Appendix A 

Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement 

August 2010 A-1 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Appendix A 

2 

3 Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement 

4 The overall responsibility for the preparation of this environmental impact statement was 

5 assigned to the Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The 

6 statement was prepared by members of the Offices of New Reactors with assistance from other 

7 NRC organizations, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 

8 and Information Systems Laboratories. 

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Douglas Bruner Office of New Reactors Project Manager, Energy Alternatives 

Jessie Muir Office of New Reactors Project Support 

Laura Quinn Office of New Reactors Project Support 

Robert Schaaf Office of New Reactors Site Layout and Plant Description, 

Nonradiological Waste Systems, and 

Radiological Impacts 

Donald Palmrose Office of New Reactors Assistant Project Manager, Alternatives, Site 

Layout/Plant Description 

Michelle Moser(a) Office of New Reactors Assistant Project Manager, Cultural Resources, 

Land Use, Cumulative Effects 

Michelle Hart Office of New Reactors Severe and Design Basis Accidents 

Kevin Quinlan Office of New Reactors Meteorology, Air Quality 

David Sisk Office of New Reactors Demography 

Henry Jones Office of New Reactors Groundwater and Surface Water Hydrology 

Lead 

Nebiyu Tiruneh Office of New Reactors Surface Water Hydrology 

Mark McBride Office of New Reactors Groundwater Hydrology 

Gerry Stirewalt Office of New Reactors Geology 

Michael Masnik Office of New Reactors Aquatic Ecology and Terrestrial Ecology, 

Alternative Site Selection/Evaluation, 

Transmission Lines, Biological Assessments 

and Essential Fish Habitat 

Peyton Doub Office of New Reactors Terrestrial Ecology, Land Use, Biological 

Assessment 

Daniel Mussatti Office of New Reactors Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, 

Benefit-Cost, Need for Power 
Appendix A 

Draft NUREG-1941 A-2 August 2010 

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

Ed Roach Office of New Reactors Occupational Health Physics 

John Fringer Office of New Reactors Nonradiological Health and Waste, Need for 

Power, and Benefit-Cost 

Steven Schaffer Office of New Reactors Radioactive Waste Management, Health 

Physics 

Richard Emch Office of New Reactors Health Physics, Radioactive Waste 

Management, Nonradiological Health, 

Decommissioning, Uranium Fuel Cycle 

Andrew Kugler Office of New Reactors Nonradiological Waste Management, Alternative 

System Designs, Alternative Sites 

Malcolm Patterson Office of New Reactors Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA)

Keith Tetter Office of New Reactors SAMA 

Stan Echols Office of Nuclear Materials, 

Safety, and Safeguards 

Fuel Cycle 

John Cook Office of Nuclear Materials, 

Safety, and Safeguards 

Transportation 

Kevin Witt Office of Nuclear Materials, 

Safety, and Safeguards 

Transportation 

James Shepherd Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs 

Decommissioning 

Bruce Watson Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs 

Decommissioning 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Gordon Hambrick Regulatory Branch Project Manager 

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY(b)

Michael Smith Task Leader, Decommissioning 

Robert Scherplez Task Leader, Decommissioning 

Ellen Kennedy Deputy Task Leader 

Kimberly Leigh Deputy Task Leader 

Beverly Miller Deputy Task Leader 

Terri Miley Comment Database, Task Management 

Support 

Joanne Duncan Task Management Support 

Craig Allwardt Comment Database 

Van Ramsdell Severe and Design Basis Accidents 

Linda Fassbender Alternatives, Land Use, Transmission Lines 

Bruce McDowell Alternatives 
Appendix A 

August 2010 A-3 Draft NUREG-1941 

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

Eva Eckert-Hickey Radiological Health 

Amoret Bunn Nonradiological Health and Waste 

Tara O’Neil Cultural Resources 

Kristi Branch Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 

Ann Miracle Aquatic Ecology, Biological Assessment, 

Essential Fish Habitat 

Doug McFarland Cultural Resources 

Amanda Stegen Terrestrial Ecology 

Lara Aston Terrestrial Ecology, Biological Assessment 

Larry Berg Meteorology, Air Quality 

David Anderson Need for Power 

Vince Vermeul Groundwater Use, Hydrology 

Rajiv Prasad Surface Water Use, Hydrology 

Robert Bryce Site Layout and Plant Description, Surface 

Water Use, Hydrology 

Nancy Kohn Site Layout and Plant Description, Hydrology 

Lance Vail Surface Water Use, Hydrology 

Steve Maheras Transportation 

Duane Ward Geographic Information Systems 

Susan Ennor Technical Editing 

Denice Carrothers Technical Editing 

Mike Parker Document Design 

Kathy Neiderhiser Document Design 

Sharon Johnson References 

Tomiann Parker References 

INFORMATION SYSTEMS LABORATORIES

Bill Baber ICF International(c) Terrestrial Ecology, Biological Assessment 

Polly Quick ICF International(c) Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice 

Bill Mendez ICF International(c) Nonradiological Health 

Ralph Grismala ICF International(c) Nonradioactive Waste, Fuel Cycle 

Joseph Porrovecchio SC&A(c) Health Physics, Radioactive Waste 

Management 

(a) Staff member is no longer with the NRC Office of New Reactors. 

(b) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated by Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy. 

(c) ICF International and Sandy Cohen & Associates (SC&A) are a subcontractor to Information Systems 

Laboratories 

Appendix B 

Organizations Contacted

August 2010 B-1 Draft NUREG-1941 

Appendix B 

Organizations Contacted 

1 The following Federal, State, regional, Tribal, and local organizations were contacted during the 

2 course of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff’s independent review of potential 

3 environmental impacts from the construction and operation of two new nuclear units, Levy 

4 Nuclear Plant (LNP) Units 1 and 2, at the LNP site in Levy County, Florida: 

5 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. 

6 AF Knotts Public Library, Yankeetown, Florida 

7 Bronson City Council, Bronson, Florida 

8 Bronson Public Library, Bronson, Florida 

9 Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge, Crystal River, Florida 

10 Citrus County Commission, Inverness, Florida 

11 Citrus County Environmental Health Division, Inverness, Florida 

12 Citrus County School District, Inverness, Florida 

13 Coastal Region Library, Crystal River, Florida 

14 Dixie County Environmental Health Division, Cross City, Florida 

15 Dunnellon Branch Library, Dunnellon, Florida 

16 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida 

17 Florida Department of Revenue, Tallahassee, Florida 

18 Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida 

19 Florida Division of Historical Resources, Office of Cultural and Historical Programs, 

20 Tallahassee, Florida 

21 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, North Central Region, Lake City, Florida 

22 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Headquarters, Tallahassee, Florida 

23 Gilchrist County Administration, Trenton, Florida 

24 Goethe State Forest, Crystal River, Florida 
Appendix B 

Draft NUREG-1941 B-2 August 2010 

1 Highlands County Children’s Services, Sebring, Florida 

2 Highlands County Cooperative Extension Service, Sebring, Florida 

3 Highlands County Environmental Health Division, Sebring, Florida 

4 Highlands County Human Services, Sebring, Florida 

5 Inglis Town Commission, Inglis, Florida 

6 Lafayette County Board of Commissioners, Mayo, Florida 

7 Levy County School District, Bronson, Florida 

8 Levy County Tax Collector, Bronson, Florida 

9 National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, Florida 

10 Marion County School District, Ocala, Florida 

11 Miccosukee Tribe, Miami, Florida 

12 Muscogee Nation of Florida, Bruce, Florida 

13 Perdido Bay Tribe of Lower Muscogee Creeks, Pensacola, Florida 

14 Putnam County Environmental Health Division, Palatka, Florida 

15 Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Wewoka, Oklahoma 

16 Seminole Tribe of Florida, Hollywood, Florida 

17 Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, Florida 

18 Taylor County Economic Development Department, Perry, Florida 

19 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Panama City, Florida 

20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia 

21 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville Field Office, Jacksonville, Florida 
Appendix C 

NRC and USACE Environmental Review 

Correspondence 

August 2010 C-1 Draft NUREG-1941 

Appendix C 

NRC and USACE Environmental Review 

Correspondence 

1 This appendix contains a chronological list of correspondence between the U.S. Nuclear 

2 Regulatory Commission (NRC) or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Progress 

3 Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). Other correspondence related to the environmental review of PEF’s 

4 application for combined licenses (COLs) and a USACE permit at the Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) 

5 site in Levy County, Florida, is also included. 

6 All documents, with the exception of those containing proprietary information, are available 

7 electronically from the Public Electronic Reading Room found on the Internet at the following 

8 web address: www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. From this website, the public can gain access to 

9 the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides 

10 text and image files of NRC’s public documents. The ADAMS accession number or Federal 

11 Register citation for each document is included below. 

12 June 30, 2008 Letter from Mr. Osvaldo Collazo, USACE, to Mr. John Hunter, PEF, 

13 regarding Department of the Army Permit to Construct a Barge Slip, Boat 

14 Ramp, Access Road, and Bridge to Connect the Slip/Ramp to County 

15 Road 40 (Accession No. ML090610068). 

16 July 28, 2008 Letter from Mr. James Scarola, PEF, to NRC, regarding Application for 

17 Combined License for Levy Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2, NRC 

18 Project Number 756 (Package Accession No. ML082260278). 

19 July 28, 2008 Letter from Mr. James Scarola, PEF, to NRC, regarding Supplemental 

20 Meteorological Data in Support of Combined License Application for Levy 

21 Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML082260278). 

22 August 8, 2008 Letter from Mr. Osvaldo Collazo, USACE, regarding Corps Request to 

23 Serve as a Cooperating Agency with the NRC as the Lead Agency in the 

24 Preparation of the EIS for the Levy Project (Accession No. 

25 ML082380171). 
Appendix C 

Draft NUREG-1941 C-2 August 2010 

1 September 12, 2008 Letter from Mr. James Scarola, PEF, to NRC, regarding Levy Nuclear 

2 Plant Units 1 and 2 (LNP), NRC Project Number 756, LNP COLA 

3 Supplemental Information (Accession No. ML082660675). 

4 September 15, 2008 Letter to Mr. James Scarola, PEF, from NRC, regarding Acknowledgment 

5 of Receipt of the Combined License Application for Levy County Nuclear 

6 Plant Units 1 and 2 and Associated Federal Register Notice (Accession 

7 No. ML082460287). 

8 October 6, 2008 Letter to Mr. James Scarola, PEF, from NRC, regarding Acceptance 

9 Review for the Levy County Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 Combined 

10 License Application (Accession No. ML082760222).

11 October 6, 2008 Federal Register Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of An Application 

12 For Combined License for Levy County Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 

13 and 2 Docket Nos. 52-029 and 52-030 (Accession No. ML082760254). 

14 October 10, 2008 Letter to Mr. Osvaldo Collazo, USACE, from NRC, regarding Request to 

15 Cooperate with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the 

16 Environmental Impact Statement for the Levy Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 

17 2 Combined License Application (Accession No. ML082490566). 

18 October 14, 2008 Letter to Ms. Lesa Ehlers, Coastal Region Library, Citrus County, from 

19 NRC, regarding Maintenance of Reference Materials at the Coastal 

20 Region Library Related to the Environmental Review of the Levy Nuclear 

21 Plant Combined License Application (Accession No. ML082401332). 

22 October 14, 2008 Letter to Ms. Ann Fenton, Dunnellon Branch Library, from NRC, regarding 

23 Maintenance of Reference Materials at the Dunnellon Branch Library 

24 Related to the Environmental Review of the Levy Nuclear Plant Combined 

25 License Application (Accession No. ML082401350). 

26 October 14, 2008 Letter to Ms. Sandy Moseley, Bronson Public Library, Levy County, from 

27 NRC, regarding Maintenance of Reference Materials at the Bronson 

28 Public Library Related to the Environmental Review of the Levy Nuclear 

29 Plant Combined License Application (Accession No. ML082480634). 

30 October 17, 2008 Letter to Mr. James Scarola, PEF, from NRC, regarding Notice of Intent to 

31 Prepare and Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping 

32 Related to a Combined License Application for Levy Nuclear Plant, 

33 Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML082830024). 
Appendix C 

August 2010 C-3 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 October 20, 2008 Memorandum to USACE, Jacksonville District, from CH2M Hill/Progress 

2 Energy, regarding Clean Water Act Jurisdictional Determination of 

3 Wetlands Located on Levy Nuclear Plant Site, Levy County, Florida 

4 (Accession No. ML090760467). 

5 October 24, 2008 Federal Register Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

6 Statement and Conduct Scoping Process for Levy Nuclear Power Plant, 

7 Units 1 and 2, Combined License Application and Limited Work 

8 Authorization (Accession No. ML083010028). 

9 November 5, 2008 Letter to Mr. Frederick Gaske, Director, Division of Historical Resources, 

10 State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Cultural and Historical 

11 Programs, from NRC, regarding Request for Participation in the Scoping 

12 Process for the Proposed Levy County Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

13 Combined License Application Review (Accession No. ML082740519). 

14 November 5, 2008 Letter to The Honorable Chairman Billy Cypress, Miccosukee Tribe, from 

15 NRC, regarding Request for Participation in the Scoping Process for the 

16 Environmental Review of the Levy County, Units 1 and 2, Combined 

17 License Application (Accession No. ML082740531). 

18 November 5, 2008 Letter to The Honorable Chairman Mitchell Cypress, Seminole Tribe of 

19 Florida, from NRC, regarding Request for Participation in the Scoping 

20 Process for the Environmental Review of the Levy County, Units 1 and 2, 

21 Combined License Application (Accession No. ML082740536). 

22 November 5, 2008 Letter to Mr. David Bernhart, Assistant Regional Administrator for 

23 Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast 

24 Regional Office, from NRC, regarding Request for Participation in the 

25 Environmental Scoping Process and a List of Protected Species Within 

26 the Area Under Evaluation for the Levy Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

27 Combined License Application Review (Accession No. ML082750414). 

28 November 5, 2008 Letter to Mr. Jay Herrington, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville 

29 Field Office, from NRC, regarding Request for Participation in the 

30 Environmental Scoping Process and a List of Protected Species Within 

31 the Area Under Evaluation for the Levy Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

32 Combined License Application Review (Accession No. ML082750418). 
Appendix C 

Draft NUREG-1941 C-4 August 2010 

1 November 6, 2008 Letter to Mr. Don Klima, Office of Federal Agency Programs, Advisory 

2 Council on Historic Preservation, from NRC, regarding Request for 

3 Participation in the Scoping Process for the Proposed Levy County 

4 Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Combined License Application Review 

5 (Accession No. ML082740502). 

6 November 6, 2008 Letter to Mr. Rolando Garcia, Regional Director North Central Region, 

7 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, from NRC, regarding 

8 Request for Participation in the Scoping Process and List of State Listed 

9 Protected Species for the Environmental Review for the Levy Nuclear 

10 Plant, Units 1 and 2, Combined License Application Review (Accession 

11 No. ML082750434). 

12 November 6, 2008 Letter from Mr. James Scarola, PEF, to NRC, regarding Request for 

13 Withholding of Proprietary Information Related to Shearon Harris Nuclear 

14 Power Plants Units 2 and 3 and Levy Nuclear Power Plants Units 1 and 2 

15 (Accession No. ML083240398). Note: Contains proprietary information 

16 and is not publicly available. 

17 November 14, 2008 NRC Memorandum regarding Notice of Public Meeting to Discuss 

18 Environmental Scoping Process for the Levy Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

19 Combined License Application (Accession No. ML082961065). 

20 November 18, 2008 Letter from Mr. James Scarola, PEF, to NRC, regarding Supplemental 

21 Information for Hydrology Audit – Calculation Native Files, Levy Nuclear 

22 Power Plant Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML083300261). 

23 November 24, 2008 Email correspondence from Mr. Mark Sramek, National Oceanic and 

24 Atmospheric Administration, to NRC, regarding Essential Fish Habitat 

25 Requirements for Species Managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

26 Management Council: Ecoregion 2, Tarpon Springs to Pensacola Bay, 

27 Florida, Levy Nuclear Plant Application (Package Accession No. 

28 ML091180050). 

29 December 10, 2008 Email from Mr. Steve Terry, NAGPRA & Section 106 Coordinator for 

30 Mr. Fred Dayhoff, NAGPRA & Section 106 Representative, Miccosukee 

31 Tribe, to NRC, regarding Knowledge Cultural Resources Located in the 

32 Area of the Two New Proposed Nuclear Power Units (Accession 

33 No. ML090120781). 
Appendix C 

August 2010 C-5 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 December 11, 2008 Email correspondence from Mr. Robert Hoffman, National Oceanic and 

2 Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

3 Endangered Species Branch, to NRC, regarding NRC’s November 5, 

4 2008 Letter Requesting a List of Protected Species Within the Area Under 

5 Evaluation for the Levy Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Combined License 

6 Application Review (Accession No. ML083510905). 

7 December 11, 2008 Letter from Mr. Frederick Gaske, Director and State Historic Preservation 

8 Officer, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, to 

9 NRC, regarding Response to Possible Impacts to Historic Properties 

10 Listed, or Eligible for Listing, in the National Register of Historic 

11 Properties, DHR No.: 2008-07149, Proposed Levy County Nuclear Plant, 

12 Unit 1 and 2, Levy County (Accession No. ML090650566). 

13 December 17, 2008 Letter from Mr. James Scarola, PEF, to NRC, regarding Supplemental 

14 Information for Levy Environmental Audit – Geographic Information 

15 System Data (Accession No. ML090260730). 

16 December 17, 2008 Email from Ms. Shelley Norton, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

17 Association, to NRC, regarding Marine Mammal Strandings Information 

18 (Accession No. ML090120793). 

19 December 18, 2008 Memorandum on Summary of August 21, 2008 Public Meeting on Levy 

20 County Combined License (Accession No. ML083510263). 

21 December 19, 2008 Letter from Mr. James Scarola, PEF, to NRC, regarding Supplemental 

22 Information for Environmental Audit – Calculation Native Files (Accession 

23 Nos. ML083650409 and ML090210290). 

24 December 19, 2008 Letter from Mr. Heinz J. Mueller, Chief, U.S. Environmental Protection 

25 Agency, to NRC, regarding Scoping Process Comments for the Levy 

26 Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML090400336). 

27 December 23, 2008 NRC Memorandum on Summary of Public Scoping Meetings Related to 

28 the Combined Licenses Application Review for Levy Nuclear Plant, Units 

29 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML083460121). 

30 December 23, 2008 Letter from Ms. Mary Olson, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, 

31 to NRC, regarding Request for Extension of Public Comment Period and 

32 Scoping Comments (Accession No. ML090060933). 
Appendix C 

Draft NUREG-1941 C-6 August 2010 

1 December 24, 2008 Letter to Ms. Linda Cohan, AF Knotts Public Library, regarding 

2 Maintenance of Reference Materials at the AF Knotts Public Library 

3 Related to the Environmental Review of the Levy Nuclear Plant Combined 

4 License Application (Accession No. ML083580064). 

5 January 16, 2009 Letter to Ms. Mary Olson, Southeast Regional Coordinator, Nuclear 

6 Information and Resource Service, from NRC, regarding Request for an 

7 Extension of the Comment Period Associated with the Levy Nuclear Plant 

8 Environmental Scoping Process (Package Accession No. ML090080566). 

9 January 16, 2009 Public Notice from the USACE regarding Elimination of the Inglis Lock 

10 Structure for Safety Concerns, Permit Application No. SAJ-2008-04617 

11 (IP-SEG) (Accession No. ML090610055). 

12 January 16, 2009 Letter from Mr. James Scarola, PEF, to NRC, regarding Supplemental 

13 Information for Environmental Audit – Information Needs with 

14 Attachments (Package Accession No. ML090750823). 

15 February 3, 2009 Letter to Mr. Gordon Hambrick, USACE, from Mr. Jamie Hunter, PEF, 

16 regarding No Permit Required Request for Roller Compacted Test Pad 

17 (Accession No. ML090610058). 

18 February 4, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding Shearon 

19 Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 2 and 3, and Levy Nuclear Power 

20 Plant, Units 1 and 2, Contracts for Disposal of High-Level Radioactive 

21 Waste (Accession No. ML090400618). 

22 February 5, 2009 Letter to Mr. Jamie Hunter, PEF, from Mr. Gordon Hambrick, USACE, 

23 regarding Request for Confirmation that a Department of the Army Permit 

24 Would not be Required for the Construction of a “Roller Compacted 

25 Concrete Test Pad” at the Proposed Levy Nuclear Plant Site, SAJ-2007-

26 490 (NPR-GAH) (Accession No. ML090610047).

27 February 9, 2009 Letter from Ms. Charlene Vaughn, Advisory Council on Historic 

28 Preservation, to NRC, Notification and Request for Consultation and 

29 Participation in the Scoping Process for the Units 1 and 2 COL review for 

30 Levy County Nuclear Plant near Inglis, Florida (Accession No. 

31 ML090620074). 
Appendix C 

August 2010 C-7 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 February 9, 2009 Letter from Mr. Dave L. Hankla, FWS, to NRC, regarding Request for 

2 Scoping Comments During the Scoping Comment Period and Information 

3 on Federally-Listed Species and Critical Habitat that may be in the 

4 Vicinity of the Project Site, the Associated Transmission Line Rights-of5 Way, and the Alternative Sites (Accession No. ML090720063). 

6 February 18, 2009 Letter to Mr. James Scarola, PEF, from NRC, regarding Levy County 

7 Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 Combined License Application Review 

8 Schedule (Accession No. ML090350045). 

9 February 24, 2009 Letter to Mr. James Scarola, PEF, from NRC, regarding Request for 

10 Additional Information Regarding the Environmental Review of the 

11 Combined License Application for the Levy Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 

12 and 2 (Package Accession No. ML090500782). 

13 March 13, 2009 Letter to Mr. James Scarola, PEF, from NRC, regarding Addendum to 

14 Request for Additional Information Regarding the Environmental Review 

15 of the Combined License Application for the Levy Nuclear Power Plant, 

16 Units 1 and 2 (Package Accession No. ML090610163). 

17 March 16, 2009 Letter from Mr. James Scarola, PEF, to NRC, regarding Submittal of Site 

18 Selection Study in Accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 (Accession 

19 No. ML090830375). Note: Contains proprietary information and is 

20 not-publicly available. 

21 March 16, 2009 Public Notice, USACE, Public Notice Describing the Levy Project and 

22 State and Federal Agency Responsibilities, Permit Application No. SAJ23 2008-490 (IP-GAH) (Accession No. ML090890419). 

24 March 17, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

25 Supplemental Meteorological Data in Support of Combined License 

26 Application – Second Year of Data, Levy Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 

27 and 2 (Accession No. ML090830690). 

28 March 17, 2009 Email correspondence from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

29 Commission, Division of Law Enforcement responding to U.S. Army 

30 Corps of Engineers Public Notice, Permit Application No. SAJ-2008-490 

31 (IP-GAH) (Package Accession No. ML091230009). 
Appendix C 

Draft NUREG-1941 C-8 August 2010 

1 March 23, 2009 Letter from Mr. Miles M. Croom, National Marine Fisheries Service, to 

2 Colonel Paul L. Grosskruger, District Engineer, Panama City Regulatory 

3 Office, Jacksonville District, USACE, regarding U.S. Army Corps of 

4 Engineers Public Notice, Permit Application No. SAJ-2008-490 (IP-GAH) 

5 (Accession No. ML091230014). 

6 March 27, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

7 Supplemental Information for Environmental Review: Native Files – 

8 Cooling Tower Plume and Thermal Plume Modeling (Package Accession 

9 No. ML090910125). 

10 March 27, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

11 Response to USACE Request for Additional Information Regarding the 

12 Environmental Review (Accession No. ML091320050). 

13 March 27, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

14 Response to USACE Request for Additional Information Regarding the 

15 Environmental Review (Accession No. ML090920287). 

16 March 31, 2009 Letter from Mr. Harold R. Ross, President, Ross Hammock Ranch, to Mr. 

17 Gordon Hambrick, USACE, regarding Response to Corps Public Notice 

18 for the Levy Nuclear Plant Project, SAJ-2008-00490 (IP-GAH) (Accession 

19 No. ML091230015). 

20 April 1, 2009 Email to/from Mr. Gordon Hambrick, USACE, to/from Mr. and Mrs. 

21 Vaughn, regarding Response, Comment Letters and Emails Received 

22 during the Corps Public Notice Period for the Levy Nuclear Plant Project, 

23 Progress Energy Florida, SAJ-2008-00490 (IP-GAH) (Accession No. 

24 ML091230010). 

25 April 2, 2009 Email from Mr. James Scarola, PEF, to Mr. Gordon Hambrick, USACE, 

26 regarding Proprietary Submittal of Siting Study to USACE transmitting 

27 Letter regarding Submittal of Site Selection Study; Declaration of Trade 

28 Secretes, Commercial and Financial Records Under 32 CFR 518.139d) 

29 (Accession No. ML091910709). 

30 April 9, 2009 Letter from Ms. Mary Ann Poole, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

31 Commission, to Colonel Paul L. Grosskruger, USACE, regarding USACE 

32 Public Notice, Permit Application No. SAJ-2008-490 (IP-GAH) (Accession 

33 No. ML091070009). 
Appendix C 

August 2010 C-9 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 April 13, 2009 Letter to/from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. 

2 Environmental Protection Agency, regarding Request for an Extension of 

3 the Comment Period for the Corps Public Notice for the Levy Nuclear 

4 Plant Project, Progress Energy Florida, Levy Nuclear Plant, SAJ-2008-

5 00490 (IP-GAH) (Accession No. ML091230011). 

6 April 13, 2009 Letter to Mr. Frank E. Mathews, Hopping Green & Sams, from David S. 

7 Hobbie, Chief, Regulatory Division, Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps 

8 of Engineers, regarding Potential Extent of Federal Jurisdiction on a 

9 Parcel Located at the Site of the Proposed Levy Nuclear Plant in Section 

10 13, Township 16 South, Range 16 East, Inglis, Levy County, Florida 

11 (Accession No. ML091070118). 

12 April 14, 2009 Limited Appearance Statement from Harold R. Ross, President, Ross 

13 Hammock Ranch, Inc., to NRC, regarding letter sent to the Department of 

14 the Army in Response to a Public Notice, Permit Application No. 

15 SAJ-2008-490 (IP-GAH), regarding the Progress Energy Levy County 

16 Florida Application (Accession No. ML091060221). 

17 April 17, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

18 Supplemental Meteorological Data in Support of Combined License 

19 Application – Two Year Chi Over Q Data (Package Accession No. 

20 ML091130410). 

21 April 23, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

22 Supplemental Information in Support of combined License Application – 

23 Purpose and Need Statement, Levy Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 

24 (Accession No. ML091180670). 

25 April 23, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

26 Supplemental Information in Support of Combined License Application 

27 Environmental Review, Levy Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Package 

28 Accession No. ML091260523).

29 April 29, 2009 Email from Mr. Gordon Hambrick, USACE, to NRC, regarding Response, 

30 Comment Letters, and Emails Received during the Corps Public Notice 

31 Period for the Levy Nuclear Plant Project, Progress Energy Florida, Levy 

32 Nuclear Plant, SAJ-2008-00490 (IP-GAH) (Accession No. 

33 ML091230008). 
Appendix C 

Draft NUREG-1941 C-10 August 2010 

1 April 30, 2009 Letter to Mr. James Scarola, PEF, from NRC, regarding Progress Energy 

2 Corporation – Request for Withholding of Proprietary Information Related 

3 to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 2 and 3 and Levy Nuclear 

4 Power Plant Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML091040203). 

5 May 1, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

6 Notification to Withdraw Request for a Limited Work Authorization, Levy 

7 Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML091250350). 

8 May 4, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

9 Submittal of Site Selection Study – Redacted Version, Levy Nuclear 

10 Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Package Accession No. ML091340502). 

11 May 6, 2009 Email to Mr. Paul Gagliano and Heinz Mueller, U.S. Environmental 

12 Protection Agency, from NRC, regarding Withdrawal of LWA-Levy 

13 Nuclear Plant (Package Accession No. ML091320700). 

14 May 6, 2009 Letter to Colonel Paul L. Grosskruger, District Engineer, Jacksonville 

15 District, USACE, from Mr. Miles M. Croom, National Marine Fisheries 

16 Service, regarding National Marine Fisheries Comments to USACE Public 

17 Notice, Permit Application No. SAJ-2008-490 (IP-GAH) (Package 

18 Accession No. ML091320681). 

19 May 12, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

20 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the 

21 Environmental Review, Water Quality Sampling Data (Package 

22 Accession No. ML091380294). 

23 May 13, 2009 Letter to Colonel Paul Grosskruger, District Commander, Jacksonville 

24 District, USACE, from Mr. James D. Giattina, Director, Water Protection 

25 Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, regarding 

26 response to USACE Public Notice, SAJ-2008-490 (IP-GAH) (Package 

27 Accession No. ML091350064). 

28 May 28, 2009 Scoping Summary Report Related to the Environmental Scoping Process 

29 for the Levy Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Combined License 

30 Application (Accession No. ML091260469). 
Appendix C 

August 2010 C-11 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 June 5, 2009 Letter to Colonel Paul Grosskruger, District Commander, Jacksonville 

2 District, USACE, from Mr. James D. Giattina, Director, Water Protection 

3 Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, regarding 

4 response to USACE Public Notice, SAJ-2008-490 (IP-GAH) (Package 

5 Accession No. ML091660065). 

6 June 8, 2009 Letter to Mr. Harold Ross, Ross Hammock Ranch, Inc., from NRC, 

7 regarding Mr. Ross’ comments to NRC in response to the USACE Public 

8 Notice dated March 16, 2009 (Accession No. ML091340646). 

9 June 12, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

10 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the 

11 Environmental Review (Package Accession No. ML091740487). 

12 June 23, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

13 Supplement 1 to Response to Request for Additional Information 

14 Regarding the Environmental Review, Serial NPD-NRC-2009-107 – 

15 Supplemental Information for Environmental Audit Calculation Native 

16 Files (Accession No. ML091760672). 

17 June 23, 2009 Letter to Mr. James Scarola, Progress Energy, from NRC, regarding 

18 Supplemental Request for Additional Information Regarding the 

19 Environmental Review, (Package Accession No. ML091560119). 

20 June 26, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

21 Response to Request for Additional Information Letter No. ER-USACE22 RAI Addendum Related to the Environmental Review, Serial NPD-NRC23 2009-125 – Response for RAI USACE-11 (Package Accession No. 

24 ML091830462). 

25 July 17, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

26 Response to Supplemental Request for Additional Information Regarding 

27 the Environmental Review- Native Figure Files (Package Accession No. 

28 ML92240694). 

29 July 20, 2009 Letter to Mr. James Scarola, PEF, from NRC, regarding Progress Energy 

30 Corporation – Request for Withholding of Proprietary Information Related 

31 to Levy Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 (Package Accession No. 

32 ML091770185). 
Appendix C 

Draft NUREG-1941 C-12 August 2010 

1 July 20, 2009 Email correspondence from Ms. Cindy Mulkey, Florida Department of 

2 Environmental Protection, to NRC, regarding coastal zone consistency 

3 (Accession No. ML092290072). 

4 July 22, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

5 Response to Supplemental Request for Additional Information Regarding 

6 the Environmental Review- USACE RAI-12 and USACE RAI-13 

7 (Accession No. ML092080076) 

8 July 22, 2009 Letter from Mr. Robert Kitchen, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

9 Update of Responses to Request for Additional Information Letter 

10 (Accession No. ML092050071). 

11 July 24, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

12 Supplement 2 to Response to Request for Additional Information 

13 Regarding the Environmental Review (Accession No. ML092100297). 

14 July 24, 2009 NRC Memorandum regarding Summary of the Environmental Site Audit 

15 and Alternative Sites Visit Related to the Review of the Combined 

16 License Application for Levy Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. 

17 ML091250294). 

18 July 29, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

19 Supplement 3 to Response to Request for Additional Information 

20 Regarding the Environmental Review (Package Accession No. 

21 ML092240661). 

22 July 29, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

23 Response to Supplemental Request for Additional Information Regarding 

24 the Environmental Review- Hydrology 5.3.2.1-2 (Accession No. 

25 ML092150337). 

26 July 29, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

27 Response to Supplemental Request for Additional Information Regarding 

28 the Environmental Review- Water Quality Sampling Data- Spring 2009 

29 (Accession No. ML092150336). 

30 August 12, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

31 Response 3 to Supplemental Request for Additional Information 

32 Regarding the Environmental Review- Hydrology 4.1.1-1 (Package 

33 Accession No. ML092260771). 
Appendix C 

August 2010 C-13 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 August 25, 2009 Letter to Mr. Steve Terry, Miccosukee Tribe, from NRC, regarding 

2 Response to Scoping Comments to Support the Environmental Review of 

3 the Levy County, Units 1 and 2, Combined License Application 

4 (Accession No. ML092120229). 

5 August 26, 2009 Letter from Mr. Robert Kitchen, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

6 Response to Supplemental Request for Additional Information Regarding 

7 the Environmental Review- Replacement Fast Web Viewable Figures 

8 (Package Accession No. ML092240694). 

9 August 31, 2009 Letter to Chief Micco Bobby Johns Bearheart, Perdido Bay Tribe, 

10 Southeastern Lower Muscogee Creek Indians, from NRC, regarding 

11 Request for Information for the Environmental Review of the Levy County, 

12 Units 1 and 2, Combined License Application (Accession No. 

13 ML092120271). 

14 August 31, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

15 Response 4 to Supplemental Request for Additional Information 

16 Regarding the Environmental Review (Package Accession No. 

17 ML092460206). 

18 August 31, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

19 Supplemental Information Related to Environmental Review - Figure 

20 Native Files and CREC 1993/1994 Annual Salt Drift Report (Accession 

21 No. ML092470545). 

22 September 3, 2009 Letter to Mr. James Scarola, Progress Energy Florida, from NRC, 

23 regarding the Summary of Teleconferences Related to Supplemental 

24 RAIs for the Environmental Review (Accession No. ML092240046). 

25 September 3, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

26 Response 5 to Supplemental Request for Additional Information 

27 Regarding the Environmental Review (Package Accession No. 

28 ML092570297). 

29 September 25, 2009 Letter from Mr. Douglas Bruner, NRC, to Progress Energy regarding 

30 Supplemental Request for Additional Information Regarding the 

31 Environmental Review of the Combined License Application for the Levy 

32 Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Package Accession No. 

33 ML092650231). 
Appendix C 

Draft NUREG-1941 C-14 August 2010 

1 October 2, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

2 Progress Energy Florida’s Submittal of COL Application, Revision 1 

3 (Accession No. ML092860397). 

4 October 5, 2009 Letter from David Hobbie, Chief, Regulatory Division, USACE, to 

5 Progress Energy Florida, regarding SAJ-2008-00490 (JD2-GAH) 

6 Jurisdictional Verification “Approved” and “Preliminary” (Accession No. 

7 ML092890651). 

8 October 9, 2009 Letter from Mr. Garry. Miller, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

9 Supplemental Request for Additional Information Regarding the 

10 Environmental Review – Hydrology 4.1.1-1 (Package Accession No. 

11 ML092920466). 

12 October 12, 2009 Letter from Mr. Robert Kitchen, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

13 Roadmap of Changes in Combined License Application, Rev. 1 

14 (Accession No. ML092890169). 

15 October 13, 2009 Letter from Mr. Robert Kitchen, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

16 Schedule for Response to Environmental RAIs, Serial NPD-NRC-2009-

17 217 (Accession No. ML092890091). 

18 October 22, 2009 Letter from Mr. John Elnitsky, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

19 Supplemental Information Related to Environmental Review - Figure 

20 Native Files (Package Accession No. ML093010543). 

21 October 22, 2009 Letter from Mr. John Elnitsky, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

22 Supplemental Information – Water Quality Sampling Data- Summer 2009 

23 (Accession No. ML093010265). 

24 October 26, 2009 Letter from Mr. Robert Kitchen, Progress Energy, to Mr. Gordon 

25 Hambrick, USACE, regarding Progress Energy Florida, SAJ-2008-490 

26 (IP-GAH) (Accession No. ML093070175). 

27 November 23, 2009 Letter from Mr. John Elnitsky, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

28 Supplement 6 to Response to Request for Additional Information 

29 Regarding the Environmental Review (Accession No. ML093380309). 

30 December 2, 2009 Letter from Mr. John Elnitsky, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

31 Response to Supplemental Request for Additional Information Regarding 

32 the Environmental Review- Hydrology 4.1.1-1 (Package Accession No. 

33 ML093441135). 
Appendix C 

August 2010 C-15 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 December 3, 2009 Letter from Douglas Bruner, NRC, to Progress Energy regarding the 

2 Summary of Teleconferences Discussing Responses to Requests for 

3 Additional Information for the Environmental Review of the Levy Nuclear 

4 Power Plant Combined License Application (Package Accession No. 

5 ML092860080). 

6 December 14, 2009 Letter from Mr. John Elnitsky, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

7 Response to Supplemental Request for Additional Information Regarding 

8 Environmental Review (Package Accession No. ML093620182). 

9 January 20, 2010 Letter from Mr. Frank Akstulewicz, NRC, to Progress Energy regarding 

10 the Levy County Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 Combined License 

11 Application Revised Environmental Review Schedule (Accession No. 

12 ML100070638). 

13 January 29, 2010 Letter from Mr. John Elnitsky, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

14 Supplement 1 to Response to Supplemental Request for Additional 

15 Information Regarding Environmental Review (Package Accession No. 

16 ML100470895). 

17 January 29, 2010 Letter from Mr. John Elnitsky, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

18 Supplement 7 to Response to Request for Additional Information 

19 Regarding Environmental Review (Accession No. ML100470866). 

20 January 29, 2010 Letter from Mr. John Elnitsky, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

21 Supplement 7 to Response to Request for Additional Information 

22 Regarding Environmental Review (Accession No. ML100470867). 

23 January 29, 2010 Letter from Mr. John Elnitsky, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

24 Supplemental Information Related to Environmental Review – Figure 

25 Native Files (Accession No. ML100470866). 

26 February 16, 2010 Letter from Mr. John Elnitsky, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

27 Supplement 2 to Response to Supplemental Request for Additional 

28 Information Regarding the Environmental Review (Accession No. 

29 ML100500662). 

30 February 22, 2010 Letter from Mr. John Elnitsky, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

31 Supplement 3 to Response to Supplemental Request for Additional 

32 Information Regarding Environmental Review (Accession No. 

33 ML100560115). 
Appendix C 

Draft NUREG-1941 C-16 August 2010 

1 April 12, 2010 Letter from Mr. John Elnitsky, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

2 Supplement 8 to Response to Request for Additional Information 

3 Regarding the Environmental Review (Accession No. ML101050114). 

4 March 5, 2010 Letter from Mr. Gordon Hambrick, USACE, to PEF, regarding USACE 

5 Response to PEF’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Analysis for LNP 

6 (Accession No. ML100750229). 

7 March 11, 2010 Letter from Mr. Gordon Hambrick, USACE, to PEF, regarding Correction 

8 to USACE Response to PEF’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Analysis for 

9 LNP (Accession No. ML100750229). 

10 March 31, 2010 Letter from Mr. Gordon Hambrick, USACE, to Progress Energy, 

11 Regarding USACE Response to Progress Energy Carolinas on 

12 Confidentiality Request for Levy Alternative Sites (Accession No. 

13 ML100900218). 

14 April 29, 2010 Letter from Mr. Robert Kitchen, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding Levy 

15 Units 1 and 2, Notification of Modification Submitted for LNP SCA 

16 (Accession No. ML101230331). 

17 May 11, 2010 Letter from Mr. John Elnitsky, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

18 Supplemental Response to Supplemental Request for Additional 

19 Information Regarding the Environmental Review – Hydrology 5.3.2.1-2 

20 (Accession No. ML101410224). 

21 May 27, 2010 Letter from Mr. Robert Schaaf, NRC, to Chief Leonard Harjo, Principal 

22 Chief, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, regarding Request for Comment on 

23 the Environmental Review of the Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 

24 Combined License Application (Accession No. ML1013106220). 

25 May 27, 2010 Letter from Mr. Robert Schaaf, NRC, to Ms. Anne Tucker, Chairwoman, 

26 Muscogee Nation of Florida, regarding Request for Comment on the 

27 Environmental Review of the Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Combined 

28 License Application (Accession No. ML101370530). 

29 June 14, 2010 Letter from Mr. Douglas Bruner, NRC, to Progress Energy, regarding 

30 Summary of Teleconferences to Discuss Requests for Additional 

31 Information Regarding the Environmental Review of the Combined 

32 License Application for Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 (Package 

33 Accession No. ML100960539). 
Appendix C 

August 2010 C-17 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 June 30, 2010 Letter from Mr. Robert Kitchen, Progress Energy, to Mr. Gordon 

2 Hambrick, USACE, regarding Response to Comments Received on the 

3 Levy Nuclear Units 1 and 2 Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis, 

4 Revision 3 (Accession No. ML1018206450). 

5 July 16, 2010 Letter from Mr. Douglas Bruner, NRC, to Progress Energy, regarding 

6 Proprietary Review of Sections of the Draft Environmental Impact 

7 Statement Associated with Alternative Sites for Levy Nuclear Power Plant 

8 Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML101940176). 

9 July 20, 2009 Letter from Mr. Robert Kitchen, Progress Energy, to NRC, regarding 

10 Proprietary Review of Sections of the Draft Environmental Impact 

11 Statement Associated with Alternative Sites for Levy Nuclear Plant 

12 (Accession No. ML102030028). 

Appendix D 

Scoping Comments and Responses 

August 2010 D-1 Draft NUREG-1941 

Appendix D 

Scoping Comments and Responses 

1 On October 24, 2008, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a Notice of 

2 Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process in the 

3 Federal Register (73 FR 63517). The Notice of Intent notified the public of the staff’s intent to 

4 prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) and conduct scoping for the combined 

5 construction permits and operating licenses (COL) application received from Progress Energy 

6 Florida, Inc. (PEF) for two units, identified as Units 1 and 2, to be located at the Levy Nuclear 

7 Plant (LNP) site. The LNP site is located approximately 4 mi north of the Levy-Citrus County 

8 border, 7.9 mi east of the Gulf of Mexico, and 30.1 mi west of Ocala, Florida. The NRC invited 

9 the applicant; Federal, Tribal, State, and local government agencies; local organizations; and 

10 individuals to participate in the scoping process by providing oral comments at the scheduled 

11 public meeting and/or submitting written suggestions and comments no later than December 23, 

12 2008. 

13 D.1 Overview of the Scoping Process 

14 The scoping process provides an opportunity for public participants to identify issues to be 

15 addressed in the EIS and highlight public concerns and issues. The Notice of Intent identified 

16 the following objectives of the scoping process: 

17 Define the proposed action that is to be the subject of the EIS. 

18 Determine the scope of the EIS and identify significant issues to be analyzed in depth. 

19 Identify and eliminate from detailed study those issues that are peripheral or that are not 

20 significant. 

21 Identify any environmental assessments and other EISs that are being prepared or will be 

22 prepared that are related to, but not part of, the scope of the EIS being considered. 

23 Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements related to the proposed 

24 action. 

25 Identify parties consulting with the NRC under the National Historic Preservation Act, as set 

26 forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c)(1)(i). 

27 Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of the environmental 

28 analyses and the Commission’s tentative planning and decision-making schedule. 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-2 August 2010 

1 Identify any cooperating agencies and, as appropriate, allocate assignments for preparation 

2 and schedules for completing the EIS to the NRC and any cooperating agencies. 

3 Describe how the EIS will be prepared and include any contractor assistance to be used. 

4 Two public scoping meetings were held at the Florida National Guard Armory in Crystal River, 

5 Florida, on December 4, 2008. Approximately 100 people attended the afternoon scoping 

6 meeting, and approximately 90 attended the evening session. The scoping meetings began 

7 with NRC staff members providing a brief overview of the COL process and the NEPA process. 

8 After the NRC’s prepared statements, the meeting was open for public comments. Fifty-two 

9 attendees provided either oral comments or written statements that were recorded and 

10 transcribed by a certified court reporter. In addition to the oral and written statements provided 

11 at the public scoping meeting, 4 letters and 30 emails were received during the scoping period. 

12 Transcripts for both the afternoon and evening scoping meetings can be found in the NRC 

13 Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) under accession numbers 

14 ML083520102 and ML083520105, respectively. ADAMS is accessible from the NRC website at 

15 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html (in the Public Electronic Reading Room; 

16 note: the URL is case-sensitive). Additional comments received later in letters or emails are 

17 also available. A meeting summary memorandum (ML083460121) was issued December 23, 

18 2008. 

19 At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff reviewed the scoping meeting transcripts 

20 and all written material received during the comment period and identified individual comments. 

21 These comments were organized according to topic within the proposed EIS or according to the 

22 general topic if outside the scope of the EIS. Once comments were grouped according to 

23 subject area, the staff determined the appropriate response for the comment. The staff made a 

24 determination on each comment that it was one of the following: 

25 a comment that was actually a question and introduced no new information 

26 a comment that was either related to support or opposition of combined licensing in general 

27 (or specifically the LNP COL) or made a general statement about the COL process. In 

28 addition, it provided no new information and did not pertain to 10 CFR Part 52. 

29 a comment about an environmental issue that 

30 – provided new information that would require evaluation during the review 

31 – provided no new information. 

32 a comment that was outside the scope of the COL, which included, but was not limited to 

33 – a comment on the safety record of the applicant. 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-3 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Preparation of the EIS has taken into account the relevant issues raised during the scoping 

2 process. The comments received on the draft EIS will be considered in the preparation of the 

3 final EIS. The final EIS, along with the staff’s Safety Evaluation Report (SER), will provide much 

4 of the basis for the NRC’s decision on whether to grant the LNP COL. 

5 The comments related to this environmental review are included in this appendix. They were 

6 extracted from the Levy Nuclear Plant Combined License Scoping Summary Report 

7 (ML091260469) and are provided for the convenience of those interested specifically in the 

8 scoping comments applicable to this environmental review. The comments that are outside the 

9 scope of the environmental review for the proposed LNP site are not included in this appendix. 

10 These include comments related to the following: 

11 safety 

12 emergency preparedness 

13 NRC oversight for operating plants 

14 security and terrorism 

15 support or opposition to the licensing action, licensing process, nuclear power, hearing 

16 process, or the applicant. 

17 More detail regarding the disposition of general or out-of-scope comments can be found in the 

18 Scoping Summary Report. To maintain consistency with the Scoping Summary Report, the 

19 comment source identification (ID) and comment number along with the name of the commenter 

20 used in that report are retained in this appendix. 

21 Table D-1 identifies, in alphabetical order, the individuals who provided comments during the 

22 scoping period, their affiliation (if given), and the ADAMS accession number that can be used to 

23 locate the correspondence. Although all commenters are listed, the comments presented in this 

24 appendix are limited to those within the scope of the environmental review. Table D-2 lists the 

25 comment categories in alphabetical order and commenter names and comment numbers for 

26 each category. The balance of this appendix presents the comments themselves with NRC 

27 staff responses organized by topic category.
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-4 August 2010 

1 Table D-1. Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period

Commenter Affiliation (if stated)

Comment Source and ADAMS 

Accession #

Correspondence 

ID Number

Albert, Pamela Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015

Arnason, Deb Email (ML090060934) 0039

Barnwell, Martha Progress Energy Florida Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014

Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015

Berger, Betty Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015

Berger, Sarah Email (ML083640014) 0020

Bullock, Wade Email (ML083510834) 0013

Burrell, Troy Burrell Engineering Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014

Cannon, Renate Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014

Casey, Emily Environmental Alliance of 

North Florida Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015

Cheek, Ken Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014

Cox, Lesley Email (ML083640026) 0029

Craig, Avis Email (ML090060936) 0035

Damato, Dennis Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015

Davis, Suellyn Email (ML083470118) 0009

Dickinson, Josh Email ( ML083470113) 0006

Dickinson, Sally Email ( ML083470113) 0006

Douglas, Amanda Nature Coast Business 

Development Council Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014

Edison, Jeff Levy County Schools Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014

Eppes, Thomas Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014

Letter (ML090480055) 0043

Foreman, Patricia Email (ML090060937) 0036

Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014

Frink, Ken Burrell Engineering Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014

Garvin, Bill Email (ML083640012) 0018

Haghighat, Alireza Email (ML083470108) 0005

Harris, Mac Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014

Hernandez, Michael Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014

Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015

Heywood, Harriet Email (ML083640013) 0019

Highsprings, Jojo Email (ML083640019) 0023

2 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-5 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

Table D-1. (contd)

Commenter Affiliation (if stated)

Comment Source and ADAMS 

Accession #

Correspondence 

ID Number

Hilliard, Dan Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014

Hodges, Alan University of Florida Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015

Hollins, Dixie Hollinswood Ranch Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015

Hopkins, Norman Unnamed environmental 

organizations 

Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014

Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015

Horgan, Wendy Email (ML083640024) 0028

Johannesen, 

Francine 

Marion County Building 

Industry Association 

Letter (ML083500251) 0010

Jones, Art Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014

Karson, Annabeth Email (ML083640030) 0031

Kirk, Susan City of Crystal River Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014

Klutho, Mark Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015

Latimer, Al Enterprise Florida Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014

Lewis, Maloni Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015

Maidhof, Gary Citrus County Department of 

Development 

Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014

Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015

Malwitz-Jipson, 

Merrillee 

Email (ML083640018) 0006

Email (ML083640018) 0042

Marmish, John United Way of Citrus County Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014 

Marraffino, Paul Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014 

McCray-Holly, 

Katrice

Community Action 

Foundation of Citrus County

Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015 

Medlin, Ted Email (ML083460103) 0040 

Michaels, Edward Email (ML083640016) 0021 

Miller, Joan Email (ML083640011) 0017 

Miller, Ron Email (ML083640011) 0017 

Moore, Brian Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015 

Mucci, Matt Advocacy for the Tampa 

Bay Partnership

Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014 

Mueller, Heinz J Environmental Protection 

Agency

Letter (ML090400336) 0044 

Murphy, Joe Gulf Restoration Network Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015 

Musser, Marcie Email (ML083470117) 0008 

Nelson, Tami Email (ML083640023) 0027 

Olson, Mary Email (ML090060933) 0038 

Pernu, Dorothy Seven Rivers Regional 

Medical Center

Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-6 August 2010 

Table D-1. (contd)

Commenter Affiliation (if stated)

Comment Source and ADAMS 

Accession #

Correspondence 

ID Number

Peters, Michael Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015 

Renfro, E. E. Meadowcrest Community 

Association

Email (ML090060935) 0034 

Roberts, Preston Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014 

Roff, Rhonda Email (ML083640028) 0030 

Russell, John Self Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014 

Slaback, Laura Levy County Public 

Education Foundation

Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014 

Smith, Bobbie Levy County Schools 

Foundation

Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014 

Smith, Robert Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014 

Stewart, Anita Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015 

Sullivan, Jennifer Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015 

Terry, Steve Miccosukee Tribe Email (ML090120781) 0037 

Towles Ezell, Joy Email (ML083640022) 0026 

Tulenko, James Letter (ML083500252) 0011 

 Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014 

Tyler, Janice Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014 

Vianello, Mark Marion Technical Institute Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014 

Waldron, Theresa Nature Coast Sierra Group Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014 

 Email (ML083640010) 0016 

Walther, Robert Clean and Safe Energy 

Coalition

Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014 

 Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015 

Wapner, Howard Email (ML083640021) 0006 

Welker, Randy Economic Development 

Council for Citrus County

Meeting Transcript (ML083520102) 0014 

Wheeler, Leonard Email (ML083640020) 0024 

Whiteley, Naomi Email (ML083470116) 0007 

Wilansky, Laura 

Sue

 Email (ML083640031) 0032 

Williamson, John Environmental Radiation 

Section of the Florida 

Department of Health, 

Bureau of Radiation Control

Meeting Transcript (ML083520105) 0015 

1 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-7 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table D-2. Comment Categories with Associated Commenters and Comment ID Numbers

Comment Category Commenter (Comment ID Number) 

Accidents – Severe Cox, Lesley (0029-3) 

Davis, Suellyn (0009-4) 

Heywood, Harriet (0019-8) 

Musser, Marcie (0008-12) 

Olson, Mary (0038-12) 

Wilansky, Laura Sue (0032-12) 

Alternatives – Energy Arnason, Deb (0039-2) (0039-7) (0039-9) 

Barnwell, Martha (0014-7) (0014-10) (0015-13) (0015-14) 

Berger, Betty (0015-94) 

Cox, Lesley (0029-5) (0029-6) 

Davis, Suellyn (0009-5) 

Dickinson, Josh (0006-4) (0006-11) 

Dickinson, Sally (0006-4) (0006-11) 

Eppes, Thomas (0014-73) (0014-75) (0014-76) (0014-77) (0014-78) 

(0014-79) 

Foreman, Patricia (0036-3) 

Frink, Ken (0014-38) 

Haghighat, Alireza (0005-2) 

Hernandez, Michael (0014-135) 

Heywood, Harriet (0019-10) 

Highsprings, Jojo (0023-1) 

Hopkins, Norman (0014-57) (0014-58) (0014-59) (0015-111) 

Horgan, Wendy (0028-5) 

Klutho, Mark (0015-44) 

Malwitz-Jipson, Merrillee (0006-4) (0006-11) (0042-2) 

Mucci, Matt (0014-105) 

Mueller, Heinz J (0044-2) 

Musser, Marcie (0008-2) (0008-4) (0008-13) 

Olson, Mary (0038-6) (0038-7) (0038-18) 

Roberts, Preston (0014-94) (0014-95) (0014-96) (0014-97) 

Roff, Rhonda (0030-10) 

Russell, John (0014-68) 

Stewart, Anita (0015-79) (0015-80) 

Sullivan, Jennifer (0015-58) 

Towles Ezell, Joy (0026-2) (0026-8) 

Tulenko, James (0014-20) 

Waldron, Theresa (0016-2) 

Walther, Robert (0014-109) (0014-110) (0015-47) 

Wapner, Howard (0006-4) (0006-11) 

Welker, Randy (0014-29) 

Whiteley, Naomi (0007-2) 

Wilansky, Laura Sue (0032-10) 

2 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-8 August 2010 

1 

Table D-2. (contd)

Comment Category Commenter (Comment ID) 

Alternatives – Sites Albert, Pamela (0015-54) 

Barnwell, Martha (0014-12) 

Casey, Emily (0015-31) 

Jones, Art (0014-147) (0014-152) (0014-155) 

Mueller, Heinz J (0044-1) 

Peters, Michael (0015-96) 

Towles Ezell, Joy (0026-3) 

Tyler, Janice (0014-158) 

Benefit – Cost Balance Barnwell, Martha (0014-11) (0015-15) 

Davis, Suellyn (0009-2) 

Dickinson, Josh (0006-8) 

Dickinson, Sally (0006-8) 

Eppes, Thomas (0043-1) (0043-3) (0043-4) (0043-5) 

Foreman, Patricia (0036-1) 

Heywood, Harriet (0019-1) (0019-3) (0019-4) 

Hodges, Alan (0015-69) 

Hopkins, Norman (0014-56) (0015-110) 

Malwitz-Jipson, Merrillee (0006-8) 

Miller, Joan (0017-1) 

Miller, Ron (0017-1) 

Moore, Brian (0015-104) 

Musser, Marcie (0008-3) 

Olson, Mary (0038-19) 

Roberts, Preston (0014-98) 

Tulenko, James (0011-6) 

Wapner, Howard (0006-8) 

Wilansky, Laura Sue (0032-1) (0032-11) (0032-13) 

Cumulative Impacts Barnwell, Martha (0015-10) 

Casey, Emily (0015-32) 

Dickinson, Josh (0006-2) 

Dickinson, Sally (0006-2) 

Hilliard, Dan (0014-185) 

Horgan, Wendy (0028-2) 

Malwitz-Jipson, Merrillee (0006-2) 

Murphy, Joe (0015-114) 

Olson, Mary (0038-2) (0038-21) 

Peters, Michael (0015-98) 

Smith, Robert (0014-34) 

Towles Ezell, Joy (0026-5) 

Wapner, Howard (0006-2) 

Decommissioning Russell, John (0014-66) 

Wilansky, Laura Sue (0032-9) 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-9 Draft NUREG-1941 

Table D-2. (contd)

Comment Category Commenter (Comment ID) 

Ecology – Aquatic Cox, Lesley (0029-10) 

Davis, Suellyn (0009-3) 

Dickinson, Josh (0006-7) 

Dickinson, Sally (0006-7) 

Hopkins, Norman (0014-55) (0015-109) 

Malwitz-Jipson, Merrillee (0006-7) 

Murphy, Joe (0015-116) 

Musser, Marcie (0008-10) (0008-11) 

Wapner, Howard (0006-7) 

Ecology – Terrestrial Casey, Emily (0015-29) 

Marraffino, Paul (0014-115) (0014-179) 

Murphy, Joe (0015-113) (0015-122) 

Smith, Robert (0014-35) 

Health – Non-Radiological Marraffino, Paul (0014-117) (0014-118) (0014-183) 

Medlin, Ted (0040-5) 

Sullivan, Jennifer (0015-64) 

Health – Radiological Cannon, Renate (0014-128) 

Cox, Lesley (0029-7) 

Dickinson, Josh (0006-5) 

Dickinson, Sally (0006-5) 

Hopkins, Norman (0014-54) (0015-106) (0015-107) 

Malwitz-Jipson, Merrillee (0006-5) 

Marraffino, Paul (0014-119) (0014-181) 

Olson, Mary (0038-20) (0038-23) 

Roberts, Preston (0014-93) 

Roff, Rhonda (0030-1) (0030-6) 

Wapner, Howard (0006-5) 

Williamson, John (0015-4) (0015-5) 

Historic and Cultural 

Resources 

Terry, Steve (0037-1) 

Hydrology – Groundwater Berger, Betty (0015-93) 

Berger, Sarah (0020-3) 

Casey, Emily (0015-25) (0015-27) (0015-28) (0015-30) (0015-33) 

Cox, Lesley (0029-9) 

Hopkins, Norman (0014-53) (0015-105) 

Olson, Mary (0038-10) (0038-13) 

Roberts, Preston (0014-92) 

Roff, Rhonda (0030-3) (0030-5) (0030-9) 

Tyler, Janice (0014-156) 

Waldron, Theresa (0014-165) (0014-166) (0014-167) (0014-168) 

(0014-172) 

Wilansky, Laura Sue (0032-3) 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-10 August 2010 

Table D-2. (contd)

Comment Category Commenter (Comment ID) 

Hydrology – Surface Water Arnason, Deb (0039-5) 

Barnwell, Martha (0015-16) 

Berger, Betty (0015-91) 

Berger, Sarah (0020-2) 

Cannon, Renate (0014-126) 

Casey, Emily (0015-24) (0015-26) 

Cox, Lesley (0029-8) 

Dickinson, Josh (0006-6) 

Dickinson, Sally (0006-6) 

Frink, Ken (0014-41) 

Hilliard, Dan (0014-184) (0014-186) 

Hopkins, Norman (0015-108) 

Jones, Art (0014-148) (0014-149) (0014-153) 

Malwitz-Jipson, Merrillee (0006-6) 

Marraffino, Paul (0014-116) (0014-182) 

Moore, Brian (0015-103) 

Murphy, Joe (0015-115) (0015-119) 

Musser, Marcie (0008-9) 

Olson, Mary (0038-8) (0038-14) (0038-16) 

Roff, Rhonda (0030-2) (0030-4) (0030-8) 

Wapner, Howard (0006-6) 

Wilansky, Laura Sue (0032-2) (0032-4) 

Land Use – Site and 

Vicinity 

Craig, Avis (0035-2) 

Medlin, Ted (0040-1) (0040-8) 

Welker, Randy (0014-27) 

Land Use – Transmission 

Lines 

Albert, Pamela (0015-88) 

Barnwell, Martha (0015-17) 

Marmish, John (0014-143) 

Peters, Michael (0015-97) 

Need for Power Barnwell, Martha (0014-6) (0014-8) (0015-11) (0015-12) 

Bullock, Wade (0013-1) 

Craig, Avis (0035-5) 

Foreman, Patricia (0014-50) 

Johannesen, Francine (0010-2) (0010-3) 

Jones, Art (0014-154) 

Maidhof, Gary (0014-131) (0015-1) 

Mucci, Matt (0014-103) 

Olson, Mary (0038-15) 

Pernu, Dorothy (0015-8) 

Walther, Robert (0014-108) (0015-46) (0015-48) 

Process – COL Cheek, Ken (0014-138) 

Hilliard, Dan (0014-187) 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-11 Draft NUREG-1941 

Table D-2. (contd)

Comment Category Commenter (Comment ID) 

Mueller, Heinz J (0044-3) 

Murphy, Joe (0015-112) 

Process – NEPA Cannon, Renate (0044-127) 

Olson, Mary (0038-1) 

Murphy, Joe (0015-118) (0038-1) 

Terry, Steve (0037-2) 

Site Layout and Design Berger, Betty (0015-92) 

Jones, Art (0014-151) 

Site Redress Mueller, Heinz J (0044-4) 

Socioeconomics Arnason, Deb (0039-8) 

Barnwell, Martha (0014-13) (0014-14) (0015-18) 

Berger, Sarah (0020-4) 

Bullock, Wade (0013-3) 

Cheek, Ken (0014-139) 

Douglas, Amanda (0014-61) 

Edison, Jeff (0014-1) (0014-3) (0014-4) 

Foreman, Patricia (0014-46) (0014-48) (0014-49) (0036-2) 

Frink, Ken (0014-37) (0014-40) (0014-44) 

Garvin, Bill (0018-1) 

Haghighat, Alireza (0005-5) 

Hernandez, Michael (0015-52) 

Hodges, Alan (0015-66) (0015-67) (0015-68) (0015-70) (0015-71) 

(0015-72) 

Hollins, Dixie (0015-86) 

Hopkins, Norman (0014-52) 

Klutho, Mark (0015-42) 

Latimer, Al (0014-80) (0014-82) (0014-84) 

Marmish, John (0014-145) 

Medlin, Ted (0040-2) (0040-3) (0040-6) 

Michaels, Edward (0021-1) (0021-3) (0021-4) (0021-5) 

Mucci, Matt (0014-102) (0014-104) 

Murphy, Joe (0015-117) (0015-120) (0015-121) 

Musser, Marcie (0008-8) 

Pernu, Dorothy (0015-9) 

Russell, John (0014-63) (0014-64) 

Smith, Robert (0014-36) 

Stewart, Anita (0015-77) 

Sullivan, Jennifer (0015-55) (0015-63) (0015-78) 

Tulenko, James (0011-8) (0014-25) 

Tyler, Janice (0014-160) 

Vianello, Mark (0014-88) (0014-176) 

Waldron, Theresa (0014-169) (0014-171) 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-12 August 2010 

Table D-2. (contd)

Comment Category Commenter (Comment ID) 

Walther, Robert (0014-112) (0015-49) 

Welker, Randy (0014-26) (0014-30) 

Transportation Medlin, Ted (0040-7) 

Wilansky, Laura Sue (0032-7) 

Uranium Fuel Cycle Arnason, Deb (0039-4) 

Cannon, Renate (0014-125) (0014-130) 

Cox, Lesley (0029-2) (0029-4) 

Dickinson, Josh (0006-3) (0006-9) 

Dickinson, Sally (0006-3) (0006-9) 

Eppes, Thomas (0014-71) (0014-72) (0043-2) 

Heywood, Harriet (0019-5) 

Horgan, Wendy (0028-3) 

Klutho, Mark (0015-37) 

Malwitz-Jipson, Merrillee (0006-3) (0006-9) 

Moore, Brian (0015-102) 

Musser, Marcie (0008-5) (0008-14) 

Olson, Mary (0038-3) (0038-5) (0038-9) (0038-11) 

Russell, John (0014-67) 

Sullivan, Jennifer (0015-61) 

Towles Ezell, Joy (0026-7) 

Waldron, Theresa (0014-162) 

Wapner, Howard (0006-3) (0006-9) 

Wilansky, Laura Sue (0032-6) (0032-8) 

1 D.2 In-Scope Comments and Responses 

2 The in-scope comment categories are listed in Table D-3 in the order that they are presented in 

3 this EIS. In-scope comments and responses are included following the table. Parenthetical 

4 numbers shown after each comment refer to the Comment ID number (document number5 comment number) and the commenter name. 

6 Table D-3. Comment Categories in Order as Presented in this Report

D.2.1 Comments Concerning Process – COL 

D.2.2 Comments Concerning Process – NEPA 

D.2.3 Comments Concerning Site Layout and Design 

D.2.4 Comments Concerning Land Use – Site and Vicinity 

D.2.5 Comments Concerning Land Use – Transmission Lines 

7 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-13 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

Table D-3. (contd)

D.2.6 Comments Concerning Hydrology – Surface Water 

D.2.7 Comments Concerning Hydrology – Groundwater 

D.2.8 Comments Concerning Ecology – Terrestrial 

D.2.9 Comments Concerning Ecology – Aquatic 

D.2.10 Comments Concerning Socioeconomics 

D.2.11 Comments Concerning Historic and Cultural Resources 

D.2.12 Comments Concerning Health – Nonradiological 

D.2.13 Comments Concerning Health – Radiological 

D.2.14 Comments Concerning Accidents

D.2.15 Comments Concerning the Uranium Fuel Cycle 

D.2.16 Comments Concerning Transportation 

D.2.17 Comments Concerning Decommissioning 

D.2.18 Comments Concerning Site Redress 

D.2.19 Comments Concerning Cumulative Impacts 

D.2.20 Comments Concerning the Need for Power 

D.2.21 Comments Concerning Alternatives – Energy 

D.2.22 Comments Concerning Alternatives – Sites 

D.2.23 Comments Concerning Benefit-Cost Balance 

2 D.2.1 Comments Concerning Process – COL 

3 Comment: I trust that the NRC and Progress Energy will bring us a responsible design. (0014-

4 138 [Cheek, Ken])

5 Comment: For these reasons I have rendered this presentation. I find these apparent 

6 inconsistencies unsettling. I do not object to the proposed project in a conceptual sense. 

7 However, I pointedly request the various agencies involved in this process hold the State and 

8 Applicant to strict interpretation of Federal Statutes and exercise due diligence in this review. 

9 The State’s determined need for this project is met by a real need to preserve resources in this 

10 region. They are very interdependent issues. (0014-187 [Hilliard, Dan])

11 Comment: The Gulf Restoration Network (GRN) has deep and profound concerns about the 

12 potential environmental impacts that could result from this project being permitted. We strongly 

13 urge all local, State, and Federal agencies involved in any and all levels or aspects of permitting 

14 this project to fully and completely analyze all potential environmental risks from this project and 

15 deny permitting if any environmental review demonstrates a potential threat to Florida’s natural 

16 resources or regional water systems, supply, or hydrogeology (both in terms of quality and 

17 quantity). (0015-112 [Murphy, Joe])
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-14 August 2010 

1 Response: The licensing process for combined license (COL) applications is specified in 

2 Title 10 CFR Part 52. The environmental review process associated with new reactor licensing 

3 includes a detailed review of an applicant’s COL application to determine the environmental 

4 effects of building and operating the nuclear power facility for up to 40 years. After review of the 

5 application against the regulations and regulatory guidance, a mandatory hearing or optional 

6 contested hearing will be held where the decision is made about whether or not it is appropriate 

7 to grant the license. Safety issues as well as environmental issues will be evaluated before a 

8 decision is reached on an application. 

9 Comment: EPA also has questions about the approval process of certain construction 

10 activities mentioned in LNP’s Limited Work Authorization (LWA) and Site-Redress Plan. It is our 

11 understanding that the LWA may be approved by the NRC prior to all (or most) environmental 

12 permits being obtained. Approval of the LWA could therefore potentially authorize site 

13 development and deep/shallow foundation construction for the LNP site, to include all or some 

14 of the following tasks: 

15 Installing waterproofing beneath the mud mat under the nuclear islands. 

16 Installing rebar in the nuclear island concrete foundations. 

17 Erecting safety-related concrete placement forms. 

18 Installing Turbine Building foundation drilled shafts. 

19 Installing Annex Building foundation drilled shafts. 

20 Installing Radwaste Building foundation drilled shafts. 

21 Installing circulating water piping between the cooling tower basins and the entrance point to 

22 the turbine building condensers. Installing the raw water system intake structure and make23 up line to the cooling tower basin. 

24 It is our understanding that the NRC could grant approval of the LWA for the above work prior to 

25 approval of the following applications and permits: 

26 Approval of the application to the NRC for a COL; 

27 Approval of the application to the State of Florida for site certification; 

28 Approval of any required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit(s) (NPDES) for 

29 water discharge; 

30 Approval of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air permit; 

31 Approval of a 316(b) demonstration for the proposed cooling water intake; 

32 Approval of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 and Section 10 permits 

33 to construct structures in wetlands and regulated waterways; 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-15 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Approval of hazardous waste management and disposal plans; 

2 Approval of the determination of consistency under the requirements of the Coastal Zone 

3 Management Act to ensure the LNP is consistent with existing federal and state coastal 

4 zone management plans. 

5 The EIS should clarify whether approval of the LWA can actually occur before most, or all, of the 

6 applications and permits mentioned above are approved. (0044-3 [Mueller, Heinz J])

7 Response: By letter to the NRC dated May 1, 2009, Progress Energy provided notification to 

8 withdraw their request for a LWA.

9 D.3 Comments Concerning Process – NEPA 

10 Comment: After the survey is completed, please continue to consult with us as this project 

11 develops. Thank you for consulting with the Miccosukee Tribe. (0037-2 [Terry, Steve])

12 Response: The NRC has initiated consultation with the Miccosukee Tribe in accordance with 

13 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and NEPA and will continue to do 

14 so throughout the EIS process. 

15 Comment: I understand that Progress Energy says it is collaborating with local agencies to 

16 ensure the plant has no significant adverse impacts on resources or nearby wells. I would like 

17 to know which local agencies. (0014-127 [Cannon, Renate])

18 Response: Interactions between Progress Energy and local agencies is outside the purview of 

19 NRC’s environmental review of the COL application. The NRC has initiated informal 

20 consultation with a variety of Federal and State agencies during the environmental review in 

21 accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A list of agencies and 

22 organizations contacted will be provided in Appendix B of the EIS. Adverse impacts on surface 

23 water and groundwater resources will be addressed in Chapters 4 and 5 of the EIS. 

24 Comment: In recognition of the Holiday season and the fact that the Progress Energy proposal 

25 is in a league of its own - the only “green fields” site not previously licensed for nuclear 

26 construction - NIRS asks the Commission to extend the comment period by a minimum of 

27 30 days. We regret that we have not made this request sooner, however it is in the interests of 

28 the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act that affected parties be able to 

29 participate in this process fully. The fact that more than half of this comment period falls in the 

30 range of Thanksgiving and Christmas/Chanukah/Buddha’s Enlightenment/Winter Solstice (NIRS 

31 members, including those in Florida, do celebrate across this spectrum) means that people 

32 have had to either forgo family celebration or forgo participation in this process. If extension is 

33 granted we would appreciate a direct notice of this fact (828-675-1792/ nirs@main.nc.us) and 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-16 August 2010 

1 we will notify NIRS members and members of the public with whom we are in contact in Florida. 

2 (0038-1 [Olson, Mary])

3 Response: The commenter requests an extension to the scoping comment period. The NRC 

4 established the time period for comments on the scope of the environmental review for new 

5 licenses to balance the Commission’s goal of ensuring openness in the regulatory processes, 

6 with its goal of ensuring that the NRC’s actions are effective, efficient, realistic, and timely. 

7 While the NRC staff believes that the 60 days provided were sufficient for the comment period, 

8 the NRC also considered additional comments that were submitted after the scoping period 

9 ended to the extent practicable. 

10 Comment: Please conduct a full consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the 

11 Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

12 Commission. (0015-118 [Murphy, Joe])

13 Response: In accordance with NEPA, the NRC has initiated informal consultation with a 

14 variety of Federal and State agencies during the environmental review. Agencies with which 

15 NRC is consulting include the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries 

16 Service (NMFS), and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 

17 Impacts on the aquatic environment will be addressed in Chapters 4 and 5 of the EIS. 

18 D.4 Comments Concerning Site Layout and Design 

19 Comment: I believe that the plant is way too big. I mean, Progress Energy hasn’t built any 

20 nuclear plants in over thirty years, there’s just been nothing built in this country. So if you are 

21 going to start building nuclear plants again let’s start out with something really small. (0014-151

22 [Jones, Art])

23 Response: The NRC staff will review the need for power and alternatives analyses for the 

24 proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 and these analyses will be discussed in Chapters 8 and 9 of the 

25 EIS. The external appearance of the proposed facility will be addressed in Chapter 3 of the 

26 EIS. 

27 Comment: Progress Energy states they will barge building supplies up the Barge Canal. A 

28 barge has never been able to use the canal due to the twelve-foot depth and the available 

29 width. It was one tried it half loaded and it went aground. So I don’t understand how they 

30 figured this if they didn’t know about the barge in April that went aground. (0015-92 [Berger, 

31 Betty])

32 Response: Plant construction, including transportation of materials, will be described in 

33 Chapter 3 of the EIS. 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-17 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 D.5 Comments Concerning Land Use – Site and Vicinity 

2 Comment: We the undersigned, are opposed to the Progress Energy railroad line being placed 

3 on the old abandoned railroad bed at the south end of The Villages of Rainbow Springs. (0040-1

4 [Medlin, Ted])

5 Comment: We feel the railroad spur in its proposed location will have an irreversible negative 

6 impact on our environment, on our property values and on the quality of our lives. (0040-8

7 [Medlin, Ted]) 

8 Response: Progress Energy filed a Notice of Amendment on November 26, 2008, to the State 

9 of Florida Site Certification Application (SCA), to amend the SCA to withdraw all of those 

10 sections of the SCA which addresses the proposed 13-mile corridor in Levy and Marion 

11 Counties, Florida. Additionally, the Progress Energy response to information need CR-5, by 

12 letter dated January 16, 2009 to NRC, states that the rail line has been removed from the plan.

13 Comment: I was the President of the Community Reuse Organization for the Fernald Feed 

14 Plant that was a uranium processing plant in Ohio. And, as you know, we’ve dismantled most of 

15 those plants. And this past summer if you go to this plant you will see a field in an area that is 

16 truly wildlife oriented. It is completely returned to its use. Now, is that something we would like 

17 to always happen with our power plants in the future? And I would say no, we would like to be 

18 able to use these as long as we can and continue to use them so that they are productive and 

19 whatever. But I think it does answer the question: Can we return certain sites to pristine 

20 conditions, and I would argue yes as we saw there. Again, my background is also in brownfield 

21 redevelopment, and I’ve seen the successful redevelopment of sites that are dirty from what we 

22 have done in industry and we’ve been able to accomplish those tasks. (0014-27 [Welker, Randy]) 

23 Response: Should the Levy Plant be built, the NRC will require decommissioning of the facility 

24 when it permanently ceases operation. Land-use impacts of plant construction will be 

25 discussed in Chapter 4 of the EIS, and land-use impacts of plant operation will be discussed in 

26 Chapter 5. 

27 Comment: The site is as well suited to accommodate the proposed use in an area of sparse 

28 population. (0035-2 [Craig, Avis])

29 Response: Land use impacts of construction and operation of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 will 

30 be discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of the EIS. 

31 D.6 Comments Concerning Land Use – Transmission Lines 

32 Comment: I have also had the opportunity to participate on the community working group 

33 which was composed of community and business leaders and local citizens. Our task was to 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-18 August 2010 

1 find a route for the transmission lines through Citrus County. And many other counties have 

2 similar groups meeting, whether it be Levy, or Hernando I believe had them. And we all worked 

3 in conjunction, trying to figure out the best route for these transmission lines. We all voted for 

4 everything to be buried below the ground so we didn’t have to look at them. That didn’t work. 

5 That was a very expensive alternative. But we all concluded that the best routes were probably 

6 the present routes that we have going through the county, and maybe to tie that in with those 

7 lines and with the Suncoast Parkway that’s coming up through the county. And the purpose 

8 was we wanted to see less impact on to our established communities so that the lines did not 

9 disrupt that. (0014-143 [Marmish, John])

10 Comment: This site also works well with our transmission facilities like the ones we have 

11 existing in our plant facility to help bring this generation to our other customers in our thirty-five 

12 counties, as well as serving our customers here in Levy and Citrus. (0015-17 [Barnwell, Martha])

13 Comment: All we ask, I think, is that you keep us informed as far as the environmental audit to 

14 see impacts on our property. Right now it shows the lines will be going about through our living 

15 room. So a good share of our five acres may become transmission lines. I don’t know. But 

16 anyway, all we ask is that you, you know, keep us informed and best of luck to you. (0015-88

17 [Albert, Pamela])

18 Comment: What we are looking at, folks, is the largest land grab via eminent domain for the 

19 new distribution network, which I believe is probably unneeded, in the history of the state. Levy 

20 County has had multiple county officials formally involved in ruling on the zoning and other 

21 issues involving this plant indicted for bribery at the Federal level most recently. (0015-97

22 [Peters, Michael])

23 Response: Environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of any planned 

24 new transmission line rights-of-way will be addressed in Chapters 4 and 5 of the EIS. The 

25 analysis will address any potential impacts associated with upgrades to the existing lines if 

26 required. The NRC does not have any regulatory authority regarding the implementation of 

27 Federal, State, or local guidelines in siting, constructing, or operating transmission lines. The 

28 EIS will address any known or proposed activities that could impact the site or transmission 

29 corridor environmental conditions and proposed mitigation measures, as appropriate. 

30 D.7 Comments Concerning Hydrology – Surface Water 

31 Comment: The vast amounts of water consumed in cooling would make a mockery of State 

32 efforts to conserve water. These plants would consume our personal drinking water at an 

33 unsustainable rate. (0006-6 [Dickinson, Josh] [Dickinson, Sally] [Malwitz-Jipson, Merrillee] [Wapner, 

34 Howard])
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-19 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Comment: I worked for the Texas Water Development Board. Bringing me to another point. 

2 The agency was not called Water Commission. We had that, too. It said development, 

3 meaning there wasn’t enough around. And Florida is heading in the right direction, the same 

4 direction at an alarming rate. (0014-126 [Cannon, Renate])

5 Comment: I am confused by the assertion that the Withlacoochee River does not contribute to 

6 the CFBC by the applicant. Within the SCA is a veritable treasure trove of hydrological 

7 information, including many pages of data gleaned from USGS stations regarding system flows 

8 in the river. There are two engineered discharge points at Lake Rousseau. One is the Inglis 

9 Bypass Spillway, which contributes all flows to the Lower Withlacoochee River. It typically 

10 provides an average of slightly more than 1,000 CFS to that outstanding Florida water. The 

11 second is the Inglis Dam located on the southwest portion of the lake. It provides for water level 

12 management on the lake by allowing SWFWMD to discharge excessive water into the CFBC 

13 through the upper segment of the Lower Withlacoochee River during high rainfall events. Due 

14 to documented leakage there is a contribution of a minimum additional flow of 70 CFS to the 

15 segment of the river which discharges in the CFBC and this is a continuous contribution. Within 

16 the SCA the applicant has clearly identified contributions to the CFBC for a 35 year period, 

17 which during one event exceeded 6,000 CFS (SCA Table 2.3-6 sheets 1 & 2). Monthly mean 

18 contributions to the CFBC over the Inglis Dam are in the range of 400 CFS per the applicant’s 

19 submission. (0014-186 [Hilliard, Dan])

20 Comment: We [Progress Energy] have chosen Levy County as our preferred site for several 

21 reasons. And one of those is a sufficient supply of cooling water, a critical factor in the 

22 operation of a nuclear plant. The preferred site was chosen because it has ample water supply 

23 to support the plant without affecting other water usage and requirements in the area. The 

24 cooling water for the plant will be supplied by salt water intake coming from the Gulf of Mexico. 

25 (0015-16 [Barnwell, Martha])

26 Comment: Just like with the economy the world is beginning to realize that we are now 

27 experiencing the starting point of a global water crisis. People are slowly cutting back on 

28 unnecessary water usage and are starting to make wise choices on when and where to 

29 consume water. Globally people are suffering from the lack of clean and fresh water and there 

30 is no government that can bail us out of this crisis. Everyone is learning that we cannot 

31 continue with business as usual. All over the world people are having to make difficult choices 

32 concerning how much water they can obtain for food, cleanliness, health, and industry needs. 

33 The choices made today will affect the future of not only many generations of humans to come 

34 but the health of all our ecological systems on this planet. This country is in an important period 

35 where change does need to occur. (0015-24 [Casey, Emily])

36 Comment: The vast amounts of water consumed in cooling would make a mockery of State 

37 efforts to conserve water. (0029-8 [Cox, Lesley])
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-20 August 2010 

1 Comment: And frankly, we need the water that would be used by these plants for other 

2 purposes in our state, which already experiences regular droughts, and employs extensive 

3 water use restrictions throughout much of the year. (0032-4 [Wilansky, Laura Sue])

4 Comment: Given the likelihood that we are entering a period of reduced availability of fresh 

5 water - NRC must project not only the environmental impact of such sacrifice of fresh water - but 

6 also the human impact in terms of the whole fresh water system in the area, and the economic 

7 impact. Is it possible that the profit margin on that freshwater could in only a decade or two 

8 actually be greater for a corporation like Progress? (0038-14 [Olson, Mary])

9 Comment: [P]lease enlist a climate crisis expert to help you with the assumptions you use 

10 when you project water availability. (0038-16 [Olson, Mary])

11 Comment: This proposed sacrifice (and approval of an activity that will likely garner public 

12 subsidy) must be weighed against a full disclosure of the methodology of projecting supply of 

13 cooling water over the course of the license period. A disclosure of the ways in which climate 

14 change has or has not been factored and an explanation of either choice. (0038-8 [Olson, Mary])

15 Comment: [Nuclear energy] evaporates millions of gallons of water PER DAY. (0039-5

16 [Arnason, Deb])

17 Response: The construction and operation of a nuclear plant involves the consumption of 

18 water. The staff will independently assess the impact of these consumptive water losses on the 

19 sustainability of both the local and regional water resources. This assessment will consider 

20 both current and future conditions, including changes in water demands to serve the needs of 

21 the future population and changes in water supply resulting from climate variability and climate 

22 change. While NRC does not regulate or manage water resources, it does have the 

23 responsibility under NEPA to assess and disclose the impacts of the proposed action on water 

24 resources. The staff’s assessment of the impacts on the sustainability of water resources will 

25 be presented in Chapters 4 and 5 of the EIS for construction and operation, respectively. 

26 Comment: The Waccasassa River Drainage Basin is a precious resource; the presence of 

27 nuclear power reactors within the basin could seriously jeopardize its well-being. Water 

28 withdrawal and discharge will cause hydrological alterations in surrounding freshwater streams, 

29 lakes, the Cross Florida Barge Canal, groundwater, and the Gulf of Mexico. (0008-9 [Musser, 

30 Marcie])

31 Comment: [W]e love our water here in Crystal River. Kings Bay is made up of over thirty 

32 freshwater springs and it is a manatee sanctuary here in the winter. Anything that has any 

33 danger of interrupting the flow of fresh water into those springs is something that we are 

34 absolutely opposed to. (0014-148 [Jones, Art])
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-21 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Comment: I think the plant, the location of this plant is just in a bad, bad, bad location. As Mr. 

2 Hopkins pointed out, it’s at the top of the -- what was the word he used -- point true metric 

3 concentric circles that brings water down. So it is one of the highest points in this area and the 

4 water flows south into Crystal River. And then you have Rainbow River right next to it over in 

5 Marion County. (0014-149 [Jones, Art])

6 Comment: Mr. Hopkins was talking about tritium going into the environment and tritium into the 

7 water. I mean, it just doesn’t make sense. I think that the Rainbow Springs, and Kings Bay, 

8 and Crystal River, and this whole area around here in the water is absolutely priceless. 

9 (0014-153 [Jones, Art])

10 Comment: In the SCA it is stated by the applicant that the project will be consistent with the 

11 Coastal Zone Management Act as administered by the State’s CZMP. It is stated there are no 

12 known federal permits required that do not have comparable state permit requirements. While 

13 such programs may be properly administered by the State as part of the Act, it is necessary that 

14 diligent Federal oversight be administered. I say this because the Federal Government has a 

15 vested interest in preserves located nearby such at the Big Bend Sea Grasses Preserve. A 

16 component parcel, the Waccasassa Bay State Preserve, is a National Natural Landmark. My 

17 concerns are precipitated by assertions made by the applicant which seem unfounded or in 

18 conflict with elements of Florida Administrative Code which relate to the State’s Coastal Zone 

19 Management Program. It is stated in Volume 5 of the SCA, Appendix 10.2.2: 

20 That the CREC (Crystal River Energy Complex) discharge canal is a Class III surface water 

21 and that discharge from the proposed Levy County project will integrate water discharge 

22 with that of the CREC. 

23 That the expected LNP discharge will be cooler than the existing CREC discharge. 

24 Also in Volume 5, that the Withlacoochee River is not contributing to the CFBC. 

25 In Volume 8 of the SCA are found depictions of thermal plume models which clearly 

26 delineate expansive distribution of heated water from these discharges. 

27 Copies of these extracted assertions are submitted with this presentation. What concerns me, 

28 and I admit freely that I simply may not have found reference within the volumes of the 

29 application, is this: The waters beyond the discharge canal have a higher classification under 

30 Florida Administrative Code and this does not appear to be recognized in the applicant’s 

31 submission. The impact of their discharge cannot reasonably be considered only in context of 

32 the discharge canal. This is certainly a matter for the state to resolve, yet if I understand our 

33 purpose here today, oversight of the process is a Federal responsibility. 

34 62-302.400 (FAC) Classification of Surface Waters, Usage, Reclassification, Classified Waters 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-22 August 2010 

1 Class II Coastal Waters - From the southern side of the Cross Florida Barge Canal southward to 

2 the Hernando County line, with the exception of Crystal River (from the southern shore at the 

3 mouth of Cedar Creek to Shell Point to the westernmost tip of Fort Island), Salt River (portion 

4 generally east and southward along the eastern edge of the islands bordering the Salt River and 

5 Dixie Bay to St. Martins River), and St. Martins River from its mouth to Greenleaf Bay. (0014-

6 184 [Hilliard, Dan])

7 Comment: [I]t is my understanding also there is a very serious concern about the impact upon 

8 the nearby waters in the Gulf of Mexico, just in the act of construction. (0015-103 [Moore, Brian])

9 Comment: My second concern is with regard to the cooling waters for the plant. It is clear from 

10 Progress Energy literature that most water used at any new plant on the Levy County site will 

11 cycle between the Cross Florida Barge Canal and the Gulf at between 100 and 130 million 

12 gallons per day, together with a million gallons a day drawn from the freshwater aquifer. It is 

13 estimated that 60% of barge canal water would go to the Gulf with 40% released to the 

14 atmosphere. Heat, tritium and other pollutants would thus be vented to the air and directly into 

15 Withlacoochee Bay and Gulf coastal waters. (0015-108 [Hopkins, Norman])

16 Comment: What are the impacts to coastal wetlands habitat, estuaries, and seagrass beds 

17 from degraded water quality in the region and from this project (discharges of high temperature 

18 water, etc.)? What are the impacts to the Withlacoochee River, coastal wetlands habitats, 

19 estuaries, and seagrass beds from reduced fresh water flows resulting from changes in 

20 hydrologic patterns and increased groundwater pumping related to this project that lead to less 

21 fresh water reaching the coastal ecosystems? How will reduced fresh water flows resulting in 

22 high salinity impact these systems? What will the combined impact of reduced flow/higher 

23 salinity and increased temperatures via plant discharges do to surrounding natural systems? 

24 (0015-115 [Murphy, Joe])

25 Comment: What will the cumulative impact of this project be on the surrounding state 

26 sovereign submerged lands along the coast, and the public lands in the greater region (Goethe 

27 State Forest, Waccasssa Bay State Preserve, etc.) How will those publicly owned lands be 

28 potentially negatively impacted in terms of reduced recreational use, habitat loss, changes in 

29 hydrologic patterns regionally, lessened economic contributions to the region, and overall 

30 reduced ecological function? How will reduced freshwater flows to the coast (leading to higher 

31 salinity), and potentially degraded water quality of waters reaching the coast impact the Big 

32 Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve and any aquatic resources of state or Federal importance in 

33 the region? How will discharges of high temperature water impact the Big Bend Seagrasses 

34 Aquatic Preserve? (0015-119 [Murphy, Joe])

35 Comment: The locations of the proposed Levy 1 and 2 nuclear power plants would be in the 

36 area of the single most important recharge zone for southern Levy County and thus for the 

37 Waccasassa Bay, the Big Bend sea grass beds, the Withlacoochee River and its watershed, the 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-23 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Goethe state forest, the Gulf Hammock wildlife management area, the Rainbow Springs 

2 watershed area, the aquiculture area and of utmost importance the area would be for that it 

3 provides fresh drinking water to the inhabitants of most of the southern part of Levy County, part 

4 of Marion County, and the northern part of Citrus County. (0015-26 [Casey, Emily])

5 Comment: I am requesting that the EIS examine and clearly explain to the residents of Levy 

6 and Citrus counties and the surrounding region, the difference between the conditions now and 

7 the conditions if the new nuclear units reach full operation as proposed. I am interested in the 

8 conditions specifically due to the two new reactors and associated operations, without regard for 

9 the decommissioning of the coal fired unit at Crystal River. Please express the detailed 

10 quantitation and any assumptions made for the calculations of [t]hermal discharges, zone of 

11 influence clearly displayed on a map image, and limits which will be applied to the facility. 

12 (0030-2 [Roff, Rhonda])

13 Comment: I am requesting that the EIS examine and clearly explain to the residents of Levy 

14 and Citrus counties and the surrounding region, the difference between the conditions now and 

15 the conditions if the new nuclear units reach full operation as proposed. I am interested in the 

16 conditions specifically due to the two new reactors and associated operations, without regard for 

17 the decommissioning of the coal fired unit at Crystal River. Please express the detailed 

18 quantitation and any assumptions made for the calculation of [z]one of influence of surface 

19 water withdrawal, incorporating the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Phase II 

20 Florida Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment for Levy and Citrus counties. (0030-4 [Roff, Rhonda])

21 Comment: There are many reasons why building new nuclear plants at the Levy site is a 

22 terrible idea. One of the big reasons is the impact this would have on water in Florida. 

23 Development and population growth in Florida have made water a very big issue here, and it’s 

24 vital for us to protect the ever-dwindling sources of fresh water we still have. Two new nuclear 

25 plants on this site that has never had any power plant, let alone nuclear plants that will use 

26 massive amounts of water, is a very bad idea indeed. The water in this area is connected to a 

27 large freshwater resource for Florida, and the plant construction alone would damage these 

28 resources. (0032-2 [Wilansky, Laura Sue])

29 Response: Chapter 2 of the EIS will describe the current hydrological condition at the 

30 proposed site. Chapters 4 and 5 of the EIS will describe the methods and results of the 

31 evaluation of impacts on water resources from the construction and operation of the proposed 

32 action. Included will be consideration of impacts on fresh waterbodies, groundwater, and the 

33 Gulf of Mexico. The NRC staff’s review will be performed over a range of climate conditions 

34 including drought. The staff will consider the opportunity to mitigate possible impacts by 

35 considering alternative plant cooling systems. The NRC staff will address cumulative surface 

36 water and groundwater impacts in Chapter 7 of the EIS. The release of radionuclides to the 

37 environment resulting from normal operations, along with associated impacts, will be described 

38 in Chapter 5 of the EIS. The NRC staff’s Safety Evaluation Report will address the 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-24 August 2010 

1 consequences of an accidental release of radionuclides. Because the State of Florida is the 

2 primary regulatory authority over water use and water quality, the staff will work closely with 

3 state agencies. Representatives of several state agencies attended the site audit and 

4 discussed their specific concerns with the staff. Because construction and operation of the 

5 proposed action also have an impact on water quality and aquatic ecology, the staff will closely 

6 coordinate these reviews. 

7 Comment: I would just like to propose be considered for the Environmental Impact Statement 

8 ... that there be a robust stormwater system, stormwater management system; that it be a 

9 closed system, meaning that any rainfall that falls on the site doesn’t run off on the surface but 

10 is dealt with with DRA’s and with bio-remediation and other methods. (0014-116 [Marraffino, 

11 Paul])

12 Comment: Specifically a “closed” robust stormwater system for the property should be 

13 designed to keep all rainwater on site for the highest level of remediation defined by the water 

14 district. No stormwater, including a 100-year storm event, should leave the site without 

15 treatment or remediation. (0014-182 [Marraffino, Paul])

16 Response: The construction and operation of a nuclear plant involves management of 

17 stormwater on the site. The staff assessment of stormwater management plans prepared by 

18 the applicant will be presented in Chapters 4 and 5 of the EIS for construction and operation, 

19 respectively. 

20 Comment: They [Progress Energy] are also going to use the Barge Canal as their intake 

21 water. Again, it is an aspect that is there; why not make use of it. And they are also going to 

22 use the Barge Canal as the, not the conduit, but the pathway to get to the discharge points 

23 which are existing discharge points on the existing power plant. (0014-41 [Frink, Ken])

24 Comment: Well, they are going to pull water from the Barge Canal several miles from the Gulf. 

25 There are dilution channels that branch off and possibly could bring salt water into public water 

26 supply and many private wells. The Barge Canal is presently not as salty as the Gulf because 

27 they send water over the Inglis main dam to try and lower the amount of salt. (0015-91 [Berger, 

28 Betty])

29 Comment: They plan to draw water from the Gulf up the Barge Canal beginning their piping 

30 about 7 miles inland. The Barge Canal has periodic flushes of fresh water to keep it diluted so 

31 as not to put salt water into the Floridan aquifer, where the entire area draws their drinking 

32 water. This plan actually pulls the Gulf water inland as completely salty and not diluted. If they 

33 draw from the Gulf they MUST start their enclosed piping at the Gulf and NOT inland. (0020-2

34 [Berger, Sarah])
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-25 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Response: Chapter 5 of the EIS will describe the methods and results of the evaluation of 

2 water quality impacts from the operation of the proposed plant. Included will be consideration of 

3 impacts on the Cross Florida Barge Canal and on groundwater along the canal and in the 

4 vicinity of the Levy site. Because the State of Florida is the primary regulatory authority over 

5 water quality, NRC staff will work closely with state agencies. Additionally, Chapter 9 of the EIS 

6 will evaluate alternative cooling systems. 

