiv, xxv, xxxi, xlv, xlvi, 2-44, 2-47, 2-48, 

2-92, 2-123, 2-124, 2-125, 2-126, 2-129, 2-

131, 2-132, 2-133, 2-134, 2-135, 2-137, 2-138, 

2-139, 2-140, 2-141, 2-142, 2-143, 2-146, 2-

148, 2-151, 2-154, 2-155, 2-156, 2-157, 2-159, 

2-198, 2-230, 4-2, 4-49, 4-50, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 

4-85, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 

4-98, 5-45, 5-47, 5-56, 5-62, 5-64, 5-70, 5-71, 

5-72, 5-74, 5-125, 5-126, 5-127, 5-143, 5-153, 

7-22, 7-27, 9-9, 9-65, 9-72, 9-73, 9-126, 9-127, 

9-165, 9-173, 9-210, 9-220, 9-221, 9-222, 9-

256, 11-3, 11-4, 11-5, 11-6, 11-7, 11-9, 11-19, 

11-30, 11-31, 11-32, 11-35, 11-36, 11-37, 11-

39, 11-47, 11-51, 11-52, 11-53, 11-54, 11-55, 

11-79, 11-81, 11-83, 11-89, 11-90, 11-94, B-1, 

B-2, C-5, D-6, D-39, D-40, D-42, D-65, D-67, 

D-69, D-72, D-77, D-79, D-80, D-81, D-83, D85, D-103, D-132, E-150, E-182, E-245, E-246, 

E-252, E-256, E-269, E-274, E-280, E-281, E284, E-286, E-287, E-296, E-297, E-301, E303, E-308, E-334, E-440, E-493, E-509, E517, E-23, E-2, E-4, E-7, G-6, G-16, G-18, G19, G-20, G-21, G-55, H-12, K-11

Floodplain, 2-102, 2-109, 4-2, 5-58, 9-52, 9-69, 9-

96, 9-106, 9-123, 9-155, 9-171, 9-173, 9-195, 

9-202, 9-211, 9-217, 9-237

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP), xlv, 1-2, 2-10, 2-44, 2-46, 2-47, 2-55, 2-

60, 2-61, 2-62, 2-68, 2-71, 2-73, 2-75, 2-126, 

2-128, 2-146, 2-147, 2-229, 2-230, 3-10, 3-13, 

3-25, 3-26, 3-39, 4-1, 4-7, 4-11, 4-20, 4-21, 4-

22, 4-25, 4-27, 4-29, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-

35, 4-43, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-53, 4-55, 4-

81, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-140, 4-144, 5-1, 5-

3, 5-5, 5-6, 5-9, 5-10, 5-17, 5-20, 5-21, 5-26, 5-

35, 5-37, 5-38, 5-39, 5-40, 5-41, 5-42, 5-68, 5-

72, 5-73, 5-77, 5-98, 5-99, 5-100, 5-103, 5-

106, 5-127, 5-151, 5-152, 6-9, 7-3, 7-4, 7-11, 

7-12, 7-14, 7-15, 7-17, 7-18, 7-21, 7-28, 7-34, 

7-36, 7-39, 7-41, 7-47, 9-13, 9-47, 9-48, 9-49, 

9-52, 9-56, 9-57, 9-58, 9-59, 9-60, 9-82, 9-94, 

9-99, 9-100, 9-101, 9-106, 9-107, 9-112, 9-

113, 9-114, 9-115, 9-146, 9-151, 9-152, 9-153, 

9-155, 9-156, 9-162, 9-163, 9-165, 9-193, 9-

198, 9-199, 9-200, 9-206, 9-208, 9-209, 9-210, 

9-241, 10-1, 10-13, 11-25, 11-26, 11-27, 11-

28, 11-30, 11-31, 11-41, 11-50, 11-60, 11-85, 

B-1, D-17, D-48, D-64, D-65, D-86, D-114, D131, E-88, E-112, E-113, E-114, E-117, E-129, 

E-134, E-148, E-150, E-155, E-156, E-162, E166, E-168, E-170, E-180, E-181, E-192, E193, E-194, E-203, E-205, E-206, E-209, E210, E-211, E-212, E-213, E-214, E-218, E220, E-225, E-226, E-231, E-235, E-237, E242, E-261, E-262, E-290, E-295, E-296, E300, E-303, E-340, E-382, E-3, G-34, H-5, H-6, 

H-7, H-12

Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO),

lii, 2-201, 2-202, 2-203, 2-204, 2-205, 2-207, 2-

208, 4-123, 4-124, 5-95, 5-96, 5-97, 5-156, 9-

89, 9-90, 9-91, 9-142, 9-144, 9-189, 9-190, 9-

237, 9-238, 9-239, 10-7, 10-8, 10-11, 10-13, B1, C-4, C-23, E-325, E-326, E-327, E-328, E329, E-330, F-1, F-2, H-8

Floridan Aquifer, ix, xlviii, 2-24, 2-44, 2-46, 2-47, 

2-51, 2-53, 2-54, 2-55, 2-57, 2-58, 2-60, 2-61, 

2-71, 2-75, 2-122, 2-126, 2-181, 2-209, 2-218, 

3-2, 3-9, 4-21, 4-25, 4-33, 4-35, 5-7, 5-8, 5-20, 

5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-28, 

5-40, 5-41, 5-42, 5-103, 5-104, 5-115, 5-118, 

5-123, 7-3, 7-15, 7-16, 7-17, 7-25, 9-13, 9-57, 

9-58, 9-59, 9-74, 9-112, 9-113, 9-114, 9-128, 

9-161, 9-162, 9-163, 9-174, 9-208, 9-209, 9-

210, 9-255, 9-257, 11-14, 11-15, 11-81, 11-95, 

D-17, D-49, D-50, D-132, E-111, E-112, E-113, 

E-114, E-115, E-116, E-119, E-154, E-155, E164, E-166, E-177, E-190, E-191, E-192, E193, E-194, E-204, E-205, E-207, E-208, E213, E-214, E-236, E-274, E-2, E-3, E-9, G-4, 

G-5, G-48, G-50, G-51, G-58

Fossil fuels, 2-160, 2-174, 5-129, 6-2, 6-8, 6-9, 6-

12, 7-35, 7-36, 8-7, 9-4, 9-10, 9-29, 9-32, 9-33, 

9-96, 9-117, 9-122, 9-125, 9-127, 9-144, 9-

147, 9-148, 9-174, 9-252, 9-253, 10-17, 10-19, 

10-20, D-30, D-125, D-129, E-81, E-201, E331, E-372, E-377, E-406, E-410, E-411, E412, E-419, E-421, E-422, E-423, E-424, E442, E-447, E-461, E-462, E-463, E-467, E480, E-516, E-525

Fuel cycle, xv, xvi, xxii, xxviii, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvi, 1-

12, 2-212, 3-41, 5-122, 5-129, 6-1, 6-2, 6-4, 6-

5, 6-6, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-10, 6-11, 6-12, 6-14, 6-

15, 6-16, 6-40, 7-2, 7-36, 7-42, 7-43, 7-45, 7-

46, 9-31, 9-32, 9-43, 9-252, 9-253, 10-4, 10-

12, 10-23, 10-26, 10-27, 11-9, 11-69, 11-70, 

11-95, A-1, A-2, A-4, D-14, D-15, D-98, D-106, 

D-107, D-108, D-109, E-67, E-69, E-331, E370, E-376, E-377, E-378, E-379, E-539, J-1, 

J-2, J-3, J-4

Fugitive dust, 2-217, 4-5, 4-126, 4-129, 4-131, 4-

136, 4-141, 4-143, 4-146, 4-147, 5-110, 7-34, 
Index 

NUREG–2176 12-10 October 2016 

7-38, 9-10, 9-11, 9-18, 9-76, 9-92, 9-129, 9-

144, 9-176, 9-191, 9-224, 9-240, 10-9

Fukushima (also see Accidents – severe), 5-131, 

5-132, 5-133, 11-47, 11-74, 11-75, E-86, E140, E-154, E-345, E-346, E-351, E-352, E353, E-354, E-355, E-356, E-357, E-358, E360, E-361, E-362, E-363, E-364, E-365, E366, E-367, E-369, E-370, E-375, E-394, E395, E-456, E-462, E-477, E-483, E-484, E488, E-490, E-493, E-494, E-496, E-498, E501, E-511, E-516, E-517, E-518, E-519, E521, E-522, E-523, E-526, E-527, E-528, E530, E-533, E-540, E-544, E-545, E-546, E547, E-549, E-550, E-551, E-3, E-7, E-8, E-9, 

I-18

G 

Gaseous waste, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 4-142, 5-129, 5-

130

Geographic area of interest, 2-206, 7-9, 7-10, 7-

12, 7-13, 7-14, 7-15, 7-16, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-

23, 7-24, 7-29, 7-30, 7-31, 7-32, 7-33, 7-34, 7-

37, 7-39, 7-42, 7-43, 7-44, 7-45, 7-46, 7-47, 9-

53, 9-56, 9-57, 9-59, 9-69, 9-76, 9-88, 9-90, 9-

91, 9-93, 9-94, 9-95, 9-96, 9-108, 9-111, 9-

112, 9-114, 9-123, 9-129, 9-141, 9-143, 9-144, 

9-145, 9-146, 9-147, 9-148, 9-151, 9-157, 9-

160, 9-161, 9-163, 9-171, 9-175, 9-188, 9-189, 

9-190, 9-192, 9-193, 9-194, 9-195, 9-204, 9-

207, 9-208, 9-209, 9-210, 9-217, 9-224, 9-236, 

9-238, 9-239, 9-241, 9-242, 9-243, 9-244, D114

Geology, vii, 2-1, 2-47, 2-57, 2-208, 5-23, 5-104, 

5-133, 11-25, 11-80, A-1, A-3, D-9, D-15, D-38, 

D-46, D-50, D-118, D-131, E-39, E-69, E-111, 

E-115, E-194, E-205, E-214

Greenhouse gases (GHGs), xiii, xvi, xx, xxxvi, 

xxxviii, xlvii, 1-13, 2-187, 2-212, 2-214, 4-127, 

4-128, 4-141, 4-148, 5-93, 5-99, 5-101, 5-129, 

5-130, 6-8, 6-9, 6-16, 6-39, 6-40, 7-35, 7-36, 7-

37, 7-45, 7-46, 7-48, 8-9, 9-8, 9-9, 9-18, 9-31, 

9-32, 9-33, 9-92, 9-145, 9-191, 9-240, 9-246, 

10-12, 10-27, 11-4, 11-7, 11-13, 11-22, 11-24, 

11-25, 11-74, D-97, D-98, D-108, D-118, D120, E-138, E-139, E-146, E-331, E-333, E377, E-380, E-401, E-420, E-421, E-461, E463, E-464, E-465, E-555, I-1, I-2, I-17, 1, J-1, 

J-2, J-3, J-4, K-18

Groundwater, vi, ix, x, xii, xiv, xv, xxi, xxxiv, xxxv, 

xxxvi, xxxvii, 2-24, 2-29, 2-33, 2-39, 2-43, 2-46, 

2-47, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50, 2-51, 2-53, 2-54, 2-55, 

2-58, 2-59, 2-60, 2-61, 2-68, 2-70, 2-71, 2-73, 

2-74, 2-75, 2-118, 2-128, 2-142, 2-181, 2-230, 

3-14, 3-19, 3-22, 3-24, 3-28, 3-41, 4-20, 4-21, 

4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-33, 

4-34, 4-35, 4-120, 4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 4-147, 

5-6, 5-8, 5-9, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 5-

18, 5-19, 5-21, 5-23, 5-27, 5-28, 5-30, 5-33, 5-

34, 5-35, 5-36, 5-37, 5-38, 5-39, 5-41, 5-42, 5-

44, 5-72, 5-104, 5-112, 5-118, 5-123, 5-127, 5-

136, 5-144, 5-152, 5-155, 6-11, 7-4, 7-11, 7-

13, 7-14, 7-16, 7-17, 7-18, 7-21, 7-23, 7-39, 7-

46, 9-11, 9-43, 9-57, 9-58, 9-59, 9-60, 9-61, 9-

64, 9-67, 9-71, 9-74, 9-75, 9-112, 9-113, 9-

114, 9-115, 9-116, 9-118, 9-122, 9-125, 9-127, 

9-129, 9-161, 9-162, 9-163, 9-164, 9-165, 9-

167, 9-170, 9-172, 9-174, 9-208, 9-209, 9-210, 

9-211, 9-223, 9-246, 9-254, 9-255, 9-256, 10-

6, 10-10, 10-13, 10-15, 10-23, 11-10, 11-15, 

11-28, 11-44, 11-56, 11-59, 11-83, 11-86, 11-

93, A-1, A-3, C-7, C-8, C-9, C-24, D-10, D-15, 

D-19, D-24, D-40, D-45, D-49, D-50, D-51, D53, D-54, D-55, D-56, D-57, D-58, D-59, D-60, 

D-61, D-62, D-64, D-65, D-82, D-83, D-84, D85, D-97, D-103, D-104, D-105, D-111, D-112, 

D-113, D-114, D-115, D-116, D-117, D-119, D120, D-123, D-131, D-133, E-40, E-69, E-113, 

E-120, E-129, E-130, E-134, E-135, E-148, E153, E-155, E-156, E-157, E-163, E-164, E165, E-166, E-168, E-169, E-171, E-173, E176, E-177, E-178, E-181, E-182, E-185, E186, E-187, E-188, E-189, E-190, E-192, E193, E-196, E-197, E-198, E-200, E-201, E202, E-203, E-205, E-206, E-207, E-208, E209, E-211, E-212, E-213, E-214, E-215, E216, E-217, E-218, E-219, E-220, E-221, E222, E-223, E-224, E-225, E-226, E-227, E228, E-229, E-230, E-231, E-232, E-233, E234, E-235, E-236, E-238, E-274, E-286, E289, E-299, E-302, E-305, E-329, E-382, E383, E-438, E-439, E-454, E-10, G-4, G-5, G26, G-27, G-28, G-30, G-31, G-32, G-34, G-35, 

G-40, G-46, G-49, G-52, G-56, G-58, I-4, I-5, I6, I-17, K-13, K-15, K-17

groundwater monitoring program, 2-230, E203

Underground Source of Drinking Water 

(USDW), liii, 2-54, 2-56, 2-57, 2-58, 2-75, 3-

25, 4-21, 4-25, 5-7, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 

5-24, 5-25, 5-27, 5-39, 5-40, 5-41, 5-42, 5-

115, 7-17, D-137, E-112, E-113, E-114, E-
Index 

October 2016 12-11 NUREG–2176 

115, E-116, E-117, E-172, E-191, E-192, E200, E-201, E-207, E-213, E-214, E-229, E232, G-4, G-49, G-50, G-51, G-52

H 

Habitat, vi, x, xii, xxi, xxii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxix, xlv, 

xlvii, li, 2-8, 2-11, 2-23, 2-76, 2-77, 2-78, 2-79, 

2-81, 2-82, 2-84, 2-85, 2-86, 2-87, 2-88, 2-89, 

2-90, 2-91, 2-92, 2-93, 2-94, 2-95, 2-96, 2-97, 

2-98, 2-99, 2-103, 2-104, 2-105, 2-106, 2-107, 

2-108, 2-109, 2-110, 2-111, 2-112, 2-114, 2-

115, 2-116, 2-117, 2-118, 2-119, 2-121, 2-122, 

2-123, 2-125, 2-126, 2-128, 2-133, 2-134, 2-

135, 2-136, 2-138, 2-139, 2-140, 2-141, 2-143, 

2-145, 2-146, 2-147, 2-148, 2-149, 2-150, 2-

151, 2-154, 2-156, 2-157, 2-158, 2-159, 2-161, 

4-8, 4-12, 4-17, 4-24, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-

40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-

48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-

56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-

64, 4-65, 4-67, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-

75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-80, 4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 4-85, 4-

86, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-

148, 5-5, 5-10, 5-33, 5-43, 5-49, 5-50, 5-51, 5-

52, 5-53, 5-54, 5-55, 5-56, 5-57, 5-58, 5-60, 5-

61, 5-62, 5-63, 5-64, 5-66, 5-67, 5-68, 5-69, 5-

70, 5-71, 5-73, 5-74, 5-153, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 