7 Comment: In addition to the assessment of chemical loadings, I am requesting an analysis of 

8 the impact of the predicted rising sea temperatures on the effectiveness of the cooling system. 

9 (0030-8 [Roff, Rhonda])

10 Response: As part of the NRC’s environmental review, the staff will independently assess the 

11 impact of operation of the plant cooling system including consideration of current and future 

12 conditions resulting from climate variability and climate change. The staff’s assessment of the 

13 impacts will be presented in Chapter 5 of the EIS. 

14 D.8 Comments Concerning Hydrology – Groundwater 

15 Comment: There’s quite a few items that we, as a community, need to be aware of. We are 

16 situated on a hydraulic part of the sand hill. Everyone has heard of the karst and how fragile it 

17 is. We are at a downhill position from I believe it is north of Levy. (0014-165 [Waldron, Theresa])

18 Comment: My first concern is concerning the siting of the facility which is proposed in Levy 

19 County. The proposal is to put it on top of the highest level of ground water pressure for miles 

20 around, which means that everything that gets generated there is going to go out into the river 

21 systems which are fed with fresh water from that very location. (0014-53 [Hopkins, Norman])

22 Comment: The environmental review that we are here for today is extremely important to me 

23 because I’m a farmer. I have a farm and I’m familiar with aquifers and how they work, and the 

24 water flow, and I can even hear it in places on my property. And once you poison those 

25 aquifers we’re all done and Florida is going to lose its glitter. And the aquifers run all the way 

26 across the state and a lot of people draw water from them. (0014-92 [Roberts, Preston])

27 Comment: My first concern is regarding the siting of the proposed plant. From a 

28 potentiometric map, of which this is a copy, the site appears to be at the highest potentiometric 

29 level for miles around. Such that ground water flows out to such environmentally sensitive 

30 features as the Rainbow, Withlacoochee, Crystal River/Kings Bay and Wekiva River systems 

31 and state parks. That locality is considered to be the source of fresh water to the Crystal River 

32 system, and is due to be verified next year. (0015-105 [Hopkins, Norman])

33 Comment: It is a very karst area and that means that the thin limestone covering of the 

34 Floridian aquifer has lots of holes in it, and there is also sinkholes, in fact, in that surrounding 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-26 August 2010 

1 area. And this is Exhibit 2. The red shows all the sinkhole areas or at least within 787 feet of a 

2 sinkhole area. And this is right in here. And water can flow and will flow in many different 

3 directions. It just depends on the amount of water in the system at any given time. (0015-28

4 [Casey, Emily])

5 Comment: I am requesting that the EIS examine and clearly explain to the residents of Levy 

6 and Citrus counties and the surrounding region, the difference between the conditions now and 

7 the conditions if the new nuclear units reach full operation as proposed. I am interested in the 

8 conditions specifically due to the two new reactors and associated operations, without regard for 

9 the decommissioning of the coal fired unit at Crystal River. Please express the detailed 

10 quantitation and any assumptions made for the calculations for [a]mount of Discharge to 

11 Groundwater itemized by chemical species, limits which will be applied, and zone of influence. 

12 (0030-3 [Roff, Rhonda])

13 Comment: The further risk of permanent groundwater contamination posed by operating 

14 nuclear plants here is very high. We have seen this kind of contamination again and again 

15 around other nuclear plants all over the country, including right here at Turkey Point in Florida. 

16 It is simply not worth the risk to our irreplaceable Florida water resources! (0032-3 [Wilansky, 

17 Laura Sue])

18 Comment: Please assess the sacrifice zone that NRC will be creating by this license action. 

19 ...for instance - licensee contaminates ground water - since NRC has not been able to prevent 

20 this at dozens of currently licensed sites, it should be assumed to have a reasonable likelihood 

21 of happening at Levy. (0038-10 [Olson, Mary])

22 Comment: Since the site is on top of karsts - spring recharge areas - the sacrifice must assess 

23 the loss of this natural water resource regardless of any spill, contamination or accident - simply 

24 by construction. (0038-13 [Olson, Mary])

25 Response: The EIS will evaluate the impact of the proposed plants on groundwater quality and 

26 availability. A description of the current groundwater resources will be provided in Chapter 2 of 

27 the EIS. The impact of construction at the Levy site will be addressed in Chapter 4 of the EIS. 

28 The impact of operating the proposed plants at the Levy site will be addressed in Chapter 5 of 

29 the EIS, including the impacts to the environment resulting from the release of radionuclides 

30 during normal operations. The NRC staff will evaluate the consequences of an accidental 

31 release of radionuclides in its Safety Evaluation Report, and releases from postulated accidents, 

32 such as design-basis accidents, will be evaluated in the EIS. 

33 Comment: I don’t think the public understands. It doesn’t matter the money, the house, the 

34 jewels you own, when we run out of water we are out of life. And there is no guarantee that the 

35 millions of gallons of water that these new plants are planning to use are not going to be 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-27 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 affecting the down flow of the aquifer. And everyone that is on the down flow, which would be 

2 everyone practically, our wells could be contaminated. (0014-167 [Waldron, Theresa])

3 Comment: In addition to the assessment of chemical loadings, I am requesting an analysis of 

4 the competing demand for groundwater under the worst-case scenario buildout analysis for the 

5 year 2060 as produced by 1000 Friends of Florida. (0030-9 [Roff, Rhonda])

6 Response: The NRC staff will describe and evaluate the impacts of any use of groundwater on 

7 local groundwater users during construction and operation of the proposed plants in Chapters 4 

8 and 5 of the EIS. The NRC staff will review the consequences of an accidental release of 

9 radionuclides in the staff’s Safety Evaluation Report, and releases from postulated accidents, 

10 such as design-basis accidents, will be evaluated in the EIS. 

11 Comment: I am concerned about our groundwater. We have a unique system with the Florida 

12 aquifer and it is our drinking water. That is a great concern to me. (0014-156 [Tyler, Janice])

13 Comment: [T]his central part of Florida only receives the water that we receive from rain. We 

14 don’t get it from any other location. We don’t get it from snow fall, or another river, or anything 

15 else. Central Florida is totally dependent for drinking water from rain which goes through our 

16 wetlands that are being destroyed every day. They are being purified and filtered to go into our 

17 private aquifer. This aquifer only feeds Central Florida. North Florida has its own aquifer. 

18 (0014-166 [Waldron, Theresa])

19 Comment: We don’t know when that water is going to get the salt intrusion from the Gulf. 

20 There is -- I want that in writing, too -- a guarantee that you’re not going to be destroying our 

21 wells. Because I live in the country I don’t have city water. I have the best water I have ever 

22 had in my life. I have a private well on the Florida aquifer. (0014-168 [Waldron, Theresa]) 

23 Comment: And if you are going to build the plants, are you also going to voluntarily build us a 

24 de-sal plant? Just go ahead and do it for community service and guarantee there is water 

25 because in ten years I don’t think there will be. (0014-172 [Waldron, Theresa])

26 Comment: The only way our environment is ever going to be able to recover from the water 

27 deficit is to allow the earth’s ecological banking system to work. Where can this banking system 

28 be found and what types of resources are needed to make this accounting system functional? 

29 The recharge areas which allow water from rainfall to percolate into the Floridian aquifer quickly 

30 and the wetlands, which hold, or in parentheses I have (save) water after the rainfall event, must 

31 be protected now. (0015-25 [Casey, Emily])

32 Comment: This small red zone right down in here, the southern part of Levy County, is a part 

33 of the Floridian aquifer’s vulnerability assessment map. It shows an area where the 

34 groundwater’s quality and quantity are extremely vulnerable. (0015-27 [Casey, Emily])
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-28 August 2010 

1 Comment: From Cedar Key through an area north of Bronson and over to Daytona Beach it is 

2 now known that the aquifer only receives water from rainfall. The monitoring well set up north of 

3 this area, north of the proposed area, by the USGS shows that the system is at a critical stage 

4 for water quantity a lot of the year. The less rainfall the less water that goes into the system. 

5 The less water in the system, along with the extremely high increases in consumption, can and 

6 will be catastrophic to this area. We tend to think of countries that have lots of oil under their 

7 feet as being rich. We should understand that an area with fresh, clean water has a treasure 

8 under their feet and it must not be wasted any more. (0015-30 [Casey, Emily])

9 Comment: It has been estimated that to provide water needs for all uses through the year 

10 2030, the world would need to invest at least $1 trillion a year on technologies towards that end. 

11 By not placing more demands on our fragile Floridian aquifer but to restore habitat and allow 

12 nature to work as it was intended to do it provides a cost-free system to obtain the most 

13 precious commodity that we all need, clean and fresh water. (0015-33 [Casey, Emily])

14 Comment: Their [Progress Energy’s] draw of fresh water from the Floridan aquifer is 

15 unaccounted for presently, but it could be astronomical. Across Highway #19 from them is the 

16 Tarmac King Road proposed mine, drawing 22 million gals of water/day from the Floridan to 

17 wash their lime rock. There are 194 private shallow wells in the area, plus four public water 

18 supplies and more wells. The Southwest Florida Water Management District has put out printed 

19 material stating that this area of the Floridan aquifer is fed only by rainfall due to the high ridges 

20 surrounding it. AND IT’S NOT RAINING! Water is more important to people than lime rock and 

21 certainly more than nuclear plants, which are not environmentally friendly. (0020-3 [Berger, 

22 Sarah])

23 Comment: These plants would consume our personal drinking water at an unsustainable rate. 

24 (0029-9 [Cox, Lesley])

25 Comment: I am requesting that the EIS examine and clearly explain to the residents of Levy 

26 and Citrus counties and the surrounding region, the difference between the conditions now and 

27 the conditions if the new nuclear units reach full operation as proposed. I am interested in the 

28 conditions specifically due to the two new reactors and associated operations, without regard for 

29 the decommissioning of the coal fired unit at Crystal River. Please express the detailed 

30 quantitation and any assumptions made for the calculation of [z]one of influence of groundwater 

31 withdrawl, incorporating the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Phase II Florida 

32 Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment for Levy and Citrus counties. (0030-5 [Roff, Rhonda]) 

33 Comment: There is a shortage of water. Across the highway from Progress Energy is plans 

34 for Tarmac Mine pumping 22 billion gallons of water a day to wash their lime rock. For 100 

35 years this area of the Floridian aquifer is fed only by rainfall and it is not raining. According to 

36 SWFWMD they have applied to SWFWMD -- this is Tarmac -- they have applied to SWFWMD 

37 that they are only using 500,000 gallons. SWFWMD is just counting what they are consuming. 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-29 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 They are not counting what they are pumping out, making it turbid, pumping it back in the 

2 aquifer. Not pristine water that they pumped out. ...Anyway, it will be turbid, conceal the 

3 crevices of the karst limestone. We won’t have what they took out. Blasting is with ammonium 

4 nitrate and oil. Nitrate is infiltrating the area’s springs already. Do they need more? (0015-93

5 [Berger, Betty])

6 Response: The NRC staff will describe and evaluate the impacts of any use of groundwater on 

7 local groundwater users during construction and operation of the proposed plants in Chapters 4 

8 and 5 of the EIS. Changes in the availability of the water resource by competing demands and 

9 long-term variability will be addressed in Chapter 7 of the EIS, cumulative impacts on water use 

10 and quality. 

11 D.9 Comments Concerning Ecology – Terrestrial 

12 Comment: Surrounding the vulnerable recharge area -- since I equate it to economics I call 

13 that the area where money can be spent quickly -- it is the most important asset Florida has, the 

14 wetlands. And that’s the savings account. (0015-29 [Casey, Emily])

15 Response: The impacts on wetlands and groundwater recharge resulting from construction 

16 and operation of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 will be discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of the EIS. 

17 The discussion will include an analysis of the possible effects of groundwater changes on 

18 wetlands in the region. 

19 Comment: What are the potential impacts of habitat loss and disruption, heavy industrial 

20 activity on this site, and related projects in the greater region resulting from the proposed 

21 Progress Energy Nuclear Power Plant to year round and migratory bird species (neotropical 

22 migrants and songbirds, swallowtail kites, etc.) who currently use the greater Nature Coast and 

23 Levy County region (the term Nature Coast henceforth shall be used in this document to refer to 

24 the coastal and inland ecosystems that stretch from just north of Tampa Bay to the Wakulla 

25 County region)? Please conduct a detailed study and full analysis of all State and Federally 

26 listed and protected species, both year round and migratory species. (0015-113 [Murphy, Joe])

27 Response: The impacts on resident and migratory birds, including but not limited to Federally 

28 and State-listed species, resulting from construction and operation of the proposed LNP will be 

29 discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of the EIS. Cumulative impacts on birds will be addressed in 

30 Chapter 7 of the EIS. 

31 Comment: In terms of regional listed species (State and Federal) and their habitats and wildlife 

32 corridors we request that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission request a full site review and 

33 regional review and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the 

34 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). We also request that the 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-30 August 2010 

1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission fully and independently review past relevant biological and 

2 species site/regional data from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI), any current or past 

3 wildlife surveys conducted by FFWCC for the region, any current or past documents or species 

4 surveys conducted by the property’s previous owners. Lastly it is imperative the publicly funded 

5 site/regional surveys be conducted with State or Federal biologists as part of the environmental 

6 review. (0015-122 [Murphy, Joe])

7 Response: In order to determine Federally and State-listed species to be evaluated in the EIS, 

8 the NRC has started informal consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National 

9 Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

10 (FFWCC). These agencies provided NRC with information on listed species that they believe 

11 should be addressed in the EIS. All relevant studies and species surveys for Federally and 

12 State-listed species from the project vicinity will be reviewed and incorporated into Chapter 2 of 

13 the EIS. The results of the NRC’s assessment will be reported in a Biological Assessment that 

14 will be forwarded to the appropriate services. Additionally, the NRC staff will describe impacts 

15 to protected species in Chapters 4 and 5 of the EIS. The NRC will consult with the FWS and 

16 the NMFS regarding potential impacts identified in the biological assessment. 

17 Comment: I’m here to speak just for myself and my wife, Sandra, and narrow it to the Lake 

18 Rousseau and your neighbor to the new proposed site for the nuclear power plant. When the 

19 dam was put on Lake Rousseau in 1906, it raised the water level and created a lot of islands, 

20 marshes and other things that are a wonderful breeding site for many birds in the community. 

21 Thousands and thousands of breeding pairs are located there. The Office of Greenways and 

22 Trails has been a good steward of this property along with other state agencies. And the 

23 question is now that we have a major development being proposed could this large site have an 

24 impact on this location. And we, of course, want to minimize that impact because we like birds 

25 there. My wife and I do, at least. (0014-115 [Marraffino, Paul])

26 Comment: For over a hundred years Lake Rousseau with its vast area of marshes, islands and 

27 hummocks, has provided breeding opportunities for a wide variety of birds. With the current 

28 stewardship of the Office of Greenways and Trails and other state agencies, nesting 

29 populations have grown and flourished. Many of the breeding populations are listed species 

30 that require special attention for protection from the environmental impact of large-scale 

31 development. The Levy County Nuclear Power Plant that is under development is near Lake 

32 Rousseau and, without measured discipline, could have a negative impact on the water quality 

33 and breeding potential of this extraordinary area. (0014-179 [Marraffino, Paul])

34 Response: Impacts on water levels and water quality in Lake Rousseau resulting from 

35 construction and operation of the proposed LNP, including any associated impact on breeding 

36 bird populations and their habitats, will be addressed in Chapters 4, 5, and 7 of the EIS. 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-31 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Comment: [O]n the outside border of their property are you all going to require a fence to 

2 border their property all the way around to cut off the movement of the wild game to the State 

3 Forest and surrounding people. (0014-35 [Smith, Robert])

4 Response: Discussion of impacts on wildlife, including wild game, resulting from any proposed 

5 fencing around the LNP site will be discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of the EIS. 

6 D.10 Comments Concerning Ecology – Aquatic 

7 Comment: Discharges of hot water will harm Gulf estuarine ecosystems and fisheries. (0006-7

8 [Dickinson, Josh] [Dickinson, Sally] [Malwitz-Jipson, Merrillee] [Wapner, Howard])

9 Comment: The water discharged from the nuclear plant would be hotter than what is 

10 withdrawn. Temperature changes negatively affect the fish, plant, and animal life that depend 

11 on healthy water systems. (0008-10 [Musser, Marcie])

12 Comment: We have done enough damage to our environment and the animals. The hotter 

13 water released by this plant would increase not lessen our disastrous impact there. (0009-3

14 [Davis, Suellyn])

15 Comment: My concern in this regard is the impact upon the marine food web nurtured in our 

16 offshore sea grass meadows, and the impact upon dependent professional and recreational 

17 fisheries. Power plants are notoriously damaging to sea grasses when venting to such waters. 

18 (0015-109 [Hopkins, Norman])

19 Comment: Discharges of hot water will harm Gulf estuarine ecosystems and fisheries. 

20 (0029-10 [Cox, Lesley])

21 Response: The NRC staff will assess impacts on aquatic biota and ecosystems in the Gulf of 

22 Mexico from thermal discharges from proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 in Chapter 5 of the EIS. 

23 Comment: The water intake system will likely increase salinity in the upper reaches of the 

24 Cross Florida Barge Canal, as well as threaten fish and fish larvae, among other aquatic 

25 organisms. (0008-11 [Musser, Marcie])

26 Response: The NRC staff will assess impacts on aquatic biota in the Cross Florida Barge 

27 Canal from water intake operations for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 in Chapter 5 of the EIS. 

28 Comment: My second concern is with regard to the cooling waters of the plant. Huge 

29 quantities of water are going to be cycled from the Cross Florida Barge Canal and put back to 

30 the -- into the Gulf. My concern in this regard is the possible impact upon the marine food web 

31 which is nurtured in our offshore sea grass meadows, and the impact upon the dependent 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-32 August 2010 

1 professional and recreational fisheries. Power plants are notoriously damaging to sea grasses 

2 when venting to such waters. (0014-55 [Hopkins, Norman])

3 Comment: What are the impacts to State and Federally listed marine species, game fish, and 

4 commercial fisheries that depend on healthy and functional coastal estuaries and seagrass 

5 beds in this region? Specifically please review and provide analysis of the potential negative 

6 impacts to scallops, mullet, sea trout, redfish, oysters, clams, jacks, grouper, sheepshead, 

7 shrimp, blue crab, manatee, sea turtles, sturgeon and other important estuary oriented species 

8 in the region. (0015-116 [Murphy, Joe])

9 Response: The NRC staff will assess the effects of the withdrawal and discharge of cooling 

10 water for the proposed nuclear power plants on aquatic biota, including protected species and 

11 species that are recreationally, commercially, or otherwise important, inhabiting the Cross 

12 Florida Barge Canal and the Gulf of Mexico in Chapter 5 of the EIS. 

13 D.11 Comments Concerning Socioeconomics 

14 Comment: This project is essential for the economy and prosperity of citizens of the State of 

15 Florida. (0005-5 [Haghighat, Alireza])

16 Comment: Finally, the Levy Nuclear plant will be a major source of economic income for both 

17 the civil government and the citizens of Levy county through taxes and excellent employment 

18 opportunities. (0011-8 [Tulenko, James])

19 Comment: I have conversed with many, many people in our county about the proposed power 

20 plant. Everyone I have spoken to, without exception, is in favor of the plant. We absolutely 

21 want the jobs and the tax base it will bring to our area. (0013-3 [Bullock, Wade])

22 Comment: Levy County is excited about these opportunities for our kids. I am interested in the 

23 -- mostly interested in our human environment because that’s what I deal with all the time in our 

24 schools. (0014-1 [Edison, Jeff])

25 Comment: As an economic development organization, we feel this would be the most 

26 significant infrastructure investment in decades. It is no secret that our region and our state is 

27 growing and making sure that it is smart growth is a pivotal step. (0014-102 [Mucci, Matt])

28 Comment: The plan for two new reactors would mean a significant amount of jobs which would 

29 head our economy back in the right direction. (0014-104 [Mucci, Matt])

30 Comment: But there are other benefits of a nuclear power plant to our local economy. It 

31 supports high paying jobs directly at the plant. The Levy plant will provide thousands of 

32 construction jobs and many permanent jobs to the region. Furthermore it is estimated that for 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-33 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 every job created at a nuclear plant, three more are created in the surrounding community. 

2 Three more. Those are Levy jobs. Those are not exportable. They will not go overseas. 

3 Better schools, roads, and other civic improvements are also products of nuclear energy and 

4 nuclear energy will save Floridians $1 billion a year once up and running. (0014-112 [Walther, 

5 Robert])

6 Comment: [T]he economic benefits for Levy County will provide a great tax base, job growth, 

7 local services, and there are many other benefits that Levy County will also experience. Quite 

8 frankly we will have about 800 jobs at our two combined units which will generate about 1,000 to 

9 2,000 indirect jobs as well as 3,000 jobs during construction. (0014-13 [Barnwell, Martha])

10 Comment: I believe the economic impact to the area is very important. (0014-139 [Cheek, Ken])

11 Comment: But the investment in the plant is only part of our investment. The other part is in 

12 our community because we strive to be an excellent neighbor in Levy County, and we strive to 

13 continue the strong partnership that we have. (0014-14 [Barnwell, Martha])

14 Comment: I think that in summation that the things that they are going to bring to you is greater 

15 employment to Levy County, but we hope that all the employees live in Citrus County. ...[I]t will 

16 enhance the quality of life for both counties. (0014-145 [Marmish, John])

17 Comment: [W]hat is going to happen for property devaluation when you run your transmission 

18 lines through people’s, near people’s homes because of health purposes? Is there any 

19 monetary compensation? (0014-160 [Tyler, Janice])

20 Comment: [T]here are estuaries that will be destroyed in the bend area of Florida once you 

21 open that up to sprawl. (0014-169 [Waldron, Theresa])

22 Comment: Bringing construction and everything to Levy County, bringing money, jobs. After 

23 the construction is done, how many local people will you be employing with a high school 

24 diploma and maybe a year of technical school? Will that be adequate for any of your jobs or will 

25 you be bringing in highly-trained college educated people from other plants in other areas? Our 

26 area does not have a lot four, six, eight year diplomas hanging around for you to just suck up 

27 and employ. So that, I believe, is a fallacy. (0014-171 [Waldron, Theresa])

28 Comment: The building of these reactors will be an integral part of strengthening and growing 

29 our region’s economy. It is my belief that the economic impact will be positive; providing 

30 thousands of well-paying jobs, many of which can be filled by current and future students. 

31 (0014-176 [Vianello, Mark])
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-34 August 2010 

1 Comment: [T]he Levy Nuclear Plant will be a major source of economic income for both the 

2 civil government and the citizens of Levy County through taxes and excellent employment 

3 opportunities. (0014-25 [Tulenko, James])

4 Comment: I’m the Executive Director for the Economic Development Council for Citrus County. 

5 And obviously, we don’t want the plant to go to Levy; we want it to go to Citrus County. (0014-26

6 [Welker, Randy])

7 Comment: [Progress Energy employees] are our Little League coaches, they are our school 

8 advisory council members, and we greatly look forward to working with Progress Energy in the 

9 opportunities that we have in the field of nuclear and technical education. (0014-3 [Edison, Jeff])

10 Comment: I’m concerned about our economy. Our economy is in need of this type of use that 

11 is economical and beneficial to our community as well as the United States. From what I 

12 understand, this power plant currently that we live in this area with and who has been a very 

13 good citizen for our community, is the third largest producer of power in the country. (0014-30

14 [Welker, Randy])

15 Comment: [W]hat kind of information do you all have on the devaluing of the adjoining 

16 properties to a nuclear power plant. (0014-36 [Smith, Robert])

17 Comment: I would like to touch on three aspects of what we see good things about this 

18 project. First and foremost is the positive impact we see in the community. You know, I moved 

19 here back in the mid-seventies and we’ve been visiting Citrus County since the early seventies. 

20 And I’ve watched how all five of those plants, particularly the nuclear power plant up there, has 

21 transformed this community. Citrus County has always been a retirement, a slow-moving 

22 community with a severe lack of meaningful jobs. It’s mostly been support jobs. And this one 

23 particular project is going to bring, just during the construction of it, I’m hearing over 3,000 

24 skilled laborers, plus all the ancillary, you people that are going to be supporting those people. 

25 And then also they have like over 800 full-time jobs that support these plants on a fulltime basis 

26 for probably the next eighty or a hundred years. And this doesn’t even account for the ripple 

27 effect, the secondary jobs needed to support those folks. (0014-37 [Frink, Ken])

28 Comment: But this plant offers a lot of economic and job opportunities for the kids and the 

29 families of Levy County, both directly working here at the facilities here now and in the future, 

30 and the spin- off businesses that are going to result from the nuclear power plants. (0014-4

31 [Edison, Jeff])

32 Comment: As proven in the past with Crystal River 3, it [the Levy plant] will ultimately be 

33 embraced by the community and have a lasting positive impact on both the environment and 

34 our local economy. (0014-44 [Frink, Ken])
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-35 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Comment: [E]conomic development is about creating sustainable wealth and improving quality 

2 of life in our communities. This is done by increasing prosperity, creating high quality jobs, 

3 creating new personal income, advancing private enterprise, productive use of local businesses 

4 and resources, and broadening the tax base. We believe -- myself, along with the Council 

5 believes that this project is going to create an opportunity for that to take place in this entire 

6 county. (0014-61 [Douglas, Amanda])

7 Comment: [A] couple thousand jobs that have been described as being generated by the 

8 construction and operation of this plant, both direct and indirect, will be far and away eclipsed 

9 by the numbers of quality jobs for the kinds of people, the people with the skill sets that would 

10 accommodate these jobs, that are missing in action today with declining construction in a 

11 declining economy. (0014-64 [Russell, John])

12 Comment: As we work to diversify the state’s economy and create jobs, which is our mission, 

13 we have strategically focused our business retention and recruitment efforts on industries that 

14 offer great high growth potential and pay higher than average state wages. Clean energy is one 

15 of the sectors that we focus on. (0014-80 [Latimer, Al])

16 Comment: As Enterprise Florida works to attract new businesses to the state and helps 

17 existing businesses to expand, we recognize the many benefits of nuclear power companies. It 

18 is generally accepted that businesses function best in an environment where things are 

19 predictable and certain. Nuclear generated power can provide low stable cost electricity which 

20 helps businesses avoid uncertainty. (0014-82 [Latimer, Al])

21 Comment: The jobs that will be generated by the construction of this nuclear plant will be high 

22 wage jobs. Those jobs will help raise the state average wage and improve the quality of life for 

23 not only this community but for the entire state. (0014-84 [Latimer, Al])

24 Comment: I would also like to say that I think it will be important for the economic 

25 development. What’s being proposed here in Levy County will be a tremendous benefit to our 

26 students, to students in North Central Florida and to adults in North Central Florida as well. I 

27 think they are a tremendous positive economic impact. (0014-88 [Vianello, Mark])

28 Comment: The economic benefits of this plant are terrific. The large local investment will allow 

29 the county and residents to make investments through increased tax base, new jobs, enhanced 

30 local services and a variety of other benefits that local businesses will receive through our plant 

31 that we anticipate building here. Levy County can expect to see about 800 permanent jobs with 

32 the two units. In addition to that, 1,000 to 2,000 ancillary jobs will be created and we anticipate 

33 during construction 3,000 jobs will be needed, or 3,000 people will be needed on site at its peak 

34 for construction. But our investment doesn’t just stop with the plant. Our investment, as you 

35 have heard already, also involves the community and being a good partner and a good steward. 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-36 August 2010 

1 We strive to be a good steward and a good neighbor in the communities we serve. (0015-18

2 [Barnwell, Martha])

3 Comment: But there are other benefits of nuclear energy to the local economy. It supports 

4 high paying jobs directly at the plant. In fact, the Levy plant will provide thousands of 

5 construction jobs and many permanent jobs to the region. Furthermore it is estimated that for 

6 every permanent job that is created at the plant, three more jobs will be created in the 

7 surrounding community. That’s three more Levy jobs. They can’t be exported. Better schools, 

8 roads, and other civic improvements are also products of nuclear energy and nuclear energy will 

9 save Floridians $1 billion a year once up and running. $1 billion a year once up and running. 

10 (0015-49 [Walther, Robert])

11 Comment: Homestead Florida also happens to be, according to U.S. News and World Report, 

12 the fastest growing city in the United States of America with 50,000 residents or less. That’s 

13 indicative, at least to me and to that community that having Turkey Point in that area has not 

14 been a detriment to population growth. It certainly hasn’t been a detriment to the economy. 

15 Despite the housing slowdown, it is still very populated. We have restaurants going up 

16 everywhere. There is a Chili’s that was just built down the street from my home. And nuclear 

17 power has not been a detriment. (0015-52 [Hernandez, Michael])

18 Comment: This is an expensive and dangerous proposition. Scientists in their studies can be 

19 biased towards whoever is funding them. If they dangle jobs in front of you, what kind of jobs? 

20 What is your health worth to you to look the other way? (0015-63 [Sullivan, Jennifer])

21 Comment: Local spending on plant construction and power generation operations are 

22 considered to be new economic activities that represent additional final demand, and thus will 

23 generate secondary or spin-off effects for the local and state economies. (0015-66 [Hodges, 

24 Alan])

25 Comment: For example, purchases of concrete for construction, which they use a lot of in a 

26 nuclear plant, gives rise to new demand for aggregate materials which, in turn, stimulates 

27 purchases of inputs from mining operations. Another type of spinoff effect is the personal 

28 consumption expenditures made by industry employees for food, clothing, housing, 

29 transportation and so forth and are model accounts for the different spending patterns that 

30 occur by households of different income levels. (0015-67 [Hodges, Alan])

31 Comment: Typically, the total impacts of a new development project on a regional economy 

32 may be one and-a-half to two-and-a-half times the value of the original spending. Somebody 

33 else mentioned three times. That would be a bit unusual. But it all depends on what the 

34 structure of your local area is on how these spinoff effects play out. (0015-68 [Hodges, Alan])
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-37 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Comment: At this point it has not yet been determined how much of that investment will occur 

2 in the local area or what this will contribute toward the assessed value of property in Levy 

3 County. Estimating construction expenditures in this case is made difficult because of the 

4 rapidly changing prices for commodities, and also the fact that there have not been any new 

5 nuclear plants built in the U.S. in over thirty years. (0015-70 [Hodges, Alan])

6 Comment: Based on data currently available, there would be about 2,900 workers on site at 

7 the peak of construction, including Progress Energy personnel and contract employees. And 

8 based on staffing patterns for other similar large projects, we can estimate that about sixty 

9 percent of those contract employees would reside in the local area. (0015-71 [Hodges, Alan])

10 Comment: Once in operation, the plant is expected to have 800 to 900 permanent employees, 

11 all of whom would presumably reside in the local area and therefore would be spending their 

12 income locally. These are, of course, it’s been mentioned, very well-paying jobs. Roughly half 

13 of those positions are expected to receive annual salaries in excess of $70,000 and an overall 

14 average of about $65,000, which is more than double the current average annual earnings in 

15 this three-county area of about $31,000. (0015-72 [Hodges, Alan])

16 Comment: I am also the President-Elect of the Citrus County Chamber of Commerce, 

17 1200 members. And we are so excited about what this will boost the economy, jobs, schools, 

18 education, and the opportunity for our educated people to stay here in this area and have a 

19 good job. (0015-86 [Hollins, Dixie])

20 Comment: We believe that the development of the nuclear power project in Levy County will 

21 bring jobs and economic benefit, not just to Levy County, but also the surrounding communities. 

22 We welcome Progress Energy’s initiative in bringing a balanced approach to the future energy 

23 demands of Florida in our region. (0015-9 [Pernu, Dorothy])

24 Comment: Property owners will lose part of the investment they have made in their homes as 

25 property values drop and homes become more difficult to sell. (0040-6 [Medlin, Ted])

26 Response: These comments generally refer to potential positive or negative socioeconomic 

27 impacts. Socioeconomic impacts of construction and operation will be addressed in Chapters 4 

28 and 5 of the EIS. 

29 Comment: Our nation is in a recession and the prediction is that it will be a deep and long one. 

30 Floridians need ways to reduce their electric bills through energy efficiency and conservation 

31 and cannot afford the rate increases that will occur if Progress builds a risky new nuclear plant. 

32 (0008-8 [Musser, Marcie])

33 Comment: I am a retired senior citizen living on a fixed income. And after what the Energy 

34 Commission did and the income today, I can’t afford groceries. And it is getting bad and it is 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-38 August 2010 

1 getting worse. I’ve been a professional all my life but at my age nobody wants to hire me. 

2 (0014-46 [Foreman, Patricia])

3 Comment: There was an article published in the Chronicle on October the 27th by Chris Van 

4 Ormer, a wonderful article. Charges Jolt Customers. The utility has virtually no risk if the plant 

5 does not come to fruition. It does not have to return our moneys that they want to start 

6 collecting in January. To me that is very, very unfair. (0014-48 [Foreman, Patricia])

7 Comment: I am not afraid of a nuclear plant but since no one can tell me where the electrical is 

8 going from Crystal River, I have, on the QT -- question: I’m told it goes to Chicago and the big 

9 cities. Now, if that’s true, or maybe if it isn’t true, wherever it goes on the grid, charge them. Let 

10 them pay for another nuclear plant because I’m tired of it. Everybody is coming along and 

11 raiding my kitchen cabinets. It’s like I went before the Board for the water, so they’ve raised it 

12 $10. And then they send me a letter telling me the water is poisoned and it has been for a year. 

13 So I take it to my doctor and I say, Hey, what am I supposed to do?” He says, Honey, I don’t 

14 know. I don’t know how it will affect you because it will affect everybody different.” (0014-49

15 [Foreman, Patricia])

16 Comment: First of all ... the levy of the charges on the customers to help pay for the facility. 

17 What, in effect, they are being asked to do is to contribute to the capital base of Progress 

18 Energy for nothing. And two letters have already been written to the Governor concerning this. 

19 But essentially there is one easy answer. And that is that Mr. Lyash, or Lash, or, I’m sorry, I 

20 don’t know how to pronounce his name, should do one thing. And that is not to make the levy. 

21 That is the simplest way of eliminating it. I’ve had suggestions that we get together and put 

22 together a class action suit and get a petition and so on and so forth, but really that is going to 

23 take an enormous amount of time and expense. But the simple way is not to charge the levy. 

24 (0014-52 [Hopkins, Norman])

25 Comment: [T]he basic issue is it’s as if the future will stand still over the interval from breaking 

26 ground to putting this plant on line and, indeed, charging present customers for the privilege of 

27 doing so. This is not right. (0014-63 [Russell, John])

28 Comment: The hole gets deeper and here what do we have? The article in the paper here, 

29 Costly Fuel, Bigger Buildings. I’m going to the Commission meetings in Hillsborough and 

30 Pinellas County, the School Board meetings, and I’m reminding all the senior citizens: You’re 

31 paying and there’s going to be a big jump in the utility bills. You are paying for these power 

32 plants and you are doing it for the investors. And a lot of the senior citizens, they’re not going to 

33 see a lot of that electricity. They will be dead and buried. This is a crime. (0015-42 [Klutho, 

34 Mark])

35 Comment: But although it is more expensive to move this energy so far and it is more wasteful 

36 to move it, the customer is going to pay for that anyway. (0015-55 [Sullivan, Jennifer])
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-39 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Comment: If the Levy County nuclear reactor is private enterprise, why is Progress Energy 

2 passing on the cost of the planned nuclear reactor to its customers in the way of a rate hike in 

3 their power bills? Why, if the customers are paying for this enterprise, do they not own it? Is 

4 Progress Energy prepared to pay millions of dollars to repair a nuclear plant should it fail after a 

5 hurricane, or would the cost of that repair also be passed on to the Progress Energy consumers 

6 and customers? (0015-77 [Stewart, Anita])

7 Comment: In this time of the super big bailouts, citizens are becoming very weary of footing 

8 the bills for the major corporation and their own government. And we can make a perfect 

9 example of what happened after Hurricane Andrew when Florida Power and Light’s Turkey 

10 Point Nuclear Plant, who failed during the storm, one smoke stack was imploded not shortly 

11 after the storm itself, and the company paid out $90 million to make the repairs to get the plant 

12 back on line. Many people don’t know that happened but my source was an article by Tom 

13 Dubuque out of the Miami Herald. And my research is still ongoing regarding who actually paid 

14 the $90 million. (0015-78 [Sullivan, Jennifer])

15 Comment: I would like to voice my strong opposition to Progress Energy’s increase to cover, in 

16 advance, the cost of new nuclear power plants. I do not feel it is just for them to charge their 

17 existing customers in advance for new equipment. In the past bond issues have been used to 

18 fund this type of project and I believe it should continue that way. (0018-1 [Garvin, Bill])

19 Comment: What is VERY important and seems to be legal is the addition of 25% surcharge on 

20 all electric bills beginning in January and extending into infinity. There are presently people 

21 without heat in this area, as they had to choose between that and buying food. Their children 

22 are barefoot and jobs are gone. The number will be increased unless the Dept. of Energy does 

23 something to block this surcharge imposed years before nuclear plant building is completed. 

24 (0020-4 [Berger, Sarah])

25 Comment: Senior Citizens cannot afford this increase per month on electric bills. Plus, we will 

26 not be given the nuclear energy (electric) in our homes. (0036-2 [Foreman, Patricia])

27 Comment: [I]t will not be tolerated by the citizens of Florida to be taxed to pay billions for 

28 nuclear power plants or charged as customers for something that a private company would 

29 never find profitable without public money. (0039-8 [Arnason, Deb])

30 Response: The NRC regulates the nuclear industry to protect public health and safety within 

31 existing policy. Issues related to the rate adjustments are outside of the NRC’s mission and 

32 authority and will not be addressed in the EIS. This authority and responsibility is most often 

33 the role of state regulatory authorities such as public service commissions. However, the 

34 socioeconomic impacts of construction and operation will be addressed in Chapters 4 and 5 of 

35 the EIS. 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-40 August 2010 

1 Comment: [T]his project up in Citrus and Levy Counties, is what it is going do is it going to 

2 make use of the defunct Cross Florida Barge Canal. That’s a project, in my opinion, they 

3 stopped back in the seventies, probably never should have been built, but here is an 

4 organization that is going to come in and make lemonade out of lemons. This project, what it is 

5 going to do is it is going to utilize the transportation aspects of the Cross Florida Barge Canal to 

6 bring in their heavy equipment and what not. And I don’t know if you could find that somewhere 

7 else, but it is going to take down, or take away the wear and tear on the local transportation. 

8 (0014-40 [Frink, Ken])

9 Comment: In reference to Progress Energy Florida, Inc’s LWA and COL to build Units 1 and 2 

10 of its LNP site, the following are considerations that must be addressed: Whereas the Town of 

11 Inglis, FL lies less than five miles directly south of the proposed site, and whereas the Town of 

12 Inglis is populated by approximately 1,700 residents, and whereas the Inglis Police 

13 Department’s budget is less than $400,000/yr with slightly less than 24/7 coverage, and 

14 whereas the Inglis Fire and Rescue Dept is solely staffed by volunteers with old equipment, and 

15 whereas the demands on these two departments of the Town of Inglis will be dramatically 

16 overburdened if such a permit is granted. (0021-1 [Michaels, Edward])

17 Comment: Currently, less than 28% of the households in the Town of Inglis pay ad valorum 

18 taxes. We are a very poor town, with extremely high unemployment, and a high percentage of 

19 retirees. The burden of a sudden influx of workers and ancillary businesses to the area will 

20 overstress the aforementioned departments to a point of breaking. We simply will not be able to 

21 protect and serve our current residents, nor the influx of people that these plants will bring to our 

22 town, at the level of service that our residents have come to expect. The Town of Inglis is 

23 currently a one stop-light town. Our way of life will dramatically change, and we should not be 

24 expected to pay for the myriad changes that one company will immediately and forever bring to 

25 us for their benefit. Our town is not even a part of their customer base. (0021-3 [Michaels, 

26 Edward])

27 Comment: The only possible scenario that would provide us with the capabilities to protect and 

28 serve our residents at the current level, once this sudden change befalls us, would be if PEF 

29 supplies us with a substantial amount of cash, before construction commences, to supplement 

30 our departments, and further, a yearly enforceable commitment to maintain the levels needed, 

31 once they have been achieved. (0021-4 [Michaels, Edward])

32 Comment: Furthermore, our road and maintenance departments will also be stressed beyond 

33 their current capacity. It is imperative that these issues be resolved before PEF can be given a 

34 permit. (0021-5 [Michaels, Edward])

35 Comment: Having trains cross Highway 41 may block emergency vehicles from homes and 

36 medical facilities, making it less safe for all residents in Dunnellon, Rainbow Springs and all 

37 adjoining areas. (0040-2 [Medlin, Ted])
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-41 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Comment: The already-heavy traffic on Highway 41 will become worse with a second 

2 Dunnellon railroad crossing and the resulting train delays. (0040-3 [Medlin, Ted])

3 Response: Socioeconomic impacts such as impacts on transportation and local infrastructure 

4 associated with the construction and operation of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 will be 

5 addressed in Chapters 4 and 5 of the EIS. 

6 Comment: Please analyze the negative impacts this project could have on the clam industry 

7 and attempts to develop an expanded local, sustainable aquaculture industry in the Nature 

8 Coast. (0015-117 [Murphy, Joe])

9 Comment: What are the negative economic impacts to the region, the Nature Coast, and the 

10 Gulf Coast of Florida that will result from coastal ecosystems harmed by polluted runoff (high 

11 high temperature) and reduced freshwater flow/higher salinity to the coast? What will the 

12 economic and social impacts be to the recreational and commercial fishing industry along the 

13 Gulf Coast of Florida due to reduced function in coastal estuaries? Please consider these 

14 questions in the context of the economic impacts coastal related activities in Florida (see 2006 

15 FFWCC estimates below): 

16 Saltwater Fishing - $6.0 billion, 59,000 jobs 

17 Freshwater Fishing - $2.2 billion, 19,000 jobs 

18 Total Fishing - $8.1 billion, number one in the nation 

19 Commercial Fishing - $576 million, 9,000 jobs 

20 Boating Industry - $18.4 billion, 220,000 jobs (0015-120 [Murphy, Joe])

21 Comment: What will the negative economic impacts to Levy County, Citrus County, and the 

22 Nature Coast be from reduced ecotourism, reduced local fishing activity, and loss of seasonal 

23 visitors who engage in wildlife viewing and outdoor recreational activities? These questions 

24 directly relate to the growing ecotourism and wildlife viewing industry in Florida, and along the 

25 Nature Coast. In a recently released report the FFWCC reported that: In 2006, 3.3 million 

26 Floridians viewed wildlife at or near their homes, and 1.6 million Floridians and tourists traveled 

27 around Florida for the sole purpose of wildlife viewing. These viewers generated more than 

28 $3 billion in total economic impact throughout Florida. Retail sales account for approximately 

29 $1.8 billion of this total. While other areas of the economy may be experiencing a downswing 

30 the FWC’s report finds retail sales for wildlife-viewing activities have almost doubled from 

31 $1.575 billion in 2001. Overall, 4.2 million people participated in some form of wildlife viewing in 

32 Florida in 2006. (0015-121 [Murphy, Joe])

33 Response: The NRC staff will consider the potential effect of construction and operation of 

34 proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 on local fishing, wildlife viewing and outdoor recreational activities, 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-42 August 2010 

1 as well as potential socioeconomic impacts of changes in the volume of these industries. These 

2 topics will be addressed in Chapters 4 and 5 of the EIS. 

3 D.12 Comments Concerning Historic and Cultural 

4 Resources 

5 Comment: We [the Miccosukee Tribe] have no direct knowledge of any cultural resources 

6 located in the area of the two new proposed nuclear power units. However, we recommend that 

7 a Phase I Cultural Resources Survey be conducted of the area to ascertain if there are any 

8 cultural resources which may be impacted by this project. (0037-1 [Terry, Steve])

9 Response: Evaluation of historical, archaeological, and other cultural resources is part of the 

10 NRC staff’s assessment. The results of the Phase I Cultural Resources Surveys for the project 

11 site will be summarized in Chapter 2 of the EIS. Impacts and mitigation measures on historic 

12 and cultural resources will be addressed in Chapters 4 and 5 of the EIS. 

13 D.13 Comments Concerning Health – Nonradiological 

14 Comment: I would just like to propose be considered for the Environmental Impact Statement 

15 ... that there be minimum use of pesticides and herbicides on the site and that within 150 feet of 

16 any water source, such as a stream, lake, or large ponds, that there be a pesticide and 

17 herbicide free zone within 150 feet of that area. (0014-117 [Marraffino, Paul])

18 Comment: I would just like to propose be considered for the Environmental Impact Statement 

19 ... to control hazardous materials in a very robust way, including diesel fuel and other petroleum 

20 products that are on the site. (0014-118 [Marraffino, Paul])

21 Comment: In addition the use of pesticides and herbicides should be minimized to the lowest 

22 level practical. There should be a pesticide and herbicide free zone within 150 feet of any lake, 

23 river, stream or pond. Finally control of hazardous material including diesel fuel should used 

24 and stored in a manor the prevents them from entering the groundwater system. (0014-183

25 [Marraffino, Paul])

26 Response: Protection of human and ecological health will be assured by compliance with all 

27 applicable State and Federal regulations governing the use of pesticides and herbicides and 

28 with the storage and control of diesel fuel and other hazardous materials. Issues associated 

29 with herbicide and pesticide use and diesel fuel and hazardous materials storage during the 

30 construction and operations phases will be addressed in Chapters 4 and 5 of the EIS, 

31 respectively. 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-43 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Comment: You can listen online to the archives of today’s Democracy Now. This show 

2 presented today shows studies of the poisons that workers, civilians and soldiers were exposed 

3 to, supposedly regulated, and the repercussions are these. One example was the Vietnam 

4 Agent Orange. And then there is what is known as the Kuwait Cough from the Gulf War II, or 

5 Gulf War I, rather. And now there is a chromium poison by KBR, Kellogg, Brown and Root. 

6 They used to be an affiliate of Halliburton. Anyway, that’s in the Gulf War, too. But these things 

7 have been happening. (0015-64 [Sullivan, Jennifer])

8 Response: Workers at the site will be protected by compliance with all applicable Federal and 

9 State occupational and safety standards related to exposures to toxic substances. 

10 Occupational safety and health issues arising in the construction phase will be addressed in 

11 Chapter 4, and issues arising during the operations phase will be addressed in Chapter 5 of the 

12 EIS. 

13 Comment: Some Woodlands property owners will have trains operating along the edges of 

14 their yards, in close proximity to their homes, and would threaten their tranquility. (0040-5

15 [Medlin, Ted])

16 Response: Progress Energy filed a Notice of Amendment on November 26, 2008, to the State 

17 of Florida Site Certification Application (SCA), to amend the SCA to withdraw all of those 

18 sections of the SCA which addresses the proposed 13-mile corridor in Levy and Marion 

19 Counties, Florida. Additionally, the Progress Energy response to information need CR-5, by 

20 letter dated January 16, 2009 to NRC, states that the rail line has been removed from the plan.

21 D.14 Comments Concerning Health – Radiological 

22 Comment: I would just be interested as a matter of point that somebody give some data from 

23 this conference on what the radiation testing is around the current nuke plant here in Crystal 

24 River. Do some drilling and take some bore samples out of the wells around here and let’s just 

25 see how they have changed since they’ve been there for thirty years. I will guarantee you that 

26 there is going to be some things here that you are probably not going to want to divulge. 

27 (0014-93 [Roberts, Preston])

28 Response: This comment relates to the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 

29 (REMP) and the airborne and liquid radioactive effluents from the existing Crystal River Energy 

30 Complex and proposed LNP. Chapter 2 of the EIS will discuss the radiological environment 

31 around the LNP, Chapter 5 will address the release of effluents during operation and the 

32 impacts from these releases, and Chapter 7 will address cumulative impacts, including those 

33 from the existing Crystal River Energy Complex. 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-44 August 2010 

1 Comment: There should be test wells around the site. There should be an early development 

2 that be measured at a base level and then on a regular basis measure a large selection of items 

3 that would be of concern for health reasons and so on. (0014-119 [Marraffino, Paul])

4 Response: This comment relates to the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 

5 (REMP) and the airborne and liquid radioactive effluents from proposed LNP Units 1 and 2. 

6 Chapter 2 of the EIS will discuss the radiological environment around LNP and Chapter 5 will 

7 address the monitoring of effluent releases during operation and the impacts from these 

8 releases. 

9 Comment: With the existing Progress Energy Nuclear Power Plant in Crystal River and at 

10 other locations, health physics is a paramount consideration for system management. At the 

11 new Levy County plant, monitoring and protection of ground water should be performed at the 

12 same level of discipline as the radioactive element in the core facility. This should be required 

13 for the potable water requirements of the populace of surrounding communities. Added to the 

14 human requirement is the need to protect the water quality and natural habitat of Lake 

15 Rousseau. (0014-181 [Marraffino, Paul])

16 Response: Chapter 2 of the EIS will discuss the radiological environment and monitoring 

17 conducted around the Levy Nuclear Plant. Chapter 5 of the EIS will address the release of 

18 effluents during operation, the impacts from these releases, and radiological monitoring during 

19 operations. 

20 Comment: The Bureau of Radiation Control is responsible for performing a radiological 

21 environmental monitoring program around all the nuclear plants in the state of Florida. (0015-4

22 [Williamson, John])

23 Response: This comment addresses activities conducted by the Florida State Department of 

24 Health, Bureau of Radiation Control. Radiological monitoring for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 

25 will be addressed in Chapter 5 of the EIS. 

26 Comment: We’ve been monitoring Crystal River since, I believe, 1969, approximately seven 

27 years before they ever first started the plant up. If anyone is interested in getting reports of this 

28 environmental monitoring, I encourage you to talk to me after the meeting. I can provide you a 

29 business card. You can contact me and I would be happy to provide any of the reports that you 

30 like. (0015-5 [Williamson, John])

31 Response: This comment is related to the environmental monitoring program for the nuclear 

32 plant at the Crystal River Energy Complex and is not directly related to this environmental 

33 review. Radiological monitoring for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 will be addressed in Chapter 5 

34 of the EIS. 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-45 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Comment: I would just like to quote, first of all, from some Progress Energy document: Tritium, 

2 which is a hydrogen radioactive isotope, is a byproduct of generating electricity at nuclear power 

3 plants. All nuclear power plants release tritium into both the water and air. The U.S. 

4 Environmental Protection Agency regulates the acceptable level of tritium concentrations in 

5 ground water and drinking water, no matter where it comes from.” Now, it is quite clear from the 

6 documentation that tritium will not go in through, into a human’s body from outside it normally. 

7 But if it is ingested in any way, that’s a different question. But also I’m not sure -- and, in fact, I 

8 don’t know, whether the EPA regulations safeguard microorganisms on which the ecology 

9 depends. Now, don’t get me wrong. Tritium is the stuff which enables our waters to be seen in 

10 the dark. But don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that the algae, the fish, the other 

11 organisms are going to glow in the dark and that will reduce the need for more generating 

12 capacity. I’m not saying that. But also I’m not saying that the algae, the plankton, or the fish will 

13 either glow, nor will they grow arms and legs, but they could die, they could get bigger and they 

14 could poison whatever eats them. (0014-54 [Hopkins, Norman])

15 Comment: In Progress Energy’s own words: “‘Tritium (a hydrogen radioactive isotope) is a 

16 byproduct of generating electricity at nuclear power plants. All nuclear plants release tritium into 

17 both the water and air. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the 

18 acceptable level of tritium concentrations in ground water and drinking water”. To site that plant 

19 precisely where the potentiometric groundwater level is highest for miles around does not seem 

20 sensible to me. Tritium, with a half life of more than 12 years, cannot be contained. While 

21 emissions are unlikely to be externally harmful to humans, if ingested or otherwise absorbed 

22 internally tritium is an issue. (0015-106 [Hopkins, Norman])

23 Response: These comments concern emissions of tritium and health effects that may result 

24 from such emissions. Emission estimates will be based on the revision of the AP-1000 Design 

25 Control Document referenced in the COL application; these emission estimates are anticipated 

26 to be conservative (that is, to overestimate emissions). The NRC staff will evaluate human 

27 health and environmental impacts of the emissions in the EIS, and the results of this analysis 

28 will be presented in Chapter 5. 

29 Comment: Evidence exists that there is NO such thing as a safe dose of radiation, from 

30 release in the predictable periodic accidents or from the continual low grade emissions of 

31 radiation from existing and nuclear future plants. Any radiation released is more than a zero 

32 impact. (0006-5 [Dickinson, Josh] [Dickinson, Sally] [Malwitz-Jipson, Merrillee] [Wapner, Howard]) 

33 (0029-7 [Cox, Lesley]) 

34 Comment: In addition to the comparison of wastes and emissions people living on the Nature 

35 Coast of Florida deserve to know in specific terms (measurable units) the amount of 

36 radioactivity that will be released from the site as: 

37 radioactive air emissions - including routine and batch releases 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-46 August 2010 

1 - including both projections of total source term and also concentration 

2 other pollutants with or without radioactive mixing 

3 releases of liquid radioactive wastes - and other chemicals released together or separately, 

4 with total amounts and projected concentration 

5 release of heat to both air and water - and amount of water that will leave the site as vapor 

6 (0038-20 [Olson, Mary])

7 Comment: Assuming that Part 20 is being fully implemented and enforced - and no, I am not 

8 attacking the rule - though we would like to - and assuming ALARA is being added on top, why 

9 have two studies in the last couple of years found a direct (statistically significant) correlation 

10 between distance of residence from a nuclear power plant and incidence of leukemia? Please 

11 include and account for these studies in your finding of impact. (0038-23 [Olson, Mary])

12 Response: These comments relate to radiation doses from release of radioactive material from 

13 the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2. The impacts on human health from radiological emissions will 

14 be addressed in Chapter 5 of the EIS. 

15 Comment: Furthermore, I do not know whether the EPA levels protects micro-organisms on 

16 which the health of existing ecologic systems depend, and upon which the economic health of 

17 local communities exist. (0015-107 [Hopkins, Norman])

18 Response: This comment relates to radiation doses from release of radioactive material from 

19 the Levy Nuclear Plant. The impacts to biota other than humans from radiological emissions will 

20 be presented in Chapter 5 of the EIS. 

21 Comment: I am requesting that the EIS examine and clearly explain to the residents of Levy 

22 and Citrus counties and the surrounding region, the difference between the conditions now and 

23 the conditions if the new nuclear units reach full operation as proposed. I am interested in the 

24 conditions specifically due to the two new reactors and associated operations, without regard for 

25 the decommissioning of the coal fired unit at Crystal River. Please express the detailed 

26 quantitation and any assumptions made for the calculations. 

27 Airborne radionuclides and other pollutants by chemical species and concentration 

28 Waterborne radionuclides and other pollutants by chemical species and concentration 

29 Pollutant levels in soil and graphic depiction of zones of influence. 

30 Pollutant uptake by vegetation and graphic depiction of zones of influence. (0030-1 [Roff, 

31 Rhonda])
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-47 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Response: Radiological impacts from normal operation of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 will be 

2 discussed in Chapter 5 of the EIS, and cumulative impacts will be discussed in Chapter 7 of the 

3 EIS. 

4 Comment: I am requesting that the EIS examine and clearly explain to the residents of Levy 

5 and Citrus counties and the surrounding region, the difference between the conditions now and 

6 the conditions if the new nuclear units reach full operation as proposed. I am interested in the 

7 conditions specifically due to the two new reactors and associated operations, without regard for 

8 the decommissioning of the coal fired unit at Crystal River. Please express the detailed 

9 quantitation and any assumptions made for the calculation of: 

10 The increased potential for uptake of Strontium 90 in humans. 

11 Any potential changes in mammalian milk quality, including dairy cattle and humans. 

12 Projected increased cancer risk, including but not limited to childhood leukemia as depicted 

13 in the epidemiological study recently published by Joseph Mangano and attached hereto. 

14 (0030-6 [Roff, Rhonda])

15 Response: Chapter 2 of the EIS will discuss the radiological environment around proposed 

16 LNP Units 1 and 2 and Chapter 5 of the EIS will address the release of effluents during 

17 operation and the impacts from these releases. 

18 Comment: And another thing I would like to know is does this United States, what you said, 

19 Nuclear Regular Atomic Commission, require specific environmental standards and which have 

20 to be complied with? (0014-128 [Cannon, Renate])

21 Response: The NRC, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, has established the nuclear power 

22 plant regulatory program for radiation protection of individuals and the public. The primary 

23 radiological standards are contained in 10 CFR Part 20, 40 CFR Part 190, and 10 CFR Part 50, 

24 Appendix I. 

25 D.15 Comments Concerning Accidents 

26 Comment: A 1982 Congressional report estimated that if a meltdown occurred at just one of 

27 Progress Energy’s reactors at their nearby Crystal River nuclear plant, it could cause 900 peak 

28 early fatalities, 3800 peak early injuries, 2800 peak cancer deaths, and over $53 billion in 

29 property damage. The operation of more reactors in this area will only worsen these terrible 

30 impacts and put more people’s lives and health at risk. (0008-12 [Musser, Marcie])

31 Comment: If there is an accident or meltdown the # of fatalities and injuries are absolutely 

32 inacceptable for those who live in this state. (0009-4 [Davis, Suellyn])
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-48 August 2010 

1 Comment: Don’t forget, in a facility that stores an average quantity of spent fuel, around 

2 450 metric tons, a meltdown would kill 25,000 people over a distance of 500 miles if evacuation 

3 were perfect. (0019-8 [Heywood, Harriet])

4 Comment: Accidents happen. It is technically impossible to build a facility that is 100% 

5 secure. (0029-3 [Cox, Lesley])

6 Comment: Another very important point is the fact that nuclear plants themselves cannot be 

7 made 100% safe. Whether through equipment malfunction, operator error, or terrorist attack, 

8 nuclear plants pose an unacceptable risk, not just to those of us living in Florida, but to all life on 

9 earth. One little incident could literally mean the actual end of all life on earth! If you don’t think 

10 it can happen, think about that little O ring on the Challenger. We humans are not infallible, and 

11 neither is anything we produce. This means that nuclear plants cannot, simply cannot be 

12 guaranteed to be safe. And when it comes to accidents or attacks involving nuclear materials, 

13 anything less than 100% safety is just not good enough. (0032-12 [Wilansky, Laura Sue])

14 Comment: Please assess the sacrifice zone that NRC will be creating by this license action. 

15 ...in the event of some type of local accident, fourth would be disclosure of estimates, as were 

16 made in the CRAC II report - of a fuel pool accident and a reactor accident. In this day and age, 

17 it should also include projections of impact were BOTH containments were to be lost. (0038-12

18 [Olson, Mary])

19 Response: In Chapter 5 of the EIS, the NRC staff will address risks associated with both 

20 design basis and postulated severe accidents. The staff will also address the cumulative risks 

21 from operation of the proposed new reactor. Design basis accidents will be evaluated by 

22 comparison with regulatory criteria, and the probability-weighted consequences of severe 

23 accidents will be compared with risks to which individuals and populations are generally 

24 exposed. 

25 D.16 Comments Concerning the Uranium Fuel Cycle 

26 Comment: High-level radioactive waste created (used nuclear fuel) has no place to be stored 

27 or disposed, nor is it likely that a “solution” will be found in our lifetimes. Building a nuclear plant 

28 in Levy County will unfairly burden future generations with a legacy of radioactive waste. (0008-

29 5 [Musser, Marcie])

30 Comment: The proposed location in Levy County is currently a “green field” site; it is clean and 

31 free of contamination or industrial facilities. The long-lived, highly radioactive nuclear waste that 

32 will be produced by the proposed new reactors will remain onsite for generations, indefinitely 

33 threatening the health of nearby communities and the environment. (0008-14 [Musser, Marcie])
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-49 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Comment: Please assess the sacrifice zone that NRC will be creating by this license action. 

2 ...the burial of wastes on the site and need for long-term license or institutional controls. (0038-

3 11 [Olson, Mary])

4 Comment: Nonetheless, the fact that the Levy County site is the only true “green field” 

5 application brings this matter into ever clearer focus. Therefore we offer here a series of issues 

6 that we believe MUST be considered in the FEDERAL environmental evaluation of this federal 

7 action - to license a site that has never previously been licensed for a new nuclear-waste8 generating and radionuclide-leaking site. This proposed sacrifice (and approval of an activity 

9 that will likely garner direct public subsidy) must be weighed against current reevaluation of the 

10 Waste Confidence Decision by the Commission - to affirm dry cask storage as THE source of 

11 federal confidence in continuing to produce high-level radioactive waste in the form of irradiated 

12 nuclear fuel. (0038-3 [Olson, Mary])

13 Comment: If nuclear power generation is so clean, why do we need to build storage facilities 

14 like Yucca Mountain? (0043-2 [Eppes, Thomas])

15 Response: The safety and environmental effects of long-term storage of spent fuel onsite have 

16 been evaluated by the NRC and, as set forth in the Waste Confidence Rule at 10 CFR 51.23, 

17 the NRC generically determined that “if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be 

18 stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years beyond the 

19 licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that 

20 reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel 

21 storage installations.” The impact of the uranium fuel cycle, including disposal of low-level 

22 radioactive waste and spent fuel, will be addressed in Chapter 6 of the EIS. 

23 Comment: [W]hat about the disposal of massive amounts of nuclear waste. According to the 

24 NY Times (11.29.08), we can’t properly handle the amount of waste flowing into the 

25 Chesapeake Bay from a chicken farm with 150,000 chickens in Maryland. So who believes we 

26 can adequately and safely deal with the piles of nuclear waste which will accrue from permitting 

27 these plants? (0006-9 [Dickinson, Josh] [Dickinson, Sally] [Malwitz-Jipson, Merrillee] [Wapner, 

28 Howard])

29 Comment: Yucca Mountain was supposed to take nuclear waste twenty-seven years ago. 

30 (0014-125 [Cannon, Renate])

31 Comment: Yucca Mountain never occurred. (0014-162 [Waldron, Theresa])

32 Comment: This nation does not need and cannot afford to continue stockpiling nuclear waste. 

33 I think that is the biggest environmental issue of this hearing. Nuclear waste remains deadly for 

34 longer than any society has ever existed. What makes us think that we’re going to be around to 

35 take care of it. (0014-71 [Eppes, Thomas])
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-50 August 2010 

1 Comment: Until the problem of waste storage is successfully resolved -- and by successful I 

2 mean, politically, economically, scientifically, and safely -- no new nuclear power plant should 

3 be permitted by the NRC. (0014-72 [Eppes, Thomas])

4 Comment: [W]e [the Socialist Party] stand against the expansion of this type of power in the 

5 country because [of] the inability of the country to dispose of waste products. (0015-102 [Moore, 

6 Brian])

7 Comment: I have here this article about the EPA ruling that says the waste must now be 

8 sequestered for a million years. Tell me who and how you are going to get a million year 

9 guarantee. And also it was just recently in the news that Yucca Mountain, which, by the way, is 

10 not going to be able to accept the waste, can’t hold everything that the power plants now have 

11 ready to go, much less what any new power plant might make. Talk about a safety issue, an 

12 environmental issue. (0015-37 [Klutho, Mark])

13 Comment: First, do no harm. We already have nuclear waste with a half life of thousands of 

14 years that will already fill the Yucca Mountain area. As the gentleman said, let’s not make more. 

15 (0015-61 [Sullivan, Jennifer])

16 Comment: The safety concerns are enormous. Currently, most nuclear power plants are 

17 reaching the ends of their lives, and will have to be decommissioned and there is still no plan to 

18 safely compensate for the nuclear waste which is stored onsite at every one of these accidents 

19 waiting to happen. These spent fuel rods will be hot for 10,000 years. (0019-5 [Heywood, 

20 Harriet])

21 Comment: President-elect Obama has expressed reservations about whether our country’s 

22 massive new investments in renewable energy should include nuclear power until issues of ... 

23 disposal of waste have been resolved. (0028-3 [Horgan, Wendy])

24 Comment: We still do not have a solution for radioactive waste. (0029-2 [Cox, Lesley])

25 Comment: Nuclear power is not sustainable when you have to secure the waste for 

26 100,000 years. (0029-4 [Cox, Lesley])

27 Comment: There is also no place for nuclear waste storage in Florida. Due to our delicate and 

28 fragile eco-system, our Floridan Aquifer which underlies our entire state and parts of four others, 

29 and the way everything in our Florida environment is interconnected, there is just no site here 

30 stable or isolated enough for any kind of nuclear waste storage - low-level or high-level. Levy 

31 County is certainly not a good place to turn into a nuclear waste dump, and as I understand it, 

32 Progress Energy has no other place to store waste from these plants. ...And we still have no 

33 permanent long-term solution for what to do with high-level nuclear waste, which remains 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-51 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 radioactive for thousands upon thousands of years - so why create more of it?! (0032-6

2 [Wilansky, Laura Sue])

3 Comment: [Uranium] is mined, radioactive, has hazardous waste that remains for thousands of 

4 years. (0039-4 [Arnason, Deb])

5 Response: The safety and environmental effects of long-term storage of spent fuel onsite have 

6 been evaluated by the NRC and, as set forth in the Waste Confidence Rule at 10 CFR 51.23, 

7 the NRC generically determined that “if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be 

8 stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years beyond the 

9 licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that 

10 reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel 

11 storage installations. Further, the Commission believes there is reasonable assurance that at 

12 least one mined geologic repository will be available within the first quarter of the twenty-first 

13 century and sufficient repository capacity will be available within 30 years beyond the licensed 

14 life for operation of any reactor to dispose of the commercial high-level waste and spent fuel 

15 originating in any such reactor and generated up to that time.” The impact of the uranium fuel 

16 cycle, including disposal of low-level radioactive waste and spent fuel, will be addressed in 

17 Chapter 6 of the EIS. 

18 Comment: Nuclear power is NOT a solution to climate change. When the entire fuel chain is 

19 examined, including the initial construction and production processes, nuclear power (sold 

20 superficially as carbon neutral) becomes a big carbon producer. (0006-3 [Dickinson, Josh] 

21 [Dickinson, Sally] [Malwitz-Jipson, Merrillee] [Wapner, Howard])

22 Comment: I think several hundred million dollars is a joke when we talk about the total cost 

23 over time of storing those materials. We today have no effective, you know, plan, reliable 

24 means of dealing with even the small amounts of waste that the professor had discussed. They 

25 may be small but they are potent. And I encourage people to look at a movie called Kilowatt 

26 Ours, Kilowatt O-U-R-S. It specifically delineates where we are at with regard to, you know, 

27 even the mining of uranium, which is a declining resource in exactly the same way as oil. 

28 (0014-67 [Russell, John])

29 Comment: Nuclear is not a carbon-neutral enterprise. Those who say it is are not taking into 

30 account the mining, extraction, purifying, storing, transportation and all other aspects of 

31 providing the fuel for nuclear power plants. (0026-7 [Towles Ezell, Joy])

32 Comment: Nuclear energy is neither carbon-free nor emission-free throughout its entire life 

33 cycle, which includes a variety of wastes produced by mining uranium and making nuclear fuel, 

34 in addition to the aforementioned unsolved problem with spent fuel and other nuclear waste. 

35 (0032-8 [Wilansky, Laura Sue])
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-52 August 2010 

1 Comment: Nonetheless, the fact that the Levy County site is the only true “green field” 

2 application brings this matter into ever clearer focus. Therefore we offer here a series of issues 

3 that we believe MUST be considered in the FEDERAL environmental evaluation of this federal 

4 action – to license a site that has never previously been licensed for a new nuclear-waste5 generating and radionuclide-leaking site. This proposed sacrifice (and approval of an activity 

6 that will likely garner direct public subsidy) must be weighed against: 

7 Current - and possible future lack - of any facility licensed under 10CFR61 for the 

8 permanent disposal of so-called low-level waste. If NRC is planning to license the 

9 expanded production of this waste production of this waste for which there is no permanent 

10 disposition that is currently licensed - what will the impacts (procreative, health, safety, 

11 environment, socio-economic, economic, legal, security) be on Levy County if a so-called 

12 “temporary plan” becomes a defacto permanent “solution”? 

13 The environmental impact statement must include the environmental impact of any possible 

14 “short-term” plan that Progress (or NRC) plan to employ to deal with the operational waste 

15 that would be generated at this site. These “short-term” options may include: 

16 – on-site storage - de facto permanent would mean that the waste never actually leaves 

17 the site, so the County is effectively becoming both a “low-level” and a “high-level” dump 

18 site. Please apply the above climate informed projections to a the so-called “low-level” 

19 waste as well. 

20 – shipping to a radioactive waste processor for decontamination and release - please 

21 include a complete assessment in the environmental impact statement of the impacts of 

22 Levy-generated waste on the public, workers (including transport), processor 

23 community, and eventual “end-users” of any materials released for re-use or recycle, or 

24 impact of disposal in municipal land-fills 

25 – shipping to a processor/waste broker for storage - please analyze all impacts to the 

26 public workers (including transport), host community and the potential of this plan 

27 reverting to on-site storage since it is likely that such storage would be time-limited 

28 – incineration - same as above 

29 combinations of all of these in a “shell game” that still does not resolve the fundamental 

30 problem of making this waste with no where for it to end up. (0038-5 [Olson, Mary])

31 Response: The NRC staff will evaluate impacts from the life-cycle of fuel production, 

32 construction, operation, and decommissioning of the plant. The results of this analysis will be 

33 presented in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of the EIS. The generic impacts of the fuel cycle are codified 

34 in 10 CFR 51.51(b), Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data. In 

35 accordance with the guidance in 10 CFR 51.51, the staff will rely on Table S-3 as the basis for 

36 evaluating the environmental impacts (including fossil emissions) of uranium mining and milling, 

37 the production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-53 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive materials and management of low-level wastes and 

2 high-level wastes related to uranium fuel cycle activities. 

3 Comment: I would like to know why we cannot recycle the waste and re-use it like it is done in 

4 France, if I am not mistaken. (0014-130 [Cannon, Renate])

5 Response: Federal policy no longer prohibits reprocessing. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, 

6 P.L. 109-58, Section 953, directed the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct an 

7 advanced fuel recycling technology research and development program to evaluate 

8 proliferation-resistant fuel recycling and transmutation technologies that minimize environmental 

9 or public health and safety impacts. Additional research and development is needed before 

10 commercial reprocessing and recycling of spent fuel produced under the U.S. commercial 

11 nuclear power program occurs. Reprocessing as part of the fuel cycle and waste management 

12 will be discussed in Chapter 6 of the EIS. 

13 Comment: This proposed sacrifice (and approval of an activity that will likely garner pulic 

14 subsidy) must be weighed against an examination of the supply of uranium that is cost-effective 

15 and energy balance-effective to use for fuel. A disclosure of assumptions made in licensing 2 

16 new reactors that would operate 40 - 60 years while other nations are also expanding their 

17 nuclear generating capacity and the impact on both cost to operate and reliability of this form of 

18 power generation. (0038-9 [Olson, Mary])

19 Response: The irretrievable and irreversible commitment of resources, such as uranium, will 

20 be addressed in the context of the resources availability in Chapter 10 of the EIS. 

21 D.17 Comments Concerning Transportation 

22 Comment: [T]ransportation of radioactive waste through our state to other sites poses 

23 additional environmental dangers. (0032-7 [Wilansky, Laura Sue])

24 Comment: In spite of assurances from Progress Energy, residents are concerned about the 

25 possible future transportation of hazardous materials and nuclear waste through their 

26 neighborhoods. This danger would obviously pose significant pollution and health hazards. 

27 (0040-7 [Medlin, Ted])

28 Response: A detailed analysis of the impacts of transporting fuel and waste by truck to and 

29 from the proposed LNP site will be conducted and included in Chapter 6 of the EIS. 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-54 August 2010 

1 D.18 Comments Concerning Decommissioning 

2 Comment: But what are we going to do with those plants? That’s why I asked that question 

3 before. We have plants that are old right now that need to be decommissioned. (0014-66

4 [Russell, John])

5 Comment: This [nuclear] waste includes the plants themselves, which operate for a few 

6 decades, and then take, at a minimum, hundreds of years to be decommissioned. (0032-9

7 [Wilansky, Laura Sue])

8 Response: 10 CFR Section 50.75 requires the applicant to provide reasonable assurance that 

9 funding will be available for decommissioning activities at the time they are needed. The 

10 environmental impact from decommissioning a permanently shutdown commercial nuclear 

11 power reactor will be discussed in Chapter 6 of the EIS. In addition, the staff may consider 

12 information from Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586, Generic Environmental Impact Statement on 

13 Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, which was published in 2002, when analyzing the 

14 expected impacts from decommissioning. 

15 D.19 Comments Concerning Site Redress 

16 Comment: The EIS should provide information on what actions will be taken by PEF, if, in fact; 

17 the LWA work is accomplished, but all environmental clearances and permits are not obtained 

18 or if PEF decides not to continue with the project. How will the site be restored? What types of 

19 mitigation measures, if any, will be needed for affected wetlands? The EIS should fully 

20 document all actions to be taken by PEF if an LWA is granted, the work accomplished, and the 

21 project does not go forward. (0044-4 [Mueller, Heinz J]) 

22 Response: By letter dated May 1, 2009, Progress Energy provided notification to NRC to 

23 withdraw their request for an LWA. 

24 D.20 Comments Concerning Cumulative Impacts 

25 Comment: There appears to be no recognition of cumulative impacts resulting in the discharge 

26 of three nuclear power plants in a single location, a discharge flowing into a very shallow coastal 

27 estuary region and rich marine resource. It is both a marine nursery and habitat for at least one 

28 listed species. I find no reference to, or evaluation of salinity increases and associated impacts 

29 resulting from the LNP Blowdown contribution to the CREC discharge flow and think this is 

30 pertinent to the CZMA. (0014-185 [Hilliard, Dan])

31 Comment: I’m going to be Progress Energy’s closest neighbor. I live 7,000 feet or less from 

32 where their nuclear reactor is going to be. And I have three questions I’ve been trying to get 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-55 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 answered and I think I got some answers but not all. One of them is, I want to know how many 

2 people live within 7,000 feet or less of adjoining properties to two nuclear reactors in the state of 

3 Florida, and I want to know if there has been any health studies done on them people within 

4 thirty years. (0014-34 [Smith, Robert])

5 Comment: Is there another location in the United States or the world where two nuclear power 

6 plants will be located within eight statute miles of each other? If so, I would like to know it 

7 because with all the research I’ve done -- and a lot of people will tell you I’m a heck of a 

8 researcher -- it doesn’t exist. Just one. Could you please tell us, the folks located between the 

9 two projected closest locations in the world, why they are so needed so proximate to that which 

10 already exists with the grid for distribution that already exists? (0015-98 [Peters, Michael])

11 Comment: The proposed site plan is too close to the current Florida Power & Light nuclear 

12 plant exposing the people and environment in the entire area to too much of a potential for 

13 disaster to occur. Having nuclear power plants within close proximity to each other invites those 

14 who wish to do harm to our country to act upon those deadly desires. The proposed site is also 

15 next to a state forest - a place that the people of the state of Florida wish to preserve. (0026-5

16 [Towles Ezell, Joy])

17 Comment: Progress Energy operates a nuclear power plant in Citrus County, Florida, where I 

18 live and its proposal to locate another nuclear power facility nearby unreasonably exposes the 

19 residents of Levy and Citrus County to the increased risks that are well understood to be 

20 associated with nuclear power plants. (0028-2 [Horgan, Wendy])

21 Response: The comments address the proximity of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 to the existing 

22 Crystal River Unit 3. The cumulative impacts associated with the construction and operation of 

23 the proposed nuclear power facility will be evaluated and the results of this analysis will be 

24 presented in Chapter 7 of the EIS. 

25 Comment: Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), we are compelled to point out 

26 that building a new nuclear power reactor at all, anywhere is a “major federal action” not in and 

27 of itself, but also because it has now been almost 34 years since a new nuclear power reactor 

28 was ordered that actually went on-line. As such, the 15 some combined operating licensing 

29 actions now pending before the NRC constitute together this major federal action. Since NRC is 

30 implementing NEPA at each site, there is an overall effect of truncation since the decision to 

31 license a nuclear power reactor at all is not being considered. (0038-2 [Olson, Mary])

32 Response: The spatial and temporal effects identified for the proposed action will be 

33 reasonably bounded to the appropriate geographical area in Chapter 7 of the EIS. 

34 Comment: The largest single issue facing our world today is CLIMATE CHANGE. Any 

35 decisions we make from now on MUST contain an analysis of that project’s impact on climate 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-56 August 2010 

1 change. It is a matter of life. The whole world should have a say as to whether or not these 

2 proposed power plants are permitted. Think Alaskan villages toppling into the sea, Bangladeshi 

3 coastal-dwellers, the low lying portions of our own fair state of Florida, and the melting 

4 permafrost that is releasing methane at unprecedented rates. Increased carbon emissions 

5 mean accelerated climate change. (0006-2 [Dickinson, Josh] [Dickinson, Sally] [Malwitz-Jipson, 

6 Merrillee] [Wapner, Howard])

7 Comment: Maybe we could use the wetlands and the trees. They are part of a carbon 

8 sequestration banking system. I just think it is an idea since we’re talking about all different 

9 ways to help our environment and the air and global climate change. (0015-32 [Casey, Emily])

10 Comment: It is not acceptable to state that the climate crisis is speculative, nor is it acceptable 

11 to contemplate granting a federal license that will result in billions of dollars of taxpayer and 

12 electric-power consumer money being spent on something that is not going to address that 

13 crisis - but the public funding is being justified under such a banner. This is either delusion or 

14 fraud. (0038-21 [Olson, Mary])

15 Response: The airborne emissions from proposed nuclear plants, although normally 

16 sufficiently small as to not degrade air quality or be important in climate change, will be 

17 considered in the evaluation of potential impacts. The impacts on air quality resulting from 

18 construction and operation of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 will be discussed in Chapters 4 and 

19 5 of the EIS. The impacts of nuclear power generation on climate change will be addressed in 

20 Chapter 7 of the EIS. 

21 Comment: [Progressive Energy] [has] made no decisions about the four coal units that we 

22 have operating in Crystal River. Clearly we have decisions that we will be making in the long 

23 term but it is quite a few years off before we will have all of the decisions finalized. (0015-10

24 [Barnwell, Martha])

25 Comment: What are the cumulative environmental impacts of this project for the greater 

26 Nature Coast region given current and other proposed projects in the region (Tarmac Mine, 

27 Cemex Mine, proposed residential developments in Levy County, Gulf Hammock mines 

28 currently in operation)? Please fully explore the full cumulative regional impacts from this 

29 project and other projects in the region and their connections and relationships in terms of 

30 regional water supply, health and structure of the aquifer, regional water quality, health of 

31 wetlands systems, habitat, and coastal ecosystems and estuaries, etc. (0015-114 [Murphy, Joe])

32 Response: The cumulative impacts associated with the construction and operation of the 

33 proposed nuclear power facility will be evaluated and the results of this analysis will be 

34 presented in Chapter 7 of the EIS. 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-57 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 D.21 Comments Concerning the Need for Power 

2 Comment: We have followed with great interest the steady progression of PEF in pursuit of 

3 their proposed electrical generating facility, which when completed will: 

4 Provide electricity to meet the demands of continued growth in the region, for customers of 

5 Progress Energy and other utilities. 

6 Ensure more flexibility and a backup system for providing critical energy to the area. 

7 Maintain a robust system for supplying and delivering electricity to ensure the continued 

8 economic prosperity of the region. (0010-2 [Johannesen, Francine])

9 Comment: We concur with the PEF philosophy that - electricity is far too important to risk 

10 service interruptions or problems with power quality due to inadequate equipment. We applaud 

11 Progress Energy for its continued efforts to work cooperatively with regulators, community 

12 leaders, and other stakeholders in Florida to ensure the company makes the best long-term 

13 decisions to meet Florida’s future energy needs. (0010-3 [Johannesen, Francine])

14 Comment: Life would be nice without the threats associated with nuclear power. However, no 

15 one I know wants to give up electricity and what it brings to our lives; therefore, power plants are 

16 a necessary evil. With that in mind, I believe, and most people agree, rural areas are the best 

17 place for power plants. (0013-1 [Bullock, Wade])

18 Comment: Along with the proper transit solutions, energy production/consumption is a critical 

19 component and decisions need to be made now so that the state is not faced with an energy 

20 shortage. (0014-103 [Mucci, Matt])

21 Comment: The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that our electricity demand will increase 

22 twenty-five percent by the year 2030. Roughly that means, for every four Americans you can 

23 add one more flipping the switch, adjusting the thermostat or opening the refrigerator. As 

24 technology advances and our population increases, so too will our need for energy grow. In 

25 Florida alone demand is increasing faster than the state’s population. Is it any wonder? It used 

26 to be the only thing you would carry on your person that ran on electricity was your watch, just a 

27 small battery. But today we have cell phones, laptops, Blackberries, iPods, and in the not too 

28 distant future we may have cars that are running on electricity that you have to plug into the wall 

29 every single night. In fact, it is somewhat ironic that today on Capitol Hill, Congress is talking 

30 about to get bailed out the car manufacturers are going to have to make electric vehicles. So 

31 how will we handle the enormous increases in electricity that we will need? (0014-108 [Walther, 

32 Robert])
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-58 August 2010 

1 Comment: The Levy County project clearly is intended to address the documented needs for 

2 additional electrical service that is going to be required within the State of Florida. (0014-131

3 [Maidhof, Gary])

4 Comment: Despite the current economic downturn that we are seeing not only in this state but 

5 across the United States, Florida is, indeed, the fourth largest state in the United States. And 

6 we are ranked third nationally in per capita energy consumption. Over the last three decades 

7 homes in the state have grown by an average of over fifty percent and usage is up in those 

8 homes by over thirty percent. And, quite frankly, over the next decade we anticipate that usage 

9 will increase by over twenty-five percent. (0014-6 [Barnwell, Martha])

10 Comment: Even with our significant commitment to alternatives, renewables, and to energy 

11 efficiency, we will need additional generation to meet the growth of our state. (0014-8 [Barnwell, 

12 Martha])

13 Comment: The need for electricity within this region, both now and in the future, is clearly 

14 documented. (0015-1 [Maidhof, Gary])

15 Comment: [L]et me just begin with by saying that despite the fact that this area of the state of 

16 Florida, as well as across the United States, that we are seeing an economic downturn, energy 

17 usage and growth in the State of Florida has been strong for a number of years. Florida is the 

18 fourth largest state and ranks third in the usage per capita of energy consumption. In addition, 

19 over the last three decades our home sizes have grown by over fifty percent and our usage has 

20 grown by over thirty percent. In the next decade, we project that we will have a twenty-five 

21 percent growth in usage here with our customers in the state of Florida. (0015-11 [Barnwell, 

22 Martha])

23 Comment: At Progress we recognize that there is no one solution to the energy needs that we 

24 have here in the state. It must be a balanced solution. And that solution includes energy 

25 efficiency, investments in alternatives and renewables, as well as the building of state of the art 

26 plants, including state of the art nuclear plants. (0015-12 [Barnwell, Martha])

27 Comment: The U.S. Department of Energy predicts that by the year 2030 our demand for 

28 electricity will have gone up by twenty-five percent. Roughly that means for every four people in 

29 the United States add another who is flipping a switch, opening the refrigerator, or adjusting the 

30 thermostat. As technology advances and our population increases, so too does our demand for 

31 electricity. In Florida alone demand is increasing faster than the state’s population. But is it any 

32 real wonder? It used to be the only thing you used to carry on your person that used electricity 

33 was a watch than ran off a small battery. But now laptops, iPods, Blackberries, cell phones, 

34 and pretty soon we may have cars that are plugging into the outlets. I mentioned earlier that 

35 today we had a hearing on the Hill with the automakers. And our congressmen and women 

36 suggested that electric hybrid plug-ins have to be part of the solution, have to be part of the 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-59 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 future. So how are we handling the enormous increases in electricity that we will need? 

2 Conservation and more efficient electrical appliances will help. (0015-46 [Walther, Robert])

3 Comment: Our region is one of the fastest growing in Florida. Progress Energy is mindful of 

4 that fact and how best to serve Florida’s future energy demand. The Levy County project will do 

5 just that. (0015-8 [Pernu, Dorothy])

6 Comment: Our future energy needs are paramount. (0035-5 [Craig, Avis])

7 Response: The comments support or conclude that more baseload power resources are 

8 needed. The NRC staff will evaluate the need for power in Chapter 8 of the EIS.

9 Comment: I would like to see Progress Energy present some true alternatives. I mean, a lot of 

10 their models are based on Florida just growing, growing, growing. We all know it’s not 

11 happening right now. Things have slowed down and there is no guarantee that things are going 

12 to start taking off and growing in the future again like they used to be. Past performance is no 

13 guarantee of future performance. You know, our country is changing. It is time to downsize. If 

14 they need power let’s build small efficient plants where the power is needed. (0014-154 [Jones, Art])

15 Comment: I guess what I really want to say is I have an answer for us dummies. We need to 

16 form a coalition, hire an advocate attorney, and nip this thing in the bud from the Governor all 

17 the way down. Now, you say: Well, that probably wouldn’t work. Well, it did because I donated 

18 my $10 in Palm Beach County. We took Florida Power and Light to court and we won. And I 

19 got $13.75 back and I got $10 a month lower in the bill. So it is possible. I’ve written this in the 

20 newspapers, both St. Pete Times and the Chronicle. I would be very happy to form this and 

21 spend my time. It will take donations. Now, I only gave $10, but my God, you’ve got to figure 

22 that was 1950. So I don’t know what it would take. But I think it is the idea, a way for us seniors 

23 to fight this. Not so much the plant. You can build a dozen plants but don’t ship my energy up 

24 north. (0014-50 [Foreman, Patricia])

25 Comment: The new plant that could be built in Levy will be able to power 1.4 million homes. 

26 The reality is we will need to require more from all of these sources and all others in the years 

27 ahead. If the housing crisis in Florida has shown us anything, it is that sound economic policy 

28 must recognize the virtue of diversity. So too must a wise energy plan. And in that diverse plan 

29 nuclear energy is a critical component. (0015-48 [Walther, Robert])

30 Comment: This society has convinced itself that electric power is vital to our survival. NRC in 

31 implementing NEPA must remember and evaluate resources based on the truth - living human 

32 beings need in this order: air, water, food and then a whole bunch of things - somewhere down 

33 that list is electric power. (0038-15 [Olson, Mary])

34 Response: The NRC staff will evaluate the need for power in Chapter 8 of the EIS. 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-60 August 2010 

1 D.22 Comments Concerning Alternatives – Energy 

2 Comment: We should be putting our emphasis on conservation and efficiency instead of 

3 simply generating more power. (0006-11 [Dickinson, Josh] [Dickinson, Sally] [Malwitz-Jipson, 

4 Merrillee] [Wapner, Howard])

5 Comment: Not only will its construction and use be detrimental in many ways, most 

6 significantly, its high dollar cost will directly squander the resources essential for America to 

7 implement meaningful climate mitigation through development of alternative/sustainable 

8 energies. Florida already has FREE energy coming to us every day, from the sun. We should 

9 be pouring our resources into developing solar energy state wide. (0006-4 [Dickinson, Josh] 

10 [Dickinson, Sally] [Malwitz-Jipson, Merrillee] [Wapner, Howard])

11 Comment: This 17 million dollars could be better spent on renewable, clean, safe energy 

12 technologies - we do not want any further investment in coal or nuclear! (0007-2 [Whiteley, 

13 Naomi])

14 Comment: [W]e must produce electricity needed in Florida through less risky energy supplies 

15 such as energy efficiency, solar, wind, water and biopower. (0008-13 [Musser, Marcie])

16 Comment: Floridians need and want affordable, clean and safe energy choices such as 

17 energy efficiency, wind, water, solar, and biopower. (0008-2 [Musser, Marcie])

18 Comment: Were the “Sunshine State” to put 1/4 th that amount into solar we could avoid all 

19 the drawbacks of nuclear power. (0008-4 [Musser, Marcie])

20 Comment: It would make much more common sense, be more affordable, present less hazard 

21 to us and the environment or animals if we developed renewable energy. (0009-5 [Davis, 

22 Suellyn])

23 Comment: We have taken an interest in alternative energy approaches and it is a priority of 

24 our local legislative state delegation. (0014-105 [Mucci, Matt])

25 Comment: The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition supports conservation. Let me be clear. We 

26 support conservation. Energy conservation and efficient electrical appliances will help and a 

27 deeper commitment to renewable sources like wind, solar and geothermal is needed. Again, let 

28 me be clear. We support these alternative forms of energy. (0014-109 [Walther, Robert])

29 Comment: Wind and solar are also a part of the diverse mix. I want to make that very clear 

30 and continue to stress we may be a coalition that does advocate the expansion of nuclear 

31 power, but we also support a diverse portfolio. (0014-135 [Hernandez, Michael])
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-61 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Comment: And it is an enormous amount of money which is being taken out of financing other 

2 forms of alternative energy which are competitive and cleaner. Now those competitive systems 

3 could be brought on stream well in advance of the time taken for the Levy plants to be 

4 completed and brought on stream. (0014-57 [Hopkins, Norman])

5 Comment: Progress Energy has right of way of hundreds of miles of land under existing 

6 transmission lines. It uses solar energy in five Sun Smart schools in Florida. It exercises 

7 hydrogen fuel economies in Florida. I’m sorry, initiatives in Florida. And its facility in Citrus 

8 County has cheap railcar access. One ought to exploit these assets as an alternative to putting 

9 something which is essentially a tumor on our society and on our land, possibly by siting solar 

10 installations on their own rights of way, which they already have, capturing the electricity 

11 generated, back-feeding it to the plant site to supply the national grid, converting excess loads 

12 generated into hydrogen fuel to service cars and transportation as a future resource. A 

13 balanced complementary generating policy is needed. If this were founded in Citrus County, 

14 creating jobs of the type just described for handling all of that solar energy collection, and 

15 increasing the County purse because that would not suffer, then go, make progress. (0014-59

16 [Hopkins, Norman])

17 Comment: [W]e can look at vortex-induced vibration for aquatic clean energy, which is a hybrid 

18 which works. You know, these are proven technologies. It is wave energy on steroids. Of 

19 course, on the campaign trail one of the state senators that I was on the dais with, he had no 

20 clue what wave energy was. This is a problem that I spoke about that involves the political 

21 industrial hand-in-glove relationship that is in return for those lobbyists’ contributions of $2300 

22 we have people that go along and get along. There is great ownership in denying us progress 

23 in the future. (0014-68 [Russell, John])

24 Comment: This [no new nuclear plant should be permitted by the NRC until the problem of 

25 waste storage is successfully resolved] is especially true in Florida which has enormous yet 

26 largely untapped sources of safe, clean, renewable energy. The technology to convert that 

27 energy into electricity can be installed by the power companies for about half the cost of building 

28 a nuclear plant and will create far more permanent jobs to help our economy. (0014-73 [Eppes, 

29 Thomas])

30 Comment: Please do not permit our utilities to divert tens of billions of dollars, of our dollars, 

31 into Twentieth Century nuclear technology when Twenty-First Century solar technology is so 

32 much safer, cleaner and cheaper. Companies like Southern California Edison, Sun Edison, 

33 Solyndra, and VRB Power are showing everyone how to do it. The NRC can help by not 

34 permitting Progress Energy Florida to build a nuclear plant in Levy County. Some things last 

35 forever like nuclear waste and solar cells. Which would you rather have in your environment? 

36 (0014-75 [Eppes, Thomas])
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-62 August 2010 

1 Comment: France was mentioned. France has gone big on nuclear. It is an entirely different 

2 nuclear process than what Progress Energy is talking about doing here and what we do in the 

3 United States. Germany has not been mentioned. Germany is doing a huge amount of solar 

4 energy. Which business model do we want to follow? Progress Energy talks about a balanced 

5 solution which I support. I think we need to have a balanced solution of alternative energy and 

6 energy efficiency in addition to state of the art power plants. (0014-76 [Eppes, Thomas])

7 Comment: But where is the balance when Progress Energy is going to limit renewable energy 

8 sources to just three percent of the fuel mix with or without this nuclear plant. Where is the 

9 balance when Progress Energy has an energy efficiency program that based on current 

10 expenditures over the next eight years will amount to less than ten percent of their investment in 

11 this nuclear power plant. (0014-77 [Eppes, Thomas])

12 Comment: This power plant will cost $7.7 million per megawatt. Southern California Edison is 

13 installing solar panels on leased commercial rooftops in high growth areas for $3.5 million 

14 dollars per megawatt. Less than half the cost. (0014-78 [Eppes, Thomas])

15 Comment: A recent study by Navigant Consulting for the Florida Public Service Commission 

16 showed that Florida’s solar potential is 175.8 kilowatt hours which amounts to 71.7 percent of all 

17 the electricity produced in Florida in 2007. That simply confirms the study done by the 

18 American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy last year which showed that solar and other 

19 renewables could replace 26 percent of conventionally generated electricity in Florida by the 

20 year 2023. California is going to have 20 percent of their electricity generated by renewables by 

21 2010. Certainly we can do just as good a job. (0014-79 [Eppes, Thomas])

22 Comment: We can reduce our energy -- now, I’m familiar with this because when we lived in 

23 Europe in the eighties they were building buildings over there that had solar energy built into 

24 them when they were brand new. The Greeks. We lived in Greece and they had on the tops of 

25 roofs, every new house being built had pipes running up to the roof for heating hot water. We 

26 haven’t done anything like that in this country. We don’t have any solar panels here to speak of 

27 except in California, which is the leader, the big leader, and God bless them. (0014-94 [Roberts, 

28 Preston])

29 Comment: We can reduce our energy requirements by, I calculate, a minimum of twenty 

30 percent when we build a new home. And the way of doing it is through the design of the house, 

31 the positioning of the house for the sun. They do that in many places out west. They design a 

32 house so that they either get rid of the sun or attract the sun. Insulation, and there are all kinds 

33 of insulation programs available today, different kinds of insulation. Triple glazed glass in your 

34 windows. Tremendous heat gain can be stopped by having triple glazed glass or you can keep 

35 your cool in or your heat in, whichever you’re trying to do. Improved heat pump systems. (0014-

36 95 [Roberts, Preston])
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-63 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Comment: [P]utting solar panels on the roofs and having the Federal government, as well as 

2 the State, start giving incentive to contractors to put these units in and let us sell the energy 

3 back to Progress. Let us make lots of electricity in our homes, which we can do. We can use -- 

4 we have batteries there. We pull that energy in, we use it in our homes. We will use what we 

5 need to use when we want it, want to do that, and the balance, let’s sell it back. Boulder, 

6 Colorado has gone all electric now with panels in their homes. This is true. This was out about 

7 two weeks ago. And they are conserving energy and they are very interested in solar. And all 

8 the homes now have these units in there that control the house electric flow at the prime and 

9 peak times. And that’s not something new; that’s been readily available. But Boulder is on top. 

10 And they are going after it and doing it, and God bless them. (0014-96 [Roberts, Preston])

11 Comment: I understand this Progress Energy plant is going to service thirty-five counties. 

12 That’s what was told to me today, thirty-five counties. I wonder if we held a vote, a vote in those 

13 thirty-five counties, explained the alternate possibility besides a nuke plant, two nuke plants, 

14 three nuke plants, maybe solar panels. Solar farms they call them. They call them solar farms. 

15 Putting those solar farms in place. (0014-97 [Roberts, Preston])

16 Comment: My fourth concern questions the relevancy of the project at this time. Efficiency 

17 first. The project diverts money, attention and effort from such a campaign that could reduce 

18 energy consumption in this country by one fifth. (0015-111 [Hopkins, Norman])

19 Comment: Our last electric bill, $36.47. Now, you want to talk about the environment? That’s 

20 because of the solar on the roof for our hot water. I haven’t even done the retrofit on the house 

21 yet. It will be even less when that’s completed and the house will also be able to stand up to a 

22 hurricane five. (0015-44 [Klutho, Mark])

23 Comment: Where are the options of conservation? You want to hear that. They don’t make 

24 money off of that. Where are the solar representatives? Not invited, not funded, not considered 

25 as an option. Where are the wood power reps? Same thing. Solar is being used worldwide 

26 despite the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industry’s suppression of it. It is used in the Northwest 

27 United States and in Scandinavia. There are huge solar fields that are being built in the western 

28 part of this nation. And if you think we don’t have wind here in Florida, they say we don’t, then 

29 these people need to get out in the Gulf of Mexico once in a while. We’ve got wind. (0015-58

30 [Sullivan, Jennifer])

31 Comment: Progress Energy could do the right thing and take the billions of dollars that are 

32 allocated for the planning and implementation of this plant and work on creating truly 

33 sustainable energy plans for our state using solar, wind and other natural alternatives. By doing 

34 this we would be creating just as many jobs, sustaining our environment, protecting our 

35 employment, and leaving green solutions for those who come after us, such as our children. 

36 (0015-79 [Stewart, Anita])
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-64 August 2010 

1 Comment: By the time the Levy County plant comes on line some of its technology will already 

2 be outdated. Everybody is talking about change this year. It has become a real key word. Do 

3 we want nebulous change or something really life changing. This is something that we all need 

4 to think about and this gives us many opportunities. Alternative energy sources could be our 

5 real change. (0015-80 [Stewart, Anita])

6 Comment: Possibly there is no real need for the nuclear but there is a need for more wind and 

7 water. (0015-94 [Berger, Betty])

8 Comment: We are at the edge of a new beginning in terms of energy and the environment. 

9 New technology is beckoning at our door and we must open that door to the future. Thousands 

10 of new jobs, trades and learning opportunities are enveloped in the new solar, wind, thermal 

11 and tide energies. We as a world leader must say ‘NO’ to the old ways of polluting our own 

12 world. Just like our bodies, we only get one. Though it is too late for us as a nation to take the 

13 lead in this environmental transition, we join the advanced nations on the correct path. (0016-2

14 [Waldron, Theresa])

15 Comment: The environmental negatives of such a project are obvious, and I don’t need to 

16 elaborate extensively on them. The science does not support nuclear power as a viable 

17 alternative to greenhouse gases. Nuclear power distracts us from the real viable alternative 

18 fuels that don’t pollute and add to the greenhouse effect. Solar, wind, geothermal and other 

19 clean fuel technologies are the only answer to our energy future. (0019-10 [Heywood, Harriet])

20 Comment: Progress Energy had made little effort in developing our region’s energy 

21 conservation and energy alternatives. We live in a state where solar energy is about to take 

22 hold. Progress and Levy County are in a position to set the trend for the future through the 

23 promotion of conservation and solar and wind energy. (0023-1 [Highsprings, Jojo])

24 Comment: [T]he loss of this expanded level of state grid capacity would be catastrophic to the 

25 state power supply needs, since the utilities in Florida have not brought forward other renewable 

26 energy supplies such as solar and solar photovoltaic, river current electricity, tidal energy, 

27 ocean current, nor wind where possible. (0026-2 [Towles Ezell, Joy])

28 Comment: The NRC should work its way out of existence by concentrating on closing down 

29 nuclear power plants and moving into a new, sustainable, safe, renewable power future for the 

30 United States. (0026-8 [Towles Ezell, Joy])

31 Comment: This is not the time to push ahead with a nuclear power plant that is not supported 

32 by the general public and does not advance our country’s interests in developing renewable 

33 energy sources that are safe for people and the environment. (0028-5 [Horgan, Wendy])
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-65 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Comment: Uranium is a scarce resource. The sun, wind, conservation, and energy efficiency 

2 are not. (0029-5 [Cox, Lesley])

3 Comment: Not only will its construction and use be detrimental in many ways, most 

4 significantly, its high dollar cost will directly squander the resources essential for America to 

5 implement meaningful climate mitigation through development of alternative/sustainable 

6 energies. Florida already has FREE energy coming to us every day, from the sun. We should 

7 be pouring our resources into developing solar energy state wide. (0029-6 [Cox, Lesley])

8 Comment: Lastly, and most importantly, I would like to see an assessment of the long-term 

9 opportunity cost of constructing, maintaining and employing this type of electricity generation as 

10 opposed to meeting the projected demand through conservation, efficiency and renewable 

11 energy generation. Give the limited financial resource projection and current Florida regulation, 

12 we are not confident that conservation, efficiency and renewables will be fundable once the 

13 nuclear capacity is funded. (0030-10 [Roff, Rhonda])

14 Comment: And building new nuclear plants will directly interfere with the development of 

15 better, safer technologies by diverting much-needed resources from their development. There 

16 is enormous potential in many already existing sustainable technologies, as well as new ones 

17 currently in development. If these promising technologies had a fraction of the resources that 

18 have been poured into the giant sinkhole that is the nuclear industry, we would not even be 

19 having this discussion. It would be crystal clear to everyone, as it is to me, that there are better, 

20 safer energy options, and that there is no need for new nuclear plants in Florida or anywhere 

21 else. If we are to save our environment and our planet, now is the time to invest everything we 

22 can into truly safe, sustainable technologies. But the huge financial investment required by new 

23 nuclear plant construction will mean that the full development of new renewable, sustainable 

24 energy technologies could be set back by years, at the time when we need these new 

25 technologies the most. Florida in particular has abundant solar energy that is not being used. 

26 And through improved energy conservation alone, we could reduce our power consumption in 

27 Florida enormously. These are just a few of the many safer and more cost-effective ways to 

28 address our Florida energy needs, rather than building new nuclear plants. (0032-10 [Wilansky, 

29 Laura Sue])

30 Comment: What about turbines & sun uses for electric in our communities? (0036-3 [Foreman, 

31 Patricia])

32 Comment: Address the climate crisis head-on: compare nuclear energy (including fuel 

33 production and waste management) to other forms of electric power generation - besides coal 

34 which IS the problem - for contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Please also 

35 include systemic programs that produce “nega-watts” - also called energy efficiency - but in this 

36 case NOT the action of individual consumers, but actual institutional programs whether by utility 

37 corporations or independent administrators. (0038-18 [Olson, Mary])
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-66 August 2010 

1 Comment: Given the striking fact that there has not been a new reactor license that was not 

2 subsequently canceled in more than 30 years, under NEPA there should be a specific 

3 comparison to other alternatives that includes a comparison of the wastes, emissions and 

4 routine releases from various forms of energy. Please include carbon footprint in this analysis - 

5 and include the mining and production of the fuel and the handling of the wastes in that 

6 analysis. We all know that coal has very bad emissions and wastes as well, however it is time 

7 that NRC includes a fair and balanced assessment of nuclear compared to the fastest growing 

8 electric power generating capacity on the planet: wind. Concentrating solar is growing as well - 

9 and while new forms of hydro are still under development, some of these could be included as 

10 well. While you are at it, please include the so-called “Gen IV” reactors since they are being 

11 invoked by the industry as THE REASON to build the current sorry generation 2 (it is a stretch 

12 to call these same-old, same-old PWRs and BWRs Gen 3). We need some good data 

13 disclosure on the wastes of Gen II, Gen III and Gen IV - it would a service for NRC to give us 

14 these comparisons. (0038-6 [Olson, Mary])

15 Comment: My husband and I, 400 signatures I have collected from family and friends, say no 

16 coal, no nukes, go solar first. (0039-2 [Arnason, Deb])

17 Comment: [Nuclear energy] accident potential far beyond that of solar, wind, wave, 

18 geothermal. (0039-7 [Arnason, Deb])

19 Comment: Power companies should be public utilities. We need honest plans like 

20 www.ieer.org, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free, A Roadmap for US Energy Policy and Google 

21 Energy’s plan to power the US 2500x over using solar, wind and geothermal. This is being 

22 done. Only the political and corporate determination to make a killing instead of a living off of 

23 the citizens of Florida and the US and the planet keep us from truly clean, renewable energy. 

24 (0039-9 [Arnason, Deb])

25 Comment: Please heed the warnings from mere citizens such as myself for me and my young 

26 family members. Find the alternatives that promote health and well being. (0042-2 [Malwitz27 Jipson, Merrillee])

28 Comment: Please clarify whether the EIS process will incorporate a review of reasonable 

29 alternative energy sources. To inform the reviewer, applicant’s design alternative evaluations 

30 can be incorporated by reference. (0044-2 [Mueller, Heinz J])

31 Response: Decisions regarding which generation sources and alternatives to deploy are made 

32 by the applicant and regulatory bodies such as State energy planning agencies. The 

33 alternatives must be technically viable, feasible, and competitive. Alternative actions such as 

34 the no-action alternative (energy efficiency and demand-side management), new generation 

35 alternatives, purchased electrical power, alternative technologies (including renewable energy 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-67 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 sources such as wind and solar), and the combination of alternatives will be considered in 

2 Chapter 9 of the EIS. 

3 Comment: The territory of the State of Florida is quite unique, being a peninsula, with limited 

4 energy resources, limited borders with other states, and therefore limited space for installation 

5 of power lines. All this indicate that the State should invest on internal generation of 

6 power/electricity. Different sources specially Nuclear Power and Solar Energy should be 

7 expanded because both do not have greenhouse gas emissions. (0005-2 [Haghighat, Alireza])

8 Comment: It [nuclear power] also provides long-term cost stability as it is the lowest production 

9 cost of any major source of electricity, including natural gas and coal. And as we invest in more 

10 carbon-free nuclear, we decrease our reliance on fossil fuels and we help to stabilize rates and 

11 reduce fuel volatility that we’ve been experiencing over the past several months. (0014-10

12 [Barnwell, Martha])

13 Comment: The greater conservation and renewable energy don’t provide the base load power, 

14 the power that gets you to and from work, that gets the economy moving all twenty-four hours of 

15 the day. Consider that today all renewal sources produce two percent of our electricity while 

16 nuclear power accounts for twenty percent or one out of every five homes and businesses in the 

17 United States. (0014-110 [Walther, Robert])

18 Comment: With regard to the waste question, the fissioning of a uranium atom releases 

19 200 million electron volts. The burning of one coal atom releases four electron volts. In other 

20 words, on an atom-for-atom basis, nuclear creates 50 million times less waste. (0014-20

21 [Tulenko, James])

22 Comment: [T]he true honest concern is yes, I do have a large carbon footprint; yes, I would 

23 like to see alternatives to the fuel that we are currently using because it is not in our best 

24 interest. (0014-29 [Welker, Randy])

25 Comment: [I]n my opinion, fossil fuels need to become a dinosaur and a way of the past. And 

26 fossil fuels, obviously there is no doubt that they harm the environment and there is lasting 

27 impacts that we would like to see go away. (0014-38 [Frink, Ken])

28 Comment: As an aside, a remark has been made about the cost, the comparative cost of 

29 electricity. Now, according to Amory B. Lovins, J. Rom (phonetic), Lester Brown who are widely 

30 accepted in this field, the cost of the energy in terms of cents per kilowatt hour from the nuclear 

31 plants will be at least twice the cost of the same from wind or solar. (0014-58 [Hopkins, Norman])

32 Comment: At Progress Energy we have a responsibility to serve the electrical needs of our 

33 customers but we also recognize that there is no one single solution to meeting the energy 

34 needs of our customers. Our solution is a three-fold solution, a balanced solution. It is a 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-68 August 2010 

1 combination of energy efficiency, alternatives and renewables, as well as investing in state of 

2 the art plants. (0014-7 [Barnwell, Martha])

3 Comment: Even with a significant commitment to energy efficiency and renewables, we will not 

4 be able to meet the needs without cost-effective environmentally responsible ways to serve 

5 Florida’s needs through nuclear. Nuclear also provides long term cost stability and it is the 

6 lowest production cost of any source of electricity, including coal and natural gas. (0015-13

7 [Barnwell, Martha])

8 Comment: As we invest in carbon-free nuclear, we decrease our reliance on fossil fuels, and 

9 we stabilize our rates and reduce the fuel volatility that we have seen over the past several 

10 months. (0015-14 [Barnwell, Martha])

11 Comment: A deeper commitment to renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal is 

12 needed. Let me be clear. We support them. But greater conservation and renewable energy 

13 don’t provide the base-load power, the round-the-clock power that we need to run our country. 

14 We need to be able to turn the switch on any time of day. Consider today that all renewal 

15 sources produce two percent of our electricity while nuclear power accounts for twenty percent. 

16 That’s one out of every five homes or businesses in the United States. (0015-47 [Walther, 

17 Robert])

18 Comment: Energy Yield - or Energy Balance/Thermal Pollution - please start including in your 

19 side-by-sides of the different alternatives an honest disclosure of energy in vs energy 

20 out...include the mining and production of the fuel and handling of the wastes. It is high time 

21 that the younger generation get to SEE that 2/3 of the radioactive waste generated in this 

22 process did NOT make electric power. The latent heat issue needs full disclosure in the context 

23 of efficiency of power production. It is not appropriate to assert that wind and solar are 

24 intermittent forms of power and operate at a lower capacity without in the same comparison 

25 pointing out that power production that depends on steam wastes 2/3 of the fuel by releasing 

26 the latent heat of phase transition as thermal pollution, not power. (0038-7 [Olson, Mary])

27 Response: The NRC is not involved in establishing energy policy; rather, it regulates the 

28 nuclear industry to protect public health and safety within existing policy. The discussion of 

29 alternative energy sources in Chapter 9 of the EIS will describe potential impacts from 

30 alternative energy sources, including fossil and renewable energy sources such as wind and 

31 solar, in comparison with the proposed action. 

32 D.23 Comments Concerning Alternatives – Sites 

33 Comment: [W]e have chosen Levy County as our preferred site. It provides a sufficient supply 

34 of cooling water which is one of the major requirements and important factors in the 

35 sustainability of any plant site. Our preferred site was chosen because it has ample water to 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-69 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 meet the needs without adversely affecting other water usage and requirements in the area. 

2 Cooling water for the plant will be supplied through an intake from the Gulf of Mexico. This site 

3 also works well because it can connect easily to our transmission grid with our transmission 

4 plans that we have associated with the plant, allowing the energy generated here to serve in our 

5 thirty-five counties. (0014-12 [Barnwell, Martha])

6 Comment: I think that the location of this plant is a bad location. I’ve listened to what people 

7 have said here, and particularly Mr. Norm Hopkins. And this is somebody who has really done 

8 his homework. It is somebody that is not on anybody’s payroll. It is somebody who is doing his 

9 homework because they care about Crystal River and all the people that live here. (0014-147

10 [Jones, Art])

11 Comment: [L]et’s build it where the need is for the power so you don’t, you know, have these 

12 transmission lines going 180 miles to bring power over the villages. If the villages are growing, 

13 and the villages need power, and these nuclear plants are so safe, well then build it over near 

14 the villages. This just looks like a really bad location for the plant. It looks like a bad 

15 environmental disaster waiting to happen. (0014-152 [Jones, Art])

16 Comment: So, you know, I just want to say I think we should keep it simple. I know the NRC 

17 has got tons, and tons, and tons of paperwork to go over and, you know, I hope you really look 

18 and listen clearly to people like Mr. Hopkins who has done their homework and that will take the 

19 burden off you. Here is someone that did the homework and it is just not a good location for 

20 these plants. (0014-155 [Jones, Art])

21 Comment: And this is a lovely area, pristine area, and I think that’s one of the reasons we’ve 

22 been targeted to put three together in here. And I would like to know where the energy is going 

23 aside from locally. (0014-158 [Tyler, Janice])

24 Comment: Placing the proposed plants in this area would contribute to the degradation of the 

25 ecological banking system which has worked fine for us in the past and will work better in the 

26 future if we can restore or at least maintain a lot of what we already have and not lose any 

27 more. (0015-31 [Casey, Emily])

28 Comment: [T]hey [Progress Energy] are putting this plant so far away from the population that 

29 it supposed to be serving. The more populous areas would be a lot more costly to cover should 

30 there be a disaster. (0015-54 [Albert, Pamela])

31 Comment: [T]here are 4100 acres in Crystal River where there happens to be two coal-fired 

32 plants and a nuclear power plant. Well, there are over 3,000 acres there unused. There is an 

33 existing distribution network for the power that could be made with the new dual nuclear power 

34 plants located where one already is and two back-up coal-fired plants already are. (0015-96

35 [Peters, Michael])
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-70 August 2010 

1 Comment: Progress Energy has proposed one of the worst siting situations in history. (0026-3

2 [Towles Ezell, Joy])

3 Comment: The NRC issued a public notice for the 12/4/2008 meeting that stated that it 

4 intended to gather the information necessary to prepare the EIS as part of the review of the 

5 LWA and COL application for the LNP site. The public notice stated that the EIS would include 

6 alternatives to the proposed action (issuance of the LWA and COL), such as no action, 

7 reasonable alternative energy sources, and alternate sites. But at the public scoping meeting, 

8 NRC Environmental Project Manager Douglas Bruner stated that the EIS would be developed 

9 for only one specific site, the 3105 acre site near Inglis, FL specified in the Levy Nuclear Plant 

10 Units 1 and 2 COL Application’s Environmental Report. Mr. Bruner indicated that no alternative 

11 sites are to be assessed. Also, it was stated that the NRC would only consider the one specific 

12 design submitted by PEF. Please clarify whether the EIS process will incorporate a review of 

13 reasonable alternate sites. To inform the reviewer, applicant’s site alternative evaluations can 

14 be incorporated by reference. (0044-1 [Mueller, Heinz J]) 

15 Response: The NRC will address alternatives to the proposed action in Chapter 9 of the EIS 

16 such as “no action, reasonable alternative energy sources, and alternate sites” to a level 

17 necessary to meet the requirements of NEPA. Additionally, the EIS will provide the information 

18 necessary for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to address the Least Environmentally 

19 Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) in their Record of Decision required under Section 

20 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. 

21 D.24 Comments Concerning Benefit-Cost Balance 

22 Comment: I am greatly angered by the audacity of the NRC for allowing the investors to build a 

23 double reactor in Levy County. Aside from the nonsensical, and I might add astronomical, cost 

24 for such a HUGE time-consuming dinosaur, the environmental and safety concerns are 

25 staggering. (0019-1 [Heywood, Harriet])

26 Comment: [I]t is clear to me that building new nuclear plants at the proposed Levy County site 

27 would be extremely dangerous and very costly in a variety of ways. (0032-1 [Wilansky, Laura 

28 Sue])

29 Response: These comments express opposition to the applicant’s COL application. The NRC 

30 will carefully review the application against its regulations that are intended to protect public 

31 health and safety and the environment. An evaluation of the benefit-cost balance of 

32 constructing proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 will be discussed in Chapter 10 of the EIS. 

33 Comment: The insolence of the nuclear industry’s request for REDUCED safeguards at the 

34 same time they ask for massive Federal funding should be a first signal that something is 

35 terribly out of whack. We now have a more refined sense of what an ANNUAL request for 
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-71 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 $25 billion or MORE actually represents in terms of the public’s ability to pay. (0006-8 [Dickinson, 

2 Josh] [Dickinson, Sally] [Malwitz-Jipson, Merrillee] [Wapner, Howard])

3 Comment: My third concern is the cost of the project and the unrewarded charges to 

4 consumers for capital expense of Progress Energy incurred. (Both costs and time to build are 

5 guesses at this stage. Even Progress Energy literature is vague on this in a range of 

6 $2.5 billion to $17 billion). The project costs are hard to comprehend. Looked at another way, 

7 the latter equals about three times the value of gold reserves held by the International Monetary 

8 fund (IMF), or 5% of IMF total reserves. That is a huge sum to apply to a single venture, taking 

9 money away from competitive power generation alternatives, which would be expected to 

10 mature years before the Levy County system is completed. (0015-110 [Hopkins, Norman])

11 Response: The NRC does not have authority under the law to ensure that the proposed plant 

12 is the least costly alternative to provide energy services under any particular set of assumptions 

13 concerning future circumstances. This authority and responsibility is most often the role of 

14 State regulatory authorities such as public service commissions, or in the case of merchant 

15 plants, the competitive marketplace. The EIS will consider the potential for alternative non16 nuclear technologies to provide the electricity that could be generated by the proposed plant 

17 and their environmental impacts. The potential effect of a particular nuclear power investment 

18 on the future development and implementation of alternative technologies is speculative and 

19 beyond the scope of the EIS. 

20 Comment: Progress Energy’s proposal to build the Levy County nuclear plant provides a 

21 recent example of the high cost of nuclear energy and the difficulty in providing accurate cost 

22 estimates. The cost of two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors has nearly tripled since initial 

23 estimates, to more than $17 billion. (0008-3 [Musser, Marcie])

24 Comment: [W]hen are we going to get a lottle sense and quit spending so much money??? Of 

25 there is an affordable way and one that eventually we MAY recoup the expenses then common 

26 sense says that going the more affordable way would make financial sense. (0009-2 [Davis, 

27 Suellyn])

28 Comment: A major advantage of a nuclear power plant is that once built, electricity costs will 

29 remain relatively stable for the next 60 to 80 years, because the major costs are the capital cost 

30 of building the plant. Once built, the fuel costs are a minor part of the total cost, unlike natural 

31 gas. (0011-6 [Tulenko, James])

32 Comment: If our plans continue to move forward and are approved by our State and Federal 

33 regulators, the two new advanced technology reactors could begin operating in 2016 and 2017 

34 respectively. And once those plants begin operating we will save our customers over $1 billion 

35 annually in fuel costs. (0014-11 [Barnwell, Martha])
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-72 August 2010 

1 Comment: Because of the time and expense required to build nuclear facilities we’ve got to 

2 take the long-term view now, and that is why we are all here today. If plans continue to move 

3 forward and we receive state and Federal regulatory approval, the two new advanced 

4 technology reactors could begin operating in 2016 and 2017, respectively. Once the plants 

5 begin, we anticipate that we will save our customers over $1 billion annually in fuel costs. (0015-

6 15 [Barnwell, Martha])

7 Comment: According to figures provided by Progress Energy, total investment in the two new 

8 nuclear units and associated infrastructure will be on the order of $17 billion. This is certainly a 

9 large investment by any standard, and particularly in a relatively rural area such as this. 

10 Perhaps the largest single investment ever made in Levy County. (0015-69 [Hodges, Alan])

11 Comment: I ask you to include the true costs of nuclear plants throughout their entire life cycle 

12 in your environmental calculations, including among other factors: the guaranteed damage to 

13 Florida’s environment; the very real potential for enormous risks to health and life; the diversion 

14 of resources from the desperately- needed development of truly safe and sustainable energy 

15 technologies; the cost of hundreds of years of plant decommissioning; and the cost of nuclear 

16 waste storage for thousands of years to come. (0032-13 [Wilansky, Laura Sue])

17 Response: The disclosure of the costs of the proposed action will rely on the best available 

18 estimate of financial costs with uncertainties noted. Associated costs that cannot be reliably 

19 quantified also will be discussed. The EIS will discuss the estimated overall internal and 

20 external benefits, costs, and associated environmental impacts of the proposed project. 

21 Comment: My third concern is the cost of the project, and also the fact that we are being 

22 asked to contribute to the capital base as has already been discussed. It is difficult to 

23 comprehend $17 billion, but it’s three times the gold reserves of the International Monetary 

24 Fund. It is also five percent of the total reserves of the International Monetary Fund. (0014-56

25 [Hopkins, Norman])

26 Comment: Let’s look at a cost comparison. Let’s do a vote. Let’s have a mandate that we 

27 take those thirty-five counties and get people to say yes or no. Then there is no question on 

28 whether or not it is going to happen. If they say yes, they’ve got the go-ahead. If they say no, 

29 we want more environmental information, and we want to see the dollars and cents figures. 

30 (0014-98 [Roberts, Preston]) 

31 Comment: Another issue is that it’s apparently $10 billion to erect a power plant of this nature 

32 and the economy cannot bear this burden, especially in light of what is happening today. (0015-

33 104 [Moore, Brian])
Appendix D 

August 2010 D-73 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Comment: Another problem is that Wall Street does not like the nuclear industry because of 

2 the huge risk factors involved. Many folks remember huge cost overruns, ignored safety 

3 inspections, and deep pocket corruption. (0019-3 [Heywood, Harriet])

4 Response: While these comments are related to benefit-cost balance, they do not provide 

5 specific information related to the environmental effects of the proposed action and will not be 

6 evaluated in the EIS. 

7 Comment: Please take action to stop Progress Energy from making the citizens pay for the 

8 construction costs of the planned nuclear power plant. The Progress Energy shareholders, not 

9 the public, should bear the cost of building new plants. For the next 8 years Progress Energy 

10 plans to charge the average customer each and every month to pay for this plant. That will total 

11 of thousands of dollars for each and every one of us. We, the citizens, should not pay 

12 thousands of dollars to enrich the Progress Energy Corporation. (0017-1 [Miller, Joan] [Miller, 

13 Ron])

14 Comment: In a time when money is so tight, and clean, and relatively cheap energy sources 

15 are begging to be developed, why is the NRC so hot to allow the nuclear industry to push such 

16 a risky a venture on us? Who will be paying for this project? Public subsidies (us) rate 

17 increases (us). (0019-4 [Heywood, Harriet])

18 Comment: I do not believe it should be the responsibility of present Progress Energy 

19 Customers to pay for two buildings in Levy County for Nuclear Power. If the CEOs, Governor, 

20 Legislature and Energy Commission want these two plants let them pay for them. (0036-1

21 [Foreman, Patricia])

22 Response: The NRC regulates the nuclear industry to protect public health and safety within 

23 existing policy. Issues relate to sale adjustments are outside of the NRC’s mission and authority 

24 and will not be addressed in the EIS. This authority and responsibility is most often the role of 

25 state regulatory authorities such as public service commissions.

26 Comment: If nuclear power generation is so safe, why do we still need the Price-Anderson 

27 Act? (0043-1 [Eppes, Thomas])

28 Comment: If nuclear power generation is so cost-effective, why does it continue to require 

29 billions of taxpayer dollars in Federal subsidies? (0043-3 [Eppes, Thomas])

30 Comment: What is the dollar value (per megawatt of capacity) of all Federal subsidies to the 

31 nuclear power industry, including Price-Anderson and the projected costs of securely storing 

32 deadly waste for the requisite thousands of years? (0043-4 [Eppes, Thomas]) 
Appendix D

Draft NUREG-1941 D-74 August 2010 

1 Comment: I suggest that future NRC public meetings specifically address these [Federal 

2 subsidies and long term waste storage costs] questions. If you have the answers to any of 

3 these questions, please send them to me. Thank you for your public service. (0043-5 [Eppes, 

4 Thomas])

5 Response: The NRC is not involved in establishing energy policy; rather, it regulates the 

6 nuclear industry to protect public health and safety within existing policy. Thus, matters related 

7 to the Price-Anderson Act of 1957 are outside the scope of this review and will not be included 

8 in the EIS. However, the EIS will include an evaluation of potential health impacts of operating 

9 a nuclear plant on the LNP site in Chapter 5. In addition, the safety assessment for the 

10 proposed licensing action was provided as part of the application. The NRC is in the process of 

11 developing a Safety Evaluation Report that analyzes all aspects of construction and operational 

12 safety. The NRC will only issue a license if it can conclude that there is reasonable assurance 

13 that: (1) the activities authorized by the license can be conducted without endangering public 

14 health and safety, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the rules and 

15 regulations of the NRC. Issues related to the evaluation of the benefit-cost balance for 

16 proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 will be addressed in Chapter 10 of the EIS. 

17 Comment: If nuclear energy was truly cost-effective and truly a profitable business, the 

18 companies trying to build new nuclear plants would not have to keep coming back to Congress 

19 for loan guarantees, liability insurance and tax breaks. The fact that this industry cannot obtain 

20 operating insurance by any means other than Congressional action is extremely telling! Nuclear 

21 plants are uninsurable!!!! Does that sound like an environmentally safe, economically sound 

22 business to you?! It surely doesn’t to me! And haven’t we had enough Congressional bailouts 

23 of failing private industries? The investments we have already made in the nuclear industry 

24 over many past decades have not paid off for the American people, and no further such 

25 investments should be made, based on their extensive existing track record. (0032-11 [Wilansky, 

26 Laura Sue])

27 Comment: The people who decided to promote new reactor licenses (Dick Cheney, George 

28 Bush for two) liked to claim that nuclear energy will solve the climate crisis” - is this true? Is it 

29 the most cost effective way? This is particularly important, since NRC’s licensing decision 

30 would trigger the use of massive public subsidy in the form of tax dollars and also public loan 

31 guarantees. It is NRC’s fiduciary responsibility to address the climate issue head-on and 

32 disclose real facts about the comparative value of the public’s investment in fighting this 

33 imminent threat. (0038-19 [Olson, Mary])

34 Response: The NRC is not involved in establishing energy policy. Rather, it regulates the 

35 nuclear industry to protect the public health and safety within existing policy. Issues related to 

36 the subsidization of nuclear power are outside of the NRC’s mission and authority and are not 

37 addressed in the EIS. These comments will not be considered further in the EIS. 
Appendix E 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Comments and Responses 

August 2010 E-1 Draft NUREG-1941 

Appendix E 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Comments and Responses 

This appendix is intentionally left blank in the draft environmental impact statement (EIS). In the 

final EIS, this appendix will include comments and responses received on the draft EIS. 

Appendix F 

Key Consultation Correspondence 

August 2010 F-1 Draft NUREG-1941 

Appendix F 

Key Consultation Correspondence 

1 Table F-1 identifies correspondence received during the evaluation process for the combined 

2 construction permit and operating license (COL) application for the siting of two new nuclear 

3 units, Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) Units 1 and 2, in Levy County, Florida. In addition, full copies of 

4 the Biological Assessments and Essential Fish Habitat documents are included in this appendix. 

5 Table F-1. Key Consultation Correspondence 

Source Recipient Date of Letter

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(Mr. Gregory Hatchett)) 

Florida Division of Historical 

Resources (Mr. Frederick Gaske) 

November 5, 2008 

(ML082740519) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(Mr. Gregory Hatchett) 

Miccosukee Tribe (Honorable 

Chairman Billy Cypress) 

November 5, 2008 

(ML082740531) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(Mr. Gregory Hatchett) 

Seminole Tribe of Florida (Honorable 

Chairman Mitchell Cypress) 

November 5, 2008 

(ML082740536) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(Mr. Gregory Hatchett ) 

U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service 

(Mr. David Bernhart) 

November 5, 2008 

(ML082750414) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(Mr. Gregory Hatchett ) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Mr. Jay 

Herrington) 

November 5, 2008 

(ML082750418) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(Mr. Gregory Hatchett ) 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (Mr. Don Klima) 

November 6, 2008 

(ML082740502) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(Mr. Gregory Hatchett ) 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (Mr. Rolando Garcia) 

November 6, 2008 

(ML082750434) 

U.S. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (Mr. Mark 

Sramek) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(Mr. Michael Masnik) 

November 24, 2008 

(ML091180043 and 

ML091180051) 

The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of 

Florida (Mr. Steve Terry) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(Ms. Jessie Muir) 

December 10, 2008 

(ML090120781) 

U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service 

(Mr. Robert Hoffman) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 11, 2008 

(ML083510905) 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-2 August 2010 

Table F-1. (contd)

Source Recipient Date of Letter

Florida Division of Historical Resources 

(Mr. Frederick Gaske) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(Mr. Gregory Hatchett) 

December 11, 2008 

(ML090650566) 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (Ms. Charlene Dwin 

Vaughn) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(Mr. Gregory Hatchett) 

February 9, 2009 

(ML090620074) 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (Ms. Tara Alford) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Mr. 

Gordon Hambrick) 

March 17, 2009 

(ML091230012) 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (Mr. Miles Croom) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Colonel Paul Grosskruger) 

March 23, 2009 

(ML091230014) 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (Ms. Mary Ann Poole) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Colonel Paul Grosskruger) 

April 9, 2009 

(ML091230013) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(Ms. Jennifer Derby) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Colonel Paul Grosskruger) 

April 13, 2009 

(ML912300011) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(Mr. Stanley Meiburg) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Colonel Paul L. Grosskruger) 

June 5, 2009 

(ML091660080) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(Mr. Robert Schaaf) 

Miccosukee Tribe (Mr. Steve Terry) August 25, 2009 

(ML092120229) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(Mr. Robert Schaaf) 

Perdido Bay Tribe (Chief Micco Bobby 

Johns Bearheart) 

August 31, 2009 

(ML092120271) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(Mr. Robert Schaaf) 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma (Chief 

Leonard Haro) 

May 27, 2010 

(ML1013106220) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(Mr. Robert Schaaf) 

Muscogee Nation of Florida 

(Chairwoman Anne Tucker) 

May 27, 2010 

(ML100960539) 

1 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-3 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 F. 

2 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 

3 National Marine Fisheries Service 

4 Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 

5 Combined License Application 

6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

7 Docket Nos. 52-029 and 52-030

8 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

9 Permit Application 

10 Levy County, Florida 

11 August 2010 

12 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

13 Rockville, Maryland 

14 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

15 Jacksonville District
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-4 August 2010 

1 1.0 Introduction 

2 The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

3 (MSFCMA) (16 USC 1801 et seq.) identified the importance of habitat protection to healthy 

4 fisheries. The amendments, known as the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 

5 104-297), strengthened the governing agencies’ authority to protect and conserve the habitat of 

6 marine, estuarine, and anadromous animals (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 

7 [GMFMC] 2004). Essential fish habitat (EFH) is defined as the waters and substrate necessary 

8 for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. Identifying EFH is an essential 

9 component in the development of fishery management plans (FMPs) to evaluate the effects of 

10 habitat loss or degradation on fishery stocks and take actions to mitigate such damage. This 

11 responsibility was expanded by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to ensure 

12 additional habitat protection (NMFS 1999). The consultation requirements of Section 305(b) of 

13 the MSFCMA provide that Federal agencies consult with the Secretary of Commerce on all 

14 actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may 

15 adversely affect EFH. 

16 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is reviewing an application from Progress 

17 Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF) for NRC-authorized combined construction permits and operating 

18 licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear power reactors on a greenfield site in 

19 Levy County, Florida. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is reviewing an application 

20 from PEF for a Department of the Army (DA) permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and 

21 Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water 

22 Act) to perform site-preparation activities and supporting facilities at the site for a proposed 

23 nuclear power-generation station with two Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC 

24 (Westinghouse) AP1000 pressurized water reactors (Units 1 and 2). The USACE is cooperating 

25 with the NRC to ensure to the maximum extent practicable that the information presented in a 

26 single environmental impact statement (EIS), prepared under the National Environmental Policy 

27 Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) document, is adequate to fulfill the requirements of USACE 

28 regulations; the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, which contain the substantive 

29 environmental criteria used by the USACE in evaluating discharges of dredged or fill material 

30 into waters of the United States; and the USACE public-interest review process. Decisions by 

31 the NRC to issue the COLs and the USACE to issue a DA permit will be made following 

32 issuance of the final EIS. 

33 The proposed Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) Units 1 and 2 would be located on a greenfield site 

34 (Figure 1-1). The LNP site is in Levy County, Florida, approximately 10 mi northeast of the 

35 Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC), an energy facility also owned by PEF, and 30 mi due 

36 west of Ocala, Florida. This EFH assessment examines the potential impacts of the proposed 

37 actions on species listed in Table 1-1. These species are described further in Section 4.0, and 

38 the impacts to them are discussed in Section 5.0. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-5 Draft NUREG-1941 Figure 1-1. Location of the LNP Site (PEF 2009a)
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-6 August 2010 

1 The review team is aware of recent events in the Gulf of Mexico associated with the Deepwater 

2 Horizon oil spill. To date, information associated with aquatic and terrestrial resources are 

3 preliminary and inconclusive. Although not included in this EFH, the review team will consider 

4 information associated with the oil spill for the LNP project as it becomes available. 

5 Table 1-1. Ecoregion 2 Designated EFH for Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 

6 Managed Species 

Common Name Species System Life Stage 

Spanish mackerel Scombermorus 

maculatus

Estuarine/marine 

marine 

Adults 

Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Gray triggerfish Balistes capriscus Marine Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Golden tilefish Lopholatilus 

chamaeleonticeps 

Marine Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Goldface tilefish Caulolatilus chrysops Marine Eggs, larvae 

Blueline tilefish Caulolatilus microps Marine Eggs, larvae 

Banded rudderfish Seriola zonata Marine Larvae, juveniles 

Almaco jack Seriola rivoliana Marine Eggs, juveniles 

Hogfish Lachnolaimus maximus Estuarine/marine Juveniles 

Lesser amberjack Seriola fasciata Marine Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili Marine Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Dwarf sand perch Diplectrum bivittatum Marine Juveniles 

Schoolmaster Lutjanus apodus Marine 

estuarine/marine 

Eggs, larvae 

Juveniles 

Gray (mangrove) 

snapper 

Lutjanus griseus Marine 

marine/estuarine 

estuarine/marine 

Eggs 

larvae, juveniles, adults 

Vermillion snapper Rhomboplites 

aurorubens 

Marine Eggs, juveniles, adults 

Red snapper Lutjanus campechanus Marine Eggs, larvae, juveniles, 

adults 

Dog snapper Lutjanus jocu Marine 

estuarine/marine 

Eggs, larvae 

juveniles 

Blackfin snapper Lutjanus buccanella Marine Eggs, juveniles 

Lane snapper Lutjanus synagris Marine 

estuarine/marine 

Eggs 

larvae, juveniles 

Yellowtail snapper Ocyurus chrysurus Marine 

marine/estuarine 

Eggs, adults 

juveniles 

Scamp Mycteroperca phenax Marine Eggs, larvae, juveniles 7 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-7 Draft NUREG-1941 

Table 1-1. (contd)

Common Name Species System Life Stage 

Speckled hind Epinephelus 

drummondhayi 

 

Rock hind Epinephelus 

adscensionis 

Marine Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Red hind Epinephelus guttatus Marine Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Yellowedge grouper Epinephelus

flavolimbatus 

Marine Eggs, larvae, juveniles, 

adults 

Warsaw grouper Epinephelus nigritus Marine Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Nassau grouper Epinephelus striatus Marine Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Red grouper Epinephelus morio Marine 

marine/estuarine 

Eggs, larvae, adults 

juveniles 

Black grouper Mycteroperca bonaci Marine 

estuarine/marine 

marine/estuarine 

Eggs, larvae 

juveniles 

adults 

Gag grouper Mycteroperca 

microlepis

Marine 

marine/estuarine 

Eggs, larvae, adults 

juveniles 

Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus Marine 

estuarine 

marine/estuarine 

Eggs 

larvae, postlarvae, 

juveniles, adults 

White shrimp Litopenaeus setiferus Marine 

estuarine/marine 

estuarine 

Eggs 

larvae 

juveniles 

Pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus 

duorarum

Marine 

Estuarine 

Eggs, larvae, adults 

Juveniles 

Florida stone crab Menippe mercenaria Estuarine/marine Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Gulf stone crab Menippe adina Estuarine/marine 

estuarine 

Eggs, larvae 

juveniles 

Coral classes Hydrozoa and 

Anthozoa 

Marine All stages 

Source: NMFS 2008 

1 2.0 Environmental Setting 

2 The proposed LNP site is located in a primarily rural area in Levy County, approximately 4 mi 

3 northeast of the town of Inglis and approximately 8 mi east of the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 1-1). 

4 The LNP site is currently a greenfield site approximately 3105 ac in size. The LNP footprint 

5 would occupy 300 ac for two reactors and the associated power production infrastructure near 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-8 August 2010 

1 the center of the site (Figure 2-1). Two AP1000 reactors are proposed with an electrical output 

2 of 1000 MW(e) and 3415 MW(t) each. The waterbodies associated with, or potentially affected 

3 by, the action are the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CFBC), the Old Withlacoochee River 

4 (OWR)(a remnant arm of the Withlacoochee River) downstream of the Inglis Dam, and the 

5 Crystal Bay area of the Gulf of Mexico associated with the CREC. The CFBC and OWR waters 

6 are estuarine due to the lower salinities attributed to the freshwater resources from Lake 

7 Rousseau. 

8 2.1 Cross Florida Barge Canal 

9 In an effort to provide maritime navigation between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, 

10 construction of a 12-ft-deep by 150-ft-wide Florida cross-peninsular waterway began in the mid11 1930s (Noll and Tegeder 2003). Originally intended to be a 171-nautical-mi canal, only 4 

12 percent was complete by 1965 due to lack of funding and congressional support for several 

13 decades. Continued local opposition and lack of government funding eventually prompted an 

14 injunction that halted the construction in 1971, leaving a western portion from the newly 

15 constructed Inglis Lock to the Gulf of Mexico and an eastern stretch forming Lake Ocklawaha 

16 between the St. Johns Lock and Rodman Dam. Official deauthorization for the barge canal 

17 came in 1991, and the Cross Florida Greenway State Recreation and Conservation Area took 

18 over the former barge canal properties. In 1998, the canal and lands associated were renamed 

19 the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway and Conservation Area (Noll and Tegeder 

20 2003). The section of western CFBC affiliated with the proposed action is the 7.4-mi stretch 

21 from Inglis Lock west to the Gulf of Mexico. It ranges in depth from 8.6 to 18.2 ft and in width 

22 from 207 to 262 ft. The Inglis Lock is currently no longer functional, and allows some leakage of 

23 freshwater from Lake Rousseau into the CFBC (FDEP 2005). The Inglis Dam was built in 1909 

24 to impound the Withlacoochee River to form 3700-ac Lake Rousseau. An approximately 1.5-mi 

25 portion of the historical downstream segment of the OWR runs into the western CFBC below the 

26 Inglis Lock. A 1.7-mi channel was constructed upstream of the Inglis Lock to reconnect Lake 

27 Rousseau waters with the downstream 11-mi portion of the Withlacoochee River, serving as a 

28 bypass around the CFBC. The CFBC lies 8 mi to the south of the proposed LNP site and is the 

29 preferred source for cooling water (Figure 2-1). 

30 The CFBC discharges into the Withlacoochee Bay estuary in the Gulf of Mexico and is 

31 influenced by tidal changes. The CFBC is not designated as an Outstanding Florida Water as 

32 defined by Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 62-302.700. The CFBC is influenced by tidal salt 

33 water from the Gulf of Mexico, freshwater contributions from subsurface springs, leakage of 

34 Lake Rousseau waters through the Inglis Lock, and periodic releases of freshwater from Lake 

35 Rousseau over the Inglis Dam downstream to the OWR (CH2M Hill 2009a). 

36 Water-quality characteristics show a wedge of salt water extending from the surface waters 

37 where the CFBC meets the Gulf of Mexico up toward the Inglis Lock, where persistent salinities
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-9 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

2 Figure 2-1. LNP Site Map (PEF 2009a) 

3 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-10 August 2010 

1 range from an average of 5.75 practical salinity scale (pss) units at the surface to 16.87 pss at a 

2 depth of 4 m, and salinities just outside the mouth of the CFBC average 17.83 pss at the 

3 surface and 25.91 pss at 4 m (CH2M Hill 2009b). Sediment profiles for the CFBC within the 

4 7.4-mi stretch from the Inglis Lock to the Gulf of Mexico are predominated by 49.2 to 60.7 

5 percent silt, 17.1 percent sand, and 28.6 percent clay. Just 0.5 mi outside the mouth of the 

6 CFBC, the sediment profile shifts dramatically to primarily sand (average 83 percent) as is 

7 common with nearshore estuarine habitat (CHM2 Hill 2009b). 

8 Analytical chemistry analyses of water samples taken along the length of the CFBC show a 

9 general trend of decreasing total organic carbon and increasing dissolved oxygen from the Inglis 

10 Lock to the nearshore Gulf of Mexico. Over 30 samples were taken at four stations along the 

11 length of the CFBC over the course of a year (October 2007 – November 2008) (CH2M Hill 

12 2009b). Ammonia, nitrate, total nitrogen, organophosphate, total phosphate, and chlorophyll a 

13 concentrations were slightly elevated near the location of the proposed intake compared to the 

14 further downstream CFBC and nearshore sampling locations, with the exception of higher levels 

15 of chlorophyll a at Station 2 compared to Station 1 (Figure 2-2). Total suspended solids tended 

16 to be more concentrated moving from Station 1 to the nearshore sampling stations. Surface 

17 water quality is discussed in EIS Section 2.3.3.1. 

18 Species sampling results in the CFBC from October 2007 to September 2008 are presented in 

19 EIS Section 2.4.2.1 and provided below in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2. Species abundance and 

20 diversity are greatest at the mouth and offshore of the CFBC compared to the upper end of the 

21 canal near the Inglis Lock. 

22 2.2 Old Withlacoochee River 

23 The OWR that flows from below the Inglis Dam into the CFBC is approximately 1.5 mi long; it 

24 originates from the Lake Rousseau’s Inglis Dam and varies in width from 20- to 30-ft 

25 (Figure 2-3). The flow within the OWR is variable primarily due to weather patterns and the 

26 need to control Lake Rousseau water levels during rain events by spill over the Inglis Dam into 

27 the OWR. The periodic higher flows have led to scouring of the bottom habitat down to bedrock 

28 in the center of the OWR, and the sediments along the sides are primarily sand mixed with 

29 organic materials (CH2M Hill 2009a). 

30 Salinity profiles at 1-m depth in this remnant arm range from 0.14 pps below the Inglis Dam to 

31 4.38 pps where the OWR joins with the CFBC. In June and August 2008, sampling was 

32 conducted at three locations: the junction of the OWR with the CFBC, halfway between the 

33 junction and the Inglis Dam, and just downstream of the Inglis Dam within this portion of the 

34 OWR. Analytical chemistry analysis of water samples show no significant differences in 

35 ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, total nitrogen, organophosphate, total phosphate, chlorophyll a, or total 

36 suspended solids between the three sampling stations for the June sampling event. Dissolved 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-11 Draft NUREG-1941 Figure 2-2. The Locations for Aquatic Species Sampling in the CFBC and OWR (CH2M Hill 2009a) 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-12 August 2010 

1 Table 2-1. Motile Macroinvertebrates Sampled in the CFBC and CREC with Catch per Unit 

2 Effort (CPUE) >1.0 from October 2007 through November 2008 by Trawl and Crab 

3 Trap 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Total Catch Per Unit Effort Across 

Trawl and (Crab Trap) for All Sampling Events 

CFBC 1 CFBC 2 CFBC 3 CFBC 4 CREC 3 CREC 4

Jellyfish Cyaneidae - 1.5 - - - - 

Common eastern nassa Nassarius vibex - - - - - 1.5 

Atlantic brief squid Lolliguncula brevis - - 5 - - 2 

Palaemonid shrimp Palaemonidae - - - - - 1.5 

Pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus duorarum - 1.5 2.5 - - 5.5 

Hippolyte shrimp Hippolyte. - - - - - 1.5 

Decorator crab Stenocionops furcata - - - - - 2 

Yellowline arrow crab Stenorhynchus seticornus - - - - - 7 

Hermit crab spp. Pagurus spp. - - - 3 - - 

Mud crab Xanthidae - - - 3.5 3 - 

Florida stone crab Menippe mercenaria - - - - (3.6) 2 (1.6) 

Portunid crab Portunus sp. - - - - - 1.5 

Blue crab Callinectes sapidus - 4.5 (2.5) 4 (4.3) - - - 

Source: CH2M Hill 2009b 

4 Table 2-2. Fish Species Sampled in the CFBC, OWR, and CREC with CPUE >1.0 from 

5 October 2007 through November 2008 by Beach Seine, Trawl, Cast Net, Gill Net, 

6 and Minnow Trap 

Common 

Name Scientific Name 

Total Number Collected Across All Sampling Gear and Events

CFBC 

1 

CFBC 

2 

CFBC 

3 

CFBC 

4 

OWR 

8 

OWR 

9 

OWR 

10 

CREC 

3 

CREC 

4 

Spinner shark Carcharhinus brevipinna - - - - - - - 4 1 

Blacktip shark Carcharhinus limbatus - - - - - - - - 7 

Bull shark Carcharhinus leucas - 8 - - - - - 1 - 

Bonnethead 

shark 

Sphyma tiburo - - - 2 - - - - 1 

Cownose ray Rhinoptera bonasus - - 1 - - - - - 3 

Spotted eagle 

ray 

Aetobatus narinari - - - - - - - 2 1 

Atlantic stingray Dasyatis sabina - 1 - 2 - - - 1 1 

Southern 

stingray 

Dasyatis americana - - - 2 - - - - 1 

Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus 2 - 1 3 - - - - 1 

Tidewater 

silverside 

Menidia peninsulae - - - - - - - 113 - 

7 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-13 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

Table 2-2. (contd)

Common 

Name Scientific Name 

Total Number Collected Across All Sampling Gear and Events

CFBC 

1 

CFBC 

2 

CFBC 

3 

CFBC 

4 

OWR 

8 

OWR 

9 

OWR 

10 

CREC 

3 

CREC 

4 

Inland silverside Menidia beryllina - - - - 7 - 4 - - 

Halfbeaks Hemiramphidae - - - - - - - 10 - 

Atlantic 

needlefish 

Strongylura marina 7 2 9 3 - - - 2 1 

Redfin 

needlefish 

Strongylura notata 2 - 4 - - - - 3 - 

Killifishes Fundulus spp. - - - - - - - 60 - 

Seminole 

killifish 

Fundulus seminolis - - - - - - 22 - - 

Bluefin killifish Lucania goodei - - - - - - 97 - - 

Goldspotted 

killifish 

Floridichthys carpio 7 - - - - - - 285 - 

Mullets Mugilidae - 9 30 - - - - - - 

Striped (black) 

mullet 

Mugil cephalus 8 6 24 35 - - - 21 9 

White mullet Mugil curema 8 27 14 51 - - - 36 1 

Atlantic 

spadefish 

Chaetodipterus faber - - 2 - - - - 2 3 

Gobys Gobiidae 4 20 13 7 - - - 1 2 

Skilletfish Gobiesox strumosus - 4 2 - - - - - - 

Sunfishes Centrarchidae 4 - - 1 - 1 4 - - 

Largemouth 

bass 

Micropterus salmoides 1 - - - 1 5 17 - - 

Silver perch Bairdiella chrysoura - 95 398 246 - - - 1 149 

Common snook Centropomus undecimalis - 4 - - - - - 1 - 

Whitefin shark 

sucker 

Echeneis neucratoides - - 1 1 - - - - - 

Mojarras Gerreidae. - - 8 - 3 - - 38 1 

Spotfin mojarra Eucinostomus argenteus 198 290 125 37 4 - - 84 100 

 

Polka-dot 

batfish 

Ogcocephalus cubifrons - - - 4 - - - - 2 

Grunts Haemulidae - - 2 1 - - - - - 

Pigfish Orthopristis chrysoptera - 2 6 11 - - - 3 28 

Snappers Lutjanidae 8 20 14 - - - - 5 2 

Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus - 8 2 1 - - - - 2 

Black drum Pogonias cromis 4 13 - 1 - - - 11 1 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-14 August 2010 

Table 2-2. (contd)

Common 

Name Scientific Name 

Total Number Collected Across All Sampling Gear and Events

CFBC 

1 

CFBC 

2 

CFBC 

3 

CFBC 

4 

OWR 

8 

OWR 

9 

OWR 

10 

CREC 

3 

CREC 

4 

Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus 2 1 - - - - - 1 1 

Spot Leiostomus xanthurus - 17 - 17 - - - - 3 

Sand seatrout Cynoscion arenarius - 23 16 12 - - - - 4 

Spotted 

seatrout 

Cynoscion nebulosus - - - - - - - - 5 

Spanish 

mackerel 

Scomberomorus maculatus - - 2 4 - - - 5 

Atlantic bumper Chloroscombrus chrysurus - 6 4 24 - - - - 29 

Leatherjacket Oligoplites saurus - - 1 1 - - - 4 - 

Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli 100 706 704 125 1 2 - - 1 

Striped anchovy Anchoa hepsetus 2 4 3 - - - - - - 

Atlantic thread 

herring 

Opisthonema oglinum - - 2 2 - - - - 10 

Herrings Clupeidae 4 - - - - - - - - 

Ladyfish Elops saurus 9 15 24 6 - - - - 1 

Gulf menhaden Brevoortia patronus 591 73 9 226 - - - - - 

Yellowfin 

menhaden 

Brevoortia smithi - 1 3 - - - - - 17 

Scaled sardine Harengula jaguana 24 41 47 21 1 - - - - 

Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 13 54 61 26 2 - - 2 91 

Sheepshead Archosargus 

probatocephalus 

9 6 - - 1 1 - 63 2 

Southern 

kingfish 

Menticirrhus americanus - - 1 6 - - - - - 

Crevalle jack Caranx hippos - 2 - - - - - 1 1 

Blue runner Caranx crysos - - - - - - - - 4 

Hardhead 

catfish 

Ariopsis felis - 5 18 33 - - - 6 11 

Gafftopsail 

catfish 

Bagre marinus 2 2 2 - - - - - 5 

Flounders Paralichthyidae - 1 2 6 - - - - 1 

Pufferfish Spheroides sp. - 1 1 - - - - - 1 

Source: CH2M Hill 2009b

1 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-15 Draft NUREG-1941 Figure 2-3. Water Control Structures Near the Proposed LNP Site (PEF 2009a) 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-16 August 2010 

1 oxygen was highest near Inglis Dam following a high-volume water release during the August 

2 sampling, which also significantly lowered the nitrate/nitrite concentration (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

3 Biological sampling in the OWR was performed using beach seine, cast net, minnow trap, and 

4 crab traps. Gill nets and trawling were not used because manatees were present in the river. 

5 Crab traps yielded only two crustaceans and were not considered further in biological analyses. 

6 Fish caught near the Inglis Dam were representative of fish species that prefer euryhaline or 

7 freshwater conditions, with killifish species (Fundulus spp.) and largemouth bass 

8 (Micropterus salmoides) representing the abundant species at that location. In a similar fashion, 

9 fish caught near the junction of the OWR and the CFBC were represented by silverside species 

10 (Menidia spp.) and mojarra species (Eucinostomus spp.), which were also caught in the CFBC 

11 and prefer more saline environments. The midway location for sampling did not yield as many 

12 species as either of the other locations, which may be due to the variable salinity or water 

13 quality conditions for that region. Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling mirrored the fish 

14 sampling results with euryhaline dipteran species predominant at the CFBC-OWR junction, 

15 freshwater oligochaetes and amphipods near the Inglis Dam, and a paucity of organisms and 

16 limited diversity at the midpoint (CH2M Hill 2009a). 

17 2.2.1 Crystal Bay 

18 Aquatic species and habitats associated with the discharge from CREC into Crystal Bay have 

19 been characterized historically from CREC operations (Stone and Webster 1985) and were 

20 recently sampled from April through November 2008. Following installation of helper cooling 

21 towers in the early 1990s, the applicant has quantified the extent of seagrass beds in the Gulf of 

22 Mexico in the vicinity of the CREC discharge (Estevez and Marshall 1993, 1994, 1995). 

23 Previously affected seagrass areas were observed to recover with colonization by shoal grass 

24 (Halodule wrightii) a dominant, quick-growing seagrass. However, between 1995 and 2001, 

25 overall seagrass abundance declined, likely from a number of environmental influences 

26 (Marshall 2002). No seagrass habitat is present at the point of discharge or at the 1.4-mi 

27 nearshore sampling location. A few seagrass beds just to the north of the point of discharge 

28 were identified in 1993, and greater coverage of this same area by Halodule wrightii (increase of 

29 19.5 percent beyond previously noted seagrass perimeter) was noted for this same area in 2001 

30 (Marshall 2002). 

31 Sediments at the CREC point of discharge and in nearshore waters (1.4 mi from point of 

32 discharge) are dominated by sand and silt. Surface salinities at the discharge mouth and 

33 nearshore waters ranged between 28.2 and 31.5 pss, with salinities increasing slightly at 

34 increasing depths (CH2M Hill 2009b). Average dissolved oxygen generally decreases along the 

35 CREC discharge canal from the discharge origin at 6.28 mg/L to 5.05 mg/L at the point of 

36 discharge into Crystal Bay. Average dissolved oxygen then increases to 5.61 mg/L in 

37 nearshore waters surrounding the point of discharge. Average temperatures at the point of 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-17 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 discharge (31.9°C) were 6°C higher than average temperatures recorded 1.4 mi away in 

2 nearshore waters during the 2008 sampling events (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

3 Analytical chemistry analyses of water samples taken in September and November 2008 show 

4 no significant differences in total organic carbon, dissolved oxygen, ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, 

5 total nitrogen, organophosphate, total phosphate, chlorophyll a, or total suspended solids 

6 between the point of discharge and 1.4 mi away in nearshore waters (Figure 2-4). 

7 Fish, plankton, and macroinvertebrate sampling in the CREC discharge area of Crystal Bay are 

8 indicative of coastal salt marsh and nearshore species and show biodiversity commensurate 

9 with similar habitat sampling at CFBC stations 3 and 4 (EIS Section 2.4.2). However, several of 

10 the top forage fish species are notably absent (bay anchovy, scaled sardine, and silver perch) 

11 from the CREC point of discharge and nearshore water habitats. 

12 3.0 Proposed Federal Action 

13 The proposed Federal actions are the issuance of a COL for the construction and operation of 

14 two new nuclear reactors at the proposed LNP site pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

15 Regulations (CFR) Part 52, and a DA permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

16 and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. 

17 The NRC, in a final rule dated October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57416), limited the definition of 

18 “construction” to those activities that fall within its regulatory authority in 10 CFR 51.4. Many of 

19 the activities required to build a nuclear power plant are not part of the NRC action to license the 

20 plant. Activities associated with building the plant that are not within the purview of the NRC 

21 action are grouped under the term “preconstruction.” Preconstruction activities include clearing 

22 and grading, excavating, erecting support buildings and transmission lines, and other 

23 associated activities. These preconstruction activities may take place before the application for 

24 a COL is submitted, during the staff’s review of a COL application, or after a COL is granted. 

25 Although preconstruction activities are outside of the NRC’s regulatory authority, many of them 

26 are within the regulatory authority of local, State, or other Federal agencies. The distinction 

27 between construction and preconstruction is not carried forward in this EFH assessment, and 

28 both are being discussed together as construction for the purposes of the NRC/USACE joint 

29 EFH consultation. 

30 Prerequisites to construction activities include, but are not limited to, documentation of existing 

31 site conditions within the Levy County site and acquisition of the necessary permits (e.g., COLs, 

32 local building permits, Clean Water Act Section 402(p) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

33 System (NPDES) construction and industrial stormwater permits, a DA permit, and a Clean 

34 Water Act Section 401 Certification). After these prerequisites are met, planned construction 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-18 August 2010 Figure 2-4. Aquatic Sampling Locations for CREC (CH2M Hill 2009b)
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-19 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 activities could proceed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.10(c), which may include the activities described 

2 in 10 CFR 50.10(a). Following construction, the planned operation of the new reactors would be 

3 authorized if the Commission finds, under 10 CFR 52.103(g), that all acceptance criteria in the 

4 COLs are met. 

5 Construction and operation activities could potentially affect the species and/or habitats listed in 

6 Table 1-1Error! Reference source not found.. These following construction and operation 

7 activities were determined to potentially affect these species and habitats based on habitat 

8 affinities and life-history considerations and the nature, spatial, and temporal considerations of 

9 the activity: 

10 Construction 

11 – new dredging and construction of a barge slip and boat ramp on the shoreline of the 

12 CFBC 

13 – installation of the cooling-water intake structure (CWIS) on the CFBC shoreline 

14 – installation of the cooling-water discharge system, including dredging and placement of 

15 discharge piping in the CFBC 

16 – connection of discharge piping with the existing CREC discharge canal 

17 – vessel movements associated with in-water work; vessel transportation of large 

18 components via barge for LNP site 

19 – new transmission-line corridors and towers 

20 Operation 

21 – impingement, entrainment, and maintenance activities associated with the CWIS 

22 – salinity changes in the CFBC and OWR 

23 – discharge plume from the cooling-water system (thermal, chemical, and physical effects) 

24 – maintenance of transmission-line corridor rights-of-way. 

25 3.1 Cooling-Water Intake System 

26 The proposed closed-cycle cooling system and cooling-water intake and discharge systems for 

27 the LNP site are described in the following sections. The LNP would use a closed-cycle cooling 

28 system that would draw in water from a new intake structure on the north shore of the CFBC, 

29 0.5 mi downstream of the Inglis Lock, and heat removal would be accomplished via mechanical 

30 draft cooling towers. The blowdown water would discharge via pipeline to the existing CREC 

31 discharge canal (Figure 3-1). 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-20 August 2010 Figure 3-1. Location of Blowdown Pipeline and Discharge (PEF 2009a) 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-21 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 In its Environmental Report (ER), PEF stated that a closed-cycle, mechanical draft system 

2 would be used for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2. Depending on the quality of the makeup water, 

3 closed-cycle, recirculating cooling-water systems can reduce water use by 96 to 98 percent of 

4 the amount that the facility would use if it employed a once-through cooling system 

5 (66 FR 65256). This significant reduction in water withdrawal rate results in a corresponding 

6 reduction in impingement and entrainment. PEF has stated that the proposed LNP Units 1 and 

7 2 intake structure would comply with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Phase I 

8 316(b) (66 FR 65256) and have a design through-screen velocity of less than 0.5 fps 

9 (PEF 2009a). However, the CFBC near the proposed intake essentially is a dead end with tidal 

10 exchange the only appreciable flow not including the freshwater flows from the lock and 

11 intermittent flows over the Inglis Dam following rain events. For the LNP Units 1 and 2 CWIS, 

12 PEF assessed 316(b) impacts of withdrawal of cooling water from the CFBC. The approach 

13 velocity for the intake bays would be 0.25 fps at the bar screens and 0.5 fps for through-screen 

14 flow. To achieve these low velocities, the inlet area would be larger than 

106.1 ft2 15 (CH2MHill 2009c). The zone of hydraulic influence would extend 5 mi from the CWIS 

16 in the CFBC towards the mouth. The CFBC is tidally influenced, and, beyond the 5-mi zone of 

17 influence, the average current velocity in the remaining 2 mi of CFBC towards the mouth is 

18 greater than the CWIS-induced velocity 90 percent of the time. 

19 3.2 Cooling-Water Discharge System 

20 The effluent discharge from proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would be directed into the CREC 

21 discharge. Discharge pipelines from the LNP would run alongside the northern bank of the 

22 CFBC before crossing the canal and continuing on to the CREC. The LNP discharge pipeline 

23 (two 54-in. high-density polyethylene [HDPE] pipes, per the conceptual design) will discharge 

24 directly into the CREC discharge canal just downstream of the discharge culverts for CREC 

25 Units 4 and 5. CREC Units 4 and 5 discharge into a concrete-lined, open channel. This 0.7-mi 

26 open channel drains directly into the CREC discharge canal approximately 1.1 mi from the Gulf 

27 of Mexico (PEF 2009b). The discharge volume of the LNP Units 1 and 2 blowdown water would 

28 be 81.34 Mgd and would be combined with the CREC Units 1 through 5 discharge of 1651.8 

29 Mgd in the CREC discharge canal, which opens into the Gulf of Mexico. The LNP discharge 

30 would account for only 4.9 percent of the total discharge flow and would have little physical 

31 scouring impact at the terminus of the discharge canal (PEF 2009a). In EIS Section 5.2.3.1, the 

32 review team describes its independent assessment of the incremental impacts of proposed LNP 

33 Units 1 and 2 on the water temperatures within the CREC discharge and the Gulf of Mexico. 

34 The addition of LNP Units 1 and 2 discharge would result in increase discharge volume of 87.93 

35 Mgd, but with no significant increase in thermal plume temperature or salinity over current 

36 conditions, as discussed in EIS Section 5.3.2.1. 

37 In addition, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (FDEP 2010) Conditions of 

38 Certification states that PEF would retire its two oldest, once-through coal-fired units at the 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-22 August 2010 

1 CREC by December 31, 2020 if LNP Units 1 and 2 are licensed, built, and begin commercial 

2 operation. CREC Units 1 and 2 cessation of operations would significantly reduce the discharge 

3 flow from the CREC discharge canal even with the additional discharge flow from LNP Units 1 

4 and 2 (Table 3-1). 

5 Table 3-1. Comparison of NPDES Discharge Volumes Under Different Operation Scenarios.

Operating 

Unit 

CREC 

Current 

Combined 

Discharge 

(Mgd) 

Percent 

of Total 

Discharge

Addition 

of LNP 

Units 1 & 

2 to 

current 

CREC 

(Mgd) 

Percent 

of Total 

Discharge

Addition of LNP 

Units 1 & 2 to 

current CREC 

(Mgd) with 

Decomissioning 

of CREC Units 

1 & 2 

Percent 

of Total 

Discharge

CREC 1 446 23.5 446 22.5 - - 

CREC 2 472 24.8 472 23.8 - - 

CREC 3 979.9 51.6 979.9 49.5 979.9 92.3 

LNP 1 & 2 - - 81.3 4.4 81.3 7.6 

Source: PEF 2009d 

Note: CREC discharge rates are given as current maximum NPDES-permitted volumes. 

CREC Units 4 and 5 are not listed in table because they withdraw cooling water from the discharge of 

CREC Units 1 through 3, and through evaporative cooling during operation actually reduce station discharge 

flow. 

6 3.3 Chemical Discharges 

7 Other discharge-related impacts include the chemical treatment of the cooling water. The ER 

8 indicates that chemicals would be added to the circulating, service, and blowdown water 

9 systems (PEF 2009a). Intake structures such as the pump suction housings and sensor tubes 

10 will be coated with a copper-based anti-fouling substance to minimize fouling of these 

11 structures. In addition, ClamTrol (CT1300) will be injected every 21 days at a concentration not 

12 to exceed 4.5 ml per liters, into the CWISs to prevent biofouling of marine invertebrates 

13 (PEF 2009b). Chemical treatment of cooling water at LNP would likely be similar to that 

14 occurring at CREC. The use of chemicals in the existing CREC discharge is regulated by an 

15 NPDES permit, which is issued by the FDEP. The chemical concentrations at the outfall for the 

16 existing units meet the NPDES limits (FDEP 2008). Table 3-2 (ER Table 5.3.2-1) lists the 

17 water-treatment chemicals, their use, and the concentration that is anticipated to be discharged 

18 from proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 blowdown. The concentrations in the discharge are 

19 significantly lower than the LC50 (the concentration that is lethal to 50 percent of the sample 

20 population) obtained from the Material Safety Data Sheets (PEF 2009a). The CREC effluent 

21 discharge and water flow from the Gulf of Mexico would further dilute the concentration of these 

22 chemicals. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-23 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 3-2. Chemical Discharges to the Gulf of Mexico from Proposed LNP Units 1 and 2

Chemical Use Concentration at Discharge Point

Sodium hypochlorite Biocide 0.2 ppm residual chlorine or 

0.36 sodium hypochlorite 

Ammonium chloride Algaecide 0.2 ppm residual chlorine or 

0.303 ppm ammonium chloride 

Sulfuric acid pH adjuster 2.237 ppm sulfuric acid 

Orthopolyphosphate Corrosion inhibitor 30 ppm orthopolyphosphate 

Polyacrylate Silt dispersant 150 ppm polyacrylate 

Phosphonate Antiscalant 20 ppm phosphonate 

Source: PEF 2009a 

2 3.4 Transmission-Line Corridors 

3 Connection from the proposed LNP to the Citrus substation corridor would cross the 

4 Withlacoochee River bypass channel, CFBC, and the OWR. Existing and new corridors 

5 extending to the proposed Central Florida South substation would cross the Withlacoochee 

6 River at the border of Citrus and Marion Counties and Two Mile Prairie Lake (PEF 2009a). 

7 Connection of the CREC switchyard to the new Citrus substation would use existing corridors 

8 bordering estuarine habitat within Crystal Bay, which is considered EFH. 

9 Beyond the first substation, existing corridors are proposed for the transmission lines extending 

10 50 mi from the Kathleen substation to the Griffin substation and extending west to the Lake 

11 Tarpon substation. This corridor crosses the following Outstanding Florida Waters: Blackwater 

12 Creek, Trout Creek, the Hillsborough River, and Cypress Creek (PEF 2008). Other waterbodies 

13 include Flint Creek, tributaries of Hollomans Branch, Brushy Creek, Rocky Creek, and 

14 numerous unnamed intermittent and perennial tributaries of the previously named waterbodies. 

15 None of these waterbodies are considered EFH and are not designated aquatic critical habitats. 

16 4.0 Potential Impact of Plant Construction and 

17 Operation on Biota and Habitat 

18 This section describes the potential impacts from the construction and operation of the 

19 proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 on Federally managed estuarine and marine species and their 

20 habitats in the CFBC, OWR, and Crystal Bay area of the Gulf of Mexico. The construction and 

21 operation activities that could affect Federally managed estuarine and marine species based on 

22 habitat affinities and life-history characteristics and the nature and spatial and temporal 

23 considerations of the activities are briefly discussed below. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-24 August 2010 

1 4.1 General Construction 

2 Impacts on the EFH in the CFBC from construction of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would be 

3 associated mainly with the construction of new water intake structure, discharge piping systems, 

4 and a barge slip. These activities would result in temporary water quality changes and 

5 temporary and permanent loss or conversion of aquatic habitat in the CFBC, but they are not 

6 anticipated to impact aquatic habitat or water quality in the OWR. 

7 The major construction events associated with building proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 that would 

8 affect EFH in the Crystal Bay area of the Gulf of Mexico include connection of the discharge 

9 outfall with the existing CREC discharge canal. No construction is planned at the point of 

10 discharge for the CREC or in nearshore waters. All work would be conducted in accordance 

11 with Federal, State, and local permits that would be obtained by PEF. Because the facilities 

12 would be built inland or use existing transmission-line corridors, EFH in the CFBC, OWR, and 

13 Gulf of Mexico likely would not be adversely affected by the installation of new transmission 

14 facilities for the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2. 

15 4.1.1 Dredging and Pipeline Trenching 

16 Construction for both the barge slip and the intake structure would occur in primarily upland 

17 areas behind an earth bank separating construction activities from the CFBC until excavation is 

18 complete. Steel sheet piling would be installed at the barge slip and in a cofferdam for intake 

19 structure construction. Piles would be installed from land using a pile hammer. Turbidity 

20 barriers and erosion control measures would be installed in the canal during activities 

21 associated with sheet-pile installation to control impacts on water quality. Construction activities 

22 are expected to commence with installation of permanent piling over 60 weeks for the barge slip 

23 and over 13 weeks for temporary piling at the intake structure. Removal of temporary piling at 

24 the intake structure is expected to occur following 6 months of construction activities. Turbidity 

25 barriers and erosion control measures are expected to be installed commensurate with piling 

26 installation activities and will remain in place before operations (PEF 2008). Use of water 

27 quality control measures should prevent impacts on the few species that inhabit the portion of 

28 the CFBC near the proposed intake. 

29 Dredging would be necessary for construction of a trench in the CFBC for placement of 

30 discharge piping. Using EPA Method 1311, sediments would be tested before construction for 

31 toxicity characteristics to determine final disposition of dredged spoil materials. Non-hazardous 

32 sediments would be used to backfill pipeline trench, as fill material onsite, or disposed of in 

33 upland areas. Sediments deemed unsuitable for use would be appropriately disposed of in 

34 landfills approved for hazardous disposal (PEF 2009c). Residual water from dredging activities 

35 would be tested for compliance with NPDES and Florida surface-water-quality standards 

36 (FDEP 2008). Discharge piping from the LNP site to the CREC discharge would run parallel 

37 along the northern CFBC berm, enter and exit CFBC water supported by anchor piers along 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-25 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 both CFBC berms, and run south to CREC along an existing transmission-line corridor (PEF 

2 2009a). Initially proposed routing of the discharge pipeline south of the CFBC crosses several 

3 tidal creeks and would adversely impact approximately 4.5 acres of salt marsh habitat. The 

4 review team is aware that PEF has proposed to the FDEP an alternate route to avoid this 

5 important habitat. FDEP has not made a decision on the proposal. Impacts to habitat related to 

6 the discharge pipeline, irrespective of the final routing, would be primarily due to its excavation, 

7 placement, and burial associated with construction. 

8 4.1.2 Discharge Pipeline Connection 

9 The LNP discharge pipeline (two 54-in. HDPE pipes, per the conceptual design) will discharge 

10 directly into the CREC discharge canal just downstream of the discharge culverts for CREC 

11 Units 4 and 5. The discharge canal is a concrete-lined, open channel. This 0.7-mi open 

12 channel drains directly into the CREC discharge canal approximately 1.1 mi from the Gulf of 

13 Mexico. A headwall structure will be necessary to join the LNP discharge piping to the CREC 

14 discharge canal (PEF 2009b). No construction will be conducted beyond the point of discharge 

15 into the concrete discharge canal for CREC. 

16 4.1.3 Vessel Movements 

17 Vessel use during the dredging or the installation of the in-water structures, and transportation 

18 of large components for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 may affect the aquatic resources of the 

19 CFBC, particularly the benthos. The main effects from using vessels would include turbulence 

20 from propellers (prop wash), anchor cable scraping across the canal bottom, and accidental 

21 spills of materials overboard. Vessels would be used during the installation of the cooling-water 

22 discharge pipeline and during the offloading of materials from barges. Vessel operation during 

23 construction would cause short-term, localized impacts on EFH in the CFBC, but impacts on 

24 water quality and habitat in the OWR are not anticipated. These impacts should not affect the 

25 general resources in the area of the site or the region along this coast of the Gulf of Mexico. 

26 4.1.4 Transmission-Line Corridors 

27 PEF would site the new 500-, 230-, and 65-kV transmission lines in accordance with the Florida 

28 Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA), Chapter 403 of the Florida Statutes (FS), and 

29 Chapter 62-17 of the FAC. In addition, PEF would comply with all applicable laws, regulations, 

30 and permit requirements and would use good engineering and construction practices (FDEP 

31 2008), which includes leaving a 25-ft buffer of existing vegetation along the banks, with mature 

32 heights not exceeding 12 ft at locations where the right-of-way crosses a navigable waterway 

33 (PEF 2008). 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-26 August 2010 

1 4.2 Operation 

2 For EFH in the CFBC and OWR, the primary concerns related to water intake withdrawals are 

3 those related to the amount of water drawn from the CFBC, and the potential for organisms to 

4 be impinged on the intake screens or entrained into the cooling-water system. PEF stated that 

5 a closed-cycle, mechanical draft cooling system would be used for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 

6 (PEF 2009b). The intake system for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would incorporate fish and 

7 invertebrate protection measures to reduce entrainment and impingement. The intake flow 

8 design rate for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would not exceed a through-screen flow velocity of 

9 0.5 fps. 

10 4.2.1 Impingement and Entrainment 

11 Impingement and entrainment studies have been conducted for the nearby CREC intake 

12 structures. The study was performed in 1983 and 1984 to examine impingement and 

13 entrainment for three intakes providing cooling water for CREC fossil-fueled Units 1 and 2 and 

14 nuclear Unit 3 (Stone and Webster 1985). Although the operation of these three units has more 

15 than 13 times higher withdrawal rates (1897–1613 Mgd) and twice the through-screen velocity 

16 (1.0 fps) than those proposed for LNP (122 Mgd with less than 0.5 fps through-screen velocity), 

17 the impingement and entrainment studies provide contextual information regarding impacts on 

18 relevant species that are present in the Gulf of Mexico and may be affected by LNP operations. 

19 Impingement and entrainment studies were conducted to assess impacts as required under 

20 NPDES Permit FL0000159 for CREC (Stone and Webster 1985). Sampling for impingement 

21 rates occurred four times over a 24-hour period once every 2 weeks for 1 year by examination 

22 of collection baskets attached to screen wash effluents. The three units were assessed by 

23 individual intake, but results are combined for discussion purposes here. The highest 

24 abundances of organisms were collected in the spring, with bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) 

25 collected in the greatest numbers with estimates of more than 87,000 impinged annually. 

26 Polka-dot batfish (Ogcocephalus cubifrons) and spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) were two other 

27 species also collected in significant numbers. These three species represented more than 

28 72 percent of the selected indicator fish impinged. In 1997, the State of Florida set an annual 

29 commercial harvest limit of 85,000 lb of bay anchovy for the counties of Wakulla, Franklin, Gulf, 

30 Bay, Okaloosa, and Walton (FFWCC 1997). Eighty-seven thousand anchovies represents 

31 approximately 350 lb (average 0.004 lb per fish), indicating the number of impinged anchovy 

32 only represent a small fraction of the annual commercial harvest limit of 85,000 lb. The 

33 numbers of invertebrates impinged were much higher for inverterbrates than for fish, with pink 

34 shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum) and blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), the predominant 

35 species. Like fish, invertebrate impingement was highest in the spring. More than 640,000 pink 

36 shrimp and 383,000 blue crab were impinged over a year. These impingement numbers 

37 represent 0.6 percent and 0.7 percent, respectively, of the annual commercial fisheries for 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-27 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Citrus County in 1982 (Stone and Webster 1985), and reflect impingement rates for a through2 screen velocity of 1.0 fps. By comparison, LNP Units 1 and 2 potential impingement impacts 

3 should be notably less with a through-screen velocity of no more than 0.5 fps and a significantly 

4 reduced intake flow rate. 

5 Plankton samples were collected from 15 stations offshore in the vicinity of the CREC intake 

6 canal every 2 weeks for 15 months using 505-m mesh with a 1-m mouth towed for 3 minutes 

7 from bottom to surface at a constant flow rate. These samples were analyzed for estimation of 

8 entrainment of eggs and larvae for CREC intakes 1 through 3. April and May were peak 

9 collection times for eggs, while invertebrate meroplankton were collected in the highest numbers 

10 in July and August. Bay anchovy eggs, larvae, and juveniles were most abundant and, using 

11 conservative assumptions regarding life history and mortality, represent approximately 

12 21.7 million adults lost per year (Stone and Webster 1985). Recreationally important fish 

13 entrained included larvae and/or juveniles of silver perch (6602 adult equivalents as assessed for 

14 bay anchovy), spotted sea trout (Cynoscion nebulosus , 900 adult equivalents), red drum 

15 (Sciaenops ocellatus ,18 adult equivalents), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus 690,000 adult 

16 equivalents), and striped mullet (Mugil cephalus, 5985 adult equivalents). With the exception of 

17 spot, the entrainment impact on these fish represents less than 0.2 percent of the estimated 

18 annual harvest for each species. The 1982 commercial harvest of spot for Citrus and Levy 

19 Counties was equivalent to the estimated numbers (based on weight) of entrained spot (Stone 

20 and Webster 1985). 

21 Invertebrate sampling indicated that shrimp, stone crab (Menippe mercenaria), and brief squid 

22 (Lolliguncula brevis) could be entrained. Although no pink shrimp were collected, other shrimp 

23 post-larvae and juveniles were assessed without distinguishing species and represent more 

24 than 29,000 adult equivalents. Florida stone crab zoeal through megalops stages and brief 

25 squid were collected and estimated to represent 3652 and 3600 (194 lb) adult equivalents, 

26 respectively. With a commercial harvest of shrimp exceeding 1 million pounds, the number of 

27 entrained shrimp is minimal. Likewise, the number of entrained brief squid is small with 

28 commercial landings of squid in Pasco and Pinellas Counties in 1986 exceeding 2900 lb 

29 (FFWCC 1986). Impact on entrained stone crabs is difficult to estimate because the 

30 commercial fishery is renewable and only the claws are harvested. However, more than 

31 950,000 lb of claws were harvested in Citrus and Levy Counties in 1982, and, assuming that 

32 claws make up half the weight (Lindberg and Marshall 1984), the loss of commercial harvest 

33 due to entrainment would be less than 0.01 percent. By comparison, the CREC withdrawal of 

34 water from the Gulf of Mexico is between 1897 and 1613 Mgd, which is 13 times greater than 

35 the proposed water withdrawal of 122 Mgd from the CFBC for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2. 

36 Entrainment impacts for LNP are expected to be significantly less than for CREC. 

37 For the LNP Units 1 and 2 CWIS, PEF estimated potential impacts from withdrawal of cooling 

38 water from the CFBC based on design and construction technology, baseline biological 

39 characterization, and zone of influence. The through screen velocity for the intake would be 0.5 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-28 August 2010 

fps or less. To achieve the low velocity, the inlet area would need to be larger than 106.1 ft2 1 

2 (CH2M Hill 2009c). The zone of hydraulic influence would extend 5 mi from the CWIS in the 

3 CFBC. The CFBC is tidally influenced, and, beyond the 5-mi zone of influence, the average 

4 current velocity is greater than the CWIS-induced through-screen velocity 90 percent of the 

5 time. Sampling in the area of the proposed CWIS indicated a biologically depauperate 

6 environment with relatively poor water quality (PEF 2009a). However, operation of the CWIS 

7 would modify the temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen conditions in the vicinity of the 

8 CWIS and may attract aquatic biota, enhancing the area. Using conservative assumptions that 

9 the water quality may approach similar attributes as those observed in the CFBC near sampling 

10 Station 3 at the mouth, the number and diversity of species is likely to increase for the life 

11 stages of organisms that are mobile and actively feeding. However, the portion of the CFBC 

12 sampled near Station 3 is not a known spawning area, and zooplankton likely drift in and out of 

13 this area under tidal influence. Therefore, the potential for impingement and entrainment of 

14 aquatic organisms during operation of the CWIS would likely increase only due to zone of 

15 hydraulic influence and not from colonization or use of habitat near the CWIS. However, the 

16 overall impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms for LNP are still expected to be 

17 significantly less than the impingement and entrainment that occur at the CWIS for the CREC. 

18 4.2.3 Aquatic Thermal Impacts 

19 In EIS Section 5.2.3.1, the review team describes its independent assessment of the 

20 incremental impacts of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 on the water temperatures using the current 

21 CREC discharge flow plus the power uprate for CREC Unit 3 on the Gulf of Mexico. A three22 dimensional coastal ocean model was used in the assessment of the impact on the Gulf of 

23 Mexico. In addition, the review team modeled the discharge with the two LNP units operating, 

24 CREC Unit 3 power uprate, and CREC Units 1 and 2 shut down. During summer conditions at 

25 ebb tide the surface-water temperatures near the CREC point of discharge channel would be 

26 slightly less under the proposed conditions when compared to current conditions that include 

27 operation of CREC Units 1 through 5. The discharge volume of the plume would be increased 

28 with the addition of LNP Units 1 and 2, but only slightly. The increase in surface-water 

29 temperature at the entrance of CFBC channel immediately to the north, would be between 

30 0.05°C and ~0.1°C during the summer months at ebb tide (Figure 4-1). Similar trends in 

31 thermal plume temperatures would be observed during winter conditions with the addition of 

32 LNP discharge resulting in a slight temperature drop immediately at the CREC discharge canal, 

33 and a slight increase in surface-water temperature beyond the immediate discharge area. 

34 Surface-water temperatures at the mouth of the CFBC are expected to increase by less than 

35 0.5°C over the current conditions (Figure 4-2). The increased plume size attributable to the 

36 operation of two units at the LNP site would likely have minimal impact on aquatic biota that 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-29 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

2 Figure 4-1. Thermal Plume Analysis Using the FVCOM (Finite Volume Community Ocean 

3 Model) Showing the Temperature Difference Between the Current and Proposed 

4 Thermal Discharge Under Summer Conditions at Ebb Tide 

5 

6 Figure 4-2. Thermal Plume Analysis Using the FVCOM Showing the Temperature Difference 

7 Between Current and Proposed Thermal Discharge Under Winter Conditions at 

8 Ebb Tide 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-30 August 2010 

1 forage near the CFBC under both extreme conditions primarily because of the small contribution 

2 LNP would have on the extent of the plume. Habitat usage is not expected to be detectably 

3 affected by operation of LNP at the point of discharge given the minimal addition of discharge 

4 volume and temperature change. 

5 4.2.3.1 Chemical Impacts 

6 The use of chemicals in the existing CREC discharge is regulated by an NPDES permit, which 

7 is granted by the FDEP. The chemical concentrations at the outfall for the existing units meet 

8 the NPDES limits (FDEP 2008) and would be required to be under compliance with the addition 

9 of the LNP discharge. The minimal increase in discharge contribution from LNP would not 

10 significantly increase the total chemical concentrations and is expected to be compliant with 

11 NPDES limits (FDEP 2010). Table 3-2 lists the water-treatment chemicals, their use, and the 

12 concentrations that are anticipated to be discharged from the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 

13 blowdown. The concentrations in the discharge are significantly lower than the LC50. The 

14 CREC effluent discharge and the Gulf of Mexico would further dilute the concentration of these 

15 chemicals. 

16 In addition, the review team evaluated the potential for impact due to the increased salinity 

17 associated with the LNP Units 1 and 2 blowdown, which would have a total dissolved solids 

18 concentration up to 1.5 times greater than seawater (PEF 2009b). This increase in total 

19 dissolved solids is due to evaporative loss of water through the cooling towers. Because the 

20 LNP discharge would be combined with CREC discharge prior to the point of discharge into 

21 Crystal Bay and the CREC discharge accounts for the vast majority of the discharge volume 

22 (>95 percent), the increase in salinity would be slight (0 pps and ~0.5 pps) in the coastal region 

23 near the CREC discharge channel and between 0.4 pps and ~0.45 pps at the mouth of the 

24 CFBC (Figure 4-3). 

25 Thus, the incremental impacts from the chemical discharges related to the operation of LNP 

26 Units 1 and 2 to the Gulf of Mexico are considered to be minimal. 

27 4.2.3.2 Physical Impacts from Discharge 

28 The discharge volume of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 blowdown water would be 81.34 Mgd and 

29 would be combined with the CREC Units 1 through 5 discharge of 1651.8 Mgd in the CREC 

30 discharge canal, which opens into the Gulf of Mexico. The LNP discharge would account for 

31 only 4.9 percent of the total discharge flow, would have little physical scouring impact at the 

32 terminus of the discharge canal (PEF 2009a), and is not likely to affect water quality or habitat in 

33 the nearshore environment. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-31 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

2 Figure 4-3. Salinity Difference Between the Current and Proposed Discharge Plume at 

3 Ebb Tide 

4 4.2.4 Transmission-Line Corridors 

5 Maintenance activities along the four 500-kV, five 230-kV, and two 69-kV transmission lines 

6 could lead to periodic temporary impacts on the waterways being crossed. However, it is 

7 assumed that the same vegetation management practices currently used by PEF for the 

8 existing CREC facility transmission-line rights-of-way would be applied to the existing and 

9 proposed new transmission-line right-of-ways. PEF practices and procedures were developed 

10 to prevent impacts on surface waters and wetlands; therefore, impacts on aquatic ecosystems 

11 from operation and maintenance of transmission lines are expected to be minimal (PEF 2009a). 

12 No impacts on aquatic habitats are anticipated from maintenance of the transmission lines. 

13 5.0 Potential Effects of Proposed Federal Actions 

14 on EFH Species 

15 During the development of the EFH assessment, NMFS provided a list of species managed by 

16 the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council for Ecoregion 2) (NMFS 2008). With the 

17 exception of a few species that do not occur in the region of interest or occupy EFHs that would 

18 not be affected by the proposed action, these species and life stages that rely on habitats 

19 essential for species propagation are detailed below with regard to abundance patterns in 

20 Crystal Bay and the CFBC, common depth distributions, relevant migratory and spawning 

21 habits, tolerance and preference ranges for temperature and salinity, habitat needs, information 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-32 August 2010 

1 on food preferences, and the impact of the proposed Federal actions on EFH. The affected 

2 waterbodies associated with LNP are the nearshore Crystal Bay (marine), CFBC (estuarine), 

3 and the OWR (estuarine/freshwater). During the initial review of life history and EFH 

4 requirements for each candidate species, some species or life stages were eliminated from 

5 further consideration based on salinity or depth requirements or life history information that 

6 suggested the presence of some species or life stage is unlikely in Crystal Bay, the CFBC, or 

7 the OWR (Table 5-1). To indicate those species and life history stages included in EFH 

8 consultation, amended lists of species taken from Table 1-1 are given by waterbody 

9 (Tables 5-2 and 5-3). Construction impacts are possible for species and EFH in estuarine 

10 habitats associated with the CFBC and OWR. Operation impacts are possible for species and 

11 EFH in both estuarine (CFBC and OWR) and marine habitats associated with Crystal Bay up to 

12 two miles offshore. 

13 5.1 Species Descriptions and Impact Determination 

14 For each species and life stage, LNP construction and operation were evaluated to determine 

15 whether they resulted in (1) no adverse impact, (2) minimal adverse impact, or (3) substantial 

16 adverse impact on EFH. To determine impact level, LNP monitoring data, scientific journal 

17 articles, NMFS publications, CREC data, technical reports, and other relevant information were 

18 reviewed. 

19 5.1.1 Spanish Mackerel 

20 Adult Spanish mackerel (Scombermorus maculatus) forage in estuarine and marine nearshore 

21 pelagic waters, and eggs and juveniles also occur nearshore marine surface (eggs) and pelagic 

22 (juveniles) waters (GMFMC 2004). This species is often found in large schools near the water 

23 surface. Juvenile and adult Spanish mackerel are fast moving, voracious predators and feed on 

24 other smaller schooling fish. Spawning takes place from May to late August. In the eastern Gulf 

25 of Mexico, Spanish mackerel migrate northward during late winter and spring, and migrate 

26 southward to wintering grounds in south Florida waters in the fall (FFWCC 2008a). Spanish 

27 mackerel were collected at the CFBC mouth and CFBC nearshore areas. However, no adult 

28 Spanish mackerel were collected in the OWR, and no identifiable Spanish mackerel eggs or 

29 juveniles were collected during sampling activities between October 2007 and November 2008 

30 in the CFBC, OWR, or CREC nearshore region of Crystal Bay.
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-33 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 5-1. Species and Life Stages Excluded from EFH Assessment 

Common Name Life Stages Excluded Rationale for Exclusion 

Spanish mackerel Larvae (eggs, juveniles, 

and adults retained)

Depth requirements not present in Crystal Bay(a)

Gray triggerfish All life stages Depth and substrate requirements not present in Crystal 

Bay(a)

Golden tilefish All life stages Depth requirements not present in Crystal Bay(a)

Goldface tilefish All life stages Depth and substrate requirements not present in Crystal 

Bay(a)

Blueline tilefish All life stages Depth requirements not present in Crystal Bay(a)

Banded 

rudderfish

All life stages Depth requirements not present in Crystal Bay(a)

Almaco jack All life stages Depth requirements not present in Crystal Bay(a)

Lesser amberjack Juveniles(eggs and 

larvae retained)

Depth requirements not present in Crystal Bay(a)

Vermillion 

snapper

Eggs, juveniles, adults Depth and substrate requirements not present in Crystal 

Bay(a)

Red snapper Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

(adults retained)

Depth requirements not present in Crystal Bay(a)

Blackfin snapper All life stages Depth requirements not present in Crystal Bay(a)

Scamp All life stages Depth and substrate requirements not present in Crystal 

Bay(a)

Speckled hind All life stages Depth requirements not present in Crystal Bay(a)

Rock hind Juveniles 

(eggs and larvae 

retained)

Substrate requirements not present in Crystal Bay(a)

Red hind All life stages Depth and substrate requirements not present in Crystal 

Bay(a)

Yellowedge 

grouper 

All life stages Depth and substrate requirements not present in Crystal 

Bay(a)

Warsaw grouper All life stages Depth and substrate requirements not present in Crystal 

Bay(a)

Red grouper Eggs, larvae (juveniles 

and adults retained) 

Depth requirements not present in Crystal Bay(a)

2 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-34 August 2010 

1 Table 5-1. (contd) 

Common Name Life Stages Excluded Rationale for Exclusion 

Black grouper Eggs, larvae (juveniles 

and adults retained) 

Depth requirements not present in Crystal Bay(a)

Gag grouper Eggs, larvae, adults 

(juveniles retained) 

Depth requirements not present in Crystal Bay(a)

White shrimp Eggs (larvae and 

juveniles retained) 

Depth requirements not present in Crystal Bay(a)

Gulf stone crab All life stages Species not present in geographical area 

Coral All life stages Depth and substrate requirements not present in Crystal 

Bay(a)

(a) Crystal Bay area defined by affected nearshore environment up to 2 mi offshore. 