7-22, 7-23, 7-24, 7-25, 7-26, 7-27, 7-28, 7-29, 

7-47, 9-13, 9-16, 9-20, 9-22, 9-50, 9-51, 9-61, 

9-62, 9-63, 9-64, 9-65, 9-66, 9-67, 9-68, 9-69, 

9-70, 9-72, 9-73, 9-74, 9-75, 9-103, 9-104, 9-

116, 9-118, 9-119, 9-120, 9-121, 9-123, 9-124, 

9-126, 9-127, 9-128, 9-129, 9-154, 9-166, 9-

167, 9-168, 9-169, 9-170, 9-171, 9-172, 9-173, 

9-201, 9-201, 9-211, 9-213, 9-214, 9-215, 9-

217, 9-218, 9-221, 9-222, 9-223, 9-252, 10-5, 

10-6, 10-9, 10-10, 10-13, 10-24, 11-3, 11-4, 

11-5, 11-6, 11-7, 11-12, 11-58, 11-66, 11-82, 

11-85, D-29, D-34, D-44, D-46, D-48, D-68, D70, D-71, D-72, D-73, D-75, D-76, D-77, D-78, 

D-81, D-82, D-83, D-84, D-85, D-86, D-113, D117, D-131, D-133, D-134, E-10, E-80, E-86, 

E-87, E-108, E-109, E-110, E-127, E-147, E150, E-164, E-201, E-215, E-240, E-241, E242, E-243, E-244, E-245, E-246, E-247, E248, E-249, E-250, E-251, E-252, E-253, E254, E-255, E-256, E-257, E-258, E-259, E260, E-263, E-265, E-266, E-268, E-269, E272, E-273, E-275, E-277, E-278, E-279, E280, E-281, E-283, E-284, E-285, E-286, E287, E-288, E-289, E-293, E-294, E-296, E297, E-298, E-299, E-301, E-303, E-304, E305, E-308, E-319, E-426, E-430, E-432, E433, E-434, E-435, E-436, E-437, E-439, E440, E-441, E-442, E-443, E-459, E-462, E482, E-485, E-493, E-495, E-499, E-500, E501, E-505, E-506, E-508, E-509, E-532, E541, I-4, I-6, I-7, I-8, K-11, K-13, K-15, K-17, K19, K-20

Aquatic, 2-135, 2-148, 4-54, 4-75, 4-76, 4-88, 

7-47, 9-13, 9-16, 10-13, E-278, E-304

Critical, 2-11, 2-82, 2-84, 2-87, 2-88, 2-89, 2-

91, 2-93, 2-95, 2-109, 2-110, 2-112, 2-114, 

2-115, 2-119, 2-123, 2-144, 2-146, 2-147, 2-

148, 2-151, 2-154, 4-46, 4-51, 4-52, 4-56, 4-

58, 4-59, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-72, 4-75, 4-86, 

4-90, 4-91, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-97, 5-29, 5-

58, 5-60, 5-63, 5-66, 5-68, 5-71, 5-74, 5-76, 

7-26, 9-13, 9-16, 9-20, 9-22, 9-23, 9-35, 9-

66, 9-73, 9-127, 9-173, 9-214, 9-252, 10-6, 

10-9, 10-10, 10-22, D-71, D-73, D-78, E187, E-272, E-293, E-294, E-297, E-300, E304, E-426, E-444, E-509

Degradation, 2-155, 5-49, 7-23, 7-29, D-77

Important, 2-109, 2-117, 2-122, 2-129, 5-58, D40, E-241, E-255, E-274, E-286, E-300

Loss of, 2-133, 2-144, 2-146, 4-53, 9-65, 9-

120, 9-121, 9-128, E-245, E-256

Terrestrial, 2-76, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-40, 4-42, 

4-73, 5-10, 5-29, 5-33, 5-43, 5-66, 7-20, 7-

23, 7-24, 7-47, D-82, E-92, E-249, E-250, E253, E-258, E-259, E-260, E-261, E-262, E263, E-269, E-273, I-6, I-7, I-8

Hazardous waste, 3-36, 3-40, 5-127, 5-128, 7-41, 

10-22, 11-19, 11-25, D-16, D-102, E-139, H-10

High-level waste, xxviii, 6-31

Historic resources, 2-197, 2-203, 2-206, 4-123, 4-

124, 9-9, 9-15, 9-30, 9-90, 9-91, 9-142, 9-143, 

9-144, 9-189, 9-190, 9-238, 9-239, 9-248, 9-

249, D-96, E-317, E-326, E-327

Housing, vii, x, xiii, xxv, xlvii, 2-6, 2-167, 2-168, 2-

180, 2-226, 4-109, 4-110, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 

5-82, 5-85, 5-86, 5-88, 5-92, 5-153, 7-8, 7-29, 

9-53, 9-81, 9-107, 9-134, 9-156, 9-159, 9-181, 

9-203, 9-229, 11-1, 11-92, B-1, D-89, D-90, E315, E-316, E-360, E-545, I-9

Hydrology, vi, 2-25, 2-29, 2-33, 2-47, 2-76, 3-28, 

3-41, 4-38, 4-62, 5-4, 5-13, 5-32, 5-33, 5-34, 7-

26, 9-60, 9-71, 9-114, 9-125, 9-128, 9-164, 9-

244, 11-41, 11-46, 11-81, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, 

C-16, C-17, C-18, C-19, C-24, C-25, D-10, D-
Index 

NUREG–2176 12-12 October 2016 

11, D-15, D-36, D-38, D-39, D-40, D-44, D-47, 

D-49, D-51, D-53, D-60, D-72, D-113, D-119, 

D-137, E-40, E-42, E-69, E-100, E-106, E-108, 

E-117, E-138, E-172, E-174, E-182, E-200, E202, E-212, E-268, E-269, E-273, E-298, E329, E-515, E-6, G-5, I-5, K-11, K-19

I 

Income, vii, xxii, xxiii, xxv, xxxv, xxxvi, xxxviii, xl, 2-

168, 2-172, 2-173, 2-187, 2-188, 2-190, 2-191, 

2-195, 2-196, 4-106, 4-108, 4-119, 4-122, 4-

149, 5-82, 5-83, 5-84, 5-93, 5-94, 5-95, 5-157, 

7-46, 9-14, 9-16, 9-21, 9-22, 9-30, 9-31, 9-78, 

9-83, 9-87, 9-132, 9-136, 9-140, 9-178, 9-183, 

9-187, 9-227, 9-231, 9-235, 9-236, 9-246, 10-

8, 10-11, 10-13, 10-19, 10-20, 10-24, 11-3, 11-

10, 11-28, D-87, D-89, E-97, E-312, E-315, E322, E-323, E-324, E-413, E-429, E-450, E454, E-2, I-4, I-10

Independent spent fuel storage installation 

(ISFSI), xlvii, 4-136, 4-137, 6-14, 6-15, 7-3, 7-

30, 7-39, E-348, E-379, G-16, H-2

Indian tribes, iii, xxxi, xli, liii, 1-4, 1-5, 1-12, 2-23, 2-

191, 2-196, 2-197, 2-199, 2-201, 2-203, 2-205, 

2-206, 2-207, 2-208, 2-231, 3-22, 4-123, 4-

124, 5-95, 5-96, 6-9, 7-32, 9-51, 9-89, 9-90, 9-

91, 9-142, 9-144, 9-189, 9-190, 9-237, 9-238, 

9-239, 10-3, 10-28, 11-15, 11-43, 11-50, 11-

63, 11-73, 11-77, 11-82, 11-83, 11-89, 11-91, 

B-1, B-2, C-3, C-4, C-6, C-7, C-22, C-23, C-24, 

C-25, D-1, D-17, E-3, E-17, E-324, E-325, E326, E-328, E-329, E-330, E-556, E-5, F-1, F2, F-3, I-4

industrial wastewater facility (IWF), ix, xxi, xxii, 

xxiv, xliv, xlvii, 2-7, 2-8, 2-24, 2-39, 2-41, 2-42, 

2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 2-46, 2-49, 2-51, 2-52, 2-53, 

2-60, 2-61, 2-68, 2-70, 2-71, 2-73, 2-77, 2-79, 

2-85, 2-90, 2-93, 2-97, 2-106, 2-109, 2-119, 2-

123, 2-125, 2-126, 2-133, 2-139, 2-144, 2-146, 

2-147, 2-148, 2-150, 2-151, 2-152, 2-153, 2-

154, 2-159, 2-161, 2-218, 3-2, 3-8, 3-13, 3-15, 

3-19, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-30, 

3-39, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-26, 4-27, 4-29, 

4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-39, 4-54, 

4-55, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 

4-82, 4-86, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 

4-96, 4-97, 4-139, 4-141, 4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 

5-7, 5-8, 5-10, 5-11, 5-13, 5-14, 5-16, 5-18, 5-

29, 5-30, 5-32, 5-33, 5-36, 5-37, 5-38, 5-39, 5-

44, 5-45, 5-48, 5-50, 5-56, 5-57, 5-58, 5-65, 5-

67, 5-68, 5-69, 5-71, 5-74, 5-75, 5-76, 5-77, 5-

78, 5-112, 5-128, 7-11, 7-12, 7-13, 7-14, 7-15, 

7-16, 7-18, 7-20, 7-21, 7-22, 7-25, 7-26, 7-35, 

9-254, 9-257, 9-258, D-49, E-109, E-120, E128, E-129, E-130, E-133, E-134, E-135, E137, E-138, E-147, E-153, E-155, E-158, E162, E-166, E-167, E-168, E-169, E-170, E171, E-172, E-173, E-177, E-178, E-183, E186, E-188, E-189, E-195, E-196, E-197, E199, E-200, E-202, E-203, E-206, E-208, E209, E-211, E-212, E-217, E-219, E-220, E221, E-222, E-223, E-224, E-225, E-231, E234, E-235, E-236, E-238, E-254, E-261, E264, E-278, E-281, E-282, E-287, E-288, E290, E-291, E-292, E-294, E-298, E-300, E305, E-340, E-382, E-383, G-26, G-27, G-28, 

G-29, H-6, I-5

Infiltration, 2-39, 2-49, 2-59, 4-23, 4-30, 4-34, 9-

58, 9-113, 9-162, 9-208, 9-211, 10-15, D-48, 

E-114, E-281, G-5, G-27, G-32, G-40, G-46

Interim Staff Guidance -026 (ISG-026), 1-3, 9-1, 

11-72, 11-76

Invasive species, 2-118, 2-136, 7-20, 9-73, 9-175, 

9-224, D-34, D-67, E-88, E-267, E-269, I-7, K13, K-15

Irradiation level, 6-18

L 

Land use, v, vi, ix, xi, xii, xv, xvii, xviii, xix, xxi, xxiv, 

xxvi, xxix, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvi, xxxvii, xl, xlvi, 2-4, 2-

5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-12, 2-13, 2-15, 2-16, 2-

17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-21, 2-22, 2-25, 2-76, 2-77, 2-

80, 2-133, 2-134, 2-135, 3-18, 3-28, 4-2, 4-3, 

4-4, 4-5, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 

4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-24, 4-75, 

4-85, 4-102, 4-143, 4-147, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-

5, 5-80, 5-137, 5-148, 5-151, 5-153, 5-154, 6-

1, 6-7, 6-8, 6-13, 7-8, 7-9, 7-10, 7-11, 7-20, 7-

23, 7-34, 7-46, 7-47, 9-11, 9-12, 9-13, 9-15, 9-

19, 9-21, 9-25, 9-29, 9-31, 9-34, 9-37, 9-39, 9-

44, 9-53, 9-54, 9-55, 9-56, 9-69, 9-83, 9-92, 9-

95, 9-108, 9-107, 9-108, 9-109, 9-110, 9-111, 

9-124, 9-136, 9-144, 9-148, 9-157, 9-156, 9-

157, 9-158, 9-159, 9-160, 9-171, 9-183, 9-191, 

9-195, 9-203, 9-204, 9-205, 9-206, 9-207, 9-

214, 9-218, 9-231, 9-238, 9-240, 9-244, 9-246, 

9-247, 9-248, 9-249, 10-5, 10-6, 10-9, 10-10, 

10-14, 10-15, 10-21, 10-26, 11-12, 11-14, 11-

33, 11-63, 11-80, A-1, A-4, C-8, C-10, C-13, D11, D-12, D-15, D-27, D-28, D-29, D-30, D-34, 
Index 

October 2016 12-13 NUREG–2176 

D-35, D-36, D-52, D-61, D-69, D-94, D-101, D113, D-119, D-133, E-46, E-69, E-87, E-88, E89, E-90, E-91, E-92, E-94, E-95, E-99, E-102, 

E-103, E-105, E-106, E-109, E-110, E-136, E143, E-148, E-181, E-243, E-249, E-250, E251, E-255, E-258, E-259, E-260, E-271, E274, E-294, E-308, E-316, E-321, E-322, E379, E-438, E-444, E-512, E-556, E-3, H-9, H12, I-5, I-13, K-11, K-18

License renewal, xxvii, xxxi, xlv, xlvii, 2-229, 5-54, 

5-91, 5-107, 5-118, 5-141, 5-142, 5-143, 5-

150, 6-5, 6-7, 6-14, 7-3, 7-25, 7-26, 9-1, 9-3, 9-

5, 9-47, 9-99, 9-151, 9-198, 9-211, 9-223, 9-

237, 11-37, 11-71, 11-76, D-41, D-128, E-326, 

E-331, E-8, G-57

License Renewal GEIS, xlvii, 2-229, 5-54, 5-142, 

5-143, 5-144, 6-5, 6-7, 6-39, 6-40, 11-76, E555, E-8

Light pollution, 4-102, 4-103, 5-51, 5-152, 9-67, 

9-121, 9-122, 9-169, 9-170, 9-216, D-102, E319

Liquid waste, 3-32, 3-34, 3-36, 3-37, 4-140, 4-

141, 5-7, 5-20, 5-39, 5-115, 5-127, 5-128, 5-

129, D-106, E-192, G-4, G-48

Low-income population, xxxv, xxxvi, xxxviii, xl, 2-

187, 2-188, 2-190, 4-98, 4-148, 4-149, 5-78, 5-

92, 5-156, 5-157, 7-46, 9-14, 9-16, 9-21, 9-22, 

9-30, 9-31, 9-83, 9-136, 9-182, 9-183, 9-231, 

9-246, 10-7, 10-8, 10-9, 10-13, 10-14, 10-22, 

10-24, E-318, E-323, E-324, E-325

Low-level waste, xlviii, 3-35, 6-1, 6-2, 6-12, 6-13, 

6-15, 6-16, D-105

M 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA), 2-157, 2-165, 2-173, 

11-7

Manatees, xxii, 2-31, 2-122, 2-129, 2-134, 2-135, 

2-136, 2-137, 2-141, 2-143, 2-144, 2-145, 2-

159, 2-160, 4-75, 4-82, 4-83, 4-86, 4-87, 4-90, 

4-91, 4-96, 4-97, 4-145, 5-71, 5-74, 5-77, 9-73, 

9-127, 9-173, 9-220, 9-222, 10-6, 10-22, 11-3, 

11-30, 11-32, 11-46, 11-51, 11-52, 11-85, D68, D-70, D-80, D-81, E-252, E-282, E-283, E284, E-285, E-286, E-288, E-289, E-290, E297, E-304, E-506

Mangroves, 2-10, 2-19, 2-41, 2-76, 2-77, 2-79, 2-

80, 2-81, 2-90, 2-92, 2-93, 2-100, 2-101, 2-

103, 2-104, 2-105, 2-106, 2-107, 2-108, 2-109, 

2-110, 2-112, 2-114, 2-115, 2-116, 2-117, 2-

118, 2-119, 2-122, 2-123, 2-126, 2-129, 2-131, 

2-134, 2-135, 2-138, 2-139, 2-148, 2-154, 2-

155, 2-157, 2-158, 2-159, 2-209, 4-8, 4-36, 4-

37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-49, 4-50, 4-

51, 4-53, 4-61, 4-64, 4-66, 4-71, 4-75, 4-76, 4-

77, 4-82, 4-86, 4-88, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-

113, 4-139, 4-145, 4-146, 5-45, 5-50, 5-58, 5-

65, 5-71, 5-74, 5-76, 5-87, 5-153, 7-20, 7-21, 

7-24, 9-13, 9-20, 9-204, 9-213, 9-214, 9-215, 

9-218, 9-219, 9-222, 9-250, 9-251, 10-5, 10-6, 

11-35, 11-56, 11-66, 11-83, 11-85, 11-93, D69, D-81, D-83, D-84, D-133, E-76, E-91, E-92, 

E-128, E-133, E-137, E-165, E-201, E-240, E241, E-247, E-251, E-254, E-264, E-267, E268, E-270, E-271, E-274, E-279, E-282, E283, E-285, E-299, E-301, E-303, E-304, I-6, I7, I-8