Modified from Table 1-1.

2 Table 5-2. Designated EFH for Species and Life Stages for the Estuarine Cross Florida Barge 

3 Canal and Old Withlacoochee River

Common Name Species Name Life Stage 

Spanish mackerel Scombermorus maculatus Adults 

Hogfish Lachnolaimus maximus Juveniles 

Schoolmaster Lutjanus apodus Juveniles 

Gray (mangrove) snapper Lutjanus griseus Larvae, juveniles, adults 

Dog snapper Lutjanus jocu Juveniles 

Lane snapper Lutjanus synagris Larvae, juveniles 

Yellowtail snapper Ocyurus chrysurus Juveniles 

Red grouper Epinephelus morio Juveniles 

Black grouper Mycteroperca bonaci Juveniles, adults 

Gag grouper Mycteroperca microlepis Juveniles 

Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus Larvae, juveniles, adults 

White shrimp Litopenaeus setiferus Larvae, juveniles 

Pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus duorarum Juveniles 

Florida stone crab Menippe mercenaria Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Modified from Table 1-1. 

4 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-35 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 5-3. Designated EFH for the Marine Crystal Bay Up to 2 mi Offshore 

Common Name Species Life Stage 

Spanish mackerel Scombermorus maculatus Eggs, juveniles, adults 

Hogfish Lachnolaimus maximus Juveniles 

Schoolmaster Lutjanus apodus Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Lesser amberjack Seriola fasciata Eggs, larvae 

Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Dwarf sand perch Diplectrum bivittatum Juveniles 

Gray (mangrove) snapper Lutjanus griseus Eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults 

Dog snapper Lutjanus jocu Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Lane snapper Lutjanus synagris Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Yellowtail snapper Ocyurus chrysurus Eggs, juveniles, adults 

Red snapper Lutjanus campechanus Adults 

Red grouper Epinephelus morio Juveniles, adults 

Black grouper Mycteroperca bonaci Juveniles, adults 

Gag grouper Mycteroperca microlepis Juveniles 

Nassau grouper Epinephelus striatus Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Rock hind Epinephelus adscensionis Eggs, larvae 

Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus Eggs, juveniles, adults 

White shrimp Litopenaeus setiferus Larvae 

Pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus duorarum Eggs, larvae, adults 

Florida stone crab Menippe mercenaria Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Modified from Table 1-1. 

2 Construction activities would not occur in nearshore areas, but would occur in a small proportion 

3 of available potential foraging habitat within the CFBC at the site of discharge piping 

4 entrenchment, barge-unloading facility, and intake structure placement. Disruption of habitat for 

5 foraging in these areas of the CFBC is expected to be minor and temporary. Spanish mackerel 

6 were also collected in the nearshore area of the CREC discharge. No construction activities are 

7 planned for the nearshore areas around the CREC discharge. The thermal, chemical, and 

8 physical changes in the nearshore Crystal Bay environment should be easily avoided by adult 

9 and juvenile Spanish mackerel, as well as by their prey. Eggs may drift into the region of the 

10 discharge plume, but the water-quality parameters from discharge operations (chemical and 

11 thermal) are not expected to significantly alter the pelagic Crystal Bay environment. Barges 

12 moving heavy equipment and bulk commodities are likely to be slow-moving and prop wash and 

13 wave action from the vessel movement is not likely to affect any life stages of Spanish mackerel 

14 in the vicinity. Vegetation management practices in transmission corridors and transmission line 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-36 August 2010 

1 maintenance is not expected to affect EFH species. Therefore, LNP construction activities 

2 would likely have a minimal adverse effect on adult Spanish mackerel EFH in the CFBC, and 

3 LNP operations would likely have minimal adverse impact on Spanish mackerel eggs, and 

4 juvenile EFH. 

5 5.1.2 Hogfish 

6 Juvenile hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus) are found in shallow estuarine and marine areas and 

7 near submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) habitats, where they forage on benthic crustaceans, 

8 mollusks, and echinoderms (GMFMC 2004). Hogfish juveniles are all female and transform to 

9 males following spawning as females around 3 years of age (FFWCC 2008b). No hogfish were 

10 collected during sampling activities in the Crystal Bay area, nearshore of the CFBC, or within 

11 the CFBC (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

12 Construction activities would not occur in nearshore areas, but would occur in a small proportion 

13 of available potential foraging habitat within the CFBC at the site of discharge piping 

14 entrenchment, barge-unloading facility, and intake structure placement. Disruption of habitat 

15 for foraging in these areas of the CFBC is expected to be minor and temporary. Juvenile 

16 hogfish that may be present should be able to use adjacent unaffected SAV habitats. No 

17 construction activities are planned for the nearshore areas around the CREC discharge. The 

18 thermal, chemical, and physical changes in the nearshore Crystal Bay environment should be 

19 easily avoided by juvenile hogfish, as well as by their prey. Water-quality parameters from 

20 discharge operations (chemical and thermal) are not expected to significantly alter the pelagic 

21 Crystal Bay environment. Barges moving heavy equipment and bulk commodities are likely to 

22 be slow-moving and prop wash and wave action from the vessel movement is not likely to affect 

23 juvenile hogfish in the vicinity. Vegetation management practices in transmission corridors and 

24 transmission line maintenance is not expected to affect EFH species. Therefore, LNP 

25 construction and operations would likely have minimal adverse impact on hogfish juvenile EFH. 

26 5.1.3 Amberjack Species 

27 The greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) and lesser amberjack (Seriola fasciata) primarily are 

28 found in offshore deepwater marine habitats. Spawning occurs offshore in the spring, and eggs, 

29 larvae, and greater amberjack juveniles may drift into shallower marine habitats. Juvenile 

30 greater amberjack feed on plankton and small invertebrates (GMFMC 2004). No eggs, larvae, 

31 or juveniles were collected during sampling activities in the Crystal Bay area or nearshore of the 

32 CFBC (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

33 No construction activities are planned for the nearshore areas around the CREC discharge, and 

34 construction activities within the CFBC would not impact marine EFH for both lesser and greater 

35 amberjack eggs, larvae, and juveniles. The thermal, chemical, and physical changes in the 

36 nearshore Crystal Bay environment should be easily avoided by juvenile greater amberjack, as 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-37 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 well as by their prey. Eggs and larvae may drift into the region of the discharge plume, but the 

2 water-quality parameters from discharge operations (chemical and thermal) are not expected to 

3 significantly alter the pelagic Crystal Bay environment. Barges moving heavy equipment and 

4 bulk commodities are likely to be slow-moving and prop wash and wave action from the vessel 

5 movement is not likely to affect any life stages of greater or lesser amberjack species in the 

6 vicinity. Vegetation management practices in transmission corridors and transmission line 

7 maintenance is not expected to affect EFH species. Therefore, LNP construction would likely 

8 have no adverse impact on amberjack EFH, and LNP operations would likely have minimal 

9 adverse impact on amberjack egg and larvae EFH. 

10 5.1.4 Dwarf Sand Perch 

11 Juvenile dwarf sand perch (Diplectrum bivittatum) are demersal and occur in hard-bottom 

12 marine habitats that may be present in nearshore areas of Crystal Bay. It is unknown what 

13 specific habitat needs juveniles require in these areas. Dwarf sand perch feed on benthic 

14 crustaceans and small fish. Juveniles move from shallow marine habitats and move offshore 

15 during winter months (GMFMC 2004). No juveniles were collected during sampling activities in 

16 the Crystal Bay area or nearshore of the CFBC (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

17 No construction activities are planned for the nearshore areas around the CREC discharge, and 

18 construction activities within the CFBC would not impact marine EFH for juvenile dwarf sand 

19 perch. The thermal, chemical, and physical changes in the nearshore Crystal Bay environment 

20 should be easily avoided by juvenile dwarf sand perch, as well as by their prey. Barges moving 

21 heavy equipment and bulk commodities are likely to be slow-moving and prop wash and wave 

22 action from the vessel movement is not likely to affect juvenile dwarf sand perch in the vicinity. 

23 Vegetation management practices in transmission corridors and transmission line maintenance 

24 is not expected to affect dwarf sand perch juveniles. Therefore, LNP construction and operation 

25 would likely have no adverse impact on dwarf sand perch juvenile EFH. 

26 5.1.5 Gray Snapper 

27 For estuarine habitats associated with the CFBC, larval, juvenile, and adult life stages of gray 

28 snapper (Lutjanus griseus) are considered because this species occupies primarily inshore 

29 habitats. Eggs are found primarily in marine waters as part of the plankton community. Larvae 

30 are marine, neritic, and planktonic, and are known to be in the Gulf of Mexico from April through 

31 November. As they mature, gray snapper move into estuarine habitats and occupy inshore 

32 grassy areas. Juveniles and adults are found near SAV in inshore marine and estuarine 

33 habitats or near mangroves (GMFMC 2004). Adults move offshore to spawn between June and 

34 September. Juvenile and adult gray snapper forage on small fish and crustaceans (FFWCC 

35 2008c). Gray snapper were observed in the CFBC at all three stations from the Inglis Lock to 

36 the mouth and in the nearshore area of the CREC discharge (CH2MHill 2009b). 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-38 August 2010 

1 For estuarine habitats associated with the CFBC, larval, juvenile, and adult life stages of gray 

2 snapper are considered because this species occupies primarily inshore habitats (GMFMC 

3 2004). Eggs are found primarily in marine waters as part of the plankton community. Adults 

4 and juveniles occur in potential foraging habitat within the CFBC at the site of discharge piping 

5 entrenchment, barge-unloading facility, and possibly the intake installation. Disruption of habitat 

6 for foraging in these areas of the CFBC is expected to be minor, temporary, and largely 

7 mitigable. Larvae may move into estuarine habitats, like the CFBC, and become entrained in 

8 the cooling-water intake system. However, it is unlikely that appreciable numbers of larvae 

9 would be entrained because no larval snapper species were collected over a year of sampling 

10 near the mouth or within the CFBC. Juvenile gray snapper that may be present should be able 

11 to use adjacent unaffected SAV habitats. The thermal, chemical, and physical changes in the 

12 nearshore Crystal Bay environment should be easily avoided by adult and juvenile gray 

13 snapper, as well as by their prey. Eggs and larvae may drift into the region of the discharge 

14 plume, but the water-quality parameters from discharge operations (chemical and thermal) are 

15 not expected to significantly alter the pelagic Crystal Bay environment. Barges moving heavy 

16 equipment and bulk commodities are likely to be slow-moving and prop wash and wave action 

17 from the vessel movement is not likely to affect gray snapper in the vicinity. Vegetation 

18 management practices in transmission corridors and transmission line maintenance is not 

19 expected to affect gray snapper EFH. Therefore, LNP construction would likely have minimal 

20 adverse impact on gray snapper juvenile and adult EFH. LNP operations would likely have 

21 minimal adverse impact on gray snapper eggs, larvae and juvenile EFH. 

22 5.1.6 Lane Snapper 

23 Larvae and juvenile lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris) may occupy estuarine to marine habitats 

24 with SAV or sand, shell, or soft substrate (GMFMC 2004). Mature adults spawn offshore from 

25 March through September, and eggs are found primarily in marine waters as part of the 

26 planktonic water column. Juveniles feed on small crustaceans and fish and mature to 

27 reproductive adults within a year (FFWCC 2008d). Lane snapper were observed in the CFBC 

28 at all three stations from the Inglis Lock to the mouth and in the nearshore area of the CREC 

29 discharge (CH2MHill 2009b). 

30 Juvenile lane snapper may forage within the CFBC at the site of discharge piping entrenchment, 

31 barge-unloading facility, and possibly the intake installation. Disruption of habitat for foraging in 

32 these areas of the CFBC is expected to be minor, temporary, and largely mitigable. Larvae may 

33 move into estuarine habitats, like the CFBC, and become entrained in the cooling-water intake 

34 system. However, it is unlikely that appreciable numbers of larvae would be entrained as no 

35 larval snapper species were collected over a year of sampling near the mouth or within the 

36 CFBC. Larval and juvenile lane snapper that may be present should be able to use adjacent 

37 unaffected SAV habitats. The thermal, chemical, and physical changes in the nearshore Crystal 

38 Bay environment should be easily avoided by juvenile lane snapper, as well as by their prey. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-39 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Eggs and larvae may drift near the region of the discharge plume, but EFH for these life stages 

2 is defined at a depth range of 4 to 132 m, which would not occur in the discharge plume region. 

3 Barges moving heavy equipment and bulk commodities are likely to be slow-moving and prop 

4 wash and wave action from the vessel movement is not likely to affect lane snapper in the 

5 vicinity. Vegetation management practices in transmission corridors and transmission line 

6 maintenance is not expected to affect lane snapper EFH. Therefore, LNP construction would 

7 likely have minimal adverse impact on lane snapper juvenile EFH. LNP operations would likely 

8 have minimal adverse impact on lane snapper egg, larvae and juvenile EFH. 

9 5.1.7 Schoolmaster 

10 Both larval schoolmaster and schoolmaster eggs are found in marine waters associated with the 

11 planktonic water column. Juveniles move into shallow, estuarine waters (GMFMC 2004) 

12 However, no life stages of these species were collected during sampling activities in the Crystal 

13 Bay area or the CFBC (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

14 Schoolmaster juveniles may forage within the CFBC at the site of discharge piping 

15 entrenchment and possibly the intake installation. Disruption of habitat for foraging in these 

16 areas of the CFBC is expected to be minor, temporary, and largely mitigable. During operation, 

17 impingement losses of juveniles are unlikely due to the low through-screen velocity and limited 

18 withdrawal rates for closed-cycle cooling. Eggs and larvae may drift into the region of the 

19 discharge plume, but the water-quality parameters from discharge operations (chemical and 

20 thermal) are not expected to significantly alter the pelagic Crystal Bay environment. Barges 

21 moving heavy equipment and bulk commodities are likely to be slow-moving and prop wash and 

22 wave action from the vessel movement is not likely to affect schoolmaster in the vicinity. 

23 Vegetation management practices in transmission corridors and transmission line maintenance 

24 is not expected to affect schoolmaster. Therefore, LNP construction would likely have minimal 

25 adverse impact on schoolmaster juvenile EFH. LNP operations would likely have minimal 

26 adverse impact on schoolmaster egg and larvae EFH. 

27 5.1.8 Dog Snapper 

28 Dog snapper use estuarine, grassy nearshore habitat for juvenile development. Both dog 

29 snapper larvae and eggs are found in marine waters associated with the planktonic water 

30 column (GMFMC 2004), which occur outside the CFBC. Juveniles may also use sand, shell, or 

31 soft bottom estuarine habitat, such as found in the CFBC, for foraging. However, no life stages 

32 of these species were collected during sampling activities in the Crystal Bay area or the CFBC 

33 (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

34 Disruption of habitat for foraging in the areas of the CFBC near the discharge piping 

35 entrenchment, barge-unloading facility, and intake installation is expected to be minor, 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-40 August 2010 

1 temporary, and largely mitigable. During operation, impingement losses of juveniles are unlikely 

2 due to the low through-screen velocity and limited withdrawal rates for closed-cycle cooling. 

3 Eggs and larvae may drift into the region of the discharge plume, but the water-quality 

4 parameters from discharge operations (chemical and thermal) are not expected to significantly 

5 alter the pelagic Crystal Bay environment. Barges moving heavy equipment and bulk 

6 commodities are likely to be slow-moving and prop wash and wave action from the vessel 

7 movement is not likely to affect dog snapper in the vicinity. Vegetation management practices 

8 in transmission corridors and transmission line maintenance is not expected to affect dog 

9 snapper. Therefore, LNP construction would likely have minimal adverse impact on dog 

10 snapper juvenile EFH. LNP operations would likely have minimal adverse impact on dog 

11 snapper egg, larvae, and juvenile EFH. 

12 5.1.9 Yellowtail Snapper 

13 Juvenile yellowtail snapper move into nearshore nursery areas characterized as marine or 

14 estuarine with SAV or soft-bottom substrate. Eggs are planktonic and primarily are found in 

15 offshore marine waters. Adult yellowtail snapper are found primarily in marine waters, over 

16 shallow-to-50-m depth habitats with hard bottom or reef substrates (GMFMC 2004). However, 

17 no life stages of these species were collected during sampling activities in the Crystal Bay area 

18 or the CFBC (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

19 Juveniles may use potential foraging habitat within the CFBC at the site of discharge piping 

20 entrenchment, barge-unloading facility, and possibly the intake installation. Disruption of habitat 

21 for foraging in these areas of the CFBC is expected to be minor, temporary, and largely 

22 mitigable. Juvenile yellowtail snapper that may be present should be able to use adjacent 

23 unaffected SAV habitats. During operation, impingement losses of juveniles are unlikely due to 

24 the low through-screen velocity and limited withdrawal rates for closed-cycle cooling. The 

25 thermal, chemical, and physical changes in the nearshore Crystal Bay environment should be 

26 easily avoided by juvenile yellowtail snapper, as well as by their prey. Eggs may drift into the 

27 region of the discharge plume, but the water-quality parameters from discharge operations 

28 (chemical and thermal) are not expected to significantly alter the pelagic Crystal Bay 

29 environment. It is likely that adults in the Crystal Bay area would swim away or forage in nearby 

30 unaffected areas. Barges moving heavy equipment and bulk commodities are likely to be slow31 moving and prop wash and wave action from the vessel movement is not likely to affect red 

32 snapper in the vicinity. Vegetation management practices in transmission corridors and 

33 transmission line maintenance is not expected to affect adult red snapper. Therefore, LNP 

34 construction would likely have minimal adverse impact on yellowtail snapper juvenile EFH. LNP 

35 operations would likely have minimal adverse impact on yellow snapper egg and juvenile EFH. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-41 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 5.1.10 Red Snapper 

2 Adult red snapper prefer sandy and rocky-bottom habitats in marine waters up to 200 m 

3 (GMFMC 2004). No life stages of these species were collected during sampling activities in the 

4 Crystal Bay area or the CFBC (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

5 No construction activities are planned for the nearshore areas around the CREC discharge, and 

6 construction activities within the CFBC would not impact marine EFH for adult red snapper. The 

7 thermal, chemical, and physical changes in the nearshore Crystal Bay environment should be 

8 easily avoided by adult red snapper, as well as by their prey. Barges moving heavy equipment 

9 and bulk commodities are likely to be slow-moving and prop wash and wave action from the 

10 vessel movement is not likely to affect red snapper in the vicinity. Vegetation management 

11 practices in transmission corridors and transmission line maintenance is not expected to affect 

12 adult red snapper. Therefore, LNP construction and operations would likely have no adverse 

13 impact on adult red snapper EFH. 

14 5.1.11 Grouper Species 

15 Juvenile red grouper (Epinephelus morio), gag grouper (Mycteroperca microlepis), and juvenile 

16 black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci) occupy estuarine hard-bottom and SAV habitats, which 

17 occur primarily outside of the CFBC, for growth and feeding (GMFMC 2004). Eggs and larvae 

18 for the Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) and rock hind (Epinephelus adscensionis) are 

19 planktonic in marine waters (GMFMC 2004). Juvenile Nassau grouper associate with 

20 nearshore SAV in marine waters. No life stages of any grouper species were collected during 

21 sampling in the CFBC (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

22 Juveniles and adult black grouper may use potential foraging habitat within the CFBC at the site 

23 of discharge piping entrenchment, barge-unloading facility, and possibly the intake installation. 

24 Disruption of habitat for foraging in these areas of the CFBC is expected to be minor, temporary, 

25 and largely mitigable. Juvenile red, black, and gag grouper that may be present should be able 

26 to use adjacent unaffected SAV habitats. No construction activities are planned for the 

27 nearshore areas around the CREC discharge. The thermal, chemical, and physical changes in 

28 the nearshore Crystal Bay environment should be easily avoided by adult and juvenile grouper 

29 species, as well as by their prey. Nassau grouper and rock hind eggs and larvae may drift into 

30 the region of the discharge plume, but the water-quality parameters from discharge operations 

31 (chemical and thermal) are not expected to significantly alter the pelagic Crystal Bay 

32 environment. Barges moving heavy equipment and bulk commodities are likely to be slow33 moving and prop wash and wave action from the vessel movement is not likely to affect grouper 

34 species in the vicinity. Vegetation management practices in transmission corridors and 

35 transmission line maintenance is not expected to affect grouper species in the vicinity. 

36 Therefore, LNP construction would likely have minimal adverse impact on juvenile red grouper, 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-42 August 2010 

1 juvenile gag grouper, and juvenile and adult black grouper EFH. LNP operations would likely 

2 have minimal adverse impact on rock hind and Nassau grouper eggs and larvae, and red 

3 grouper, gag grouper, Nassau grouper, and black grouper juvenile EFH. 

4 5.1.12 Red Drum 

5 Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) larvae and juveniles spend most of their time in estuarine soft6 bottom, sand/shell, and SAV habitats actively feeding on mysids, crustaceans, and fish. Adults 

7 spend some time near inshore SAV, sandy or hard-bottom foraging habitats, but are 

8 predominantly found offshore where spawning activities occur (GMFMC 2004). Red drum move 

9 to deep offshore water in the fall to spawn then return to nearshore coastal and estuarine 

10 habitats (FFWCC 2007). Red drum larvae, juveniles, and adults were observed at the proposed 

11 intake area within the CFBC. However, no red drum eggs were collected during the year-long 

12 sampling activities in the CFBC or nearshore waters, Crystal Bay, or OWC (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

13 Construction activities would not occur in nearshore areas, but would occur in a small proportion 

14 of available potential foraging habitat within the CFBC at the site of discharge piping 

15 entrenchment and intake structure placement. Disruption of habitat for foraging in these areas 

16 of the CFBC is expected to be minor and temporary. Larvae may become entrained in the 

17 cooling-water intake system in the CFBC as they were collected in the vicinity of the proposed 

18 intake. However, it is unlikely that appreciable numbers of larvae will be entrained as, over the 

19 year-long sampling events in the CFBC, 23.01 larvae per cubic m were collected near the 

20 proposed intake, and 43.31 larvae per cubic m were collected during the same sampling period 

21 at the mouth and nearshore waters of the CFBC (CH2M Hill 2009b). When adjusted for 

22 potential entrainment using LNP intake flow of 122 Mgd and foregone production assumptions 

23 regarding life history and survival (Boreman et al. 1981), this represents approximately 4 adult 

24 equivalents entrained in a year, which should not adversely impact red drum populations (CH2M 

25 Hill 2009c). The thermal, chemical, and physical changes in the nearshore Crystal Bay 

26 environment should be easily avoided by adult and juvenile red drum, as well as by their prey. 

27 Red drum eggs may drift into the region of the discharge plume, but the water-quality 

28 parameters from discharge operations (chemical and thermal) are not expected to significantly 

29 alter the pelagic Crystal Bay environment. Barges moving heavy equipment and bulk 

30 commodities are likely to be slow-moving and prop wash and wave action from the vessel 

31 movement is not likely to affect red drum in the vicinity. Vegetation management practices in 

32 transmission corridors and transmission line maintenance is not expected to affect red drum 

33 EFH. Therefore, LNP construction would likely have minimal adverse impact on red drum 

34 juvenile and adult EFH. LNP operations would likely have minimal adverse impact on red drum 

35 egg, larvae, juvenile, and adult EFH. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-43 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 5.1.13 Shrimp 

2 Pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum) and white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus) migrate from 

3 offshore pelagic environment (larvae) to inhabit grassy, estuarine habitats (juveniles) such as 

4 those found outside the mouth of the CFBC (GMFMC 2004). Larval pink shrimp may also 

5 occupy marine SAV and sand/shell habitats (GMFMC 2004), which are found in Crystal Bay 

6 near the point of discharge for CREC and were collected during sampling activities (CH2M Hill 

7 2009b). Although eggs and adult pink shrimp are also found in nearshore environments, they 

8 typically are not found in marine waters less than 1 m deep. White shrimp larvae may also be 

9 found in the nearshore marine water column, but prefer estuarine habitats (GMFMC 2004) and 

10 were not observed during sampling activities in Crystal Bay (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

11 No construction activities are planned for the nearshore areas around the CREC discharge, and 

12 the thermal, chemical, and physical changes in the nearshore Crystal Bay environment due to 

13 discharge operations are not expected to detectably alter the water column or sediment 

14 environments. Juvenile white and pink shrimp may forage within the CFBC at the site of the 

15 discharge piping entrenchment, barge-unloading facility, and possibly the intake installation. 

16 Disruption of habitat for foraging in these areas of the CFBC is expected to be minor, temporary, 

17 and largely mitigable. Pink shrimp larvae EFH is limited to marine habitats, and are not 

18 assessed for the estuarine CFBC. White shrimp larvae and pink shrimp juveniles may move 

19 into estuarine habitats, such as the CFBC, and become entrained in the cooling-water intake 

20 system. However, it is unlikely that appreciable numbers of larvae will be entrained as relatively 

21 few juvenile pink shrimp and no larval white shrimp were collected over a year of sampling near 

22 the mouth or within the CFBC (CH2MHill 2009b). Barges moving heavy equipment and bulk 

23 commodities are likely to be slow-moving and prop wash and wave action from the vessel 

24 movement is not likely to affect shrimp species in the vicinity. Vegetation management 

25 practices in transmission corridors and transmission line maintenance is not expected to affect 

26 pink or white shrimp EFH. Therefore, LNP construction would likely have minimal adverse 

27 impact on white and pink shrimp juvenile EFH. LNP operations would likely have minimal 

28 adverse impact on white shrimp egg, larvae, juvenile, and pink shrimp larvae and juvenile EFH. 

29 5.1.14 Stone Crab 

30 The Florida stone crab (Menippe mercenaria) occupy estuarine and marine SAV, sand/shell, 

31 and hard-bottom habitats as eggs, larvae, and juveniles (GMFMC 2004). Stone crab larvae 

32 require high salinity (>30 pps) for effective growth (GMFMC 2004). No significant numbers of 

33 Florida stone crab eggs, larvae, or juveniles were observed within the CFBC, which does not 

34 contain preferred habitat types, but they were collected at the CFBC mouth and nearshore 

35 areas and in the Crystal Bay area of the CREC discharge. 

36 It is possible that construction activities in the CFBC associated with discharge pipeline 

37 trenching and placement may disrupt foraging in these areas of the CFBC, but any disruption is 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-44 August 2010 

1 expected to be minor, temporary, and largely mitigable. Stone crab eggs and larvae may drift 

2 into the upper portion of the CFBC, and become entrained in the cooling-water intake system. 

3 However, it is unlikely that appreciable numbers of eggs or larvae would be entrained as no 

4 stone crab eggs or larvae were collected over a year of sampling within the CFBC 

5 (CH2M Hill 2009b). Juvenile stone crab should be able to use adjacent unaffected SAV 

6 habitats. No construction activities are planned for the nearshore areas around the CREC 

7 discharge, and the thermal, chemical, and physical changes in the nearshore Crystal Bay 

8 environment due to discharge operations are not expected to detectably alter the water column 

9 or sediment environments. Barges moving heavy equipment and bulk commodities are likely to 

10 be slow-moving and prop wash and wave action from the vessel movement is not likely to affect 

11 stone crab in the vicinity. Vegetation management practices in transmission corridors and 

12 transmission line maintenance is not expected to affect stone crab EFH. Therefore, LNP 

13 construction would likely have minimal adverse impact on stone crab juvenile EFH. LNP 

14 operations would likely have minimal adverse impact on stone crab egg, larvae, and juvenile 

15 EFH. 

16 6.0 Mitigation Measures 

17 Four categories of impacts related to LNP construction and operation that could influence EFH 

18 are (1) siltation or turbidity during construction; (2) impingement of juveniles or adults; (3) 

19 entrainment of eggs, larvae, and zooplankton in the water column; and (4) release of heated 

20 cooling water containing biocides or other chemicals. These operations would be regulated 

21 under a FDEP permit currently under consideration (PEF 2008). 

22 Construction activities in the CFBC would involve dredging and trenching activities for 

23 installation of the intake structure, blowdown pipelines, and connection of the barge slip to the 

24 CFBC. To mitigate construction impacts, turbidity barriers and erosion control measures would 

25 be installed in the canal during activities associated with sheet-pile installation to control impacts 

26 on water quality and would remain in place until the structures are operational (PEF 2008). 

27 Mitigation of operational impacts include the planned use of closed-cycle cooling, the location of 

28 the intake structure in the upper reaches of the CFBC in an area of low biological productivity, 

29 the design of the intake structure to limit through screen velocities to 0.5 fps, and the use of bar 

30 racks on 3.5 in centers to exclude larger organisms from the vertical traveling screens. Such 

31 mitigation is consistent with the Phase I requirements of the Clean Water Act Section 316(b) 

32 (66 FR 65256). These mitigation measures should significantly reduce impingement and 

33 entrainment mortality of fish and shellfish to levels substantially below those resulting from a 

34 similar sized facility utilizing once-through cooling. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-45 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Discharged cooling water would be combined with existing CREC discharge effluents, which are 

2 currently under FDEP regulations for both maximum thermal limits and discharge of chemicals 

3 in the effluent (FDEP 2008). The addition of LNP cooling water discharge would not result in 

4 appreciable additional thermal impact, and the applicant has applied for a new discharge permit 

5 to comply with regulations involving addition of chemical effluent in the total discharge (PEF 

6 2008). 

7 Although the NRC lacks the statutory authority to require any of the above potential mitigation 

8 measures, the review team recognizes that such potential mitigation could further reduce 

9 adverse impacts on designated EFH and on Federally managed fish and shellfish species in the 

10 Gulf of Mexico. The Corps permit, if issued, could include special conditions such as time-of11 year restrictions or specific methods of work to ameliorate potential impacts to EFH for the 

12 authorized construction activities. EFH Conservation Recommendations necessary to protect 

13 EFH may also be included. Mitigation may only be employed after all appropriate and practical 

14 steps to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to aquatic resources have been taken. All 

15 remaining unavoidable impacts must be compensated to the extent appropriate and practicable. 

16 7.0 Cumulative Impacts 

17 In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative 

18 analysis also considers other past, present, and future actions that could affect aquatic ecology. 

19 For this analysis, the geographic area of interest is the waterbodies connected to the proposed 

20 LNP site and offsite facilities, the entire CFBC, Lake Rousseau, the Inglis Lock bypass channel, 

21 the OWR, the CREC intake and discharge, and the Levy and Citrus Counties offshore areas of 

22 the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed transmission-line corridors are also included in the 

23 geographic area of interest. Other watersheds such as the Wacassassa River basin, do not 

24 affect water quality or biota in the waterbodies associated with LNP activities and are therefore 

25 not considered in the cumulative impacts analysis. 

26 Other actions in the vicinity that have present and reasonably foreseeable future potential 

27 impacts on the CFBC and Gulf of Mexico offshore of the CREC include operation of the existing 

28 CREC, the proposed uprate of CREC Unit 3, current operation of the Inglis Quarry, widening of 

29 the US-19 bridge across the CFBC, a proposed hydropower project on the Inglis Lock bypass 

30 channel spillway, proposed Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine, decommissioning of CREC 

31 Units 1 and 2, development of a Port District along the CFBC, and natural environmental 

32 stressors (e.g., short- or long-term changes in precipitation or temperature and the resulting 

33 response of the aquatic community). The review team considered these potential sources of 

34 impacts in its evaluation of the cumulative aquatic ecology impacts presented in PEF’s ER and 

35 Requests for Additional Information. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-46 August 2010 

1 Historically, the construction and operation of CREC Units 1 through 5 have had some impact 

2 on fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico, which PEF mitigates by hatchery supplementation. The 

3 Crystal River Mariculture Center began operation October 1991, with red drum, spotted seatrout 

4 and pink shrimp among the primary species cultured. Other species such as pinfish (Lagodon 

5 rhomboides), pigfish (Orthopristis chrysoptera), stone crab and blue crab are also cultured and 

6 released in the Gulf of Mexico (PEF 2009e). The current CFBC was constructed starting in 

7 1964, but it was never completed as a cross-Florida canal and was officially deauthorized in 

8 1991 (Noll and Tegeder 2003). The western portion of the completed CFBC extends from the 

9 Gulf of Mexico to the Inglis Lock at Lake Rousseau and is typical of a tidal canal with marine 

10 and estuarine characteristics. 

11 Cumulative impacts on aquatic resources within the CFBC may also include activities or events 

12 that are distinct from the LNP site. Activities related to construction of the hydropower system 

13 on the Inglis Lock bypass channel could affect the downstream migration of fish from Lake 

14 Rousseau to the Withlacoochee River, but would not affect the CFBC or OWR. The US-19 

15 bridge expansion would not include in-water construction, and impacts on the CFBC would likely 

16 be mitigated through best management practices to control erosion and stormwater runoff. The 

17 Inglis Quarry is located on the north side of the CFBC, and drainage ditches are separated from 

18 the CFBC by a containment berm (SDI 2008). Barge traffic within the CFBC is likely to be 

19 limited to LNP module transportation and should have minimal impacts on aquatic resources as 

20 discussed in EIS Section 4.3.2. The proposed Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine expansion 

21 may affect groundwater discharge to the lower Withlachoochee River (see EIS Section 7.2.2). 

22 As described in EIS Section 4.2.1, the probable impact on overall reduction in groundwater flux 

23 through the region is expected to be small. The CREC Unit 3 power uprate is not expected to 

24 have any construction-related impacts except for the construction of additional mechanical draft 

25 cooling towers on a portion of the CREC site that has been previously disturbed. Any potential 

26 onsite construction-related impacts would be mitigated through the use of BMPs. The 

27 contribution of LNP construction-related impacts on impacts related to other nearby construction 

28 activities would be minor. Impacts from construction of LNP would be temporary, largely 

29 mitigated, and mainly confined to the site. 

30 Once the units begin operation, the review team considered the potential cumulative impacts on 

31 the Gulf of Mexico and CFBC related to impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms and 

32 also thermal and chemical releases from both CREC and LNP. Water withdrawn for operation 

33 of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would require a net intake of 190 cfs (122 Mgd). The source of 

34 the 190 cfs, under low-flow conditions, would be 50 cfs from leakage of Lake Rousseau water 

35 through the Inglis Lock and freshwater springs, emanating in the CFBC in the vicinity of the 

36 intake structure; 70 cfs from the discharge of Lake Rousseau water at the Inglis Dam that would 

37 enter the CFBC via the OWR; and an inflow of 70 cfs that would come from the Gulf of Mexico. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-47 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Currently, CREC Units 1 through 5 withdraw over 15 times more water from the Gulf of Mexico 

2 for operations than the required 190 cfs for LNP Units 1 and 2. The proposed CREC Unit 3 

3 uprate would not increase station water intake flow for CREC Units 1, 2, and 3 (PEF 2007). The 

4 additional waste heat generated as a result of the CREC Unit 3 power uprate would be 

5 dissipated to the atmosphere by the additional mechanical draft cooling tower planned for 

6 construction at the CREC site. 

7 The review team considered the potential incremental cumulative impacts of impingement and 

8 entrainment of aquatic organisms related to operation of LNP 1 and 2 along with continued 

9 operation of CREC Units 1 through 5. As discussed in EIS Section 5.3.2, the proposed closed10 cycle cooling system with mechanical draft cooling towers for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 

11 would not be expected to result in a discernable impact on populations of aquatic organisms 

12 inhabiting Crystal Bay and Withlacoochee Bay areas of the Gulf of Mexico as a result of 

13 impingement or entrainment. 

14 The review team is aware that the possibility exists that CREC Units 1 and 2 (fossil-fuel plants), 

15 which contribute significantly to the overall impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms 

16 at CREC, would be decommissioned once LNP Units 1 and 2 begin operation. This significant 

17 reduction in intake withdrawal volume (greater than 48 percent) at CREC would reduce the 

18 cumulative impact of impingement and entrainment related to operation of CREC on aquatic 

19 organisms in the Gulf of Mexico, and may result in a net positive impact on local fisheries 

20 (see Table 3-1). 

21 The operation of the proposed Inglis hydropower project would involve the use of bar racks to 

22 prevent debris and organisms larger than 2 in. from traveling through the turbine (Inglis 2008). 

23 Any potential impacts from the Inglis hydropower project are isolated from the impacts on the 

24 CFBC because the Inglis Lock bypass channel and Withlacoochee River are not hydraulically 

25 connected to the CFBC. The construction and operation of the hydroelectric facility would have 

26 no effect on populations of aquatic organisms inhabiting the CFBC. Therefore, the Inglis 

27 hydroelectric project will have no detectable incremental cumulative impact on aquatic 

28 resources affected by the building and operation of LNP. 

29 The review team also considered the potential cumulative impacts of thermal discharges. The 

30 operation of all five units at CREC with the uprate of CREC Unit 3 and without the LNP Units 1 

31 and 2 discharge would result in no thermal increase with the operation of a new helper cooling 

32 tower to augment the current modular helper cooling towers (PEF 2007). The review team is 

33 aware that the possibility exists that CREC Units 1 and 2 (fossil-fuel plants), which contribute to 

34 of the discharge flow, would be decommissioned once LNP Units 1 and 2 begin operation. The 

35 review team conducted a thermal analysis of two cases involving the discharge from CREC. 

36 The first case evaluated the thermal discharge from all five units at CREC, the power uprate 

37 from CREC unit 3 and the blowdown from LNP 1 and 2. A second analysis involved CREC 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-48 August 2010 

1 Units 3 through 5, the Unit 3 power uprate, and blowdown from LNP 1 and 2 and CREC Units 1 

2 and 2 permanently shutdown. The thermal analyses for these two cases are presented in EIS 

3 Section 5.2.3.1. The first scenario concludes that resulting changes in discharges at CREC 

4 would be minimal for thermal and chemical impacts with a slight increase in discharge plume 

5 size. The addition of LNP Units 1 and 2 discharge would result in an increased discharge 

6 volume of 87.93 Mgd, but no significant increase in thermal plume temperature or salinity over 

7 current conditions, as discussed in EIS Section 5.3.2.1. 

8 The second scenario, with the absence of CREC Units 1 and 2 not operating, CREC Units 3 

9 through 5 operating, CREC Unit 3 with the power uprate, and LNP Units 1 and 2 operating, 

10 would result in a discharge plume much decreased in size when compared to the first scenario. 

11 CREC Units 1 and 2 currently contribute 918 Mgd total discharge to the Gulf of Mexico during 

12 summer operations. This accounts for greater than 45 percent of the total discharge 

13 (PEF 2009d). The predicted thermal plume would decrease during both summer and winter 

14 conditions as a result from the decreased discharge plume. Salinity increases would occur 

15 under both summer and winter conditions due to increased cycles of concentration with CREC 

16 Units 1 and 2 non-operational, but are less than 1.0 psu (see EIS Section 7.2.2). The overall 

17 impact on aquatic resources is expected to be minimal. 

18 Both scenarios represent a noticeable temperature and salinity change in the immediate Gulf of 

19 Mexico waters compared to the same region prior to CREC operations from a cumulative point 

20 of view (as discussed in EIS Section 7.2.2.1). However, habitats and aquatic organisms in this 

21 area have adapted to the salinity and temperature changes so that the incremental impacts of 

22 LNP 1 and 2 discharge, CREC uprate of Unit 3, and decommissioning of CREC Units 1 and 2 

23 would likely not be noticeable. 

24 The review team considered the potential cumulative impacts from chemical releases, including 

25 increases in total dissolved solids in the combined CREC and LNP discharge. CREC Units 1 

26 through 5 are in compliance with the Clean Water Act Section 316(a) (thermal discharges) 

27 impacts from cooling-water systems. Chemical releases from the existing unit(s) currently 

28 comply with the FDEP NPDES permit requirements, and compliance with the Unit 3 uprate, and 

29 decommissioning of CREC Units 1 and 2 are expected to continue and would be monitored in 

30 the future. The FDEP will take cumulative chemical releases from the existing and proposed 

31 unit, as well as from other industrial sites discharging to the Gulf of Mexico, into consideration 

32 before approving a NPDES permit for the proposed unit. Given the lack of other discharges into 

33 the immediate area of the CREC discharge, it is likely that the cumulative impacts from LNP 

34 discharge combined with the discharge from CREC units 1 through 5 with and without operation 

35 of CREC Units 1 and 2 would be minimal. 

36 Anthropogenic activities, such as residential or industrial development near the vicinity of the 

37 nuclear facility, can present additional constraints on aquatic resources. Future activities may 

38 include shoreline development, such as the proposed Port District, for commercial, industrial, 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-49 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 and residential waterfront development along the CFBC to the west of US-19 (Citrus County 

2 2009); increased water needs; and increased discharge of effluents into the Gulf of Mexico or 

3 the CFBC. In addition to direct anthropogenic activities, physical disturbance and climatic 

4 events may impose external stressors on aquatic communities. Aquatic ecosystem responses 

5 to these events are difficult to predict. The level of impact resulting from these activities or 

6 events would depend on the intensity of the perturbation and the resiliency of the aquatic 

7 communities. Aquatic ecosystem responses to these events are difficult to predict. Although 

8 trends and conditions, such as urbanization, industrialization, and global climate change, could 

9 affect aquatic species habitats, none of the identified present or future projects is expected to 

10 adversely affect aquatic species in the region of interest. 

11 Cumulative impacts on aquatic ecology resources are estimated based on the information 

12 provided by PEF and the review team’s independent review. The review team concludes that 

13 cumulative impacts on aquatic biota from the construction, preconstruction, and operation of 

14 LNP Units 1 and 2 and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would be 

15 noticeable, but not destabilizing for EFH. The incremental impacts from NRC-authorized 

16 activities for proposed Units 1 and 2 would be minor because impacts on aquatic resources,

17 while noticeable in the CFBC and in Crystal Bay,would not noticeably alter the EFH of affected 

18 and hydrologically connected waterbodies. 

19 8.0 Conclusion 

20 The potential impacts of the construction and operation of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 on 

21 Federally managed species and their EFH near the site have been evaluated. The known 

22 distributions and records of the species, the potential ecological impacts of the construction and 

23 operation on them, their habitat, and their prey have been considered in this EFH assessment 

24 and are summarized in Table 8-1. Based on the project design, the minimal short-term impacts 

25 associated with the dredging and intake installation, and the mitigation measures planned for 

26 LNP, the review team concludes that construction and operation of LNP would result in a 

27 minimal adverse effect on EFH. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-50 August 2010 

1 Table 8-1. Impacts of LNP Construction and Operations on EFH 

Common Name Life Stage EFH Description(a) Expected Impact 

Spanish mackerel Eggs 

Juveniles 

Adults 

M, less than 50 m, planktonic 

M, less than 50 m, pelagic 

E/M, less than 75 m, pelagic 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

Minimal Adverse Effect, 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Construction in CFBC 

may temporarily disrupt 

foraging activities. 

Hogfish Juveniles E/M, between 3 and 30 m, SAV Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Construction in CFBC 

may temporarily disrupt 

foraging activities. 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect 

portion of Crystal Bay 

SAV. 

Lesser amberjack Eggs 

Larvae 

M, planktonic 

M, pelagic 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

Minimal Adverse Effect, 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

2 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-51 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 8-1. (contd) 

Common Name Life Stage EFH Description(a) Expected Impact 

Greater amberjack Eggs 

Larvae 

Juveniles 

M, 1-183 m, planktonic 

M, 1-183 m, pelagic 

M, 1-183 m, drift algae 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

No Adverse Effect 

Dwarf sand perch Juveniles M, hard bottom No Adverse Effect 

Gray (mangrove) 

snapper 

Eggs 

Larvae 

M, less than 180 m, planktonic 

M/E, less than 180 m, planktonic 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Operation of intake in 

CFBC may entrain 

small percentage of 

population, increase in 

discharge plume may 

affect small portion of 

Crystal Bay. 2 

Juveniles 

Adults 

M/E, less than 180 m, SAV 

E/M, less than 180 m, 

sand/shell/soft/hard bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Construction in CFBC 

may temporarily disrupt 

foraging activities. 

Increase in thermal 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

SAV. 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Construction in CFBC 

may temporarily disrupt 

foraging activities. 

3 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-52 August 2010 

1 Table 8-1. (contd) 

Common Name Life Stage EFH Description(a) Expected Impact 

Schoolmaster Eggs 

Larvae 

Juveniles 

M, less than 90 m, planktonic 

M, less than 90 m, planktonic 

E/M, less than 90 m, hard bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect, 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

Minimal Adverse Effect, 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Construction in CFBC 

may temporarily disrupt 

foraging activities. 

Dog snapper Eggs 

Larvae 

Juveniles 

M, planktonic 

M, planktonic 

E/M, SAV 

Minimal Adverse Effect, 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

Minimal Adverse Effect, 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Construction in CFBC 

may temporarily disrupt 

foraging activities. 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

SAV. 

2 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-53 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 8-1. (contd) 

Common Name Life Stage EFH Description(a) Expected Impact 

Lane snapper Eggs 

Larvae 

Juveniles 

M, between 4 – 132 m, planktonic 

E/M, between 4 – 132 m, SAV 

E/M, less than 20 m, SAV, 

sand/shell/soft bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay.. 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Operation of intake in 

CFBC may entrain 

small percentage of 

population. Increase in 

discharge plume may 

affect small portion of 

Crystal Bay SAV 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Construction in CFBC 

may temporarily disrupt 

foraging activities. 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

SAV. 

Yellowtail snapper Eggs 

Juveniles 

Adults 

M, between 1 – 183 m, planktonic 

M/E, between 1 – 183 m, SAV, soft 

bottom 

M, between 1 – 183 m, hard bottom, 

shoals/banks 

Minimal Adverse Effect, 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Construction in CFBC 

may temporarily disrupt 

foraging activities. 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

SAV. 

No Adverse Effect 

2 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-54 August 2010 

1 Table 8-1. (contd) 

Common Name Life Stage EFH Description(a) Expected Impact 

Red snapper Adults M, hard/sand/shell bottom No Adverse Effect 

Red grouper Juveniles 

Adults 

M/E, less than 50 m, hard bottom, 

SAV 

M, between 3 – 183 m, hard bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Construction in CFBC 

may temporarily disrupt 

foraging activities. 

Increase in thermal 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

SAV. 

No Adverse Effect 

Black grouper Juveniles 

Adults 

E/M, SAV, hard bottom 

M/E, hard bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Construction in CFBC 

may temporarily disrupt 

foraging activities. 

Increase in thermal 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

SAV. 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Construction in CFBC 

may temporarily disrupt 

foraging activities. 

Gag grouper Juveniles M/E, less than 50 m, SAV, hard 

bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Construction in CFBC 

may temporarily disrupt 

foraging activities. 

Increase in thermal 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

SAV. 

2 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-55 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 8-1. (contd) 

Common Name Life Stage EFH Description(a) Expected Impact 

Nassau grouper Eggs 

Larvae 

Juveniles 

M, planktonic 

M, between 2 – 50 m, planktonic 

M, SAV 

Minimal Adverse Effect, 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

Minimal Adverse Effect, 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

SAV. 

Rock hind Eggs 

Larvae 

M, between 2 – 100 m, planktonic 

M, between 2 – 100 m, planktonic 

Minimal Adverse Effect, 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

Minimal Adverse Effect, 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

2 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-56 August 2010 

1 Table 8-1. (contd) 

Common Name Life Stage EFH Description(a) Expected Impact 

Red drum Eggs 

Larvae 

Juveniles 

Adults 

M, planktonic 

E, planktonic, SAV, sand/shell/soft 

bottom 

M/E, less than 5 m, SAV, 

sand/shell/soft/hard bottom 

M/E, between 1 – 46 m, SAV, 

pelagic, sand/shell/soft/hard bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect, 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Operation of intake in 

CFBC may entrain 

small percentage of 

population. 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Construction in CFBC 

may temporarily disrupt 

foraging activities. 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

SAV. 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Construction in CFBC 

may temporarily disrupt 

foraging activities. 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

SAV. 

White shrimp Larvae 

Juveniles 

E/M, less than 64 m, plankton, soft 

bottom 

E, soft bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Operation of intake in 

CFBC may entrain 

small percentage of 

population, Increase in 

discharge plume may 

affect small portion of 

Crystal Bay. 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Construction in CFBC 

may temporarily disrupt 

foraging activities. 

2 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-57 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 8-1. (contd) 

Common Name Life Stage EFH Description(a) Expected Impact 

Pink shrimp Eggs 

Larvae 

Juveniles 

Adults 

M, less than 50 m, sand/shell 

bottom 

M, less than 50 m, planktonic, 

sand/shell bottom 

E, less than 64 m, sand/shell 

bottom, SAV 

M, less than 64 m, sand/shell 

bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect, 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

Minimal Adverse Effect, 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Construction in CFBC 

may temporarily disrupt 

foraging activities. 

No Adverse Effect 

Florida stone crab Eggs 

Larvae 

Juveniles 

E/M, less than 62 m, sand/shell/hard 

bottom, SAV 

E/M, less than 62 m, planktonic 

E/M, less than 62 m, sand/shell/hard 

bottom, SAV 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Operation of intake in 

CFBC may entrain 

small percentage of 

population. Increase in 

discharge plume may 

affect small portion of 

Crystal Bay SAV. 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Operation of intake in 

CFBC may entrain 

small percentage of 

population. Increase in 

discharge plume may 

affect small portion of 

Crystal Bay 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Construction in CFBC 

may temporarily disrupt 

foraging activities. 

Increase in discharge 

plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay 

SAV. 

(a) M = marine; E = Estuarine; SAV = submerged aquatic vegetation substrate. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-58 August 2010 

1 9.0 References 

2 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of 

3 Production and Utilization Facilities." 

4 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

5 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

6 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, Licenses, 

7 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

8 66 FR 65256. December 18, 2001. "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: 

9 Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities." Federal Register. 

10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

11 72 FR 57416. October 9, 2007. “Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

12 Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

13 Boreman, J., C.P. Goodyear, and S.W. Christensen. 1981. “An Empirical Methodology for 

14 Estimating Entrainment Losses at Power Plants Sited on Estuaries.” Transactions of the 

15 American Fisheries Society 110(2):253-260. DOI: 10.1577/1548-8659. 

16 CH2M Hill Nuclear Business Group (CH2M Hill). 2009a. Estimated Salinity Changes in the 

17 Cross Florida Barge Canal and Old Withlacoochee River Channels after Levy Nuclear Plant 

18 Intake Operation. Tech Memo No. 338884-TMEM-079, Rev 1, Denver, Colorado. Accession 

19 No. ML091740472. 

20 CH2M Hill Nuclear Business Group (CH2M Hill). 2009b. Aquatic Ecology Sampling Report. 

21 338884-TMEM-087 Rev. 1, Englewood, Colorado. Accession No. ML091260523. 

22 CH2MHill Nuclear Business Group (CH2M Hill). 2009c Supplemental 316(b) Information on 

23 Potential Impacts to Aquatic Biota at LNP. Tech Memo No. 338884-TMEM-088 Rev. 1, 

24 Englewood, Colorado. Accession No. ML091260537. 

25 Citrus County. 2009. Commission Sends Port District Category for Review. Board of County 

26 Commissioners press release. Accessed February 9, 2010 at 

27 http://www.citruscountyfl.org/press_release_results.jsp?PRESSKEY=482. 

28 Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control 

29 Act [FWPCA]). 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-59 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Estevez, E.D. and M.A. Marshall. 1993. 1993 Summary Report for: Crystal River 3 Year 

2 NPDES Monitoring Project. Prepared under FPC Contract S01100 for Florida Power 

3 Corporation by Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida. Accession No. ML090750887. 

4 Estevez, E.D. and M.A. Marshall. 1994. 1994 Summary Report for: Crystal River 3 Year 

5 NPDES Monitoring Project. Prepared under FPC Contract S01100 for Florida Power 

6 Corporation by Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida. Accession No. ML090750898. 

7 Estevez, E.D. and M.A. Marshall. 1995. 1995 Summary Report for: Crystal River 3 Year 

8 NPDES Monitoring Project. Prepared under FPC Contract S01100 for Florida Power 

9 Corporation by Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida. Accession Nos. ML090750899 and 

10 ML090750940. 

11 Florida Administrative Code 62-17. 2009. “Electrical Power Plant Siting.” 

12 Florida Administrative Code 62-302. 2009. “Surface Water Quality Standards.” 

13 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2005. Inglis Lock Review. Report 

14 No. IA-03-21-2005-128, Office of Greenways and Trails, Tallahassee, Florida. Available at: 

15 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ig/reports/files/IA_3_21_2005_128.pdf. 

16 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2008. Conditions of Certification, 

17 Progress Energy Florida Crystal River Energy Complex Unit 3 Nuclear Power Plant Unit 4 and 

18 Unit 5 Fossil Plant. Case Number PA 77-09A2, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. 

19 ML100980527. 

20 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010. Conditions of Certification, 

21 Plant and Associated Facilities and Transmission Lines. Levy Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 & 2, 

22 Progress Energy Florida, PA08-51B, Tallahassee, Florida. Modified February 23, 2010. 

23 Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/files/certification/pa08_51_2010_B.pdf. 

24 Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA). 2010. 29 Fla. Stat. 403. 

25 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 1997. “Baitfish Trawl Fisheries 

26 – Tarp Purse Seine Pilot Program: Baitfish Season Harvest Limits, Ch 46-50, F.A.C (Effective 

27 November 12, 1997)” in Evolution of Each Saltwater Regulation – Marine Fisheries Approved 

28 Rules Summary. Available at 

29 http://www.myfwc.com/RULESANDREGS/SaltwaterRules_history.htm. 

30 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 1986. Annual Landings 

31 Summary; Edited Landings Data through Batch 1015. Accessed at 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-60 August 2010 

1 http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=sumstate_86.pdf&obj

2 id=19224&dltype=article. 

3 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2008a. Spanish mackerel, 

4 Scomberomorus maculatus (Mitchill, 1815). Accessed at 

5 http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=5556. 

6 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2008b. Hogfish, Lachnolaimus 

7 maximus (Walbaum, 1792). Accessed at 

8 http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=5233. 

9 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2008c. Gray Snapper, Lutjanus 

10 griseus (Linnaeus, 1758). Accessed at 

11 http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=5148. 

12 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2008d. Lane Snapper, Lutjanus 

13 synagris (Linnaeus, 1758). Accessed at 

14 http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=5284. 

15 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2004. Final Environmental Impact 

16 Statement for the Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment to the Following Fishery 

17 Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM): Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Red 

18 Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Stone Crab Fishery 

19 of the Gulf of Mexico, Coral and Coral Reef Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Spiny Lobster Fishery 

20 of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of 

21 Mexico and South Atlantic. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Tampa, Florida. 

22 Inglis Hydropower, LLC. (Inglis). 2008. Draft License Application for Hydropower License 

23 Application, FERC Project, No. 12783. Draft License Application Inglis Bypass Channel 

24 Spillway, Inglis Hydropower Project, No. 12783, Inglis, Florida. Inglis Hydropower, LLC., Dover, 

25 Florida. 

26 Lindberg W.J. and M.J. Marshall. 1984. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental 

27 Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Florida) – STONE CRAB. U.S. Fish 

28 and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/11.21, Slidell, Louisiana, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

29 TR EL-82-4, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

30 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended. 16 USC 1801 et 

31 seq. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-61 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Marshall, M.J. 2002. Seagrass Survey: November 2001 Resurvey at the Florida Power Crystal 

2 River Generating Facility. Prepared for Florida Power – A Progress Energy Company by the 

3 Coastal Seas Consortium, Inc., Bradenton, Florida. Accession No. ML102040256. 

4 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq. 

5 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine Fish 

6 Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat 

7 Conservation Division, Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. 

8 ML101880617. 

9 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. E-mail from Mark Sramek, NMFS, to Michael 

10 Masnick, NRC, dated November 24, 2008, in response to letter dated November 5, 2008, 

11 “Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitats under the Jurisdiction of the NOAA 

12 Fisheries Service.” Accession No. ML091180043. 

13 Noll, S. and M.D. Tegeder. 2003. From Exploitation to Conservation: A History of the Marjorie 

14 Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

15 Tallahassee, Florida. Available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/cfg/pdf/History_Report.pdf. 

16 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2007. Site Certification Application Crystal River Unit 3 

17 Power Uprate Project, Crystal River Florida. St. Petersburg, Florida. Available at: 

18 http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/Siting/Outgoing/PEF%20CREC/PEF%20Crystal%20River%20Un

19 it%203%20Uprate/. 

20 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2008. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, Site Certification 

21 Application, Volumes 1 through 9. St. Petersburg, Florida. Including Amendments and 

22 Supplemental Information. Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/apps.htm#ppn1. 

23 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009a. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 COL 

24 Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. Revision 1, 

25 Raleigh, North Carolina. Accession No. ML092860995. 

26 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009b. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated June 

27 12, 2009, regarding Supplement 1 to Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding 

28 the Environmental Review.” Accession No. ML091740483. 

29 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009c. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC dated 

30 March 27, 2009, regarding Response to USACE Request for Additional Information Regarding 

31 the Environmental Review. Accession No. ML090920318. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-62 August 2010 

1 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009d. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated July 

2 29, 2009, regarding Response to Supplemental Request for Additional Information Regarding 

3 the Environmental Review – Hydrology 5.3.2.1-2. Accession No. ML09215337. 

4 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF) 2009e. Strong Foundation – Bright Future, 2009 Corporate 

5 Responsibility Report. Accessed July 21, 2009 at http://www.progress6 energy.com/aboutus/crr/NaturalResrc.asp. 

7 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 Section 403, as amended. 33 USC 403.. 

8 SDI Environmental Services, Inc. (SDI). 2008. Inglis Quarry Work Plan Study and Groundwater 

9 Modeling. Prepared for Cemex Construction Materials Florida, LLC. SDI Project No. CEF-010. 

10 SDI Environmental Services, Inc., Tampa, Florida. Accessed at 

11 http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/DWRM/MineReclamation/Cemex%20Inglis%20Quarry/Inglis%20

12 Quarry%20Work%20Plan%20Study%20and%20Ground%20Water%20Modeling_Nov08.pdf..

13 Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (Stone and Webster). 1985. Crystal River 316 

14 Studies, Final Report. Prepared for Florida Power Corporation, Stoughton, Massachusetts. 

15 Accession No. ML090750823. 

16 

17 Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. Public Law 104-297. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-63 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Biological Assessment 

2 

3 National Marine Fisheries Service 

4 

5 

6 Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 

7 Combined License Application 

8 

9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

10 Docket Nos. 52-029 and 52-030

11 

12 Levy County, Florida 

13 

14 August 2010 

15 

16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

17 Rockville, Maryland 

18 

19 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

20 Jacksonville District
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-64 August 2010 

1 1.0 Introduction 

2 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is reviewing an application from Progress 

3 Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF) for NRC-authorized combined construction permits and operating 

4 licenses (COLs) to build and operate two new nuclear power reactors in Levy County, Florida. 

5 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is reviewing an application from PEF for a 

6 Department of the Army (DA) permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 

7 1899 and Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) to perform 

8 site-preparation activities and construct supporting facilities. The USACE is cooperating with 

9 the NRC to ensure that the information presented in a single environmental impact statement 

10 (EIS) prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), is 

11 adequate to fulfill the requirements of USACE regulations; the Clean Water Act Section 

12 404(b)(1) guidelines, which contain the substantive environmental criteria used by the USACE 

13 in evaluating discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States; and the 

14 USACE public-interest review process. The NRC and the USACE have prepared this biological 

15 assessment (BA) to support their joint consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service 

16 (NMFS) in accordance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

17 (ESA). Decisions by the NRC to issue the COLs and the USACE to issue a DA permit will be 

18 made following issuance of the final EIS. 

19 The proposed Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) Units 1 and 2 would be located on a greenfield site. 

20 The proposed LNP site in Levy County, Florida, is approximately 10 mi northeast of the PEF21 owned Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC) and 30 mi due west of Ocala, Florida. Both 

22 power generation units would consisste of Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC 

23 (Westinghouse) AP1000 pressurized water reactors. 

24 The USACE and the NRC are conducting a joint consultation and have prepared this BA, which 

25 examines the potential impacts of building and operating the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2, 

26 including proposed transmission lines, on threatened or endangered species pursuant to the 

27 ESA. NMFS provided a list of Federally protected species under the jurisdiction of NMFS for 

28 the State of Florida (NMFS 2008). This BA examines the effects of the proposed action on 

29 seven Federally threatened or endangered species under the jurisdiction of the NMFS 

30 (presented in Table 1-1) that could occur in the vicinity of the LNP site, associated offsite 

31 facilities, or along proposed transmission-line corridors. 

32 The review team is aware of recent events in the Gulf of Mexico associated with the Deepwater 

33 Horizon oil spill. To date, information associated with aquatic and terrestrial resources are 

34 preliminary and inconclusive. Although not included in this BA, the review team will consider 

35 information associated with the oil spill for the LNP project as it becomes available. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-65 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 1-1. Federally Listed Aquatic Species Occurring in the Vicinity of the LNP Site and 

2 Transmission-Line Corridors 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal 

Status(a) Nearest Aquatic Habitat 

Mammals 

Balaenoptera musculus Blue whale E Gulf of Mexico 

Balaenoptera physalus Finback whale E Gulf of Mexico 

Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale E Gulf of Mexico 

Balaenoptera borealis Sei whale E Gulf of Mexico 

Physeter macrocephalus Sperm whale E Gulf of Mexico 

Reptiles 

Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle T Gulf of Mexico 

Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle E Gulf of Mexico 

Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill sea turtle E Gulf of Mexico 

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle E Gulf of Mexico 

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s ridley sea turtle E Gulf of Mexico 

Fishes 

Pristis pectinata Smalltooth sawfish E Gulf of Mexico 

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf sturgeon T Gulf of Mexico 

Suwannee River 

Invertebrates 

Acropora palmata Elkhorn coral T Gulf of Mexico 

Acropora cervicornis Staghorn coral T Gulf of Mexico 

Source: NMFS 2008 

(a) Federal status rankings determined by the NMFS under the ESA: E = Federally endangered and T = Federally 

threatened. 

3 2.0 Proposed Action

4 The proposed Federal actions are the issuance of COLs for construction and operation of two 

5 new nuclear reactors at the proposed LNP site pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

6 Regulations (CFR) Part 52 and a DA permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and 

7 Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. 

8 The NRC, in a Final Rule dated October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57416), limited the definition of 

9 “construction” to those activities that fall within its regulatory authority in 10 CFR 51.4. Many of 

10 the activities required to build a nuclear power plant are not part of the NRC action to license the 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-66 August 2010 

1 plant. Activities associated with building the plant that are not within the purview of the NRC 

2 action are grouped under the term “preconstruction.” Preconstruction activities include clearing 

3 and grading, excavating, erecting of support buildings and transmission lines, and other 

4 associated activities. These preconstruction activities may take place before the application for 

5 an NRC COL is submitted, during the staff’s review of a COL application, or after a COL is 

6 granted. Although preconstruction activities are outside of the NRC’s regulatory authority, many 

7 of them are within the regulatory authority of local, State, or other Federal agencies including 

8 the USACE. The distinction between construction and preconstruction is not carried forward in 

9 this BA, and both are being discussed together as construction for the purposes of the 

10 NRC/USACE joint ESA consultation. 

11 Prerequisites to construction activities include, but are not limited to, documentation of existing 

12 site conditions within the LNP site and acquisition of the necessary permits (e.g., local building 

13 permits, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit [40 CFR Part 122], 

14 a DA permit, and a General Stormwater permit). After these prerequisites are completed, 

15 planned construction activities could commence and would include all or some of the activities 

16 identified in 10 CFR 50.10(a). Following construction, the planned operation of the new reactors 

17 would be authorized if the Commission finds, under 10 CFR 52.103(g), that all of the 

18 acceptance criteria in the COLs are met. 

19 The following construction and operation activities could potentially affect the species 

20 (Table 1-1) and/or habitats based on habitat affinities and life-history considerations and the 

21 nature, spatial, and temporal considerations of the activity: 

22 • Construction 

23 – new dredging and construction of a barge slip and boat ramp on the shoreline of the 

24 Cross Florida Barge Canal (CFBC) 

25 – installation of the cooling-water intake structure (CWIS) on the CFBC shoreline 

26 – installation of the cooling-water discharge system to CREC, including dredging and 

27 placement of discharge piping in the CFBC 

28 – connection of discharge piping with the existing CREC discharge canal 

29 – vessel movements associated with in-water work; vessel transportation of large 

30 components via barge for the LNP site 

31 – new transmission-line corridors and towers 

32 • Operation 

33 – impingement, entrainment, and maintenance activities associated with the CWIS 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-67 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 – salinity changes in the CFBC and the lower portion of the Old Withlacoochee River 

2 (OWR)(a remnant arm of the Withlacoochee River) 

3 – discharge plume from the cooling-water system (thermal, chemical, and physical effects) 

4 – maintenance of transmission-line corridors. 

5 3.0 LNP Site Description 

6 The proposed facilities and existing aquatic ecology resources onsite and along existing and 

7 proposed transmission-line corridors are described in the following sections. 

8 3.1 Proposed Facilities 

9 The proposed LNP site is located on a primarily rural area in Levy County approximately 4 mi 

10 from the town of Inglis and 8 mi east of the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 3-1). The LNP site is 

11 currently a greenfield site approximately 3105 ac in size. 

12 The LNP footprint would occupy 300 ac for two reactors and the associated power-production 

13 infrastructure near the center of the site (Figure 3-2). Two AP1000 reactors are proposed with 

14 an electrical output of 1000 MW(e) and 3415 MW(t) each. A closed-cycle cooling system would 

15 draw makeup water from the CFBC through a CWIS located on the north side of the canal. A 

16 portion of the makeup water would be returned to the environment via the discharge to the 

17 existing CREC discharge canal (Figure 3-3). The remaining portion of the water would be 

18 released into the atmosphere for evaporative cooling through mechanical draft cooling towers. 

19 Four 500-kV transmission lines are proposed to run adjacent to or within the CREC’s existing 

20 maintained transmission-line corridors that run to the proposed Citrus substation, Central 

21 Florida South substation, and the CREC 500-kV switchyard (PEF 2009a). New corridor 

22 segments would be necessary to connect the Levy County site to the existing corridors. 

23 Connection to the Citrus substation corridor would require clearing a corridor extending south 

24 from the southern boundary of the proposed LNP site. Existing and new corridors would extend 

25 to the proposed Central Florida South substation, and connection of the CREC switchyard to the 

26 new Citrus substation would use existing corridors. Two additional 69-kV lines would be 

27 required to support construction at the LNP site and would connect to existing 69-kV lines from 

28 the western and the southern boundaries of the LNP site (PEF 2008a). 

29 Additional transmission lines extending beyond these first substations to the electrical grid 

30 would also be required. Two 230-kV lines would extend from the Citrus substation to the 

31 existing Crystal River East substation; a 230-kV line would extend from the CREC switchyard to 

32 the Brookridge substation; another 230-kV line would extend from the Brookridge substation to 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-68 August 2010 Figure 3-1. Map Showing the LNP Site in Relation to the Gulf of Mexico and Other Waterbodies (PEF 2009a)
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-69 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

2 Figure 3-2. Map Showing the Proposed LNP Site Facilities and Infrastructure (PEF 2009a)
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-70 August 2010 Figure 3-3. Map Showing the Proposed Blowdown Pipeline and Discharge Location (PEF 2009a)
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-71 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 the Brooksville West substation; and the last 230-kV line would extend from the existing 

2 Kathleen substation to Griffin substation, then to the Lake Tarpon substation. 

3 3.2 General Aquatic Ecological Resources Onsite 

4 As described in the following sections, site-related aquatic resources are found in the CFBC, 

5 OWR, and Crystal Bay. 

6 3.2.1 Cross Florida Barge Canal 

7 In an effort to provide maritime navigation between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, 

8 construction of a 12-ft-deep by 150-ft-wide Florida cross-peninsular waterway began in the 

9 mid-1930s (Noll and Tegeder 2003). Originally intended to be a 171-nautical-mi canal, only 4 

10 percent was complete by 1965 due to lack of funding and congressional support for several 

11 decades. Official deauthorization for the barge canal came in 1991, and the Cross Florida 

12 Greenway State Recreation and Conservation Area took over the former barge canal properties. 

13 The section of western CFBC affiliated with the proposed action is the 7.4-mi stretch from Inglis 

14 Lock west to the Gulf of Mexico. It ranges from 8.6 to 18.2-ft deep and from 207 to 262-ft wide. 

15 The Inglis Dam was built in 1909 to impound the Withlacoochee River to form 3700-ac Lake 

16 Rousseau. An approximately 1.5-mi portion of the historical downstream segment of the 

17 Withlacoochee River still runs into the western CFBC below the Inglis Lock (Figure 3-4). A 

18 1.7-mi channel was constructed upstream of the Inglis Lock to reconnect Lake Rousseau waters 

19 with the downstream,11-mi portion of the Withlacoochee River, which serves as a bypass 

20 around the CFBC. The western portion of the CFBC lies 8 mi to the south of the proposed LNP 

21 and is the preferred water source for providing cooling water (see Figure 3-4). 

22 The CFBC discharges into the Withlacoochee Bay estuary in the Gulf of Mexico and is 

23 influenced by tidal changes. Water-quality characteristics show a wedge of saltwater extending 

24 from the surface waters where the CFBC meets the Gulf of Mexico up toward the Inglis Lock. 

25 Characterization of the sediment, salinity, and CFBC biota was conducted over a year of 

26 sampling activities from October 2007 through September 2008, and is described further in EIS 

27 Section 2.4.2. Overall, fish, plankton, benthic, and macroinvertebrate sampling in the CFBC 

28 indicates a biologically diverse and dynamic aquatic community at the offshore and nearshore 

29 stations (see EIS Tables 2-9, 2-10, and 2-11). The proposed intake location on the CFBC has a 

30 less biodiverse community, but it still has appreciable numbers of sediment-dwelling 

31 invertebrates and collections of pelagic species that use the fresher water habitat on a seasonal 

32 basis (CH2M Hill 2009b). 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-72 August 2010 Figure 3-4. The Water-Control Structure near the Proposed LNP Site (PEF 2009a)
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-73 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 3.2.2 Old Withlacoochee River 

2 The portion of the OWR that flows into the CFBC is 1.3 mi long and originates from Lake 

3 Rousseau’s Inglis Dam. Salinity profiles in the OWR range from 0.14 to 4.38 practical salinity 

4 units (psu) at the 3.2-ft depth where it joins with the CFBC (CH2M Hill 2009a). In June and 

5 August 2008, sampling was conducted at the junction of the OWR with the CFBC, halfway 

6 between the junction and the Inglis Dam and just downstream of the Inglis Dam within this 

7 portion of the OWR (Figure 3-4). Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling mirrored the fish 

8 sampling results with euryhaline dipteran species predominant at the CFBC-OWR junction 

9 station, freshwater oligochaetes and amphipods at the Inglis Dam station, and a paucity of 

10 organisms and limited diversity at the midpoint station (CH2M Hill 2009a). 

11 3.2.3 Crystal Bay (Gulf of Mexico) 

12 Aquatic species and habitats associated with the discharge from CREC into Crystal Bay have 

13 been characterized using studies conducted during CREC operations (Stone and Webster 

14 1985) and were recently sampled from April through November 2008. Beginning in the early 

15 1990s, seagrass beds have been surveyed as a part of quantifying recovery of the CREC 

16 offshore Gulf of Mexico habitats following installation of helper cooling towers (Estevez and 

17 Marshall 1993, 1994, 1995). Previously affected seagrass areas were observed to recover with 

18 colonization by Halodule wrightii, a dominant, quick-growing seagrass. However, between 1995 

19 and 2001, overall seagrass abundance declined, likely from more complex environmental 

20 influences (Marshall 2002). 

21 Sampling at the CREC discharge point (Station 3) and immediate offshore Gulf of Mexico area 

22 (Station 4) was conducted at multiple time points from April to November 2008 (Figure 3-5). 

23 Fish, plankton, and macroinvertebrate sampling in the CREC discharge area of Crystal Bay are 

24 indicative of coastal salt marsh and nearshore species and show biodiversity commensurate 

25 with similar habitat sampling at nearshore and offshore CFBC sampling locations (EIS Tables 

26 2-9, 2-10, 2-11). However, the influence of CREC discharge may be affecting several of the top 

27 forage fish species which are notably absent (bay anchovy, scaled sardine, and silver perch) 

28 from the CREC discharge stations. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-74 August 2010

Figure 3-5. Aquatic Sampling Locations for CREC Within the Discharge Canal and Offshore (CH2M Hill 2009b) 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-75 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 3.3 General Aquatic Ecological Resources Along 

2 Transmission-Line Corridors 

3 Connection from the proposed LNP to the Citrus substation corridor would cross the 

4 Withlacoochee River bypass channel, CFBC, and the OWR. Existing and new corridor 

5 extending to the proposed Central Florida South substation would cross the Withlacoochee 

6 River at the border of Citrus and Marion Counties and Two Mile Prairie Lake (PEF 2009a). 

7 Connection of the CREC switchyard to the new Citrus substation would cross existing corridors 

8 over estuarine habitat within Crystal Bay. No known aquatic impacts are currently associated 

9 with the existing transmission-line corridors. The existing and proposed transmission-line 

10 corridors do not cross any designated critical habitats. 

11 Existing corridors are proposed for the transmission lines extending 50 mi from the Kathleen 

12 substation to the Griffin substation and extending west to the Lake Tarpon substation. This 

13 corridor crosses the following Outstanding Florida Waters: Blackwater Creek, Trout Creek, 

14 Hillsborough River, and Cypress Creek (PEF 2008a). Other waterbodies include Flint Creek, 

15 tributaries of Hollomans Branch, Brushy Creek, Rocky Creek, and numerous unnamed 

16 intermittent and perennial tributaries of the previously named waterbodies. The review team is 

17 unaware of any aquatic impacts currently associated with the existing transmission corridors. 

18 4.0 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action 

19 Sections 4.1 and 4.2 provide descriptions of the construction and operation impacts listed in 

20 Section 2.0. These construction and operation impacts were determined to potentially affect the 

21 species and habitats listed in Table 1-1 based on species habitat affinities and life-history 

22 considerations and the type, spatial, and temporal nature of the impacts. 

23 4.1 Construction 

24 This section provides information about the potential aquatic impacts of construction of 

25 the proposed new nuclear units at the proposed LNP site and along associated transmission26 line corridors. 

27 4.1.1 LNP Site 

28 There are some permanent and temporal shallow ponds on the proposed LNP site that may 

29 support small freshwater fish. A few of these would be permanently filled as part of facilities 

30 construction, but other onsite ponds would be unaffected. Erosion and runoff control mitigation 

31 practices would be used to prevent siltation of preserved ponds onsite (FDEP 2008). 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-76 August 2010 

1 Stormwater management retention and infiltration basins and cessation of forest plantation 

2 activities on the site would create improved freshwater aquatic habitat (PEF 2009a). 

3 4.1.2 Cross Florida Barge Canal 

4 The installation of the intake structure, connection of a barge slip and boat ramp to the CFBC, 

5 and placement of discharge piping would result in temporary disturbances to the aquatic habitat 

6 in portions of the CFBC. Until excavation is complete, preparation of the barge slip would occur 

7 on the northern shore of the CFBC in upland areas behind an earth bank that separates building 

8 activities from the CFBC. The intake structure would be installed 0.5 mi downstream of the 

9 Inglis Lock. Steel sheet piling would be installed at the barge slip and in a cofferdam for intake 

10 structure installation. Sheet piles would be installed from land using a pile hammer. Turbidity 

11 barriers and erosion-control measures would be installed in the canal during activities 

12 associated with sheet-pile installation to control impacts on water quality. Building activities are 

13 expected to commence with installation of permanent piling over a 60-week time frame for the 

14 barge slip and over a 13-week period for temporary piling at the intake structure. Removal of 

15 temporary piling at the intake structure is expected to occur following 6 months of installation 

16 activities proposed for an October–March time frame. Turbidity barriers and erosion-control 

17 measures are expected to be installed commensurate with piling installation activities and 

18 remain in place prior to operations (PEF 2008a). Use of best management practices and water19 quality control measures should prevent impacts on the few species that inhabit the portion of 

20 the CFBC near the proposed intake. Fish and sea turtles may swim into this portion of the 

21 CFBC, but they would be able to swim away or likely would avoid the area due to vibratory 

22 noise. 

23 Dredging would be necessary for construction of a trench for the blowdown discharge piping 

24 between LNP and CREC. Sediments would be tested before construction using U.S. 

25 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 1311 for toxicity characteristics for 

26 determination of final disposition of dredged spoil materials. Non-hazardous sediments would 

27 be used to backfill the pipeline trench, as fill material onsite, or disposed in upland areas. 

28 Sediments deemed unsuitable for use would be disposed of appropriately in landfills approved 

29 for hazardous disposal (PEF 2009d). Residual water from dredging activities would be tested 

30 for compliance with NPDES and Florida surface water-quality standards (FDEP 2008). 

31 Discharge piping running from the proposed LNP site to the CREC discharge would run parallel 

32 along the CFBC berm, then enter and exit CFBC water supported by anchor piers along both 

33 CFBC berms (PEF 2009b). Initially proposed routing of the discharge pipeline south of the 

34 CFBC crosses several tidal creeks and would adversely impact approximately 4.5 acres of salt 

35 marsh habitat. The review team is aware that PEF has proposed to the FDEP an alternate 

36 route to avoid this important habitat. FDEP has not made a decision on the proposal. Impacts 

37 to habitat related to the discharge pipeline, irrespective of the final routing, would be primarily 

38 due to its excavation, placement, and burial associated with construction. Maintenance 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-77 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 dredging for the barge unloading facility and CWIS within the CFBC is not proposed because 

2 the depth of the CFBC has not changed since construction in the 1960s and increased sediment 

3 load is not predicted under operation conditions (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

4 Vessel use during the dredging or the installation of the in-water structures, and transportation 

5 of large components for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 may affect the aquatic resources of the 

6 CFBC, particularly the benthos. The main impacts of using vessels would include turbulence 

7 from propellers (prop wash), anchor cable scraping across the canal bottom, and accidental 

8 spills of materials overboard. Vessels would be used during the installation of the cooling-water 

9 discharge pipeline and during offloading of materials from barges. Vessel operation during 

10 construction may cause short-term, localized impacts on aquatic species in the CFBC, but 

11 impacts on water quality and habitat in the OWR are not anticipated. These impacts should not 

12 affect the general resources in the area of the site or the region along this coast of the Gulf of 

13 Mexico. 

14 4.1.3 CREC Discharge Canal 

15 The LNP discharge pipeline (two 54-in. high-density polyethylene pipes, per the conceptual 

16 design) would discharge directly into the CREC discharge canal, a concrete-lined, open channel 

17 just downstream of the discharge culverts for CREC Units 4 and 5. This 0.7-mi open channel 

18 drains directly into the CREC discharge canal approximately 1.1 mi from the Gulf of Mexico. A 

19 headwall structure would be necessary to join the LNP discharge piping to the CREC discharge 

20 canal (PEF 2009b). No building activities would be conducted beyond the point of discharge 

21 into the Gulf of Mexico, so no aquatic impacts would be expected to occur with this activity. 

22 4.1.4 Transmission-Line Corridors 

23 PEF would site the new 500-, 230-, and 65-kV transmission lines in accordance with Chapter 

24 62-17, Florida Administrative Code. In addition, PEF has committed to comply (PEF 2009a) 

25 with all applicable laws, regulations, and permit requirements and would use good engineering 

26 and construction practices as required by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

27 (FDEP). PEF states that all work would be conducted in accordance with Federal and State 

28 permitting requirements for maintaining water quality and protecting natural resources, such as 

29 maintenance of a 15 ft or greater buffer of natural vegetation for installation near waterbodies 

30 (Citrus County 2006). PEF plans to leave a 25-ft buffer of existing vegetation with mature 

31 heights not exceeding 12 ft at locations where the transmission-line corridor crosses a navigable 

32 waterway (PEF 2008a). 

33 Permits required include a DA permit, a FDEP Environmental Resources permit, a FDEP and 

34 Southwest Water Management District dewatering permit, and a FDEP NPDES construction 

35 stormwater permit (PEF 2009a). County listings for threatened and endangered species have 

36 been identified for each delineated corridor. Although several threatened or endangered 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-78 August 2010 

1 species are listed for Levy and Citrus Counties (as outlined in EIS Section 2.4.2), the activities 

2 associated with placement of new transmission lines would not require in-water installation 

3 activities. Therefore, the review team finds the impacts on aquatic species under jurisdiction of 

4 the NMFS due to transmission-line construction and operation, including upgrades to the 

5 system beyond the first substation, to be minimal. 

6 4.2 Operation 

7 This section provides information about the potential aquatic impacts of operation of proposed 

8 LNP Units 1 and 2 at the site and along associated transmission-line corridors. 

9 4.2.1 Cooling-Water Intake Impacts 

10 PEF stated in its Environmental Report (ER) that a closed-cycle, mechanical draft system would 

11 be used for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2. Depending on the quality of the makeup water, 

12 closed-cycle recirculating cooling-water systems can reduce water use by 96 to 98 percent 

13 versus the amount a facility would use with a once-through cooling system (66 FR 65256) as is 

14 used at CREC. This significant reduction in water withdrawal rate results in a corresponding 

15 reduction in impingement and entrainment losses. For threatened and endangered aquatic 

16 species under the jurisdiction of the NMFS, the primary concerns are related to operation of the 

17 intake structure. Water drawn from the cooling-water source (CFBC) has the potential for 

18 organisms to be impinged on the intake screens or entrained into the cooling-water system. 

19 Impingement occurs when organisms are trapped against the intake screens by the force of the 

20 water passing through the CWIS (66 FR 65256). Impingement can result in starvation, 

21 exhaustion, asphyxiation (water velocity forces may prevent proper gill movement or organisms 

22 may be removed from the water for prolonged periods of time), and descaling (66 FR 65256). 

23 Entrainment occurs when organisms are drawn through the CWIS into the proposed LNP Units 

24 1 and 2 cooling system. Organisms that become entrained are normally relatively small benthic, 

25 planktonic, and nektonic (organisms in the water column) forms, including early life stages of 

26 fish and shellfish that often serve as prey for larger organisms (66 FR 65256). As entrained 

27 organisms pass through a plant’s cooling system, they are subject to mechanical, thermal, and 

28 toxic stresses. No life stages of the aquatic species listed in Table 1-1 are subject to 

29 entrainment losses because of their large size and/or habitat requirements. 

30 For the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 CWIS, PEF assessed 316(b) impacts for withdrawal of 

31 cooling water from the CFBC. The through-screen velocity for the intake bays would be less 

than 0.5 fps. To achieve these low velocities, the inlet area would be larger than 106.1 ft2 32 

33 (PEF 2008a). The zone of hydraulic influence would extend from the CWIS to 5 mi west of the 

34 CWIS in the CFBC (PEF 2008a) and use an offshore station in the Gulf of Mexico to estimate 

35 impingement and entrainment impacts. Sampling in the area of the proposed CWIS indicated a 

36 biologically depauperate environment with relatively poor water quality (PEF 2009a). The 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-79 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 species listed in Table 1-1 do not use CFBC habitat for nesting, spawning, or calving. 

2 Therefore, based on the percentage of water withdrawn, the planned low through-screen intake 

3 velocity, the closed-cycle cooling system design, and the distance away from preferred nesting, 

4 spawning, and calving habitat in the Gulf of Mexico, the review team finds that the impacts on 

5 the Federally protected species of the Gulf of Mexico from impingement and entrainment would 

6 be negligible. 

7 Maintenance of CWIS structures includes the use of screen washes and mechanical scraping to 

8 prevent clogging or collection of debris and organisms on intake screens and bar racks. Bar 

9 racks would be removed and scraped once per quarter as currently performed at CREC 

10 (PEF 2009b). Trash and organisms caught on traveling intake screens would be removed by a 

11 high-pressure spray wash and deposited into a collection dumpster. Collected debris and 

12 organisms would be disposed of in a licensed landfill. 

13 4.2.2 Discharge Impacts 

14 The effluent discharge from the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would be directly into the CREC 

15 discharge canal. Section 4.3.2 of the EIS discusses the location and design of the discharge 

16 piping. The potential impacts on the Gulf of Mexico from the operation of proposed LNP Units 1 

17 and 2 would include the effects of heated effluents on aquatic resources, chemical impacts, and 

18 physical impacts from discharge. The FDEP Conditions of Certification state that PEF would 

19 retire its two oldest, once-through coal-fired units at the CREC by December 31, 2020, if LNP 

20 Units 1 and 2 are licensed, built, and begin commercial operation without significant delays 

21 (FDEP 2010). CREC Units 1 and 2 cessation of operations would significantly reduce the 

22 discharge flow from the CREC discharge canal even with the additional discharge flow from 

23 LNP Units 1 and 2 (Table 4-1). 

24 4.2.3 Cold Shock 

25 Another factor related to thermal discharges that may affect aquatic biota is cold shock. Cold 

26 shock occurs when aquatic organisms that have been acclimated to warm water, such as fish in 

27 a power plant’s discharge canal, are exposed to a sudden temperature decrease. This 

28 sometimes occurs when single-unit power plants shut down suddenly in winter. Cold shock 

29 mortalities at U.S. nuclear power plants are “relatively rare” and typically involve small numbers 

30 of fish (NRC 1996). Because the temperature decrease from shutting down one unit is 

31 moderated by the heated discharge from the units that continue to operate, cold shock is less 

32 likely to occur at a multiple-unit plant. The proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 discharge would be 

33 4.4 percent of the total discharge from combining LNP and CREC discharges. Therefore, the 

34 review team finds that the possibility of cold shock due to simultaneous shutdown of LNP Units 

35 1 and 2 would be minimal. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-80 August 2010 

1 Table 4-1. Comparison of NPDES Discharge Volumes Under Different Operation Scenarios 

2 During Summer Conditions. 

Operating 

Unit 

CREC 

Current 

Combined 

Discharge 

(Mgd) 

Percent of 

Total 

Discharge 

Addition of 

LNP Units 

1 & 2 to 

Current 

CREC 

(Mgd) 

Percent 

of Total 

Discharge

Addition of LNP 

Units 1 & 2 to 

Current CREC 

(Mgd) with 

Decomissioning 

of CREC Units 

1 & 2 

Percent of 

Total 

Discharge 

CREC 1 446 23.4 446 22.3 - - 

CREC 2 472 24.7 472 23.7 - - 

CREC 3 979 51.4 979 49.1 979 90.9 

CREC 4 & 5 10.1 0.5 10.1 0.5 10.1 0.9 

LNP 1 & 2 - - 87.8 4.4 87.8 8.2 

Source: PEF 2009c 

Note: CREC discharge rates are given as current maximum NPDES-permitted volumes.

3 4.2.4 Heat Stress 

4 The thermal tolerance for aquatic organisms is defined in different ways. Some definitions 

5 relate to the temperature that causes fish to avoid the thermal plume, other definitions relate to 

6 the temperature that fish prefer for spawning, and still others relate to the temperatures (upper 

7 and lower) that may kill individual fishes. Some of these tolerances are termed “preferred 

8 temperatures,” “upper avoidance temperatures,” and “lethal temperatures.” 

9 In EIS Section 5.2.3.1, the review team describes its independent assessment of the 

10 incremental impacts of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 on the water temperatures within the CREC 

11 discharge and the Gulf of Mexico using a three-dimensional coastal ocean model. During 

12 summer conditions at ebb tide, the surface-water temperatures near the CREC discharge 

13 channel would be slightly less under the proposed conditions when compared to current 

14 conditions that include operation of CREC Units 1 through 5. The discharge volume of the 

15 plume would be increased with the addition of LNP Units 1 and 2, but only a slight increase in 

16 surface-water temperature (<0.1°C) would result compared to current conditions. Temperature 

17 increase at the entrance of CFBC channel would be between 0.05°C and ~0.1°C during the 

18 summer months at ebb tide (Figure 4-1). Similar trends in thermal plume temperatures would 

19 be observed during winter conditions with the addition of LNP discharge resulting in a slight 

20 temperature drop at the CREC discharge canal, and a slight increase in surface-water 

21 temperature beyond the immediate discharge area. Surface-water temperatures at the mouth 

22 of the CFBC are expected to increase by less than 0.5°C over the current conditions 

23 (Figure 4-2). The increased plume size is likely to have minimal impact on aquatic biota that 

24 forage near the CFBC under both extreme conditions. Habitat usage is therefore not expected 

25 to be affected under operating conditions. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-81 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

2 Figure 4-1. Thermal Plume Analysis Using FVCOM (Finite Volume Community Ocean Model) 

3 Showing the Temperature Difference Between Current and Proposed Thermal 

4 Discharge Under Summer Conditions at Ebb Tide 

5 

6 Figure 4-2. Thermal Plume Analysis Using FVCOM Showing the Temperature Difference 

7 Between Current and Proposed Thermal Discharge Under Winter Conditions at 

8 Ebb Tide 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-82 August 2010 

1 Other discharge-related impacts include the chemical treatment of the cooling water. The ER 

2 indicates that chemicals would be added to the circulating, service, and blowdown water 

3 systems (PEF 2009a). Intake structures, such as the pump suction housings and sensor tubes, 

4 would be coated with a copper-based anti-fouling substance to minimize fouling of these 

5 structures. In addition, ClamTrol (CT1300) would be injected every 21 days at a concentration 

6 not to exceed 4.5 mL/L into the CWIS to prevent biofouling of marine invertebrates 

7 (PEF 2009b). The use of chemicals in the existing CREC discharge is regulated by an NPDES 

8 permit, which is granted by the FDEP. The chemical concentrations at the outfall for the 

9 existing units meet the NPDES limits (FDEP 2008). Thus, the impacts from the addition of LNP 

10 discharge to the Gulf of Mexico would be minimal. 

11 In addition, the NRC staff evaluated the potential for impact due to the increased salinity 

12 associated with the LNP Units 1 and 2 blowdown, which would have a total dissolved solids 

13 concentration of 1.5 times greater than seawater (PEF 2009b). This increase in total dissolved 

14 solids is due to evaporative loss of water through the cooling towers. Because the LNP 

15 discharge would be combined with CREC discharge prior to point of discharge into Crystal Bay 

16 and the CREC discharge accounts for the vast majority of the discharge volume (>95 percent), 

17 the increase in salinity would be slight (0 ppt and ~0.5 ppt) in the coastal region near the CREC 

18 discharge channel. The addition of LNP discharge with CREC discharge to the Gulf of Mexico 

19 would increase the salinity to between 0.4 ppt and ~0.45 ppt at the mouth of the CFBC 

20 (Figure 4-3). 

21 4.2.5 Physical Impacts 

22 The discharge volume of the LNP Units 1 and 2 blowdown water system would be 81.34 Mgd. 

23 It would be combined with the CREC Units 1 through 5 discharge of 1651.8 Mgd in the CREC 

24 discharge canal, which opens into the Gulf of Mexico. The LNP discharge would account for 

25 only 4.4 percent of the total discharge flow and would have little physical scouring impact at the 

26 terminus of the discharge canal (PEF 2009a). 

27 4.2.6 Transmission Corridors 

28 Maintenance activities along the four 500-kV, five 230-kV, and two 69-kV transmission lines 

29 could lead to periodic temporary impacts on the waterways being crossed. However, it is 

30 assumed that the same vegetation-management practices currently used by PEF for the 

31 existing CREC facility transmission-line rights-of-way would be applied to the existing and 

32 proposed new transmission-line right-of-ways. PEF practices and procedures were developed 

33 to prevent impacts on surface waters and wetlands, so impacts on aquatic ecosystems from 

34 operation and maintenance of transmission lines would be minimal (PEF 2009a). No impacts 

35 on aquatic species are anticipated from maintenance of the transmission lines. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-83 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

2 Figure 4-3. Salinity Difference Between the Current and Proposed Discharge Plume at Ebb 

3 Tide 

4 5.0 Baseline Conditions for Aquatic Species 

5 This section describes the baseline conditions for aquatic species listed in Table 1-1, which may 

6 occur on and in the vicinity of the proposed LNP site and associated transmission-line corridors. 

7 5.1 Whales 

8 The distribution of endangered whales listed in Table 1-1 is worldwide. While there is no habitat 

9 used by these whales immediately offshore of the CFBC or the CREC discharge, the 

10 deepwater, eastern Gulf of Mexico may serve as a migratory corridor for finback whales 

11 (Balaenoptera physalus) that migrate toward the lower latitudes from subpolar waters during the 

12 winter to calve and then migrate back up the coast to higher latitudes during the summer 

13 (NMFS 2009a). Blue (Balaenoptera musculus) and humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) 

14 whales are rare in the Gulf of Mexico (NMFS 2009b, c). The exact movement patterns of sei 

15 (Balaenoptera borealis) and blue whales are largely unknown (NMFS 1998, 2009b). Sperm 

16 whales (Physeter macrocephalus) are rare in waters less than 984 ft deep. Like most north 

17 Atlantic cetaceans, sperm whales migrate down the western Atlantic coast in the winter to 

18 waters east and northeast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The migration back to the north 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-84 August 2010 

1 starts in the spring with a migration range extending from waters off the coast of Virginia up to 

2 the Northeast Channel area. Sightings of sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico are rare 

3 (NMFS 2009d). The migration patterns and population structure of humpback whales in the 

4 North Atlantic are well known. Humpbacks migrate to Caribbean waters in the winter to calve 

5 and migrate up to waters off New England, Canada, and Greenland in the summer to feed 

6 (NMFS 2009c). Due to lack of habitat use for inland waters off Florida’s Gulf Coast, the review 

7 team concludes that construction and operation of LNP Units 1 and 2 would have no effect on 

8 any of the whale species, so they are not considered further. 