Medical, xxv, 2-171, 2-183, 2-185, 2-186, 2-220, 

4-113, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-130, 5-

87, 5-90, 5-91, 6-12, 7-7, 7-39, 7-40, 9-53, 9-

95, 9-107, 9-147, 9-156, 9-194, 9-203, 9-243, 

11-63, A-4, D-89, D-101, E-344, E-347, E-455, 

E-456, E-531

Hospitals and Clinics, v, 2-5, 2-171, 2-184, 2-

185, 2-186, 4-117, 5-90, 7-7, 7-41, 9-53, 9-

95, 9-107, 9-147, 9-156, 9-194, 9-203, 9-

243, D-89, E-10, E-410, E-466, E-490

Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department, xlviii, 2-

18, 3-2, 3-9, 4-8, 5-7, 5-17, 9-254, 10-10, 10-

13, 10-23, 11-62, 11-86, B-2, C-6, E-113, E161, E-168, E-213, E-275, E-10, G-15, G-58

Migratory birds, 2-79, 2-91, 2-92, 2-93, 2-94, 2-

96, 4-50, 4-61, 4-69, 5-53, 5-61, 5-63, 9-67, 9-

122, 9-170, 9-215, 9-220, 11-51, 11-52, D-30, 

D-34, D-68, D-75, D-76, E-242, E-249, E-255, 

E-256, E-265, E-266, E-275, E-320, H-5, H-7, 

I-4

Mitigation, iii, x, xii, xiv, xxvi, xl, xlv, lii, liii, 1-2, 1-3, 

1-5, 1-9, 2-4, 2-7, 2-12, 2-16, 2-19, 2-29, 2-41, 

2-44, 2-76, 2-94, 2-110, 2-114, 2-133, 2-161, 

2-189, 2-205, 2-218, 3-16, 3-22, 4-1, 4-4, 4-7, 

4-8, 4-12, 4-15, 4-17, 4-19, 4-20, 4-24, 4-30, 4-

31, 4-33, 4-34, 4-39, 4-41, 4-43, 4-51, 4-52, 4-

55, 4-60, 4-63, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-

70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-77, 4-80, 4-

86, 4-93, 4-95, 4-99, 4-103, 4-111, 4-113, 4-

119, 4-120, 4-121, 4-124, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 

4-131, 4-133, 4-135, 4-136, 4-138, 4-140, 4-

141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-145, 5-1, 5-9, 5-17, 5-34, 

5-36, 5-37, 5-38, 5-42, 5-45, 5-58, 5-62, 5-65, 

5-66, 5-73, 5-77, 5-79, 5-87, 5-92, 5-96, 5-99, 
Index 

NUREG–2176 12-14 October 2016 

5-100, 5-101, 5-102, 5-106, 5-107, 5-110, 5-

112, 5-124, 5-126, 5-128, 5-129, 5-130, 5-131, 

5-133, 5-147, 5-150, 5-151, 5-152, 5-153, 5-

156, 6-14, 7-8, 7-11, 7-12, 7-13, 7-14, 7-15, 7-

16, 7-18, 7-19, 7-21, 7-24, 7-29, 7-32, 7-33, 7-

34, 7-37, 7-38, 7-39, 7-40, 7-41, 7-42, 7-44, 7-

45, 7-47, 9-10, 9-15, 9-18, 9-21, 9-37, 9-65, 9-

68, 9-89, 9-116, 9-120, 9-122, 9-125, 9-168, 9-

189, 9-216, 9-218, 9-237, 10-2, 10-3, 10-4, 10-

5, 10-6, 10-7, 10-9, 10-10, 10-11, 10-13, 10-

14, 10-26, 10-27, 10-28, 11-1, 11-5, 11-43, 11-

46, 11-49, 11-50, 11-55, 11-75, D-17, D-19, D26, D-27, D-34, D-39, D-40, D-41, D-42, D-43, 

D-65, D-67, D-68, D-69, D-72, D-73, D-74, D75, D-76, D-78, D-80, D-81, D-84, D-102, D110, D-111, E-76, E-77, E-78, E-79, E-80, E81, E-84, E-85, E-88, E-91, E-108, E-109, E110, E-129, E-134, E-136, E-147, E-202, E207, E-208, E-209, E-212, E-216, E-217, E220, E-225, E-226, E-228, E-230, E-231, E233, E-235, E-237, E-239, E-240, E-241, E242, E-243, E-244, E-245, E-246, E-247, E248, E-249, E-252, E-253, E-256, E-257, E259, E-260, E-261, E-262, E-263, E-265, E266, E-267, E-269, E-270, E-271, E-272, E276, E-277, E-289, E-293, E-294, E-296, E297, E-298, E-299, E-310, E-320, E-322, E325, E-326, E-335, E-341, E-355, E-357, E360, E-365, E-368, E-369, E-370, E-377, E392, E-416, E-500, E-551, E-5, G-30, G-48, G53, H-12, I-9, I-14, J-3, J-5, K-12, K-13, K-14, 

K-15, K-16, K-17, K-19, K-20

Mixed waste, 3-20, 3-35, 3-36, 3-40, 5-127, 5-

128, 5-130, 5-154, 6-16, 7-41, 9-42, 10-22, 10-

23, I-13

Monitoring, vi, vii, viii, x, xii, xiv, xxi, xxv, xlv, li, 2-46, 

2-49, 2-50, 2-51, 2-53, 2-54, 2-61, 2-62, 2-67, 

2-70, 2-71, 2-72, 2-73, 2-74, 2-75, 2-76, 2-91, 

2-118, 2-123, 2-126, 2-129, 2-137, 2-138, 2-

139, 2-148, 2-150, 2-151, 2-154, 2-159, 2-160, 

2-161, 2-178, 2-211, 2-216, 2-217, 2-225, 2-

226, 2-230, 3-10, 3-13, 3-25, 3-34, 4-23, 4-25, 

4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-63, 4-65, 4-69, 4-73, 4-75, 

4-76, 4-81, 4-86, 4-95, 4-96, 4-112, 4-131, 4-

142, 4-144, 5-17, 5-20, 5-21, 5-23, 5-26, 5-36, 

5-39, 5-40, 5-41, 5-42, 5-43, 5-47, 5-65, 5-66, 

5-70, 5-73, 5-76, 5-77, 5-102, 5-103, 5-104, 5-

105, 5-108, 5-124, 5-126, 5-127, 5-152, 5-153, 

6-13, 7-17, 7-18, 7-34, 7-39, 7-40, 9-11, 9-68, 

9-79, 9-80, 9-95, 9-132, 9-133, 9-147, 9-179, 

9-180, 9-194, 9-220, 9-228, 9-229, 9-243, 9-

256, 9-257, 10-13, 10-14, 11-11, 11-25, 11-32, 

11-37, 11-38, 11-46, 11-50, 11-72, 11-83, D17, D-22, D-46, D-48, D-50, D-52, D-54, D-57, 

D-58, D-59, D-65, D-68, D-78, D-82, D-85, D92, D-104, D-105, D-132, E-80, E-84, E-112, 

E-113, E-114, E-117, E-138, E-150, E-158, E162, E-168, E-169, E-170, E-181, E-183, E184, E-188, E-189, E-192, E-193, E-196, E197, E-198, E-199, E-202, E-203, E-205, E206, E-207, E-208, E-209, E-211, E-212, E214, E-216, E-217, E-220, E-221, E-222, E223, E-225, E-226, E-228, E-229, E-230, E231, E-233, E-235, E-237, E-252, E-256, E257, E-263, E-270, E-273, E-290, E-291, E292, E-294, E-295, E-296, E-298, E-299, E300, E-302, E-305, E-313, E-335, E-346, E531, E-541, E-10, G-16, G-22, G-49, G-52, H4, H-6, H-11, I-13, K-21

N 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards, l, 2-214, 

4-125, 5-98, 7-34, 9-10, 9-92, 9-144, 9-191, 9-

240

National Environmental Policy Act, l, 1-2, 1-7, 1-

10, 1-11, 2-119, 2-197, 2-206, 2-212, 2-231, 3-

5, 4-2, 4-122, 4-124, 5-95, 5-97, 6-14, 6-38, 7-

1, 7-10, 7-31, 7-33, 8-1, 9-1, 9-28, 9-35, 9-244, 

9-245, 10-2, 10-5, 10-14, 10-15, 10-17, 11-8, 

11-13, 11-16, A-1, D-2, D-13, D-15, D-18, D36, D-37, D-41, D-64, D-84, D-91, D-95, D122, D-123, D-131, D-132, D-138, E-4, E-64, 

E-69, E-73, E-75, E-76, E-77, E-78, E-79, E83, E-84, E-113, E-127, E-132, E-146, E-153, 

E-164, E-176, E-182, E-213, E-220, E-232, E239, E-243, E-310, E-319, E-320, E-324, E330, E-362, E-369, E-382, E-383, E-389, E419, E-421, E-423, E-426, E-555, I-1, I-16, I17, K-21

National Historical Preservation Act, l, 2-197, 2-

203, 2-205, 2-206, 2-207, 2-208, 4-122, 4-124, 

5-95, A-1, E-325, E-326, E-328, E-330

National Marine Fisheries Service, xxxi, l, 2-119, 2-

136, 2-143, 2-144, 2-146, 2-147, 2-151, 2-154, 

2-155, 2-156, 2-157, 2-158, 2-161, 4-85, 4-87, 

4-92, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-145, 5-143, 9-221, 

11-4, 11-6, 11-7, 11-12, 11-65, 11-66, 11-67, 

11-68, 11-75, 11-79, 11-82, B-2, C-3, C-5, C22, C-25, D-41, D-47, D-65, D-66, D-79, D-84, 

D-85, E-86, E-237, E-279, E-289, E-290, E291, E-292, E-293, E-295, E-296, E-298, E-
Index 

October 2016 12-15 NUREG–2176 

299, E-302, E-304, E-305, E-306, E-557, F-1, 

F-3, F-4

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System,

l, 4-20, 4-29, 4-140, 4-142, 5-6, 5-128, 5-151, 

9-43, 9-59, 9-60, 9-114, 9-115, 9-163, 9-165, 

9-209, 9-211, 9-222, 9-223, 9-224, 9-241, D16, E-178, E-181, E-261, H-5, H-6, H-12

Native American, 2-199, 2-208, 4-123, 4-124, 7-

32, 9-83, 9-136, 9-183, 9-236, D-17, E-324, K9

Natural phenomena, 5-131, 5-132, E-129, E-361, 

E-363, I-14

Noise, viii, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xxvi, xlviii, 2-136, 2-196, 

2-197, 2-217, 2-224, 2-225, 2-226, 2-227, 3-

29, 3-33, 4-40, 4-42, 4-52, 4-53, 4-64, 4-71, 4-

74, 4-78, 4-80, 4-82, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-91, 4-

92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-98, 4-99, 4-113, 4-119, 

4-120, 4-121, 4-128, 4-129, 4-131, 4-132, 4-

133, 4-136, 4-145, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 5-43, 

5-44, 5-49, 5-52, 5-55, 5-57, 5-58, 5-59, 5-65, 

5-78, 5-79, 5-87, 5-93, 5-94, 5-102, 5-104, 5-

105, 5-106, 5-108, 5-112, 5-152, 5-153, 5-156, 

7-29, 7-38, 9-14, 9-16, 9-21, 9-63, 9-66, 9-67, 

9-76, 9-93, 9-118, 9-121, 9-122, 9-129, 9-130, 

9-145, 9-146, 9-167, 9-169, 9-170, 9-176, 9-

192, 9-216, 9-224, 9-241, 9-251, 10-8, 10-9, 

10-12, 10-13, 10-14, 11-2, 11-9, 11-40, 11-48, 

11-51, C-21, D-34, D-35, D-85, D-92, D-101, 

D-102, E-319, E-320, E-324, E-337, I-6, I-7, I8, I-12

Nonradioactive waste, 3-29, 3-31, 3-36, 4-3, 4-

138, 4-142, 4-149, 5-1, 5-127, 7-40, 10-22, I13

O 

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), l, 2-229, 

2-230, 3-33, 5-126, 5-127, 11-47, G-16

Ozone, l, 2-214, 2-220, 5-101, 9-10, 9-19, D-97, 

H-10, I-4, I-11

P 

Park, iii, xxv, xxxi, xliii, l, 1-3, 1-8, 1-9, 2-1, 2-4, 2-6, 

2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-15, 2-16, 2-21, 2-

53, 2-54, 2-55, 2-60, 2-75, 2-80, 2-87, 2-88, 2-

89, 2-106, 2-110, 2-118, 2-119, 2-128, 2-129, 

2-131, 2-134, 2-135, 2-147, 2-167, 2-175, 2-

178, 2-179, 2-180, 2-200, 2-204, 2-209, 2-218, 

2-225, 2-226, 2-231, 3-26, 4-4, 4-8, 4-13, 4-18, 

4-19, 4-48, 4-49, 4-60, 4-62, 4-65, 4-72, 4-85, 

4-102, 4-113, 4-114, 4-129, 4-132, 5-4, 5-27, 

5-49, 5-55, 5-59, 5-71, 5-79, 5-81, 5-87, 5-154, 

7-5, 7-6, 7-11, 7-17, 7-21, 7-24, 7-27, 7-38, 7-

41, 7-44, 7-47, 9-35, 9-37, 9-43, 9-49, 9-50, 9-

56, 9-58, 9-59, 9-60, 9-61, 9-63, 9-64, 9-74, 9-

75, 9-80, 9-101, 9-102, 9-111, 9-113, 9-114, 9-

115, 9-123, 9-128, 9-133, 9-153, 9-154, 9-156, 

9-162, 9-164, 9-168, 9-174, 9-180, 9-199, 9-

200, 9-204, 9-205, 9-211, 9-215, 9-219, 9-223, 

9-229, 9-236, 9-251, 10-10, 11-2, 11-9, 11-10, 

11-19, 11-20, 11-25, 11-27, 11-34, 11-35, 11-

65, 11-68, 11-69, 11-75, 11-80, 11-81, 11-82, 

11-86, 11-89, A-1, A-2, B-2, C-8, C-10, C-23, 

D-3, D-5, D-18, D-28, D-33, D-34, D-36, D-37, 

D-45, D-46, D-50, D-51, D-53, D-66, D-67, D68, D-75, D-76, D-80, D-82, D-91, D-92, D-94, 

D-101, D-109, D-110, D-111, D-115, D-116, D123, D-131, D-132, D-133, D-134, D-137, D138, E-6, E-16, E-17, E-72, E-79, E-80, E-81, 

E-82, E-87, E-95, E-99, E-101, E-102, E-105, 

E-106, E-107, E-108, E-109, E-110, E-115, E116, E-117, E-121, E-131, E-132, E-133, E137, E-139, E-156, E-157, E-159, E-170, E171, E-172, E-174, E-186, E-196, E-210, E221, E-222, E-223, E-225, E-229, E-233, E240, E-242, E-252, E-256, E-268, E-269, E271, E-272, E-283, E-286, E-295, E-296, E298, E-299, E-303, E-307, E-308, E-309, E320, E-322, E-328, E-337, E-367, E-374, E382, E-398, E-407, E-430, E-432, E-433, E434, E-435, E-436, E-437, E-438, E-439, E440, E-441, E-442, E-443, E-444, E-459, E480, E-481, E-492, E-496, E-499, E-500, E501, E-502, E-503, E-504, E-505, E-506, E507, E-508, E-509, E-510, E-511, E-515, E520, E-523, E-524, E-532, E-539, E-543, E557, E-2, E-55, E-56, E-8, E-9, G-31, I-4, I-18, 

J-4, K-4, K-9, K-11, K-17, K-22

Particulate matter, li, 2-214, 2-218, 2-220, 4-99, 4-

125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-129, 4-133, 4-146, 5-97, 

5-98, 5-100, 5-110, 9-8, E-334, G-13

Permits, iii, v, xx, xxiv, xxvii, xxxi, xxxii, xxxvi, xli, xliv, 

li, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-10, 1-11, 1-

12, 1-13, 2-1, 2-7, 2-19, 2-39, 2-59, 2-73, 2-

148, 2-160, 2-191, 2-208, 3-1, 3-13, 3-16, 3-

21, 3-37, 3-39, 4-1, 4-2, 4-5, 4-7, 4-11, 4-12, 4-

17, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-24, 4-25, 4-29, 4-33, 4-