9 5.2 Sea Turtles 

10 There are two families and six genera of living sea turtles containing eight species 

11 (Pritchard 1996). All but one of the species are in the family Cheloniidae – the leatherback turtle 

12 (Dermochelys coriacea) is the only living member of the family Dermochelyidae. Five of the 

13 eight living species of sea turtles occur in the Gulf of Mexico. These species are the loggerhead 

14 sea turtle (Caretta caretta), the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), the leatherback sea turtle, 

15 the hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), and Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys 

16 kempii). The U.S. Department of the Interior, under the authority of the ESA, lists the 

17 loggerhead as threatened. Nesting populations of green turtles in Florida and all leatherback, 

18 Kemp’s ridley, and hawksbill sea turtles are listed as endangered. Although each of these 

19 species nests along the coasts of Florida, no critical habitat has been designated in the State for 

20 any of them by NMFS. Formal monitoring of sea turtles in the CREC intake canal began in 

21 1998 following the occurrence of eight sea turtle strandings on the CREC Unit 3 trash racks 

22 between 1994 and 1997 (PEF 2008b). A Biological Opinion was issued by NMFS in 1999 that 

23 defined an incidental take limit biennially to 50 live takes, 8 mortalities not causally related to 

24 CREC operations, and 5 mortalities causally related to CREC operations. Due to recovery and 

25 increase in numbers of juvenile and subadult of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, the Biological Opinion 

26 was modified in 2002 to allow for a biennial take of 75 live takes, no limit on mortalities not 

27 attributed to CREC operations, and 3 mortalities causally related to CREC operations 

28 (NMFS 2002). Table 5-1 lists the numbers and species of sea turtles sighted or collected near 

29 the proposed LNP and CREC sites for comparative purposes. The following sections briefly 

30 describe the life history, habitat needs, status and distribution, and factors that contribute to 

31 population decline for each of the species, as well as their occurrence and status in the 

32 proposed project area. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-85 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 5-1. Sea Turtle Strandings and Sightings in the Area Around Levy and Citrus County, 

2 Florida

Species 

Sea Turtle 

Stranding and 

Salvage Network 

1998 – 2004 

(Zone 6 and 7)(a)

Crystal River Energy 

Complex 

1999 – 2005(b)

Cedar Key (Schmid) 

1985 – 1996(b)

Loggerhead 81 8 20 

Green 105 38 10 

Leatherback 5 0 0 

Hawksbill 9 1 0 

Kemp’s ridley 73 92 269 

Unknown 10 

(a) Data from Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (2009) Zones 6 and 7 encompassing Franklin County to 

Pinellas County, Florida. 

(b) Data from Eaton et al. 2008. 

3 5.2.1 Loggerhead Sea Turtle 

4 5.2.1.1 Life History 

5 The loggerhead sea turtle is the most common and abundant turtle in the inshore coastal waters 

6 of the Gulf of Mexico (NMFS and FWS 1991). Adults along the southeast coast of Florida have 

7 a mean shell length of about 3 ft and weigh about 240 lb. The largest individuals may be 4 ft 

8 long and weigh 500 lb. The hatchlings are about 1.7 in. long and weigh about 0.7 oz. 

9 Loggerhead turtles have a wide distribution in temperate, subtropical, and tropical seas 

10 (Dodd 1988). They are encountered seasonally in continental shelf waters, bays, and estuaries 

11 of the Gulf of Mexico. In tropical and subtropical waters, such as the Gulf of Mexico, they may 

12 be abundant year round except where water temperature drops below about 15°C in winter. 

13 The largest concentration of nesting loggerheads in the Atlantic occurs along the east coast of 

14 Florida. However, loggerhead turtles also nest in the southwestern portion of Florida 

15 (NMFS and FWS 1991). 

16 5.2.1.2 Habitat Requirements 

17 Adult female loggerheads nest above the high-tide line and sometimes in vegetation at the top 

18 of sandy beaches. Approximately 90 percent of the loggerhead nesting activity in the United 

19 States is in Florida (Meylan et al. 1994). Loggerheads nesting in southeast Florida are 

20 genetically indistinguishable from those nesting along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in 

21 southwest Florida (Bowen and Karl 2007). In south Florida, nesting may occur from late April 

22 (rare) to the beginning of September, with peak nesting activity in June and July 

23 (NMFS and FWS 1991). Newly emerged turtles immediately crawl toward the sea, probably 

24 orienting toward the reflected light of the moon (Dodd 1988). If the beaches where the newly 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-86 August 2010 

1 emerged turtles hatch have visible light sources on the landward side of the beach, the 

2 hatchlings may crawl in the wrong direction, normally resulting in predation or death. Those that 

3 reach the water swim rapidly offshore. The initial swimming frenzy may take them 13 to 17 mi 

4 offshore. They remain offshore for 3 to 5 years (NOAA 1989) and are about 1.5 ft long when 

5 they return to coastal waters to forage as subadults. Subadult and adult loggerheads are 

6 primarily bottom feeders, foraging in coastal waters for benthic mollusks and crustaceans 

7 (Plotkin et al. 1993). 

8 5.2.1.3 Status and Distribution 

9 In the Gulf of Mexico, loggerhead turtles appear to be concentrated along the southern west 

10 coast of Florida (NMFS and FWS 2008). They also are abundant particularly during the 

11 summer all around the coast of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Most sightings of loggerheads off the 

12 west coast of Florida are within 86 mi of land. Loggerhead turtles nest in relatively large 

13 numbers along the southwest and northwest coast of Florida (FFWCC 2009a). NMFS and FWS 

14 (2008) estimated that 1001 to 10,000 loggerhead turtle nests occur in southwest Florida. In 

15 northwest Florida, NMFS and FWS (2008) estimated that 101 to 1000 loggerhead turtle nests 

16 occurred. Recent counts indicate that nesting throughout Florida, including northwest and 

17 southwest Florida, is decreasing. 

18 Loggerhead turtles occur all along the Gulf of Mexico coast in shallow coastal and estuarine 

19 waters, as well as along the outer continental shelf. The statistics on loggerhead turtle 

20 strandings and numbers killed in shrimp trawls indicate the distribution and abundance of 

21 loggerhead turtles in the Gulf of Mexico. Henwood et al. (1992) reported that less than 25 

22 percent of loggerhead turtles in their survey killed in shrimp nets were captured in the eastern 

23 Gulf of Mexico. Between 1988 and 1993, from 189 to 308 loggerhead turtles were stranded 

24 each year along the shores of the Gulf of Mexico (Teas and Martinez 1992; Teas 1992, 1993, 

25 1994a, b), with the largest number of strandings occurring in west Florida. From 1998 to 2004, 

26 81 (28.6 percent) of the 283 sea turtles reported stranded along the Florida coast from Franklin 

27 County to Pinellas County were loggerhead turtles (Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network 

28 2009; see Table 2). 

29 5.2.1.4 Factors Contributing to the Population Decline 

30 Most sea turtle mortalities, including loggerheads, are caused by human activities, including 

31 incidental take in bottom trawls, longline, and gillnet fisheries; legal and illegal harvest; vessel 

32 strikes; beach armoring; beach erosion; marine debris ingestion; oil pollution; and light pollution 

33 (NMFS and FWS 2008). 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-87 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 5.2.1.5 Occurrence and Status in the Project Area 

2 Loggerhead turtles are considered threatened throughout their entire range. Therefore, they are 

3 considered a threatened species for Levy and Citrus Counties. Based on reviews of several 

4 reports, including those of NMFS and FWS (2008) and the Turtle Expert Working Group (2000), 

5 the area around Levy and Citrus Counties appears to have lower instances of loggerhead turtles 

6 than other areas of Florida to the north and south. Data from the Sea Turtle Stranding and 

7 Salvage Network Zones 6 and 7 indicate the possibility that more loggerhead turtles might 

8 actually be in the area. However, when compared to other zones throughout Florida, the 

9 numbers are substantially smaller (Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network 2009). Factors 

10 that may influence these low numbers include (1) a large portion of the Levy and Citrus 

11 Counties coastline is not easily accessible for survey, and (2) a Sea Turtle Recovery Team is 

12 not currently active in this zone of Florida, but teams are active in other zones (NMFS and FWS 

13 2008). In-water survey data collected in the Levy and Citrus County areas seem to corroborate 

14 the lower instances of loggerheads in the area (see Table 5-1). PEF has routinely collected 

15 incidental occurence data from the intake canal for the CREC since 1999. For loggerhead 

16 turtles, 11 live takes, 4 non-CREC mortalities, and 1 CREC causal mortality were reported from 

17 the CREC intake canal between 1999 and 2009 (PEF 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 

18 2008c, 2009e, 2010). The turtles ranged from juveniles to adults. 

19 5.2.2 Green Sea Turtle 

20 5.2.2.1 Life History 

21 The green turtle is the largest of the hard-shelled sea turtles. The mean size of adult female 

22 green turtles nesting in Florida is 3.3-ft standard straight carapace length (SCL) with a weight of 

23 300 lb. Green turtles have a circumglobal distribution in tropical and subtropical waters, 

24 particularly in shallow coastal seagrass and hard reef areas (NMFS and FWS 1991). 

25 Historically, the most important nesting area for green turtles in the Gulf of Mexico was on Dry 

26 Tortugas, west of the Florida Keys, but this population became extinct through human 

27 exploitation early in this century (Meylan et al. 1994). Currently, green turtles nest along the 

28 southwestern coastline of Florida to the Georgia border and in the northwestern portion of 

29 Florida along the panhandle. Nests in these areas seem to be gradually increasing every year 

30 (FFWCC 2009b). 

31 5.2.2.2 Habitat Requirements 

32 Green turtles occupy three habitat types at different stages in their life cycle. For nesting, 

33 females require the high-energy (wave active), sandy beaches of barrier islands and mainland 

34 shores above the high-water line. Upon emergence, hatchlings immediately seek out the shore 

35 and open water. The hatchling green turtles weigh about 0.8 oz and have a carapace length of 

36 less than 7.9 in. SCL. Hatchling green turtles tend to prefer to swim in open surface waters 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-88 August 2010 

1 where they subsist on zooplankton and sea weeds. Juvenile green turtles drift with the 

2 prevailing surface-water currents until they reach a size of 12 to 16 in., at 1 to 3 years, and then 

3 return to shallow coastal waters. Juvenile green turtles and adults spend most of their lives in 

4 shallow benthic feeding grounds. Foraging habitats for juvenile and adult green turtles are 

5 primarily pastures of seagrasses or macroalgae in less than 66 ft of water. A favorite seagrass 

6 food of green turtles throughout the Caribbean and south Florida is turtle grass (Thalassia 

7 testudinum). Thalassia is a highly productive seagrass and can support as many as 138 adult 

8 female green turtles per hectare. However, juvenile green turtles often are found over shallow 

9 hard-bottom habitats, such as coral and rocky reefs (NMFS and FWS 1991). 

10 During feeding, subadult green turtles do not wander far, rather they remain within a small area 

of 0.4 mi2 11 or less. A typical dive cycle during feeding in Florida lasts about 33 minutes, of which 

12 1 minute is spent at the surface between dives and 30 minutes is spent on the bottom foraging 

13 on seagrass or algae. Thus, green turtles are hard to monitor in their feeding grounds because 

14 they spend more than 50 minutes of each hour submerged (Nelson 1994). 

15 5.2.2.3 Status and Distribution 

16 In the last century, heavy exploitation of green turtles by man, mainly for their high-quality meat 

17 and eggs, has resulted in a substantial decline in their populations throughout most of their 

18 historic range. This exploitation also has led to green turtles that nest in Florida being listed as 

19 endangered by NMFS and FWS. According to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

20 Commission (FFWCC 2009b), 12,752 green turtle nests were noted in Florida in 2007, with 

21 82 percent of the nests occurring in southeastern Florida. No nests were located in the area 

22 surrounding Levy and Citrus Counties. Stranding records produce useful information about the 

23 distribution of sea turtles. The stranding data indicate that green turtles are most abundant in 

24 the U.S. Gulf of Mexico off the west coast of Florida, followed by south Texas. From 1998 to 

25 2004, 105 (37.1 percent) of the 283 sea turtles reported stranded along the Florida coast from 

26 Franklin County to Pinellas County were green turtles (Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage 

27 Network 2009). This was the highest noted species in the area (see Table 5-1). Important 

28 feeding areas for green turtles located on the west coast of Florida include two locations within 

29 Citrus County (Homosassa and Crystal River) and one location within Levy County (Cedar Key) 

30 (NMFS and FWS 1991). 

31 5.2.2.4 Factors Contributing to the Population Decline 

32 Most sources of mortality for sea turtles in U.S. coastal waters, including green turtles, are 

33 human activities, such as incidental take in bottom trawls, particularly shrimp and summer 

34 flounder nets (Henwood et al. 1992); coastal gill net and pound net fisheries (Witzell and 

35 Cramer 1995); ingestion of marine debris (Witzell and Teas 1994); and channel dredging 

36 (NMFS and FWS 1991). Collisions with boats, particularly boat propellers, are also an 

37 important cause of the death of green turtles found stranded on the shore. Oil pollution from 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-89 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 spills and tank cleaning may kill some green turtles and other marine turtles through tarball 

2 ingestion or fouling of the body with oil from surface slicks. Loss of nesting habitat through 

3 coastal development may also be a factor (NMFS 1994). 

4 5.2.2.5 Occurrence and Status in the Project Area 

5 NMFS and FWS currently list the breeding populations of green turtles in Florida as 

6 endangered, while all other populations are considered threatened. Although nesting areas 

7 have not been found in Levy and Citrus Counties or the immediately surrounding counties, any 

8 green turtles noted in these areas are considered endangered. Data from Eaton et al. (2008) 

9 and the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (2009; see Table 5-1) indicate that green 

10 turtles are more abundant in the Levy and Citrus County areas and around the CREC than 

11 some of the other turtle species. This is probably due to its proximity to three important feeding 

12 grounds that occur in the Levy and Citrus County areas. However, when compared to counties 

13 on the southwestern and eastern shores of Florida (from Sarasota to North Carolina), this area 

14 has considerably fewer green turtles. At CREC, most green turtle occurrences have been 

15 juveniles. For the green turtle, between 1999 and 2009, 47 live takes, 10 non-CREC-related 

16 mortalities, and 3 CREC-related mortalities have been reported from the CREC intake canal 

17 (PEF 2001 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008c, 2009e, 2010). 

18 5.2.3 Hawksbill Sea Turtle 

19 5.2.3.1 Life History 

20 The hawksbill turtle is a medium-sized tropical and subtropical species that inhabits the warm 

21 waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans (NMFS and FWS 1993). It is the most tropical 

22 of the sea turtles and is restricted primarily to warmer waters more than the other four sea 

23 turtles found in the Gulf of Mexico. In U.S. territorial waters, hawksbills occur along the U.S. 

24 coast of south Texas and along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of Florida. Adult nesting females 

25 have a carapace length of about 34 in. and weigh about 176 lb. The largest hawksbill on record 

26 weighed 276 lb. Hatchlings are about 1.7 in. long and weigh 0.5 to 0.7 oz (NMFS and FWS 

27 1993). In the U.S. Caribbean and the Florida Keys, overexploitation severely depleted 

28 hawksbills during the 20th century. At present, since banning the sale of turtle shell products, 

29 they may no longer be in decline. However, data are not available to indicate that numbers are 

30 increasing (NMFS and FWS 1993; NMFS and FWS 2007). In the western tropical North Atlantic 

31 and Caribbean Sea, hawksbill nesting populations have continued to decline (Meylan 1989). 

32 5.2.3.2 Habitat Requirements 

33 Hawksbills are solitary nesters, making it difficult to gain insights into their population sizes in 

34 areas where they nest. Hawksbills show a high fidelity to their nesting beaches and return to 

35 the same or a nearby beach year after year (Bjorndal et al. 1985). There have only been a few 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-90 August 2010 

1 verified reports of hawksbill turtle nesting in south Florida, mostly on the east coast (NMFS and 

2 FWS 1993). Juveniles and subadults tend to remain and feed on coral reefs near their natal 

3 beaches. Like other species of sea turtles, hatchling hawksbills congregate in sargassum rafts 

4 to feed and grow for a year or more after emerging from the nest (NMFS and FWS 1993). 

5 While in the sargassum rafts, they consume pelagic fish eggs and larvae, small invertebrates 

6 associated with the floating algae, and the sargassum itself. 

7 Subadults and adults are omnivorous scavengers. They seem to have a preference for benthic 

8 invertebrate prey, particularly sponges and biofouling organisms. Because of their food 

9 preferences, they tend to be most abundant in shallow coral and rocky reef habitats. These 

10 habitats are rare in the northern Gulf of Mexico, accounting in part for the rarity of hawksbill 

11 turtles in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. 

12 5.2.3.3 Status and Distribution 

13 The hawksbill turtle is the rarest of the five sea turtles in the U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico. 

14 These tropical turtles undoubtedly are much more abundant in the warmer waters of the 

15 Mexican Gulf of Mexico. Strandings of hatchling and yearling hawksbill turtles are frequent in 

16 south Texas and occasionally in Louisiana. Northward coastal currents in the western Gulf 

17 undoubtedly carry young hawksbill turtles northward along the Texas coast from their natal 

18 beaches in Mexico. From 1998 to 2004, 9 (3.1 percent) of the 283 sea turtles reported stranded 

19 along the Florida coast from Franklin County to Pinellas County were hawksbill turtles (Sea 

20 Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network 2009). 

21 5.2.3.4 Factors Contributing to the Population Decline 

22 Hawksbill turtles are subjected to and share many of the natural and anthropogenic 

23 disturbances as the other sea turtles in Gulf of Mexico waters. However, their limited 

24 distribution in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico subjects them to less involvement with U.S. commercial 

25 and recreational fisheries. Strandings of hawksbills are restricted almost exclusively to Florida, 

26 Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Hawksbills appear to be unusually vulnerable to 

27 ingestion of marine debris, particularly plastics. Nearly 90 percent of the debris ingested by 

28 hawksbills is plastic bags, plastic and styrofoam particles, and tar (Witzell and Teas 1994). Six 

29 hawksbills that were stranded also were entangled in marine debris or fish nets. Juvenile 

30 hawksbills frequently are reported entangled in monofilament gill nets, fishing line, and synthetic 

31 rope. Because of the great value of the carapace of hawksbill turtles, called “tortoiseshell” or 

32 “bekko,” there is a large illegal trade in subadult and adult hawksbill turtles, particularly in Puerto 

33 Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the wider Caribbean, and the Mexican Gulf of Mexico (NMFS and 

34 FWS 1993). 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-91 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 5.2.3.5 Occurrence and Status in the Project Area 

2 Hawksbill turtles are endangered throughout their entire range, including the Florida coastal 

3 areas off of Levy and Citrus Counties. However, as noted in the data from the Sea Turtle 

4 Stranding and Salvage Network, the CREC study, and the Cedar Key study (see Table 2), 

5 hawksbill turtles are rarely found in the Florida coastal areas off of Levy and Citrus Counties. 

6 The low number of strandings is probably indicative of the rarity of hawksbill turtles in Florida 

7 waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Between 1999 and 2009, a single hawksbill turtle was recovered 

8 live from the CREC intake canal in 2000 (PEF 2001). 

9 5.2.4 Leatherback Sea Turtle 

10 5.2.4.1 Life History 

11 Leatherback turtles are the largest and most distinctive of the living sea turtles. They reach a 

12 length of 78 in. SCL and weigh more than 2000 lb (NMFS 2009e). Large outstretched front 

13 flippers may span 106 in. in an adult. Lacking a keratinized shell, they are covered instead with 

14 a tough hide. Because they have physiological adaptations for heat conservation, leatherback 

15 turtles are more widely distributed as adults than other sea turtles in temperate and boreal 

16 waters throughout the world. However, all leatherbacks return to subtropical and tropical shores 

17 to nest. 

18 5.2.4.2 Habitat Requirements 

19 Leatherback turtles are a largely oceanic, pelagic species, but they also forage in coastal 

20 waters. Juveniles and adults feed throughout the water column to depths of at least 3900 ft 

21 (NMFS 2009e), consuming jellyfish and other gelatinous zooplankton, such as salps, 

22 ctenophores, and siphonophores (Limpus 1984). Most feeding dives average about 200 ft, but 

23 frequently extend from 985 to 1300 ft (Eckert et al. 1986). In the past, the leatherback’s 

24 seasonal inshore movements off south Texas have been linked to inshore movements of their 

25 preferred jellyfish prey. Only a small fraction of the Gulf of Mexico and North Atlantic 

26 leatherback populations nest on beaches of the continental United States, mostly in Florida 

27 (Meylan et al. 1994 ) and the U.S. Virgin Islands (Boulon et al. 1994). Nesting occurs from April 

28 to July. Little is known about the behavior or distribution of hatchling and juvenile leatherback 

29 turtles. 

30 5.2.4.3 Status and Distribution 

31 Because leatherback turtles are a largely oceanic, pelagic species, estimates of their population 

32 status and trends have been difficult to obtain. In addition, nesting females do not have the 

33 nest-site fidelity exhibited by other turtles and tend to move to different beaches in different 

34 years (Tucker 1990). Therefore, it has been difficult to estimate temporal trends in population 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-92 August 2010 

1 size. Nesting trends on U.S. beaches have increased in recent years (NMFS 2009e). In 

2 Florida, the FFWCC found more than 1400 nests throughout the state in 2007 (FFWCC 2009c). 

3 Most were located along the eastern and southeastern coasts. Sarasota, Escambia, Okaloosa, 

4 Bay, Gulf, and Monroe Counties were the only southwestern and northwestern counties in 

5 Florida with identified nests. Turtle stranding data support the hypothesis that leatherback 

6 turtles are rare in coastal waters of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Individuals dying in offshore pelagic 

7 environments may never wash ashore. From 1998 to 2004, 5 (1.8 percent) of the 283 sea 

8 turtles reported stranded along the Florida coast from Franklin County to Pinellas County were 

9 leatherback turtles (Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network 2009). 

10 5.2.4.4 Factors Contributing to the Population Decline 

11 Leatherbacks are especially susceptible to entanglement in fishing gear and plastic debris 

12 (Witzell and Teas 1994). Because they are adapted to a pelagic existence, they have trouble 

13 maneuvering in tight places, swimming backwards, and avoiding obstructions in shallow waters. 

14 The large front flippers of leatherbacks often bear cuts, chafing marks, or are severed 

15 altogether, possibly due to entanglement. Because of their preferred diet of gelatinous 

16 zooplankton, particularly jellyfish, leatherback turtles often ingest floating plastic debris, 

17 mistaking it for food (Wallace 1985). 

18 5.2.4.5 Occurrence and Status in the Project Area 

19 Leatherback turtles are considered endangered throughout their entire range, including Levy 

20 and Citrus Counties. However, as noted by FFWCC (2009c) and corroborated by data from the 

21 Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (2009), the CREC study, and the Cedar Key study 

22 (see Table 5-1), leatherback turtles are rarely found in the Florida coastal areas off of Levy and 

23 Citrus Counties. No leatherback turtles have been reported in the CREC intake canal since 

24 1999 (PEF 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008c, 2009e, 2010). 

25 5.2.5 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle 

26 5.2.5.1 Life History 

27 The Kemp’s ridley is one of the smallest living sea turtles. Adult females have shell lengths of 

28 24 to 28 in., and they weigh 77 to 99 lb (NMFS and FWS 1992). Pelagic-phase juvenile ridleys 

29 range in size from 2 to 8 in. SCL, subadults are 8 to 24 in. long, and mature adults generally are 

30 longer than 24 in. SCL (Marquez 1994). Kemp’s ridley turtles are distributed throughout the 

31 Gulf of Mexico and into the Atlantic Ocean. The center of their distribution is in the Gulf of 

32 Mexico. The Kemp’s ridley turtle is the most endangered sea turtle in the world (NMFS and 

33 FWS 1992) and is listed as endangered throughout its range. The number of females nesting at 

34 the only significant ridley nesting beach dropped from more than 40,000 to as low as 702 from 

35 1947 to 1985 (FWS 2009). This is the most severe population decline documented for any 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-93 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 species of sea turtles. Since the mid-1980s, an increase has been noted with as many 3600 

2 turtles producing more than 8000 nests during the 2003 season (NMFS 2009f). This is the most 

3 severe population decline documented for any species of sea turtles. 

4 5.2.5.2 Habitat Requirements 

5 Nearly all reproduction of Kemp’s ridleys takes place along a single 9.3-mi stretch of beach near 

6 Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico, about 200 mi south of Brownsville, Texas (Marquez 1994). 

7 A small number of nests have been found in Texas and along the Mexican coast of the Gulf of 

8 Mexico between Playa Lauro Villar, Tamaulipas, Mexico, and Isla Aguada, Campeche, Mexico, 

9 but nothing that reaches the level of nests at Rancho Nuevo. Nesting occurs in a highly 

10 synchronized manner with large numbers of females (called an arribada) coming ashore within 

11 a period of a few hours during daylight (Marquez 1994). Hatchlings migrate rapidly down the 

12 beach and out to sea where they spend a period of perhaps 2 years in the pelagic zone. They 

13 are about 8 in. long at the end of the pelagic period. Little is known about the feeding behavior 

14 and food preferences of hatchling Kemp’s ridley turtles during their pelagic stage. During the 

15 pelagic period, they presumably feed on zooplankton and floating matter, including sargassum 

16 weed and the associated biotic community. Following a pelagic feeding stage shortly after 

17 hatching and lasting for several months, the juvenile ridleys move into shallow coastal waters to 

18 feed and grow. The young subadults often forage in water less than 3 ft deep, but they tend to 

19 move into deeper water as they grow. Juvenile to adult ridleys prey on crabs, particularly blue 

20 crabs; mollusks; and small fish. Because of their preference for crabs and other primarily 

21 shallow-water demersal prey, juvenile and adult ridley turtles concentrate in coastal waters less 

22 than 30 ft deep throughout their range. They make long dives to the bottom and may feed on 

23 the bottom for an hour or more at a time (Turtle Expert Working Group 2000). 

24 5.2.5.3 Status and Distribution 

25 Ridley turtles are found mainly in the Gulf of Mexico. Comparatively small numbers of juveniles 

26 are found along the U.S. Atlantic coast as far north as New England and the Canadian Maritime 

27 Provinces (Lazell 1980). The northern and northeastern Gulf of Mexico are prime foraging 

28 areas for juvenile, subadult, and post-nesting female ridleys (Marquez 1994). They often are 

29 observed associated with portunid crabs (Callinectes spp.), their favorite prey. Adults are 

30 restricted almost entirely to the Gulf of Mexico, where they range widely between northern 

31 (U.S.) and southern (Mexico) regions. The distribution of juveniles in the Gulf of Mexico is 

32 restricted primarily to U.S. waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico from Texas to Florida. From 

33 1998 to 2004, 73 (25.8 percent) of the 283 sea turtles reported stranded along the Florida coast 

34 from Franklin County to Pinellas County were ridley turtles (Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage 

35 Network 2009). Over the past decade, nesting has increased, indicating that the species may 

36 be in the early stages of recovery (NMFS 2009f). 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-94 August 2010 

1 5.2.5.4 Factors Contributing to the Population Decline 

2 The major factors in the historic decline of ridley turtles is thought to have resulted from 

3 predation (animal and human) of eggs on the major nesting beach and incidental take in 

4 commercial fisheries in the U.S. and Mexican Gulf of Mexico and western North Atlantic 

5 (Marquez 1994). Current impacts include anthropogenic disturbance, entanglement in fishing 

6 gear (e.g., monofilament fishing line or discarded fishing nets), and marine debris ingestion 

7 (e.g., plastic bags and plastic particles). Under some circumstances, chemical pollution may be 

8 a threat to ridley turtles. 

9 5.2.5.5 Occurrence and Status in the Project Area 

10 As noted, Kemp’s ridley turtles are considered endangered throughout their entire range, 

11 including the Florida coastal areas off of the coasts of Levy and Citrus Counties. According to 

12 the CREC and Cedar Key studies, ridley turtles are the most common turtle found in the Levy 

13 and Citrus County areas (Eaton et al. 2008; Carr and Caldwell 1956; Schmid 1998) while the 

14 Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network data indicate that ridley turtles from juveniles up to 

15 adults are the third most-frequent species stranded in the area. For the Kemp’s ridley turtle, 

16 since 1999, 99 live takes, 11 CREC non-causal mortalities, and 5 CREC causal mortalities have 

17 been reported in the CREC intake canal (PEF 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008c, 

18 2009e, 2010). Based on these reports, Kemp’s ridley turtles appear to be the most likely turtle 

19 species to be present in the LNP site area. 

20 5.3 Smalltooth Sawfish 

21 5.3.1 Life History 

22 The smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) is a cartilaginous fish that inhabits coastal inland 

23 shallows with muddy or sandy substrate where it feeds on benthic fish and crustaceans. 

24 Smalltooth sawfish, like other cartilaginous fish, mature slowly with reproductive age estimated 

25 based on growth rates (NMFS 2009g). Reproduction is ovoviviparous, with females retaining 

26 developing embryos within a yolk-containing egg sac over 5 months and giving birth to hatched 

27 embryos. There is no clear information regarding litter sizes, although information from the 

28 largetooth sawfish is assumed to be comparable where females produce litters every other year. 

29 Diet includes small fish and crustaceans. The feeding behavior observed in smalltooth sawfish 

30 includes slashing sideways through schools of fish to injure or impale prey on rostral teeth 

31 (NMFS 2009g). 

32 5.3.2 Habitat Requirements 

33 Juvenile smalltooth sawfish stay close to shallow, coastal estuaries and river mouths with 

34 mangrove or mud bank habitats. They show high site fidelity and stay close to natal habitat. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-95 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Adults may move further offshore up to depths of 400 ft and can tolerate brackish water 

2 (Simpfendorfer and Wiley 2006). 

3 5.3.3 Status and Distribution 

4 Once prevalent in the western Atlantic from the Atlantic U.S. coast through the Gulf of Mexico to 

5 Texas, the Caribbean, and down the South American coast to Brazil, the smalltooth sawfish is 

6 currently found consistently only near the southern tip of Florida (Simpfendorfer and Wiley 

7 2005). Still under review, critical habitat designation is proposed to protect this population from 

8 Charlotte Harbor to Florida Bay (73 FR 70290). In an effort to monitor distribution, migration, 

9 and future recovery efforts, the Florida Museum of Natural History maintains a smalltooth 

10 sawfish encounter database for public or commercial sightings or incidental catch of this species 

11 (FMNH 2010). 

12 5.3.4 Factors Contributing to the Population Decline 

13 The increase in commercial and recreational fishing increased the probability of sawfish 

14 entanglement. This species was reported commonly as bycatch. With slow reproduction rates 

15 and increases in fishing, the species has seen a rapid decline in abundance (Musick et al. 2000; 

16 Seitz and Poulakis 2002). Habitat alteration and degradation are also contributing factors to 

17 smalltooth sawfish population declines. In particular, juveniles are vulnerable to impacts 

18 associated with mangrove loss as protection from predators (NMFS 2009g). 

19 5.3.5 Occurrence and Status in the Project Area 

20 Observations of smalltooth sawfish north of Port Charlotte are rare. However, since 2000, four 

21 juvenile smalltooth sawfish have been either caught or sighted offshore of Citrus County; one at 

22 the mouth of the CFBC and another just outside the CREC discharge canal (FMNH 2009). No 

23 smalltooth sawfish were observed or collected during the sampling events described in EIS 

24 Section 2.4.2.1 for the CFBC, OWR, and CREC discharge area (CH2M Hill 2009b), and none 

25 have been reported in the CFBC near the proposed location for the cooling-water intake. 

26 5.4 Gulf Sturgeon 

27 5.4.1 Life History 

28 The gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) is an anadromous fish within the family 

29 Acipenseridae – one of the oldest and most primitive families of existing bony fishes. The gulf 

30 sturgeon is a relatively long-lived fish, and maturity in males is at 7 to 9 years while females take 

31 8 to 12 years to attain spawning condition. Spawning migrations occur in early to late spring 

32 with a return to saltwater during early to late fall. In the Suwannee River, Florida, sturgeons 

33 migrate upriver when temperatures range between 17 to 22°C in mid-February to mid-April. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-96 August 2010 

1 After the first spawning, females may only spawn at intervals of 2 or 3 years (Huff 1975). Water 

2 velocity influences the spawning habitat preference for sturgeon, with research suggesting that 

3 higher flows are environmental cues for successful spawning (Chapman and Carr 1995). 

4 Clumps of fertilized eggs become attached to rocks or other bottom structures in areas 

5 characterized as clean gravel-cobble mix over rock with strong, persistent laminar flows and 

6 eddies. Incubation times vary with river temperature, and fry disperse widely downstream of 

7 spawning habitats within the river, inhabiting open sandy areas away from shorelines and 

8 vegetation (Sulak and Clugston 1998). Juvenile (>1 year) and adult gulf sturgeon typically out9 migrate to the marine environment, although some populations tend to hold over in brackish 

10 water for a period up to 2 months before moving into the open Gulf of Mexico (Carr et al. 1996). 

11 The adult gulf sturgeon is a bottom feeder and makes a diet of invertebrates such as 

12 brachiopods, insect larvae, mollusks, oligochaetes, polychaetes, crustaceans, and small fishes. 

13 Feeding is almost exclusively in marine waters, and adults eat little while in freshwater. Weight 

14 losses of 4 to 15 percent are often observed during the in-river period during late spring, 

15 summer, and early fall (Wooley and Crateau 1985). 

16 5.4.2 Habitat Requirements 

17 Historically, the range for this anadromous fish extended from Louisiana to south of Tampa Bay, 

18 Florida, where it feeds in the Gulf of Mexico and returns to freshwater for spawning. The current 

19 range is limited to the Mississippi River east to the Suwannee River, Florida, where the 

20 Suwanee River supports the largest subpopulation of gulf sturgeon (Carr et al. 1996). Critical 

21 habitat for Florida nearest to the proposed LNP site is designated for 182 mi of the Suwannee 

22 River; 12 mi of the Withlacoochee River, where it branches off to the north of the Suwannee 

River; and 211 mi2 23 of estuarine/marine area of Suwannee Sound that is north of Cedar Key 

24 (68 FR 13370). Gulf sturgeon show a high homing fidelity (site-specific) spawning behavior 

25 based on gene flow between river drainages (Stabile et al. 1996). 

26 5.4.3 Status and Distribution 

27 Since 1991, the gulf sturgeon has been jointly managed and listed as a threatened species by 

28 NMFS and FWS (50 FR 49653), with NMFS managing nearshore and offshore habitat range 

29 and FWS managing inland from river mile zero. The gulf sturgeon is extant in major river basins 

30 from the Mississippi to Charlotte Harbor, but the only significant spawning populations occur in 

31 the Pearl River, Pascagoula River, Escambia River, Blackwater River, Yellow River, 

32 Choctawhatchee River, Apalachicola River, Ochlockonee River, and Suwannee River (FWS 

33 1995; Berg 2004). 

34 5.4.4 Factors Contributing to the Population Decline 

35 Prized for their flesh and roe, gulf sturgeon were commercially fished in the late 1890s up to 

36 1984 when the State of Florida banned commercial harvesting. Degradation of riverine habitat 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-97 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 with increases in pollution and installation of dams on many of the major rivers along the 

2 northern Gulf of Mexico also contributed to the decline in species abundance (Huff 1975; 

3 Wooley and Crateau 1985). A recovery plan was initiated in 1995 to prevent further reduction in 

4 sturgeon populations and monitor population recovery with habitat restoration efforts (FWS 

5 1995). Critical habitat for Florida was established for the Suwannee River and immediate 

6 offshore habitat in the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf sturgeon critical habitat is designated for 182 mi of 

7 the Suwannee River, 12 mi of the northern Withlacoochee River where it branches off to the 

north of the Suwannee River, and 211 mi2 8 of estuarine/marine area of Suwannee Sound that is 

9 north of Cedar Key (68 FR 13370). 

10 5.4.5 Occurrence and Status in the Project Area 

11 There are no known spawning populations associated in river systems south of the Suwannee 

12 River along the Florida coast, and estuarine/marine critical habitat for the gulf sturgeon does not 

13 occur south of Cedar Key. No gulf sturgeon were observed or collected during the sampling 

14 events described in EIS Section 2.4.2.1 for the CFBC, OWR, or CREC discharge area 

15 (CH2MHill 2009b). Adult gulf sturgeon have been caught south of the CFBC offshore of 

16 Pinellas County and within Tampa Bay, but these occurrences have been few since 1987 

17 (Wakeford 2001). Although gulf sturgeon may occur in the offshore areas associated with the 

18 CFBC or CREC, they have not been documented, and they would likely avoid any 

19 anthropogenic activities and would not use the CFBC or OWR as spawning habitat given the 

20 unfavorable substrate and lack of downstream flow. 

21 5.5 Corals 

22 Both staghorn (Acropora cervicornis) and elkhorn (Acropora palmata) corals are Federally 

23 threatened reef-building corals found primarily along the Atlantic coast of Florida and the 

24 Caribbean. Designated critical habitat for these two species was established in November 

25 2008, and areas off coastal Florida for Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Monroe 

26 Counties are listed. Because, there are no known occurrences of either staghorn or elkhorn 

27 coral in Florida Gulf of Mexico waters north of Sanibel Island (73 FR 72210), the review team 

28 concludes that construction and operation of LNP Units 1 and 2 would have no effect on any of 

29 the coral species, and these species will not be discussed further. 

30 6.0 Effects of the Proposed Action on Aquatic Species 

31 The effects of the proposed action on the sea turtles, smalltooth sawfish, and gulf sturgeon are 

32 described in the following sections. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-98 August 2010 

1 6.1 Sea Turtles 

2 Four of the five species of sea turtle are listed as Federally and State endangered, with the 

3 loggerhead sea turtle listed by both Federal and State levels as threatened. All sea turtles have 

4 certain life-history similarities in that females swim ashore to sandy beaches and deposit eggs in 

5 nesting pits that are covered to allow incubation. Neonates hatch, struggle out of the sandy 

6 nest, and make their way to their respective ocean habitats. Although there are no sandy 

7 coastline habitats in the area of the CFBC or the CREC discharge area, juvenile, subadult, and 

8 adult sea turtle life stages have been found offshore or in these vicinities. In particular, several 

9 sea turtle species found in the CREC intake canal have been stranded on the intake bar racks. 

10 PEF has an ongoing program to monitor the intake canal for the presence of sea turtles, to 

11 perform rescues for stranded individuals, to provide rehabilitation, and to release resources 

12 when possible. Trash-bar monitoring for LNP, as implemented at CREC for sea turtle rescue 

13 and handling, may assist sick sea turtles that are not able to avoid becoming lodged on the 

14 trash racks, and to remove and report mortalities. 

15 PEF currently has an incidental take permit from NMFS for CREC that allows incidental live take 

16 of 75 sea turtles annually, 3 annual causal sea turtle mortalities, and a reporting requirement for 

17 non-causal related mortalities of 8 or more within a 12-month period (NMFS 2002). This most 

18 recent Biological Opinion concludes that operation of CREC Unit 3, “is not likely to jeopardize 

19 the continued existence of loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, green, hawksbill and leatherback sea 

20 turtles” (NMFS 2002).

21 For each of the species described below (except for the leatherbacks that are rare north of 

22 Sarasota County), construction activities and barge traffic are not likely to affect sea turtles that 

23 may be in the vicinity of the CFBC or CREC discharge area because the turtles avoid any noise 

24 or disturbances. Due to the reduced intake flow associated with the closed-cycle cooling 

25 system proposed for LNP, and the limiting of the through screen velocity of the intake to 0.5 fps 

26 or less, the review team concludes that turtle strandings on the LNP intake trash bars is unlikely 

27 and would be limted to moribund or compromised turtles. Therefore, for the loggerhead, green, 

28 hawksbill, and Kemp’s ridley turtles, the review team concludes that construction and operation 

29 of LNP may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect these species. The review team 

30 concludes that construction and operation of LNP will have no effect on the leatherback turtle 

31 due to its apparent lack of distribution in the vicinity of the LNP site, and its lack of potential to 

32 become impinged on the LNP intake trash racks. 

33 6.2 Smalltooth Sawfish 

34 Observations of smalltooth sawfish north of Port Charlotte are rare, but two sightings in the 

35 coastal Florida panhandle region have been documented since August 2008 (FMNH 2009). 

36 Since 2000, four smalltooth sawfish juveniles have been either caught or sighted offshore of 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-99 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Citrus County – one at the mouth of the CFBC and another just outside the CREC discharge 

2 canal (FMNH 2009). However, no smalltooth sawfish were observed or collected during the 

3 sampling events described in EIS Section 2.4.2.1 for the CFBC, OWR, and CREC discharge 

4 area (CH2M Hill 2009b). Although the critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish is located along the 

5 southwestern coast of Florida, occurrence records indicate that juvenile sawfish are present 

6 near the CREC discharge and CFBC areas. However, adverse impacts are unlikely because 

7 these fish would avoid activities occurring in these areas. The use of vertical trash bars across 

8 the intake screens and the through-screen velocity of 0.5 fps for intake operations should allow 

9 healthy smalltooth sawfish of any age to swim away and not become trapped against the intake 

10 screens, although distressed and moribund fish may become trapped on the trash bars. 

11 Therefore, the review team concludes that construction and operation of LNP may affect, but is 

12 not likely to adversely affect the smalltooth sawfish. 

13 6.3 Gulf Sturgeon 

14 Gulf sturgeon were not collected in sampling efforts and are not likely to be encountered during 

15 construction in the CFBC or CREC discharge canal because neither of these areas is critical 

16 habitat or a preferred spawning area. Adverse impacts are unlikely because juvenile or adult 

17 fish would avoid activities occurring in these areas. The use of vertical trash bars across the 

18 intake screens and the low-approach velocity of 0.25 fps for intake operations should allow 

19 healthy sturgeon of any age to swim away and not become trapped against the intake screens, 

20 although distressed and moribund fish may become trapped on the trash bars. Therefore, the 

21 review team concludes that construction and operation of LNP may affect, but is not likely to 

22 adversely affect the Gulf sturgeon. 

23 7.0 Cumulative Effects 

24 In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative 

25 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

26 could affect aquatic ecology. For this analysis, the geographic area of interest is considered to 

27 be the proposed LNP site, the entire CFBC, Lake Rousseau, the Inglis Lock bypass channel, 

28 OWR, the CREC intake and discharge, the Levy and Citrus County offshore areas of the Gulf of 

29 Mexico, and the proposed transmission-line corridors. Other watersheds (Wacassassa Basin) 

30 adjacent to these waterbodies are not affected by LNP and are excluded from this cumulative 

31 impacts analysis. 

32 Other actions in the vicinity that have present and reasonably foreseeable future potential 

33 impacts on the CFBC and Gulf of Mexico offshore of the CREC include operation of the existing 

34 CREC, the proposed uprate of CREC Unit 3, continued operation of the Inglis Quarry, widening 

35 of the US-19 bridge across the CFBC, a proposed hydropower project on the Inglis Lock bypass 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-100 August 2010 

1 channel spillway, proposed Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine, decommissioning of CREC 

2 Units 1 and 2, development of a Port District along the CFBC, and natural environmental 

3 stressors (e.g., short- or long-term changes in precipitation or temperature and the resulting 

4 response of the aquatic community). The review team considered these potential sources of 

5 impacts in its evaluation of the cumulative aquatic ecology impacts presented in PEF’s ER and 

6 in PEF’s responses to the NRC staff’s Requests for Additional Information. 

7 Historically, the construction and operation of CREC Units 1 through 5 have had some impact 

8 on sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico (described in Section 5.0 of this assessment), which PEF 

9 mitigates through guidance for sea turtle rescue and handling. The current CFBC was 

10 constructed starting in 1964, but it was never completed as a cross-Florida canal and was 

11 officially deauthorized in 1991 (Noll and Tegeder 2003). The western portion of the completed 

12 CFBC extends from the Gulf of Mexico to the Inglis Lock at Lake Rousseau and is typical of a 

13 tidal canal with marine and estuarine characteristics. 

14 Cumulative impacts on threatened and endangered species within the CFBC are not likely due 

15 to activities or events that are distinct from the LNP site. Activities related to construction of the 

16 hydropower system on the Inglis Lock bypass channel could affect the downstream migration of 

17 fish from Lake Rousseau to the Withlacoochee River, but would not affect the CFBC or OWR. 

18 The US-19 bridge expansion will not include in-water construction, and impacts on the CFBC 

19 would likely be mitigated through BMPs to control erosion and stormwater runoff during bridge 

20 construction. The Inglis Quarry is located on the north side of the CFBC, and drainage ditches 

21 are separated from the CFBC by a containment berm (SDI 2008). Barge traffic within the CFBC 

22 is likely to be limited to LNP module transportation and should have minimal impact on aquatic 

23 resources as discussed in EIS Section 4.3.2. The proposed Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine 

24 expansion may affect groundwater discharge to the lower Withlachoochee River (see EIS 

25 Section 7.2.2). The CREC Unit 3 power uprate is not expected to have any construction-related 

26 impacts except those related to the construction of additional mechanical draft cooling towers on 

27 a portion of the CREC site that has been previously disturbed. Any potential onsite 

28 construction-related impacts would be mitigated through the use of BMPs. The contribution of 

29 LNP construction-related impacts to impacts related to other nearby activities is minor. Impacts 

30 from construction of LNP would be temporary, minor, largely mitigated, and mainly confined to 

31 the site. Therefore, the review team concludes that the overall contribution of construction to 

32 cumulative losses of protected aquatic organisms in the region would be minor, and additional 

33 mitigation would not be warranted. 

34 For operational impacts, the review team considered the potential cumulative impacts on the 

35 Gulf of Mexico and CFBC related to impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms and 

36 also thermal and chemical releases from both CREC and LNP. Water withdrawn for operation 

37 of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would require a net intake of 190 cfs (122 Mgd). The source of 

38 the 190 cfs, under low flow conditions, would be 50 cfs from leakage of Lake Rousseau water 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-101 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 through the Inglis Lock and freshwater springs, emanating in the CFBC in the vicinity of the 

2 intake structure; 70 cfs from the discharge of Lake Rousseau water at the Inglis Dam that would 

3 enter the CFBC via the OWR; and an inflow of 70 cfs that would come from the Gulf of Mexico. 

4 Currently, CREC Units 1 through 5 withdraw over 15 times more water from the Gulf of Mexico 

5 for operations than the required 190 cfs for LNP Units 1 and 2. The proposed CREC Unit 3 

6 uprate would not increase station water intake flow for CREC Units 1, 2, and 3 (PEF 2007). The 

7 additional waste heat generated as a result of the CREC Unit 3 power uprate would be 

8 dissipated to the atmosphere by the additional mechanical draft cooling tower planned for 

9 constrction at the CREC site. 

10 The review team considered the potential incremental cumulative impacts of impingement and 

11 entrainment of aquatic organisms related to operation of LNP 1 and 2 along with continued 

12 operation of CREC Units 1 through 5. As discussed in Section 5.3.2, the proposed closed13 cycle cooling system with mechanical draft cooling towers for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 

14 would not be expected to result in a discernable impact on populations of aquatic organisms 

15 inhabiting Crystal Bay and Withlacoochee Bay areas of the Gulf of Mexico as a result of 

16 impingement or entrainment. 

17 The review team is aware that the possibility exists that CREC Units 1 and 2 (fossil-fuel plants) 

18 which contribute significantly to the overall impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms 

19 at CREC, would be decommissioned once LNP Units 1 and 2 begin operation. This significant 

20 reduction in intake withdrawal volume (greater than 48 percent) at CREC would reduce the 

21 cumulative impact of impingement and entrainment related to operation of CREC on aquatic 

22 organisms in the Gulf of Mexico, and may result in a net positive impact on local fisheries. 

23 The operation of the proposed Inglis hydropower project would involve the use of bar racks to 

24 prevent debris and organisms larger than 2 in. from traveling through the turbine (Inglis 2008). 

25 Any potential impacts from the Inglis hydropower project are isolated from the impacts on the 

26 CFBC because the Inglis Lock bypass channel and Withlacoochee River are not hydraulically 

27 connected to the CFBC. The construction and operation of the hydroelectric facility would have 

28 no effect on populations of aquatic organisms inhabiting the CFBC. Therefore, the Inglis 

29 hydroelectric project will have no detectable incremental cumulative impact on aquatic 

30 resources affected by the building and operation of LNP. 

31 The review team also considered the potential cumulative impacts of thermal discharges on 

32 threatened and endangered species. The operation of all five units at CREC with the uprate of 

33 CREC Unit 3 and without the LNP Units 1 and 2 discharge would result in no thermal increase 

34 with the operation of a new south cooling tower to augment the current modular helper cooling 

35 towers (Golder Associates 2008). The review team is aware that the possibility exists that 

36 CREC Units 1 and 2 (fossil-fuel plants), which contribute to of the discharge flow, would be 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-102 August 2010 

1 decommissioned once LNP Units 1 and 2 begin operation. The review team conducted the 

2 following thermal analysis of two cases involving the discharge from CREC. 

3 The first case evaluated the thermal discharge from all five units at CREC, the power uprate 

4 from CREC Unit 3 and the blowdown from LNP Units 1 and 2. A second analysis involved 

5 CREC Units 3 through 5, the Unit 3 power uprate, and blowdown from LNP 1 and 2. The 

6 thermal analyses for these two cases are presented in EIS Section 5.2.3.1. The first scenario 

7 concludes that resulting changes in discharges at CREC would be minimal for thermal and 

8 chemical impacts with a slight increase in discharge plume size. The addition of LNP Units 1 

9 and 2 discharge would result in an increased discharge volume of 87.93 Mgd, but with no 

10 significant increase in thermal plume temperature or salinity over current conditions, as 

11 discussed in EIS Section 5.3.2.1. 

12 The second scenario, with the assumed shutdown of CREC Units 1 and 2, would result in a 

13 discharge plume much decreased in size when compared to the first scenario. CREC Units 1 

14 and 2 currently contribute 918 Mgd total discharge to the Gulf of Mexico during summer 

15 operations. This accounts for greater than 45 percent of the total discharge (PEF 2009c). The 

16 predicted thermal plume would decrease during both summer and winter conditions as a result 

17 from the decreased discharge plume. Salinity increases would occur under both summer and 

18 winter conditions due to increased cycles of concentration with CREC Units 1 and 2 non19 operational, but are less than 1.0 psu. The overall impact on aquatic resources is expected to 

20 be minimal.

21 Both scenarios represent a noticeable temperature and salinity change in the immediate Gulf of 

22 Mexico waters compared to the same region prior to CREC operations from a cumulative point 

23 of view (as discussed in EIS Section 7.2.2.1). However, habitats and aquatic organisms in this 

24 area have adapted to the salinity and temperature changes so that the incremental impacts of 

25 LNP 1 and 2 discharge, CREC uprate of Unit 3, and decommissioning of CREC Units 1 and 2 

26 would not be noticeable.

27 The review team considered the potential cumulative impacts on threatened and endangered 

28 species from chemical releases, including increases in total dissolved solids in the combined 

29 CREC and LNP discharge. CREC Units 1 through 5 are in compliance with the Clean Water 

30 Act Section 316(a) (thermal discharges) impacts from cooling-water systems. Chemical 

31 releases from the existing unit(s) currently comply with the FDEP NPDES permit requirements, 

32 and compliance with the Unit 3 uprate and decommissioning of CREC Units 1 and 2 are 

33 expected to continue and would be monitored in the future. Before approving a NPDES permit 

34 for the proposed unit(s), the FDEP would take cumulative chemical releases from the existing 

35 and proposed unit(s), as well as from other industrial sites discharging to the Gulf of Mexico, 

36 into consideration. Given the lack of other discharges into the immediate area of the CREC 

37 discharge, it is likely that the cumulative impacts from LNP discharge combined with the 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-103 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 discharge from CREC Units 1 through 5 with and without operation of CREC Units 1 and 2 

2 would be minimal. 

3 Anthropogenic activities, such as residential or industrial development near the vicinity of the 

4 nuclear facility, can present additional constraints on aquatic resources. Future activities may 

5 include shoreline development, such as the proposed Port District, for commercial, industrial, 

6 and residential waterfront development along the CFBC to the west of US-19 (Citrus County 

7 2009); increased water needs; and increased discharge of effluents into the Gulf of Mexico or 

8 the CFBC. 

9 In addition to direct anthropogenic activities, physical disturbance and climatic events may 

10 impose external stressors on aquatic communities (GCRP 2009). Aquatic ecosystem 

11 responses to these events are difficult to predict. The level of impact resulting from these 

12 activities or events would depend on the intensity of the perturbation and the recovery of the 

13 different threatened and endangered species populations. 

14 Cumulative impacts on aquatic ecology resources are estimated based on the information 

15 provided by PEF and the review team’s independent review. Based on the above analysis, the 

16 review team concludes that cumulative impacts on within the geographic area of interest from 

17 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including the construction and 

18 operation of LNP, to Federally-protected threatened and endangered species under the 

19 jurisdiction of the NMFS to be minimal. 

20 8.0 Determinations 

21 Based on a review of the potential for impacts given in Section 6.0, including construction, the 

22 use of a closed-cycle cooling system, an intake with a design through-screen velocity of less 

23 than 0.5 fps, the chemical concentrations estimated by PEF, an existing discharge canal, and 

24 the maintenance procedures for the transmission line rights-of-way, threatened and endangered 

25 species’ life-history data, and past takes at CREC, the review team concludes that the impacts 

26 on the CFBC, OWR, Crystal Bay area offshore of the CREC discharge, and the transmission27 line rights-of-way from the operation of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would be minor, and 

28 mitigation beyond that proposed by PEF trackwould not be warranted. 

29 Section 1 identifies five species of whales, five species of sea turtles, two species of fish, and 

30 two species of coral that are Federally endangered or threatened and are listed as occurring in 

31 Florida waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Of these, the loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle, 

32 hawksbill sea turtle, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish were 

33 identified as possibly occurring near the proposed LNP site in the CFBC, OWR, and Crystal Bay 

34 area offshore of the CFBC and CREC discharge as described in Section 6.0 (Table 8-1). There 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-104 August 2010 

1 are no areas designated as critical habitat for threatened and endangered species in the vicinity 

2 of the LNP site or associated structures.

3 Based on this review, the review team concludes that the impacts on aquatic Federally listed 

4 threatened and endangered species from construction and operation of the proposed LNP site 

5 would be minor, and additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

6 Table 8-1. Impacts on Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species from 

7 Construction and Operation of the Proposed LNP 

Common Name Scientific Name Status(a) Determination 

Herpetofauna 

Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect 

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas E May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect 

Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect 

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E No effect 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii E May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect 

Fishes 

Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata E May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect 

Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi T May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect 

(a) Federal status rankings determined by the NMFS under the ESA. E=endangered, 

T=threatened 

8 9.0 References 

9 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

10 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

11 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

12 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

13 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Licenses, 

14 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

15 40 CFR Part 122. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 122, 

16 “EPA Administered Permit Programs: the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.” 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-105 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 50 FR 49653. September 30, 1991. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

2 Threatened Status for the Gulf Sturgeon.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce. 

3 U.S. Department of Interior. 

4 65 FR 10120. February 25, 2000. “Florida Power Corporation, et al; Crystal River Unit 3; 

5 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.” Federal Register. U.S. 

6 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

7 66 FR 65256. December 18, 2001. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: 5 

8 Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities.” Federal Register. 

9 6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

10 68 FR 13370. March 19, 2003. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation 

11 of Critical Habitat for the Gulf Sturgeon.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of Interior. 

12 72 FR 57416. October 9, 2007. “Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

13 Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

14 73 FR 70290. November 20, 2008. “Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for 

15 the Endangered Distinct Population Segment of Smalltooth Sawfish.” Federal Register. U.S. 

16 Department of Commerce. 

17 73 FR 72210. November 26, 2008. “Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for 

18 Threatened Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce. 

19 Berg, J.J. 2004. Population Assessment of the Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon in the Yellow River, 

20 Florida. Graduate Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 

21 Bjorndal, K.A., A. Carr, A.B. Meylan, and J.A. Mortimer. 1985. “Reproductive biology of the 

22 hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata at Tortuguero, Costa Rica, with notes on the ecology of the 

23 species in the Caribbean.” Biological Conservation 34:353-368. 

24 Boulon, R.H., Jr., D.L. McDonald, and P.H. Dutton. 1994. “Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys 

25 coriacea) nesting biology, Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands: 1981-1993.” In

26 Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. 

27 K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar, eds. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

28 NMFS-SEFC-351. National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Florida. 

29 Bowen, B.W. and S.A. Karl. 2007. “Population genetics and phylogeography of sea turtles.” 

30 Molecular Ecology 16:4886-4907. 

31 Carr, A. and D.K. Caldwell. 1956. “The Ecology and Migrations of Sea Turtles. 1, Results of 

32 Field Work in Florida, 1955.” American Museum Novaitates, No. 1793: 1-23. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-106 August 2010 

1 Carr, S.H., F. Tatman, and F.A. Chapman. 1996. “Observations on the Natural History of the 

2 Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus de sotoi Vladykov 1955) in the Suwannee River, 

3 Southeastern United States.” Ecology of Freshwater Fish 1996(5):169-174. 

4 CH2M Hill. 2009a. Estimated Salinity Changes in the Cross Florida Barge Canal and Old 

5 Withlacoochee River Channels after Levy Nuclear Plant Intake Operation. 338884-TMEM-079, 

6 Rev 1, Denver, Colorado. Accession No. ML091740472. 

7 CH2M Hill Nuclear Business Group (CH2M Hill). 2009b. Aquatic Ecology Sampling Report – 

8 Levy Nuclear Plant. 338884-TMEM-087, Rev 1. Denver, Colorado. Accession No. 

9 ML091260523. 

10 Chapman, F.A. and S.H. Carr. 1995. “Implications of early life stages in the natural history of 

11 the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus de sotoi.” Environmental Biology of Fishes 

12 43(4):407-415. DOI:10.1007/BF00001178. 

13 Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control 

14 Act [FWPCA]). 

15 Citrus County. 2006. Citrus County Florida Comprehensive Plan. Accessed June 9, 2009 at 

16 http://www.citruscountyfl.org/devservices/commdev/comp_plan/comp_plan.htm. 

17 Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1988. Synopsis of the Biological Data on the Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta 

18 caretta (Linnaeus 1758). Biological Report 88(14). U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

19 Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

20 Eaton, C., E. McMichael, B. Witherington, A. Foley, R. Hardy, and A. Meylan. 2008. In-water 

21 Sea Turtle Monitoring and Research in Florida: Review and Recommendations. NOAA 

22 Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-38, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, Silver 

23 Spring, Maryland. 

24 Eckert, S.A., D.W. Nellis, K.L. Eckert, and G.L. Kooyman. 1986. “Diving patterns of two 

25 leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) during internesting intervals at Sandy Point, St. 

26 Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.” Herpetologia 42:381-388. 

27 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). 16 USC 1531 et seq. 

28 Estevez, E.D, and M.A. Marshall. 1993. 1993 Summary Report for: Crystal River 3 Year 

29 NPDES Monitoring Project. Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida. 

30 Estevez, E.D, and M.A. Marshall. 1994. 1994 Summary Report for: Crystal River 3 Year 

31 NPDES Monitoring Project. Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-107 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Estevez, E.D, and M.A. Marshall. 1995. 1995 Summary Report for: Crystal River 3 Year 

2 NPDES Monitoring Project. Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida. 

3 Fla. Admin. Code (FAC) 62-17. 2009. Florida Administrative Code, “Electrical Power Plant 

4 Siting.” 

5 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2005. Inglis Lock Review. Report 

6 No. IA-03-21-2005-128, Office of Greenways and Trails, Tallahassee, Florida. Available at: 

7 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ig/reports/files/IA_3_21_2005_128.pdf.

8 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2008 Conditions of Certification, 

9 Progress Energy Florida Crystal River Energy Complex Unit 3 Nuclear Power Plant Unit 4 and 

10 Unit 5 Fossil Plant. Case Number PA 77-09A2, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. 

11 ML100980527. 

12 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010. Conditions of Certification, 

13 Plant and Associated Facilities and Transmission Lines. Levy Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 & 2, 

14 Progress Energy Florida, PA08-51B, Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 

15 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/files/certification/pa08_51_2010_B.pdf. 

16 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2009a. Loggerhead Nesting in 

17 Florida. Accessed February 11, 2009 at http://research.myfwc.com. 

18 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2009b. Green Turtle Nesting in 

19 Florida. Accessed February 10, 2009 at http://research.myfwc.com. 

20 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2009c. Leatherback Nesting in 

21 Florida. Accessed February 10, 2009 at http://research.myfwc.com. 

22 Florida Museum of Natural History (FMNH). 2009. Email from Joana Carvalho, FMNH, to Ann 

23 Miracle, PNNL, dated April 14, 2009, regarding smalltooth sawfish database. Accession No. 

24 ML101950165. 

25 Florida Museum of Natural History (FMNH). 2010. Sawfish Implementation Team. Accessed 

26 May 28, 2010 at http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/sawfish/srt/srt.htm 

27 Golder Associates. 2008. USACE Environmental Resource Permit Application for 

28 Transmission Corridors Associated with the Levy Nuclear Plant. Report prepared for Progress 

29 Energy, St. Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. ML102040284. 

30 Henwood, T., W. Stuntz, and N. Thompson. 1992. Evaluation of U.S. Turtle Protective 

31 Measures Under Existing TED Regulations, Including Estimates of Shrimp Trawler Related 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-108 August 2010 

1 Mortality in the Wider Caribbean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-303. National 

2 Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Florida. 

3 Huff, J.A. 1975. Life History of Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi, in 

4 Suwannee River, Florida. Number 16, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Marine 

5 Research Laboratory, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

6 Inglis Hydropower, LLC. (Inglis). 2008. Draft License Application for Hydropower License 

7 Application, FERC Project, No. 12783. Draft License Application Inglis Bypass Channel 

8 Spillway, Inglis Hydropower Project, No 12783, Inglis, Florida. Inglis Hydropower, LLC., Dover, 

9 Florida. 

10 Lazell, J.D. 1980. “New England waters: Critical habitat for marine turtles.” Copeia 

11 1980:290-295. 

12 Limpus, C.J. 1984. “A benthic feeding record from neritic waters for the leathery turtle. 

13 (Dermochelys coriacea).” Copeia 1984:552-553. 

14 Lindberg W.J. and M.J. Marshall. 1984. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental 

15 Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Florida) – Stone Crab. FWS/OBS16 82/11.21, TR EL-82-4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Slidell, Louisiana, and U.S. Army Corps 

17 of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

18 Marquez, R. M. 1994. Synopsis of Biological Data on the Kemp’s Ridley Turtle, Lepidochelys 

19 kempi (Garman, 1880). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-343. National Oceanic 

20 and Atmospheric Administration, Miami, Florida. 

21 Marshall, M.J. 2002. Seagrass Survey: November 2001 Resurvey at the Florida Power Crystal 

22 River Generating Facility. Prepared for Florida Power – A Progress Energy Company by the 

23 Coastal Seas Consortium, Inc., Bradenton, Florida. Accession No. ML102040256. 

24 Meylan, A. 1989. “Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). Status report of the hawksbill 

25 turtle.” In Proceedings of the Second Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical 

26 Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-226. Panama City, Florida. 

27 Meylan, A., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1994. “Marine turtle nesting activity in the state of 

28 Florida, 1979-1992.” In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle 

29 Biology and Conservation. K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar, eds. 

30 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-351. National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, 

31 Florida. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-109 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Musick J.A., Harbin, M.M, Berkeley, S.A., Burgess, G.H., Eklund, A.M.., Findley,L., Gilmore, 

2 R.G., Golden, J.T., Ha, D.S., Huntsman, G.R., McGovern, J.C., Parker, S.J., Poss, S.G., Sala, 

3 E., Schmidt, T.W., Sedberry, G.R., Weeks, H., Wright, S.G.. 2000 “Marine, Estuarine, and 

4 Diadromous Fish Stocks at Risk of Extinction in North America (Exclusive of Pacific Salmonids) 

5 Fisheries.” Fisheries 25(11):6-30. 

6 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq. 

7 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1994. Endangered Species Act Biennial Report to 

8 Congress, Status of Recovery Programs, January, 1992 - June, 1994. National Marine 

9 Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

10 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis): Western 

11 North Atlantic Stock. Accessed March 31, 2009 at 

12 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm#largewhales. 

13 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2002. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 

14 Consultation Biological Opinion. Cooling water intake system at the Crystal River Energy 

15 Complex (F/SER/2001/01080). St. Petersburg, Florida. 

16 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Letter from Robert Hoffman, NMFS, to T. 

17 Miney, NOAA, dated December 11, 2008, “Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical 

18 Habitats under the Jurisdiction of the NOAA Fisheries Service.” Accession No. ML083510905. 

19 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009a. Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus). . 

20 Accessed March 31, 2009 at 

21 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/finwhale.htm 

22 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009b. Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus). 

23 Accessed March 31, 2009 at 

24 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/bluewhale.htm 

25 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009c. Humpback Whale (Megaptera 

26 novaeangliae). Accessed March 31, 2009 at 

27 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/humpbackwhale.htm 

28 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009d. Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus): 

29 North Atlantic Stock. Accessed May 21, 2010 at 

30 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm#largewhales. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-110 August 2010 

1 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009e. Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys 

2 coriacea). Accessed February 9, 2009 at 

3 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/leatherback.htm. 

4 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009f. Kemp’s Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). 

5 Accessed February 9, 2009 at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/kempsridley.htm. 

6 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009g. Recovery Plan for Smalltooth Sawfish

7 (Pristis pectinata). Prepared by the Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Team for the National Marine 

8 Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. Accession No. ML102040292. 

9 National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and FWS). 1991. 

10 Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of Atlantic Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Marine 

11 Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML102040289. 

12 National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and FWS). 1992. 

13 Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Lepidochelys kempii. National Marine Fisheries 

14 Service, St. Petersberg, Florida. Accession No. ML102040290. 

15 National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and FWS). 1993. 

16 Recovery Plan for Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata in the U.S. Caribbean Sea, Atlantic 

17 Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersberg, Florida. 

18 Accession No. ML102040291. 

19 National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and FWS). 2007. 

20 Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Silver 

21 Spring, Maryland. Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/hawksbill.htm. 

22 National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS and FWS). 2008. 

23 Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta 

24 caretta). Second Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

25 Accession No. ML101930618. 

26 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1989. Proceedings of the Second 

27 Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-226. 

28 Panama City, Florida. 

29 Nelson, D.A. 1994. “Preliminary assessment of juvenile green sea turtle behavior in the Trident 

30 Submarine Basin Patrick AFB, Florida.In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on 

31 Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. 

32 Eliazar, eds. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-351. National Marine Fisheries 

33 Service, Miami, Florida. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-111 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Noll, S. and M. David Tegeder. 2003. From Exploitation to Conservation: A History of the 

2 Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway. State of Florida Department of Environmental 

3 Protection, Office of Greenways and Trails, and the Department of Landscape Architecture, 

4 University of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida. Available at: 

5 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/cfg/pdf/History_Report.pdf. 

6 Plotkin, P.T., M.K. Wicksten, and A.F. Amos. 1993. “Feeding ecology of the loggerhead sea 

7 turtle Caretta caretta in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico.” Marine Biology 115(1):1-5. 

8 DOI:10.1007/BF00349379. 

9 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2001. Letter from D.L. Rocerick, PEF, to NRC dated June 

10 27, 2001. “Crystal River Unit 3 – Supplement to Biological Assessment of Impact to Endangered 

11 Sea Turtles.” Accession No. ML011840181. 

12 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2003. Letter from J.A. Franke, PEF, to NRC dated 

13 February 11, 2003. “Crystal River Energy Complex – Environmental Protection Plan Report 

14 2002 Annual Sea Turtle Report.” Accession No. ML03520222. 

15 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2004. Letter from J.A. Franke, PEF, to NRC dated 

16 February 9, 2004, “Crystal River Energy Complex – Environmental Protection Plan Report 2003 

17 Annual Sea Turtle Report.” Accession No. ML090610194. 

18 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2005. Letter from J.A. Franke, PEF, to NRC dated 

19 February 22, 2005, “Crystal River Energy Complex – Environmental Protection Plan Report 

20 2004 Annual Sea Turtle Report.” Accession No. ML050610687. 

21 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2006. Letter from J.A. Franke, PEF, to NRC dated 

22 February 24, 2006, “Crystal River Energy Complex – Environmental Protection Plan Report 

23 2005 Annual Sea Turtle Report.” Accession No. ML060670364. 

24 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2007. Letter from J.A. Franke, PEF, to NRC dated 

25 February 22, 2007, “Crystal River Energy Complex – Environmental Protection Plan Report 

26 2006 Annual Sea Turtle Report.” Accession No. ML07065405. 

27 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2008a. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, Site 

28 Certification Application, Volumes 1 through 9. St. Petersburg, Florida. Including Amendments 

29 and Supplemental Information. Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/apps.htm#ppn1. 

30 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2008b. Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating 

31 License Renewal Stage Crystal River Unit 3 Progress Energy. Unit 3, Docket No. 50-302, 

32 License No. DPR-72, Revision 1, Raleigh, North Carolina. Accession No. ML090080054. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-112 August 2010 

1 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2008c. Letter from M.J. Annacone, PEF, to NRC, dated 

2 February 26, 2008, regarding Crystal River Energy Complex – Environmental Protection Plan 

3 Report 2007 Annual Sea Turtle Report. Accession No. ML080660181. 

4 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009a. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 COL 

5 Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. Revision 1, 

6 Raleigh, North Carolina. Accession No. ML092860995. 

7 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009b. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated June 

8 12, 2009, “Supplement 1 to Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the 

9 Environmental Review.” Accession No. ML091740483. 

10 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009c. Letter from from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated 

11 July 29, 2009, “Response to Supplemental Request for Additional Information Regarding the 

12 Environmental Review – Hydrology 5.3.2.1-2.” Accession No. ML09215337. 

13 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009d. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC dated 

14 March 27, 2009, “Response to USACE Request for Additional Information Regarding the 

15 Environmental Review.” Accession No. ML091320050. 

16 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009e. Letter from James Holt, PEF, to NRC, dated 

17 February 26, 2009, “Crystal River Energy Complex – Environmental Protection Plan Report 

18 2008 Sea Turtle Rescue and Recovery Summary Report.” Accession No. ML090610194. 

19 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2010. Letter from James Holt, PEF, to NRC, dated 

20 February 24, 2010, “Crystal River Energy Complex – Environmental Protection Plan Report 

21 2009 Sea Turtle Rescue and Recovery Summary Report.” Accession No. ML050610687. 

22 Pritchard, P.C.H. 1996. “Evolution, Phylogeny, and Current Status.” Chapter 1 in The Biology 

23 of Sea Turtles, Volume 1. P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick. CRC Press, New York, New York.. 

24 River and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, as amended. 33 USC 403. 

25 Schmid, J.R. 1998. “Marine Turtle Populations on the West-central Coast of Florida: Results 

26 of Tagging Studies at the Cedar Keys, Florida, 1986-1995.” Fishery Bulletin 96:589-602. 

27 SDI Environmental Services, Inc. (SDI). 2008. Inglis Quarry Work Plan Study and Groundwater 

28 Modeling. Prepared for Cemex Construction Materials Florida, LLC. SDI Project No. CEF-010. 

29 SDI Environmental Services, Inc., Tampa, Florida. Accessed at 

30 http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/DWRM/MineReclamation/Cemex%20Inglis%20Quarry/Inglis%20

31 Quarry%20Work%20Plan%20Study%20and%20Ground%20Water%20Modeling_Nov08.pdf..
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-113 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network. 2009. Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network.. 

2 Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Accessed February 9, 2009 at 

3 http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/STSSN/. 

4 Seitz J.C. and G.R. Poulakis. 2002. “Recent Occurrence of Sawfishes (Elasmobranchiomorphi: 

5 pristidae) Along the Southwest Coast of Florida (USA).” Florida Scientists 65(4):256-266. 

6 Simpfendorfer, C.A. and T.R. Wiley. 2006. National Smalltooth Sawfish Encounter Database. 

7 Technical Report 1134. Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida. 

8 Stabile, J. J.R. Waldman, F. Parauka, and I. Wirgin. 1996. “Stock Structure and Homing 

9 Fidelity in Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) Based on Restriction 

10 Fragment Length Polymorphism and Sequence Analyses of Mitochondrial DNA.” Genetics 

11 Society of America 144:767-775. 

12 Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (Stone and Webster). 1985. Crystal River 316 

13 Studies, Final Report. Prepared for Florida Power Corporation. Stoughton, Massachusetts. 

14 Accession No. ML090750823. 

15 Sulak, K.J. and J.P. Clugston. 1998. “Early Life History Stages of Gulf Sturgeon in the 

16 Suwannee River, Florida.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:758-771. 

17 Teas, W.G. 1992. 1991 Annual Report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network. 

18 Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States. January - December 1991. Contribution No. MIA19 91/92-62. National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Florida. 

20 Teas, W.G. 1993. 1992 Annual Report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network. 

21 Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States. January - December 1992. Contribution No. MIA22 92/93-73. National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Florida. 

23 Teas, W.G. 1994a. 1993 Annual Report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network. 

24 Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States. January - December 1993. Contribution No. MIA25 94/95-12. National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Florida. 

26 Teas, W.G. 1994b. “Marine turtle stranding trends, 1986 to 1993.” In Proceedings of the 

27 Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. 

28 Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar, eds. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-351. 

29 National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Florida. 

30 Teas, W.G. and A. Martinez. 1992. 1989 Annual Report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and 

31 Salvage Network: Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States. January - December 1989. 

32 Contribution No. MIA-91/92-39. National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Florida. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-114 August 2010 

1 Tucker, A.D. 1990. “A test of the scatter-nesting hypothesis at a seasonally stable leatherback 

2 rookery.” In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and 

3 Conservation. T.H. Richardson, J.I Richardson, and M. Donnelly, Eds. NOAA Technical 

4 Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-278. National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Florida. 

5 Turtle Expert Working Group. 2000. Assessment Update for the Kemp’s Ridley and 

6 Loggerhead Sea Turtle Populations in the Western North Atlantic. U.S. Department of 

7 Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Florida. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

8 NMFS-SEFSC-444. 

9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1995. Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) 

10 Recovery/Management Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. Available at: 

11 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/sturgeon_gulf.pdf. 

12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009. Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Recovery Plan . 

13 Accessed February 9, 2009 from http://www.fws.gov/kempsridley/kempsfactsheet.html. 

14 U. S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

15 United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds. Cambridge University Press, New 

16 York. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us17 impacts. 

18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

19 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

20 Wakeford, A. 2001. State of Florida Conservation Plan for Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser 

21 oxyrhynchus desotoi). FMRI Technical Report TR-8, Florida Marine Research Institute, Florida 

22 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, St. Petersburg, Florida. Available at: 

23 http://aquacomm.fcla.edu/119/. 

24 Wallace, N. 1985. “Debris entanglement in the marine environment: A review.” InProceedings 

25 of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29 November, 1984, Honolulu, 

26 Hawaii. Shomura R.S. and HO Yoshida, eds. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM27 NMFS-SWFSC-54. National Marine Fisheries Service, Honolulu, Hawaii. Available at 

28 http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/library/tmemos1980_1989.php. 

29 Witzell, W.N. and W.G. Teas. 1994. The Impacts of Anthropogenic Debris on Marine Turtles in 

30 the Western North Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-355. 

31 National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Florida. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-115 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Witzell, W.N. and J. Cramer. 1995. Estimates of Sea Turtle By-Catch by the U.S. Pelagic 

2 Longline Fleet in the Western North Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS3 SEFSC-359. National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Florida. 

4 Wooley, C.M. and E.J. Crateau. 1985. “Movement, Microhabitat, Exploitation, and 

5 Management of Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon, Apalachicola River, Florida.” American Fisheries 

6 Society 5(4):590-605. DOI: 10.1577/1548-8659. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-116 August 2010 

1 Biological Assessment 

2 

3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

4 

5 

6 Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 

7 Combined License Application 

8 

9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

10 Docket Nos. 52-029 and 52-030

11 

12 Levy County, Florida 

13 

14 August 2010 

15 

16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

17 Rockville, Maryland 

18 

19 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

20 Jacksonville District
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-117 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 1.0 Introduction 

2 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is reviewing an application from Progress 

3 Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF), for NRC-authorized combined construction permits and operating 

4 licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear reactors, Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) 

5 Units 1 and 2, on a previously undeveloped site in Levy County, Florida. The U.S. Army Corps 

6 of Engineers (USACE) is reviewing an application from PEF for a Department of the Army (DA) 

7 Permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the 

8 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) to perform site-preparation activities and 

9 build the two reactors and supporting facilities. The USACE is cooperating with the NRC to 

10 ensure that the information presented in a single environmental impact statement (EIS) 

11 prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), is 

12 adequate to fulfill the requirements of both agencies. The NRC and the USACE have prepared 

13 this biological assessment (BA) to support their joint consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

14 Service (FWS) in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). 

15 Decisions by the NRC to issue the COLs and the USACE to issue a DA permit will be made 

16 following issuance of the final EIS. 

17 The two proposed new reactor(s), LNP Units 1 and 2, would be located on a greenfield site. 

18 The LNP site is in Levy County, Florida, approximately 10 mi northeast of the Crystal River 

19 Energy Complex (CREC) and 30 mi due west of Ocala, Florida. Both power generation units 

20 would consist of Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) AP1000 pressurized 

21 water reactors. 

22 The USACE and the NRC have prepared this BA to examine the potential impacts of 

23 construction and operation of the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 on threatened and endangered 

24 species pursuant to ESA Section 7(c). This BA examines the potential effects of the proposed 

25 action on Federally threatened and endangered species known to occur on the LNP site and in 

26 the vicinity, including the proposed offsite transmission line corridors. In a letter dated 

27 November 5, 2008 (NRC 2008), the NRC requested that the FWS Ecological Services Field 

28 Office in Jacksonville, Florida provide information regarding Federally listed and proposed 

29 species and designated and proposed critical habitat at or in the vicinity of the proposed LNP 

30 site, in the offsite corridors, and along the associated transmission-line corridors. That 

31 information is presented below in Table 1-1. 

32 The review team is aware of recent events in the Gulf of Mexico associated with the Deepwater 

33 Horizon oil spill. To date, information associated with aquatic and terrestrial resources is 

34 preliminary and inconclusive. Although not included in this BA, the review team will consider 

35 information associated with the oil spill for the LNP project as it becomes available. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-118 August 2010 

1 Table 1-1. Federally Listed Terrestrial/Aquatic Species Occurring on and in the Vicinity of the 

2 LNP Site and in the LNP Offsite Corridors Including Transmission-Line Corridors. 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal 

Status County of Occurrence 

Mammals 

Microtus pennsylvanicus 

dukecampbelli 

Florida salt marsh vole E Levy 

Puma concolor coryi Florida panther E Polk 

Trichechus manatus latirostris Florida manatee E Levy, Citrus, Hernando, 

Hillsborough, Pinellas 

 

Birds 

Ammodramus savannarum floridanus Florida grasshopper sparrow E Polk 

Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida scrub jay T Levy, Citrus, Marion, Sumter, 

Lake, Hernando, Pinellas, 

Hillsborough, Polk 

Charadrius melodus Piping plover T Pinellas, Hillsborough 

Mycteria americana Wood stork E Levy, Citrus, Marion, Sumter, 

Lake, Hernando, Pinellas, 

Hillsborough, Polk 

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E Levy, Citrus, Marion, Sumter, 

Lake, Hernando, Pinellas, 

Hillsborough, Polk 

Polyborus plancus audubonii Audubon’s crested caracara T Polk 

Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus Everglade snail kite E Marion, Sumter, Lake, Polk 

 

Reptiles 

Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T Levy, Citrus 

Drymarchon corais couperi Eastern indigo snake T Levy, Citrus, Marion, Sumter, 

Lake, Hernando, Pinellas, 

Hillsborough 

Neoseps reynoldsi Sand skink T Marion, Lake, Polk 

 

Fishes 

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf sturgeon T Levy 

 

Plants 

Bonamia grandiflora Florida bonamia T Marion, Lake, Polk 

Campanula robinsiae Brooksville bellflower E Hernando 

Chionanthus pygmaeus Pygmy fringe tree E Lake, Polk 

Chrysopsis floridana Florida golden aster E Pinellas, Hillsborough 

Dicerandra cornutissima Longspurred mint E Marion 

Eriogonum longifolium var. 

gnaphalifolium

Scrub buckwheat T Marion, Lake, Polk 

Justicia cooleyi Cooley’s water-willow E Hernando 

Nolina brittoniana Britton’s beargrass E Lake, Hernando, Polk 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-119 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table 1-1. (contd) 

Scientific Name Common Name

Federal 

Status County of Occurrence

Polygala lewtonii Lewton’s polygala E Marion, Lake, Polk 

Polygonella myriophylla Sandlace E Polk 

Prunus geniculata Scrub plum E Lake, Polk 

Warea amplexifolia Wide-leaf warea E Lake, Polk 

Warea carteri Carter’s mustard E Polk 

Source: FWS 2010a 

E= Federally endangered and T= Federally threatened 

2 2.0 Proposed Federal Actions 

3 The proposed Federal actions are the issuance of COLs for the construction and operation of 

4 two proposed new nuclear reactors at the LNP site pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

5 Register (CFR) Part 52, and a DA permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and 

6 Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. 

7 In a final rule dated October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57416), the NRC limited the definition of 

8 “construction” to those activities that fall within its regulatory authority in 10 CFR 51.4. Many of 

9 the activities required to construct a nuclear power plant are not part of the NRC action to 

10 license the plant. Activities associated with building the plant that are not within the purview of 

11 the NRC action are grouped under the term “preconstruction.” Preconstruction activities include 

12 clearing and grading, excavating, erection of support buildings and transmission lines, and other 

13 associated activities. Preconstruction activities may take place before the application for a COL 

14 is submitted, during the staff’s review of a COL application, or after a COL is granted. Although 

15 preconstruction activities are outside the NRC’s regulatory authority, many of them are within 

16 the regulatory authority of local, State, or other Federal agencies including the USACE. The 

17 distinction between construction and preconstruction is not carried forward in this BA. Rather 

18 preconstruction and construction are being discussed jointly as construction activities for 

19 purposes of this joint consultation. 

20 Prerequisites to construction activities include, but are not limited to, documentation of existing 

21 site conditions within the LNP site and acquisition of the necessary permits (e.g., COL, local 

22 building permits, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, a DA 

23 permit, a General Stormwater permit). However, those activities that do not fall under the 

24 NRC’s regulatory authority in 10 CFR 51.4 (i.e., that are preconstruction) could proceed prior to 

25 receipt of a COL. After construction, planned operation of the new reactors would proceed 

26 according to 10 CFR 50.57. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-120 August 2010 

1 The construction and operation activities that could affect the protected terrestrial and 

2 freshwater species (Table 1-1) based on habitat affinities and life-history characteristics and the 

3 nature and spatial and temporal considerations of the activity are as follows: 

4 • Terrestrial 

5 – Construction (including preconstruction) 

6 Onsite clearing, grading, and other site preparation and construction activities 

7 including wetland removal and/or alteration 

8 Clearing for expansion of existing transmission-line corridors 

9 Clearing for new offsite corridors 

10 Installation of new or upgraded transmission lines and towers 

11 Installation of the barge slip, boat ramp, and the blowdown and intake pipelines. 

12 – Operation 

13 Groundwater drawdown

14 Vegetation control in transmission-line corridors 

15 Transmission line repairs or upgrades

16 Collision with structures

17 • Aquatic 

18 – Construction (including preconstruction) 

19 New dredging and construction of a barge slip and boat ramp on the north shoreline 

20 of the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CFBC) 

21 Installation of the cooling-water intake structure (CWIS) on the north CFBC shoreline 

22 Installation of the cooling-water discharge pipeline, including dredging and placement 

23 of piping in the CFBC 

24 Connection of discharge piping with the existing CREC discharge canal 

25 Vessel movements associated with in-water work 

26 New transmission-line corridors and towers. 

27 – Operation 

28 o Impingement, entrainment, and maintenance associated with the CWIS 

29 o Salinity changes in the CFBC and Old Withlachoochee River (OWR) downstream of 

30 the Inglis Dam on Lake Rousseau 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-121 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 o Discharge plume from the cooling-water system (thermal, chemical, and physical 

2 effects) 

3 o Maintenance of transmission-line corridors. 

4 3.0 Levy Site Description 

5 The proposed LNP site is located in a primarily rural area in Levy County approximately 4 mi 

6 northeast from the town of Inglis and 8 mi east of the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 3-1). The LNP site 

7 is currently a greenfield site approximately 3105 ac in size. Goethe State Forest borders the 

8 northeastern part of the LNP site. A pine plantation is situated just east and south of the LNP 

9 site, and an exotic animal hunting ranch and U.S. Highway 19 (US-19) border the western edge 

10 of the LNP site. 

11 The LNP footprint would occupy approximately 300 ac for two reactors and the associated 

12 power-production infrastructure near the center of the site (Figure 3-2). Two AP1000 reactors 

13 are proposed with an electrical output of 1000 MW(e) and 3415 MW(t) each. A closed-cycle 

14 cooling system would draw makeup water from the CFBC through a CWIS located on the north 

15 side of the canal. A portion of the makeup water would be returned to the environment via the 

16 discharge to the existing CREC discharge canal (Figure 3-3). The remaining portion of the 

17 water would be released into the atmosphere for evaporative cooling through mechanical draft 

18 cooling towers. 

19 3.1 Terrestrial Habitats – Site and Vicinity 

20 The LNP site and vicinity are located in the Gulf Coastal Flatwoods ecoregion of Florida and are 

21 characterized by broad, low-elevation flatlands interspersed with shallow depressions (Griffith 

22 and Omernik 2008). Pine flatwoods were the predominant vegetative community prior to the 

23 mid-20th century, but most have been converted from natural longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) and 

24 slash pine (P. elliottii) communities to managed forests stocked with slash and loblolly pine 

25 (P. taeda). The LNP site is undeveloped except for a network of limerock roads. Prior to being 

26 acquired by PEF, the site was in active forest management and leased for hunting and target 

27 practice. Vegetation, soils, and localized drainage patterns had been extensively altered 

28 through silviculture activities including clearing, logging, road development, ditching, grading, 

29 bedding, and replanting. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-122 August 2010 Figure 3-1. LNP Site and Vicinity (PEF 2009a)
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-123 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

2 Figure 3-2. LNP Site Map (PEF 2009a)
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-124 August 2010 Figure 3-2. Blowdown Pipeline and Discharge Location (PEF 2009a)
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-125 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Wetlands occur over about two-thirds (2002 ac) of the LNP site. The most common wetland 

2 community present consists of pine (mostly slash and loblolly) tree plantations established in 

3 seasonally or permanently saturated or shallowly inundated soils (termed wet planted pine), 

4 which constitutes about 41 percent of onsite wetlands. Most wetlands on the LNP site have 

5 been altered by years of intensive forest management that has included the conversion of native 

6 habitats to planted pine plantations, extensive soil disturbance, and modifications of localized 

7 drainage patterns. These tree plantations mostly occupy wetter portions of former pine 

8 flatwoods and drier portions of former wetlands that have been substantially altered for 

9 commercial pine production. Forested wetland swamps (cypress swamps, mixed wetland 

10 hardwood forests, and wetland forest mixed stands) constitute another 44 percent of onsite 

11 wetlands. Forested wetlands on the site have been logged to varying degrees and range in 

12 condition from relatively intact natural forest stands to remnant stands made up of only 

13 scattered trees interspersed with herbaceous or scrub vegetation or planted pine saplings. A 

14 feature termed treeless hydric savanna, representing about 14 percent of onsite wetlands, 

15 constitutes recently clearcut or heavily logged wetland forest stands not yet replanted. 

16 Freshwater marshes and wet prairies are less common on the LNP site. 

17 Wildlife populations and habitat on the LNP site have been altered by years of intensive forest 

18 management that has converted native forests to planted pine plantations, especially in uplands 

19 and drier edges of wetlands. These actions have produced artificially simplified habitats lacking 

20 large mature trees, well-developed understory, and other habitat features (e.g., large snags, 

21 large woody debris) needed to support a wide assemblage of native wildlife. Nevertheless, the 

22 interspersion of wetlands, hardwoods, managed pine stands, and recent clear-cuts provides 

23 habitat for many common wildlife species, especially those adapted to early successional 

24 stages and frequent landscape disturbance. Wildlife that require mature forest conditions and 

25 large blocks of unfragmented habitat are expected to be uncommon. While most mammals, 

26 amphibians, and reptiles present are year-round residents, many of the bird species represent 

27 individuals that may seasonally migrate to or through this region, including neotropical migrants. 

28 A branch of the eastern Atlantic Flyway crosses the region (Birdnature.com 2009). 

29 PEF completed pedestrian surveys on the LNP site between October 2006 and November 2008 

30 to characterize onsite habitats and document the presence of wildlife (PEF 2009g). Direct 

31 observations of wildlife, as well as wildlife signs (e.g., scat, tracks), were recorded (PEF 2009a). 

32 The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

33 Commission (FFWCC) compile and maintain comprehensive databases of biological resources 

34 in Florida, including documented occurrences of Federally listed species. The FNAI Occurrence 

35 Report generated for the LNP site identified several protected species (e.g., eastern indigo 

36 snake and Florida scrub jay) known to occur in the vicinity of the LNP site (FNAI 2009). 

37 Although there were no documented occurrences of protected species on the LNP site, both 

38 reports identified the site as having the potential to provide habitat for several protected species. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-126 August 2010 

1 Pedestrian surveys on the LNP site completed by PEF provided additional information about the 

2 presence of protected plants and animals and/or their habitats on the LNP site (PEF 2009a, h). 

3 No targeted surveys for Federally protected species were completed on the LNP site and critical 

4 habitat for threatened and endangered species was not identified; however, there are State 

5 sanctuaries, preserves and other lands in the vicinity that have priority protections. There are 

6 also jurisdictional wetlands on and in the vicinity of the LNP site. 

7 A condition of certification by the FDEP (2010) would require protocol surveys for all State-listed 

8 species (excluding plants) that may occur on the LNP site and associated offsite facilities prior 

9 to land “clearing and construction”. If listed species are identified during predevelopment 

10 surveys or are encountered during development, this condition of State certification by FDEP 

11 also requires PEF to consult with the FFWCC to determine the need for appropriate mitigation 

12 (FDEP 2010). 

13 3.2 Aquatic Habitats – Site and Vicinity 

14 As described in the following sections, site-related aquatic resources are found in the CFBC, 

15 OWR (a remnant arm of the Withlacoochee River), and Crystal Bay. 

16 3.2.1 Cross Florida Barge Canal 

17 In an effort to provide maritime navigation between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, 

18 construction of a 12-ft-deep by 150-ft-wide Florida cross-peninsular waterway began in the mid19 1930s (Noll and Tegeder 2003). Originally intended to be a 171-nautical-mi canal, only 4 

20 percent was complete by 1965 due to lack of funding and congressional support for several 

21 decades. Official deauthorization for the barge canal came in 1991, and the Cross-Florida 

22 Greenway State Recreation and Conservation Area took over the former barge canal properties. 

23 The section of the CFBC affiliated with the proposed action is the 7.4-mi stretch from Inglis Lock 

24 west to the Gulf of Mexico. It ranges from 8.6 to 18.2-ft deep and from 207 to 262-ft wide. The 

25 Inglis Dam was built in 1909 to impound the Withlacoochee River to form 3700-ac Lake 

26 Rousseau. An approximately 1.5-mi portion of the historical downstream segment of the 

27 Withlacoochee River below Inglis Dam still runs into the western CFBC below the Inglis Lock 

28 (Figure 3-4). A 1.7-mi channel was constructed upstream of the Inglis Lock to reconnect Lake 

29 Rousseau waters with the downstream,11-mi portion of the Withlacoochee River, which serves 

30 as a bypass around the CFBC. The western portion of the CFBC lies 8 mi to the south of the 

31 proposed LNP and is the preferred water source for providing cooling water (Figure 3-4). 

32 The CFBC discharges into the Withlacoochee Bay estuary in the Gulf of Mexico and is 

33 influenced by tidal changes. Water-quality characteristics show a wedge of saltwater extending 
Appendix F

August 2010 F-127 Draft NUREG-1941 Figure 3-4. Water Control Structures Associated with Lake Rousseau (PEF 2009a)
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-128 August 2010 

1 from the surface waters where the CFBC meets the Gulf of Mexico toward the Inglis Lock. 

2 Characterization of the sediment, salinity, and CFBC biota was conducted over a year of 

3 sampling activities from October 2007 through September 2008, and is described further in EIS 

4 Section 2.4.2. Overall, fish, plankton, benthic, and macroinvertebrate sampling in the CFBC 

5 indicates a biologically diverse and dynamic aquatic community at the offshore and nearshore 

6 stations (see EIS Tables 2-9, 2-10, and 2-11). The proposed intake location on the CFBC has a 

7 less biodiverse community, but it still has appreciable numbers of sediment-dwelling 

8 invertebrates and collections of pelagic species that use the fresher water habitat on a seasonal 

9 basis (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

10 3.2.2 Old Withlacoochee River 

11 The OWR that flows into the CFBC is 1.3 mi long and originates from Lake Rousseau’s Inglis 

12 Dam. Salinity profiles in the OWR range from 0.14 to 4.38 practical salinity units (psu) at the 

13 3.2-ft depth where it joins with the CFBC. In June and August 2008, sampling was conducted at 

14 the junction of the OWR with the CFBC to downstream of the Inglis Dam within this portion of 

15 the OWR (Figure 3-4). Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling mirrored the fish-sampling results 

16 with euryhaline dipteran species predominant at the CFBC-OWR junction station, freshwater 

17 oligochaetes and amphipods at the Inglis Dam station, and a paucity of organisms and limited 

18 diversity at the midpoint station (CH2M Hill 2009a). 