34, 4-35, 4-37, 4-38, 4-42, 4-53, 4-54, 4-70, 4-

82, 4-121, 4-124, 4-126, 4-131, 4-136, 4-140, 

4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-146, 5-1, 5-3, 5-

4, 5-6, 5-21, 5-26, 5-41, 5-42, 5-44, 5-51, 5-52, 
Index 

NUREG–2176 12-16 October 2016 

5-61, 5-63, 5-64, 5-72, 5-96, 5-98, 5-99, 5-127, 

5-128, 5-129, 5-130, 5-131, 5-138, 5-140, 5-

151, 5-153, 6-1, 6-6, 6-28, 7-1, 7-2, 7-4, 7-16, 

7-17, 7-34, 8-9, 9-1, 9-2, 9-8, 9-9, 9-17, 9-18, 

9-42, 9-43, 9-48, 9-58, 9-59, 9-60, 9-69, 9-73, 

9-100, 9-113, 9-114, 9-115, 9-121, 9-152, 9-

162, 9-163, 9-164, 9-165, 9-169, 9-198, 9-208, 

9-209, 9-210, 9-211, 9-214, 9-222, 9-223, 9-

224, 9-241, 9-245, 9-258, 9-259, 10-1, 10-2, 

10-3, 10-4, 10-6, 10-8, 10-10, 10-12, 10-16, 

10-28, 11-5, 11-8, 11-15, 11-20, 11-21, 11-24, 

11-25, 11-26, 11-27, 11-28, 11-33, 11-36, 11-

38, 11-39, 11-40, 11-41, 11-44, 11-45, 11-47, 

11-49, 11-50, 11-57, 11-60, 11-61, 11-62, 11-

72, 11-75, 11-83, 11-84, 11-85, 11-88, 11-89, 

C-1, C-20, D-1, D-16, D-17, D-18, D-21, D-23, 

D-25, D-27, D-38, D-48, D-68, D-75, D-97, D104, D-131, E-3, E-75, E-76, E-77, E-84, E-85, 

E-100, E-105, E-110, E-111, E-113, E-114, E116, E-117, E-153, E-155, E-159, E-163, E165, E-167, E-168, E-178, E-181, E-182, E193, E-203, E-208, E-240, E-248, E-256, E261, E-271, E-276, E-279, E-291, E-296, E303, E-322, E-325, E-327, E-329, E-331, E332, E-355, E-389, E-445, E-473, E-474, E478, E-482, E-487, E-502, E-504, E-529, E543, E-554, E-3, E-2, F-1, G-8, G-34, 1, H-1, 

H-2, H-3, H-4, H-5, H-6, H-7, H-8, H-9, H-10, 

H-11, H-12, I-2, K-1, K-12, K-15, K-16, K-21, 

K-22

Plant species, 2-81, 2-97, 2-106, 2-110, 2-111, 2-

115, 2-117, 4-40, 4-42, 4-46, 4-48, 4-53, 4-55, 

4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-64, 4-65, 4-70, 4-72, 4-73, 

5-51, 5-55, 5-56, 5-59, 5-60, 5-64, 5-65, 5-66, 

7-22, 9-67, 9-117, 9-122, 9-170, 9-216, D-34, 

D-67, D-73, E-182, E-255, E-256, E-268, E269, E-279, K-13, K-14, K-16, K-17, K-19

Population density, 2-165, 6-21, 6-28, 6-29, 9-35, 

9-95, 9-148, 9-195, 9-244, E-432, E-435, E444, E-485, I-13

Postulated accident, xiv, xvi, xviii, xxxv, xxxvi, 

xxxviii, 5-1, 5-130, 5-134, 5-151, 5-154, 5-157, 

6-17, 6-34, 7-41, 7-46, 9-34, 9-95, 9-147, 9-

194, 9-243, 9-246, 10-27, A-2, D-106, E-309, 

E-351, E-369, G-53

Preconstruction, v, viii, ix, xi, xix, xxvi, xxvii, xxix, 

xxxv, xl, 1-6, 1-10, 2-161, 2-187, 3-5, 3-21, 3-

22, 3-23, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-

12, 4-18, 4-19, 4-22, 4-24, 4-27, 4-30, 4-31, 4-

32, 4-33, 4-35, 4-46, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-

53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-63, 4-64, 4-67, 4-71, 4-72, 4-

73, 4-97, 4-99, 4-103, 4-105, 4-123, 4-124, 4-

125, 4-127, 4-128, 4-139, 4-143, 4-144, 4-147, 

4-148, 5-13, 5-96, 5-98, 7-1, 7-2, 7-8, 7-9, 7-

11, 7-12, 7-13, 7-14, 7-16, 7-18, 7-19, 7-24, 7-

30, 7-31, 7-32, 7-33, 7-36, 7-37, 7-38, 7-39, 7-

43, 7-44, 7-46, 7-47, 9-2, 9-30, 9-34, 9-41, 9-

44, 9-50, 9-51, 9-52, 9-65, 9-68, 9-69, 9-96, 9-

103, 9-104, 9-105, 9-106, 9-119, 9-120, 9-121, 

9-151, 9-154, 9-155, 9-169, 9-195, 9-200, 9-

201, 9-202, 9-213, 9-214, 10-4, 10-5, 10-6, 10-

9, 10-16, 10-18, 10-21, 10-22, 10-24, 11-74, C19, D-18, E-91, E-245, E-246, E-253, E-291, 

E-296, E-300, E-303, E-308, E-321, E-325, E329, E-331, E-337, G-1, I-2, J-1, J-2, J-3, K-11

Public services, 2-168, 4-110, 4-115, 5-86, 5-92, 

7-29, 8-1, 9-81, 9-134, 9-181, 9-230, D-89, D92, D-94, I-9

R 

Radial collector well, xxxii, li, 1-1, 1-2, 1-10, 2-24, 

2-39, 2-49, 2-50, 2-62, 2-67, 2-79, 2-126, 2-

136, 2-159, 2-201, 3-2, 3-5, 3-8, 3-9, 3-21, 3-

23, 3-25, 3-26, 3-31, 3-32, 3-41, 4-2, 4-4, 4-5, 

4-7, 4-21, 4-23, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-51, 4-54, 4-

74, 4-76, 4-81, 4-82, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-89, 4-

90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-

139, 5-2, 5-4, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-

13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-

22, 5-29, 5-33, 5-34, 5-35, 5-36, 5-38, 5-39, 5-

42, 5-43, 5-44, 5-50, 5-67, 5-68, 5-69, 5-70, 5-

71, 5-72, 5-73, 5-74, 5-76, 5-77, 5-78, 5-93, 5-

101, 5-103, 5-112, 5-152, 5-155, 7-12, 7-13, 7-

14, 7-16, 7-18, 7-34, 9-122, 9-254, 9-256, 9-

257, 10-1, 10-2, 10-10, 10-13, 10-22, D-18, D21, D-22, D-27, D-39, D-40, D-44, D-45, D-55, 

D-56, D-61, D-62, D-63, D-64, D-65, D-66, D79, D-82, D-83, D-85, D-86, D-115, D-116, D117, D-132, D-133, D-134, E-76, E-91, E-102, 

E-120, E-136, E-139, E-147, E-148, E-149, E152, E-153, E-155, E-156, E-157, E-158, E162, E-164, E-165, E-167, E-168, E-170, E171, E-172, E-173, E-174, E-175, E-176, E178, E-180, E-181, E-183, E-186, E-187, E188, E-189, E-190, E-193, E-195, E-196, E197, E-198, E-199, E-200, E-201, E-202, E203, E-206, E-207, E-208, E-209, E-210, E211, E-212, E-215, E-216, E-217, E-218, E219, E-220, E-221, E-222, E-223, E-224, E225, E-226, E-227, E-228, E-229, E-230, E231, E-232, E-233, E-234, E-235, E-236, E-
Index 

October 2016 12-17 NUREG–2176 

237, E-239, E-254, E-270, E-286, E-292, E293, E-295, E-296, E-297, E-298, E-299, E302, E-305, E-306, E-333, E-383, G-22, G-26, 

G-27, G-28, G-29, G-30, G-31, G-32, G-33, G34, G-35, G-38, G-39, G-40, G-46, G-47, G-48, 

H-9, I-5, I-8, K-1

Radiation (see also dose), xi, xiv, xxviii, xliii, l, li, 2-

214, 2-217, 2-229, 2-230, 3-20, 3-34, 4-121, 4-

136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-146, 5-54, 5-107, 5-113, 

5-114, 5-115, 5-118, 5-119, 5-120, 5-121, 5-

122, 5-124, 5-126, 5-127, 5-133, 5-134, 5-137, 

5-153, 5-156, 6-2, 6-11, 6-12, 6-13, 6-16, 6-17, 

6-19, 6-20, 6-22, 6-23, 6-24, 6-27, 6-28, 6-31, 

6-33, 6-34, 6-35, 6-36, 7-40, 7-45, 9-69, 9-95, 

9-123, 9-147, 9-171, 9-194, 9-217, 9-243, 9-

252, 10-12, 10-13, 10-14, 10-26, 11-1, 11-2, 

11-18, 11-57, 11-64, 11-65, 11-78, 11-85, B-1, 

C-21, D-101, D-102, D-103, E-179, E-336, E341, E-342, E-343, E-344, E-345, E-346, E347, E-348, E-353, E-356, E-357, E-367, E379, E-380, E-381, E-416, E-455, E-456, E461, E-491, E-516, E-517, E-520, E-524, E525, E-526, E-528, E-531, E-534, E-540, E544, E-545, E-547, E-550, E-551, E-3, E-8, E10, G-5, G-7, G-14, G-15, G-16, G-17, G-55, 

G-56, G-57, G-58, H-8, I-7, I-12, I-15

Radioactive effluents, 2-230, 6-10, 6-12, 9-95, 9-

147, 9-194, 9-243, E-167, E-344, E-345, E347, E-351

Radioactive wastes, 3-20, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 

3-40, 5-115, 5-128, 6-4, 6-12, 6-15, 6-16, 6-18, 

6-23, 6-24, 6-25, 6-37, 6-38, 6-39, 6-40, 7-44, 

7-45, 10-12, 10-23, 10-26, D-22, D-50, D-104, 

D-105, D-106, D-107, E-118, E-130, E-139, E190, E-341, E-357, E-371, E-372, E-377, E378, E-379, E-414, E-455, E-483, E-519, E521, E-525, E-529, E-552, E-553, H-2, H-8

Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 

(REMP), li, 2-229, 2-230, 5-126, 5-127, 7-40, G16

Radionuclide, xxviii, 3-33, 5-20, 5-26, 5-27, 5-115, 

5-121, 5-123, 5-125, 5-134, 5-144, 6-14, 6-21, 

6-33, 6-34, 6-35, 11-19, D-64, E-113, E-169, 

E-194, E-203, E-205, E-238, E-341, E-344, E347, E-381, E-441, G-6, G-7, G-13, G-15, G18, G-20, G-48, G-50

Radon, li, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 6-7, 6-10, 6-11, 6-12, 6-

16, 6-23, 10-12

Rain, rainfall, 2-33, 2-41, 2-42, 2-45, 2-46, 2-76, 2-

126, 2-128, 2-208, 2-211, 2-212, 4-30, 5-32, 5-

50, 5-76, 5-106, 9-8, 9-52, 9-71, 9-105, 9-105, 

9-125, 9-163, 9-170, D-40, D-56, E-120, E122, E-133, E-134, E-137, E-146, E-151, E155, E-173, E-177, E-281, E-299, E-317, E338, E-445, E-452, E-512, E-526, E-95, G-32, 

I-3, I-4, K-18

Reactor, iii, viii, xx, xxvii, xxviii, xxxi, xxxii, xlviii, li, lii, 

1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-9, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 2-1, 2-

6, 2-7, 2-50, 2-216, 2-220, 3-1, 3-2, 3-4, 3-5, 3-

8, 3-14, 3-16, 3-19, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-33, 3-

34, 3-35, 3-36, 4-2, 4-7, 4-22, 4-66, 4-68, 4-69, 

4-78, 4-85, 4-99, 4-102, 4-114, 4-120, 4-134, 

5-3, 5-8, 5-43, 5-49, 5-54, 5-80, 5-82, 5-84, 5-

93, 5-103, 5-113, 5-124, 5-130, 5-131, 5-132, 

5-133, 5-134, 5-135, 5-136, 5-137, 5-138, 5-

139, 5-140, 5-141, 5-142, 5-143, 5-144, 5-145, 

5-146, 5-147, 5-149, 5-150, 5-154, 5-157, 6-1, 

6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 6-8, 6-10, 6-11, 6-13, 6-

14, 6-15, 6-17, 6-18, 6-19, 6-20, 6-21, 6-22, 6-

23, 6-24, 6-25, 6-26, 6-27, 6-28, 6-31, 6-33, 6-

34, 6-35, 6-36, 6-37, 6-38, 6-39, 6-40, 7-1, 7-

25, 7-36, 7-41, 7-42, 7-43, 7-44, 7-45, 8-1, 9-1, 

9-42, 9-43, 9-47, 9-63, 9-69, 9-70, 9-71, 9-72, 

9-75, 9-79, 9-80, 9-83, 9-95, 9-99, 9-118, 9-

123, 9-125, 9-126, 9-129, 9-132, 9-133, 9-136, 

9-148, 9-151, 9-167, 9-171, 9-172, 9-175, 9-

179, 9-180, 9-183, 9-194, 9-195, 9-198, 9-217, 

9-219, 9-223, 9-224, 9-227, 9-229, 9-231, 9-

237, 9-242, 9-243, 9-244, 9-250, 9-251, 10-1, 

10-3, 10-4, 10-26, 10-27, 11-1, 11-5, 11-17, 

11-70, 11-71, 11-73, 11-74, 11-75, 11-76, 11-

78, 11-82, A-1, C-6, D-16, D-19, D-28, D-30, 

D-32, D-42, D-44, D-48, D-51, D-64, D-79, D87, D-88, D-89, D-97, D-98, D-99, D-101, D104, D-106, D-107, D-108, D-112, D-114, D117, D-121, D-122, D-124, D-125, D-128, D131, D-132, D-133, D-134, D-135, D-137, E70, E-73, E-76, E-77, E-83, E-86, E-93, E-94, 

E-99, E-100, E-107, E-109, E-117, E-118, E121, E-122, E-123, E-124, E-125, E-126, E127, E-128, E-129, E-130, E-131, E-132, E133, E-134, E-135, E-139, E-140, E-141, E147, E-149, E-150, E-151, E-152, E-153, E154, E-155, E-156, E-158, E-159, E-160, E162, E-163, E-166, E-167, E-168, E-169, E173, E-174, E-176, E-178, E-179, E-184, E185, E-186, E-188, E-192, E-200, E-201, E204, E-205, E-206, E-207, E-208, E-211, E215, E-224, E-227, E-228, E-230, E-232, E234, E-238, E-239, E-244, E-255, E-256, E276, E-281, E-282, E-285, E-287, E-305, E306, E-307, E-308, E-309, E-310, E-311, E-
Index 

NUREG–2176 12-18 October 2016 

312, E-313, E-314, E-315, E-316, E-317, E318, E-319, E-321, E-324, E-331, E-332, E333, E-338, E-341, E-343, E-346, E-350, E351, E-354, E-355, E-357, E-358, E-360, E361, E-362, E-363, E-364, E-365, E-366, E367, E-368, E-369, E-370, E-371, E-372, E373, E-374, E-375, E-376, E-377, E-378, E379, E-381, E-382, E-383, E-384, E-385, E386, E-388, E-389, E-391, E-393, E-394, E396, E-398, E-399, E-400, E-401, E-402, E404, E-406, E-409, E-411, E-412, E-413, E414, E-415, E-416, E-418, E-421, E-423, E424, E-425, E-426, E-427, E-428, E-429, E430, E-434, E-436, E-438, E-439, E-441, E442, E-443, E-444, E-446, E-447, E-448, E449, E-451, E-452, E-453, E-454, E-455, E457, E-459, E-460, E-461, E-463, E-464, E465, E-468, E-469, E-470, E-471, E-472, E473, E-474, E-475, E-476, E-477, E-478, E479, E-481, E-482, E-483, E-484, E-485, E486, E-487, E-488, E-489, E-490, E-491, E492, E-493, E-494, E-495, E-496, E-497, E498, E-499, E-500, E-501, E-502, E-503, E504, E-505, E-506, E-507, E-508, E-509, E511, E-512, E-513, E-514, E-516, E-517, E519, E-521, E-523, E-524, E-525, E-527, E528, E-529, E-530, E-531, E-534, E-535, E536, E-537, E-538, E-540, E-543, E-544, E545, E-546, E-547, E-548, E-549, E-550, E551, E-552, E-553, E-554, E-555, E-82, E-3, 

E-2, G-7, G-16, G-27, G-33, G-54, G-57, H-2, 

H-9, I-1, I-3, I-5, I-14, I-16, 1, J-1, J-2, J-3, J-4, 

J-5, K-1

Reclaimed water, lii, 1-1, 2-18, 2-24, 2-61, 2-79, 2-

80, 2-84, 2-85, 2-86, 2-88, 2-91, 2-93, 2-95, 2-

160, 2-182, 3-2, 3-8, 3-9, 3-16, 3-20, 3-21, 3-

23, 3-26, 3-28, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-36, 3-37, 3-

39, 3-41, 4-2, 4-7, 4-21, 4-29, 4-35, 4-39, 4-55, 

4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-71, 4-77, 4-85, 5-2, 5-3, 5-

7, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-15, 5-17, 5-20, 5-21, 5-

22, 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-33, 5-34, 5-35, 5-36, 5-

38, 5-41, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-47, 5-61, 5-

62, 5-63, 5-66, 5-67, 5-68, 5-69, 5-70, 5-74, 5-

76, 5-78, 5-89, 5-103, 5-109, 5-112, 5-154, 5-

155, 7-12, 7-13, 7-15, 7-19, 7-21, 7-23, 7-35, 

9-19, 9-254, 9-255, 9-256, 10-1, 10-12, 10-13, 

10-23, D-20, D-21, D-22, D-24, D-43, D-44, D50, D-52, D-61, D-63, D-70, D-71, D-79, D-99, 

D-101, D-114, D-115, D-131, D-132, E-76, E85, E-89, E-91, E-92, E-104, E-112, E-117, E120, E-122, E-142, E-148, E-154, E-155, E160, E-161, E-162, E-163, E-168, E-175, E193, E-199, E-204, E-206, E-207, E-212, E213, E-215, E-216, E-218, E-219, E-220, E221, E-225, E-226, E-228, E-231, E-233, E234, E-235, E-238, E-241, E-247, E-249, E251, E-258, E-260, E-261, E-263, E-264, E267, E-273, E-274, E-275, E-279, E-282, E286, E-288, E-290, E-300, E-302, E-305, E306, E-328, E-332, E-334, E-335, E-338, G-31, 

G-48, H-9, I-8, K-1

Recreation, vii, x, xiii, 2-6, 2-10, 2-80, 2-118, 2-168, 

2-169, 2-178, 4-2, 4-110, 4-113, 4-114, 5-2, 5-

5, 5-86, 5-87, 5-92, 7-29, 9-69, 9-70, 9-80, 9-

102, 9-124, 9-128, 9-133, 9-153, 9-171, 9-180, 

9-199, 9-217, 9-218, 9-229, 11-9, 11-31, 11-

54, D-36, D-90, E-80, E-137, E-286, E-308, E322, E-444, I-9, K-9

Refurbishment, 3-21, 9-4, K-14

Region of influence (NfP), 4-134, 8-2

region of interest (ROI), xxxviii, li, 1-11, 7-18, 7-20, 

7-43, 7-44, 7-45, 9-1, 9-2, 9-4, 9-23, 9-24, 9-

25, 9-26, 9-27, 9-28, 9-29, 9-30, 9-33, 9-34, 9-

35, 9-40, 9-57, 9-112, 9-161, 10-17, E-423, E431, E-438, E-444, E-449, I-15

Regional Input‐Output Modeling System (RIMS II),

li, 4-104, 4-106, 5-82, 5-83, 9-82, 9-135, 9-182, 

11-9, E-2

Renewable energy, 7-36, 8-8, 9-5, 10-17, D-123, 

D-124, D-126, D-127, D-130, E-148, E-179, E393, E-394, E-398, E-400, E-401, E-404, E405, E-406, E-407, E-408, E-409, E-411, E412, E-413, E-414, E-416, E-418, E-419, E421, E-422, E-423, E-424, E-425, E-426, E427, E-428, E-437, E-449, E-455, E-490, E520, E-523, E-528, J-3

Replacement power, 5-148, I-14

Riparian, 2-97, 4-54, G-19

Roads, xxii, xxxvii, l, 1-1, 1-10, 2-4, 2-16, 2-19, 2-

41, 2-79, 2-81, 2-91, 2-95, 2-97, 2-104, 2-109, 

2-112, 2-115, 2-116, 2-117, 2-151, 2-159, 2-

161, 2-175, 2-200, 2-202, 2-203, 2-204, 2-205, 

2-208, 2-218, 2-225, 2-228, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 

3-18, 3-20, 3-22, 3-23, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-33, 

4-2, 4-4, 4-5, 4-8, 4-9, 4-11, 4-12, 4-15, 4-17, 

4-18, 4-19, 4-21, 4-23, 4-26, 4-29, 4-36, 4-37, 

4-38, 4-39, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-50, 4-52, 

4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 

4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-70, 4-74, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 

4-81, 4-93, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-

102, 4-103, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-119, 

4-121, 4-123, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-
Index 

October 2016 12-19 NUREG–2176 

133, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 

4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 5-2, 5-4, 5-36, 5-50, 5-52, 

5-55, 5-59, 5-60, 5-61, 5-78, 5-79, 5-80, 5-81, 

5-86, 5-87, 5-92, 5-94, 5-96, 5-153, 6-22, 7-5, 

7-8, 7-9, 7-13, 7-20, 7-21, 7-29, 7-30, 7-31, 7-

32, 7-33, 7-46, 7-47, 9-7, 9-12, 9-13, 9-14, 9-

15, 9-16, 9-20, 9-21, 9-22, 9-30, 9-44, 9-49, 9-

53, 9-63, 9-64, 9-65, 9-70, 9-72, 9-76, 9-77, 9-

79, 9-80, 9-82, 9-90, 9-91, 9-93, 9-94, 9-96, 9-

101, 9-107, 9-109, 9-118, 9-120, 9-124, 9-126, 

9-130, 9-132, 9-135, 9-142, 9-143, 9-145, 9-

146, 9-147, 9-148, 9-153, 9-156, 9-159, 9-165, 

9-167, 9-169, 9-172, 9-176, 9-177, 9-179, 9-

182, 9-189, 9-190, 9-192, 9-193, 9-195, 9-199, 

9-203, 9-204, 9-206, 9-212, 9-214, 9-215, 9-

218, 9-225, 9-228, 9-231, 9-237, 9-239, 9-241, 

9-242, 9-246, 9-247, 9-248, 9-249, 10-1, 10-5, 

10-6, 10-7, 10-11, 10-21, 11-82, D-18, D-21, 

D-24, D-25, D-28, D-29, D-34, D-35, D-42, D43, D-45, D-46, D-53, D-66, D-68, D-69, D-70, 

D-71, D-72, D-73, D-74, D-76, D-79, D-80, D81, D-92, D-93, D-94, D-110, D-111, D-112, D113, D-114, D-118, D-120, D-130, D-131, D132, E-12, E-76, E-83, E-87, E-89, E-92, E-95, 

E-98, E-99, E-104, E-106, E-107, E-108, E110, E-119, E-120, E-122, E-138, E-145, E241, E-242, E-243, E-245, E-249, E-251, E252, E-254, E-258, E-259, E-260, E-261, E262, E-263, E-266, E-267, E-268, E-269, E272, E-273, E-276, E-280, E-290, E-312, E327, E-332, E-359, E-456, E-464, E-534, E544, E-548, E-551, H-9, I-8, I-9, I-12, J-1, K-1, 

K-10, K-12, K-13, K-14, K-15, K-17

Runoff, xxiv, 2-39, 2-41, 2-61, 2-76, 2-110, 2-126, 

3-8, 3-23, 3-30, 3-37, 3-39, 4-8, 4-11, 4-21, 4-

22, 4-26, 4-29, 4-31, 4-32, 4-44, 4-61, 4-74, 4-

76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-80, 4-88, 4-93, 4-97, 4-139, 

4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-144, 5-7, 5-8, 5-13, 5-

29, 5-32, 5-33, 5-34, 5-37, 5-38, 5-50, 5-56, 5-

57, 5-65, 5-76, 5-93, 5-127, 5-128, 7-20, 7-28, 

9-11, 9-57, 9-58, 9-59, 9-60, 9-61, 9-66, 9-67, 

9-112, 9-113, 9-114, 9-115, 9-116, 9-121, 9-

122, 9-162, 9-163, 9-164, 9-165, 9-169, 9-170, 

9-208, 9-209, 9-211, 9-216, D-24, D-46, D-49, 

D-57, D-73, E-136, E-139, E-168, E-169, E172, E-177, E-178, E-200, E-201, E-207, E229, E-232, E-247, E-261, E-262, E-278, E287, G-32

S 

Salinity, xxi, xxiv, li, 2-33, 2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 2-38, 

2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 2-46, 2-47, 2-51, 2-54, 

2-57, 2-60, 2-61, 2-68, 2-71, 2-105, 2-119, 2-

123, 2-126, 2-128, 2-129, 2-130, 2-137, 2-139, 

2-140, 2-141, 2-144, 2-148, 2-150, 2-154, 2-

155, 2-158, 2-161, 2-209, 3-9, 4-31, 4-32, 4-

34, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-94, 5-8, 5-9, 5-11, 5-14, 

5-16, 5-18, 5-19, 5-42, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-50, 

5-59, 5-65, 5-67, 5-68, 5-69, 5-70, 5-71, 5-72, 

5-73, 5-74, 5-76, 5-78, 5-103, 5-155, 7-3, 7-11, 

7-15, 7-16, 7-18, 7-22, 7-25, 7-26, 7-27, 9-43, 

9-58, 9-60, 9-61, 9-67, 9-74, 9-113, 9-115, 9-

116, 9-122, 9-128, 9-163, 9-164, 9-165, 9-170, 

9-174, 9-216, 9-255, 9-258, 10-10, 10-22, 11-

10, 11-27, 11-59, 11-81, 11-87, 11-94, D-22, 

D-38, D-39, D-40, D-44, D-51, D-53, D-54, D56, D-57, D-59, D-65, D-66, D-77, D-81, D-98, 

D-109, D-116, D-117, E-113, E-116, E-117, E126, E-139, E-148, E-149, E-150, E-151, E153, E-154, E-155, E-157, E-158, E-160, E161, E-162, E-163, E-164, E-165, E-166, E167, E-168, E-170, E-171, E-172, E-173, E174, E-182, E-184, E-185, E-186, E-187, E188, E-189, E-192, E-195, E-196, E-197, E198, E-200, E-201, E-202, E-204, E-206, E207, E-208, E-210, E-211, E-216, E-217, E218, E-219, E-220, E-221, E-222, E-223, E226, E-227, E-229, E-230, E-232, E-233, E234, E-235, E-236, E-238, E-239, E-264, E281, E-283, E-284, E-286, E-288, E-292, E293, E-294, E-296, E-298, E-299, E-305, E311, E-332, E-334, E-338, E-438, E-466, E495, E-509, E-532, E-10, G-27, G-31, G-32, G33, G-34, G-35, G-37, G-40, G-41, G-42, G-43, 

G-44, G-45, G-47, G-48, G-56, G-58

Salt deposition, 5-2, 5-7, 5-11, 5-12, 5-33, 5-43, 

5-44, 5-45, 5-56, 5-57, 5-58, 5-59, 5-65, 5-68, 

5-69, 5-70, 5-71, 5-100, 5-101, 5-104, 5-109, 

7-23, 7-34, 9-43, 9-67, 9-122, 9-170, 9-216, 9-

223, 9-250, 9-251, D-79, E-182, E-333, E-334

Saltwater intrusion, 2-49, 2-68, 5-14, 5-16, 5-18, 

5-20, 5-36, 5-38, 5-42, 7-16, 9-211, D-38, D39, D-52, D-53, D-57, D-111, D-113, D-114, D115, D-116, D-117, D-123, E-114, E-119, E120, E-128, E-130, E-131, E-134, E-135, E151, E-152, E-154, E-155, E-156, E-157, E159, E-160, E-162, E-163, E-165, E-166, E169, E-170, E-184, E-185, E-186, E-187, E188, E-197, E-198, E-201, E-202, E-206, E-
Index 

NUREG–2176 12-20 October 2016 

207, E-208, E-215, E-216, E-228, E-230, E232, E-233, E-236, E-284, E-439, E-507, I-4, I5

Sanitary waste, 2-223, 3-17, 3-26, 3-32, 3-36, 3-

37, 3-39, 4-8, 4-25, 4-33, 4-35, 4-139, 4-140, 

4-142, 5-20, 5-37, 5-89, 5-127, 5-128, 5-129, 

G-4

Schools, v, xxv, xxxvii, xlviii, 2-5, 2-44, 2-170, 2-

171, 2-173, 2-174, 2-184, 2-187, 2-216, 2-218, 

4-118, 4-119, 4-146, 5-85, 5-91, 5-92, 5-153, 

9-79, 9-81, 9-82, 9-132, 9-134, 9-135, 9-179, 

9-181, 9-182, 9-227, 9-230, 9-246, 9-247, 9-

248, 9-249, 10-19, 11-34, 11-60, 11-63, B-2, 

D-39, D-86, D-87, D-88, D-89, D-107, E-73, E119, E-142, E-322, E-466, E-467, E-477, E490, E-535

Scoping, vii, xx, xxxi, xli, 1-4, 1-7, 1-13, 2-196, 2-

206, 4-11, 5-5, 5-66, 5-78, 10-3, 11-4, 11-28, 

11-61, 11-73, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, 1, D-1, 

D-2, D-3, D-15, D-39, D-59, D-60, D-104, D125, D-138, E-75, E-3, E-8

Sea level rise, 5-16, 5-18, 5-36, 5-39, 7-26, 9-42, 

9-223, D-41, D-105, D-107, D-108, D-109, D117, D-118, D-119, D-123, E-74, E-117, E118, E-119, E-120, E-121, E-122, E-123, E124, E-125, E-126, E-127, E-128, E-129, E130, E-131, E-132, E-133, E-135, E-136, E137, E-138, E-139, E-140, E-141, E-142, E143, E-144, E-145, E-146, E-147, E-148, E167, E-170, E-172, E-177, E-179, E-187, E197, E-209, E-211, E-212, E-217, E-219, E220, E-221, E-222, E-223, E-224, E-225, E231, E-234, E-235, E-236, E-258, E-288, E317, E-361, E-362, E-363, E-373, E-374, E375, E-376, E-378, E-383, E-432, E-435, E437, E-438, E-439, E-443, E-445, E-453, E454, E-460, E-482, E-483, E-501, E-505, E509, E-510, E-511, E-512, E-513, E-515, E518, E-553, G-46, G-48, I-1, I-3, I-4, I-5, I-6, I8, I-9, I-10, I-11, I-12, I-13, I-14, I-16, I-17

Seismic, lii, 2-55, 2-57, 3-24, 5-25, 5-131, 5-132, 

5-133, 5-144, 5-145, 11-14, 11-15, 11-73, E112, E-116, E-355, E-370, E-483, E-549, E-2, 

E-3

Severe accidents (see accidents), xiv, xxvii, lii, 1-3, 

1-9, 5-132, 5-133, 5-136, 5-137, 5-138, 5-139, 

5-141, 5-142, 5-144, 5-145, 5-146, 5-147, 5-

148, 5-149, 5-150, 5-151, 5-154, 5-157, 7-41, 

7-42, 9-53, 9-95, 9-108, 9-148, 9-151, 9-194, 

9-195, 9-204, 9-243, 9-244, 11-70, 11-71, A-2, 

D-106, E-129, E-309, E-357, E-361, E-362, E363, E-365, E-367, E-368, E-369, E-370, E534, E-546, G-52, G-53, G-57, I-14

Shipping cask, 6-20, 6-23, 6-27, 6-28, 6-29, 6-32, 

6-34, 7-45

Soil types, 2-39

Solid waste, xv, xvii, xlix, 2-6, 2-80, 2-133, 2-174, 

3-20, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-40, 4-8, 4-140, 4-142, 

4-147, 5-103, 5-108, 5-127, 5-128, 5-130, 6-1, 

6-16, 6-40, 7-40, 7-41, 9-7, 9-11, 9-14, 9-26, 9-

27, 9-29, 9-32, 10-8, 10-22, 10-27, 11-8, 11-

19, 11-24, 11-26, 11-61, 11-62, D-105, H-11

South Florida Water Management District 

(SFWMD), xxi, lii, 2-4, 2-7, 2-10, 2-19, 2-28, 2-

29, 2-31, 2-33, 2-35, 2-41, 2-45, 2-59, 2-61, 2-

62, 2-63, 2-71, 2-72, 2-73, 2-97, 2-112, 2-118, 

2-119, 2-133, 2-174, 2-181, 2-191, 2-230, 2-

231, 3-16, 3-30, 4-11, 4-20, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 

4-35, 4-60, 4-81, 4-82, 5-6, 5-17, 5-19, 5-32, 5-

34, 5-37, 5-38, 5-44, 5-65, 7-12, 7-13, 7-16, 7-

18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 7-24, 7-26, 7-27, 7-28, 9-

43, 9-49, 9-50, 9-51, 9-52, 9-57, 9-58, 9-59, 9-

60, 9-71, 9-72, 9-73, 9-75, 9-96, 9-102, 9-103, 

9-104, 9-105, 9-106, 9-112, 9-113, 9-114, 9-

115, 9-125, 9-126, 9-153, 9-154, 9-155, 9-161, 

9-162, 9-164, 9-165, 9-199, 9-201, 9-202, 9-

208, 9-254, 11-83, 11-84, 11-85, 11-90, 11-91, 

11-95, B-2, C-17, D-28, D-37, D-42, D-45, D47, D-54, D-57, D-58, D-59, D-74, D-76, D-77, 

D-83, D-110, D-113, D-117, E-101, E-120, E153, E-155, E-159, E-163, E-164, E-165, E166, E-173, E-175, E-182, E-199, E-202, E203, E-209, E-212, E-218, E-220, E-222, E223, E-225, E-226, E-231, E-235, E-267, E272, E-279, E-288, E-296, E-389, E-10, G-31, 