19 3.2.3 Crystal Bay (Gulf of Mexico) 

20 Aquatic species and habitats associated with the discharge from CREC into Crystal Bay have 

21 been characterized using studies conducted during CREC operation (Stone and Webster 1985). 

22 Aquatic resources were recently sampled from April through November 2008. Beginning in the 

23 early 1990s, seagrass beds have been surveyed as a part of quantifying recovery of the CREC 

24 offshore Gulf of Mexico habitats following installation of helper cooling towers (Estevez and 

25 Marshall 1993, 1994, 1995). Previously affected seagrass areas were observed to recover with 

26 colonization by Halodule wrightii, a dominant, quick-growing seagrass. However, between 1995 

27 and 2001, overall seagrass abundance declined, likely from more complex environmental 

28 influences (Marshall 2002). 

29 Sampling at the CREC discharge point (Station 3) and immediate offshore Gulf of Mexico area 

30 (Station 4) was conducted at multiple time points from April to November 2008 (Figure 3-5). 

31 Fish, plankton, and macroinvertebrate sampling in the CREC discharge area of Crystal Bay 

32 (Figure 3-5) are indicative of coastal salt marsh and nearshore species and show biodiversity 

33 commensurate with similar habitat sampling at the mouth of the CFBC (EIS Tables 2-9, 2-10, 

34 and 2-11). However, the influence of CREC discharge may be affecting several of the top 

35 forage fish species that are notably absent (bay anchovy, scaled sardine, and silver perch) from 

36 the CREC discharge stations. .
Appendix F

August 2010 F-129 Draft NUREG-1941 Figure 3-5. Aquatic Sampling Locations for CREC (CH2M Hill 2009b) 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-130 August 2010 

1 3.3 Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitats – Offsite Corridors 

2 Including Transmission Lines 

3 Pursuant to the Florida Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA), PEF (2009a, 2008a) has identified 

4 corridors for the linear facilities associated with the LNP. The heavy-haul road, makeup-water 

5 pipeline, and a portion of the blowdown pipeline would be built in a new common 0.25-mi-wide 

6 by 2-mi-long corridor that would extend from the southern boundary of the LNP site to the CFBC 

7 (see Figure 3-3). The barge slip and CWIS would be built within this corridor as well. A pipeline 

8 for disposal of station blowdown would be built in a new 0.25-mi-wide by 11-mi-long corridor that 

9 would extend from the CFBC to the CREC (Figure 3-3). PEF petitioned the State of Florida on 

10 April 29, 2010 for a modification to the currently certified corridor for the heavy-haul road, 

11 cooling-water makeup pipelines and the blowdown pipelines to be constructed between the LNP 

12 site and the CREC (PEF 2010). The purpose of the modification is to provide more flexibility in 

13 minimizing impacts to wetlands and other natural resources, including Federally listed species, 

14 when siting these facilities, to reduce the use of State-owned lands along the CFBC, and to 

15 minimize disruption of recreational activities along the CFBC. Final rights-of-way widths for 

16 each facility to be located within the corridor would remain the same. 

17 The delivery of power associated with LNP Units 1 and 2 would require upgrading existing 

18 transmission-line corridors and installing new corridors, transmission lines, and substations 

19 (Figure 3-6). PEF is responsible for identifying the proposed locations associated with new and 

20 upgraded transmission lines. The Florida PPSA provides for the certification of “corridors” 

21 within which linear facilities associated with an electrical power plant, such as proposed 

22 transmission lines, must be located. Once the final rights-of-way have been approved by the 

23 State and acquired, the boundaries of the corridors would be revised to those of the acquired 

24 rights-of-way. No on-the-ground surveys for threatened and endangered species were 

25 conducted in the associated offsite corridors (including transmission-line corridors). A condition 

26 of certification by the FDEP (2010) would require protocol surveys for all State-listed species 

27 (excluding plants) that may occur on the LNP site and associated offsite facilities prior to land 

28 “clearing and construction”. If listed species are identified during predevelopment surveys or 

29 are encountered during development, this condition of State certification by FDEP also requires 

30 PEF to consult with the FFWCC to determine the need for appropriate mitigation (FDEP 2010). 

31 Systematic terrestrial and aquatic surveys are not included as part of the transmission-line site32 selection process. In the absence of empirical data, reconnaissance-level information 

33 pertaining to species designated as Federally endangered or threatened associated with the 

34 counties in which the transmission lines would occur was derived from the FWS and other 

35 records. 

36 Approximately 91 mi of the transmission lines would be four new 500-kV transmission lines that 

37 extend from the southern boundary of the proposed LNP site to the first substation for each line. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-131 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

2 Figure 3-6. Locations of the Proposed Transmission-Line Corridors and Substations 

3 for the LNP Site (PEF 2009d)

4 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-132 August 2010 

1 Two of these 500-kV transmission lines would connect to the proposed Citrus substation, one to 

2 the proposed Central Florida South substation, and the last to the CREC 500-kV switchyard 

3 (PEF 2008a, 2009a; Golder Associates 2008). All four transmission lines would be collocated in 

4 a common corridor from the proposed LNP site to the Citrus substation area, which would 

5 require clearing within a 7-mi-long by 1-mi-wide common corridor to site the transmission lines. 

6 Most of the remaining 500-kV transmission line extending east to the proposed Central Florida 

7 South substation would be collocated with existing PEF transmission lines in a 1000-ft-wide 

8 corridor. However, new corridor clearing would be required to site the final 13.5 mi within a 1-

9 mi-wide corridor near Interstate 75 and the Florida Turnpike. The connection of the 500-kV 

10 transmission line to the CREC switchyard would follow existing PEF transmission lines, within a 

11 1-mi-wide corridor, for the remaining 6 mi west from the proposed Citrus substation area 

12 (PEF 2008a, 2009a; Golder Associates 2008). Connection from the proposed LNP site to the 

13 Citrus substation corridor would cross the Withlacoochee River bypass channel, CFBC, and the 

14 OWR. Connection of the CREC switchyard to the new Citrus substation would cross existing 

15 corridors over estuarine habitat within Crystal Bay. 

16 Additional transmission lines (approximately 89 mi) extending beyond the first substations would 

17 be required to link to the electrical grid. Two 230-kV lines would extend from the proposed 

18 Citrus substation to the existing Crystal River East substation, a 230-kV line would extend from 

19 the CREC switchyard to the Brookridge substation, another 230-kV line would extend from the 

20 Brookridge substation to the Brooksville West substation, and the last 230-kV line would extend 

21 from the existing Kathleen substation to the Griffin substation then beyond to the Lake Tarpon 

22 substation (PEF 2008a, 2009a; Golder Associates 2008). This last corridor crosses the 

23 following Outstanding Florida Waters: Blackwater Creek, Trout Creek, the Hillsborough River, 

24 and Cypress Creek (PEF 2008a). Other waterbodies include Flint Creek, tributaries of 

25 Hollomans Branch, Brushy Creek, Rocky Creek, and numerous unnamed intermittent and 

26 perennial tributaries of the previously named waterbodies. Two additional 69-kV lines would be 

27 required to support construction at the proposed LNP site and would connect to existing 69-kV 

28 lines from the western and the southern boundaries of the LNP site (PEF 2008a, 2009a; Golder 

29 Associates 2008). Existing and new corridors extending to the proposed Central Florida South 

30 substation would cross the Withlacoochee River at the border of Citrus and Marion Counties 

31 and Two Mile Prairie Lake (PEF 2009a). 

32 Corridor segments beyond the first substations include 38 mi, mostly collocated with existing 

33 PEF transmission lines from the CREC switchyard to the existing Brookridge substation 

34 (corridor width of 1000 ft widens to 1 mi at endpoints). Another 3 mi of corridor (0.5-mi wide) 

35 would be collocated with existing PEF transmission lines from the Brookridge substation to the 

36 Brooksville West substation. The transmission line extending 50 mi from the Kathleen 

37 substation to the Griffin substation, and west to the Lake Tarpon substation, would be collocated 

38 with existing PEF transmission lines in a corridor ranging from 300- to 1000-ft wide. Although a 

39 specific location for the proposed Citrus substation has not yet been finalized, connection to the 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-133 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 existing Crystal River East substation would require new transmission lines sited somewhere 

2 within a corridor less than 2.7 mi long and 1 mi wide (PEF 2008a; Golder Associates 2008). 

3 Many areas within the corridors have been altered by prior land uses, such as residential 

4 development, forest management, agriculture, and utility development. Nevertheless, various 

5 upland, wetland, and aquatic habitats are present. The vegetation cover within corridors up to 

6 the first substation reflects the past level of human-induced change that has occurred across the 

7 landscape. Much of the historical vegetation on and around the corridors has been cleared or 

8 altered for land uses such as agriculture, residential development, forest management, utilities, 

9 and for roads and highways. The predominant upland cover types present include disturbed 

10 habitats such as cropland and pastureland, utilities, open land, low-density residential and 

11 coniferous plantations. However, substantial blocks of relatively undisturbed mixed hardwood12 conifer forest are present, along with smaller stands of longleaf pine-xeric oak forest, pine 

13 flatwoods, and upland coniferous forest (PEF 2009a). 

14 Almost 2800 ac of forested and herbaceous wetlands are present within corridors up to the first 

15 substation. Of these, freshwater marshes, streams and lake swamps, and mixed forested 

16 wetlands are the most prevalent. Wetlands range in quality from those exhibiting well17 developed floristic and structural characteristics that provide valuable wildlife habitat, such as 

18 wetlands adjacent to the Withlacoochee River and Lake Rousseau, to freshwater marshes 

19 located within transmission-line corridors and pastures that have reduced functionality due to 

20 past and ongoing disturbance (e.g., tree canopy removal, drainage alteration, livestock grazing) 

21 (PEF 2008a). Other wetland habitats noted include cypress swamps, wet prairies, saltwater 

22 marshes, and intermittent ponds. Aquatic habitats present within corridors up to the first 

23 substation include the CFBC, the Withlacoochee River, small unnamed tributaries, reservoirs, 

24 small lakes, bays, and estuaries. 

25 Cover types present within the corridors beyond the first substation also reflect a high level of 

26 past human-induced change, with much of the historical vegetation on and around the corridors 

27 cleared or altered for residential development, utilities, and agriculture. The predominant upland 

28 cover types present in the corridors include disturbed habitats such as low-density residential, 

29 utilities, open land, and cropland and pastureland, as well as relatively undisturbed longleaf 

30 pine-xeric oak forest. Other upland cover types noted include small areas of mixed hardwood 

31 conifer forest, coniferous plantations, shrub and brushlands, and pine flatwoods. Predominant 

32 wetland cover types present are freshwater marsh, cypress swamps, stream and lake swamps, 

33 and mixed wetland forest (PEF 2009a). Freshwater marshes located within transmission-line 

34 corridors and pastures have reduced functionality due to past and ongoing disturbance 

35 (e.g., tree canopy removal, drainage alteration, livestock grazing) (PEF 2008a). The existing 

36 and proposed transmission corridors do not cross any designated aquatic critical habitats. 

37 A wide variety of wildlife common to west-central Florida is expected to occur within corridors 

38 supporting associated offsite facilities. Wildlife diversity is expected to be greatest within 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-134 August 2010 

1 corridors that support an interspersion of native upland, wetland, and aquatic habitats; and less 

2 in disturbed or developed lands. Habitats identified within corridors expected to provide higher 

3 value habitat for wildlife include mixed hardwood-conifer forest, longleaf pine-xeric oak forest, 

4 streams and lake swamps, mixed forested wetlands, salt marsh, wet prairie, pine flatwoods, 

5 cypress swamps, and upland conifer forests (Golder Assoicates 2008, PEF 2009a, FDEP 

6 2010). Lower-quality wildlife habitat is represented by areas cleared for utilities, roads, 

7 agriculture and residential development; disturbed habitats such as pastureland, open land, 

8 other open land (rural) and coniferous plantations abundant along some corridors; and disturbed 

9 freshwater marshes located in utility corridors and on adjacent pastureland. 

10 Limited surveys for wildlife have occurred within corridors supporting associated offsite facilities. 

11 Pedestrian and vehicular field reconnaissance of accessible areas was conducted to verify and 

12 update the distribution of cover types (PEF 2008a, 2009a, h; Golder Associates 2008). 

13 Information about wildlife and wildlife habitat was also collected during the surveys, with most 

14 effort directed toward important species. The corridor segment between the LNP site and the 

15 CFBC received the most investigation because much of this property has been purchased by 

16 PEF. The extent-of-ground reconnaissance was much lower for the long corridor segments that 

17 would support the transmission lines. 

18 4.0 Terrestrial Construction Impacts 

19 4.1 Site and Vicinity 

20 Impacts on Federally listed threatened and endangered species from construction on the LNP 

21 site would include loss of habitat (temporary and permanent), presence of humans, heavy 

22 equipment operation, traffic, noise, avian collisions, outdoor lighting, and fugitive dust. These 

23 activities would likely displace or destroy wildlife that inhabits the development areas. Larger 

24 and more mobile animals would likely flee the area, while less mobile animals such as reptiles, 

25 amphibians, and small mammals would be at greater risk of incurring mortality. Although the 

26 surrounding forest and wetland habitat would be available for displaced animals, the movement 

27 of wildlife into surrounding areas would increase competition for available space and could 

28 result in increased predation and decreased fecundity for certain species. These conditions 

29 could lead to a temporary localized reduction in population size for particular species. When 

30 site-preparation and construction activities are completed, species that can adapt to disturbed or 

31 developed areas may readily re-colonize portions of the site where suitable habitat remains, is 

32 replanted, or restored. 

33 Most impacts would occur near the center of the site where the two reactors and ancillary power 

34 production facilities would be built. Additional impacts would extend to the southeast corner of 

35 the site within a corridor supporting the heavy-haul road, the blowdown and makeup pipelines, 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-135 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 and four 500-kV transmission lines. Intensive commercial forest management over many 

2 decades has substantially altered terrestrial habitats throughout the site. 

3 Development of LNP facilities would require permanent or temporary disturbance or removal of 

4 existing vegetation from approximately 777 ac (25 percent) of the LNP site. Impacts would 

5 result from clearing and grubbing, grading, excavation, and the placement of fill. Permanent 

6 losses would account for about 627 ac, with impacts on habitat that have been altered by 

7 commercial forest management accounting for the greatest losses. Approximately 278 ac of 

8 coniferous plantations and 135 ac of wet planted pine would be lost, as well as 74 ac of treeless 

9 hydric savanna and 31 ac of other open lands, rural recently clear-cut, but not yet replanted with 

10 trees. Permanent impacts on natural cover types (those not substantially influenced by 

11 commercial forest management) would be greatest for cypress swamps (54 ac), and wetland 

12 forested mixed (29 ac). Permanent impacts on the remaining natural cover types onsite would 

13 be minimal. 

14 Temporary impacts would occur on about 150 ac of the site, primarily on cover types that have 

15 been altered by commercial forest management, including coniferous plantations (57 ac), wet 

16 planted pine (40 ac), treeless hydric savanna (19 ac), and other open lands (9 ac). Temporary 

17 impacts on natural cover types onsite would be greatest for cypress (14 ac) and wetland 

18 forested mixed (7 ac). Impacts on other natural cover types would be relatively minor. 

19 Temporarily disturbed areas would be regraded to pre-existing contours after site-development 

20 activities have ceased. Uplands would be seeded in accordance with project-developed 

21 sedimentation and erosion control plans, while wetlands would be allowed to regenerate 

22 naturally from the existing wetland seed bank (PEF 2009e, h). 

23 Wetlands make up about 64.5 percent (2002 ac) of the 3105-ac LNP site. Approximately 319 

24 ac of wetlands on the LNP site would be permanently filled, representing a permanent loss of 

25 approximately 16 percent of the total wetlands onsite. Impacts on wetlands from project 

26 development activities on the LNP site would include filling, erosion, sedimentation, alterations 

27 to hydrology, and the clearing of vegetation. Wetlands located within and adjacent to the areas 

28 where site-preparation activities occur may be subject to three general types of impacts: 

29 (1) permanent fill impacts converting wetlands to developed uplands, where all wetland 

30 functions are lost indefinitely; (2) temporary disturbance impacts where some or all wetland 

31 functions are restored after site development is completed; and (3) partial impacts from the 

32 clearing of trees along final transmission-line rights-of-way where nonforested wetland functions 

33 would be maintained. Wetlands subject to temporary impacts would be regraded to pre-existing 

34 contours after site development has ceased and allowed to regenerate naturally from the 

35 existing wetland seed bank (PEF 2009e, h). Review by the USACE and FDEP of wetland 

36 delineations performed by PEF’s consultants is ongoing. Final approvals of the determination of 

37 the presence of jurisdictional waters, including the delineation of wetlands, are expected from 

38 the USACE and FDEP by the end of 2010. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-136 August 2010 

1 Temporary, localized dewatering impacts on wetlands could occur during excavation of the 

2 powerblocks for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2. Dewatering of the 75-ft-deep foundation 

3 excavations would be required to build each proposed powerblock. Measures would be taken 

4 prior to excavation to isolate and seal the dewatering areas and minimize inflow into the 

5 excavations. An impervious reinforced diaphragm wall would be installed around the perimeter 

6 of each excavation, and the underlying bedrock would be sealed by drilling and pressure 

7 grouting (PEF 2009c). Over a roughly 2-year period, inflow and stormwater from within the 

8 excavations would be intermittently pumped for each nuclear island and discharged to an 

9 infiltration basin sized for the estimated flow rate (PEF 2008a, 2009e, h). These actions are 

10 expected to prevent significant drawdowns from occurring in the surficial aquifer system 

11 surrounding the excavations that supports hydrologically connected adjoining wetlands 

12 (PEF 2009e). No long-term changes to local groundwater levels would occur as a consequence 

13 of dewatering during construction (i.e., groundwater would return to pre-disturbance levels after 

14 dewatering ceases). 

15 Temporary, localized dewatering of wetlands would also be necessary to install the blowdown 

16 and makeup pipelines and some other facilities (PEF 2009c). Dewatering of wetlands traversed 

17 by the pipeline excavations would occur in a segmented manner, with excavation, pipe 

18 installation, and backfill occurring in short duration. Pumped water would be discharged to 

19 infiltration basins sited between the excavation and adjacent wetlands to create a groundwater 

20 mound that would minimize impact on wetlands. Because of the short duration of dewatering, 

21 the shallow depth of the excavations, and the groundwater recharge achieved through 

22 groundwater mounding, no long-term impact on wetlands would be expected from pipeline 

23 installation. In deeper excavations, such as for the turbine building and the circulating-water 

24 system, pumped water would be discharged to infiltration basins to recharge adjacent wetlands. 

25 PEF has committed to monitoring of adjacent surface and groundwater levels to ensure the 

26 dewatering impacts are minimized. If any detrimental impact on water levels supporting 

27 adjacent wetlands were detected during monitoring, mitigative measures, such as drilling and 

28 grouting, sheeting, or re-design of the recharge basins, would be implemented (PEF 2009e) 

29 Wetlands in the LNP vicinity are adapted to a range of seasonal and annual variability in 

30 groundwater levels, including periodic drought. No long-term adverse impacts on adjacent 

31 wetlands would be expected from dewatering during site development. PEF would be required 

32 to prepare a dewatering plan to be approved by the Florida Department of Environmental 

33 Protection (FDEP) and Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). The plan 

34 would include details of the dewatering system, discharge quantities and location, a monitoring 

35 plan, and other details as appropriate to demonstrate that it meets the State of Florida 

36 Conditions of Certification (FDEP 2010) and complies with all applicable Environmental 

37 Resource Permit (ERP) dewatering requirements. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-137 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Authorization to affect wetlands on the LNP site would require a Clean Water Act Section 404 

2 permit issued by the USACE and an ERP issued by the State of Florida. In Florida, the ERP 

3 application serves as a joint Federal/State permit application to affect wetlands. PEF submitted 

4 an ERP in June 2008 as part of the Site Certification Application, initiating the Section 404 and 

5 State permitting processes. PEF is required under the Federal and State permitting processes 

6 to avoid or minimize wetland impacts to the extent practicable and to mitigate for all unavoidable 

7 wetland impacts. The Section 404 permit would also require a Clean Water Act Section 401 

8 Water Quality Certification issued by the FDEP to control the discharge of water caused by site9 development activities. 

10 Approximately 75 percent, or 2333 ac, of the LNP site would remain undeveloped, providing a 

11 vegetated buffer around the centrally located LNP facilities. Intensive commercial forest 

12 management would cease in much of these buffer areas, and pine plantations and other 

13 disturbed habitats would be rehabilitated and restored through a series of vegetative 

14 management and restorative processes to plant communities more functionally similar to native 

15 upland and wetland habitats likely present prior to logging (PEF 2010). PEF would manage 

16 most of these lands for wetland mitigation, wildlife habitat, and aesthetic enhancement using a 

17 combination of selective tree thinning, prescribed fire, and hydrologic restoration to achieve high 

18 ecological value. 

19 4.1.1 Associated Offsite Facilities Including Transmission Lines 

20 4.1.1.1 Associated Offsite Facilities 

21 The development of the associated offsite facilities includes the heavy-haul road; barge slip and 

22 barge slip access road; makeup-water and blowdown-water pipelines; cooling-water intake; and 

23 transmission lines. For the purposes of this analysis, all impacts that lie within the zone of 

24 disturbance (i.e., the development footprint) are treated as permanent impacts. Temporary 

25 impacts are represented by a 50-foot buffer adjacent to the pipeline corridor and heavy-haul 

26 road between the LNP site and the CFBC. All impacts associated with the transmission lines 

27 are treated as permanent impacts. 

28 The locations where associated facilities would be sited are known for all facilities except the 

29 transmission lines and their substations. PEF petitioned the State of Florida on April 29, 2010, 

30 for a modification to the currently certified corridor for the heavy-haul road, cooling-water 

31 makeup pipelines, and the blowdown pipelines to be constructed between the LNP site and the 

32 CREC (PEF 2010). The purpose of the modification is to provide more flexibility in minimizing 

33 impacts on wetlands and other natural resources when siting these facilities, to reduce the use 

34 of State-owned lands along the CFBC, and to minimize disruption of recreational activities along 

35 the CFBC. Final right-of-way widths for each facility to be located within the corridor would 

36 remain the same. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-138 August 2010 

1 Development of the associated facilities would result in permanent and temporary impacts on 

2 vegetative communities, including wetlands. Impacts for associated facilities, including those 

3 listed above, would be the permanent loss of approximately 219 ac. Upland communities such 

4 as coniferous plantations, open land, and mixed hardwood/conifer forest would be the primary 

5 habitat types lost. Permanent wetland losses (all due to fill) would total approximately 32 ac of 

6 mostly cypress swamps and freshwater marsh habitats (PEF 2009a). This wetland loss 

7 acreage may change once wetland delineations have been completed in these areas and 

8 jurisdictional determinations are reached by the USACE and FDEP. 

9 Temporary impacts for associated facilities would affect another approximately 30 ac of 

10 vegetation cover types within a 50-ft buffer adjacent to the heavy-haul road and makeup-water 

11 and blowdown pipelines (PEF 2009a). This 50-ft buffer may be affected by activities such as 

12 the temporary placement of materials and a roadway (PEF 2009c). Most temporary impacts 

13 would involve cover types previously altered by land-management activities, including 

14 coniferous plantations and other open lands (rural), which represent unclassified agricultural 

15 land. Temporary wetland impacts would total 6.0 ac, with small impacts occurring on cypress, 

16 freshwater marshes, and wetland forested mixed cover types. Temporarily disturbed sites 

17 would be regraded to pre-existing contours after development activities have ceased. Uplands 

18 would be seeded in accordance with project-developed sedimentation and erosion control 

19 plans, while wetlands would be allowed to regenerate naturally from the existing wetland seed 

20 bank (PEF 2009c, e). 

21 4.1.1.2 Transmission Lines 

22 In compliance with the PPSA, PEF has identified corridors (300 ft to 1 mi wide) within which the 

23 transmission lines and their substations would be sited (PEF 2008a, 2009a). More than 90 

24 percent of the new transmission lines would be collocated with existing PEF transmission lines 

25 (PEF 2009i). PEF expects to acquire 220-ft-wide rights-of-way for the proposed 500-kV 

26 transmission lines and 100-ft-wide rights-of-way for the proposed 230-kV transmission lines 

27 (Golder Associates 2008). Once the final rights-of-way have been selected and approved by 

28 the State, FDEP would require PEF to complete on-the-ground terrestrial ecology surveys along 

29 the rights-of-way so that unavoidable impacts to threatened and endangered species from 

30 development of the transmission lines can be fully accounted for and mitigated (FDEP 2010). 

31 The amount of impact on vegetation cover types and wetlands is roughly estimated to be 

32 1510 ac for transmission lines up to the first substation and 279 ac for transmission lines 

33 beyond the first substation (PEF 2009a). These estimates were derived using preliminary 

34 rights-of-way locations for the proposed transmission lines within the identified corridors 

35 (PEF 2009c; Golder Associates 2008). For purposes of this analysis and to provide a 

36 conservative estimate of mitigation needs, all impacts associated with transmission-line 

37 development were assumed to be permanent (i.e., temporary impacts were treated as 

38 permanent impacts). Impacts on cover types and wetlands for transmission lines beyond the 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-139 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 first substation are much less than those estimated for transmission lines up to the first 

2 substation because most of these lines would be collocated within existing rights-of-way that 

3 already have been cleared (PEF 2009i). 

4 Under the PPSA, the final impacts resulting from transmission-line development would be 

5 determined through a post-certification process after the final rights-of-way have been selected 

6 and approved by the State. To comply with USACE and FDEP regulatory requirements, PEF is 

7 obliged to minimize impacts on wetlands and waterbodies while siting final transmission-line 

8 rights-of-way and during development of the lines. Transmission-line activities generally would 

9 entail erosion control, corridor clearing and site preparation, placement of foundations, 

10 assembly and erection of structures, and installation of conductors. Clearing of vegetation from 

11 the selected rights-of-way would account for most of the terrestrial and wetland impacts. 

12 Because the selected rights-of-way would be narrow (100 to 220 ft wide) and collocated with 

13 existing transmission lines over about 90 percent of their distance (PEF 2009e; Golder 

14 Associates 2008), the required clearing would be greatly minimized. Wherever existing corridor 

15 widths are insufficient for the proposed transmission lines, additional clearing would be 

16 necessary. Based on cover type mapping for the identified transmission-line corridors, the most 

17 affected upland cover types would be hardwood conifer mixed, coniferous plantations, and 

18 longleaf pine-xeric oak forest. Cypress and freshwater marshes would be the most affected 

19 wetland cover types (PEF 2009a). 

20 Clearing of vegetation for final transmission-line rights-of-way would be dependent upon pre21 existing site conditions, environmental constraints, and line design requirements 

22 (PEF 2009a; Golder Assoicates 2008). Vegetation in uplands would be cleared to ground level, 

23 stumps would be treated and/or removed, and vegetation would be mulched onsite or burned in 

24 compliance with local fire regulations (PEF 2009a; Golder and Associates 2008). As stated by 

25 PEF (2009a) and Golder Associates (2008), wetland vegetation would be cleared by hand using 

26 chain saws or low-ground pressure shear or rotary machines to reduce soil compaction and 

27 minimize damage to retained vegetation. Trees and vegetative growth with a mature height 

28 greater than 12 ft would be removed from the final rights-of-way. Other wetland vegetation 

29 (outside of access road and structure pad areas) would be left in place. Removed trees would 

30 be cut as low as possible and treated with an approved herbicide. Debris would be removed 

31 from wetlands using either low-ground pressure equipment or temporary wetland construction 

32 mats and disposed of in upland areas. 

33 Clearing for the final transmission-line rights-of-ways would constitute only a partial loss of 

34 wetland function because, although trees and tall vegetation would be removed, nonforested 

35 wetland functions would be maintained. However, some wetlands may have to be filled to 

36 install access roads and to site structure pads. PEF is obligated under USACE and FDEP 

37 regulatory requirements to site roads and pads in ways that avoid or minimize wetland impacts, 

38 to the extent practicable. Because transmission lines would be collocated with existing 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-140 August 2010 

1 transmission lines over about 90 percent of their distance, many opportunities exist to use 

2 existing access roads and pad sites. Pursuant to the PPSA, FDEP (2010) would require an 

3 accounting of any unavoidable impacts on wetlands under a post-certification process. 

4 Wildlife present on and around the associated facilities would be subjected to many of the same 

5 impacts described for the LNP site. Some wildlife would perish or be displaced during clearing, 

6 and, as a consequence of habitat loss, fragmentation and competition for remaining resources 

7 could occur. Less mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals, would 

8 incur greater mortality than more mobile animals, such as birds, which would be displaced to 

9 adjacent communities. Land clearing done during the spring and/or early summer nesting 

10 period would be more detrimental to avian reproductive success than clearing conducted during 

11 non-nesting periods. Adjacent undisturbed habitats could support some displaced wildlife, but 

12 increased competition for available space and resources could depress population levels. 

13 The collocation of the transmission lines with existing lines over about 90 percent of their 

14 distance would greatly reduce potential impacts on wildlife and their habitat. Based on cover 

15 type mapping, affected habitats would include upland and wetland forests that may provide high 

16 value habitat for wildlife; however, much of the affected habitats have lower wildlife value, 

17 including coniferous plantations and existing utility land, mostly existing transmission-line right18 of-way. Actual losses of wildlife habitat would be determined upon final siting for the 

19 transmission-line rights-of-way, as a post-certification condition pursuant to the PPSA (FDEP 

20 2010). 

21 Creation of new transmission-line corridors could be beneficial for wildlife species, including 

22 threatened and endangered species, that occupy early successional habitats or benefit from 

23 increased habitat edge (i.e., forest/clearing interface environments). Raptors such as 

24 Audubon’s crested caracara (Polyborus plancus audubonii), would likely hunt the corridors. 

25 Forested wetlands within the corridors would be converted to and maintained in an herbaceous 

26 or scrub-shrub condition. These wetlands may provide foraging habitat for wading birds. 

27 However, species dependent on forest habitats or those that are sensitive to forest 

28 fragmentation could decline or be displaced, such as the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides 

29 borealis). 

30 Wildlife would also be affected by equipment noise and traffic, and birds could be injured if they 

31 collide with new transmission towers and conductors or the equipment used to install these 

32 components. Noise levels associated with installation of the transmission lines would be brief 

33 and intermittently spaced and would occur mostly during daylight hours (PEF 2008a). 

34 Installation of the transmission lines is expected to take only about 4 weeks per mile. Thus, the 

35 impact on wildlife from noise is expected to be temporary and minor. The potential for traffic 

36 related wildlife mortality is also expected to be low because relatively small crews (compared to 

37 LNP site development) would spend only a limited time in each area as they progress over large 

38 geographic areas. Avian mortality resulting from collisions with structures and equipment during 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-141 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 transmission-line installation would represent a small hazard for bird populations. As a 

2 Condition of Certification, the FDEP (2010) would require PEF to coordinate with the FFWCC in 

3 the development of an Avian Protection Plan for the transmission lines that would include 

4 measures to reduce potential collision impacts by birds. 

5 4.2 Terrestrial Operation Impacts 

6 4.2.1 Site and Vicinity 

7 Most impacts on terrestrial habitats and species related to the operation of proposed LNP Units 

8 1 and 2 are expected to result from cooling-system operations, groundwater pumping, and the 

9 operation and maintenance of the transmission lines. Surface-water withdrawals to support 

10 operation of the cooling system can result in local deposition of dissolved solids (commonly 

11 referred to as salt deposition); increased local fogging, precipitation, or icing; increased local 

12 noise levels; a risk of avian mortality caused by collision with tall structures; and hydrological 

13 changes to habitats adjoining the source waterbody. Increased traffic and night-time lighting 

14 associated with operation may affect wildlife. 

15 The cooling system proposed for LNP Units 1 and 2 includes a series of mechanical draft 

16 cooling towers that would draw makeup water for cooling from the CFBC. It is anticipated that 

17 the makeup water would be seawater. This water would be mostly derived from shallow, 

18 nearshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico (PEF 2009a). The heat would be transferred to the 

19 atmosphere in the form of water vapor and drift. Typically, vapor plumes and drift, including 

20 salts and other solutes in the drift, may affect crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants. 

21 Water withdrawals would increase salinity levels in the CFBC and alter shoreline habitat along 

22 the CFBC, including tidal marshes near the entrance of the CFBC to the Gulf of Mexico. In 

23 addition, bird collisions are possible with mechanical draft cooling towers and other tall 

24 structures, and wildlife could be affected by noise generated by operation of the cooling towers. 

25 Groundwater withdrawals to support other plant operations (no groundwater would be 

26 withdrawn for the cooling system) may affect water levels in wetlands on and around the LNP 

27 site. The State of Florida would require PEF to be in compliance with conditions required by the 

28 site certification and this would fall under the regulatory authority of the SWFWMD. In 

29 accordance with SWFWMD’s review criteria, groundwater withdrawal cannot cause 

30 unacceptable adverse impacts on wetlands or other surface waters, which includes “Habitat for 

31 threatened or endangered species shall not be altered to the extent that use by those species is 

32 impaired” (PEF 2009e). 

33 Cooling-tower drift, fogging, and icing are expected to have little impact on habitats and should 

34 not affect listed species. Increased noise levels near the cooling towers, as well as increased 

35 human activity and traffic, may cause these wildlife species to avoid habitats immediately 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-142 August 2010 

1 adjacent to proposed LNP Units 1 and 2. However, some level of habituation to these 

2 disturbances would likely occur. Listed species that use wetland habitats on the LNP site could 

3 be affected by hydrological impacts on wetlands caused by groundwater withdrawal. Although 

4 the extent of potential impacts is uncertain, monitoring to identify adverse environmental 

5 impacts caused by groundwater withdrawal is stipulated under the State-imposed Conditions of 

6 Certification (FDEP 2010). PEF would be required to mitigate the adverse impacts or 

7 implement an approved alternative water-supply project that would not affect wetlands (FDEP 

8 2010). 

9 4.2.2 Associated Offsite Facilities Including Transmission Lines 

10 Impacts from the operation and maintenance of the transmission system that may affect 

11 threatened and endangered species include bird collision mortality and electrocution, 

12 electromagnetic fields (EMFs), and the vegetation maintenance within transmission-line 

13 corridors, which includes vegetation control activities such as the application of herbicides and 

14 the clearing of woody vegetation. Transmission-line rights-of-way must be kept clear of woody 

15 growth through maintenance practices that prevent it from becoming a safety hazard or 

16 potentially interrupting service. The collocation of new transmission lines with existing PEF lines 

17 would minimize the area of new land that would need to be cleared of vegetation and 

18 subsequently maintained for the proposed LNP project. In areas where new corridors are 

19 required to accommodate the transmission lines, established maintenance procedures for 

20 power transmission systems would be followed to control vegetation, with a goal of maintaining 

21 a sustainable groundcover of low-growing, non-woody species (PEF 2009f). The vegetation 

22 management practices within rights-of-way owned by PEF are summarized from Golder 

23 Associates (2008) and the PEF Environmental Report (ER) (2009a, f). These management 

24 practices may differ on rights-of-way where PEF is granted an easement by the landowner. 

25 Impacts on Federally and State-listed species from operation of the proposed LNP are expected 

26 to be relatively minor. The likelihood of avian collision with the mechanical draft cooling towers 

27 and other tall structures is expected to be minimal. If permanent displacement of listed wildlife 

28 into adjacent habitats occurred, competition for finite resources could result in small declines in 

29 the local populations. Expected improvements in water quality and biodiversity in the upper 

30 reach of the CFBC would likely be beneficial to State-listed wading birds that may forage there. 

31 Restoration and enhancement of several thousand acres of low-ecological-value pine 

32 plantations are proposed under the conceptual wetland mitigation plan for the LNP project (see 

33 EIS Section 4.3.1.7). Commercial forest management would cease over much of the site and 

34 most pine plantations and other disturbed habitats would be restored to plant communities 

35 functionally similar to native upland and wetland habitats that were present prior to logging. 

36 These actions are expected to be highly beneficial to most listed wildlife affected by the 

37 proposed LNP and could provide compensation for many potential impacts realized from 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-143 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 operation of the LNP and associated offsite facilities. Consequently, operational impacts on 

2 Federally and State-listed species are expected to be minor. 

3 PEF would be required to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and permitting 

4 requirements and would use good engineering practices to minimize potential impacts on listed 

5 species. If operational impacts on protected wildlife cannot be avoided, PEF would be required 

6 to coordinate with the FFWCC on the need for appropriate mitigation as stipulated under the 

7 FDEP (2010) Conditions of Certification. 

8 4.3 Aquatic Construction Impacts 

9 4.3.1 LNP Site 

10 There are some permanent and temporal shallow ponds on the proposed LNP site that may 

11 support small freshwater fish. A few of these would be permanently filled as part of facilities 

12 construction, but other onsite ponds would be unaffected. Erosion- and runoff-control mitigation 

13 practices would be used to prevent siltation of preserved ponds onsite (PEF 2008b). 

14 Stormwater-management basins and cessation of forest plantation activities on the site would 

15 create improved freshwater aquatic habitat (PEF 2009a). 

16 4.3.2 Cross Florida Barge Canal 

17 The installation of the intake structure, connection of a barge slip and boat ramp to the CFBC, 

18 and placement of discharge piping would result in temporary disturbances to the aquatic habitat 

19 in portions of the CFBC. Until excavation is complete, preparation of the barge slip and boat 

20 ramp would occur on the northern shore of the CFBC in upland areas behind an earth bank that 

21 separates building activities from the CFBC. The intake structure would be installed 0.5 mi 

22 downstream of the Inglis Lock. Steel sheet piling would be installed at the barge slip and in a 

23 cofferdam for intake structure installation. Sheet piles would be installed from land using a pile 

24 hammer. Turbidity barriers and erosion-control measures would be installed in the canal during 

25 activities associated with sheet-pile installation to control impacts on water quality. Building 

26 activities are expected to commence with installation of permanent piling over a 60-week time 

27 frame for the barge slip and over a 13-week period for temporary piling at the intake structure. 

28 Removal of temporary piling at the intake structure is expected to occur following 6 months of 

29 installation activities proposed for an October–March time frame. Turbidity barriers and erosion30 control measures are expected to be installed commensurate with piling installation activities 

31 and remain in place prior to operations (PEF 2008a). Use of best management practices 

32 (BMPs) and water-quality control measures should prevent impacts on the few species that 

33 inhabit the portion of the CFBC near the proposed intake. Fish and manatees may swim into 

34 this portion of the CFBC, but they would be able to swim away or likely would avoid the area 

35 due to vibratory noise. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-144 August 2010 

1 Dredging would be necessary for construction of a trench for discharge piping. Prior to 

2 construction, sediments would be tested using Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 

3 1311 for toxicity characteristics to determine final disposition of dredged spoil materials. 

4 Nonhazardous sediments would be used to backfill pipeline trench, as fill material onsite, or 

5 disposed of in upland areas. Sediments deemed unsuitable for use would be disposed of 

6 appropriately in landfills approved for hazardous disposal (PEF 2009d). Residual water from 

7 dredging activities would be tested for compliance with NPDES and Florida surface water 

8 quality standards (Fla. Admin. Code 62-302). Discharge piping running from the proposed LNP 

9 site to the CREC discharge would run parallel along the CFBC berm, then enter and exit CFBC 

10 water supported by anchor piers along both CFBC berms (PEF 2009a). Initially proposed 

11 routing of the discharge pipeline south of the CFBC crosses several tidal creeks and would 

12 adversely impact approximately 5 ac of salt marsh habitat. The review team is aware that PEF 

13 has proposed to the FDEP an alternate route to avoid this important habitat. FDEP has not 

14 made a decision on the proposal. Impacts to habitat related to the discharge pipeline, 

15 irrespective of the final routing, would be primarily due to its excavation, placement, and burial 

16 associated with construction. Maintenance dredging for the barge unloading facility and CWIS 

17 within the CFBC is not proposed because the depth of the CFBC has not changed since 

18 construction in the 1960s and increased sediment load is not predicted under operation 

19 conditions (CH2M Hill 2009b). 

20 Vessel use during the dredging or the installation of the in-water structures and transportation of 

21 large components for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 may affect the aquatic resources of the 

22 CFBC, particularly the benthos. The main effects from using vessels would include turbulence 

23 from propellers (prop wash), anchor cable scraping across the canal bottom, and accidental 

24 spills of materials overboard. Vessels would be used during the installation of the cooling-water 

25 discharge pipeline and during the offloading of materials from barges. Vessel operation during 

26 construction may cause short-term, localized impacts on aquatic species in the CFBC, but 

27 impacts on water quality and habitat in the OWR are not anticipated. These impacts should not 

28 affect the general resources in the area of the site or the region along this coast of the Gulf of 

29 Mexico. 

30 4.3.3 CREC Discharge Canal 

31 The LNP discharge pipeline (two 54-in., high-density polyethylene pipes per conceptual design) 

32 would discharge directly into the CREC discharge canal just downstream of the culverts for 

33 Units 4 and 5. CREC Units 4 and 5 discharge into a concrete-lined, open channel. This 0.7-mi 

34 open channel drains directly into the CREC discharge canal approximately 1.1 mi from the Gulf 

35 of Mexico. A headwall structure would be necessary to join the LNP discharge piping to the 

36 CREC discharge canal (PEF 2009b). No construction would be conducted beyond the point of 

37 discharge into the Gulf of Mexico, so no aquatic impacts are expected to occur as a result of this 

38 activity. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-145 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 4.3.4 Transmission-Line Corridors 

2 PEF would locate the new 500-, 230-, and 65-kV transmission lines in accordance with the 

3 Florida PPSA, Chapter 403 of the Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-

4 17. In addition, PEF would comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and permit 

5 requirements and would use good engineering and construction practices. In addition, PEF 

6 would comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and permit requirements and would use good 

7 engineering and construction practices (FDEP 2008), which include leaving a 25-ft buffer of 

8 existing vegetation along the banks with mature heights not exceeding 12 ft at locations where 

9 the rights-of-way cross a navigable waterway (PEF 2009a). Although several threatened or 

10 endangered species under the jurisdiction of the FWS are listed for Levy, Citrus, Hernando, 

11 Hillsborough, and Pinellas Counties, the activities associated with placement of new lines would 

12 not require in-water construction activities. 

13 4.4 Aquatic Operation Impacts 

14 4.4.1 Cooling-Water Intake Impacts 

15 PEF stated in its ER that a closed-cycle, mechanical draft system would be used for proposed 

16 LNP Units 1 and 2 (PEF 2009a). Depending on the quality of the makeup water, closed-cycle 

17 recirculating cooling-water systems can reduce water use by 96 to 98 percent versus the 

18 amount a facility would use with a once-through cooling system (66 FR 65256) as is used at 

19 CREC. This significant reduction in water withdrawal rate results in a corresponding reduction 

20 in impingement and entrainment. For threatened and endangered aquatic species under the 

21 jurisdiction of the FWS, the primary concerns related to water intake and operation are related 

22 to the relative amount of water drawn from the cooling-water source (CFBC) and the potential 

23 for organisms to be impinged on the intake screens or entrained into the cooling-water system. 

24 Impingement occurs when organisms are trapped against the intake screens by the force of the 

25 water passing through the CWIS (66 FR 65256). Impingement can result in starvation, 

26 exhaustion, asphyxiation (water velocity forces may prevent proper gill movement or organisms 

27 may be removed from the water for prolonged periods of time), and descaling (66 FR 65256). 

28 Entrainment occurs when organisms are drawn through the CWIS into the proposed LNP Units 

29 1 and 2 cooling system. Organisms that become entrained are normally relatively small benthic, 

30 planktonic, and nektonic (organisms in the water column) forms, including early life stages of 

31 fish and shellfish that often serve as prey for larger organisms (66 FR 65256). As entrained 

32 organisms pass through a plant’s cooling system, they are subject to mechanical, thermal, and 

33 toxic stresses. No life stages of the aquatic species listed in Table 1-1 are subject to 

34 entrainment losses because of their larger size. 

35 For the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 CWIS, PEF assessed 316(b) impacts for withdrawal of 

36 cooling water from the CFBC. The approach velocity for the intake bays would be 0.25 fps at 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-146 August 2010 

1 the trash bar screens and a velocity of 0.5 fps for through-screen flow. To achieve these low 

velocities, the inlet area would be larger than 106.1 ft2 2 (PEF 2008a). The zone of hydraulic 

3 influence would extend from the CWIS to 5 mi west of the CWIS in the CFBC (PEF 2008a) and 

4 use an offshore station in the Gulf of Mexico to estimate impingement and entrainment impacts. 

5 Sampling in the area of the proposed CWIS indicated a biologically depauperate environment 

6 with relatively poor water quality (PEF 2009a). The aquatic species listed in Table 1-1 do not 

7 use CFBC habitat for spawning or calving. Therefore, the potential for impingement and 

8 entrainment of aquatic organisms during operation of the CWIS, based on the percentage of 

9 water withdrawn, the planned low through-screen intake velocity, the closed-cycle cooling 

10 system design, and the distance away from preferred spawning and calving habitat in the Gulf 

11 of Mexico, the review team finds that the impacts on the Federally protected aquatic species 

12 from impingement and entrainment would be negligible. 

13 Maintenance of CWIS structures includes the mechanical scraping of screen washes to prevent 

14 clogging or collection of debris and organisms on intake screens and bar racks, respectively. 

15 Bar racks would be removed and scraped once per quarter as currently performed at CREC 

16 (PEF 2009b). Trash and organisms caught on traveling intake screens would be removed by a 

17 high-pressure spray wash and deposited into a collection dumpster. Collected debris and 

18 organisms would be disposed of in a licensed landfill. 

19 4.4.2 Discharge Impacts 

20 The effluent discharge from the proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would be directly into the CREC 

21 discharge canal. EIS Section 4.3.2 discusses the location and design of the discharge piping. 

22 The proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 discharge would be 4.4 percent of the total discharge from 

23 combining the LNP and CREC discharges. The potential impacts on the Gulf of Mexico from 

24 the operation of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would include the effects of heated effluents on 

25 aquatic resources, chemical impacts, and physical impacts from discharge. In addition, FDEP 

26 Conditions of Certification state that PEF would retire its two oldest, once-through coal-fired 

27 units at the CREC by December 31, 2020 if LNP Units 1 and 2 are licensed, built, and begin 

28 commercial operation. CREC Units 1 and 2 cessation of operations would significantly reduce 

29 the discharge flow from the CREC discharge canal even with the additional discharge flow from 

30 LNP Units 1 and 2 (Table 4-1). 

31 4.4.2.1 Cold Shock 

32 A factor related to thermal discharges that may affect aquatic biota is cold shock. Cold shock 

33 occurs when aquatic organisms that have been acclimated to warm water, such as fish in a 

34 power plant’s discharge canal, are exposed to a sudden temperature decrease. This 

35 sometimes occurs when single-unit power plants shut down suddenly in winter. Cold shock 

36 mortalities at U.S. nuclear power plants are “relatively rare” and typically involve small numbers 

37 of fish (NRC 1996). Cold shock is less likely to occur at a multiple-unit plant because the 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-147 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 temperature decrease from shutting down one unit is moderated by the heated discharge from 

2 the units that continue to operate. The proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 discharge would be 

3 4.4 percent of the total discharge from combining LNP and CREC discharges. Therefore, the 

4 review team finds that the impacts from cold shock would be minimal. 

5 Table 4-1. Comparison of NPDES Discharge Volumes Under Different Operation Scenarios 

6 During Summer Conditions. 

Operating 

Unit 

CREC 

Current 

Combined 

Discharge 

(Mgd) 

Percent of 

Total 

Discharge 

Addition of 

LNP Units 

1 & 2 to 

current 

CREC 

(Mgd) 

Percent 

of Total 

Discharge

Addition of LNP 

Units 1 & 2 to 

current CREC 

(Mgd) with 

Decomissioning 

of CREC Units 1 

& 2 

Percent of 

Total 

Discharge 

CREC 1 446 23.4 446 22.3 - - 

CREC 2 472 24.7 472 23.7 - - 

CREC 3 979 51.4 979 49.1 979 90.9 

CREC 4 & 5 10.1 0.5 10.1 0.5 10.1 0.9 

LNP 1 & 2 - - 87.8 4.4 87.8 8.2 

Source: PEF 2009c 

Note: CREC discharge rates are given as current maximum NPDES-permitted volumes.

7 4.4.2.2 Heat Stress 

8 The thermal tolerance for aquatic organisms is defined in different ways. Some definitions 

9 relate to the temperature that causes fish to avoid the thermal plume, others relate to the 

10 temperature that fish prefer for spawning, and others relate to the temperatures (upper and 

11 lower) that may kill individual fishes. Some of these tolerances are termed “preferred 

12 temperatures,” “upper avoidance temperatures,” and “lethal temperatures.” 

13 In EIS Section 5.2.3, the review team describes its independent assessment of the incremental 

14 impacts of proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 on the water temperatures within the CREC discharge 

15 and the Gulf of Mexico using a three-dimensional coastal ocean model. During summer 

16 conditions at ebb tide, the surface-water temperatures near the CREC discharge channel would 

17 be slightly less under the proposed conditions when compared to the current conditions that 

18 include operation of CREC Units 1 through 5. The discharge volume of the plume would be 

19 increased with the addition of LNP Units 1 and 2, but only a slight increase in surface-water 

20 temperature (<0.1°C) would result compared to current conditions. Temperature increase at the 

21 entrance of CFBC channel would be between 0.05°C and ~0.1°C during the summer months at 

22 ebb tide (Figure 4-1). Similar trends in thermal plume temperatures would be observed during 

23 winter conditions with the addition of LNP discharge resulting in a slight temperature drop at the 

24 CREC discharge canal and a slight increase in surface-water temperature beyond the 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-148 August 2010 

1 immediate discharge area. Surface-water temperatures at the mouth of the CFBC are expected 

2 to increase by less than 0.5°C over the current conditions (Figure 4-2). The increased plume 

3 size is likely to have minimal impact on aquatic biota that forage near the CFBC under both 

4 extreme conditions. Habitat usage is therefore not expected to be affected under operating 

5 conditions. 

6 4.4.2.3 Chemical Impacts 

7 Intake structures, such as the pump suction housings and sensor tubes, would be coated with a 

8 copper-based anti-fouling substance to minimize fouling of these structures. In addition, 

9 ClamTrol (CT1300) would be injected every 21 days at a concentration not to exceed 4.5 ml/L, 

10 into the CWIS to prevent biofouling by marine invertebrates (PEF 2009b). The use of chemicals 

11 in the existing CREC discharge is regulated by an NPDES permit granted by FDEP. The 

12 chemical concentrations at the outfall for the existing units meet the NPDES limits (FDEP 2010). 

13 Table 4-2 (ER Table 5.3.2-1) lists the water-treatment chemicals, their use, and the 

14 concentrations that are anticipated to be discharged from proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 

15 blowdown. The concentrations in the discharge are significantly lower than the LC50 (the 

16 concentration that is lethal to 50 percent of the sample population) obtained from the Material 

17 Safety Data Sheets. The CREC effluent discharge and water flow from the Gulf of Mexico 

18 would further dilute the concentration of these chemicals, so the impacts from the addition of 

19 LNP discharge to the Gulf of Mexico would be minimal. 

20 In addition, the review team evaluated the potential for impact due to the increased salinity 

21 associated with the LNP Units 1 and 2 blowdown, which would have a total dissolved solids 

22 concentration of 1.5 times greater than seawater (PEF 2009b). This increase in total dissolved 

23 solids is due to evaporative loss of water through the cooling towers. Because the LNP 

24 discharge would be combined with CREC discharge prior to point of discharge into Crystal Bay 

25 and the CREC discharge accounts for the vast majority of the discharge volume (>95 percent), 

26 the increase in salinity would be slight (0 ppt and ~0.5 ppt) in the coastal region near the CREC 

27 discharge channel. The addition of LNP discharge with CREC discharge to the Gulf of Mexico 

28 would increase the salinity to between 0.4 ppt and ~0.45 ppt at the mouth of the CFBC 

29 (Figure 4-3). 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-149 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

2 Figure 4-1. Thermal Plume Analysis Using FVCOM (Finite Volume Community Ocean Model) 

3 Showing the Temperature Difference Between Current and Proposed Thermal 

4 Discharge Under Summer Conditions at Ebb Tide

5 

6 Figure 4-2. Thermal Plume Analysis Using FVCOM Showing the Temperature Difference 

7 Between Current and Proposed Thermal Discharge Under Winter Conditions at 

8 Ebb Tide 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-150 August 2010 

1 Table 4-2. Chemical Discharges to the Gulf of Mexico from Proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 

Chemical Use Concentration at Discharge Point

Sodium hypochlorite Biocide 0.2 ppm residual chlorine or 0.36 sodium hypochlorite 

Ammonium chloride Algaecide 0.2 ppm residual chlorine or 0.303 ppm ammonium chloride 

Sulfuric acid pH adjuster 2.237 ppm sulphuric acid 

Orthopolyphosphate Corrosion inhibitor 30 ppm orthopolyphosphate 

Polyacrylate Silt dispersant 150 ppm polyacrylate 

Phosphonate Antiscalant 20 ppm phosphonate 

Source: PEF 2009a 

2 

3 Figure 4-3. Salinity Difference Between the Current and Proposed Discharge Plume at Ebb 

4 Tide 

5 4.4.2.4 Physical Impacts 

6 The discharge volume of the LNP 1 and 2 blowdown would be 81.34 Mgd and would be 

7 combined with the CREC Units 1 through 5 discharge of 1651.8 Mgd in the CREC discharge 

8 canal, which opens into the Gulf of Mexico. The LNP discharge would account for only 4.4 

9 percent of the total discharge flow and would have little physical scouring impact at the terminus 

10 of the discharge canal (PEF 2009a). 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-151 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Transmission-Line Corridors 

2 Maintenance activities along the four 500-kV, five 230-kV, and two 269-kV transmission lines 

3 could lead to periodic temporary impacts on the waterways being crossed. However, it is 

4 assumed the same vegetation-management practices currently used by PEF for the existing 

5 CREC facility transmission-line rights-of-way would be applied to the proposed existing and new 

6 transmission-line rights-of-way. PEF practices and procedures were developed to prevent 

7 impacts on surface waters and wetlands, so impacts on aquatic ecosystems from operation and 

8 maintenance of transmission lines would be minimal (PEF 2009a). Impacts on Federally 

9 protected aquatic species from maintenance of the transmission lines are not anticipated. 

10 5.0 Protected Species Descriptions 

11 This section describes the life history and habitat use for Federally listed terrestrial and aquatic 

12 species that may occur in or near the LNP site and LNP offsite facilities listed in Table 1-1. 

13 The Florida salt marsh vole (Microtis pennsylvanicus dukecampbelli), listed as 

14 endangered under the ESA, is known from only one coastal marsh site on privately owned land 

15 in Waccasassa Bay, a separate bay from where the discharge pipe for the proposed LNP Units 

16 1 and 2 would be located (FWS 1997a). This species inhabits salt marshes with dominant 

17 vegetation of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), black rush (Juncus roemeranus), salt 

18 grass (Distichlis spicata), and glasswort (Salicornia spp.) (FWS 1997a). Loss of habitat due to 

19 climatic changes and resulting sea-level rise is thought to be the main contributor to the decline 

20 of the Florida salt marsh vole and only a few sites from the marshes along the Florida Gulf 

21 Coast sampled have appropriate habitat (FWS 1997a). In addition, there are no plans to impact 

22 salt marshes with this proposed project (FDEP 2010). 

23 The Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), listed as endangered under the ESA, is one of 

24 the most endangered large mammals in the world (FWS 1999). Historically this species had a 

25 range of six southern-tier states; Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and South 

26 Carolina (FWS 2008b; PEF 2008b). Currently, the Florida panther only occurs in 5 percent of 

27 its historical range and the only known reproducing population is in southern Florida 

28 (FWS 2008b). This species prefers native, upland forests of hardwood hammocks and pine 

29 flatwoods, but will also use wetlands and disturbed areas (FWS 1999). Home range size is 

30 influenced by the quality of available habitat; the best habitat (allowing for smaller home ranges) 

31 generally has a dense understory that enhances the opportunity for denning, resting, and 

32 feeding (FWS 1999). The only remaining breeding populations of Florida panther are found in 

33 counties South Florida, south of the Caloosahatchee River (FWS 2008b). All potential habitat 

34 patches identified by the FWS are located only in the southern portions of Polk County well 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-152 August 2010 

1 outside the proposed transmission line corridors for LNP Units 1 and 2 (FWS 2008b, PEF 

2 2009a). 

3 The Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) is a large, slow-moving herbivore, and 

4 the only sirenian in North American waters (FWS 2007). It is listed as endangered under the 

5 ESA. There are two subspecies of manatees, the Antillean manatee (Trichechus manatus 

6 manatus) and the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) (FWS 2007). Although both 

7 subspecies are found in the Gulf of Mexico, interactions in Levy and Citrus Counties are more 

8 likely to be with the Florida manatee. Thus, the following discussion will concentrate on this 

9 subspecies. Adults average 10 ft in length and 800 to 12,000 lb in weight. The calving interval 

10 is 2 to 5 years, and individuals are believed to live as long as 60 years (FWS 2007, 2008a; 

11 USGS 2009). The Florida manatee is one of the most endangered marine mammals in the 

12 United States. 

13 During summer, the Florida manatee is found primarily in the shallow fresh, brackish, and 

14 marine waters along both coasts of Florida. Individuals usually remain in 10- to 16-ft-deep 

15 waters, and rarely venture into water exceeding 20 ft. Historically, the distribution of manatees 

16 shifts south of central Florida in winter because of their intolerance of temperatures below 20°C 

17 (Irvine 1983). However, over the years, the winter distribution has shifted northward because of 

18 habitat loss and the construction of power plants/industrial sites that discharge warm-water 

19 effluent. According to the FWS (2007), approximately 12 percent of the Florida population now 

20 occurs in the northwestern portion of the state. Approximately half of those animals (around 

21 280 manatees) have been found in Kings Bay at the head of the Crystal River just south of the 

22 CREC (FWS 2007). 

23 A recent synoptic aerial survey conducted by the FFWCC’s Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 

24 (FWRI) in January 2009 documented the presence of 3807 manatees throughout the Florida 

25 manatee’s winter range, topping the previous high in 2001 by more than 500 animals (FFWCC 

26 2009a). Of these, 1654 were sighted along Florida’s west coast. However, such counts are 

27 considered approximate at best because estimating manatee abundance and trends is difficult 

28 (FFWCC 2009a). 

29 Most human-caused manatee deaths are from collisions with watercraft. Flood gates, canal 

30 locks, and marine debris also cause manatee deaths, but not as often. A loss of natural springs 

31 due to increasing water demands and potential loss of warm water from power plants that are 

32 eventually shutting down could limit the available habitat for manatees (FWS 2008a). For non33 adults in the northwestern region of Florida, perinatal mortality is the most common cause of 

34 death, with watercraft collisions ranked second. Most of the deaths associated with watercraft 

35 result from the impact not from propeller wounds (Table 5-1). It is unclear whether these deaths 

36 are due to violations of protective measures or a lack of adequate measures because collisions 

37 are rarely reported and carcasses drift with the currents in the area. No-wake zones, manatee 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-153 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 protection areas, and an extensive educational effort have been implemented by State and 

2 Federal agencies to mitigate these adverse human impacts 

3 Table 5-1. FWRI Manatee Mortality Database for Citrus and Levy County Areas 

Year Watercraft 

Flood 

Gate/ 

Canal 

Lock 

Other 

Human Perinatal 

Cold 

Stress Natural Undetermined Total 

Citrus County 

1989 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 

1990 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 4 

1991 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 5 

1992 3 0 0 3 0 2 1 9 

1993 1 0 1 2 0 1 3 8 

1994 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 

1995 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 6 

1996 2 0 0 3 0 0 1 6 

1997 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 5 

1998 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 

1999 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 6 

2000 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 6 

2001 1 0 0 6 0 0 2 9 

2002 3 0 1 4 0 1 0 9 

2003 3 0 0 2 2 1 2 10 

2004 1 0 0 1 2 1 2 7 

2005 6 0 0 9 0 0 3 18 

2006 2 0 1 2 1 1 3 10 

2007 5 0 0 3 0 2 2 12 

2008 8 0 0 6 0 5 3 22 

Grand 

Total 

47 0 5 57 5 23 29 166 

Levy County 

1989 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1990 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 

1991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1993 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 

1994 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 

1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-154 August 2010 

1 Table 5-1. (contd) 

Year Watercraft 

Flood 

Gate/Canal 

Lock 

Other 

Human Perinatal 

Cold 

Stress Natural Undetermined Total 

1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1999 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 

2000 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 

2001 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 10 

2002 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 

2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

2004 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 

2005 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 

2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2008 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 4 

Grand 

Total 

4 1 1 20 1 0 9 36 

Source: FFWCC 2009b 

2 (FWS 2008a). These efforts appear to be successful in areas such as Citrus County in that, 

3 although the number of vessels using manatee habitat is high, the number of manatee 

4 mortalities in this area is quite low. Studies are currently underway to assess the effectiveness 

5 of manatee protection measures. 

6 The State of Florida “designated the entire State as a ‘refuge and sanctuary for manatees’” 

7 (FWS 2008a). Two Federal manatee protection areas, the Crystal River National Wildlife 

8 Refuge (NWR) and the Blue Waters Manatee Sanctuary, are south of the CREC. The Crystal 

9 River NWR is at the head of the Crystal River, and the Blue Waters Manatee Sanctuary is 

10 located toward the head of the Homosassa River near Homosassa Springs State Park. Both 

11 areas are inland from the coastline, so the activities of the CREC do not directly affect these 

12 areas. However, the mouth of the Crystal River is approximately 2.5 mi south of the Crystal 

13 River effluent canal, which is within an area that manatees from the NWR could frequent. 

14 Manatees are considered endangered throughout their entire range including Levy and Citrus 

15 Counties. Based on reviews of several reports, including those by the FWS, United States 

16 Geological Survey (USGS), and FFWCC’s FWRI, the area around Levy and Citrus Counties 

17 appears to have lower instances of manatees than other areas of Florida to the south. In fact, 

18 the FWS does not list Levy County as having manatees, only Citrus County (FWS 2009d). 

19 During aquatic sampling activities from October 2007 to November 2008, manatees were 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-155 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 observed in Levy County in the CFBC, OWR, and in the CREC discharge canal throughout the 

2 sampling period (CH2MHill 2009b). 

3 The Florida grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus), listed as 

4 endangered under the ESA, is a resident sub-species endemic to dry prairies of central and 

5 south Florida and is dependent on a regular fire regime for survival (FWS 1999). This species 

6 requires large (greater than 124 ac) open grasslands dominated by saw palmetto (Serenoa 

7 repens) and dwarf oaks (Quercus minima) with groundcover species such as blue stem grasses 

8 (Andropogon spp.) and wiregrasses (Aristida spp.) along with St. John’s wort (Hypericum spp.) 

9 (FWS 1999). Frequent fires are an important component of the Florida grasshopper sparrow 

10 habitats as they prevent trees from colonizing the prairies and maintain a percentage of bare 

11 ground required for foraging (FWS 1999). This species is listed as endangered in Polk County 

12 and could be found along transmission-line routes where suitable habitat exists (FWS 2010a). 

13 The Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), listed as threatened under the ESA, 

14 occupies fire-dominated, low-growing oak scrub habitat found on well-drained sandy soils and 

15 requires bare sandy patches for foraging habitat (FNAI 2009; PEF 2008b; FWS 1999). This 

16 habitat generally corresponds with FLUCFCS 413 (sand pine) and FLUCFCS 421 (xeric oak) 

17 neither of which have been mapped on the LNP site. Populations of this species may persist in 

18 areas with sparser oaks or overgrown scrub, but at lower densities. Although scrub jays have 

19 been documented in the vicinity (PEF 2008a; FNAI 2009), no scrub jays were observed on the 

20 LNP site during pedestrian surveys conducted over a 2-year period (PEF 2009a). The 

21 conversion of most upland habitats to pine plantations where oaks and other hardwoods are 

22 excluded has removed suitable habitat for this species and reduced its potential occurrence 

23 onsite. Florida scrub jays have, however, been documented in several of the counties crossed 

24 by the offsite facilities, and potentially suitable habitat is present within some corridors 

25 (PEF 2008b; FWS 1999). Because wildlife reconnaissance surveys within the offsite facilities 

26 corridors have been limited, it is possible that other scrub jay populations could occur on or near 

27 the associated offsite corridors. 

28 The entire project, including the LNP site and associated offsite and transmission line corridors, 

29 is within the Florida scrub jay FWS consultation area (FFWCC 2008). This habitat-specific, 

30 territorial species is declining because of degradation, fragmentation, and loss of oak scrub 

31 habitats throughout Florida (FWS 1999). 

32 The piping plover (Charadrius melodus) is a small shorebird whose Atlantic Coast population 

33 (which includes the Gulf coast) is listed as threatened under the ESA, and known to occur in 

34 Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, both of which are crossed by the proposed transmission 

35 lines. Populations of this species are found in three regions in the United States: the Atlantic 

36 Coast, the Northern Great Plains, and the Great Lakes (FWS 2010b). Although this species 

37 does not breed in Florida, critical overwintering habitat has been identified in several counties 

38 including those crossed by the proposed transmission lines, such as Hillsborough and Pinellas 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-156 August 2010 

1 Counties (FWS 2001). Although the blowdown pipeline corridor extends into mudflats at the 

2 western edge of the CREC facility, piping plovers have not been observed on the CREC 

3 (PEF 2008b). 

4 The wood stork (Mycteria americana), listed as endangered under the ESA, is a highly 

5 colonial species that usually nests and feeds in freshwater and brackish wetlands (FWS 1997b). 

6 Nesting occurs in a variety of inundated, forested wetlands, including cypress strands and 

7 domes, mixed hardwood swamps, sloughs, and mangroves (FNAI 2009). Nesting colonies in 

8 central and northern Florida generally form in February and March. The species forages in a 

9 wide variety of shallow-water wetland habitats, ranging from drainage ditches to marshes, 

10 ponds, and hardwood swamps. Wood storks are tactile rather than visual feeders, using their 

11 bills to probe shallow water for small fish, their primary prey. They feed preferentially in 

12 depressions where the prey can become concentrated during low-water periods. 

13 Wood storks have been observed feeding in ditches and wetlands on the LNP site, but no 

14 nesting colonies have been detected (PEF 2009a). Primarily because of forest-management 

15 activities and a lack of suitable open water habitat, suitable rookery habitat is limited. The LNP 

16 site is not located within the 13-mi (North Florida) or 15-mi (Central Florida) core foraging area 

17 of any active wood stork rookery (FWS 2009b). However, wood storks could be found in 

18 suitable wetland habitats in or near the proposed offsite corridors, including transmission-line 

19 corridors. 

20 The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), listed as endangered under the ESA, is 

21 endemic to open, mature, and old-growth pine ecosystems in the southeastern United States 

22 (FWS 2003a). The species requires open pine woodlands and savannahs with large, old pines 

23 for nesting and roosting. In northern and central Florida, it generally occupies mature longleaf 

24 pine flatwoods (FNAI 2009). This cooperative breeding species excavates nest cavities in large 

25 older pines from stands containing little to no hardwood in the midstory and overstory. Suitable 

26 foraging habitat consists of mature pines with an open canopy, low densities of small pines, little 

27 or no hardwood or pine midstory, few or no overstory hardwoods, and abundant native 

28 bunchgrass and forb groundcovers (FWS 2003a). 

29 No red-cockaded woodpeckers have been observed on the proposed LNP site or on the nearby 

30 CREC property (PEF 2008b, 2009a). The heavily managed pine plantations that characterize 

31 the site do not provide suitable nesting habitat. A large population of red-cockaded 

32 woodpeckers does occur in the Goethe State Forest, which is directly north of the LNP site 

33 (FDA&CS 2009). This species is not known to nest on the LNP site and is considered unlikely 

34 to do so because of the absence of its preferred nesting habitat. However, there may be 

35 suitable habitat along the proposed offsite corridors, including the transmission-line corridors 

36 associated with the LNP site, because there have been recorded sightings in Citrus, Hernando, 

37 Hillsborough, Levy, Marion, Pinellas, Polk, and Sumter Counties (PEF 2009a; FWS 2009a). 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-157 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 The Audubon’s crested caracara (Polyborus plancus audubonii), listed as threatened 

2 under the ESA, is a large, nonmigratory raptor that is found in dry or wet prairies with scattered 

3 cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) surrounded by open habitats but can also be found in lightly 

4 wooded areas and improved pastures (FWS 1999). Loss of habitat due to agricultural and 

5 residential development has led to the decline of the Audubon’s crested caracara. Although 

6 historically common in South-Central Florida, the current range is limited to several South 

7 Florida Counties and is most abundant in Glades, Desoto, Highlands, Okeechobee and Osceola 

8 counties. However, the FWS recognizes this species as threatened in Polk County 

9 (FWS 2010a). One of the proposed LNP transmission corridors crosses the northwestern 

10 corner of Polk County. 

11 The Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus), listed as endangered under the 

12 ESA, is a medium-sized raptor found in freshwater marshes in six freshwater systems in 

13 southern Florida with dominant emergent vegetation consisting of spike rush (Eleocharis 

14 cellulosa), maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), and/or cattails 

15 (Typha spp.) (FWS 1999). The historical range for this species was the entire peninsular 

16 Florida (FWS 1999). The main food source for the snail kite is the apple snail that inhabits the 

17 marshes. The hydrology and water quality of wetlands is crucial to the snail kite’s survival due 

18 primarily to its restricted range and highly specific diet (FWS 1999). A portion of the Central 

19 Florida South and Kathleen transmission line corridors intersect the federal consultation area for 

20 the Everglades snail kite, so it is possible this species could be found in these areas where 

21 suitable habitat exists (FFWCC 2008, FWS 2003b).

22 The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) is classified as a Federally threatened 

23 species because of its similarity in appearance to the endangered American crocodile 

24 (Crocodylus acutus) (FNAI 2009, PEF 2008b). The range of the American crocodile, however, 

25 is limited to coastal estuarine marshes and tidal swamps at the southern end of the Florida 

26 peninsula and does not include the LNP site. The American alligator is a common inhabitant of 

27 most types of freshwater bodies in Florida, including marshes and swamps such as those found 

28 on the LNP site and in the proposed offsite corridors (including transmission-line corridors). 

29 One juvenile American alligator was observed on the LNP site during field surveys conducted by 

30 PEF, and they have been observed in swampy areas at the CREC (PEF 2009a, 2008b). 

31 The Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi), listed as threatened under the ESA, 

32 occupies a broad range of habitats, varying from scrub and sandhill habitats to moister 

33 communities such as wet prairies and swamps (FNAI 2009). This species requires large tracts 

34 of habitat to survive. It often winters in gopher tortoise burrows, especially in northern Florida 

35 where temperatures are cooler. Although the eastern indigo snake was not identified during 

36 field surveys of the LNP site (PEF 2008b, 2009a), the species has been documented in the 

37 general site vicinity (PEF 2008b). There is potential for this species to occur on the LNP site 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-158 August 2010 

1 and in proposed offsite corridors, including transmission-line corridors where suitable habitat 

2 exists. 

3 Sand skinks (Neoseps reynoldsi), listed as threatened under the ESA, occupy xeric upland 

4 habitats in sandy substrates between high pine and scrub habitats and are listed as threatened 

5 in Marion and Lake Counties (FWS 1999a, e; 2009e). This species requires loose sand in 

6 sparsely-covered scrub of various types (PEF 2008b). It is possible this species would be 

7 present in areas along the transmission-line corridors where suitable habitat is present. The sand 

8 skink is not identified as potentially occurring in Levy County (FWS 2009a; FNAI 2009), and the 

9 sandy scrub habitats it prefers do not occur on the LNP site. No sand skinks were observed on 

10 the LNP site during pedestrian surveys conducted over a 2-year period (PEF 2009a). Therefore, 

11 it is unlikely that sand skinks would be affected by activities on the LNP site. No sand skinks 

12 were observed during limited reconnaissance surveys conducted for wildlife within the corridors. 

13 However, preferred scrub habitats, although not prevalent, are present along portions of the 

14 corridors (PEF 2008a). Activities on the corridors therefore have the potential to affect the sand 

15 skink and its habitat. 

16 The gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), an anadromous fish within the family 

17 Acipenseridae, is one of the oldest and most primitive families of existing bony fishes. The gulf 

18 sturgeon is a long-lived fish, and maturity in males is 7 to 9 years while females take 8 to 

19 12 years to attain spawning condition. Spawning migrations occur in early to late spring with a 

20 return to saltwater during early to late fall. In the Suwannee River, Florida, sturgeons migrate 

21 upriver when temperatures range between 17 and 22°C in mid-February to mid-April. After the 

22 first spawning, females may only spawn at intervals of 2 or 3 years (Huff 1975). Water velocity 

23 influences the spawning habitat preference for sturgeon, with research suggesting that higher 

24 flows are environmental cues for successful spawning (Chapman and Carr 1995). Clumps of 

25 fertilized eggs become attached to rocks or other bottom structures in areas characterized as 

26 clean gravel-cobble mix over rock with strong, persistent laminar flows and eddies. Incubation 

27 times vary with river temperature, and fry disperse widely downstream of spawning habitats 

28 within the river, inhabiting open sandy areas away from shorelines and vegetation (Sulak and 

29 Clugston 1998). Juvenile (>1 year) and adult gulf sturgeon typically outmigrate to the marine 

30 environment, although some populations tend to hold over in brackish water for a period of up to 

31 2 months before moving into the open Gulf of Mexico (Carr et al. 1996). The adult gulf sturgeon 

32 is a bottom feeder that makes a diet of invertebrates such as brachiopods, insect larvae, 

33 mollusks, oligochaetes, polychaetes, crustaceans, and small fishes. Feeding is almost 

34 exclusively in marine waters, and adults eat little while in freshwater. Weight losses of 4 to 15 

35 percent are often observed during the in-river period during late spring, summer, and early fall 

36 (Wooley and Crateau 1985). 

37 Historically, the range for this anadromous fish extended from Louisiana to south of Tampa Bay, 

38 Florida, where it feeds in the Gulf of Mexico and returns to freshwater for spawning. The current 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-159 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 range is limited to the Mississippi River east to the Suwannee River, Florida, where the 

2 Suwannee River supports the largest subpopulation of gulf sturgeon (Carr et al. 1996). Critical 

3 habitat for Florida nearest to the LNP site is designated for 182 mi of the Suwannee River; 12 mi 

4 of the Withlacoochee River, where it branches off to the north of the Suwannee River; and 211 

mi2 5 of estuarine/marine area of Suwannee Sound, which occurs north of Cedar Key (68 FR 

6 13370). Gulf sturgeon show a high homing fidelity (site-specific) spawning behavior based on 

7 gene flow between river drainages (Stabile et al. 1996). 

8 The Gulf sturgeon was jointly managed and listed as a threatened species by the National 

9 Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and FWS in 1991 (56 FR 49653), with NMFS managing the 

10 nearshore and offshore habitat range and FWS managing inland from river kilometer (river mile) 

11 zero. The gulf sturgeon is extant in major river basins from the Mississippi River to Charlotte 

12 Harbor, but the only significant spawning populations occur in the Pearl River, Pascagoula 

13 River, Escambia River, Blackwater River, Yellow River, Choctawhatchee River, Apalachicola 

14 River, Ochlockonee River, and Suwannee River (FWS and GSMFC 1995; Berg 2004). 

15 Prized for their flesh and roe, gulf sturgeon were commercially fished in the late 1890s up to 

16 1984 when the State of Florida banned commercial harvesting. Degradation of riverine habitat 

17 also contributed to a decline in species abundance with increases in pollution, as did installation 

18 of dams on many of the major rivers along the northern Gulf of Mexico (Huff 1975; Wooley and 

19 Crateau 1985). A recovery plan was initiated in 1995 to prevent further reduction in sturgeon 

20 populations and monitor population recovery with habitat restoration efforts (FWS and GSMFC 

21 1995). 

22 There are no known spawning populations associated in river systems south of the Suwannee 

23 River along the Florida coast, and estuarine/marine critical habitat for the gulf sturgeon does not 

24 occur south of Cedar Key. No gulf sturgeon were observed or collected during the sampling 

25 events described in EIS Section 2.4.2.1 for the CFBC, OWR, or CREC discharge area 

26 (CH2MHill 2009b). Adult gulf sturgeon have been caught south of the CFBC offshore of 

27 Pinellas County and within Tampa Bay, but these occurrences have been few since 1987 

28 (Wakeford 2001). Although gulf sturgeon may occur in the offshore areas associated with the 

29 CFBC or CREC, they will likely avoid any anthropogenic activities and will not use the CFBC or 

30 OWR as spawning habitat given the unfavorable substrate and lack of downstream flow. 

31 Florida bonamia (Bonamia grandiflora), listed as threatened under the ESA, is a perennial 

32 vine that occurs in sunny openings in sand pine and oak scrub and is listed as threatened in 

33 Marion, Lake, and Polk Counties (FWS 2005b; PEF 2008b). This species is also found in 

34 disturbed sites such as along roadsides, rights-of-way, clear-cuts, and other areas free of trees 

35 and shrubs (FWS 2005b). Habitat destruction is the main threat to this species primarily due to 

36 agricultural and residential development (FWS 2005b). It is possible that this species could be 

37 found in areas along the proposed transmission-line corridor where suitable habitat exists. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-160 August 2010 

1 Brooksville bellflower (Campanula robinsiae), listed as endangered under the ESA, is an 

2 annual herb that occurs on wet, grassy slopes and drying pond edges primarily on the 

3 Brooksville Ridge in north-central Hernando County; however, since 2006 it has been recorded 

4 at three sites at Hillsborough River State Park in Hillsborough County (PEF 2008b; FWS 2010a) 

5 5-year Review of the Brooksville bellflower (Campanula robinsiae). Habitat destruction is the 

6 main threat to Brooksville bellflower as ponds and wet prairies are replaced with urban and 

7 agricultural development (FWS 2010a). It is possible that this species could be found in areas 

8 along the proposed transmission-line corridor in Hernando and Hillsborough Counties where 

9 suitable habitat exists. 

10 Pygmy fringe tree (Chionanthus pygmaeus), listed as endangered under the ESA, is a shrub 

11 that primarily occupies scrub, high pineland and xeric hammocks in Central Florida and is listed 

12 as endangered in Lake and Polk Counties (FWS 1999). This species prefers excessively 

13 drained sandy soils and may form thickets at some sites (FWS 1999). Populations are known 

14 from west of Lake Apopka in Lake County and along the Lake Wales Ridge in Polk County 

15 (FWS 1999). It is possible that this species could be found in areas of sandy scrub along the 

16 proposed transmission-line corridor in Lake and Polk Counties. 

17 Florida golden aster (Chrysopsis floridana), listed as endangered under the ESA, is a 

18 perennial herb that occurs in sand pine scrub, and areas of excessively well-drained fine sands 

19 along railroad and highway corridors (FWS 1999). This species is listed as endangered in 

20 Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties and prefers open, sunny areas (FWS 2010a). Because 

21 Florida golden aster is known to occur in transportation and/or utility rights-of-way, it can be 

22 affected by management practices including widening of these corridors. It is possible that this 

23 species could be found in areas along the proposed transmission-line corridor in Pinellas and 

24 Hillsborough Counties where suitable habitat exists. 

25 Longspurred mint (Dicerandra cornutissima), listed as endangered under the ESA, is a 

26 short-lived perennial herb that occurs in open areas in sand pine and oak scrub and is listed as 

27 endangered in Marion County. Six of the 15 known occurrences are on the Cross Florida 

28 Greenway State Recreation and Conservation Area in Marion County (FWS 2009e). The 

29 primary cause of the decline of longspurred mint is habitat loss due to development 

30 (FWS 2009e). It is possible that this species could be found in areas along the proposed 

31 transmission-line corridor in Marion County where suitable habitat exists. 

32 Scrub buckwheat (Eriogonum longifolium), listed as threatened under the ESA, is a 

33 perennial herb that occurs in turkey oak barrens and high pine habitats and is listed as 

34 threatened in Marion, Lake, and Polk Counties (FWS 2010a; FWS 1999). This species is 

35 known to occur with several other threatened or endangered species, including Lewton’s 

36 polygala (Polygala lewtonii) in remnant high pine habitat in Lake County (FWS 1999). Loss of 

37 suitable habitat is the main cause of decline for scrub buckwheat and continued residential 

38 growth and agricultural practices are the primary threat (FWS 1999). It is possible that this 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-161 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 species could be found in areas along the proposed transmission-line corridor in Marion, Lake, 

2 and Polk Counties where suitable habitat exists. 

3 Cooley’s water willow (Justicia cooleyi), listed as threatened under the ESA, is a 

4 rhizomatous, perennial herb that occurs along streams or small gullies in mesic hardwood 

5 hammocks in the Brooksville Ridge, and is listed as endangered in Hernando County 

6 (FWS 2005a; Conservation Outdoors 2010). Residential and agricultural development is the 

7 main threat to this endemic species, but limestone mining also affects Cooley’s water willow 

8 (FWS 2005a). Several populations have also been located on two sites in Sumter County on 

9 recently acquired land for Whithlacoochee State Forest (FWS 2005a). It is possible that this 

10 species could be found in areas along the proposed transmission-line corridor in Hernando and 

11 Sumter Counties where suitable habitat exists. 

12 Britton’s beargrass (Nolina brittoniana), listed as endangered under the ESA, is a long-lived 

13 perennial species that occurs in a variety of upland habitat types from open scrub, to sandhill, 

14 scrubby flatwoods, and xeric hammocks that are fire-dependant and fire-maintained 

15 (FWS 1999). This species is listed as endangered in Hernando, Lake, and Polk Counties, and 

16 the main cause of decline is habitat loss or modification due to development and agricultural 

17 practices (FWS 2010a). It is possible that this species could be found in areas along the 

18 proposed transmission-line corridor in Hernando, Lake, and Polk Counties where suitable 

19 habitat exists. 

20 Lewton’s polygala (Polygala lewtonii), listed as endangered under the ESA, is a relatively 

21 short-lived, fire-dependent perennial herb that occurs in oak scrub and high pine, most 

22 abundantly in the edges between the two community types (FWS 1999). This species is listed 

23 as endangered in Marion and Polk Counties and is often found along roadsides and other 

24 disturbed areas that are open and sunny (FWS 1999). The main threat to Lewton’s polygala is 

25 conversion of oak scrub and high pine to agricultural fields and residential housing (FWS 1999). 

26 It is possible that this species could be found in areas along the proposed transmission-line 

27 corridor in Marion and Polk Counties where suitable habitat exists. 

28 Sandlace or Small’s jointweed (Polygonella myriophylla), listed as endangered under the 

29 ESA, is a low, lateral branching shrub endemic to central Florida’s upland ridge that occurs in 

30 open, bare white or yellow sandy areas created by moderate disturbance (FWS 1999). 

31 Sandlace is believed to produce allelotoxins, which may provide a mechanism for the plant to 

32 maintain sufficient bare sand in order for the species to persist (FWS 1999). Sandlace is listed 

33 as endangered in Polk County and it is possible that it could be found in areas along the 

34 transmission-line corridor where suitable habitat exists. 

35 Scrub plum (Prunus geniculata), listed as endangered under the ESA, is a small shrub 

36 endemic to the high pine and oak scrub communities of the Lake Wales Ridge and has adapted 

37 to both high frequency and low intensity, as well as low frequency and higher intensity fire 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-162 August 2010 

1 regimes respectively (FWS 1999). This species is listed as endangered in Polk County and 

2 prefers xeric, sunny sites with nutrient-poor soils (FWS 1999). It is possible that scrub plum 

3 could be found in areas along the transmission corridor in Polk County where suitable habitat 

4 exists. 

5 Wide-leaf warea (Warea amplexifolia), listed as endangered under the ESA, is an annual herb 

6 with an extremely limited distribution along the northern portion of the Lake Wales Ridge and is 

7 listed as endangered in Polk County (FWS 1999, 2010a). This species is endemic to the 

8 sandhill (high pine) habitats and is found in open, dry woods with well-drained soils (FWS 1999). 

9 Loss of suitable habitat to agriculture, residential and commercial development, mining and 

10 alteration of the natural fire regime have all contributed to the decline of wide-leaf warea 

11 (FWS 1999). State maps indicate that this species may also occur in Lake County (FNAI 2009). 

12 It is possible that wide-leaf warea could be found in areas of open, dry woods with well-drained 

13 soils along the transmission-line corridor. 

14 Carter’s mustard (Warea carteri), listed as endangered under the ESA, is an annual herb that 

15 occurs in xeric sandhill, scrubby flatwoods, and scrub habitats on the Lake Wales Ridge and is 

16 listed as endangered in Polk County (FWS 1999, 2010a). This species is often found in 

17 disturbed areas such as roadsides and is threatened mainly by residential development and 

18 conversion of natural habitat to citrus groves and other agricultural activities (FWS 1999). It is 

19 possible that Carter’s mustard could be found in areas of xeric sandhill, scrubby flatwoods, and 

20 scrub habitats along the transmission-line corridor. 

21 6.0 Potential Environmental Effects of the 

22 Proposed Actions 

23 This section describes the potential impacts from construction and operation of the proposed 

24 Units 1 and 2 on species listed in Table 1-1. 

25 Florida salt marsh vole (Microtis pennsylvanicus dukecampbelli). Suitable habitat for the 

26 salt marsh vole does not exist onsite. The Florida salt marsh vole is not identified as potentially 

27 occurring in the counties through which the corridors would pass (FWS 2009a; FNAI 2009). 

28 However, salt marsh habitat preferred by this species is present within a portion of the 

29 blowdown pipeline corridor between the LNP site and the CREC. Considering the proximity to 

30 known locations for this species, it is possible (though unlikely considering the rarity of this 

31 species) that salt marsh habitat along the blowdown pipeline corridor route could support the 

32 salt marsh vole. If this species is present, development activities along this corridor could affect 

33 the Florida salt marsh vole and its habitat. FDEP could require protocol surveys for Florida salt 

34 marsh vole prior to “clearing and construction” of salt marshes in finalized rights-of-way (FDEP 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-163 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 2010). If salt marsh voles are detected and impacts cannot be avoided, PEF would be required 

2 to coordinate with the FFWCC to determine the need for appropriate mitigation. Therefore, the 

3 review team has determined that construction and operation activities on the LNP site and in the 

4 offsite corridors may affect, but would not likely adversely affect the Florida salt marsh vole. 

5 PEF petitioned the State of Florida on April 29, 2010, for a modification to the currently certified 

6 corridor for the heavy-haul road, cooling-water makeup pipelines and the blowdown pipelines to 

7 be constructed between the LNP site and the CREC (PEF 2010a). This modification to the 

8 route would avoid all salt marsh habitat and would avoid impacts to the salt marsh vole. 

9 Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). The Florida panther is a currently restricted to a 

10 small population of less than 100 animals in southwest Florida (Land et al. 2008). Young 

11 transient males are occasionally documented outside of the known breeding range. 

12 Considering the distance from the LNP site to the current breeding range of this species (more 

13 than 175 mi), it is unlikely that Florida panther would be affected by activities on the LNP site. 

14 The 230-kV Polk-Hillsborough-Pinellas transmission-line corridor would pass through the 

15 eastern perimeter of Polk County, which is identified as potentially supporting the Florida 

16 panther (FWS 2009a; FNAI 2009). Although outside of the known breeding range for the 

17 Florida panther, it is possible that young transient males could occasionally occur in Polk 

18 County. Therefore, project activities along the transmission-line corridor have the potential to 

19 affect the Florida panther. These impacts would likely be limited to temporary disturbance and 

20 displacement of individual animals that may at times travel north of the known breeding range. 

21 Because the final right-of-way for the Polk-Hillsborough-Pinellas transmission line would be 

22 narrow (about 100 ft wide) and mostly collocated with existing corridors, little clearing of habitat 

23 would occur. Consequently, the potential for fragmentation of suitable forest habitat that could 

24 support the Florida panther would be limited. Therefore, the review team has determined that 

25 the LNP project may affect, but would not likely adversely affect the Florida panther. 

26 Even though the review team has concluded that the LNP project may affect, but would not 

27 likely adversely affect the Florida panther, the NRC and the USACE still plan to informally 

28 consult with the FWS regarding possible effects on the Florida panther. The USACE follows a 

29 Panther Key established by the FWS to determine whether it must consult regarding possible 

30 effects of pending DA permits on the Florida panther (Souza 2007). No part of the LNP project, 

31 including the transmission corridors, lies within the Panther Focus Area identified in the key. 

32 However, the key directs the user to consult with the FWS on projects outside of the Panther 

33 Focus Area that are greater than one acre and will cause a net increase or change in vehicle 

34 traffic patterns or are otherwise capable of causing other identifiable effects on panthers or their 

35 habitat. The LNP project could affect more than 2,500 acres of land and alter the traffic level of 

36 service on several roads near the LNP site (Kimley-Horn 2009). The FWS recognizes 

37 increased traffic, even in areas outside of the Panther Focus Area, as a significant threat to the 

38 Florida panthers, who commonly move long distances in search of prey and mates. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-164 August 2010 

1 Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). The Florida manatee northwest Florida 

2 population, which includes Citrus and Levy Counties, makes up approximately 12 percent of the 

3 total manatee population. Manatees migrate to warmer waters in the winter near the coast; are 

4 known to occur in the CREC discharge canal, particularly in the fall and winter (PEF 2008b), 

5 and have been sighted in the CFBC and OWR throughout the year (CH2MHill 2009b). FFWCC 

6 sets boating speed restrictions to limit the potential of boat and propeller strikes on manatees 

7 within the CFBC and the OWR (FFWCC 2002). To prevent impacts on manatees in the vicinity 

8 of construction activities, PEF would comply with the boating speed restrictions and Standard 

9 Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work (FDEP 2010) for construction activities in the CFBC. 

10 While boating activities are not allowed within the CREC, construction of discharge piping from 

11 LNP to the CREC may require in-canal activities. 

12 PEF has a Manatee Protection Plan approved by FDEP for minimization of hazards to 

13 manatees while performing in-water work associated with the CREC, including avoidance of 

14 in-water work in the discharge canal from November 15 through March 31 when manatees use 

15 the warmer waters in this system as a refuge. PEF would likely expand the current Manatee 

16 Protection Plan to include the CFBC and OWR for approval by FDEP. As part of the existing 

17 plan, during construction activities, a biologist would be present to visually monitor for 

18 threatened and endangered species that may appear in the CREC or CFBC. Manatees might 

19 approach these areas, and their presence within 50 ft of the construction areas during activity 

20 would require a temporary halt to work until the manatees have cleared the 50-ft buffer zone 

21 (FDEP 2010). No impacts on Florida manatees are anticipated from installation of 

22 transmission-line corridors or structures because no in-water work would be necessary. PEF 

23 plans to use BMPs to prevent erosion and runoff into waterways spanned by transmission lines 

24 (PEF 2008a). 

25 Manatees are known to occur in the CREC discharge canal, particularly in the fall and winter 

26 (PEF 2008b), and they have been sighted in the CFBC and OWR throughout the year 

27 (CH2MHill 2009b). Given the low approach velocity, intake operational impacts on manatees in 

28 the CFBC would not adversely affect this species. The approach velocity for the intake bays 

29 would be 0.25 fps at the bar screens and 0.5 fps for through-screen flow. Trash bar racks would 

30 prevent migration of manatees into forebay areas, and intake screens would be pressure 

31 washed when rotated out of service. A similar operational design is used at CREC for the 

32 intakes for Units 1, 2, and 3, but with intake velocities double (1.0 fps) the proposed velocity for 

33 LNP (AEC 1973), but distressed and moribund manatees may become trapped on the trash 

34 bars. Trash bar monitoring for LNP, as implemented at CREC for sea turtle rescue and 

35 handling, could be established to assist sick manatees that are not able to avoid becoming 

36 lodged on the trash racks, and to remove and report mortalities. No operational impacts are 

37 noted for manatees at the CREC intake or discharge. Operational impacts for the CREC 

38 discharge canal would not adversely affect manatees, because the LNP discharge would 

39 contribute less than 5 percent more of the current CREC discharge with no significant change in 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-165 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 thermal energy. PEF has submitted an application (PEF 2008c) to the USACE for a permit to 

2 construct a barge slip and boat ramp on the CFBC. The barge slip and boat ramp will be 

3 constructed on property that is now part of the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross-Florida Greenway and 

4 Conservation Area and presumably there would be public access to the boat ramp. The boat 

5 ramp would likely result in increased recreational boating and fishing in the CFBC and OWR. 

6 An increase in recreational boating and fishing could result in collisions with manatees in these 

7 two waterbodies. Additionally, the construction of the barge slip would result in increased barge 

8 traffic in the CFBC associated with the construction and operation of LNP, however the potential 

9 for adverse impacts to manatees due to the increase in barge traffic would be mitigated through 

10 the implementation of the PEF Manatee Protection Plan. 

11 Maintenance activities along the transmission lines would be performed using PEF practices 

12 and procedures to prevent impacts on surface waters and wetlands (PEF 2009a). Therefore, 

13 the review team anticipates no impacts on manatees from maintenance of the transmission 

14 lines. 