G-59, H-3, H-7, H-11, H-12

Species, vi, x, xii, xxiv, xxv, xxix, xlv, lii, 2-10, 2-11, 

2-76, 2-77, 2-79, 2-81, 2-82, 2-83, 2-84, 2-85, 

2-86, 2-87, 2-88, 2-89, 2-90, 2-91, 2-92, 2-93, 

2-94, 2-95, 2-96, 2-97, 2-98, 2-103, 2-104, 2-

105, 2-106, 2-107, 2-108, 2-109, 2-110, 2-111, 

2-112, 2-113, 2-114, 2-115, 2-116, 2-117, 2-

118, 2-122, 2-123, 2-125, 2-126, 2-127, 2-129, 

2-130, 2-131, 2-132, 2-133, 2-134, 2-135, 2-

136, 2-137, 2-138, 2-139, 2-140, 2-141, 2-142, 

2-143, 2-144, 2-146, 2-147, 2-148, 2-151, 2-

154, 2-155, 2-156, 2-157, 2-158, 2-159, 2-160, 

2-161, 2-222, 4-12, 4-24, 4-38, 4-42, 4-43, 4-

44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-

52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-

60, 4-61, 4-64, 4-65, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-

73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-80, 4-81, 4-
Index 

October 2016 12-21 NUREG–2176 

82, 4-83, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-

91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-

145, 4-147, 5-43, 5-45, 5-48, 5-49, 5-52, 5-53, 

5-54, 5-55, 5-56, 5-57, 5-58, 5-59, 5-60, 5-61, 

5-62, 5-63, 5-64, 5-65, 5-66, 5-68, 5-69, 5-70, 

5-71, 5-73, 5-74, 5-76, 5-77, 5-103, 5-125, 5-

126, 5-152, 5-153, 7-19, 7-20, 7-22, 7-23, 7-

25, 7-26, 7-27, 7-47, 9-13, 9-22, 9-61, 9-62, 9-

63, 9-64, 9-65, 9-66, 9-67, 9-69, 9-72, 9-73, 9-

74, 9-75, 9-116, 9-117, 9-118, 9-119, 9-121, 9-

122, 9-124, 9-126, 9-127, 9-129, 9-165, 9-166, 

9-167, 9-168, 9-169, 9-173, 9-174, 9-175, 9-

211, 9-212, 9-214, 9-215, 9-218, 9-219, 9-220, 

9-221, 9-222, 9-224, 9-254, 9-257, 10-6, 10-8, 

10-10, 10-22, 11-4, 11-5, 11-6, 11-7, 11-9, 11-

12, 11-13, 11-19, 11-24, 11-30, 11-31, 11-32, 

11-34, 11-36, 11-39, 11-40, 11-41, 11-43, 11-

45, 11-47, 11-51, 11-53, 11-54, 11-66, 11-67, 

11-68, 11-80, 11-83, 11-89, C-3, C-5, D-27, D29, D-67, D-68, D-69, D-70, D-71, D-72, D-73, 

D-75, D-76, D-77, D-78, D-79, D-80, D-81, D82, D-83, D-84, D-85, D-114, D-117, D-119, D130, D-131, D-132, D-133, D-134, E-81, E-86, 

E-109, E-150, E-157, E-175, E-240, E-241, E243, E-245, E-246, E-249, E-250, E-252, E253, E-254, E-257, E-262, E-263, E-264, E265, E-266, E-267, E-269, E-270, E-272, E274, E-275, E-276, E-279, E-282, E-284, E285, E-286, E-287, E-288, E-289, E-290, E292, E-293, E-296, E-297, E-299, E-300, E301, E-302, E-303, E-304, E-305, E-306, E426, E-465, E-466, E-492, E-501, E-508, E515, E-526, E-541, E-556, E-69, E-4, E-5, E-6, 

G-18, G-19, G-20, G-48, H-12, I-4, I-7, I-8, K11, K-13, K-14, K-15, K-16, K-17, K-19, K-20, 

K-21

Candidate, xvii, xxiii, xxv, 2-11, 2-82, 2-83, 2-86, 

2-88, 2-115, 2-117, 2-139, 2-143, 3-18, 4-

46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 

4-72, 4-75, 5-55, 5-59, 7-22, 7-23, 9-33, 9-

34, 9-35, 9-37, 9-38, 9-40, 11-4, 11-12, 11-

80, E-275, E-438, E-444, E-445, E-446

Endangered, xlv, lii, 2-10, 2-11, 2-15, 2-23, 2-

82, 2-83, 2-84, 2-85, 2-86, 2-87, 2-88, 2-89, 

2-90, 2-91, 2-92, 2-93, 2-95, 2-96, 2-97, 2-

106, 2-112, 2-113, 2-114, 2-115, 2-117, 2-

133, 2-134, 2-135, 2-136, 2-141, 2-142, 2-

143, 2-144, 2-146, 2-147, 2-148, 2-151, 2-

154, 2-160, 4-40, 4-43, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-

48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 

4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-63, 4-65, 4-72, 4-

73, 4-75, 4-80, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-96, 

4-97, 4-132, 5-53, 5-54, 5-55, 5-59, 5-60, 5-

63, 5-70, 5-105, 5-151, 7-21, 7-22, 7-23, 7-

26, 9-13, 9-16, 9-20, 9-35, 9-61, 9-62, 9-73, 

9-116, 9-117, 9-120, 9-123, 9-127, 9-165, 9-

166, 9-170, 9-211, 9-212, 9-214, 9-222, 10-

6, 11-3, 11-4, 11-5, 11-6, 11-7, 11-12, 11-

13, 11-30, 11-31, 11-40, 11-41, 11-43, 11-

47, 11-52, 11-54, 11-66, 11-68, C-5, D-21, 

D-24, D-27, D-34, D-36, D-67, D-68, D-69, 

D-70, D-71, D-73, D-74, D-75, D-76, D-78, 

D-80, D-81, D-101, D-102, D-112, D-113, D116, D-119, D-130, D-133, E-81, E-86, E87, E-88, E-91, E-102, E-108, E-110, E-145, 

E-187, E-241, E-242, E-243, E-246, E-248, 

E-252, E-257, E-263, E-267, E-270, E-272, 

E-282, E-283, E-284, E-286, E-289, E-290, 

E-303, E-308, E-322, E-332, E-337, E-338, 

E-407, E-408, E-440, E-444, E-465, E-500, 

E-501, E-502, E-503, E-508, E-510, E-556, 

E-2, E-4, E-5, E-7, H-4, H-12, I-7, K-11, K16, K-18, K-19, K-20, K-21

Important, 2-109, 2-117, 2-119, 2-122, 2-129, 

2-140, 4-45, 4-71, 4-86, 5-43, 5-50, 5-54, 5-

55, 5-58, 5-67, 5-70, 5-71, 5-73, 5-77, 5-78, 

7-19, 7-24, 9-13, 9-63, 9-69, 9-118, 9-123, 

9-126, 9-167, 9-171, 9-173, 9-217, 10-8, D133, I-7

Sensitive, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-85, 5-72, 5-152

Threatened, 2-85, 2-90, 2-91, 2-92, 2-93, 2-94, 

2-97, 2-114, 2-143, 2-154, 2-155, 4-95, 9-

118, D-27, D-70, D-71, D-119, E-91, E-187, 

E-242, E-248, E-254, E-282, E-290, E-337, 

E-338, E-465, G-19

Spent fuel, xv, xxviii, xlvii, 3-35, 4-136, 5-131, 5-

133, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 6-14, 6-15, 6-16, 6-

23, 6-24, 6-25, 6-26, 6-27, 6-28, 6-29, 6-30, 6-

31, 6-32, 6-33, 6-34, 6-35, 6-36, 6-37, 6-38, 7-

43, 7-45, 10-21, 10-26, 11-5, 11-75, 11-76, 11-

86, D-106, D-107, D-108, E-354, E-355, E365, E-366, E-368, E-370, E-371, E-372, E373, E-374, E-375, E-376, E-378, E-379, E493, E-515, E-522, E-527, E-545, E-546, E552, E-553, E-554, E-2, H-2, H-3

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), lii, 2-

201, 2-202, 2-203, 2-204, 2-205, 2-207, 2-208, 

4-123, 4-124, 5-95, 5-96, 5-97, 5-156, 9-89, 9-

90, 9-91, 9-142, 9-144, 9-189, 9-190, 9-237, 9-

238, 9-239, 10-7, 10-8, 10-11, 10-13, B-1, C-4, 

C-23, E-325, E-326, E-327, E-328, E-329, F-1, 

F-2, H-8
Index 

NUREG–2176 12-22 October 2016 

State of Florida Department of Health and 

Rehabilitative Services, 5-127

Stormwater, viii, ix, lii, 2-39, 2-73, 2-126, 2-160, 2-

174, 3-8, 3-18, 3-23, 3-27, 3-30, 3-37, 3-39, 4-

5, 4-18, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-26, 4-29, 4-30, 4-

31, 4-32, 4-34, 4-45, 4-74, 4-76, 4-78, 4-80, 4-

82, 4-93, 4-94, 4-139, 4-140, 4-142, 4-143, 4-

144, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-13, 5-29, 5-32, 5-33, 5-34, 

5-37, 5-50, 5-56, 5-66, 5-67, 5-93, 5-127, 5-

128, 5-152, 7-10, 7-29, 9-13, 9-44, 9-52, 9-55, 

9-57, 9-58, 9-59, 9-60, 9-61, 9-67, 9-71, 9-96, 

9-105, 9-109, 9-112, 9-113, 9-114, 9-115, 9-

116, 9-118, 9-122, 9-148, 9-159, 9-161, 9-162, 

9-163, 9-165, 9-167, 9-170, 9-195, 9-206, 9-

208, 9-209, 9-211, 9-216, 9-217, 9-222, 10-8, 

10-13, 11-26, 11-43, D-46, D-47, D-49, D-73, 

E-86, E-122, E-135, E-136, E-168, E-169, E170, E-171, E-177, E-178, E-181, E-200, E201, E-207, E-229, E-232, E-278, E-556, E-5, 

H-5, H-6, I-4

Streams, 2-8, 2-61, 2-62, 2-81, 2-104, 2-134, 2-

135, 2-144, 2-148, 2-222, 3-31, 3-34, 3-36, 3-

37, 4-8, 4-14, 4-36, 4-38, 4-39, 4-42, 4-75, 4-

77, 4-82, 4-86, 4-143, 5-7, 5-20, 5-39, 5-42, 5-

67, 5-109, 5-113, 5-115, 5-127, 5-128, 5-129, 

5-146, 7-14, 7-41, 7-47, 9-7, 9-58, 9-59, 9-72, 

9-113, 9-114, 9-120, 9-126, 9-162, 9-163, 9-

166, 9-168, 9-173, 9-253, 10-20, 10-26, D-20, 

E-119, E-124, E-130, E-133, E-135, E-138, E140, E-142, E-147, E-168, E-192, E-200, E238, E-261, E-300, E-394, E-402, E-422, E490, G-4, I-4, I-17, K-20

Subsistence and special conditions, 4-120

Surface runoff, 2-59, 3-22, 9-211

Surface water, vi, ix, x, xii, xiv, xv, xxi, xxiv, xxxv, 

xxxvi, xxxvii, xli, 2-24, 2-25, 2-28, 2-31, 2-35, 2-

41, 2-43, 2-46, 2-47, 2-49, 2-59, 2-61, 2-62, 2-

71, 2-72, 2-73, 2-80, 2-93, 2-118, 2-119, 2-

121, 2-122, 2-123, 2-125, 2-139, 2-159, 2-160, 

2-230, 3-8, 3-19, 3-28, 3-41, 4-11, 4-20, 4-21, 

4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-61, 

4-66, 4-71, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-81, 4-86, 

4-88, 4-120, 4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 4-146, 4-

147, 5-6, 5-14, 5-20, 5-34, 5-37, 5-38, 5-42, 5-

45, 5-67, 5-68, 5-69, 5-70, 5-71, 5-109, 5-127, 

5-136, 5-137, 5-143, 5-154, 5-155, 7-11, 7-12, 

7-14, 7-15, 7-16, 7-19, 7-22, 7-23, 7-24, 7-46, 

7-47, 9-11, 9-43, 9-44, 9-50, 9-57, 9-58, 9-59, 

9-60, 9-61, 9-70, 9-71, 9-72, 9-73, 9-74, 9-75, 

9-93, 9-103, 9-112, 9-113, 9-114, 9-115, 9-

116, 9-124, 9-125, 9-126, 9-127, 9-128, 9-129, 

9-146, 9-154, 9-161, 9-162, 9-163, 9-164, 9-

165, 9-169, 9-170, 9-172, 9-174, 9-175, 9-192, 

9-201, 9-208, 9-209, 9-210, 9-211, 9-216, 9-

218, 9-223, 9-246, 9-247, 9-248, 9-254, 9-256, 

10-16, 11-32, 11-59, 11-62, 11-83, 11-93, A-1, 

A-3, D-11, D-15, D-38, D-39, D-40, D-42, D-45, 

D-46, D-48, D-49, D-54, D-55, D-56, D-63, D65, D-83, D-84, D-85, D-97, D-115, D-119, D131, E-42, E-69, E-117, E-158, E-162, E-164, 

E-165, E-168, E-169, E-176, E-177, E-178, E180, E-181, E-182, E-188, E-189, E-191, E194, E-195, E-197, E-199, E-200, E-202, E203, E-205, E-206, E-214, E-217, E-219, E221, E-222, E-223, E-226, E-235, E-236, E257, E-282, E-286, E-287, E-294, E-296, E299, E-334, E-383, E-509, E-10, G-27, G-31, 

G-32, G-34, G-35, G-44, G-45, G-47, G-48, G56, I-4, K-12, K-14, K-16

T 

Take, 2-146, 2-151, 4-53

Taxes, vii, x, xiii, xxv, xxxvii, 2-168, 2-172, 2-173, 2-

174, 4-3, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-114, 4-119, 4-

148, 5-1, 5-82, 5-83, 5-84, 5-85, 5-92, 7-29, 7-

30, 7-31, 7-47, 9-14, 9-16, 9-20, 9-22, 9-30, 9-

78, 9-79, 9-82, 9-132, 9-135, 9-178, 9-179, 9-

182, 9-227, 9-230, 9-246, 9-247, 9-248, 9-249, 

10-11, 10-19, 10-20, 10-25, 11-28, 11-29, 11-

62, D-89, D-94, D-135, E-94, E-99, E-134, E155, E-312, E-313, E-315, E-316, E-317, E318, E-321, E-325, E-398, E-400, E-450, E451, E-452, E-463, E-466, E-469, E-520, I-9, I15

Traffic, x, xiii, xxii, xxv, xxvi, xxix, xxxviii, xliii, 2-6, 2-

159, 2-175, 2-177, 2-208, 2-218, 2-226, 2-227, 

4-11, 4-50, 4-53, 4-56, 4-60, 4-71, 4-74, 4-75, 

4-78, 4-80, 4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 4-90, 

4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-99, 4-100, 4-102, 4-

110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-119, 4-121, 

4-128, 4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 4-135, 4-141, 4-

145, 4-147, 4-148, 5-2, 5-43, 5-50, 5-55, 5-56, 

5-59, 5-66, 5-78, 5-79, 5-80, 5-86, 5-87, 5-92, 

5-94, 5-106, 5-110, 5-111, 5-112, 5-138, 5-

155, 6-19, 6-21, 6-24, 6-25, 6-26, 6-27, 6-28, 

6-29, 6-37, 7-5, 7-29, 7-30, 7-31, 7-38, 7-43, 7-

44, 7-47, 9-14, 9-16, 9-20, 9-49, 9-65, 9-76, 9-

79, 9-80, 9-81, 9-82, 9-83, 9-93, 9-94, 9-101, 

9-118, 9-120, 9-129, 9-130, 9-132, 9-133, 9-

135, 9-136, 9-145, 9-146, 9-153, 9-168, 9-176, 

9-179, 9-180, 9-181, 9-182, 9-183, 9-192, 9-
Index 

October 2016 12-23 NUREG–2176 

193, 9-199, 9-215, 9-225, 9-228, 9-229, 9-230, 

9-231, 9-241, 9-242, 9-246, 9-248, 10-7, 10-8, 

10-9, 10-11, 10-12, 10-14, 10-22, 11-18, 11-

29, 11-65, 11-88, D-25, D-26, D-81, D-92, D93, D-95, E-95, E-96, E-245, E-262, E-267, E280, E-290, E-303, E-310, E-317, E-324, E445, E-514, E-534, E-554, I-6, I-9, I-12

Transmission lines, v, vi, vii, viii, ix, x, xii, xiii, xx, xxi, 

xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxix, 1-1, 1-2, 1-6, 1-10, 1-11, 1-

12, 1-13, 2-1, 2-4, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 

2-17, 2-18, 2-21, 2-76, 2-80, 2-81, 2-82, 2-83, 

2-84, 2-85, 2-86, 2-87, 2-88, 2-89, 2-90, 2-91, 

2-92, 2-93, 2-95, 2-96, 2-97, 2-103, 2-105, 2-

106, 2-107, 2-108, 2-111, 2-112, 2-113, 2-114, 

2-115, 2-116, 2-117, 2-119, 2-122, 2-123, 2-

134, 2-135, 2-203, 2-204, 2-205, 2-206, 2-207, 

2-208, 2-225, 2-228, 2-229, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 

3-22, 3-23, 3-27, 3-28, 3-33, 4-1, 4-2, 4-4, 4-5, 

4-7, 4-8, 4-11, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-

18, 4-19, 4-21, 4-29, 4-35, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-

43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-53, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-

59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-67, 4-68, 4-70, 4-

71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-85, 4-

88, 4-95, 4-97, 4-99, 4-100, 4-102, 4-113, 4-

114, 4-120, 4-122, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-133, 

4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 4-143, 4-146, 4-147, 4-

148, 5-1, 5-4, 5-5, 5-9, 5-36, 5-43, 5-44, 5-51, 

5-52, 5-53, 5-54, 5-55, 5-59, 5-60, 5-61, 5-62, 

5-63, 5-64, 5-65, 5-66, 5-70, 5-77, 5-78, 5-80, 

5-81, 5-86, 5-87, 5-91, 5-93, 5-95, 5-96, 5-97, 

5-101, 5-105, 5-106, 5-107, 5-151, 5-152, 5-

153, 5-154, 7-9, 7-10, 7-11, 7-21, 7-22, 7-24, 

7-32, 7-33, 7-38, 7-47, 8-2, 9-3, 9-6, 9-12, 9-

13, 9-14, 9-15, 9-16, 9-19, 9-20, 9-21, 9-22, 9-

29, 9-30, 9-37, 9-44, 9-53, 9-55, 9-56, 9-61, 9-

62, 9-64, 9-66, 9-67, 9-68, 9-69, 9-70, 9-72, 9-

73, 9-76, 9-88, 9-89, 9-90, 9-91, 9-93, 9-94, 9-

96, 9-108, 9-109, 9-110, 9-116, 9-117, 9-118, 

9-119, 9-120, 9-121, 9-122, 9-123, 9-124, 9-

125, 9-126, 9-127, 9-128, 9-129, 9-130, 9-141, 

9-142, 9-143, 9-145, 9-146, 9-147, 9-148, 9-

151, 9-157, 9-159, 9-160, 9-165, 9-166, 9-168, 

9-169, 9-170, 9-171, 9-172, 9-174, 9-176, 9-

188, 9-189, 9-190, 9-192, 9-193, 9-195, 9-204, 

9-206, 9-207, 9-211, 9-212, 9-213, 9-214, 9-

215, 9-216, 9-217, 9-218, 9-219, 9-222, 9-225, 

9-236, 9-237, 9-238, 9-239, 9-241, 9-242, 9-

248, 9-249, 10-1, 10-2, 10-4, 10-5, 10-6, 10-7, 

10-8, 10-9, 10-10, 10-12, 10-13, 10-16, 10-21, 

10-23, 11-13, 11-24, 11-30, 11-33, 11-40, 11-

63, 11-82, 11-86, 11-87, A-1, A-4, C-13, C-24, 

C-25, D-12, D-15, D-18, D-21, D-28, D-30, D32, D-33, D-34, D-35, D-36, D-37, D-38, D-42, 

D-43, D-45, D-46, D-53, D-67, D-68, D-69, D70, D-72, D-73, D-75, D-76, D-77, D-80, D-81, 

D-89, D-91, D-92, D-93, D-94, D-96, D-101, D110, D-112, D-119, D-120, D-130, D-132, D134, D-136, E-46, E-69, E-76, E-80, E-84, E85, E-87, E-89, E-90, E-92, E-93, E-94, E-95, 

E-97, E-98, E-99, E-100, E-101, E-102, E-103, 

E-104, E-105, E-106, E-107, E-108, E-109, E110, E-111, E-117, E-120, E-210, E-241, E242, E-243, E-244, E-245, E-246, E-248, E249, E-250, E-254, E-256, E-259, E-260, E262, E-263, E-265, E-266, E-272, E-273, E274, E-275, E-277, E-278, E-307, E-308, E315, E-316, E-317, E-318, E-321, E-323, E324, E-325, E-328, E-329, E-330, E-336, E396, E-410, E-420, E-426, E-428, E-449, E470, E-471, E-513, H-12, I-7, I-10, I-11, J-5, 1, 

K-1, K-2, K-4, K-5, K-6, K-9, K-10, K-11, K-12, 

K-13, K-14, K-15, K-16, K-17, K-18, K-19, K20, K-21, K-22, K-23

Transportation, vii, viii, ix, xi, xv, xvi, xxii, xxviii, xxxiv, 

xxxv, xxxvi, xlv, xlvi, liii, 1-12, 2-6, 2-8, 2-15, 2-

21, 2-134, 2-168, 2-169, 2-175, 2-176, 2-217, 

2-227, 3-14, 3-29, 3-36, 3-40, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 

4-12, 4-14, 4-16, 4-30, 4-99, 4-101, 4-102, 4-

110, 4-112, 4-119, 4-121, 4-125, 4-127, 4-128, 

4-134, 4-135, 4-147, 4-149, 5-78, 5-79, 5-86, 

5-92, 5-98, 5-99, 5-111, 5-129, 5-130, 5-133, 

5-142, 5-145, 5-146, 5-153, 5-156, 6-1, 6-2, 6-

4, 6-13, 6-16, 6-17, 6-18, 6-19, 6-20, 6-22, 6-

23, 6-25, 6-26, 6-27, 6-28, 6-29, 6-31, 6-32, 6-

33, 6-34, 6-35, 6-36, 6-37, 6-38, 6-39, 7-2, 7-5, 

7-8, 7-10, 7-19, 7-25, 7-35, 7-38, 7-40, 7-42, 7-

43, 7-44, 7-45, 7-46, 9-12, 9-13, 9-14, 9-15, 9-

31, 9-32, 9-43, 9-49, 9-69, 9-74, 9-79, 9-94, 9-

101, 9-124, 9-128, 9-146, 9-153, 9-171, 9-174, 

9-193, 9-199, 9-205, 9-223, 9-242, 10-4, 10-8, 

10-12, 10-13, 10-14, 10-23, 10-27, 11-1, 11-9, 

11-11, 11-15, 11-18, 11-29, 11-45, 11-58, 11-

62, 11-69, 11-70, 11-76, 11-82, A-2, A-3, D-31, 

D-33, D-92, D-93, D-94, D-107, E-67, E-69, E99, E-128, E-133, E-169, E-249, E-308, E-377, 

E-378, E-379, E-380, E-447, E-521, E-533, E534, H-2, I-4, I-15, J-1, J-2, K-4, K-17, K-18

Tribal, iii, xxxi, xli, liii, 1-4, 1-5, 1-12, 2-191, 2-196, 

2-199, 2-205, 2-206, 2-231, 3-22, 6-9, 9-51, 

10-3, 10-28, B-1, B-2, C-24, C-25, D-1, D-17, 

E-3, E-17, E-325, E-326, E-329, F-1, F-2, F-3
Index 

NUREG–2176 12-24 October 2016 

Tritium, 2-42, 2-46, 2-53, 2-68, 2-70, 2-73, 2-230, 

5-27, 5-113, 5-123, 5-127, 6-3, 7-39, D-57, D64, D-101, D-103, D-104, D-105, E-190, E198, E-199, E-203, E-205, E-222, G-7, G-47, 

G-49, G-52

U 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, iii, v, xix, xx, xxxi, 

xxxii, xxxvi, xli, liii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-

8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 2-11, 2-18, 2-19, 

2-28, 2-29, 2-30, 2-31, 2-33, 2-35, 2-41, 2-49, 

2-76, 2-119, 2-134, 2-197, 2-200, 2-201, 2-

203, 2-205, 2-206, 2-207, 2-208, 2-231, 3-5, 3-

16, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-12, 4-20, 4-22, 4-23, 4-

24, 4-32, 4-37, 4-39, 4-41, 4-42, 4-66, 4-67, 4-

69, 4-71, 4-74, 4-82, 4-122, 4-123, 4-124, 4-

142, 4-146, 5-1, 5-6, 5-38, 5-63, 5-95, 5-96, 5-

97, 6-14, 7-1, 7-3, 7-7, 7-12, 7-16, 7-19, 7-20, 

7-21, 7-24, 7-27, 7-28, 7-30, 7-32, 9-1, 9-2, 9-

50, 9-51, 9-52, 9-53, 9-71, 9-72, 9-73, 9-75, 9-

103, 9-104, 9-105, 9-106, 9-107, 9-125, 9-126, 

9-154, 9-155, 9-156, 9-173, 9-201, 9-202, 9-

203, 9-244, 9-258, 9-259, 10-1, 10-2, 10-3, 10-

4, 10-5, 10-7, 10-11, 10-16, 10-17, 10-28, 11-

5, 11-15, 11-46, 11-49, 11-50, 11-73, 11-75, 

11-82, 11-83, 11-88, 11-89, 11-90, 11-91, A-1, 

A-2, 1, C-1, C-2, C-7, C-9, C-13, C-14, C-15, 

C-16, C-19, C-20, C-23, C-24, C-25, D-2, D16, D-17, D-18, D-23, D-28, D-37, D-42, D-66, 

D-68, D-75, D-110, D-117, D-118, D-131, D132, E-3, E-72, E-75, E-76, E-77, E-79, E-80, 

E-81, E-83, E-84, E-85, E-102, E-105, E-106, 

E-108, E-109, E-110, E-111, E-128, E-133, E135, E-136, E-138, E-141, E-144, E-145, E170, E-175, E-181, E-182, E-202, E-226, E237, E-240, E-242, E-247, E-248, E-256, E259, E-262, E-267, E-270, E-271, E-274, E276, E-279, E-291, E-293, E-294, E-295, E296, E-297, E-303, E-304, E-306, E-325, E326, E-327, E-328, E-329, E-330, E-331, E340, E-385, E-392, E-429, E-435, E-448, E450, E-452, E-458, E-500, E-505, E-10, F-3, 

G-31, G-59, H-3, H-13, I-1, I-16, I-17, 1, K-1, K4, K-9, K-11, K-12, K-14, K-15, K-16, K-19, K20, K-21, K-22, K-23

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), xlv, 5-107, 6-4, 

6-9, 6-15, 6-21, 6-23, 6-24, 6-27, 6-29, 6-32, 7-

4, 7-10, 7-40, 9-3, 9-5, 9-6, 9-7, 9-11, 9-23, 9-

24, 9-25, 9-26, 9-27, 9-28, 10-20, 10-26, 11-

14, 11-15, 11-16, 11-17, 11-65, 11-95, A-4, E379, E-427, H-3, H-12

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), xliii, 

xlv, 2-46, 2-49, 2-54, 2-57, 2-60, 2-109, 2-110, 

2-212, 2-214, 2-218, 2-231, 4-20, 4-38, 4-78, 

4-115, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-146, 5-6, 5-10, 

5-11, 5-20, 5-21, 5-23, 5-25, 5-40, 5-41, 5-48, 

5-72, 5-75, 5-80, 5-89, 5-94, 5-98, 5-99, 5-100, 

5-104, 5-109, 5-110, 5-124, 5-156, 6-11, 6-13, 

7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 7-5, 7-7, 7-8, 7-17, 7-28, 7-34, 7-

36, 9-1, 9-6, 9-8, 9-9, 9-10, 9-11, 9-12, 9-16, 9-

17, 9-18, 9-19, 9-26, 9-27, 9-32, 9-42, 9-48, 9-

53, 9-74, 9-75, 9-100, 9-101, 9-107, 9-127, 9-

129, 9-152, 9-156, 9-174, 9-175, 9-198, 9-199, 

9-203, 9-223, 10-12, 10-13, 10-23, 11-8, 11-

19, 11-20, 11-21, 11-22, 11-23, 11-24, 11-75, 

B-2, C-6, C-22, C-23, D-5, D-18, D-36, D-43, 

D-51, D-54, D-64, D-138, E-3, E-4, E-17, E-76, 

E-77, E-82, E-83, E-84, E-85, E-107, E-112, E113, E-115, E-116, E-117, E-128, E-133, E135, E-136, E-137, E-153, E-156, E-168, E169, E-170, E-175, E-176, E-177, E-178, E200, E-201, E-202, E-203, E-204, E-213, E215, E-240, E-247, E-258, E-259, E-264, E270, E-276, E-279, E-288, E-289, E-295, E296, E-297, E-298, E-301, E-302, E-310, E323, E-325, E-326, E-331, E-334, E-340, E342, E-345, E-346, E-407, E-421, E-423, E424, E-427, E-441, E-452, E-463, E-473, E537, E-540, E-3, G-31, H-13, I-17, J-1, J-2, J-4

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), xxxi, xlvi, 2-

23, 2-81, 2-82, 2-83, 2-84, 2-85, 2-86, 2-87, 2-

88, 2-89, 2-90, 2-91, 2-92, 2-93, 2-94, 2-95, 2-

96, 2-97, 2-106, 2-107, 2-108, 2-109, 2-110, 2-

112, 2-113, 2-114, 2-119, 2-122, 2-136, 2-143, 

2-144, 2-146, 2-148, 2-151, 2-160, 2-161, 4-

46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-52, 4-58, 4-59, 4-

60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-69, 4-70, 4-

72, 4-73, 4-81, 4-82, 4-87, 4-94, 4-97, 4-145, 

5-53, 5-56, 5-58, 5-59, 5-61, 5-62, 5-63, 7-5, 7-

23, 7-24, 7-47, 9-35, 9-49, 9-50, 9-61, 9-62, 9-

63, 9-64, 9-65, 9-66, 9-68, 9-73, 9-101, 9-102, 

9-116, 9-117, 9-118, 9-119, 9-120, 9-121, 9-

123, 9-127, 9-153, 9-165, 9-166, 9-168, 9-169, 

9-170, 9-173, 9-200, 9-211, 9-212, 9-215, 9-

217, 10-6, 11-38, 11-50, 11-51, 11-52, 11-53, 

11-54, 11-55, 11-79, C-3, C-21, C-25, D-42, E182, E-245, E-246, E-248, E-252, E-253, E254, E-256, E-263, E-271, E-272, E-274, E275, E-276, E-278, E-282, E-289, E-290, E293, E-294, E-296, E-300, E-304, E-305, E-
Index 

October 2016 12-25 NUREG–2176 

465, E-557, E-7, F-1, F-3, H-4, H-5, H-12, K11, K-20, K-21

U.S. Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), l, 4-99, 4-102, 4-130, 

5-79, 5-80, 5-108, 5-110, 5-154, 5-156, 9-94, 

9-146, 9-193, 9-241, 10-12, 10-13, D-100

Unirradiated fuel, 6-16, 6-18, 6-19, 6-20, 6-21, 6-

22, 6-23, 6-24, 6-25, 6-26, 6-33, 6-36, 6-37, 6-

38, 7-44, E-380

Unloading facility (barge slip), 2-159, 2-160, 3-15, 

3-21, 3-22, 3-26, 4-98, E-241, E-297

Uranium, xxii, xxviii, xlix, liii, 1-12, 3-41, 5-129, 6-1, 

6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-12, 6-14, 

6-16, 6-18, 6-21, 6-40, 7-36, 7-42, 9-12, 10-16, 

10-20, 10-23, 10-27, 11-9, 11-76, 11-93, 11-

95, D-14, D-15, D-104, D-106, D-107, D-108, 

E-67, E-69, E-140, E-331, E-341, E-370, E371, E-372, E-373, E-374, E-375, E-376, E377, E-378, E-379, E-432, E-442, E-519, E521, E-536, E-539, E-540, J-2, J-3, J-4

V 

Vegetation, lii, 2-16, 2-62, 2-93, 2-94, 2-105, 2-

106, 2-107, 2-109, 2-118, 2-123, 2-125, 2-127, 

2-141, 2-144, 2-148, 2-158, 2-178, 2-230, 3-

22, 3-23, 3-27, 3-33, 4-8, 4-11, 4-17, 4-36, 4-

37, 4-38, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-51, 4-

54, 4-58, 4-60, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-66, 4-68, 4-