15 The review team has determined that construction and operation of the LNP may affect, but is 

16 not likely to adversely affect the Florida manatee. Manatees have been observed in the CFBC, 

17 OWR, and the CREC. Increases in recreational boating and fishing in the CFBC due to the new 

18 boat ramp and barge traffic related to the construction and operation of the LNP could result in 

19 collisions with manatees. However, the LNP is not located in an Important Manatee Area or an 

20 Area of Inadequate Protection, construction and operation of the facility is not expected to 

21 significantly alter submerged aquatic vegetation, the discharge of CREC is not expected to be 

22 changed such that alterations in manatee occurrence or habitat would occur, and PEF will 

23 implement a Manatee Protection Plan (FDEP 2010), approved by the FDEP, to minimize 

24 hazards to manatees. Therefore, the review team concludes that adverse impacts to manatees 

25 would be minimal. This conclusion is consistent with the application of the USACE effects 

26 determination key for the Florida manatee. The use of the key was approved by the FWS 

27 (Souza 2008) and is used by the USACE to determine whether it must conduct a Section 7 

28 consultation for manatees with the FWS prior to issuing DA permits. According to the key, 

29 projects that involve the creation of new slips to accommodate docking of repeat use vessels 

30 result in a “may affect” determination and require consultation with the FWS. 

31 Florida grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus). The Florida 

32 grasshopper sparrow is not found in Levy County and will not be impacted by construction and 

33 operation at the LNP site. There are no known populations of grasshopper sparrows north of 

34 Avon Park Air Force Range in south Polk County (FWS 1999). The only proposed transmission 

35 line corridor that occurs in Polk County is the existing Kathleen line, which is in the far north 

36 western corner of Polk County (PEF 2009a). Therefore, the Florida grasshopper sparrow is not 

37 addressed in the EIS. However, because the project falls within the FWS consultation area for 

38 this species, it is addressed in this BA. The proposed project would not convert large 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-166 August 2010 

1 expansions of open grasslands, of which the grasshopper sparrow is dependent on, to other 

2 habitat types. Corridor maintenance activities would also help maintain grassland habitats, free 

3 of trees. The Florida grasshopper sparrow was not identified by the FFWCC as a species that 

4 would potentially be impacted by the proposed project in the 2008 Agency Report or in the 

5 conditions for certification modification for the proposed LNP site or any of the offsite corridors, 

6 including the transmission-line corridors (FFWCC 2008, FDEP 2010). Therefore, the review 

7 team has determined that construction and operation activities on the LNP site and in the offsite 

8 corridors would have no effect on the Florida grasshopper sparrow. 

9 Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens). Although no Florida scrub jays were 

10 identified during field surveys conducted over a 2-year period on the proposed LNP site, the 

11 species has been documented in the general site vicinity (PEF 2008a 2009a; FWS 1999). 

12 Substantial blocks of xeric, well-drained scrub habitats preferred by scrub jays are lacking on 

13 the site. The conversion of most upland habitats to pine plantations where oaks and other 

14 hardwoods are excluded has removed suitable habitat for this species and reduced its potential 

15 occurrence onsite. It is therefore unlikely that Florida scrub jays would be affected by 

16 development activities on the LNP site. 

17 The Florida scrub jay has been observed in the proposed transmission-line corridors where 

18 suitable habitat exists along the routes in Marion, Sumter, Lake, Hernando, Hillsborough, 

19 Pinellas, and Polk Counties (FWS 2010a). Based on cover type mapping, areas of potentially 

20 suitable habitat, although not prevalent, may occur within portions of the corridors (PEF 2008a). 

21 The entire project, including the site and associated onsite corridors, is within the Florida scrub 

22 jay Federal consultation areas. There are known occurrences of the scrub jay within 1000 

23 meters of the proposed LNP site and within the proposed transmission corridor from the facility 

24 to the proposed Central Florida South substation (FFWCC 2008). Six scrub jays were observed 

25 in Marion County during reconnaissance surveys conducted along the 500-kV LNP-Central 

26 Florida South transmission-line corridor (PEF 2008a). In addition, populations are known to 

27 occur in the Halpata Tastanaki Preserve in Marion County, the southern perimeter of which is 

28 crossed by this corridor. FNAI records indicate the scrub jay also occurs along the blowdown 

29 pipeline and near the transmission corridor in Citrus County (PEF 2008a). 

30 Even though there are known occurrences of the scrub jay near the LNP site, no suitable habitat 

31 has been mapped onsite. Therefore, the Florida scrub jay is not expected to be impacted 

32 during construction and operation activities onsite. Because wildlife reconnaissance surveys 

33 have been limited within the corridors and potentially suitable habitat is present in some places, 

34 it is possible that additional scrub jay populations could occur on or near the associated offsite 

35 corridors. Clearing the associated corridors has the potential to affect the Florida scrub jay and 

36 its habitat. Because most final rights-of-way would be narrow (100 to 220 ft wide) and mostly 

37 collocated with existing corridors, the actual extent of clearing would be limited, thereby 

38 reducing the potential for scrub jay impacts. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-167 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 A Condition of Certification by the FDEP requires protocol surveys for the Florida scrub jay prior 

2 to “clearing and construction” for the LNP project, including the site and offsite corridors (FDEP 

3 2010a). If impacts to scrub jays cannot be avoided, PEF would be required to coordinate with 

4 the FFWCC to determine the need for appropriate mitigation. Therefore, the review team has 

5 determined that clearing habitat in transmission line corridors may affect, and is likely to 

6 adversely affect the Florida scrub jay, but is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

7 the Florida scrub jay. 

8 Piping plover (Charadrius melodus). There were no piping plovers observed on the LNP site 

9 and suitable habitat is not present. FDEP did not identify the piping plover as occurring or 

10 potentially occurring onsite or in any of the offsite corridors (FDEP 2010). No piping plovers 

11 were observed during limited reconnaissance surveys conducted within the corridors. However, 

12 saltwater marsh is present within a small portion of the 230-kV CREC-to-Brookridge 

13 transmission-line corridor, as well as near the blowdown pipeline corridor adjacent to the 

14 western edge of the CREC facility (PEF 2008a, b). Consequently, it is possible, but unlikely that 

15 tidal mudflats used by piping plover may occur on portions of these corridors. Nevertheless, 

16 impacts on this species are expected to be inconsequential and limited, perhaps, to a very 

17 minor disturbance to loafing and foraging birds. Therefore, the review team has determined that 

18 building and operation activities within the offsite corridors may affect but would not likely 

19 adversely affect the piping plover. 

20 Wood stork (Mycteria americana). Wood storks have been observed feeding in ditches and 

21 wetlands on the proposed LNP site, but no nesting colonies have been detected (PEF 2009a). 

22 Primarily because of forest-management activities and a lack of suitable open water habitat, 

23 suitable rookery habitat is limited. The LNP site is not located within the 13-mi (North Florida) or 

24 15-mi (Central Florida) core foraging area of any active wood stork rookery (FWS 2009b). 

25 Wood storks have been observed roosting with other wading birds in forest stands 8 to 9 mi 

26 west of the LNP site (Entrix 2010). Long-term forest management on the LNP site and a lack of 

27 favored open water habitat limit suitable rookery habitat. Activities on the LNP site could 

28 remove or alter potential foraging habitat for the wood stork, and birds foraging onsite could be 

29 disturbed or displaced. Because wood storks are highly mobile and similar habitats are 

30 abundant in the project vicinity, it is unlikely that the species would be directly affected. 

31 The wood stork is listed as potentially occurring in all counties through which associated 

32 corridors would pass (FWS 2009a, b). No wood stork rookeries were observed during limited 

33 reconnaissance surveys within these corridors; however, individuals were observed on the 230-

34 kV Polk-Hillsborough-Pinellas transmission-line corridor, and areas of potentially suitable habitat 

35 (forested wetlands, shallow emergent wetlands, and ditches) occur throughout portions of all 

36 corridors (PEF 2008a). In addition, the proposed corridors pass within the 15-mi (Central 

37 Florida) and 18.6-mi (South Florida) core foraging area of a number of active wood stork 

38 rookeries (FWS 2009c). Development and maintenance activities in the associated corridors 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-168 August 2010 

1 have the potential to affect the foraging and nesting habitat of the wood stork. Because final 

2 rights-of-way would be narrow (100 to 220 ft wide) and collocated with existing corridors over 

3 most of their range, the actual extent of clearing required to site associated facilities is greatly 

4 limited, reducing the potential for impact on wood storks. 

5 Even though FDEP does not identify the wood stork as potentially occurring in the project area, 

6 there are known occurrences of foraging individuals on the LNP site. Therefore, FDEP may 

7 require protocol surveys for the wood stork prior to “clearing and construction” (FDEP 2010). If 

8 wood storks are detected and impacts cannot be avoided, PEF would be required to coordinate 

9 with the FFWCC to determine the need for appropriate mitigation. The Wetland Mitigation Plan 

10 for the Levy Nuclear Plant and Associated Transmission Lines has identified several mitigation 

11 parcels (Figure 3-6) to mitigate for wetland alteration and loss from the proposed project that 

12 would be beneficial to the wood storks foraging on or near the site and in or near the associated 

13 offsite corridors including the transmission-line corridors (Entrix 2010). Therefore, the review 

14 team has determined that activities within the offsite corridors may affect, and are likely to 

15 adversely affect the wood stork, but it is not likely these activities would jeopardize the 

16 continued existence of this species. 

17 This conclusion is consistent with a conservative application of a Wood Stork Key that the 

18 USACE uses to determine whether it must consult with the FWS regarding the wood stork prior 

19 to issuing DA permits (Souza 2010). According to the key, projects within 0.76 km of an active 

20 wood stork colony site or otherwise impacting more than 0.20 ha of suitable wood stork foraging 

21 habitat “may affect” the wood stork, and hence warrant FWS consultation. No part of the LNP 

22 project lies within 0.76 km of a known active wood stork colony, but building the LNP facilities 

23 would disturb several hundred acres of suitable wood stork foraging habitat. The key allows the 

24 USACE to decide upon a “not likely to adversely affect” determination, and thereby not consult 

25 with FWS, if a wetland mitigation plan meets several specific criteria regarding the provision of 

26 favorable wood stork habitat. The wetland mitigation plan submitted by PEF (Entrix 2010) 

27 would provide substantial areas of restored and enhanced habitat for wood storks, but the 

28 USACE has not yet reviewed the plan against the specific criteria in the key. For this reason, 

29 the review team concludes that the ‘may affect’ conclusion is appropriate because it is a 

30 conservative interpretation of the key. 

31 Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). No red-cockaded woodpeckers were 

32 observed on the LNP site during pedestrian surveys conducted over a 2-year period, (PEF 

33 2008a, 2009a). This species is not known to nest on the LNP site and is considered unlikely to 

34 do so because of the absence of its preferred nesting habitat. The young (<30-years-old), 

35 heavily managed pine plantations that occupy most uplands on the LNP site do not provide 

36 favorable habitat. The species does, however, occur on the Goethe State Forest, located 

37 immediately north of the LNP site. Several active clusters (an aggregation of cavity trees used 

38 by a family group of red-cockaded woodpeckers) lie between 1.5 and 2.5 mi from the LNP site 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-169 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 boundary (Petersen 2010). Considering the size of red cockaded woodpecker home ranges 

2 (100-400 ac; FWS 2003a), the distance of these active clusters from the LNP site and the lack 

3 of suitable habitat on site, no more than incidental use of LNP site would be expected by red 

4 cockaded woodpeckers. In addition, the PEF (2010) wetland mitigation plan for the LNP project 

5 has identified a mitigation parcel on the Goethe State Forest, adjacent to the LNP site, that has 

6 32 active red-cockaded woodpecker trees (PEF 2010). Although the restoration efforts will be 

7 focused on wetlands, the red-cockaded woodpecker would benefit from those efforts. 

8 Consequently, it is unlikely red-cockaded woodpeckers would be affected by activities on the 

9 LNP site. 

10 The red-cockaded woodpecker is listed as potentially occurring in all counties through which the 

11 corridors pass (FWS 2009a, b). The LNP site is within the Federal consultation area for the red12 cockaded woodpecker and the proposed transmission line corridor from the LNP site to the 

13 Brookridge substation intersects known nesting locations (FFWCC 2008). The proposed 

14 transmission line from the LNP site to the proposed Central Florida South substation also 

15 intersects known nesting locations and is within 1000 meters of nesting locations within the 

16 Withlacoochee State Forest, the Halpata Tastanaki Preserve, the Lake Panasoffkee 

17 Management Area, and the Flat Island Preserve (FFWCC 2008). Clearing activities (i.e.,cavity 

18 tree removal, noise, increased habitat fragmentation) in the corridors where new rights-of-way 

19 are needed, therefore, have the potential to affect the red-cockaded woodpecker and its habitat. 

20 Because final rights-of-way would be narrow (100 to 220 ft wide) and mostly collocated within 

21 existing corridors, the actual extent of clearing would be greatly limited, thereby minimizing the 

22 potential for impact on red-cockaded woodpeckers. However, in areas where a new corridor is 

23 required, increased habitat fragmentation could negatively impact the red-cockaded 

24 woodpecker. 

25 A Condition of Certification by the FDEP would likely require protocol surveys for red-cockaded 

26 woodpeckers prior to “clearing and construction” (FDEP 2010). If impacts cannot be avoided, 

27 PEF would be required to coordinate with the FFWCC to determine the need for appropriate 

28 mitigation. The impacts to the red-cockaded woodpecker would be localized and minimized by 

29 collocating corridors and using existing corridors, where possible. Therefore, the review team 

30 has determined that activities within the offsite corridors may affect, and are likely to adversely 

31 affect the red-cockaded woodpecker, but it is not likely these activities would jeopardize the 

32 continued existence of this species. 

33 Audubon’s crested caracara (Polyborus plancus audubonii). Although the Audubon’s 

34 crested caracara is listed as threatened in Polk County, there is a low probability that this 

35 species would occur in the extreme northwest portion of Polk County where the transmission 

36 corridor would be located. Consequently, the Audubon’s crested caracara is not addressed in 

37 the EIS. Nevertheless, because the project falls within the FWS consultation area for this 

38 species, it is addressed in this BA (FFWCC 2008). The presence of Audubon’s crested 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-170 August 2010 

1 caracara in the vicinity of the proposed corridor would likely be limited to incidental occurrence. 

2 Should this species occur incidentally in this area, LNP project activities may affect but are not 

3 likely to adversely affect the Audubon’s crested caracara. 

4 Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus). The current range for this raptor is 

5 limited to six large freshwater systems in the central and south part of Florida and includes: the 

6 Upper St. Johns drainage, Kissimmee Valley, Lake Okeechobee, Loxahatchee Slough, the 

7 Everglades, and the Big Cypress basin (FWS 1999). Although it is listed as endangered in 

8 Marion, Lake, Polk, and Sumter Counties, those portions of the proposed LNP transmission 

9 lines that occur within those counties do not lie within the watersheds inhabited by the snail kite. 

10 Consequently, the Everglade snail kite is not addressed in the EIS. However, because the 

11 project falls within the FWS consultation area for this species, it is addressed in this BA 

12 (FFWCC 2008). The presence of the Everglade snail kite in the vicinity of the proposed corridor 

13 would likely be limited to incidental occurrence. Should this species occur incidentally in this 

14 area, LNP project activities may affect but are not likely to adversely affect the Everglade snail 

15 kite. 

16 American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). The American alligator is a common 

17 inhabitant of most types of freshwater bodies in Florida, including marshes and swamps such as 

18 those found on the LNP site. One juvenile American alligator was observed on the LNP site 

19 during field surveys conducted by PEF, and they have been observed in swampy areas at the 

20 CREC (PEF 2008b, 2009a). Alligators may occasionally occur wherever permanent water is 

21 present. Habitat suitability for many onsite wetlands and swamps is low for the alligator 

22 because these wetlands are subject to seasonal drying. Nevertheless, potentially suitable 

23 wetlands and swamps would be filled, and activities in and around wetlands may temporarily 

24 disturb and displace alligators. Because alligators adapt easily to different aquatic and wetland 

25 habitats, individuals would likely relocate to adjacent areas with suitable habitat. Because the 

26 surrounding landscape is rural, movement of alligators into urban and suburban areas where 

27 they could pose a nuisance or danger is not likely. 

28 None of the proposed transmission-line corridors are within the range of the endangered 

29 American crocodile (whose range in Florida is limited to South Florida). Some wetlands that 

30 may support alligators would be filled during development of offsite facilities, but most habitats 

31 affected by transmission lines would only experience overstory vegetation removal, retaining the 

32 open-water component required by alligators. Higher-quality lake and stream habitats would 

33 generally be spanned by transmission lines, avoiding any impact on alligator habitat. Activities 

34 in and around wetlands could temporarily disturb and displace alligators. Because alligators 

35 adapt easily to different aquatic and wetland habitats, individuals would likely relocate to 

36 adjoining natural areas with suitable habitat. Because the surrounding landscape is generally 

37 rural, movement of alligators into urban and suburban areas where they could pose a nuisance 

38 or danger is not likely to occur. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-171 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Although the American alligator is known to occur on the LNP site and is expected to occur in 

2 the vicinity of the offsite corridors, the LNP project lies outside of the range of the American 

3 crocodile. The review team has therefore reached a conclusion of no effect for the American 

4 alligator. 

5 Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi). No eastern indigo snakes were observed on 

6 the LNP site during pedestrian surveys conducted over a 2-year period (PEF 2009a). However, 

7 the species has been documented in the site vicinity (PEF 2008b). Most of the upland habitat 

8 on the LNP site has been converted to pine plantation and provides poor-quality habitat for 

9 eastern indigo snakes. Potentially suitable, though highly fragmented, forested wetland habitat 

10 is scattered throughout the site. Gopher tortoise burrows are present in the southeastern 

11 portion of the site (PEF 2009a). These factors suggest a potential for eastern indigo snakes to 

12 occur on the LNP site. However, their presence is likely limited due to highly fragmented habitat 

13 conditions and the dominance of pine plantations across the landscape. 

14 Proposed development activities on the LNP site have the potential to affect the eastern indigo 

15 snake and its habitat. Because this species is not readily observed, its presence and extent of 

16 site use cannot be confirmed. Although the potential for impact on this species is thought to be 

17 low, incidental mortality to eastern indigo snakes is a possibility. During site development, 

18 Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake would be implemented to minimize 

19 impacts on this species (FWS 2004). Examples of protection measures would include 

20 educating site workers about the snake prior to work and avoiding snakes when observed 

21 during work (FWS 2004). Under mitigation plans proposed for the LNP site, intensive 

22 commercial forest management would cease on some remaining undisturbed lands, and some 

23 pine plantations and other disturbed habitats would be rehabilitated and restored to native plant 

24 communities. The restored communities would likely provide higher-quality habitat for eastern 

25 indigo snakes than the existing pine plantations and other vegetation altered by recent logging. 

26 Eastern indigo snakes have been documented in the general vicinity of the LNP site and listed 

27 as potentially occurring in all counties through which the proposed corridors would pass; 

28 therefore, there is a potential for this species to occur in or around the offsite corridors, including 

29 transmission-line corridors, where suitable habitat exists (FWS 2009a, b). Potentially suitable 

30 habitats and areas with prevalent gopher tortoise burrows are present along portions of the 

31 corridors, and one eastern indigo snake was observed in Sumter County during limited 

32 reconnaissance surveys conducted in the corridors (PEF 2008a). Because this species cannot 

33 be readily observed, its presence and extent of use within corridors cannot be readily confirmed. 

34 The FWS Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake would be implemented 

35 during development of the LNP project to minimize impacts. These measures require that 

36 clearing activities temporarily cease when eastern indigo snakes are observed to provide time 

37 for them to escape. The likelihood that undetected individuals could escape disturbance is high, 

38 especially for offsite corridors where final rights-of-way would be narrow (100 to 220 ft wide) and 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-172 August 2010 

1 collocated with existing corridors over most of their range, limiting the actual extent of required 

2 clearing. A Condition of Certification by the FDEP would likely require surveys for and 

3 relocation of any gopher tortoises that could be harmed during “clearing and construction” of 

4 offsite facilities (FDEP 2010a). Any eastern indigo snakes recovered during gopher tortoise 

5 burrow excavations would be relocated in accordance with applicable guidelines. The species 

6 is a habitat generalist and the impacts would be localized within only a small part of the known 

7 range. Therefore, the review team has determined that building and operation activities on the 

8 LNP site and associated transmission-line corridors may affect, and are likely to adversely affect 

9 the eastern indigo snake. However, those impacts are not likely to jeopardize the continued 

10 existence of the eastern indigo snake. 

11 This conclusion is consistent with a conservative application of the key that the USACE uses to 

12 determine whether it must consult with the FWS regarding the eastern indigo snake prior to 

13 issuing DA permits (Souza and Hankla 2010). According to the key, projects impacting areas 

14 containing gopher tortoise burrows, holes, cavities, or other potential eastern indigo snake 

15 refugia and impacting more than 25 ac of xeric habitat “may affect” the eastern indigo snake, 

16 and hence warrant FWS consultation, even if the FWS Standard Protection Measures for the 

17 Eastern Indigo Snake will be followed. Gopher tortoise burrows were observed on portions of 

18 the LNP site and the offsite corridors. Although most xeric habitats on the site have been 

19 substantially degraded by a history of intensive forest management, portions of the offsite 

20 corridors contain xeric habitats that have not been heavily degraded by commercial forestry. 

21 For these reasons, the review team concludes that the “may affect” conclusion is appropriate. 

22 Sand skinks (Neoseps reynoldsi). Sand skinks are listed as threatened in Marion, Lake and 

23 Polk Counties (FWS 1999, 2010a). It is possible this species could be present in areas along 

24 the transmission-line corridors where suitable scrub habitat is present. Because final rights-of25 way would be narrow (100 to 220 ft wide) and mostly collocated with existing corridors, the 

26 actual extent of clearing is greatly limited, thereby reducing the potential for impacts. In addition, 

27 FDEP did not identify the sand skink as occurring or potentially occurring onsite or in any of the 

28 offsite corridors (FDEP 2010). A Condition of Certification by the FDEP may require surveys for 

29 sand skink prior to clearing finalized rights-of-way if suitable habitat is present (FDEP 2010). If 

30 sand skinks were identified and impacts could not be avoided, PEF would be required to 

31 coordinate with the FFWCC to determine the need for appropriate mitigation. Therefore, the 

32 review team has determined that building activities within the associated offsite corridors may 

33 affect but would not likely adversely affect the sand skink. 

34 Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi). Gulf sturgeon were not collected during 

35 sampling efforts and are not likely to be encountered in the CFBC or CREC discharge canal 

36 because neither of these areas is critical habitat or a preferred spawning area. Adverse impacts 

37 are unlikely because straying juvenile or adult fish would avoid any construction activities 

38 occurring in these areas. No impacts on gulf sturgeon are anticipated from installation of 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-173 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 transmission-line corridors or structures because no in-water work would be necessary. PEF 

2 plans to use BMPs to prevent erosion and runoff into waterways spanned by transmission lines 

3 (PEF 2008a). 

4 Gulf sturgeon were not collected in sampling efforts and are not likely to be encountered in the 

5 CFBC or CREC discharge canal because neither of these areas is critical habitat or a preferred 

6 spawning area. Adverse impacts are unlikely due to the use of vertical trash bars across the 

7 intake screens reduces the approach water velocity to 0.25 fps versus 0.5 fps at the screens for 

8 intake operations, as discussed in EIS Section 4.2.1. The low approach velocity of 0.25 fps for 

9 intake operations should allow healthy gulf sturgeon to swim away and not become trapped 

10 against the bar racks, although distressed and moribund fish may become trapped on the trash 

11 bars. Maintenance activities along the transmission lines would be performed using PEF 

12 practices and procedures to prevent impacts on surface waters and wetlands (PEF 2009a). No 

13 impacts on Gulf sturgeon are anticipated from maintenance of the transmission lines. 

14 The review team has determined that construction and operation of the LNP may affect, but is 

15 not likely to adversely affect the Gulf Sturgeon because of the restrictive current range of the 

16 species, the use of close-cycle cooling, and the planned low through screen intake water 

17 velocities. 

18 Vascular Plants 

19 No Federally listed plant species are known to occur in Levy and Citrus Counties (FWS 2009a; 

20 FNAI 2009). Consequently, it is unlikely that such plants would be affected by development 

21 activities on the LNP site. 

22 There are thirteen Federally listed plant species that are identified as potentially occurring within 

23 the counties crossed by the associated offsite corridors (Table 1-1). These plants would be 

24 potentially impacted primarily due to the clearing and development of new corridors and 

25 vegetation maintenance activities as discussed in EIS Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.2. PEF uses 

26 chemical and mechanical control methods appropriate for the location, terrain, and vegetation or 

27 habitat present. Chemical methods include the use of nonrestricted-use herbicides (only 

28 herbicides registered by the EPA) to control any vegetation that may interfere with the 

29 transmission-line corridor. The consistent use of herbicides results in the growth of low30 growing, non-woody vegetation such as grasses and other native plants. Mechanical methods 

31 of vegetation control include hand clearing, pruning, mowing, and felling (Golder Associates 

32 2008; PEF 2009a, h). 

33 None of the plants listed in Table 1-1 were observed during the limited reconnaissance surveys 

34 conducted within the corridors (PEF 2009a; Golder Associates 2008). There is, however, one 

35 documented occurrence for the longspurred mint (Dicerandra cornutissima) from the PEF 

36 (2008a) and FNAI (2009) databases. Potentially suitable habitat for these species may be 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-174 August 2010 

1 present within portions of the corridors. Eleven of these plant species are usually associated 

2 with well-drained, sandy, xeric upland habitats, such as sandhill and scrub, and several may 

3 also occur on scrubby flatwoods, which are found on moderately well-drained sandy flatland. 

4 These include the Florida bonamia, pygmy fringe tree, Florida goldenaster, longspurred mint, 

5 scrub wild buckwheat, Britton’s beargrass, Lewton’s polygala, Small’s jointweed or Sandlace, 

6 scrub plum, wide-leaf warea, and Carter’s mustard. Although not prevalent, sandhill and scrub 

7 habitats are present along corridors supporting the associated offsite facilities. Should these 

8 species occur in areas of the corridor to be cleared, development and operation activities may 

9 affect, and are likely to adversely affect these species and their habitats. The pygmy fringe tree, 

10 wide-leaf warea, and Carter’s mustard are found in Central Florida, generally in the Lake Wales 

11 Ridge district, which is not in close proximity to the proposed transmission-line corridors in Lake 

12 and Polk Counties. Therefore, building and operation activities within the associated 

13 transmission line corridors may affect but are unlikely to adversely affect these species. 

14 Two of the Federally listed plants are associated with wetlands may also occur on the offsite 

15 corridors: Brooksville bellflower, which is found on wet grassy slopes and drying pond edges in 

16 Hernando County, and Cooley’s water-willow (Justicia cooleyi), which occurs in mesic hardwood 

17 hammocks of central Florida. These two plants and their habitats may also be affected by 

18 development activities. PEF has a wetland mitigation plan that has identified several mitigation 

19 sites in close proximity to the proposed transmission-line corridors (PEF 2010). These two 

20 wetland species could benefit from the proposed mitigation efforts. 

21 Although suitable habitat may exist for the species listed above, targeted surveys for threatened 

22 and endangered plants have not been conducted on the LNP site or in any of the associated 

23 offsite corridors, including transmission lines. PEF has procedures in place that minimize 

24 adverse impacts on threatened and endangered species habitats such as floodplains and 

25 wetlands (Golder Associates 2008; PEF 2009a, h). Because most final rights-of-way for the 

26 transmission lines would be narrow (100 to 220 ft wide) and collocated with existing corridors 

27 over most of their range, the actual extent of clearing required is limited. This would greatly 

28 reduce the area over which these Federally listed plant species could be affected. Corridor29 maintenance activities would be performed by PEF in compliance with applicable Federal, 

30 State, and local laws, regulations, and permit requirements. If any of the Federally listed plants 

31 occur within the offsite corridors, then construction and operation activities may affect and are 

32 likely to adversely affect these species. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-175 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 7.0 Cumulative Effects 

2 7.1 Terrestrial 

3 In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative 

4 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

5 could affect threatened and endangered species and habitats. For this analysis, the geographic 

6 area of interest is considered to encompass the 20-mi radius around the LNP site, plus the 

7 corridors associated with the proposed transmission lines and other offsite linear features. 

8 Corridors range in width from approximately 300 ft to 1 mi. This area is expected to encompass 

9 the locations of possible development projects potentially capable of substantially influencing 

10 threatened and endangered species on and close to the LNP project. This geographical area of 

11 interest includes watersheds providing direct runoff from the LNP site to the Gulf of Mexico, as 

12 well as the lower watersheds of the Withlacoochee and Waccasassa River basins. 

13 Terrestrial and wetland habitats in the geographic area of interest have been modified over time 

14 from urbanization (e.g., residences, commercial development, roads, and utility development), 

15 agricultural practices (including commercial forest management), mining, construction of the 

16 CFBC, and development of the CREC. Extensive areas of habitat have been altered for forest 

17 management, agriculture, mining, and low-density residential development. Development and 

18 operation of power plants at the CREC, which began in the 1960s, have contributed 

19 cumulatively to many of the same types of impacts on threatened and endangered species as 

20 those associated with the proposed LNP project. The cumulative impacts resulting from CREC 

21 operation would continue for the geographic area of interest. Habitat degradation in the 

22 geographic area of interest has already resulted from the conversion of natural landscapes to 

23 intensively managed forests, pastureland and other agricultural uses, rural residential 

24 development, and other developments causing fragmentation of the landscape. This cumulative 

25 loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat have already contributed to declines in wildlife 

26 populations and biodiversity within the area. In addition, decreased precipitation, sea-level rise, 

27 more frequent storm surges, increased intensity of coastal storms, and increased temperatures 

28 resulting from global climate change may already be contributing to wetland losses and 

29 exacerbating the ongoing trend (GCRP 2009). 

30 Future actions or conditions within the geographic area of interest that would contribute to 

31 cumulative effects on threatened and endangered species and habitats would include the 

32 proposed Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine, the US-19 bridge expansion at the CFBC, 

33 renewal of the CREC operating license for an additional 20 years (beginning in 2017), the Inglis 

34 Lock Bypass Channel Spillway Hydropower Project, proposed expansion of the Florida Gas 

35 pipeline, the proposed Suncoast Toll Road, continued urbanization (e.g., commercial, industrial 

36 and residential expansion; creation and/or upgrading of transmission lines; new road 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-176 August 2010 

1 development and expansion), the operation and expansion of existing limestone quarries, future 

2 agricultural and forestry management activities, increased outdoor recreation, and future climate 

3 change. For example, at the proposed Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine that would be built 

4 about 2 mi west of the LNP site, approximately 2700 ac of wetlands and uplands would be 

5 mined, with an additional 1300 ac disturbed to site a quarry processing plant, roads and other 

6 infrastructure. Total wetland impacts are estimated at 1140 ac (BRA 2010). Tarmac America 

7 LCC (Tarmac) plans to mitigate for wetland impacts by conducting a variety of conservation 

8 measures on a 4500-ac site adjacent to the proposed mine that would be protected through a 

9 conservation easement. Other future actions or conditions that would contribute to cumulative 

10 impacts on threatened and endangered species and habitats would include building and/or 

11 upgrading of transmission lines and other utilities, other new road development and expansion, 

12 continued industrial and urban development throughout the geographic area of interest, 

13 increased outdoor recreation, nonpoint source runoff from activities such as agriculture, forestry 

14 and ranching, and global climate change. 

15 Future urban, industrial and utility development, new transmission-line corridors, and the effects 

16 of future changes in climate may potentially affect threatened and endangered species that 

17 occur near the LNP project primarily by decreasing or degrading the available habitat for these 

18 species. Habitat loss may occur through loss of upland and wetland habitats for urban 

19 development, sea-level rise, increasing salinity of estuarine areas, and inundation or filling of 

20 wetland habitats. Sea-level rise resulting from climate change along the Gulf Coast of Florida 

21 could accelerate the loss of wetlands and estuaries, thereby eliminating breeding and foraging 

22 habitat for commercial, game, and threatened and endangered wildlife (Ning et al. 2003; GCRP 

23 2009). Global climate change could also cause shifts in species ranges and migratory corridors 

24 as well as changes in ecological processes (GCRP 2009). Loss or alteration of habitats could 

25 affect the numerous Federally listed plant species that may occur near the LNP project (see 

26 Table 1-1). 

27 Federally listed birds such as the piping plover use tidal marshes and estuaries along the 

28 Florida Gulf Coast in the area near the LNP project. Threats posed to this species include the 

29 loss or degradation of foraging habitat and the loss of breeding habitat as a result of sea-level 

30 rise and increased salinity caused by climate change. Numerous other Federally listed birds 

31 may occur within or adjacent to the predominantly inland areas near the LNP project (see 

32 Table 1-1). Wading birds such as the wood stork would be affected by activities that alter or 

33 destroy wetland and marsh habitats where birds forage, and by activities that affect or disturb 

34 rookeries where these birds breed. Removal of mature pine forest could degrade breeding and 

35 foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers, and clearing oak scrub habitats could affect 

36 Florida scrub jay. 

37 Federally listed reptiles and amphibians could be affected by projects involving land clearing, 

38 habitat loss or fragmentation, wetland fill or degredation, and increased vehicle traffic on roads 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-177 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 and rights-of-ways. Species that may occur near the LNP project wherever suitable habitat is 

2 present include the sand skink and eastern indigo snake (Table 1-1). These species could be 

3 displaced and would likely suffer increased mortality. The American alligator, listed as 

4 threatened under the ESA (due to similarity of appearance to the American crocodile) is found in 

5 areas near the LNP project, but is considered to have fully recovered (52 FR 21059). Although 

6 trends and conditions, such as urbanization, industrialization, and global climate change, could 

7 affect the American alligator’s habitat and local distribution, none of the identified present or 

8 future projects is expected to affect the recovered species. 

9 Cumulative impacts on threatened and endangered species and habitats are estimated based 

10 on the information provided by PEF and the review team’s independent evaluation. Past, 

11 present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities exist in the geographic area of interest that 

12 could affect Federally protected terrestrial ecological resources in ways similar to the proposed 

13 LNP project. Development and expansion of transmission-line corridors and infrastructure to 

14 support proposed future projects would likely affect wildlife and may be detrimental to wetland 

15 habitats. Loss of wildlife habitat, increased habitat fragmentation, impacts on Federally 

16 protected species, and increased loss of wetlands from continued development and as a 

17 consequence of climate change are unavoidable and would continue to occur. Detectable 

18 alteration of habitat, loss of habitat, and increased habitat fragmentation, and increased risk of 

19 avian collision and electrocution within a branch of the Eastern Atlantic Flyway that crosses 

20 central Florida would contribute to the cumulative impacts. Based on this analysis, the review 

21 team concludes that cumulative impacts from building and operating the proposed LNP units 

22 and from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on Federally protected 

23 species and their habitats would noticeably alter, but would not likely destabilize, those 

24 resources. 

25 7.2 Aquatic 

26 In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative 

27 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

28 could affect aquatic ecology. For this analysis, the geographic area of interest is considered to 

29 be the proposed LNP site, which encompasses all waterbodies associated with LNP activities, 

30 the entire CFBC, Lake Rousseau, the Inglis Lock bypass channel, OWR, the CREC intake and 

31 discharge, the Levy and Citrus County offshore areas of the Gulf of Mexico, and the proposed 

32 transmission-line corridors. Other watersheds (Wacassassa Basin) adjacent to these 

33 waterbodies are not affected by LNP and are excluded from this aquatic cumulative impacts 

34 analysis. 

35 Other actions in the vicinity that have present and reasonably foreseeable future potential 

36 impacts on the CFBC and the Gulf of Mexico offshore of the CREC include operation of the 

37 existing CREC, the proposed uprate of CREC Unit 3, current operation of the Inglis Quarry, 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-178 August 2010 

1 widening of the US-19 bridge across the CFBC, a proposed hydropower project on the Inglis 

2 Lock bypass channel spillway, the proposed Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine, 

3 decommissioning of CREC Units 1 and 2, development of a Port District along the CFBC, and 

4 natural environmental stressors (e.g., short- or long-term changes in precipitation or 

5 temperature and the resulting response of the aquatic community). The review team 

6 considered these potential sources of impacts in its evaluation of the cumulative aquatic ecology 

7 impacts presented in PEF’s ER and in PEF’s responses to the NRC staff’s Requests for 

8 Additional Information. 

9 Historically, the construction and operation of CREC Units 1 through 5 have had some impact 

10 on fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico that PEF mitigates by hatchery supplementation. The current 

11 CFBC was constructed starting in 1964, but it was never completed as a cross-Florida canal 

12 and was officially deauthorized in 1991 (Noll and Tegeder 2003). The western portion of the 

13 completed CFBC extends from the Gulf of Mexico to the Inglis Lock at Lake Rousseau and is 

14 typical of a tidal canal with marine and estuarine characteristics. 

15 Cumulative impacts on threatened and endangered aquatic species within the CFBC are likely 

16 due to activities or events that are distinct from the LNP site. Activities related to construction of 

17 the hydropower system on the Inglis Lock bypass channel could affect the downstream 

18 migration of fish from Lake Rousseau to the Withlacoochee River, but would not affect the 

19 CFBC or OWR. The US-19 bridge expansion will not include in-water construction, and impacts 

20 on the CFBC will likely be mitigated through the use of BMPs to control erosion and stormwater 

21 runoff. The Inglis Quarry is located on the north side of the CFBC, and drainage ditches are 

22 separated from the CFBC by a containment berm (SDI 2008). Construction of the barge slip 

23 and boat ramp and the intake structure would be land based and employ best management 

24 practices minimizing impacts to the CFBC. Barge traffic within the CFBC is likely to be limited 

25 LNP module transportation, and should have minimal impact on aquatic resources, as 

26 discussed in EIS Section 4.3.2. Recreational boating in the CFBC and the OWR would likely 

27 increase due to boat ramp. The proposed Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine expansion may 

28 affect groundwater discharge to the lower Withlacoochee River (see EIS Section 7.2.1.2). The 

29 CREC Unit 3 power uprate is not expected to have any construction-related impacts except for 

30 the construction of additional mechanical draft cooling towers on the CREC site that has been 

31 previously disturbed. Any onsite construction-related potential impacts would be mitigated 

32 through the use of BMPs. The contribution of LNP construction-related impacts to impacts 

33 related to other nearby construction activities would be minor. Impacts from the construction of 

34 LNP would be temporary, largely mitigated, and mainly confined to the site. Therefore, the 

35 review team concludes that the overall contribution of construction to cumulative losses of 

36 aquatic organisms in the region would be minor, and mitigation would not be warranted. 

37 For operations, the review team considered the potential cumulative impacts on the Gulf of 

38 Mexico and CFBC related to impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms and also 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-179 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 thermal and chemical releases from both CREC and LNP. Water withdrawn for operation of 

2 proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would require a net intake of 190 cfs (122 Mgd). The source of the 

3 190 cfs, under low flow conditions, would be 50 cfs from leakage of Lake Rousseau water 

4 through the Inglis Lock and freshwater springs emanating in the CFBC in the vicinity of the 

5 intake structure, 70 cfs from the discharge of Lake Rousseau water at the Inglis Dam that would 

6 enter the CFBC via the OWR, and an inflow of 70 cfs that would come from the Gulf of Mexico. 

7 CREC Units 1 through 5 withdraw over 15 times more water from the Gulf of Mexico for 

8 operations than the required 190 cfs for LNP Units 1 and 2. The proposed CREC Unit 3 uprate 

9 would not require additional water-intake volume for CREC Units 1, 2, and 3 

10 (Golder Associates 2008). 

11 The review team considered the potential cumulative impacts of impingement and entrainment 

12 of aquatic organisms related to operation of LNP 1 and 2 and CREC. As discussed in EIS 

13 Section 5.3.2, the proposed closed-cycle cooling system with mechanical draft cooling towers 

14 for proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would not be expected to result in discernable impacts on 

15 populations of aquatic organisms inhabiting the Crystal Bay and Withlacoochee Bay areas of 

16 the Gulf of Mexico. The review team is aware that the possibility exists that CREC Units 1 and 

17 2 (fossil-fuel plants) which contribute significantly to the overall impingement and entrainment of 

18 aquatic organisms at CREC, would be decommissioned once LNP Units 1 and 2 begin 

19 operation. This significant reduction in intake withdrawal volume (greater than 48 percent) at 

20 CREC would reduce the cumulative impact on impingement and entrainment of aquatic 

21 organisms in the Gulf of Mexico, and may result in a net positive impact on local fisheries 

22 (see Table 4-1). Therefore, any cumulative impingement or entrainment impacts would be 

23 considered minor. 

24 The review team also considered the potential cumulative impacts of thermal discharges on 

25 threatened and endangered species. The operation of all five units at CREC with the uprate of 

26 CREC Unit 3 and without the LNP Units 1 and 2 discharge would result in no thermal increase 

27 with the operation of a new south cooling tower to augment the current modular helper cooling 

28 towers (Golder Associates 2008). The review team is aware that the possibility exists that 

29 CREC Units 1 and 2 (fossil-fuel plants), which contribute to the discharge flow, would be 

30 decommissioned once LNP Units 1 and 2 begin operation. The review team conducted a 

31 thermal analysis of two cases involving the discharge from CREC. 

32 The first case evaluated the thermal discharge from all five units at CREC, the power uprate 

33 from CREC Unit 3, and the blowdown from LNP 1 and 2. A second analysis involved CREC 

34 Units 3 through 5, the Unit 3 power uprate, and blowdown from LNP 1 and 2. The thermal 

35 analyses for these two cases are presented in EIS Section 7.2.2.1. The first scenario concludes 

36 that resulting changes in discharges at CREC would be minimal for thermal and chemical 

37 impacts with a slight increase in discharge plume size. The addition of LNP Units 1 and 2 

38 discharge would result in an increased discharge volume of 87.93 Mgd, but with no significant 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-180 August 2010 

1 increase in thermal plume temperature or salinity over current conditions as discussed in EIS 

2 Section 5.3.2.1. 

3 The second scenario, with the absence of CREC Units 1 and 2, would result in a discharge 

4 plume much decreased in size when compared to the first scenario. CREC Units 1 and 2 

5 currently contribute 918 Mgd total discharge to the Gulf of Mexico during summer operations. 

6 This accounts for greater than 45 percent of the total discharge (PEF 2009a). The predicted 

7 thermal plume would decrease during both summer and winter conditions as a result from the 

8 decreased discharge plume. Salinity increases would occur under both summer and winter 

9 conditions due to increased cycles of concentration with CREC Units 1 and 2 non-operational, 

10 but are less than 1.0 psu. The overall impact on aquatic resources is expected to be minimal. 

11 The review team considered the potential cumulative impacts on threatened and endangered 

12 aquatic species from chemical releases, including increases in total dissolved solids in the 

13 combined CREC and LNP discharge. CREC Units 1 through 5 are in compliance with the Clean 

14 Water Act Section 316(a) (thermal discharges) impacts from cooling-water systems. Chemical 

15 releases from the existing unit(s) currently comply with the FDEP NPDES permit requirements 

16 and comply with the Unit 3 uprate, and decommissioning of CREC Units 1 and 2 is expected to 

17 continue and would be monitored in the future. The FDEP would take cumulative chemical 

18 releases from the existing and proposed unit(s), as well as from other industrial sites 

19 discharging to the Gulf of Mexico, into consideration before approving a NPDES permit for the 

20 proposed unit(s). Given the lack of other discharges into the immediate area of the CREC 

21 discharge, it is likely that the cumulative impacts from LNP discharge combined with the 

22 discharge from CREC Units 1 through 5 with and without operation of CREC Units 1 and 2 

23 would be minimal. 

24 The review team also considered the cumulative impacts to Florida manatees due to increased 

25 recreational boating and fishing resulting from the construction of a boat ramp associated with 

26 the LNP barge slip. Increased recreational boating could results in collisions with manatees in 

27 the CFBC and OWR. 

28 Anthropogenic activities, such as residential or industrial development near the vicinity of the 

29 nuclear facility, can present additional constraints on aquatic resources. Future activities may 

30 include shoreline development such as the proposed Port District, for commercial, industrial, 

31 and residential waterfront development along the CFBC to the west of US-19 

32 (Citrus County 2009), increased water needs, and increased discharge of effluents into the Gulf 

33 of Mexico or the CFBC. 

34 In addition to direct anthropogenic activities, physical disturbance and climatic events may 

35 impose external stressors on aquatic communities (GCRP 2009). Aquatic ecosystem 

36 responses to these events are difficult to predict. The level of impact resulting from these 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-181 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 activities or events would depend on the intensity of the perturbation and the recovery of the 

2 different threatened and endangered aquatic species populations. 

3 Cumulative impacts on Federally listed threatened and endangered species are estimated 

4 based on the information provided by PEF and the review team’s independent review. Based 

5 on the above analysis, the review team concludes that cumulative impacts on threatened and 

6 endangered aquatic species related to proposed LNP Units 1 and 2 would be minor. 

7 8.0 Conclusions 

8 The potential impacts to protected species from building and operating the proposed LNP Units 

9 1 and 2 at the LNP site plus the associated offsite facilities and transmission lines on the 

10 species listed in Table 1-1 are listed in Table 8-1. The known distributions and records of these 

11 species, the potential ecological impacts of the construction and operation to the species, their 

12 habitat, and their prey have been considered in making a determination of likely impacts in this 

13 BA. 

14 Table 8-1. Species Potentially Affected by Construction and Operation of Proposed LNP 

15 Units 1 and 2 

Common Name Scientific Name Status Determination 

Mammals 

Florida salt marsh vole Microtis pennsylvanicus dukecampbelli E May affect, not likely 

to adversely affect 

Florida panther Felis concolor E May affect, not likely 

to adversely affect 

Florida manatee Trichechus manatus latirostris E May affect, not likely 

to adversely affect 

Birds 

Florida grasshopper 

sparrow 

Ammodramus savannarum floridanus E No effect 

Audubon’s crested caracara Polyborus plancus audubonii T May affect, not likely 

to adversely affect 

Everglade snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus E May affect, not likely 

to adversely affect 

Piping plover Charadrius melodus T May affect, not likely 

to adversely affect 

Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E May affect, likely to 

adversely affect 

Florida scrub jay Aphelocoma coerulescens T May affect, likely to 

adversely affect 

16 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-182 August 2010 

1 Table 8-1. (contd) 

Common Name Scientific Name Status Determination 

 adversely impact. 

Wood Stork Mycteria Americana E May affect, likely to 

adversely impact 

Reptiles 

American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T No effect 

Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon couperi T May affect, likely to 

adversely affect 

Sand skink Neoseps reynoldsi T May affect, not likely 

to adversely affect 

Fishes 

Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi T May affect, not likely 

to adversely affect 

Plants 

Florida bonamia Bonamia grandiflora T May affect, likely to 

adversely affect 

Brooksville bellflower Campanula robinsiae E May affect, likely to 

adversely affect 

Pygmy fringe tree Chionanthus pygmaeus E May affect, not likely 

to adversely affect 

Florida goldenaster Chrysopsis floridana E May affect, likely to 

adversely affect 

Longspurred mint Dicerandra cornutissima E May affect, likely to 

adversely affect 

Scrub buckwheat Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium T May affect, likely to 

adversely affect 

Cooley’s water-willow Justicia cooleyi E May affect, likely to 

adversely affect 

Britton’s beargrass Nolina brittoniana E May affect, likely to 

adversely affect 

Lewton’s polygala Polygala lewtonii E May affect, likely to 

adversely affect 

Sandlace or Small’s 

jointweed 

Polygonella myriophylla E May affect, likely to 

adversely affect 

Scrub plum Prunus geniculata E May affect, likely to 

adversely affect 

Wideleaf warea Warea amplexifolia E May affect, not likely 

to adversely affect 

Carter’s mustard Warea carteri E May affect, not likely 

to adversely affect 

E= Endangered, T=Threatened
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-183 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 9.0 References 

2 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of 

3 Production and Utilization Facilities." 

4 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental 

5 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions." 

6 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Licenses, 

7 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

8 50 FR 49653. September 30, 1991. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

9 Threatened Status for the Gulf Sturgeon.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce. 

10 U.S. Department of the Interior. 

11 52 FR 21059. June 4, 1987. "Reclassification of American Alligator to Threatened Status Due 

12 to Similarity of Appearance Throughout the Remainder of Its Range." Federal Register. U. S. 

13 Department of the Interior. 

14 66 FR 65256. December 18, 2001. "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: 

15 Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities." Federal Register. 

16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

17 68 FR 13370. March 19, 2003. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation 

18 of Critical Habitat for the Gulf Sturgeon.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of Interior. 

19 72 FR 57416. October 7, 2007. "Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants." 

20 Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

21 Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement related to the 

22 Proposed Crystal River Unit 3. Docket No. 50-302. 

23 Berg, J.J. 2004. “Population Assessment of the Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon in the Yellow River, 

24 Florida.” Graduate Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 

25 Biological Research Associates (BRA). 2010. Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine Estimated 

26 USACE Wetland Impacts Levy County, FL. Accessed February 27, 2010 at 

27 http://www.kingroadeis.com/COEImpacts.pdf. 

28 Birdnature.com. 2009. North American Migration Flyways. Accessed March 9, 2009 at 

29 http://www.birdnature.com/flyways.html. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-184 August 2010 

1 Carr, S.H., F. Tatman, and F.A. Chapman. 1996. “Observations on the Natural History of the 

2 Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus de sotoi Vladykov 1955) in the Suwannee River, 

3 Southeastern United States.” Ecology of Freshwater Fish 1996(5):169-174. 

4 CH2M Hill Nuclear Business Group (CH2M Hill). 2009a. Estimated Salinity Changes in the 

5 Cross Florida Barge Canal and Old Withlacoochee River Channels after Levy Nuclear Plant 

6 Intake Operation. TMEM-079, Rev 1, Denver, Colorado. Accession No. ML091740472. 

7 CH2M Hill Nuclear Business Group (CH2M Hill). 2009b. Aquatic Ecology Sampling Report – 

8 Levy Nuclear Plant. 338884-TMEM-087, Rev 1, Denver, Colorado. Accession No. 

9 ML091260523. 

10 Chapman, F.A. and S.H. Carr. 1995. “Implications of early life stages in the natural history of 

11 the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus de sotoi.” Environmental Biology of Fishes 

12 43(4):407-415. DOI 10.1007/BF00001178.

13 Citrus County. 2009. Commission Sends Port District Category for Review. Board of County 

14 Commissioners press release. Accessed February 9, 2010 at 

15 http://www.citruscountyfl.org/press_release_results.jsp?PRESSKEY=482. 

16 Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control 

17 Act [FWPCA]). 

18 Conservation Outdoors. 2010. Cooley’s Water Willow (Justicia cooleyi). Accessed May 21, 

19 2010 at http://www.conservationoutdoors.org/species/justicia-cooleyi.htm. 

20 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). 16 USC 1531 et seq. 

21 Entrix. 2010. Progress Energy Florida – Levy Nuclear Plant and Associated Transmission 

22 Lines Wetland Mitigation Plan. PA08-51B. April 23, 2010. 

23 Estevez, E.D, and M.A. Marshall. 1993. 1993 Summary Report for: Crystal River 3 Year 

24 NPDES Monitoring Project. Prepared under FPC Contract S01100 for Florida Power 

25 Corporation by Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida. 

26 Estevez, E.D, and M.A. Marshall. 1994. 1994 Summary Report for: Crystal River 3 Year 

27 NPDES Monitoring Project. Prepared under FPC Contract S01100 for Florida Power 

28 Corporation by Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida. 

29 Estevez, E.D, and M.A. Marshall. 1995. 1995 Summary Report for: Crystal River 3 Year 

30 NPDES Monitoring Project. Prepared under FPC Contract S01100 for Florida Power 

31 Corporation by Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-185 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Florida Administrative Code (Fla. Admin. Code 62-17). 2009. Chapter 62-17, “Electrical Power 

2 Plant Siting.” Florida Administrative Code Annotated. 

3 Florida Administrative Code (Fla. Admin. Code 62-302). 2009. Chapter 62-302, “Surface Water 

4 Quality Standards.” Florida Administrative Code Annotated. 

5 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDA&CS). 2009. Goethe State 

6 Forest. Accessed April 24, 2009 at http://www.fl-dof.com/state_forests/goethe.html. 

7 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2005. Inglis Lock Review. Report 

8 No. IA-03-21-2005-128, Office of Greenways and Trails, Tallahassee, Florida. 

9 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010. Levy Nuclear Power Plant 

10 Units 1 & 2, Progress Energy, Florida, PA08-51B, Conditions of Certification, Plant and 

11 Associated Facilities and Transmission Lines. Modified February 23, 2010. Accessed at 

12 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/files/certification/pa08_51_2010_B.pdf. 

13 Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA). 2010. 29 Fla. Stat. 403. 

14 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2002. “Citrus County Manatee 

15 Protection Zones.” 68C – 22.011, F.A.C., November 2002.” Office of Environmental Services, 

16 Bureau of Protected Species Management, Tallahassee, Florida. 

17 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2008. FWC’s Agency Report 

18 and Recommendations for Conditions to be included in the State Certification, Progress Energy 

19 Florida Levy Nuclear Plant Powerline Transmission Corridor, Levy County, Florida. Office of 

20 Policy and Stakeholder Coordination, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML090150548. 

21 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2009a. FWC Records High 

22 Counts During Statewide Manatee Survey. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Press Release, 

23 January 28, 2009. Accessed at http://research.myfwc.com/news/view_article.asp?id=31685. 

24 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2009b. Manatee Mortality 

25 Database Search for Citrus and Levy County Monthly and Yearly Counts. Accessed on April 

26 22, 2009 at http://research.myfwc.com/manatees and 

27 http://research.myfwc.com/manatees/search_summary.asp. 

28 Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 2009. Field Guide to the Rare Plants and Animals of 

29 Florida Online. Accessed various dates at http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/index.cfm. 

30 Golder Associates. 2008. USACE Environmental Resource Permit Application for 

31 Transmission Corridors Associated with the Levy Nuclear Plant. St. Petersburg, Florida. 

32 Accession No. ML102040284. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-186 August 2010 

1 Griffith, G.E. and J.M. Omernik .2008. "Ecoregions of Florida (EPA)." In Encyclopedia of 

2 Earth. eds. C.J. Cleveland. Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science 

3 and the Environment, Washington, D.C. Accessed May 24, 2010 at 

4 http://www.eoearth.org/article/Ecoregions_of_Florida_(EPA). 

5 Huff, J.A. 1975. Life History of Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi, in 

6 Suwannee River, Florida. Number 16, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Marine 

7 Research Laboratory, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

8 Irvine, A.B. 1983. “Manatee metabolism and its influence on distribution in Florida.” Biological 

9 Conservation 25(4):315-334. 

10 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn). 2009. Traffic Study: Levy County Advanced 

11 Reactor Site, Levy County, Florida. Tampa, Florida. Accession No. ML091260548. 

12 Land E.D., D.B. Shindle, R.J. Kawula, J.F. Benson, M.A. Lotz, and D.P. Onorato. 2008. 

13 “Florida Panther Habitat Selection Analysis of Concurrent GPS and VHF Telemetry Data.” 

14 Journal of Wildlife Management 72(3):633–639. 

15 Marshall, M.J. 2002. Seagrass Survey: November 2001 Resurvey at the Florida Power Crystal 

16 River Generating Facility. Prepared for Florida Power – A Progress Energy Company by the 

17 Coastal Seas Consortium, Inc., Bradenton, Florida. Accession No. ML102040256. 

18 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq. 

19 Ning, Z.H., R.E. Turner, T. Doyle, and K. Abdollahi. 2003. Preparing for a Changing Climate: 

20 Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change – Gulf Coast Region. GCRCC and

21 LSU Graphic Services, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

22 Noll, S. and M.D. Tegeder. 2003. From Exploitation to Conservation” A History of the Marjorie 

23 Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

24 Tallahassee, Florida. Available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/cfg/pdf/History_Report.pdf. 

25 Petersen. C. 2010. Personal communication between D.W. Baber, ICF International, and C. 

26 Petersen, Goethe State Forest Wildlife Biologist, dated April 9, 2010. Accession No. 

27 ML101930606. 

28 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2008a. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, Site 

29 Certification Application, Volumes 1 through 9. St. Petersburg, Florida. Including Amendments 

30 and Supplemental Information. Available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/apps.htm#ppn1. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-187 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2008b. Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating 

2 License Renewal Stage Crystal River Unit 3 Progress Energy. Unit 3, Docket No. 50-302, 

3 License No. DPR-72, Revision 1, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

4 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2008c. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Responses to 

5 RAI Comments on Cross Florida Barge Canal Recreational Access Permit. September 2008. 

6 Accession No. ML102030019. 

7 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009a. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 COL 

8 Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. Revision 1,

9 St. Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. ML092860995.

10 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009b. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated June 

11 12, 2009, regarding Supplement 1 to Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding 

12 the Environmental Review. Package Accession No. ML091740487. 

13 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009c. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated July 

14 29, 2009, regarding Response to Supplemental Request for Additional Information Regarding 

15 the Environmental Review – Hydrology 5.3.2.1-2. Accession No. ML092150337. 

16 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009d. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated 

17 March 27, 2009, regarding Response to USACE Request for Additional Information Regarding 

18 the Environmental Review. Accession No. ML091320050. 

19 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009e. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated 

20 September 3, 2009, regarding Supplement 5 to Response to Request for Additional Information 

21 Regarding the Environmental Review. Accession No. ML092570293. 

22 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009f. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated 

23 August 31, 2009, regarding Supplement 4 to Response to Request for Additional Information 

24 Regarding the Environmental Review. Accession No. ML092460206. 

25 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009g. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated June 

26 12, 2009, regarding Supplement 1 to Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding 

27 the Environmental Review. Accession No. ML091740483. 

28 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009h. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated 

29 August 31, 2009, regarding Supplement Information Related to Environmental Review – Future 

30 Native Files and CREC 1993/1994 Annual Salt Drift Report. Accession No. ML092470542. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-188 August 2010 

1 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009i. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated 

2 October 9, 2009, regarding Response to Supplemental Request for Additional Information 

3 Regarding the Environmental Review – Hydrology 4.1.1.-1. Accession No. ML092920466. 

4 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2010. Letter from Robert Kitchen, PEF, to NRC, dated 

5 April 29.2010, regarding Notification of Modification Submitted for LNP SCA. Accession No. 

6 ML101230331. 

7 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, as amended. 33 USC 403. 

8 SDI Environmental Services, Inc. (SDI). 2008. Inglis Quarry Work Plan Study and Groundwater 

9 Modeling. Prepared for Cemex Construction Materials Florida, LLC. SDI Project No. CEF-010. 

10 SDI Environmental Services, Inc., Tampa, Florida. Accessed at 

11 http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/DWRM/MineReclamation/Cemex%20Inglis%20Quarry/Inglis%20

12 Quarry%20Work%20Plan%20Study%20and%20Ground%20Water%20Modeling_Nov08.pdf. 

13 Souza, P. 2007. Letter from Paul Souza, FWS, South Florida Ecological Services Office, to 

14 David S. Hobbie, Corps, dated February 19, 2007, regarding the revised Panther Key. 

15 Accessed at: 

16 http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Divisions/Regulatory/DOCS/endangered/pantherKey_Letter2007

17 FEB19.pdf. 

18 Souza, P. 2008. Letter from Paul Souza, FWS, to Osvaldo Collazo, USACE, dated October 23, 

19 2008, regarding the Manatee Key. Accessed at: 

20 http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Divisions/Regulatory/DOCS/endangered/20081023_ManateeKey

21 _FINAL.pdf. 

22 Souza, P. 2010. Letter from Paul Souza, FWS, to Osvaldo Collazo, USACE, dated January 25, 

23 2010, regarding the Wood Stork Key. Accessed at:. 

24 http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Divisions/Regulatory/DOCS/endangered/20100125_SFL25 ProgrammaticConcurrence-Key.pdf. 

26 Souza, P. and D. L. Hankla. 2010. Letter from Paul Souza, FWS, and David L. Hanka, FWS, to 

27 David S. Hobbie, USACE, dated January 25, 2010 regarding the Indigo Snake Key. Accessed 

28 at: 

29 http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Divisions/Regulatory/DOCS/endangered/20100125_EasternIndig

30 oSnakeProgrammaticEffectDeterminationKey.pdf. 

31 Stabile, J. J.R. Waldman, F. Parauka, and I. Wirgin. 1996. “Stock Structure and Homing 

32 Fidelity in Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) Based on Restriction 

33 Fragment Length Polymorphism and Sequence Analyses of Mitochondrial DNA.” Genetics 

34 Society of America 144:767-775. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-189 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation. 1985. Crystal River 316 Studies, Final Report. 

2 Prepared for Florida Power Corporation. Stoughton, Massachusetts. Accession No. 

3 ML090750823. 

4 Sulak, K.J. and J.P. Clugston. 1998. “Early Life History Stages of Gulf Sturgeon in the 

5 Suwannee River, Florida.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:758-771. 

6 U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1997a. Recovery Plan for the Florida Salt Marsh Vole. 

7 Atlanta, Georgia. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/recovery_plan/970930d.pdf. 

8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1997b. Revised Recovery Plan for the U.S. Breeding 

9 Population of the Wood Stork. Atlanta, Georgia. 

10 U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1999. Multi-Species Recovery Plan for South Florida; 

11 Florida Grasshopper Sparrow. Atlanta, Georgia. Available at 

12 www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdflibrary/fgsp.pdf. 

13 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2001. Critical Habitat for the Piping Plover. Accessed 

14 on May 19, 2010 at http://www.fws.gov/plover/. 

15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2003a. Recovery Plan for the Red-Cockaded 

16 Woodpecker (Picoides borealis). Second Revision, Atlanta, Georgia. Accessible at: 

17 http://www.fws.gov/rcwrecovery/recovery_plan.html. 

18 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2003b. Snail Kite Consultation Area Map Accessed on 

19 July 7, 2010 at 

20 http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdflibrary/Snail_Kite_Consultation_Area.pdf. 

21 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004. Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern 

22 Indigo Snake. Accessed August 5, 2009 at

23 http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/IndigoSnakes/20040212_gd_EIS_Standard_Protection_Measur

24 es.pdf. Accession No. ML101960348. 

25 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005a. Cooley’s Water Willow (Justicia cooleyi). 

26 Accessed on 5/21/10 at http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Species-Accounts/Bellflower27 Waterwillow-2005.htm. 

28 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005b. Florida Bonamia, Bonamia grandiflora. 

29 Accessed on May 25, 2010 at http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Species-Accounts/Fla-Bonamia30 2005.htm. 

31 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007. West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus), 5-

32 Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Jacksonville, Florida and Boqueron, Puerto Rico. 
Appendix F 

Draft NUREG-1941 F-190 August 2010 

1 Available at: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Manatee/2007%205-yr%20Review/2007-Manatee2 5-Year-Review-Final-color-signed.pdf. 

3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008a. West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus. Fact 

4 Sheet, February 2008. Available at http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/factsheets/manatee.pdf. 

5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008b. Florida Panther Recovery Plan (Puma concolor 

6 coryi), Third Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 217pp. Available at: 

7 http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdflibrary/20081022%20Florida%20Panther%20Recover

8 y%20Plan%20-%203rd%20Revision.pdf. 

9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009a. Florida County Index of Listed Species – North 

10 Florida Ecological Services Office. Levy, Citrus, Marion, Sumter, Lake, Hernando, Pinellas, and 

11 Hillsborough Counties. Accessed January 22, 2009 at 

12 http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/gotocty.htm. 

13 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009b. Federally Listed & Candidate Species in Polk 

14 County, Florida – South Florida Ecological Field Office. Accessed January 22, 2009 at 

15 http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdflibrary/Polk%20County2.pdf. 

16 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009c. Florida Wood Stork Colonies Core Foraging

17 Areas. Accessed January 22, 2009 at 

18 http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/Documents/110107-WOST-Nest-Colonies-Forag19 Areas.pdf. 

20 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009d. U.S. Counties In Which the West Indian 

21 Manatee, Is Known to Occur. Accessed April 27, 2009. 

22 http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/countiesBySpecies.action?spcode=A007&entityId=7. 

23 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009e. Species Account for Longspurred Mint

24 (Dicerandra comutissima). Accessed on May 21, 2010 at 

25 http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Species-Accounts/Longspurred-Mint-2005.htm. 

26 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010a. North Florida Federally-Listed Species (and 

27 South Florida). Accessed on various dates at http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Species28 Accounts/North_Florida_Fed_TE_Species_Info.htm. 

29 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010b. Species Profile for the Piping Plover (Charadius 

30 melodus). Accessed on May 27, 2010 at 

31 http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B079. 
Appendix F 

August 2010 F-191 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (FWS and 

2 GSMFC). 1995. Gulf Sturgeon Recovery/Management Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. Available at: 

3 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/sturgeon_gulf.pdf. 

4 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009. Manatee Facts. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. 

5 Geological Survey. Available at http://fl.biology.usgs.gov/manateefactsheet.pdf. 

6 U. S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

7 United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds. Cambridge University Press, New 

8 York. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us9 impacts. 

10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

11 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

12 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Letter from NRC, to Mr. Jay Harrington, 

13 FWS Jacksonville Field Office, dated November 5, 2008, regarding Request for Participation in 

14 the Environmental Scoping Process and a List of Protected Species Within the Area Under 

15 Evaluation for the Levy Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. Accession No. ML082750418. 

16 Wakeford, A. 2001. State of Florida Conservation Plan for Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser 

17 oxyrinchus desotoi). Technical Report TR-8, Florida Marine Research Institute, Florida Fish and 

18 Wildlife Conservation Commission, St. Petersburg, Florida. Available at: 

19 http://aquacomm.fcla.edu/119/. 

20 Wooley, C.M. and E.J. Crateau. 1985. “Movement, Microhabitat, Exploitation, and 

21 Management of Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon, Apalachicola River, Florida.” American Fisheries 

22 Society (Online Journals) 5(4):590-605. 

Appendix G 

Supporting Socioeconomic Documentation 

August 2010 G-1 Draft NUREG-1941 

Appendix G 

Supporting Socioeconomic Documentation 

1 Transient population numbers and projections in Table G-1 and Table G-2, which apply to a 

2 10-mi radius around the proposed site include people who work for major employers (more than 

3 100 employees) within 10 mi of the proposed LNP site; migrant workers; guests in hotels, 

4 motels, or bed-and-breakfast establishments; people who have seasonal residences; visitors to 

5 recreation areas; and “special populations” – residents of schools, in-patients at hospitals and 

6 nursing homes, and inmates in correctional facilities. Transient population numbers in 

7 Table G-3 and Table G-4, which apply to the population between 10 and 50 mi around the 

8 proposed site, do not include workers for major employers because the region is presumed 

9 large enough so the number of people who commute in is balanced by those who commute out, 

10 nor “special populations” because it is presumed that the U.S. Census Bureau tabulates long11 term residents of these facilities, while short-term residents generally live within the 50-mi 

12 region. 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1941 G-2 August 2010 

1 Table G-1. Population Distribution Among Sectors Within 10 mi of the LNP Site for the Year 

2 2000 

km 

mi 

0-1.6 

0-1 

1.6-3.2

1-2 

3.2-4.8

2-3 

4.8-6.4

3-4 

6.4-8.1

4-5 

8.1-16.1 

5-10 

Total for 

Sector 

North-residential 0 5 35 67 18 11 136 

North-transient 3 12 11 16 20 168 230 

North-northeast-residential 0 4 14 14 8 270 310 

North-northeast-transient 3 7 11 16 20 168 225 

Northeast-residential 1 1 6 10 5 806 829 

Northeast-transient 3 7 11 16 20 137 194 

East-northeast-residential 1 0 0 0 4 1066 1071 

East-northeast-transient 3 7 11 16 20 126 183 

East-residential 1 2 2 0 11 2300 2316 

East-transient 3 7 11 16 20 1234 1291 

East-southeast-residential 2 7 11 45 90 2725 2880 

East-southeast-transient 3 7 11 16 22 281 340 

Southeast-residential 2 7 31 322 294 1582 2238 

Southeast-transient 3 7 11 16 40 1187 1264 

South-southeast-residential 2 7 27 48 277 2474 2835 

South-southeast-transient 3 7 11 22 36 309 388 

South-residential 2 7 13 16 44 1455 1537 

South-transient 3 7 11 16 34 1004 1075 

South-southwest-residential 2 5 49 419 33 102 610 

South-southwest-transient 3 7 11 18 37 305 381 

Southwest-residential 2 8 55 499 599 210 1373 

Southwest-transient 3 7 11 16 30 1009 1076 

West-southwest-residential 2 11 26 142 239 736 1156 

West-southwest-transient 3 7 11 16 20 479 536 

West-residential 1 5 3 7 22 8 46 

West-transient 3 7 11 16 20 421 478 

West-northwest-residential 0 2 4 4 1 6 17 

West-northwest-transient 3 7 11 16 20 168 225 

Northwest-residential 0 2 4 5 5 3 19 

Northwest-transient 3 7 11 16 20 168 225 

North-northwest-residential 0 2 22 18 35 7 84 

North-northwest-transient 3 7 11 16 20 168 225 

Residential total 18 75 302 1616 1685 13,761 17,457 

Cumulative total 

(residential plus transient) 

66 192 478 1880 2084 21,093 25,793 

Source: PEF 2009 

To account for the difference in distance between each LNP unit and the LNP centerpoint, 0.16 km (0.1 mi) was 

added to each radial distance to conservatively adjust the population data. The totals are subject to rounding 

differences. 

3 
Appendix G 

August 2010 G-3 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table G-2. Population Distribution Among Sectors Within 10 mi of the LNP Site Projected 

2 Through 2080

0- 

1.6 km 

(0-1 mi) 

1.6- 

3.2 km 

(1-2 mi) 

3.2- 

4.8 km 

(2-3 mi) 

4.8- 

6.4 km 

(3-4 mi) 

6.4- 

8.1 km 

(4-5 mi) 

8.1- 

16.1 km 

(5-10 mi) 

Total 

for 

Sector 

North-Residential 

2005 Population 0 5 39 73 20 11 148 

2010 Population 0 6 43 82 22 14 167 

2015 Population 0 6 47 90 24 14 181 

2020 Population 0 7 51 97 26 17 198 

2030 Population 0 8 58 111 29 20 226 

2040 Population 0 9 69 130 34 23 265 

2050 Population 0 10 82 153 40 26 311 

2060 Population 0 12 97 181 47 30 367 

2070 Population 0 14 115 214 56 36 435 

2080 Population 0 16 136 252 66 42 512 

North-Transient 

2005 Population 3 13 12 18 22 185 253 

2010 Population 4 15 14 20 25 207 285 

2015 Population 4 16 15 22 27 226 310 

2020 Population 5 18 17 24 30 245 339 

2030 Population 6 20 19 27 34 277 383 

2040 Population 7 24 22 32 40 328 453 

2050 Population 8 28 26 38 47 388 535 

2060 Population 9 33 31 45 56 459 633 

2070 Population 11 39 37 53 66 543 749 

2080 Population 13 46 44 63 78 642 886 

North-Northeast-Residential 

2005 Population 0 4 15 15 9 297 340 

2010 Population 0 5 17 17 9 327 375 

2015 Population 0 5 18 18 10 356 407 

2020 Population 0 6 20 20 10 384 440 

2030 Population 0 7 22 22 11 434 496 

2040 Population 0 8 26 26 13 511 584 

2050 Population 0 9 30 31 15 600 685 

2060 Population 0 11 35 36 17 706 805 

2070 Population 0 13 41 42 20 832 948 

2080 Population 0 15 48 49 23 979 1114 

North-Northeast-Transient 

2005 Population 3 8 12 18 22 192 255 

2010 Population 4 9 14 20 25 217 289 

2015 Population 4 10 15 22 27 240 318 

2020 Population 5 11 17 24 30 263 350 

2030 Population 6 12 19 27 34 301 399 

2040 Population 7 14 22 32 40 366 481 

2050 Population 8 17 26 38 47 445 581 

3 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1941 G-4 August 2010 

1 

Table G-2. (contd) 

0- 

1.6 km 

(0-1 mi) 

1.6- 

3.2 km 

(1-2 mi) 

3.2- 

4.8 km 

(2-3 mi) 

4.8- 

6.4 km 

(3-4 mi) 

6.4- 

8.1 km 

(4-5 mi) 

8.1- 

16.1 km 

(5-10 mi) 

Total 

for 

Sector 

2060 Population 9 20 31 45 56 541 702 

2070 Population 11 24 37 53 66 658 849 

2080 Population 13 28 44 63 78 800 1026 

Northeast-Residential 

2005 Population 1 1 7 11 6 939 965 

2010 Population 1 1 7 12 6 1060 1087 

2015 Population 1 1 8 13 7 1168 1198 

2020 Population 1 1 8 14 7 1304 1335 

2030 Population 1 1 9 16 8 1515 1550 

2040 Population 1 1 11 19 9 1859 1900 

2050 Population 1 1 13 22 11 2292 2340 

2060 Population 1 1 15 26 13 2842 2898 

2070 Population 1 1 18 31 15 3513 3579 

2080 Population 1 1 21 37 18 4345 4423 

Northeast-Transient 

2005 Population 3 8 12 18 22 156 219 

2010 Population 4 9 14 20 25 177 249 

2015 Population 4 10 15 22 27 196 274 

2020 Population 5 11 17 24 30 214 301 

2030 Population 6 12 19 27 34 245 343 

2040 Population 7 14 22 32 40 298 413 

2050 Population 8 17 26 38 47 362 498 

2060 Population 9 20 31 45 56 440 601 

2070 Population 11 24 37 53 66 535 726 

2080 Population 13 28 44 63 78 650 876 

East-Northeast-Residential 

2005 Population 1 0 0 0 4 1255 1260 

2010 Population 1 0 0 0 5 1443 1449 

2015 Population 1 0 0 0 5 1609 1615 

2020 Population 1 0 0 0 6 1786 1793 

2030 Population 1 0 0 0 7 2071 2079 

2040 Population 1 0 0 0 8 2576 2585 

2050 Population 1 0 0 0 9 3207 3217 

2060 Population 1 0 0 0 11 4006 4018 

2070 Population 1 0 0 0 13 4999 5013 

2080 Population 1 0 0 0 15 6235 6251 

East-Northeast-Transient 

2005 Population 3 8 12 18 22 144 207 

2010 Population 4 9 14 20 25 163 235 

2015 Population 4 10 15 22 27 180 258 

2020 Population 5 11 17 24 30 197 284 

2030 Population 6 12 19 27 34 225 323 

2040 Population 7 14 22 32 40 274 389 
Appendix G 

August 2010 G-5 Draft NUREG-1941 

Table G-2. (contd) 

0- 

1.6 km 

(0-1 mi) 

1.6- 

3.2 km 

(1-2 mi) 

3.2- 

4.8 km 

(2-3 mi) 

4.8- 

6.4 km 

(3-4 mi) 

6.4- 

8.1 km 

(4-5 mi) 

8.1- 

16.1 km 

(5-10 mi) 

Total 

for 

Sector 

2050 Population 8 17 26 38 47 333 469 

2060 Population 9 20 31 45 56 405 566 

2070 Population 11 24 37 53 66 492 683 

2080 Population 13 28 44 63 78 598 824 

East-Residential 

2005 Population 1 2 2 0 12 2706 2723 

2010 Population 1 2 2 0 13 3111 3129 

2015 Population 1 2 2 0 14 3472 3491 

2020 Population 1 2 2 0 15 3845 3865 

2030 Population 1 2 2 0 17 4446 4468 

2040 Population 1 2 2 0 20 5537 5562 

2050 Population 1 2 2 0 23 6909 6937 

2060 Population 1 2 2 0 27 8617 8649 

2070 Population 1 2 2 0 32 10,749 10,786 

2080 Population 1 2 2 0 38 13,411 13,454 

East-Transient 

2005 Population 3 8 12 18 22 1400 1463 

2010 Population 4 9 14 20 25 1577 1649 

2015 Population 4 10 15 22 27 1734 1812 

2020 Population 5 11 17 24 30 1891 1978 

2030 Population 6 12 19 27 34 2151 2249 

2040 Population 7 14 22 32 40 2592 2707 

2050 Population 8 17 26 38 47 3123 3259 

2060 Population 9 20 31 45 56 3763 3924 

2070 Population 11 24 37 53 66 4534 4725 

2080 Population 13 28 44 63 78 5463 5689 

East-Southeast-Residential 

2005 Population 2 8 12 50 99 3045 3216 

2010 Population 2 9 14 55 111 3396 3587 

2015 Population 2 10 15 60 121 3692 3900 

2020 Population 2 11 17 65 132 4005 4232 

2030 Population 2 12 19 73 150 4505 4761 

2040 Population 2 14 22 86 177 5324 5625 

2050 Population 2 17 26 102 209 6302 6658 

2060 Population 2 20 31 120 246 7466 7885 

2070 Population 2 24 37 143 291 8870 9367 

2080 Population 2 28 44 168 344 10,514 11,100 

East-Southeast-Transient 

2005 Population 3 8 12 18 24 319 384 

2010 Population 4 9 14 20 27 359 433 

2015 Population 4 10 15 22 29 395 475 

2020 Population 5 11 17 24 32 430 519 

2030 Population 6 12 19 27 36 489 589 

2040 Population 7 14 22 32 43 589 707 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1941 G-6 August 2010 

Table G-2. (contd) 

0- 

1.6 km 

(0-1 mi) 

1.6- 

3.2 km 

(1-2 mi) 

3.2- 

4.8 km 

(2-3 mi) 

4.8- 

6.4 km 

(3-4 mi) 

6.4- 

8.1 km 

(4-5 mi) 

8.1- 

16.1 km 

(5-10 mi) 

Total 

for 

Sector 

2050 Population 8 17 26 38 51 710 850 

2060 Population 9 20 31 45 60 855 1020 

2070 Population 11 24 37 53 71 1030 1226 

2080 Population 13 28 44 63 84 1241 1473 

Southeast-Residential 

2005 Population 2 8 34 356 331 1759 2490 

2010 Population 2 9 38 395 367 1964 2775 

2015 Population 2 10 41 432 399 2126 3010 

2020 Population 2 11 45 468 431 2315 3272 

2030 Population 2 12 52 529 484 2604 3683 

2040 Population 2 14 61 622 573 3062 4334 

2050 Population 2 17 71 734 678 3609 5111 

2060 Population 2 20 84 867 802 4260 6035 

2070 Population 2 24 99 1023 949 5039 7136 

2080 Population 2 28 117 1208 1123 5944 8422 

Southeast-Transient 

2005 Population 3 8 12 18 45 1333 1419 

2010 Population 4 9 14 20 50 1482 1579 

2015 Population 4 10 15 22 55 1613 1719 

2020 Population 5 11 17 24 59 1745 1861 

2030 Population 6 12 19 27 67 1961 2092 

2040 Population 7 14 22 32 79 2320 2474 

2050 Population 8 17 26 38 93 2745 2927 

2060 Population 9 20 31 45 110 3248 3463 

2070 Population 11 24 37 53 130 3843 4098 

2080 Population 13 28 44 63 154 4547 4849 

Southeast-Residential 

2005 Population 2 8 30 53 311 2766 3170 

2010 Population 2 9 32 59 345 3082 3529 

2015 Population 2 10 35 64 376 3352 3839 

2020 Population 2 11 37 69 406 3628 4153 

2030 Population 2 12 42 77 455 4078 4666 

2040 Population 2 14 50 90 538 4815 5509 

2050 Population 2 17 58 106 638 5691 6512 

2060 Population 2 20 68 125 755 6728 7698 

2070 Population 2 24 81 147 893 7964 9111 

2080 Population 2 28 95 173 1056 9411 10,765 

South-Southeast-Transient 

2005 Population 3 8 12 24 40 347 434 

2010 Population 4 9 14 27 45 386 485 

2015 Population 4 10 15 29 49 420 527 

2020 Population 5 11 17 32 53 454 572 

2030 Population 6 12 19 36 60 510 643 

2040 Population 7 14 22 43 71 603 760 
Appendix G 

August 2010 G-7 Draft NUREG-1941 

Table G-2. (contd) 

0- 

1.6 km 

(0-1 mi) 

1.6- 

3.2 km 

(1-2 mi) 

3.2- 

4.8 km 

(2-3 mi) 

4.8- 

6.4 km 

(3-4 mi) 

6.4- 

8.1 km 

(4-5 mi) 

8.1- 

16.1 km 

(5-10 mi) 

Total 

for 

Sector 

2050 Population 8 17 26 51 84 713 899 

2060 Population 9 20 31 60 99 844 1063 

2070 Population 11 24 37 71 117 999 1259 

2080 Population 13 28 44 84 138 1182 1489 

South-Residential 

2005 Population 2 8 14 17 49 1627 1717 

2010 Population 2 9 16 19 53 1807 1906 

2015 Population 2 10 17 20 57 1966 2072 

2020 Population 2 11 19 22 62 2126 2242 

2030 Population 2 12 22 25 69 2388 2518 

2040 Population 2 14 26 29 81 2817 2969 

2050 Population 2 17 30 33 95 3327 3504 

2060 Population 2 20 35 39 110 3928 4134 

2070 Population 2 24 42 46 129 4648 4891 

2080 Population 2 28 50 53 152 5492 5777 

South-Transient 

2005 Population 3 8 12 18 38 1128 1207 

2010 Population 4 9 14 20 42 1254 1343 

2015 Population 4 10 15 22 46 1365 1462 

2020 Population 5 11 17 24 50 1476 1583 

2030 Population 6 12 19 27 56 1658 1778 

2040 Population 7 14 22 32 66 1962 2103 

2050 Population 8 17 26 38 78 2321 2488 

2060 Population 9 20 31 45 92 2746 2943 

2070 Population 11 24 37 53 109 3249 3483 

2080 Population 13 28 44 63 129 3844 4121 

South-Southwest-Residential 

2005 Population 2 6 53 460 36 112 669 

2010 Population 2 6 61 515 39 124 747 

2015 Population 2 7 66 561 42 134 812 

2020 Population 2 7 73 610 45 145 882 

2030 Population 2 8 83 690 50 164 997 

2040 Population 2 9 98 816 57 192 1174 

2050 Population 2 11 115 965 66 224 1383 

2060 Population 2 13 135 1138 77 261 1626 

2070 Population 2 15 160 1345 90 310 1922 

2080 Population 2 18 189 1587 105 362 2263 

South-Southwest-Transient 

2005 Population 3 8 12 20 41 343 427 

2010 Population 4 9 14 22 46 381 476 

2015 Population 4 10 15 24 50 415 518 

2020 Population 5 11 17 26 54 449 562 

2030 Population 6 12 19 29 61 505 632 

2040 Population 7 14 22 34 72 597 746 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1941 G-8 August 2010 

Table G-2. (contd) 

0- 

1.6 km 

(0-1 mi) 

1.6- 

3.2 km 

(1-2 mi) 

3.2- 

4.8 km 

(2-3 mi) 

4.8- 

6.4 km 

(3-4 mi) 

6.4- 

8.1 km 

(4-5 mi) 

8.1- 

16.1 km 

(5-10 mi) 

Total 

for 

Sector 

2050 Population 8 17 26 40 85 706 882 

2060 Population 9 20 31 47 101 835 1043 

2070 Population 11 24 37 56 119 988 1235 

2080 Population 13 28 44 66 141 1169 1461 

Southwest-Residential 

2005 Population 2 9 60 551 661 236 1519 

2010 Population 2 10 67 615 737 263 1694 

2015 Population 2 11 72 670 803 287 1845 

2020 Population 2 12 79 731 869 309 2002 

2030 Population 2 14 89 826 983 347 2261 

2040 Population 2 17 105 973 1160 410 2667 

2050 Population 2 20 123 1148 1368 484 3145 

2060 Population 2 24 145 1359 1614 573 3717 

2070 Population 2 28 170 1605 1906 679 4390 

2080 Population 2 33 199 1895 2251 803 5183 

Southwest-Transient 

2005 Population 3 8 12 18 33 1133 1207 

2010 Population 4 9 14 20 37 1260 1344 

2015 Population 4 10 15 22 40 1372 1463 

2020 Population 5 11 17 24 44 1483 1584 

2030 Population 6 12 19 27 50 1666 1780 

2040 Population 7 14 22 32 59 1971 2105 

2050 Population 8 17 26 38 70 2332 2491 

2060 Population 9 20 31 45 83 2759 2947 

2070 Population 11 24 37 53 98 3264 3487 

2080 Population 13 28 44 63 116 3862 4126 

West-Southwest-Residential 

2005 Population 2 13 29 155 264 811 1274 

2010 Population 2 13 32 174 296 907 1424 

2015 Population 2 15 35 189 323 986 1550 

2020 Population 2 15 38 206 353 1074 1688 

2030 Population 2 17 43 233 401 1211 1907 

2040 Population 2 20 51 275 473 1428 2249 

2050 Population 2 24 60 325 557 1686 2654 

2060 Population 2 28 71 382 660 1991 3134 

2070 Population 2 33 84 451 780 2355 3705 

2080 Population 2 39 99 532 918 2780 4370 

West-Southwest-Transient 

2005 Population 3 8 12 18 22 533 596 

2010 Population 4 9 14 20 25 594 666 

2015 Population 4 10 15 22 27 648 726 

2020 Population 5 11 17 24 30 702 789 

2030 Population 6 12 19 27 34 791 889 

2040 Population 7 14 22 32 40 936 1051 
Appendix G 

August 2010 G-9 Draft NUREG-1941 

Table G-2. (contd) 

0- 

1.6 km 

(0-1 mi) 

1.6- 

3.2 km 

(1-2 mi) 

3.2- 

4.8 km 

(2-3 mi) 

4.8- 

6.4 km 

(3-4 mi) 

6.4- 

8.1 km 

(4-5 mi) 

8.1- 

16.1 km 

(5-10 mi) 

Total 

for 

Sector 

2050 Population 8 17 26 38 47 1107 1243 

2060 Population 9 20 31 45 56 1309 1470 

2070 Population 11 24 37 53 66 1548 1739 

2080 Population 13 28 44 63 78 1831 2057 

West-Residential 

2005 Population 1 5 3 7 25 9 50 

2010 Population 1 6 3 8 27 9 54 

2015 Population 1 6 3 8 30 10 58 

2020 Population 1 7 3 9 32 10 62 

2030 Population 1 8 3 10 36 11 69 

2040 Population 1 9 3 11 41 12 77 

2050 Population 1 10 3 12 49 14 89 

2060 Population 1 12 3 13 57 16 102 

2070 Population 1 14 3 15 67 18 118 

2080 Population 1 16 3 17 79 21 137 

West-Transient 

2005 Population 3 8 12 18 22 464 527 

2010 Population 4 9 14 20 25 518 590 

2015 Population 4 10 15 22 27 566 644 

2020 Population 5 11 17 24 30 614 701 

2030 Population 6 12 19 27 34 694 792 

2040 Population 7 14 22 32 40 821 936 

2050 Population 8 17 26 38 47 971 1107 

2060 Population 9 20 31 45 56 1148 1309 

2070 Population 11 24 37 53 66 1358 1549 

2080 Population 13 28 44 63 78 1606 1832 

West-Northwest-Residential 

2005 Population 0 2 4 4 1 7 18 

2010 Population 0 2 5 4 1 7 19 

2015 Population 0 2 5 4 1 8 20 

2020 Population 0 2 6 4 1 8 21 

2030 Population 0 2 7 4 1 9 23 

2040 Population 0 2 8 4 1 11 26 

2050 Population 0 2 9 4 1 13 29 

2060 Population 0 2 11 4 1 15 33 

2070 Population 0 2 13 4 1 18 38 

2080 Population 0 2 15 4 1 21 43 

West-Northwest-Transient 

2005 Population 3 8 12 18 22 185 248 

2010 Population 4 9 14 20 25 207 279 

2015 Population 4 10 15 22 27 226 304 

2020 Population 5 11 17 24 30 245 332 

2030 Population 6 12 19 27 34 277 375 

2040 Population 7 14 22 32 40 328 443 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1941 G-10 August 2010 

Table G-2. (contd) 

0- 

1.6 km 

(0-1 mi) 

1.6- 

3.2 km 

(1-2 mi) 

3.2- 

4.8 km 

(2-3 mi) 

4.8- 

6.4 km 

(3-4 mi) 

6.4- 

8.1 km 

(4-5 mi) 

8.1- 

16.1 km 

(5-10 mi) 

Total 

for 

Sector 

2050 Population 8 17 26 38 47 388 524 

2060 Population 9 20 31 45 56 459 620 

2070 Population 11 24 37 53 66 543 734 

2080 Population 13 28 44 63 78 642 868 

Northwest-Residential 

2005 Population 0 2 4 6 6 3 21 

2010 Population 0 2 5 6 6 3 22 

2015 Population 0 2 5 7 7 3 24 

2020 Population 0 2 6 7 7 3 25 

2030 Population 0 2 7 8 8 3 28 

2040 Population 0 2 8 9 9 3 31 

2050 Population 0 2 9 11 11 3 36 

2060 Population 0 2 10 13 13 3 41 

2070 Population 0 2 12 15 15 3 47 

2080 Population 0 2 14 18 18 3 55 

Northwest-Transient 

2005 Population 3 8 12 18 22 185 248 

2010 Population 4 9 14 20 25 207 279 

2015 Population 4 10 15 22 27 226 304 

2020 Population 5 11 17 24 30 245 332 

2030 Population 6 12 19 27 34 277 375 

2040 Population 7 14 22 32 40 328 443 

2050 Population 8 17 26 38 47 388 524 

2060 Population 9 20 31 45 56 459 620 

2070 Population 11 24 37 53 66 543 734 

2080 Population 13 28 44 63 78 642 868 

North-Northwest-Residential 

2005 Population 0 2 24 20 39 8 93 

2010 Population 0 2 27 22 43 8 102 

2015 Population 0 2 29 24 47 9 111 

2020 Population 0 2 32 26 51 9 120 

2030 Population 0 2 36 30 58 10 136 

2040 Population 0 2 42 35 69 11 159 

2050 Population 0 2 49 41 81 13 186 

2060 Population 0 2 58 49 96 15 220 

2070 Population 0 2 68 58 113 17 258 

2080 Population 0 2 80 68 133 20 303 

North-Northwest-Transient 

2005 Population 3 8 12 18 22 185 248 

2010 Population 4 9 14 20 25 207 279 

2015 Population 4 10 15 22 27 226 304 

2020 Population 5 11 17 24 30 245 332 

2030 Population 6 12 19 27 34 277 375 

2040 Population 7 14 22 32 40 328 443 
Appendix G 

August 2010 G-11 Draft NUREG-1941 

Table G-2. (contd) 

0- 

1.6 km 

(0-1 mi) 

1.6- 

3.2 km 

(1-2 mi) 

3.2- 

4.8 km 

(2-3 mi) 

4.8- 

6.4 km 

(3-4 mi) 

6.4- 

8.1 km 

(4-5 mi) 

8.1- 

16.1 km 

(5-10 mi) 

Total 

for 

Sector 

2050 Population 8 17 26 38 47 388 524 

2060 Population 9 20 31 45 56 459 620 

2070 Population 11 24 37 53 66 543 734 

2080 Population 13 28 44 63 78 642 868 

2005 Population 

Residential Total 18 63 330 1778 1873 15,591 19,673 

Cumulative Total 

(Residential plus 

transient) 

66 216 522 2074 2314 23,823 29,015 

2010 Population 

Residential Total 18 91 369 1983 2080 17,525 22,066 

Cumulative Total 

(Residential plus 

transient) 

82 241 593 2312 2577 26,721 32,526 

2015 Population 

Residential Total 18 99 398 2160 2266 19,192 24,133 

Cumulative Total 

(Residential plus 

transient) 

82 273 676 2702 2993 30,756 37,482 

2020 Population 

Residential Total 18 107 436 2348 2453 20,968 26,330 

Cumulative Total 

(Residential plus 

transient) 

98 290 708 2742 3045 31,866 38,749 

2030 Population 

Residential Total 18 119 494 2654 2767 23,816 29,868 

Cumulative Total 

(Residential plus 

transient) 

114 319 798 3097 3437 36,120 43,885 

2040 Population 

Residential Total 18 137 582 3125 3263 28,591 35,716 

Cumulative Total 

(Residential plus 

transient) 

130 371 934 3650 4053 43,232 52,370 

2050 Population 

Residential Total 18 161 680 3687 3851 34,400 42,797 

Cumulative Total 

(Residential plus 

transient) 

146 444 1096 4310 4782 51,820 62,598 

2060 Population 

Residential Total 18 189 800 4352 4546 41,457 51,362 

Cumulative Total 

(Residential plus 

transient) 

162 522 1296 5089 5651 62,186 74,906 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1941 G-12 August 2010 

Table G-2. (contd) 

0- 

1.6 km 

(0-1 mi) 

1.6- 

3.2 km 

(1-2 mi) 

3.2- 

4.8 km 

(2-3 mi) 

4.8- 

6.4 km 

(3-4 mi) 

6.4- 

8.1 km 

(4-5 mi) 

8.1- 

16.1 km 

(5-10 mi) 

Total 

for 

Sector 

2070 Population 

Residential Total 18 222 945 5139 5370 50,050 61,744 

Cumulative Total 

(Residential plus 

transient) 

194 621 1537 6008 6674 74,720 89,754 

2080 Population 

Residential Total 18 258 1112 6061 6340 60,383 74,172 

Cumulative Total 

(Residential plus 

transient) 

226 724 1816 7093 7882 89,744 107,485 

Source: PEF 2009 

To account for the difference in distance between each LNP unit and the LNP centerpoint, 0.16 km (0.1 mi) was 

added to each radial distance to conservatively adjust the population data. The totals are subject to rounding 

differences.