71, 4-72, 4-90, 4-97, 4-99, 4-121, 4-126, 4-

139, 4-141, 5-4, 5-43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-47, 5-51, 

5-52, 5-56, 5-59, 5-60, 5-61, 5-62, 5-63, 5-64, 

5-65, 5-66, 5-73, 5-80, 5-106, 5-127, 5-151, 5-

152, 5-153, 5-155, 7-10, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 7-

35, 9-61, 9-63, 9-67, 9-68, 9-69, 9-70, 9-71, 9-

116, 9-118, 9-119, 9-120, 9-121, 9-123, 9-124, 

9-125, 9-167, 9-168, 9-169, 9-170, 9-171, 9-

213, 9-215, 9-216, 9-217, 9-218, 9-256, 10-10, 

10-13, 10-22, D-45, D-66, D-67, D-68, D-72, 

D-76, D-78, D-82, D-95, D-99, D-111, E-76, E92, E-109, E-128, E-133, E-240, E-254, E-261, 

E-262, E-264, E-270, E-273, E-277, E-279, E297, E-320, E-334, E-522, G-16, I-6, I-7, I-8, K18

Visual impact, 4-15, 4-19, 4-102, 4-113, 4-124, 4-

148, 5-4, 5-80, 5-87, 5-97, 7-32, 7-33, 7-47, 9-

15, 9-21, 9-90, 9-91, 9-143, 9-189, 9-190, 9-

238, 9-248, 9-249, 10-7, 10-9, 10-16, 10-23, D92, E-80, E-99, E-107, E-108, E-307, E-308, 

E-309, E-317, E-318, E-319, E-320, E-325

W 

Waste management, 3-20, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 6-2, 

6-4, 6-10, 7-45, 9-4, 9-12, E-525

Wastewater, xii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxxii, xlvii, lii, liii, 1-

10, 2-18, 2-28, 2-29, 2-39, 2-41, 2-54, 2-55, 2-

56, 2-57, 2-61, 2-71, 2-75, 2-80, 2-110, 2-123, 

2-125, 2-174, 2-181, 2-182, 2-204, 3-2, 3-8, 3-

9, 3-13, 3-15, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-25, 3-26, 3-

28, 3-30, 3-32, 3-34, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-41, 4-

4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-8, 4-9, 4-25, 4-33, 4-38, 4-51, 4-

77, 4-78, 4-81, 4-96, 4-115, 4-116, 4-139, 4-

140, 4-145, 4-146, 5-7, 5-8, 5-11, 5-12, 5-15, 

5-17, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 

5-28, 5-29, 5-33, 5-37, 5-40, 5-41, 5-42, 5-45, 

5-56, 5-67, 5-89, 5-90, 5-93, 5-100, 5-102, 5-

103, 5-109, 5-110, 5-115, 5-128, 5-153, 5-155, 

7-7, 7-8, 7-13, 7-16, 7-17, 7-18, 7-38, 9-12, 9-

13, 9-35, 9-43, 9-53, 9-58, 9-59, 9-61, 9-81, 9-

107, 9-113, 9-114, 9-115, 9-134, 9-156, 9-162, 

9-163, 9-165, 9-181, 9-203, 9-209, 9-211, 9-

230, 9-254, 9-255, 10-8, 11-3, 11-11, 11-19, 

11-23, 11-33, 11-41, 11-58, 11-59, 11-60, 11-

61, 11-86, 11-94, C-6, D-19, D-22, D-23, D-28, 

D-43, D-44, D-48, D-49, D-50, D-57, D-60, D70, D-98, D-100, D-101, D-106, D-131, D-137, 

E-88, E-89, E-91, E-112, E-113, E-114, E-115, 

E-116, E-117, E-119, E-139, E-142, E-143, E147, E-148, E-151, E-152, E-153, E-155, E156, E-158, E-159, E-160, E-161, E-162, E166, E-168, E-169, E-170, E-171, E-173, E174, E-175, E-176, E-178, E-179, E-180, E181, E-184, E-186, E-187, E-188, E-190, E191, E-192, E-193, E-194, E-195, E-196, E198, E-199, E-200, E-201, E-204, E-205, E206, E-207, E-208, E-210, E-211, E-212, E213, E-214, E-215, E-216, E-218, E-220, E221, E-223, E-224, E-225, E-226, E-227, E228, E-229, E-230, E-231, E-232, E-233, E234, E-235, E-236, E-238, E-239, E-241, E247, E-251, E-261, E-275, E-278, E-279, E282, E-283, E-288, E-290, E-292, E-298, E300, E-305, E-306, E-332, E-333, E-337, E338, E-339, E-340, E-451, E-3, E-7, E-8, E-10, 

E-11, G-4, G-28, G-29, G-30, G-48, G-50, G56, G-58, H-6, H-7, H-10, I-5, I-6

Water quality, 2-39, 2-42, 2-43, 2-47, 2-54, 2-55, 

2-57, 2-61, 2-68, 2-71, 2-73, 2-123, 2-126, 2-

140, 4-2, 4-20, 4-22, 4-27, 4-29, 4-31, 4-32, 4-

33, 4-35, 4-76, 4-80, 4-82, 4-85, 4-88, 4-89, 4-

90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-96, 5-5, 5-6, 5-10, 
Index 

NUREG–2176 12-26 October 2016 

5-11, 5-19, 5-22, 5-29, 5-32, 5-37, 5-38, 5-43, 

5-68, 5-73, 5-75, 5-104, 5-130, 5-152, 6-40, 7-

11, 7-14, 7-18, 7-26, 7-28, 7-45, 7-47, 9-13, 9-

19, 9-50, 9-58, 9-59, 9-60, 9-75, 9-113, 9-114, 

9-115, 9-128, 9-162, 9-163, 9-164, 9-165, 9-

175, 9-208, 9-209, 9-210, 9-211, 9-224, 9-253, 

9-257, 9-258, 10-5, 10-23, 11-62, D-29, D-38, 

D-39, D-40, D-43, D-44, D-45, D-47, D-50, D51, D-52, D-53, D-59, D-60, D-61, D-62, D-63, 

D-64, D-66, D-84, D-85, D-111, D-112, D-113, 

D-114, D-117, E-70, E-80, E-109, E-128, E134, E-145, E-150, E-152, E-158, E-163, E168, E-172, E-173, E-175, E-176, E-180, E185, E-187, E-189, E-195, E-198, E-199, E205, E-207, E-213, E-236, E-247, E-264, E278, E-283, E-285, E-286, E-287, E-288, E289, E-294, E-295, E-296, E-297, E-298, E299, E-300, E-301, E-305, E-316, E-325, E340, E-501, E-512, E-532, I-6, I-8

Watersheds, 2-95, 2-114, 2-133, 9-51, 9-57, 9-60, 

9-104, 9-112, 9-115, 9-154, 9-161, 9-164, 9-

165, 9-190, 9-201, 9-208, 11-25, 11-27, 11-90, 

11-95, D-46, D-68, E-80, E-81, E-176, E-221, 

E-286

Wetlands, vi, x, xii, xv, xvii, xviii, xxiv, xxvi, xxxvii, xliii, 

liii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-10, 2-4, 2-6, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 

2-12, 2-15, 2-18, 2-21, 2-24, 2-25, 2-28, 2-31, 

2-35, 2-39, 2-41, 2-59, 2-76, 2-77, 2-79, 2-80, 

2-81, 2-86, 2-93, 2-96, 2-98, 2-101, 2-103, 2-

104, 2-105, 2-106, 2-107, 2-108, 2-109, 2-110, 

2-111, 2-112, 2-114, 2-115, 2-117, 2-118, 2-

119, 2-122, 2-123, 2-133, 2-134, 2-135, 2-158, 

2-159, 2-160, 2-168, 2-191, 3-1, 3-8, 3-18, 3-

22, 3-23, 3-30, 4-2, 4-3, 4-6, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-

12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-21, 4-22, 4-

24, 4-26, 4-29, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-

40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-44, 4-45, 4-51, 4-52, 4-54, 4-

60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-

68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-73, 4-76, 4-77, 4-80, 4-

82, 4-85, 4-99, 4-128, 4-133, 4-139, 4-143, 4-

145, 4-147, 5-2, 5-4, 5-11, 5-13, 5-33, 5-37, 5-

43, 5-44, 5-45, 5-50, 5-52, 5-53, 5-56, 5-57, 5-

58, 5-59, 5-60, 5-64, 5-65, 5-66, 5-151, 5-152, 

6-14, 7-3, 7-11, 7-12, 7-16, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-

21, 7-23, 7-24, 7-25, 7-26, 7-27, 7-28, 7-29, 7-

33, 7-34, 7-47, 9-13, 9-16, 9-22, 9-30, 9-39, 9-

51, 9-52, 9-61, 9-62, 9-63, 9-64, 9-65, 9-66, 9-

67, 9-68, 9-69, 9-70, 9-74, 9-83, 9-104, 9-106, 

9-116, 9-118, 9-119, 9-120, 9-121, 9-122, 9-

123, 9-124, 9-136, 9-141, 9-155, 9-165, 9-166, 

9-167, 9-168, 9-169, 9-170, 9-171, 9-172, 9-

183, 9-202, 9-205, 9-211, 9-213, 9-214, 9-216, 

9-217, 9-218, 9-223, 9-231, 9-246, 9-247, 9-

248, 9-249, 9-256, 9-257, 9-258, 10-1, 10-2, 

10-5, 10-6, 10-8, 10-10, 10-22, 11-12, 11-42, 

11-49, 11-55, 11-61, 11-79, 11-83, 11-90, 11-

91, A-1, C-8, C-10, C-12, D-16, D-17, D-18, D19, D-24, D-27, D-28, D-30, D-33, D-34, D-36, 

D-40, D-42, D-43, D-44, D-45, D-46, D-47, D48, D-53, D-60, D-66, D-67, D-68, D-69, D-70, 

D-71, D-72, D-73, D-74, D-75, D-76, D-77, D78, D-79, D-82, D-83, D-84, D-102, D-104, D109, D-110, D-111, D-112, D-113, D-114, D115, D-116, D-117, D-119, D-120, D-126, D130, D-131, D-133, D-134, E-21, E-72, E-76, 

E-80, E-81, E-87, E-88, E-90, E-91, E-92, E99, E-102, E-104, E-105, E-107, E-108, E-109, 

E-110, E-120, E-123, E-124, E-128, E-131, E133, E-136, E-137, E-140, E-141, E-148, E156, E-157, E-161, E-163, E-164, E-170, E174, E-176, E-178, E-180, E-189, E-196, E201, E-202, E-207, E-208, E-222, E-225, E226, E-232, E-239, E-240, E-241, E-242, E243, E-244, E-246, E-247, E-248, E-249, E250, E-251, E-252, E-253, E-254, E-255, E256, E-257, E-258, E-259, E-260, E-261, E262, E-263, E-264, E-267, E-268, E-269, E270, E-271, E-273, E-274, E-276, E-277, E278, E-279, E-280, E-286, E-294, E-301, E303, E-304, E-308, E-338, E-430, E-432, E433, E-434, E-435, E-436, E-437, E-440, E441, E-442, E-443, E-444, E-459, E-500, E501, E-502, E-505, E-507, E-4, E-10, G-59, H3, H-4, I-4, I-6, I-7, I-8, K-1, K-4, K-9, K-10, K11, K-12, K-14, K-15, K-16, K-17, K-18, K-19, 

K-20, K-21

wildlife, xxiv, xxv, xxxi, xlvi, lii, 2-10, 2-23, 2-79, 2-

92, 2-110, 2-113, 2-128, 2-134, 2-179, 2-231, 

4-42, 4-49, 4-50, 4-53, 4-59, 5-56, 5-153, 7-5, 

7-20, 7-22, 7-44, 9-35, 9-49, 9-50, 9-52, 9-54, 

9-65, 9-101, 9-102, 9-103, 9-104, 9-105, 9-

105, 9-106, 9-108, 9-117, 9-123, 9-124, 9-133, 

9-153, 9-169, 9-170, 9-199, 9-200, 11-3, 11-4, 

11-5, 11-6, 11-7, 11-9, 11-30, 11-31, 11-32, 

11-36, 11-37, 11-47, 11-51, 11-52, 11-53, 11-

54, 11-55, 11-58, 11-79, 11-81, 11-84, 11-91, 

11-94, A-2, A-3, B-1, B-2, C-3, C-5, D-6, D-42, 

D-68, E-11, E-25, E-182, E-245, E-246, E-252, 

E-256, E-257, E-266, E-296, E-303, E-444, E2, E-7, H-12, K-11

Wildlife, xxiv, xxv, xxxi, xlvi, lii, 2-10, 2-23, 2-79, 2-

92, 2-110, 2-113, 2-128, 2-134, 2-179, 2-231, 
Index 

October 2016 12-27 NUREG–2176 

4-42, 4-49, 4-50, 4-53, 4-59, 5-56, 5-153, 7-5, 

7-20, 7-22, 7-44, 9-35, 9-49, 9-50, 9-52, 9-54, 

9-65, 9-101, 9-102, 9-103, 9-104, 9-105, 9-

105, 9-106, 9-108, 9-117, 9-123, 9-124, 9-133, 

9-153, 9-169, 9-170, 9-199, 9-200, 11-3, 11-4, 

11-5, 11-6, 11-7, 11-9, 11-30, 11-31, 11-32, 

11-36, 11-37, 11-47, 11-51, 11-52, 11-53, 11-

54, 11-55, 11-58, 11-79, 11-81, 11-84, 11-91, 

11-94, A-2, A-3, B-1, B-2, C-3, C-5, D-6, D-42, 

D-68, E-11, E-25, E-182, E-245, E-246, E-252, 

E-256, E-257, E-266, E-296, E-303, E-444, E2, E-7, H-12, K-11

Wind, vii, xvii, xxxvi, 2-148, 2-211, 2-212, 2-213, 2-

214, 2-215, 2-217, 2-226, 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 4-

126, 4-127, 4-129, 4-141, 5-73, 5-145, 5-146, 

9-10, 9-23, 9-24, 9-27, 9-32, 11-63, 11-79, 11-

82, 11-95, D-39, D-66, D-97, D-115, D-123, D124, D-125, D-126, D-127, D-128, D-129, D130, E-94, E-97, E-98, E-119, E-120, E-132, 

E-148, E-174, E-217, E-247, E-282, E-283, E345, E-355, E-358, E-359, E-360, E-361, E362, E-363, E-372, E-392, E-393, E-394, E395, E-396, E-397, E-398, E-399, E-400, E401, E-402, E-403, E-404, E-405, E-406, E407, E-408, E-409, E-410, E-411, E-412, E413, E-414, E-416, E-417, E-419, E-420, E421, E-422, E-423, E-426, E-427, E-451, E456, E-462, E-491, E-498, E-528, E-529, E533, E-536, E-543, E-544, E-547, E-551, G-7, 

G-16, G-32, I-13, I-16, K-18

Workforce, xxii, xxvi, xxix, 2-162, 2-164, 2-220, 3-

17, 3-19, 3-21, 3-22, 3-29, 3-41, 4-98, 4-99, 4-

103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 

4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-116, 4-118, 4-127, 4-

128, 4-133, 4-134, 4-138, 4-139, 4-148, 5-50, 

5-55, 5-78, 5-79, 5-81, 5-82, 5-83, 5-85, 5-86, 

5-88, 5-89, 5-98, 5-99, 5-108, 6-39, 7-31, 7-34, 

7-41, 9-13, 9-20, 9-30, 9-31, 9-32, 9-55, 9-77, 

9-78, 9-79, 9-80, 9-81, 9-110, 9-130, 9-131, 9-

132, 9-133, 9-134, 9-159, 9-177, 9-179, 9-180, 

9-181, 9-206, 9-226, 9-228, 9-229, 10-19, 10-

20, D-87, D-90, E-85, E-321, E-351, G-1, G16, G-17, I-5, J-1, J-2, J-3, J-4

Y 

Yucca Mountain, xxviii, 6-16, 6-23, 6-26, 6-27, 6-

28, 6-31, 6-32, 6-33, 6-35, 6-36, 6-38, 11-15, 

11-16, D-106, E-371, E-381

Z 

Zoning, v, 2-5, 2-6, 2-206, 2-207, 4-4, 4-7, 4-143, 

5-3, 7-5, 7-28, 7-31, 9-53, 9-56, 9-108, 9-109, 

9-111, 9-157, 9-160, 9-204, 9-205, 9-207, 11-

59, 11-61, 11-67, B-1, B-2, C-5, D-5, D-28, D29, D-61, D-93, D-94, E-90, E-95, E-181, E294, H-9, H-12





NUREG-2176, Vol. 2

Final

Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for

Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 6 and 7