1 
Appendix G 

August 2010 G-13 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table G-3. Population Distribution Among Sectors Between 10 and 50 mi of the LNP Site for 

2 the Year 2000

16-32 km 

(10-20 mi) 

32-48 km 

(20-30 mi) 

48-64 km 

(30-40 mi) 

64-80 km 

(40-50 mi) 

Total for 

Sector 

North-residential 637 5551 8364 11,512 26,064 

North-transient 141 267 303 845 1556 

North-northeast-residential 2646 77541 21,826 156,599 188,825 

North-northeast-transient 146 323 3560 3251 7280 

Northeast-residential 2242 3503 11,136 6797 23,678 

Northeast-transient 306 748 986 706 2746 

East-northeast-residential 7762 32,043 58,111 6919 104,835 

East-northeast-transient 473 1716 3219 1384 6792 

East-residential 5920 34,574 65,253 17,122 122,869 

East-transient 2383 771 1242 1451 5847 

East-southeast-residential 6607 5148 22,170 60,649 94,574 

East-southeast-transient 975 1239 1701 4065 7980 

Southeast-residential 24,287 28,151 11,061 17,376 80,875 

Southeast-transient 1333 3370 2159 3959 10,821 

South-southeast-residential 17,636 11,629 25,828 18,790 73,883 

South-southeast-transient 3082 1978 2650 5179 12,889 

South-residential 10,602 4087 31,161 90,824 136,674 

South-transient 8684 1567 1708 1174 13,133 

South-southwest-residential 199 0 0 0 199 

South-southwest-transient 330 27 0 0 357 

Southwest-residential 0 0 0 0 0 

Southwest-transient 3 0 0 0 3 

West-southwest-residential 0 0 0 0 0 

West-southwest-transient 0 0 0 0 0 

West-residential 0 510 0 0 510 

West-transient 7 233 0 0 240 

West-northwest-residential 2 1093 476 238 1809 

West-northwest-transient 74 1453 380 101 2008 

Northwest-residential 62 726 1202 5258 7248 

Northwest-transient 141 234 4152 3168 7695 

North-northwest-residential 453 907 11,875 8811 22,046 

North-northwest-transient 141 234 1841 1394 3610 

Residential total 79,055 135,676 268,463 400,895 884,089 

Cumulative total 

(residential plus transient) 

97,274 149,836 292,364 427,572 967,046 

Source: PEF 2009 

To account for the difference in distance between each LNP unit and the LNP centerpoint, 0.16 km (0.1 mi.) was added 

to each radial distance to conservatively adjust the population data. The totals are subject to rounding differences. 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1941 G-14 August 2010 

1 Table G-4. Population Distribution Among Sectors Between 10 and 50 mi of the LNP Site 

2 Projected Through 2080 

16-32 km 

(10-20 mi) 

32-48 km 

(20-30 mi) 

48-64 km 

(30-40 mi) 

64-80 km 

(40-50 mi) 

Total for 

Sector 

North-Residential 

2005 Population 696 6109 9260 12,757 28,822 

2010 Population 778 6805 10,173 13,966 31,722 

2015 Population 844 7414 10,945 15,017 34,220 

2020 Population 918 8049 11,758 16,050 36,775 

2030 Population 1038 9096 13,018 17,691 40,843 

2040 Population 1219 10,713 15,105 20,465 47,502 

2050 Population 1430 12,620 17,534 23,699 55,283 

2060 Population 1685 14,873 20,402 27,469 64,429 

2070 Population 1989 17,558 23,755 31,863 75,165 

2080 Population 2343 20,697 27,702 37,001 87,743 

North-Transient 

2005 Population 155 295 336 941 1727 

2010 Population 174 324 375 1049 1922 

2015 Population 190 350 409 1142 2091 

2020 Population 206 375 443 1235 2259 

2030 Population 233 416 498 1386 2533 

2040 Population 276 483 588 1636 2983 

2050 Population 326 561 695 1931 3513 

2060 Population 385 651 821 2280 4137 

2070 Population 455 756 970 2691 4872 

2080 Population 538 877 1146 3177 5738 

North-Northeast-Residential 

2005 Population 2907 8580 24,118 172,975 208,580 

2010 Population 3251 9586 26,129 187,350 226,316 

2015 Population 3530 10,474 27,859 199,699 241,562 

2020 Population 3850 11,387 29,588 212,061 256,886 

2030 Population 4355 12,883 32,213 230,725 280,176 

2040 Population 5133 15,253 36,690 262,668 319,744 

2050 Population 6042 18,080 41,795 299,001 364,918 

2060 Population 7123 21,425 47,622 340,460 416,630 

2070 Population 8425 25,413 54,270 387,657 475,765 

2080 Population 9936 30,128 61,850 441,450 543,364 

3 
Appendix G 

August 2010 G-15 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

Table G-4. (contd) 

16-32 km 

(10-20 mi) 

32-48 km 

(20-30 mi) 

48-64 km 

(30-40 mi) 

64-80 km 

(40-50 mi) 

Total for 

Sector 

North-Northeast-Transient 

2005 Population 166 364 4017 3591 8138 

2010 Population 189 407 4489 3889 8974 

2015 Population 209 444 4901 4145 9699 

2020 Population 229 482 5314 4402 10,427 

2030 Population 262 542 5981 4789 11,574 

2040 Population 319 645 7118 5453 13,535 

2050 Population 388 768 8471 6209 15,836 

2060 Population 472 914 10,081 7070 18,537 

2070 Population 574 1088 11,997 8051 21,710 

2080 Population 698 1295 14,277 9168 25,438 

Northeast-Residential 

2005 Population 2532 4119 13,003 7531 27,185 

2010 Population 2859 4740 14,828 8225 30,652 

2015 Population 3144 5291 16,445 8821 33,701 

2020 Population 3444 5847 18,120 9438 36,849 

2030 Population 3937 6766 20,829 10,392 41,924 

2040 Population 4756 8443 25,723 12,019 50,941 

2050 Population 5745 10,535 31,812 13,945 62,037 

2060 Population 6962 13,147 39,387 16,226 75,722 

2070 Population 8437 16,408 48,790 18,919 92,554 

2080 Population 10,225 20,483 60,488 22,127 113,323 

Northeast-Transient 

2005 Population 349 853 1125 784 3111 

2010 Population 396 967 1258 858 3479 

2015 Population 438 1068 1373 921 3800 

2020 Population 479 1170 1488 984 4121 

2030 Population 548 1339 1671 1084 4642 

2040 Population 666 1628 1995 1251 5540 

2050 Population 810 1979 2382 1444 6615 

2060 Population 985 2406 2844 1667 7902 

2070 Population 1197 2925 3395 1925 9442 

2080 Population 1455 3556 4053 2222 11,286 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1941 G-16 August 2010 

Table G-4. (contd) 

16-32 km 

(10-20 mi) 

32-48 km 

(20-30 mi) 

48-64 km 

(30-40 mi) 

64-80 km 

(40-50 mi) 

Total for 

Sector 

East-Northeast-Residential 

2005 Population 9139 37,729 68,427 8144 123,439 

2010 Population 10,515 43,428 78,736 9372 142,051 

2015 Population 11,732 48,506 87,958 10,461 158,657 

2020 Population 12,998 53,635 97,213 11,572 175,418 

2030 Population 15,045 62,086 112,532 13,397 203,060 

2040 Population 18,741 77,482 140,456 16,713 253,392 

2050 Population 23,383 96,733 175,374 20,865 316,355 

2060 Population 29,195 120,782 219,002 26,060 395,039 

2070 Population 36,436 150,808 273,471 32,537 493,252 

2080 Population 45,490 188,343 341,558 40,628 616,019 

East-Northeast-Transient 

2005 Population 557 2021 3791 1630 7999 

2010 Population 641 2326 4363 1876 9206 

2015 Population 716 2598 4874 2096 10,284 

2020 Population 791 2871 5384 2315 11,361 

2030 Population 915 3323 6231 2679 13,148 

2040 Population 1143 4150 7782 3346 16,421 

2050 Population 1428 5183 9719 4179 20,509 

2060 Population 1783 6473 12,138 5219 25,613 

2070 Population 2227 8084 15,160 6518 31,989 

2080 Population 2781 10,096 18,934 8141 39,952 

East-Residential 

2005 Population 6969 40,704 76,846 20,245 144,764 

2010 Population 8016 46,848 88,407 23,363 166,634 

2015 Population 8930 52,316 98,764 26,154 186,164 

2020 Population 9920 57,861 109,196 28,954 205,931 

2030 Population 11,502 66,987 126,408 33,592 238,489 

2040 Population 14,318 83,611 157,718 42,125 297,772 

2050 Population 17,856 104,384 196,898 52,874 372,012 

2060 Population 22,303 130,355 245,866 66,396 464,920 

2070 Population 27,834 162,766 306,976 83,374 580,950 

2080 Population 34,755 203,267 383,384 104,772 726,178 
Appendix G 

August 2010 G-17 Draft NUREG-1941 

Table G-4. (contd) 

16-32 km 

(10-20 mi) 

32-48 km 

(20-30 mi) 

48-64 km 

(30-40 mi) 

64-80 km 

(40-50 mi) 

Total for 

Sector 

East-Transient 

2005 Population 2806 908 1463 1845 7022 

2010 Population 3230 1045 1683 2211 8169 

2015 Population 3608 1167 1880 2537 9192 

2020 Population 3986 1290 2077 2863 10,216 

2030 Population 4613 1493 2404 3411 11,921 

2040 Population 5761 1865 3002 4559 15,187 

2050 Population 7195 2329 3749 6094 19,367 

2060 Population 8986 2909 4682 8146 24,723 

2070 Population 11,223 3633 5848 10,889 31,593 

2080 Population 14,017 4537 7304 14,555 40,413 

East-Southeast-Residential 

2005 Population 7417 6044 30,162 77,446 121,069 

2010 Population 8240 6907 37,235 93,326 145,708 

2015 Population 8985 7692 43,698 107,638 168,013 

2020 Population 9725 8503 50,197 121,952 190,377 

2030 Population 10,948 9832 61,330 146,236 228,346 

2040 Population 12,968 12,226 87,177 197,776 310,147 

2050 Population 15,370 15,272 124,127 267,851 422,620 

2060 Population 18,228 19,165 176,938 363,253 577,584 

2070 Population 21,672 24,087 252,557 493,502 791,818 

2080 Population 25,729 30,373 360,879 671,463 1,088,444 

East-Southeast-Transient 

2005 Population 1122 1524 2092 5170 9908 

2010 Population 1269 1789 2457 6194 11,709 

2015 Population 1400 2019 2773 7107 13,299 

2020 Population 1530 2250 3090 8020 14,890 

2030 Population 1745 2632 3614 9556 17,547 

2040 Population 2122 3396 4664 12,774 22,956 

2050 Population 2580 4382 6019 17,075 30,056 

2060 Population 3137 5655 7767 22,824 39,383 

2070 Population 3815 7297 10,023 30,509 51,644 

2080 Population 4639 9416 12,934 40,781 67,770 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1941 G-18 August 2010 

Table G-4. (contd) 

16-32 km 

(10-20 mi) 

32-48 km 

(20-30 mi) 

48-64 km 

(30-40 mi) 

64-80 km 

(40-50 mi) 

Total for 

Sector 

Southeast-Residential 

2005 Population 27,227 31,575 14,057 23,351 96,210 

2010 Population 30,230 35,046 16,755 28,631 110,662 

2015 Population 32,895 38,145 19,220 33,461 123,721 

2020 Population 35,570 41,256 21,687 38,329 136,842 

2030 Population 39,943 46,325 25,894 46,649 158,811 

2040 Population 47,205 54,781 35,184 65,801 202,971 

2050 Population 55,815 64,795 48,181 93,089 261,880 

2060 Population 65,976 76,599 66,413 132,007 340,995 

2070 Population 78,078 90,668 92,129 187,654 448,529 

2080 Population 92,322 107,229 128,494 267,238 595,283 

Southeast-Transient 

2005 Population 1497 3785 2637 4920 12,839 

2010 Population 1664 4208 3078 5800 14,750 

2015 Population 1812 4581 3458 6580 16,431 

2020 Population 1959 4954 3838 7359 18,110 

2030 Population 2201 5567 4465 8655 20,888 

2040 Population 2604 6587 5709 11,280 26,180 

2050 Population 3081 7794 7300 14,701 32,876 

2060 Population 3645 9222 9334 19,160 41,361 

2070 Population 4313 10,911 11,935 24,972 52,131 

2080 Population 5103 12,910 15,260 32,546 65,819 

South-Southeast-Residential 

2005 Population 19,789 13,060 29,743 21,737 84,329 

2010 Population 21,986 14,517 33,501 24,551 94,555 

2015 Population 23,922 15,806 36,884 27,085 103,697 

2020 Population 25,890 17,101 40,267 29,613 112,871 

2030 Population 29,091 19,220 45,838 33,764 127,913 

2040 Population 34,403 22,743 55,568 41,102 153,816 

2050 Population 40,687 26,917 67,368 50,040 185,012 

2060 Population 48,121 31,856 81,674 60,924 222,575 

2070 Population 56,946 37,724 99,063 74,205 267,938 

2080 Population 67,351 44,652 120,152 90,388 322,543 
Appendix G 

August 2010 G-19 Draft NUREG-1941 

Table G-4. (contd) 

16-32 km 

(10-20 mi) 

32-48 km 

(20-30 mi) 

48-64 km 

(30-40 mi) 

64-80 km 

(40-50 mi) 

Total for 

Sector 

South-Southeast-Transient 

2005 Population 3462 2251 3016 6041 14,770 

2010 Population 3848 2520 3376 6847 16,591 

2015 Population 4189 2759 3697 7574 18,219 

2020 Population 4530 2999 4017 8301 19,847 

2030 Population 5090 3392 4543 9493 22,518 

2040 Population 6022 4065 5444 11,639 27,170 

2050 Population 7125 4871 6524 14,270 32,790 

2060 Population 8430 5837 7818 17,496 39,581 

2070 Population 9974 6995 9368 21,451 47,788 

2080 Population 11,801 8382 11,226 26,300 57,709 

South-Residential 

2005 Population 11,888 4582 35,916 105,711 158,097 

2010 Population 13,188 5095 40,462 119,626 178,371 

2015 Population 14,369 5545 44,592 132,217 196,723 

2020 Population 15,521 6006 48,655 144,817 214,999 

2030 Population 17,430 6754 55,404 165,460 245,048 

2040 Population 20,597 7985 67,206 202,504 298,292 

2050 Population 24,352 9441 81,528 247,823 363,144 

2060 Population 28,775 11,175 98,894 303,355 442,199 

2070 Population 34,057 13,242 120,027 371,408 538,734 

2080 Population 40,260 15,679 145,678 454,841 656,458 

South-Transient 

2005 Population 9754 1783 1969 1369 14,875 

2010 Population 10,843 1996 2220 1552 16,611 

2015 Population 11,804 2186 2445 1717 18,152 

2020 Population 12,765 2375 2670 1882 19,692 

2030 Population 14,343 2686 3039 2152 22,220 

2040 Population 16,970 3219 3688 2638 26,515 

2050 Population 20,078 3857 4475 3234 31,644 

2060 Population 23,756 4622 5430 3965 37,773 

2070 Population 28,107 5539 6589 4861 45,096 

2080 Population 33,255 6638 7996 5960 53,849 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1941 G-20 August 2010 

Table G-4. (contd) 

16-32 km 

(10-20 mi) 

32-48 km 

(20-30 mi) 

48-64 km 

(30-40 mi) 

64-80 km 

(40-50 mi) 

Total for 

Sector 

South-Southwest-Residential 

2005 Population 222 0 0 0 222 

2010 Population 246 0 0 0 246 

2015 Population 267 0 0 0 267 

2020 Population 288 0 0 0 288 

2030 Population 323 0 0 0 323 

2040 Population 380 0 0 0 380 

2050 Population 447 0 0 0 447 

2060 Population 527 0 0 0 527 

2070 Population 622 0 0 0 622 

2080 Population 734 0 0 0 734 

South-Southwest-Transient 

2005 Population 371 30 0 0 401 

2010 Population 412 34 0 0 446 

2015 Population 449 37 0 0 486 

2020 Population 485 40 0 0 525 

2030 Population 545 45 0 0 590 

2040 Population 645 53 0 0 698 

2050 Population 763 63 0 0 826 

2060 Population 903 75 0 0 978 

2070 Population 1068 89 0 0 1157 

2080 Population 1264 105 0 0 1369 

Southwest-Residential 

2005 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2010 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2015 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2020 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2030 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2040 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2050 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2060 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2070 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2080 Population 0 0 0 0 0 
Appendix G 

August 2010 G-21 Draft NUREG-1941 

Table G-4. (contd) 

16-32 km 

(10-20 mi) 

32-48 km 

(20-30 mi) 

48-64 km 

(30-40 mi) 

64-80 km 

(40-50 mi) 

Total for 

Sector 

Southwest-Transient 

2005 Population 3 0 0 0 3 

2010 Population 4 0 0 0 4 

2015 Population 4 0 0 0 4 

2020 Population 5 0 0 0 5 

2030 Population 6 0 0 0 6 

2040 Population 7 0 0 0 7 

2050 Population 8 0 0 0 8 

2060 Population 9 0 0 0 9 

2070 Population 11 0 0 0 11 

2080 Population 13 0 0 0 13 

West-Southwest-Residential 

2005 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2010 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2015 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2020 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2030 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2040 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2050 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2060 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2070 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2080 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

West-Southwest-Transient 

2005 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2010 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2015 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2020 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2030 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2040 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2050 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2060 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2070 Population 0 0 0 0 0 

2080 Population 0 0 0 0 0 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1941 G-22 August 2010 

Table G-4. (contd) 

16-32 km 

(10-20 mi) 

32-48 km 

(20-30 mi) 

48-64 km 

(30-40 mi) 

64-80 km 

(40-50 mi) 

Total for 

Sector 

West-Residential 

2005 Population 0 561 0 0 561 

2010 Population 0 625 0 0 625 

2015 Population 0 681 0 0 681 

2020 Population 0 740 0 0 740 

2030 Population 0 836 0 0 836 

2040 Population 0 982 0 0 982 

2050 Population 0 1158 0 0 1158 

2060 Population 0 1365 0 0 1365 

2070 Population 0 1608 0 0 1608 

2080 Population 0 1893 0 0 1893 

West-Transient 

2005 Population 8 257 0 0 265 

2010 Population 9 287 0 0 296 

2015 Population 10 314 0 0 324 

2020 Population 11 340 0 0 351 

2030 Population 12 385 0 0 397 

2040 Population 14 455 0 0 469 

2050 Population 17 538 0 0 555 

2060 Population 20 636 0 0 656 

2070 Population 24 752 0 0 776 

2080 Population 28 889 0 0 917 

West-Northwest-Residential 

2005 Population 2 1206 528 261 1997 

2010 Population 2 1340 582 291 2215 

2015 Population 2 1461 630 313 2406 

2020 Population 2 1584 684 344 2614 

2030 Population 2 1793 763 384 2942 

2040 Population 2 2116 892 446 3456 

2050 Population 2 2493 1039 517 4051 

2060 Population 2 2943 1219 608 4772 

2070 Population 2 3474 1423 709 5608 

2080 Population 2 4096 1664 826 6588 
Appendix G 

August 2010 G-23 Draft NUREG-1941 

Table G-4. (contd) 

16-32 km 

(10-20 mi) 

32-48 km 

(20-30 mi) 

48-64 km 

(30-40 mi) 

64-80 km 

(40-50 mi) 

Total for 

Sector 

West-Northwest-Transient 

2005 Population 82 1602 421 112 2217 

2010 Population 91 1789 467 124 2471 

2015 Population 99 1955 508 134 2696 

2020 Population 108 2121 549 145 2923 

2030 Population 122 2399 618 162 3301 

2040 Population 144 2837 727 190 3898 

2050 Population 170 3355 856 223 4604 

2060 Population 201 3967 1007 261 5436 

2070 Population 238 4691 1185 306 6420 

2080 Population 281 5547 1395 358 7581 

Northwest-Residential 

2005 Population 67 801 1321 5843 8032 

2010 Population 75 892 1476 6451 8894 

2015 Population 82 973 1608 6994 9657 

2020 Population 88 1058 1746 7540 10,432 

2030 Population 101 1197 1970 8435 11,703 

2040 Population 117 1414 2323 9871 13,725 

2050 Population 137 1668 2735 11,551 16,091 

2060 Population 162 1970 3222 13,531 18,885 

2070 Population 191 2329 3802 15,839 22,161 

2080 Population 224 2752 4479 18,542 25,997 

Northwest-Transient 

2005 Population 155 258 4598 3523 8534 

2010 Population 174 288 5104 3889 9455 

2015 Population 190 315 5555 4215 10,275 

2020 Population 206 341 6005 4541 11,093 

2030 Population 233 386 6755 5080 12,454 

2040 Population 276 456 7950 5950 14,632 

2050 Population 326 539 9357 6969 17,191 

2060 Population 385 637 11,012 8163 20,197 

2070 Population 455 753 12,960 9562 23,730 

2080 Population 538 890 15,253 11,200 27,881 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1941 G-24 August 2010 

Table G-4. (contd) 

16-32 km 

(10-20 mi) 

32-48 km 

(20-30 mi) 

48-64 km 

(30-40 mi) 

64-80 km 

(40-50 mi) 

Total for 

Sector 

North-Northwest-Residential 

2005 Population 501 998 13,160 9828 24,487 

2010 Population 556 1115 14,811 11,031 27,513 

2015 Population 606 1217 16,248 12,078 30,149 

2020 Population 659 1323 17,729 13,144 32,855 

2030 Population 745 1496 20,175 14,914 37,330 

2040 Population 877 1767 24,076 17,804 44,524 

2050 Population 1034 2084 28,734 21,248 53,100 

2060 Population 1217 2463 34,322 25,379 63,381 

2070 Population 1441 2911 41,008 30,318 75,678 

2080 Population 1695 3438 48,992 36,241 90,366 

North-Northwest-Transient 

2005 Population 155 258 2049 1551 4013 

2010 Population 174 288 2299 1741 4502 

2015 Population 190 315 2520 1908 4933 

2020 Population 206 341 2741 2076 5364 

2030 Population 233 386 3112 2357 6088 

2040 Population 276 456 3710 2810 7252 

2050 Population 326 539 4422 3350 8637 

2060 Population 385 637 5271 3993 10,286 

2070 Population 455 753 6283 4760 12,251 

2080 Population 538 890 7490 5674 14,592 

2005 Population 

Residential Total 89,356 156,068 316,541 465,829 1,027,794 

Cumulative Total 

(Residential plus transient) 

109,998 172,257 344,055 497,306 1,123,616 

2010 Population 

Residential Total 99,942 176,944 363,095 526,183 1,166,164 

Cumulative Total 

(Residential plus transient) 

123,060 195,212 394,264 562,213 1,274,749 

2015 Population 

Residential Total 109,308 195,521 404,851 579,938 1,289,618 

Cumulative Total 

(Residential plus transient) 

134,616 215,629 439,244 620,014 1,409,503 
Appendix G 

August 2010 G-25 Draft NUREG-1941 

Table G-4. (contd) 

16-32 km 

(10-20 mi) 

32-48 km 

(20-30 mi) 

48-64 km 

(30-40 mi) 

64-80 km 

(40-50 mi) 

Total for 

Sector 

2020 Population 

Residential Total 118,873 214,350 446,840 633,814 1,413,877 

Cumulative Total 

(Residential plus transient) 

146,369 236,299 484,456 677,937 1,545,061 

2030 Population 

Residential Total 134,460 245,271 516,374 721,639 1,617,744 

Cumulative Total 

(Residential plus transient) 

165,561 270,262 559,305 772,443 1,767,571 

2040 Population 

Residential Total 160,716 299,516 648,118 889,294 1,997,644 

Cumulative Total 

(Residential plus transient) 

197,961 329,811 700,495 952,820 2,181,087 

2050 Population 

Residential Total 192,300 366,180 817,125 1,102,503 2,478,108 

Cumulative Total 

(Residential plus transient) 

236,921 402,938 881,094 1,182,182 2,703,135 

2060 Population 

Residential Total 230,276 448,118 1,034,961 1,375,668 3,089,023 

Cumulative Total 

(Residential plus transient) 

283,758 492,759 1,113,166 1,475,912 3,365,595 

2070 Population 

Residential Total 276,130 548,996 1,317,271 1,727,985 3,870,382 

Cumulative Total 

(Residential plus transient) 

340,266 603,262 1,412,984 1,854,480 4,210,992 

2080 Population 

Residential Total 331,066 673,030 1,685,320 2,185,517 4,874,933 

Cumulative Total 

(Residential plus transient) 

408,015 739,058 1,802,588 2,345,599 5,295,260 

Source: PEF 2009 

To account for the difference in distance between each LNP unit and the LNP centerpoint, 0.16 km (0.1 mi) was 

added to each radial distance to conservatively adjust the population data. The totals are subject to rounding 

differences. 
Draft NUREG-1941 G-26 August 2010

Appendix G 

Table G-5. Regional Employment and Earnings by Industry 1 

Region(a)

 1990(b) 2000(b) 2005(c)

Industry 

Number 

of Jobs 

Percent 

of Total 

Total 

Earnings, 

$(d)

Number 

of Jobs 

Percent 

of Total 

Total 

Earnings, 

$(d)

Number 

of Jobs 

Percent 

of Total 

Total 

Earnings, 

$(d)

Farming 7728 2.8 86,101 8842 2.3 113,952 8304 1.9 105,201Agricultural services, forestry, fishing 

4967 1.8 67,699 5635 1.5 130,179 3637 0.8 110,094

Mining 947 0.3 19,680 663 0.2 23,355 873 0.2 37,083Construction 18,589 6.6 410,574 24,185 6.4 622,438 39,022 8.9 1,255,192Manufacturing 19,140 6.8 484,215 23,419 6.2 859,613 19,150 4.4 892,384Transportation and public utilities 

9153 3.3 289,191 13,053 3.5 557,050 6947 1.6 372,452

Wholesale trade 9008 3.2 220,159 9930 2.6 344,654 10,634 2.4 463,248Retail trade 54,459 19.5 675,486 72,599 19.2 1,210,890 56,352 12.8 1,340,936Finance, insurance, and real estate 

19,294 6.9 239,869 26,870 7.1 766,545 35,878 8.2 871,835

Services 73,755 26.3 1,427,258 114,319 30.3 2,871,800 170,304 38.8 4,794,559Government and government enterprises 

61,725 22.1 1,687,955 75,286 19.9 2,782,314 77,017 17.5 3,788,924

Regional Total 279,701 5,618,630 377,752 10,309,374 439,252 14,295,215

2 
August 2010 G-27 Draft NUREG-1941

Appendix G

1 

Table G-5. (contd)

Region(a)

 1990(b) 2000(b) 2005(c)

Industry 

Number 

of Jobs 

Percent 

of Total 

Total 

Earnings, 

$(d)

Number 

of Jobs 

Percent 

of Total 

Total 

Earnings, 

$(d)

Number 

of Jobs 

Percent 

of Total 

Total 

Earnings, 

$(d)

Levy County 

Farming 741 8.9 12,945 1003 8.5 24,204 855 6.0 24,294Agricultural services, forestry, fishing 

NA NA 6384 585 5.0 12,488 NA NA 20,985

Mining NA NA 77 NA NA 139 NA NA NAConstruction 672 8.0 12,319 1168 9.9 28,437 1393 9.8 36,329Manufacturing 444 5.3 7965 432 3.7 11,430 839 5.9 29,938Transportation and public utilities 

282 3.4 7326 519 4.4 17,436 NA NA 10,549

Wholesale trade 186 2.2 3980 NA NA NA 364 2.6 10,292Retail trade 1701 20.3 19,814 2368 20.1 33,813 1766 12.4 38,880Finance, insurance, and real estate 

623 7.4 5198 744 6.3 12,440 1087 7.7 17,617

Services 1583 18.9 19,075 2488 21.1 41,560 3857 27.2 82,105Government and government enterprises 

1555 18.6 38,061 2032 17.2 67,412 2172 15.3 87,421

Levy County Total 8368 137,911 11,802 261,921 14,185 370,863

Citrus County 

Farming 358 1.2 90 404 1.0 2189 403 0.8 2303Agricultural services, forestry, fishing 

585 1.9 5941 668 1.6 10,721 365 0.7 4338

Mining 86 0.3 1576 77 0.2 1889 88 0.2 2296Construction 3045 10.1 64,428 3718 8.9 95,653 5872 11.9 170,098
Draft NUREG-1941 G-28 August 2010

Appendix G Table G-5. (contd)

Region(a)

 1990(b) 2000(b) 2005(c)

Industry 

Number 

of Jobs 

Percent 

of Total 

Total 

Earnings, 

$(d)

Number 

of Jobs 

Percent 

of Total 

Total 

Earnings, 

$(d)

Number 

of Jobs 

Percent 

of Total 

Total 

Earnings, 

$(d)

Manufacturing 985 3.3 18,696 1685 4.0 49,598 910 1.8 25,312Transportation and public utilities 

2477 8.2 106,516 2603 6.2 164,728 NA NA 14,225

Wholesale trade 492 1.6 8568 771 1.8 20,392 910 1.8 30,648Retail trade 6872 22.8 81,982 8449 20.3 126,601 7217 14.6 166,682Finance, insurance, and real estate 

2491 8.2 18,483 3773 9.1 77,103 5061 10.2 82,545

Services 8966 29.7 160,981 15,160 36.4 331,517 21,803 44.1 569,403Government and government enterprises 

3846 12.7 93,350 4382 10.5 151,349 4807 9.7 205,174

Citrus County Total 30,203 560,611 41,690 1,031,740 49,471 1,408,781

Marion County 

Farming 2966 3.6 32,675 3183 2.8 40,187 2880 2.1 33,743Agricultural services, forestry, fishing 

2116 2.6 27,810 3210 2.8 60,396 2541 1.9 58,580

Mining 197 0.2 4953 206 0.2 6193 288 0.2 11,226Construction 6131 7.4 144,175 8151 7.2 215,114 12,987 9.6 439,855Manufacturing 10,289 12.5 250,068 12,054 10.6 441,145 10,080 7.5 486,880
August 2010 G-29 Draft NUREG-1941

Appendix G

Table G-5. (contd)

Region(a)

 1990(b) 2000(b) 2005(c)

Industry 

Number 

of Jobs 

Percent 

of Total 

Total 

Earnings, 

$(d)

Number 

of Jobs 

Percent 

of Total 

Total 

Earnings, 

$(d)

Number 

of Jobs 

Percent 

of Total 

Total 

Earnings, 

$(d)

Transportation and public utilities 

2368 2.9 61,550 4303 3.8 152,508 3646 2.7 143,895

Wholesale trade 4587 5.6 119,555 4205 3.7 147,606 4512 3.3 196,915Retail trade 16,881 20.5 221,878 23,082 20.4 416,595 19,619 14.5 498,141Finance, insurance, and real estate 

5807 7.0 75,601 8603 7.6 249,745 12,212 9.0 312,175

Services 19,190 23.3 358,774 30,581 27.0 770,045 49,614 36.7 1,388,613Government and government enterprises 

11,958 14.5 299,781 15,697 13.9 562,047 16,675 12.3 707,111

Marion County Total 82,490 1,596,820 113,275 3,055,581 135,054 4,277,134Source: PEF 2009 using data from Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. (a) Although the 50 mi region includes Pasco, Lake, and Putnam counties, these counties were not included in these data because only very 

small portions of these counties fall within the region. 

(b) Employment estimates and earnings are based on the 1987 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system. (c) Employment estimates and earnings are based on the 2002 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). These industry 

classifications vary slightly from the SIC system, and therefore have been regrouped into the SIC system. Affected classifications for the 2005 employment and earnings estimates include the following: the transportation and public utilities classification includes the NAICS warehousing classification; the services classification includes the NAICS Information, professional and technical services, management of companies and enterprises, administrative and waste services, educational services, health care and social assistance, arts, entertainment, and recreation, accommodation and food services, and other services, except public administration, classifications. 

(d) Estimated earnings are in thousands of dollars. Some employment and earnings estimates for individual industry classifications may not represent accurate totals because some industry estimates include confidential (unreported) numbers, and industries with less than 10 jobs or $50,000 in earnings were not reported in individual 

industry estimates; however, the all-industry total number of jobs and all-industry total earnings include these estimates. NA = Data not available. 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1941 G-30 August 2010 

1 Table G-6. Citrus, Levy, and Marion County Expenditures and Revenues by Category

Citrus County 2006, $(a) 2007, $(b) 2008, $(b)

County Revenues by Category 

Ad valorem taxes 67,624,568 82,903,323 82,249,144 

Other taxes 7,964,164 9,435,671 8,424,261 

Licenses and permits 4,235,986 3,988,937 2,862,016 

Intergovernmental revenue 22,968,183 14,862,007 13,872,288 

Charges for services 27,968,379 22,964,235 30,619,269 

Fines and forfeitures 127,468 72,400 169,124 

Miscellaneous revenues 28,252,575 20,036,354 20,122,903 

Other non operating revenue 5,149,840 2,040,000 1,660,000 

Statutory revenues -- (7,716,222) (7,971,867) 

Sub-total 164,291,163 148,586,705 152,007,138 

Cash carry forward -- 60,919,219 107,254,576 

Interfund transfers 16,543,309 15,390,656 18,884,533 

Total 180,834,472 224,896,580 278,146,247 

County Expenditures by Category 

Personal services 57,364,498 63,283,860 66,877,252 

Operating expenses 51,430,335 49,681,825 56,406,659 

Capital outlay 29,317,996 37,606,541 64,683,646 

Grants in aid 2,113,818 2,089,167 2,263,589 

Debt service 4,850,730 7,740,652 15,018,529 

Sub-total 145,077,377 160,402,045 205,249,675 

Budgeted reserves -- 45,453,302 49,752,180 

Interfund transfers 16,637,778 19,041,233 23,144,392 

Total 161,715,155 224,896,580 278,146,247 

Levy County 2006, $ 

Total County Revenues by Category 

Taxes 18,227,533 

Licenses and permits 383,737 

Intergovernmental revenues 9,778,043 

Charges for services 5,534,382 

Fines and forfeitures 331,477 

Miscellaneous revenues 4,627,448 

Total revenues 38,882,620 

Total County Expenditures by Category 

General government 7,364,869 

Public safety 15,825,754 

Physical education 484,352 

2 
Appendix G 

August 2010 G-31 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 

Table G-6. (contd)

Levy County 2006, $ 

Transportation 5,745,654 

Economic environment 643,891 

Human services 1,384,155 

Culture/recreation 1,167,066 

Court related 1,333,507 

Capital outlay 506,306 

Debt service 

Principal 484,155 

Interest 317,063 

Total Expenditures 35,056,772 

Marion County 2007-2008, $ 

Total County Revenues by Type 

Property taxes 130,386,669 

Other taxes 17,309,507 

Licenses and permits 5,531,850 

Inter-governmental revenues 48,208,397 

Charges for services 61,062,195 

Fines and forfeitures 1,274,235 

Miscellaneous revenues 18,326,534 

Impact fees 31,885,770 

Special assessments 39,454,674 

Administrative transfers 898,416 

Debt proceeds 15,899,867 

Balances forward 196,347,010 

Total Budgeted Revenues 566,585,124 

Total County Expenditures by Function 

General government 118,803,705 

Debt service 7,546,745 

Public safety 154,023,361 

Physical environment 66,469,111 

Human services 22,878,263 

Transportation 100,196,518 

Culture/recreation 21,888,857 

Court related expenditures 24,142,293 

Reserves 50,636,271 

Total Budgeted Expenditures 566,585,124 

Source: PEF 2009, based on data from Levy County Clerk of Court, Citrus County Board of Commissioners, and 

Marion County Budget 

(a) Actual budget for fiscal year (FY) 2006. 

(b) Adopted budget for FY 2007 and FY 2008. 
Appendix G 

Draft NUREG-1941 G-32 August 2010 

1 G.1 References 

2 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 COL Application, 

3 Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. Revision 1, St. 

4 Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. ML092860995. 
Appendix H 

Authorizations, Permits, and Certifications 

August 2010 H-1 Draft NUREG-1941 

Appendix H 

Authorizations, Permits, and Certifications 

1 This appendix contains a list of environmental-related authorizations, permits, and certifications 

2 potentially required by Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF) from Federal, State, regional, local, 

3 and affected Native American Tribal agencies related to the combined construction permits and 

4 operating licenses (COLs) for the proposed new nuclear Units 1 and 2 at the Levy Nuclear Plant 

5 (LNP) site in Levy County, Florida. The table is based on Table 1.2-1 of the Environmental 

6 Report (ER), Revision 1, submitted on October 2, 2009 by PEF to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

7 Commission (NRC). 
Appendix H 

Draft NUREG-1941 H-2 August 2010 Table H-1. Federal, State, and Local Environmental Permits and Authorizations 1 Issuing Agency Activity Permit/Authorization License Number Expiration Date Authority Federal NRC Construction and safety review of the site. Combined License --(a) --(a) 10 CFR 52.97 NRC Approval for construction of nuclear power plant. Combined License --(a) --(a) 10 CFR 50.10 NRC Possession of source material. Source Material License --(a) --(a) 10 CFR 40.3 NRC Possession of Special Nuclear Material. Special Nuclear Material License --(a) --(a) 10 CFR 70.3 NRC Possession of fuel. By-Product License --(a) --(a) 10 CFR 30.3 NRC Operation of units. License to Operate --(a) --(a) 10 CFR 52 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District (Corps) Activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Section 404 Permit(c) --(a) --(a) CWA 33 CFR 320.1 Corps Activities involving work in navigable waters. Section 10 – Rivers and Harbors Act Permit --(a) --(a) 33 USC 403 U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous materials shipments. USDOT Registration --(a) --(a) 49 USC 5108 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Requires SPCC Plan outlining containment and countermeasures for oil storage. May require Facility Response Plan. Oil Terminal Facility Registration --(a) --(a) 40 CFR 112 EPA Aggregate oil storage in aboveground tanks >1320 gallons or any single tank >660 gallons. SPCC Plan --(a) --(a) 40 CFR 112 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)(b) Construction of structures affecting air navigation. Construction Notice --(a) --(a) 49 USC 44718 
Appendix H

August 2010 H-3 Draft NUREG-1941 1 Table H-1. (contd) Issuing Agency Activity Permit/Authorization License Number Expiration Date Authority FAA, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia; other regions as appropriate. Coordinate with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Stack construction within airspace for approach to airport. FAA Stack Height Waiver --(a) --(a) 14 CFR 77.21, FS §333.025 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Construction in areas where threatened and endangered species or critical habitat could be impacted as a result of the construction and/or operation of the proposed facility. Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act --(a) --(a) 16 USC 703-712, 16 USC 668a-d FWS Incidental taking of a protected species. Incidental Take Permit --(a) --(a) 50 CFR 17.21 National Marine Fisheries Service Provides for the protection of fishery resources and essential fish habitat. Magnuson-Stevens Act/Fisheries Management Plan --(a) --(a) 16 USC 1851 State All State, regional, and local permits (except certain local zoning/building permits) are covered under the Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) Certification. It is not necessary to apply for most of these permits individually, but they are listed below for informational purposes. Those Federal permit program requirements that are delegated to the State and require individual permit applications to be submitted as part of the Site Certification Application (SCA) are shown in bold italics. The issuing agency remains the applicable State agency, although the delegating Federal agency is noted in the Issuing Agency column of the table. Levy County Above-grade fills within the 100-year floodplain. Floodplain Construction Compliance --(a) --(a) Levy County Code of Ordinances – Chapter 50 Article VI 
Appendix H 

Draft NUREG-1941 H-4 August 2010 Table H-1. (contd) Issuing Agency Activity Permit/Authorization License Number Expiration Date Authority Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Above-grade fills within the 100-year floodplain. Floodplain Construction Compliance --(a) --(a) Chapter 40B-4 FAC NRC Above-grade fills within the 100-year floodplain. Floodplain Construction Compliance --(a) --(a) Executive Order 11988 Federal Emergency Management Agency Post-construction Flood Insurance Rate Map flood map change. Letter of Map Revision --(a) --(a) 44 CFR 65.5(a) Florida Historical Commission Construction in an area where historic or archeological resources may be affected. Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act --(a) --(a) Chapter 267, FAC FDEP Construction of a power plant with more than 75 MW of steam generated power and associated facilities. Power Plant Certification --(a) --(a) FS § 403.519 FDEP Required for projects on sovereign submerged lands. Sovereign Submerged Lands Lease --(a) --(a) Chapter 18-21, FAC FDEP Required for projects that affect surface waters, wetlands, or sovereign submerged lands. FDEP coordinates review with other State agencies to address natural resource and cultural resource issues. ERP --(a) --(a) Chapter 40D-4, FAC FDEP, EPA Region IV review Required for all generators, transporters, as well as the disposal of hazardous waste. Florida Notification of Regulated Waste Activity/Regulation Standards --(a) --(a) Chapter 62-730, FAC FDEP Construction and operation of facilities generating air emissions. State Construction Permit for Air Emission Facilities --(a) --(a) Chapter 62-4.210, FAC 
Appendix H

August 2010 H-5 Draft NUREG-1941 Table H-1. (contd) Issuing Agency Activity Permit/Authorization License Number Expiration Date Authority FDEP, EPA Region IV review Construction and operation of facilities generating air emissions. Prevention of Significant Deterioration Construction Permit --(a) --(a) Chapter 62-212, FAC FDEP, EPA Region IV review Operation of facilities generating air emissions. Title V Operating Permit --(a) --(a) Chapter 62-213, FAC FDEP, EPA Region IV review Not Applicable Phase II Acid Rain Permit/Acid Rain Compliance Plan --(a) --(a) Chapter 62-214, FAC FDEP Projects with potential to impact waters of the state. Section 401 Water Quality Certification (CWA) --(a) --(a) Chapter 62-4, FAC FDEP Projects requiring Section 404/10 permitting. Conducted in conjunction with ERP process. Compliance with Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act --(a) --(a) FS § 373.4144 FDEP, EPA Region IV review Discharge of wastewater, cooling water, etc. to surface waters. NPDES Permit for wastewater discharge. Compliance with CWA Section 316a FL0633275- 001- IW1S/NP --(a) FS § 403.0885 FDEP, EPA Region IV review Intake of makeup water, addresses the impingement and entrainment impacts of cooling water intakes on biological populations. NPDES Permit, Compliance with 316b --(a) --(a) 40 CFR 125, Subpart I FDEP Construction of any facility that disturbs 1 acre or more. NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit; requires Surface Water Management and Sediment Control Plans Generic --(a) Chapters 62-25, 62-40 FAC FDEP, EPA Region IV review Operation of an industrial facility. NPDES Operating Stormwater Permit for Industrial Activities FL0633275- 001- IW1S/NP --(a) Chapter 62-621, FAC 
Appendix H 

Draft NUREG-1941 H-6 August 2010 Table H-1. (contd) Issuing Agency Activity Permit/Authorization License Number Expiration Date Authority FDEP Under the CWA, industrial facilities have to prepare an SWP3 as part of the stormwater NPDES permit. SWP3 --(a) --(a) Chapter 62-330.200, FAC FDEP, Water Management District Consumptive withdrawal of surface or groundwater. Water Use Permit --(a) --(a) 40B-2, FAC FDEP, Water Management District Required if dewatering is required for construction. Dewatering Permit --(a) --(a) 40B-2, FAC FDEP, Water Management District Construction of water wells. Well Construction Permit --(a) --(a) 40B-3, FAC FDEP Management of onsite stormwater. Surface Water Management/Erosion and Sediment Control Plan required --(a) --(a) Chapter 62.40, FAC FDEP- Local Branch Construction of any facility that disturbs 5 acres or more. Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan --(a) --(a) Chapter 62.40, FAC FDEP Construction of transmission lines and substation. Electric and Magnetic Fields Standards --(a) --(a) FS § 403.521, et seq. Chapter 62-814, FAC FDEP Approval for construction and operation in State parks and other lands owned and/or managed by the State. State Lands Use --(a) --(a) FS § 253.77, et seq. FDEP Aboveground oil storage tanks. Aboveground Storage Tank Registration --(a) --(a) FS § 376.323 
Appendix H

August 2010 H-7 Draft NUREG-1941 Table H-1. (contd) Issuing Agency Activity Permit/Authorization License Number Expiration Date Authority Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Conservation Commission Incidental taking of a protected species. Incidental Take Permit --(a) --(a) Chapter 68A-27, FAC Florida Public Service Commission Reviews the appropriateness of the proposed project and issues a “determination of need.” Electrical Transmission Line (as Associated Facility under PPSA) --(a) --(a) FS § 350.001 et seq. Florida Department of Community Affairs Determines project consistency with coastal zone management plan. Coastal Zone Consistency Determination --(a) --(a) FS § 380.23 Local All State, regional, and local permits (except certain local zoning/building permits) are covered under the PPSA Certification. It may be necessary to apply for these permits individually as required by the government agency. City, County, or Municipal District New water and sewer connections (if available). Water and Sewer Connection --(a,d) --(a,d) TBD(d) City, County, or Municipal District Required if land is not zoned appropriately for project or to address local zoning requirements that apply specifically to this type of facility. Zoning/Land Use Compliance --(a,d) --(a,d) TBD County Required for connection of driveway to public roads. Driveway Permit --(a,d) --(a,d) TBD Local County Department of Community Development Required for removal of on-site vegetation. Vegetation Removal --(a,d) --(a,d) TBD 
Appendix H 

Draft NUREG-1941 H-8 August 2010 Table H-1. (contd) Issuing Agency Activity Permit/Authorization License Number Expiration Date Authority Local County Health Department Required for construction and operation of a new septic system, if sewage service not available in the area. One copy of the survey and one copy of construction plans must bear original Health Department approval. Health Department Septic Permit and Operating Permit --(a,d) --(a,d) TBD City, County, or Municipal District Construction of new buildings and facilities. Building Permit; Plumbing Permit; HVAC Permit; Contractors License, etc. --(a,d) --(a,d) TBD Other Permits/Approvals FDOT Crossing of highways by railroad. Railroad Grade Crossing Program --(a) --(a) FDOT U.S. Department of Interior Prevention of “taking” of Bald Eagle nests, eggs, or birds. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918; authorization for “taking” of Bald Eagle nest would be required per 50 CFR 21. --(a) --(a) 16 USC 703-712 (a) Data not available. (b) Initial consultation with Agency occurs prior to combined license application submittal. (c) Applications for permits will be made during the pre-construction phase. (d) Issuing authority. License numbers and expiration dates will be included in the table when known. 1 
Appendix I 

Carbon Dioxide Footprint Estimates for a Model 

1000-MW(e) Light Water Reactor (LWR) 

August 2010 I-1 Draft NUREG-1941 

Appendix I 

Carbon Dioxide Footprint Estimates for a Model 

1000-MW(e) Light Water Reactor (LWR) 

1 The review team has estimated the carbon dioxide (CO2) footprint of various activities 

2 associated with nuclear power plants. These activities include building, operating, and 

3 decommissioning the plant. The estimates include direct emissions from the nuclear facility and 

4 indirect emissions from workforce transportation and the uranium fuel cycle. 

5 Construction equipment estimates listed in Table I-1 are based on hours of equipment use 

6 estimated for a single nuclear power plant at a site requiring a moderate amount of terrain 

7 modification. Equipment usage for a multiple unit facility would be larger, but it is likely that it 

8 would not be a factor of 2 larger. A reasonable set of emissions factors used to convert the 

9 hours of equipment use to CO2 emissions are based on carbon monoxide (CO) emissions 

10 (UniStar 2007) scaled to CO2 using a scaling factor of 165 tons of CO2 per ton of CO. This 

11 factor is based on emissions factors in Table 3.3-1 of AP-42 (EPA 1995). Equipment emissions 

12 estimated for decommissioning are one-half of those for construction. 

13 Table I-1. Construction Equipment CO2 Emissions (metric tons equivalent) 

Equipment Construction Total(a) Decommissioning Total(b)

Earthwork and Dewatering 1.1 × 104 5.4 × 103

Batch Plant Operations 3.3 × 103 1.6 × 103

Concrete 4.0 × 103

 2.0 × 103

Lifting and Rigging 5.4 × 103

 2.7 × 103

Shop Fabrication 9.2 × 102

 4.6 × 102

Warehouse Operations 1.4 × 103

 6.8 × 102

Equipment Maintenance 9.6 × 103

 4.8 × 103

TOTAL(c)

 3.5 × 104 1.8 × 104

(a) Based on hours of equipment usage over 7-year period. 

(b) Based on equipment usage over 10-year period. 

(c) Total not equal to the sum due to rounding. 

14 Workforce estimates are typical workforce numbers for new plant construction and operation 

15 based on estimates in various applications for combined construction permits and operating 

16 licenses (COLs), and decommissioning workforce emissions estimates are based on 

17 decommissioning workforce estimates in NUREG-0586 S1, Generic Environmental Impact 
Appendix I 

Draft NUREG-1941 I-2 August 2010 

1 Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1 Regarding the 

2 Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors (NRC 2002). A typical construction workforce 

3 averages about 2500 for a 7-year period with a peak workforce of about 4000. A typical 

4 operations workforce for the 40-year life of the plant is assumed to be about 400, and the 

5 decommissioning workforce during a decontamination and dismantling period of 10 years is 

6 assumed to be 200 to 400. In all cases, the daily commute is assumed to involve a 100-mi 

7 roundtrip with two individuals per vehicle. Considering shifts, holidays, and vacations, 

8 1250 roundtrips per day are assumed each day of the year during construction, 200 roundtrips 

9 per day are assumed each day during operations, and 150 roundtrips per day are assumed 

10 250 days per year for the decontamination and dismantling portion of decommissioning. If the 

11 SAFSTOR decommissioning option is included in decommissioning, 20 roundtrips each day of 

12 the year are assumed for the caretaker workforce. 

13 Table I-2 lists the review team’s estimates of the CO2 equivalent emissions associated with 

14 workforce transport. The table lists the assumptions used to estimate total miles traveled by 

15 each workforce; the factors used to convert total miles to metric tons CO2 equivalent; and CO2

16 equivalent accounts for other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, emitted by 

17 internal combustion engines. The workers are assumed to travel in gasoline-powered passenger 

18 vehicles (cars, trucks, vans, and sports utility vehicles) that average 19.7 mpg of gas (FHWA 

19 2006). Conversion from gallons of gasoline burned to CO2 equivalent is based on U.S. 

20 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions factors (EPA 2007a, b). 

21 Table I-2. Workforce CO2 Footprint Estimates 

Construction 

Workforce 

Operational 

Workforce 

Decommissioning 

Workforce 

SAFSTOR 

Workforce 

Roundtrips per day 1250 200 150 20 

Miles per roundtrip 100 100 100 100 

Days per year 365 365 250 365 

Years 7 40 10 40 

Miles traveled 3.2 × 108

 2.9 × 108 3.8 × 107 2.92 × 107

Miles per gallon(a) 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 

Gallons fuel burned 1.6 × 107

 1.5 × 107 1.9 × 106 1.58 × 106

Metric tons CO2 per gallon(b) 8.81 × 103

 8.81 × 103 8.81 × 103 8.81 × 103

Metric tons CO2 1.4 × 105

 1.3 × 105 1.7 × 104 1.3 × 104

CO2 equivalent factor(c)

 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 

Metric tons CO2 equivalent 1.5 × 105

 1.3 × 105 1.7 × 104 1.3 × 104

Sources: 

(a) FHWA 2006 

(b) EPA 2007b 

(c) EPA 2007a.
Appendix I 

August 2010 I-3 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Published estimates of uranium fuel cycle CO2 emissions required to support a nuclear power 

2 plant range from about 1 percent to nearly 5 percent of the CO2 emissions from a comparably 

3 sized coal-fired plant (Sovacool 2008). A coal-fired power plant emits about 1 metric ton (MT) of 

4 CO2 for each megawatt hour (MWh) generated (Miller and Van Atten 2004). Therefore, for 

5 consistency with Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51, the NRC staff estimated the uranium fuel cycle 

6 CO2 emissions as 0.05 MT of CO2 per MWh generated and assumed an 80 percent capacity 

7 factor. Finally, the review team estimated the CO2 emissions directly related to plant operations 

8 from the typical use of various diesel generators on site using EPA emissions factors (EPA 

9 1995). The review team assumed an average of 600 hours of emergency diesel generator 

10 operation per year (total for 4 generators) and 200 hours of station blackout diesel generator 

11 operation per year (total for 2 generators). 

12 Given the various sources of CO2 emissions, the review team estimates the total life CO2

13 footprint for a reference 1000-MW(e) nuclear power plant to be about 18 million MT. The 

14 components of the footprint are summarized in Table I-3. The uranium fuel cycle component of 

15 the footprint dominates all other components. It is directly related to power generated. As a 

16 result, it is reasonable to use reactor power to scale the footprint to larger reactors. 

17 Table I-3. Reference Reactor Lifetime Carbon Dioxide Footprint 

Source 

Activity 

Duration (year) 

Total Emissions 

(metric tons) 

Construction Equipment 7 3.5 × 104

Construction Workforce 7 1.5 × 105

Plant Operations 40 1.9 × 105

Operations Workforce 40 1.3 × 105

Uranium Fuel Cycle 40 1.7 × 107

Decommissioning Equipment 10 1.8 × 104

Decommissioning Workforce 10 1.7 × 104

SAFSTOR Workforce 40 1.3 × 104

Total 1.8 × 107

18 In closing, the review team considers the footprint estimated in Table I-3 to be appropriately 

19 conservative. The CO2 emissions estimates for the dominant component (uranium fuel cycle) 

20 are based on 30-year-old enrichment technology, assuming the energy required for enrichment 

21 is provided by coal-fired generation. Different assumptions related to the source of energy used 

22 for enrichment or the enrichment technology that would be just as reasonable could lead to a 

23 significantly reduced footprint. 

24 Emissions estimates presented in the body of this EIS have been scaled to values that are 

25 appropriate for the proposed project. The uranium fuel cycle emissions have been scaled by 

26 reactor power using the scaling factor determined in Chapter 6 and by the number of reactors to 
Appendix I 

Draft NUREG-1941 I-4 August 2010 

1 be built. Plant operations emissions have been adjusted to represent the number of large CO2

2 emissions sources (diesel generators, boilers, etc.) associated with the project. The workforce 

3 emissions estimates have been scaled to account for differences in workforce numbers and 

4 commuting distance. Finally, equipment emissions estimates have been scaled by estimated 

5 equipment usage. As shown in Table I-3, only the scaling of the uranium fuel cycle emissions 

6 estimates makes a significant difference in the total carbon footprint of the project. 

7 I.1 References 

8 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Highway Statistics 2005 (Table VM-1). Office 

9 of Highway Policy Information, U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington, D.C. 

10 Miller, P.J., and C. Van Atten. 2004. North American Power Plant Air Emissions. Commission 

11 for Environmental Cooperation of North America, Montreal, Canada. 

12 Sovacool, B.K. 2008. “Valuing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Nuclear Power: A Critical 

13 Survey.” Energy Policy 36(8):2950-2963. 

14 UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC (UniStar). 2007. Technical Report in Support of Application of 

15 UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

16 Before the Maryland Public Service Commission for Authorization to Construct Unit 3 at Calvert 

17 Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant and Associated Transmission Lines. Prepared for the Public Service 

18 Commission of Maryland. Baltimore, Maryland. Accession No. ML090680065. 

19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

20 Factors Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. AP-42, 5th Edition, Washington, D.C. 

21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007a. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

22 Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005. Washington, D.C. 

23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007b. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

24 Emissions and Sinks: Fast Facts 1990-2005, Conversion Factors to Energy Units (Heat 

25 Equivalents) Heat Contents and Carbon Content Coefficients of Various Fuel Types. EPA-430-

26 R-07-002, Washington, D.C. 

27 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Final Generic Environmental Impact 

28 Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 

29 2, Washington, D.C. 
Appendix J 

Supporting Documentation on 

Radiological Dose Assessment 

August 2010 J-1 Draft NUREG-1941 

Appendix J 

Supporting Documentation on 

Radiological Dose Assessment 

1 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff performed an independent dose 

2 assessment of the radiological impacts resulting from normal operation of the proposed new 

3 nuclear Units 1 and 2 at the Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF) Levy County site, 

4 approximately 9.4 mi north of the Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC) Unit 3 nuclear power 

5 station. The results of the assessment are presented in this appendix and are compared to the 

6 results from PEF’s Environmental Report (ER) (PEF 2009a) found in EIS Section 5.9, 

7 “Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations.” Appendix G is divided into three sections: (1) 

8 dose estimates to the public from liquid effluents, (2) dose estimates to the public from gaseous 

9 effluents, and (3) cumulative dose estimates. 

10 J.1 Dose Estimates to the Public from Liquid Effluents 

11 The NRC staff used the dose-assessment approach specified in Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC 

12 1977) and the LADTAP II computer code (Strenge et al. 1986) to estimate doses to the 

13 maximally exposed individual (MEI) and population from the liquid effluent pathway of the 

14 proposed Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) Units 1 and 2. 

15 J.1.1 Scope 

16 Doses from the LNP Units 1 and 2 to the MEI were calculated and compared with regulatory 

17 criteria for the following: 

18 Total Body – Dose was the total for all pathways (i.e., fish consumption, shoreline usage, 

19 swimming exposure, and boating) with the highest value for either the adult, teen, child, or 

20 infant compared to the 3-mrem/yr per reactor dose design objective in Title 10 of the Code 

21 of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 50, Appendix I. 

22 Organ – Dose was the total for each organ for all pathways (i.e., fish consumption, shoreline 

23 usage, swimming exposure, and boating) with the highest value for either the adult, teen, 

24 child, or infant compared to the 10-mrem/yr per reactor dose design objective specified in 

25 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. 
Appendix J 

Draft NUREG-1941 J-2 August 2010 

1 The NRC staff reviewed the assumed exposure pathways and input parameters and values 

2 used by PEF in ER Section 5.4 (PEF 2009a) for appropriateness, including references made to 

3 the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) Design Control Document (DCD) Revision 

4 17 (Westinghouse 2008). Default values from Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977) were used 

5 when site-specific input parameters were not available. The staff concluded that the assumed 

6 exposure pathways were reasonable and the input parameters and values used by PEF were 

7 appropriate. 

8 J.1.2 Resources Used 

9 To calculate doses to the public from liquid effluents, the NRC staff used a personal-computer 

10 (PC) version of the LADTAP II code entitled, NRCDOSE, Version 2.3.10 (Chesapeake Nuclear 

11 Services, Inc. 2006), obtained through the Oak Ridge Radiation Safety Information 

12 Computational Center (RSICC). 

13 J.1.3 Input Parameters 

14 Table J-1 lists the major parameters used by PEF and NRC staff in calculating dose to the 

15 public from liquid effluent releases during normal operation. For population dose assessment, 

16 PEF used the population projections for the year 2020 (5 years from the time of licensing 

17 action), which is consistent with the guidance in Section 5.4.1 of the Environmental Standard 

18 Review Plan (NRC 2000). These population projections are presented in ER Tables 2.5-1 

19 through 2.5-5 (PEF 2009a). 

20 When site-specific information was not available for its LADTAP II calculations, PEF chose to 

21 use the Regulatory Guide 1.109 default assumptions. These assumptions generally will lead to 

22 an overestimation of doses from the liquid pathway to the MEI, the population, and biota. The 

23 staff concludes this approach is bounding. 

24 J.1.4 Comparison of Results 

25 Table J-2 compares doses to the public calculated by PEF for liquid effluent releases for one 

26 unit with dose estimates determined by the NRC staff. NRC staff doses calculated were 

27 identical to the doses calculated by PEF. 
Appendix J 

August 2010 J-3 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table J-1. LADTAP Parameters and Selected Inputs 

Parameter Staff Value Comments

Radionuclide source-term file 

created from: LNP one unit 

liquid effluent source term 

(Ci/yr). 

Only radionuclides included in 

Regulatory Guide 1.109 are 

considered (NRC 1977). 

H-3 

Na-24 

Cr-51 

Mn-54 

Fe-55 

Fe-59 

Co-58 

Co-60 

Zn-65 

Br-84 

Rb-88 

Sr-89 

Sr-90 

Sr-91 

Y-91m 

Y-93 

Zr-95 

Nb-95 

Mo-99 

Tc-99m 

Ru-103 

Ru-106 

Rh-106 

Ag-110m 

Ag-110 

Te-129m 

Te-129 

Te-131m 

Te-131 

Te-132 

I-131 

I-132 

I-133 

I-134 

I-135 

Cs-134 

Cs-136 

Cs-137 

Ba-137m 

Ba-140 

La-140 

Ce-141 

Ce-143 

Ce-144 

Pr-143 

Pr-144 

W-187 

Np-239 

All others

1.01 × 103

1.63 × 103 

1.85 × 103 

1.30 × 103 

1.00 × 103

2.00 × 104 

3.36 × 103 

4.40 × 104 

4.10 × 104 

2.00 × 105 

2.70 × 104 

1.00 × 104 

1.00 × 105 

2.00 × 105 

1.00 × 105 

9.00 × 105 

2.30 × 104 

2.10 × 104 

5.70 × 104 

5.50 × 104 

4.93 × 103 

7.352 × 102 

7.352 × 102 

1.05 × 103 

1.40 × 104 

1.20 × 104 

1.50 × 104 

9.00 × 105 

3.00 × 105 

2.40 × 104 

1.413 × 102 

1.64 × 103 

6.70 × 103 

8.10 × 104 

4.97 × 103 

9.93 × 103 

6.30 × 104 

1.332 × 102 

1.245 × 102 

5.52 × 103 

7.43 × 103 

9.00 × 105 

1.90 × 104 

3.16 × 103 

1.30 × 104 

3.16 × 103 

1.30 × 104 

2.40 × 104 

2.00 × 105 

Releases to Discharge Canal (Ci/yr). Values from 

Westinghouse AP1000 DCD Table 11.2-7, Rev 17 

(Westinghouse 2008). 

Discharge flow rate 63 cfs one unit. 

Source-term multiplier selected 1.0 for one unit. 
Appendix J 

Draft NUREG-1941 J-4 August 2010 

1 Table J-1. (contd) 

Parameter Staff Value Comments

Population fractions modify 

defaults 

NO 

Site type Saltwater selected. 

Dose contributions print by 

radionuclide 

YES 

Reconcentration model NONE selected 

ALARA Max. Individual: shore 

– width actor 

1.0 (tidal basin), 

Dilution factor LNP FSAR table 11.2-201 

Rev 0 

Dilution factors for all pathways 21 

Transit time 0.00 

 

ALARA max. individual shore – 

width values: 

discharge canal bank 0.1 

River shoreline 0.2 

Lake shore 0.3 

Nominal ocean site 0.5 

Tidal basin 1.0 

Additional usage NONE 

Fish Invertebrate Shoreline Swimming Boating

Consumption, kg/yr Usage, hr/yr

Adult 21 5 12 12 100 

Teen 16 3.8 67 67 67 

Child 6.9 1.7 14 14 14 

Infant None None None None None 

Sport fish harvest 210,246 kg/yr dilution factor – 21 transit time – 0 

Sport invertebrate harvest 142,438 kg/yr dilution factor – 21 transit time – 0 

Commercial fishing 734,960 kg/yr dilution factor – 21 transit time – 0 

Commercial invertebrate 1,424,384 kg/yr dilution factor – 21 transit time – 0 

Population usage all checked: drinking water, shoreline, boating, swimming 

Drinking water None None None 

Shoreline: width factor 1.0 32,541,940 per-hr/yr dilution factor – 21 transit time – 0 

Boating 32,071,440 per-hr/yr dilution factor – 21 transit time – 0 

Swimming 32,541,940 per-hr/yr dilution factor – 21 transit time – 0 

Irrigation food data: none pathway and water usage locations 

Biota exposures None 

Block data: change block data NO 
Appendix J 

August 2010 J-5 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table J-2. Comparison of Doses to the Public from Liquid Effluent Releases for One Unit 

Type of Dose PEF (a) (b) (c)

Staff 

Calculation

Percent 

Difference

Total body (mrem/yr) 0.0052 (teen) 0.0052 (teen) 0 

Organ dose (mrem/yr) 0.071 (adult GI tract) 0.071 (adult GI tract) 0 

Thyroid (mrem/yr) 0.0127 (teen) 0.0127 (teen) 0 

Population dose from liquid pathway 

(person-rem/yr) 

1.13 1.13 0 

Population maximum organ dose 

from liquid pathway (person-rem/yr) 

2.89 2.89 0 

(a) LADTAP II Output File (PEF 2009b). 

(b) MEI results from PEF ER Tables 5.4-6 (PEF 2009a). 

(c) Population results from PEF ER Table 5.4-11 (PEF 2009a). 

2 J.2 Dose Estimates to the Public from Gaseous Effluents 

3 The NRC staff used the dose-assessment approach specified in Regulatory Guide 1.109 

4 (NRC 1977) and the GASPAR II computer code (Strenge et al. 1987) to estimate doses to the 

5 MEI from the gaseous effluent pathway and to the population within the 50-mi radius of the LNP 

6 site from the gaseous effluent pathway for proposed Units 1 and 2. 

7 J.2.1 Scope 

8 The NRC staff and PEF independently calculated the maximum gamma air dose, beta air dose, 

9 total body dose, maximum organ dose (bone), and thyroid dose and skin dose to receptors 

10 located at the maximum exposure for each pathway discussed in Section 5.9. The maximum 

11 atmospheric dispersion factor and the maximum ground deposition occurs in the west12 southwest (WSW) direction. The MEI is assumed to be located at 0.83 mi WSW in Section 5.4 

13 of the ER (PEF 2009a). Dose to the MEI was calculated for the following exposure pathways: 

14 plume immersion, direct shine from deposited radionuclides, inhalation, ingestion of local farm 

15 or garden vegetables, and ingestion of locally produced beef and goat milk. 

16 The NRC staff reviewed the input parameters and values used by PEF for appropriateness, 

17 including references made to the AP1000 DCD Rev 17(Westinghouse 2008). When site18 specific input parameters were not available, default values from Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC 

19 1977) were used. The staff concluded the assumed exposure pathways, input parameters, and 

20 values used by PEF were appropriate. The NRC staff used these pathways and parameters in 

21 its independent calculations using GASPAR II. 
Appendix J 

Draft NUREG-1941 J-6 August 2010 

1 Joint frequency-distribution data of wind speed and wind direction by atmospheric-stability class 

2 for the LNP site (PEF 2009a) were used as input to the XOQDOQ code (Sagendorf et al. 1982) 

3 to calculate long-term average atmospheric dispersion factor (/Q) and atmospheric deposition 

4 factor (D/Q) values for routine releases. Based on 2 years of meteorological data, the staff’s 

5 independent results are similar as those reported by PEF in ER Tables 2.7-58 through and 2.7-

6 61 Rev 1 (PEF 2009a). 

7 Population doses were calculated for all types of releases (i.e., noble gases, iodines and 

particulates, 3

H, and 14 8 C) using the GASPAR II code for the following exposure pathways: 

9 plume immersion, direct shine from deposited radionuclides, ingestion of vegetables, and 

10 ingestion of cow and goat milk, and meat. 

11 J.2.2 Resources Used 

12 To calculate doses to the public from gaseous effluents, the staff used a PC version of the 

13 XOQDOQ and GASPAR II codes entitled, NRCDOSE Version 2.3.10 (Chesapeake Nuclear 

14 Services, Inc. 2006), obtained through the Oak Ridge RSICC. 

15 J.2.3 Input Parameters 

16 Table J-3 lists the major parameters used in calculating dose to the public from gaseous effluent 

17 releases during normal operation. 

18 J.2.4 Comparison of Doses to the Public from Gaseous Effluent Releases 

19 Table J-3 presents dose estimates to the MEI for each gaseous pathway as calculated by PEF 

20 and the NRC staff. The doses provided by PEF in its ER Rev 1 and those calculated by NRC 

21 are similar, as shown in Table J-4. 

22 J.2.5 Comparison of Liquid and Gaseous Doses with 10 CFR Part 50 

23 Appendix I 

24 Table J-5 presents noble gas, radioiodine, and particulate matter dose estimates for the MEI as 

25 calculated by both PEF and the NRC staff along with dose design objectives of 10 CRF Part 50, 

26 Appendix I. 
Appendix J 

August 2010 J-7 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table J-3. GASPAR Parameters and Selected Inputs 

Parameter Staff Value Comments

New unit gaseous effluent source 

term (Ci/yr) 

Ar-41 

Kr-85m 

Kr-85 

Kr-87 

Kr-88 

Xe-131m 

Xe-133m 

Xe-133 

Xe-135m 

Xe-135 

Xe-138 

I-131 

I-133 

H-3 

C-14 

Cr-51 

Mn-54 

Co-57 

Co-58 

Co-60 

Fe-59 

Sr-89 

Sr-90 

Zr-95 

Nb-95 

Ru-103 

Ru-106 

Sb-125 

Cs-134 

Cs-136 

Cs-137 

Ba-140 

Ce-141 

Tritium 

3.4 × 101

3.6 × 101 

4.093 × 103 

1.5 × 101 

4.6 × 101 

1.776 × 103 

8.7 × 101 

4.642 × 103 

7.0 × 100 

3.34 × 102 

6.0 × 100 

1.168 × 101 

4.017 × 101 

3.5 × 102 

7.3 × 100 

6.06 × 104 

4.331 × 104

8.2 × 106 

2.316 × 102 

8.75 × 103 

7.88 × 105 

3.024 × 103 

1.159 × 103 

1.008 × 103 

2.452 × 103 

8.02 × 105 

7.77 × 105 

6.09 × 105 

2.298 × 103 

8.53 × 105 

3.552 × 103 

4.23 × 104 

4.164 × 104 

3.50 × 104

Values from Westinghouse AP1000 

DCD Table 11.3-3 for a single unit 

(Westinghouse 2008). Except for 

rounding differences, these values 

are the same as those reported in 

ER Table 3.5-2 (PEF 2009a). 

2 
Appendix J 

Draft NUREG-1941 J-8 August 2010 

1 Table J-3. (contd) 

GASPAR code entry, 

Site Specifics Input value Reference 

Source terms: annual average 

gaseous release 

DCD Table 11.3-3 Rev 17 

Source multiplication factor 1.0

Release time for purges 0.0 hr

Milk production data, meat 

production data, and vegetable 

production data 

 ER Table 5.4-5 Agricultural 

Statistics rounded to three 

significant figures by sector and 

distance 

Population control Population Data refer to ER Table 

2.5-4 2020 population residential 

Distance from site to northeast 

corner of United States (mi) 

1680 

Fraction of the year that leafy 

vegetables are grown 

0.92 ER Table 5.4-3 

Fraction of the year milk cows are 

on pasture 

0.92 

Fraction of maximum individual 

vegetable intake from own garden 

1.00 ER Table 5.4-3 

Fraction of milk-cow feed from 

pasture 

1.00 

Fraction of the year goats on 

pasture 

1.00 ER Table 5.4-3 

Fraction of the year goats feed 

from pasture while on pasture 

1.00 ER Table 5.4-3 

Fraction of the year beef cattle are 

on pasture 

0.92 ER Table 5.4-3 

Fraction of beef cattle feed from 

pasture while on pasture 

1.00 ER Table 5.4-3 

Sources: PEF 2009a; Westinghouse 2008. 
Appendix J 

August 2010 J-9 Draft NUREG-1941 Table J-4. Comparison PEF and Staff Results Annual Individual Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual from 1 Gaseous Effluents for One Unit 2 Pathway Age Group PEF Total Body Dose(a) (mrem/yr) Staff Total Body Dose(b) (mrem/yr) PEF Max Organ (Bone)(a) (mrem/yr) Staff Max Organ (Bone)(b) (mrem/yr) PEF & Staff Skin Dose(c) (mrem/yr) PEF Thyroid Dose(a) (mrem/yr) Staff Thyroid Dose(b) (mrem/yr) Plume (0.83 mi WSW) All 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.985 6.32 0.985 0.985 Ground (0.83 mi WSW) All 0.114 0.114 0.114 0.114 0.133 0.114 0.114 Goat Milk (2.4 mi NNW) Adult Teen Child Infant 0.0253 0.0404 0.0867 0.170 0.0253 0.0404 0.0867 0.170 0.0770 0.141 0.347 0.673 0.0770 0.141 0.347 0.673 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.155 0.246 0.497 1.17 0.155 0.246 0.497 1.17 Inhalation (0.83 mi WSW) Adult Teen Child Infant(d) 0.0598 0.0605 0.0536 0.0309 0.156 0.158 0.140 0.0806 0.00863 0.0104 0.0127 0.00637 0.0243 0.0294 0.0356 0.0178 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.521 0.649 0.753 0.673 1.39 1.73 2.01 1.80 Vegetable (1.7 mi WSW) Adult Teen Child 0.530 0.804 1.80 0.530 0.804 1.80 2.08 3.40 8.16 2.08 3.40 8.16 N/A N/A N/A 1.43 1.98 4.05 1.43 1.98 4.05 Meat (2.8 mi SSW)(e) Adult Teen Child 0.0128 0.0104 0.0189 0.0231 0.0188 0.0341 0.0564 0.0476 0.08741 0.102 0.0857 0.161 N/A N/A N/A 0.0180 0.0142 0.0246 0.0287 0.0229 0.0403 (a) PEF 2009a; See PEF ER Table 5.4-7 Gaseous Pathways – Dose Summary Maximum Exposed Individuals for one AP1000 Unit . (b) Staff estimates. (c) Skin dose is applicable for plume and ground, not for inhalation, vegetable, milk, and meat pathways. PEF and NRC staff estimates had the same results. (d) Infant doses are not calculated for the vegetable or meat pathways because the doses that infants receive from this diet would be bounded by the dose calculated for the child. (e) The NRC staff selected a more conservative meat location (2.2 mi NW) than the PEF-reported meat location (2.8 mi SSW). 
Appendix J 

Draft NUREG-1941 J-10 August 2010 

1 Table J-5. Comparisons of MEI Dose Estimates from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents to 

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Design Objectives(a) 2 

Radionuclide 

Releases/Dose 

PEF 

Assessment(b)

NRC Staff 

Assessment 

Appendix I 

Design Objectives 

Gaseous Effluents (noble gases only) 

Beta air dose 

Gamma air dose 

9.9 mrad 

1.7 mrad 

9.35 mrad 

1.67 mrad 

20 mrad 

10 mrad 

Whole body dose 3.1 mrem 3.16 mrem 

(Child – whole body) 

5 mrem 

Skin dose 6.3 mrem 6.45 mrem 15 mrem 

Gaseous Effluents (radioiodine and particulate matter) 

Critical organ dose from all 

pathways 

9.7 mrem 

(Child – bone) 

9.80 mrem 

(Child – bone) 

15 mrem 

Liquid Effluents 

Total body dose from all 

pathways 

0.0052 mrem 

(Teen – all 

pathways) 

0.0052 mrem 

(Teen – all pathways) 

3 mrem 

Critical organ dose from all 

pathways 

0.071mrem 

(Adult – GI-LLI) 

0.0714 mrem 

(Adult – GI-LLI) 

10 mrem 

(a) All doses are for one AP1000 unit. 

(b) Calculated doses presented in PEF ER Tables 5.4-6 and 5.4-8 (PEF 2009a). 

3 J.2.6 Comparison of Population Dose from Liquid and Gaseous Exposures 

4 Table J-6 presents person-rem dose estimates to individuals living within the 50-mi radius of 

5 LNP calculated by PEF and the staff. The population doses from gaseous effluents to 

6 individuals living within the 50-mi radius of LNP were calculated. For these doses, the 

7 population data were projected to the year 2020. The population doses for the various 

8 pathways (immersion, inhalation, ingestion, and ground deposition) are presented. 

9 Population doses resulting from natural background radiation to individuals living within the 50-

10 mi radius of LNP are presented in Table J-7. Table J-7 shows that the calculated person-rem/yr 

11 exposure from the LNP Units 1 and 2 would be much less than the estimated person-rem/yr 

12 exposure from natural radiation. 
Appendix J 

August 2010 J-11 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table J-6. Calculated Doses to the Population within 50 mi of the Proposed LNP Site from 

2 Gaseous and Liquid Pathways (Two AP1000 Units) (person-rem/yr-unit)

Pathway 

Whole Body 

PEF Rev 1 

Estimate(a)

Staff 

Estimate

Gaseous 

Plume 1.02 1.19 

Ground 0.10 0.10 

Inhalation 0.37 0.36 

Vegetable ingestion 3.10 3.03 

Cow milk ingestion 0.28 0.24 

Meat ingestion 0.88 0.87 

Total gaseous 5.74 5.79 

Liquid 

Sport fish 0.027 0.0272 

Commercial fish 0.001 0.0012 

Sport invertebrate 0.042 0.0422 

Commercial invertebrate 0.001 0.0013 

Shoreline 1.050 1.050 

Swimming 0.005 0.005 

Boating 0.003 0.00252 

Total liquid 1.13 1.15 

(a) PEF 2009a 

3 Table J-7. Natural Background – Estimated Whole Body Dose to the Population Within 

4 50 mi of the LNP Site

Source 

Annual Individual Dose 

Source (mrem/yr) 

Annual Population Dose(a)

(person-rem/yr) 

PEF Estimate 

Staff Estimate 

360(b)

311(d)

5.2×10+5(c)

4.5×10+5 

(a) Annual population dose based on projected residential population of 1,440,207 in 

year 2020 (from PEF ER Tables 2.5-2 and 2.5-4) (PEF 2009a). 

(b) 360 mrem/yr taken from NRC Fact Sheet, “Biological Effects of Radiation.” 

(c) Taken from PEF ER Table 5.4-12 Rev 1 (PEF 2009a). 

(d) NCRP 2009. 
Appendix J 

Draft NUREG-1941 J-12 August 2010 

1 J.3 Cumulative Dose Estimates 

2 Table J-8 presents the comparison of doses for LNP Units 1 and 2 with the dose standards of 40 

3 CFR Part 190. The table shows the NRC staff’s assessment of total doses to the MEI from LNP 

4 liquid and gaseous effluents. The assessment of doses includes releases of radiation from 

5 CREC Unit 3 because LNP shares a common discharge point for liquid releases with the CREC 

6 Unit 3. In additional, although the LNP and CREC sites are separated by nearly 10 mi, the staff 

7 adopted PEF’s approach and added the gaseous effluent doses for CREC to the gaseous 

8 effluent doses for LNP to provide a bounding assessment for LNP. As stated in Section 5.9.1, 

9 the direct radiation doses from LNP Units 1 and 2 at the site boundary would be negligible. The 

10 assessment shows that the 40 CFR Part 190 standards would be met. 

11 Table J-8. Cumulative Site Dose to MEI from LNP Units 1 and 2 Combined with CREC-3

Type Dose 

(mrem/yr) 

CREC-3 

Liquid & 

Gaseous(a)

LNP Unit 1 & 2 

Liquid Dose 

(Teen)(b)

LNP Unit 1 & 2 

Gaseous Dose 

(Child)(b)

Combined Max 

Individual Dose 

40 CFR 190 

Dose 

Standards 

T-Body 8E-05 0.0104 2.96 2.97 25 

Thyroid 0.002 0.0254 10.9 10.9 75 

Bone 0.002 0.0113 14.5 14.5 25 

GI-LLI(c) 0.002 0.286 (Adult) 3.6 3.9 25 

Skin 0.002 0.00506 5.59 5.6 25 

Other 

(worse case) 

0.002 0.286 14.5 14.8 25 

(a) CREC-3 operational data PEF ER Table 5.4-10 (PEF 2009a). NRC Staff notes that a 20-percent power 

uprate is planned at CREC Unit 3 in 2009–2011. NRC staff concluded that any potential increases in 

radiation exposure associated with this uprate would not change the combined maximum individual doses. 

(b) NRC staff-calculated values. 

(c) GI-LLI = gastrointestinal. 

12 J.4 References 

13 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

14 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

15 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 

16 “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.” 

17 Chesapeake Nuclear Services, Inc. 2006. NRCDose for Windows. Radiation Safety 

18 Information Computational Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

19 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 2009. Ionizing Radiation 

20 Exposure of the Population of the United States. NCRP Report No. 160, Bethesda, Maryland. 
Appendix J 

August 2010 J-13 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009a. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 COL 

2 Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. Revision 1, 

3 St. Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. ML092860995. 

4 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009b. Letter from Garry D. Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated 

5 January 16, 2009, ”Subject: Levy Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 52-029 and 52-

6 030, Supplemental Information for Environmental Audit – Information Needs with Attachments.” 

7 Accession No. ML090750823. 

8 Sagendorf, J.F., J.T. Croll, and W.F. Sandusky. 1982. XOQDOQ: Computer Program for the 

9 Meteorological Evaluations of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Stations. Final 

10 Report, NUREG/CR-2919, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

11 Strenge, D.L., R.A. Peloquin, and G. Whelan. 1986. LADTAP II - Technical Reference and 

12 User Guide. NUREG/CR-4013, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

13 Strenge, D.L., T.J. Bander, and J.K. Soldat. 1987. GASPAR II – Technical Reference and User 

14 Guide. NUREG/CR-4653, March 1987, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. 

15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from 

16 Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR 

17 Part 50, Appendix I. Regulatory Guide 1.109, Washington, D.C. 

18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan 

19 (ESRP) — Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. 

20 NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 revisions. 

21 Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2008. AP1000 Design Control 

22 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. 

23 ML083230868. 

Appendix K 

Wildlife Species Observed During Pedestrian Surveys, 

2006 – 2008 

August 2010 K-1 Draft NUREG-1941 

Appendix K 

Wildlife Species Observed During Pedestrian Surveys, 

2006 – 2008 

1 Tables K-1 through K-3 list species observed during pedestrian surveys completed for the Levy 

2 Nuclear Plant (LNP) site by Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF) between October 2006 and 

3 November 2008. 

4 Table K-1. Mammalian Species Likely to Occur on the LNP Site and Blowdown Pipeline 

5 Corridor Sites 

Common Name Scientific Name Observed Onsite(a) Season Observed(b,c)

Bobcat Lynx rufus LNP 

Blowdown Pipeline Corridor 

F, W, Sp 

W 

Cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus NA 

LNP 

NA 

F, W, Sp 

Cottontail rabbit Sylvilagus floridanus Blowdown Pipeline Corridor W 

Coyote Canis latrans LNP 

LNP 

F, W, Sp, S 

F, W, Sp 

Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensus Blowdown Pipeline Corridor W 

Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus NA 

LNP 

NA 

F, W, Sp 

Feral hog Sus scrofa Blowdown Pipeline Corridor W 

Southern flying 

squirrel 

Glaucomys volans NA 

LNP 

NA 

F, W, Sp 

Gray fox Urocyon cineroargentus Blowdown Pipeline Corridor 

LNP 

W 

F, W, Sp 

Hispid cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus Blowdown Pipeline Corridor W 

Marsh rabbit Sylvilagus palustris NA NA 

Mink Nustela vison NA 

LNP 

NA 

F, W, Sp 

Nine-branded 

armadillo 

Dasypus novemcinctus Blowdown Pipeline Corridor 

LNP 

W 

F, W, Sp 

6 
Appendix K 

Draft NUREG-1941 K-2 August 2010 

1 Table K-1. (contd) 

Common Name Scientific Name Observed Onsite(a) Season Observed(b,c)

Raccoon Procyon lotor Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

River otter Lutra canadensis Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis NA 

LNP 

NA 

F, W, Sp 

Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

LNP 

W 

F, W, Sp, S 

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Source: PEF 2009a 

Notes: 

South Site = the PEF-owned parcel immediately south of the LNP site 

NA = Not directly observed. 

(a) The species not directly observed were based on the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Department of Natural 

Resources “Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida,” February 1990 (PEF 2009b). 

(b) F = Fall, W = Winter, Sp = Spring, S = Summer 

(c) Observations along the blowdown pipeline corridor are based on winter survey only. 

2 
Appendix K 

August 2010 K-3 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table K-2. Bird Species Likely to Occur on the LNP Site and Blowdown Pipeline Corridor Sites 

Common Name Scientific Name Observed Onsite(a) Season Observed (b,c)

Acadian flycatcher Empidonax virescens NA NA 

American kestrel Falco sparverius LNP F, W, Sp, S 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga LNP  flyover F, W, Sp, S 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Bachman’s sparrow Aimophila aestivalis NA NA 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

LNP F, W, Sp, S 

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica LNP W 

Barred owl Strix varia LNP F, W, Sp, S 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Black vulture Coragyps atratus LNP F, W, Sp, S 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

2 

Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea LNP F, W, Sp 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata LNP F, W, Sp, S 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Brown-headed nuthatch Sitta pusilla LNP F, W, Sp 

Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis NA NA 

Brown thrasher Toxastoma rufa Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Carolina chickadee Parus carolinensis LNP F, W, Sp 

Carolina wren Thryothorus 

ludovicianus

LNP F, W, Sp, S 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Catbird Dumetella carolinensis LNP F, W, Sp, S 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum NA NA 

Common crow Corvus brachyrhynchos LNP F, W, Sp 

Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor LNP Sp 

3 
Appendix K 

Draft NUREG-1941 K-4 August 2010 

1 Table K-2. (contd) 

Common Name Scientific Name Observed Onsite(a) Season Observed (b,c)

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii LNP F, W, Sp, S 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Double-crested 

cormorant 

Phalacrocorax auritus LNP F, W, Sp, S 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens LNP F, W, Sp 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis LNP F, W, Sp, S 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus LNP Sp 

Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna LNP F, W, Sp, S 

Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe LNP F, W, Sp 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Eastern screech owl Otus asio LNP W 

Fish crow Corvus ossifragus LNP F, W, Sp, S 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Great blue heron Ardea herodias Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Great-crested flycatcher Miarchus crinitus LNP Sp 

Great egret Ardea alba Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Great-horned owl Bubo virginianus NA NA 

Green heron Butorides virescens Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus LNP W 

House wren Troglodytes aedon LNP W 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea LNP Sp 

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

2 
Appendix K 

August 2010 K-5 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table K-2. (contd) 

Common Name Scientific Name Observed Onsite(a) Season Observed (b,c)

Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris LNP W 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Mourning dove Zenada macrona LNP F, W, Sp, S 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus LNP F, W, Sp 

Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis LNP F, W, Sp, S 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos LNP F, W, Sp, S 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus LNP F, W, Sp, S 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Palm warbler Dendroica palmarum LNP F, W, Sp 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus LNP F, W, Sp 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Pine warbler Dendroica pinus LNP F, W, Sp 

Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus LNP F, W, Sp 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus LNP Sp 

Red-headed 

woodpecker 

Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus 

LNP F, W, Sp 

Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus LNP F, W, Sp, S 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis LNP F, W, Sp 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Redwinged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus LNP F, W, Sp 

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis LNP – flyover 

Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

F, W, Sp 

W 

2 
Appendix K 

Draft NUREG-1941 K-6 August 2010 

1 Table K-2. (contd) 

Common Name Scientific Name Observed Onsite(a) Season Observed (b,c)

American robin Turdus migratorius LNP 

Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

F, W, Sp 

W 

Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula LNP 

Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

F, W, Sp 

W 

Ruby-throated 

hummingbird 

Archilochus colubris NA NA 

Rufous-sided towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus LNP 

Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

F, W, Sp 

W 

Sandhill crane Grus canadensis LNP F, W, Sp 

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus LNP W 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Snowy egret Egretta thula Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Solitary vireo Vireo solitarius LNP W 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Southeastern American 

kestrel 

Falco sparverius paulus NA NA 

Summer tanager Piranga rubra LNP Sp 

Swallow-tailed kite Elanoides forficatus LNP Sp 

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor LNP F, W, Sp 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Tri-colored heron Egretta tricolor Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Tufted titmouse Parus bicolor LNP F, W, Sp 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura LNP F, W, Sp, S 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

White-eyed vireo Vireo griseus LNP F, W, Sp 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

White ibis Eudocimus albus LNP F, W, Sp, S 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

2 
Appendix K 

August 2010 K-7 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table K-2. (contd) 

Common Name Scientific Name Observed Onsite(a) Season Observed (b,c)

White pelican Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos 

Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo LNP 

Blowdown Pipeline 

Corrdor 

F, W, Sp, S 

W 

Wood duck Aix sponsa LNP F, W, Sp 

Wood stork Mycteria americana LNP F, W, Sp 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Woodcock Scolopax minor LNP W 

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata LNP F, W, Sp 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Yellow-throated vireo Vireo flavifrons LNP Sp 

Yellow-throated warbler Dendroica dominica NA NA 

Source: PEF 2009a 

(a) The species not directly observed were based on the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Department of Natural 

Resources “Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida,” February 1990 (PEF 2009b). 

(b) F = fall, W = winter, Sp = spring, S = summer 

(c) Blowdown corridor observations based on winter survey only. 

LNP = Levy Nuclear Plant site, including south property down to barge slip. 

NA = Not directly observed. 

2 
Appendix K 

Draft NUREG-1941 K-8 August 2010 

1 Table K-3. Reptile and Amphibian Species Likely to Occur on the LNP Site and Blowdown 

2 Pipeline Corridor Sites 

Common Name Scientific Name Observed Onsite(a) Season Observed(b,c)

Black racer Coluber constrictor LNP F, W, Sp 

Pygmy rattlesnake Sistrurus miliarius NA NA 

Eastern cottonmouth Agkistrodon piscivorus LNP Sp 

Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon couperi NA NA 

Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis LNP F, W, Sp 

Red rat snake Elaphe guttata guttata NA NA 

Yellow rat snake Elaphe obsoleta 

quadrivittata 

NA NA 

Ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus 

punctatus 

NA NA 

Scarlet kingsnake Lampropeltis triangulum 

elapsoides 

NA NA 

American alligator Alligator 

mississippiensis 

LNP Sp 

Green anole Anolis carolinensis LNP F, W, Sp 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Fence lizard Sceloporus undulatus LNP F, W, Sp 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Oak toad Bufo quercicus LNP F, W, Sp 

Narrowmouth toad Gastrophryne 

carolinensis 

NA NA 

Southern toad Bufo terrestris LNP F, W, Sp 

Diamondback 

rattlesnake 

Crotalus adamanteus LNP Sp 

Eastern glass Lizard Ophisaurus ventralis NA NA 

Peninsula ribbon snake Thamnophis sauritus 

sackenii 

NA NA 

Ground skink Scincella lateralis LNP F, W, Sp 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Broadhead skink Eumeces laticpes LNP F 

Five-lined skink Eumeces fasciatus N/A N/A 

Southeastern five-lined 

skink 

Eumeces inexpectatus N/A N/A 

Florida cooter Pseudemys floridana 

floridana 

LNP F 
Appendix K 

August 2010 K-9 Draft NUREG-1941 

1 Table K-3. (contd) 

Common Name Scientific Name Observed Onsite(a) Season Observed(b,c)

Box turtle Terrapene carolina 

major 

LNP – shells NA(d)

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor – shells 

Striped mud turtle Kinosternon bauri NA NA 

Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus LNP F, W, Sp 

Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentine LNP W 

Southern leopard frog Rana sphenocephala 

utricularia 

LNP F, W, Sp 

Little grass frog Pseudacris ocularis LNP F, W, Sp W 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Southern cricket frog Acris gryllus LNP F, W, Sp 

Southern chorus frog Pseudacris nigrita LNP F, W, Sp 

Pinewoods treefrog Hyla femoralis LNP F, W, Sp 

Barking treefrog Hyla gratiosa NA – 

Squirrel treefrog Hyla squirella LNP F, W, Sp 

Green treefrog Hyla cinerea LNP F, W, Sp 

Greenhouse frog Eleuthrodactylus 

planirostris 

LNP F, W, Sp 

 Blowdown Pipeline 

Corridor 

W 

Ornate chorus frog Pseudacris ornata NA NA 

Eastern spadefoot toad Scaphiopus holbrooki 

holbrooki 

NA NA 

Gopher frog Rana capito NA 

Source: PEF 2009a 

LNP = Levy Nuclear Plant site, including south property down to barge slip. 

NA = Not directly observed. 

(a) The species not directly observed were based on the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Department of Natural 

Resources “Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida,” February 1990 (PEF 2009b). 

(b) F = fall, W = winter, Sp = spring, no survey conducted during summer. 

(c) Observations along the Blowdown Corridor based on winter survey only. 

(d) Shells would not convey any information about season since they would have been on-site for an 

indeterminate amount of time, so season was disregarded. 

2 
Appendix K 

Draft NUREG-1941 K-10 August 2010 

1 K.1 References 

2 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009a. Letter from Garry Miller, PEF, to NRC, dated 

3 June 12, 2009, regarding Supplement 1 to Response to Request for Additional Information 

4 Regarding the Environmental Review. Accession No. ML091740487. 

5 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF). 2009b. Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 COL 

6 Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. Revision 1, 

7 St. Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. ML092860995. 
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse)

NRC FORM 335

(9-2004)

NRCMD 3.7

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

 (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

NUREG-1941 Vol. 2

3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH

August

YEAR

2010

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Levy Nuclear Plant

Units 1 and 2

Draft Report for Comment

5. AUTHOR(S)

See Appendix A

6. TYPE OF REPORT

Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor,

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above"; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Same as above

provide name and mailing address.)

and mailing address.)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Docket Nos. 52-029, 52-030

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared in response to an application submitted by Progress Energy

Florida (PEF) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for combined licenses (COLs) for Units 1 and 2 at the

proposed Levy Nuclear Plant site in Levy County, Florida. This EIS includes the review team's analysis that considers and

weighs the environmental impacts of the proposed action and mitigation measures for reducing and avoiding adverse impacts 

The NRC staff's preliminary recommendation to the Commission, considering the environmental aspects of the proposed action,

is that the COLs be issued. The recommendation is based on (1) the COL application; (2) consultation with Federal, State,

Tribal, and local agencies; (3) the review team's independent review; (4) the consideration of public scoping comments; and (5)

the assessments summarized in this EIS, including the potential mitigation measures identified in PEF's Environmental Report

and this EIS.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.)

Levy Nuclear Plant, LNP

Draft Environmental impact Statement, DEIS, EIS

National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, 

COL, combines licenses, environmental review

14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

unlimited

(This Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Office of New Reactors

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001