Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants 

Supplement 44 

Regarding 

Crystal River Unit 3 

Nuclear Generating Plant 

Draft Report for Comment 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

NUREG-1437 

Supplement 44 
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC=s Public Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.

Publicly released records include, to name a few, 

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices; 

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and 

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal 

memoranda; bulletins and information notices; 

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event 

reports; and Commission papers and their 

attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC 

regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of 

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

 Mail Stop SSOP

 Washington, DC 20402B0001

 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

 Telephone: 202-512-1800

 Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

 Springfield, VA 22161B0002

 www.ntis.gov 

 1B800B553B6847 or, locally, 703B605B6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

 Office of Administration

 Publications Branch

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION.SERVICES@NRC.GOV

Facsimile: 301B415B2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC=s Web site address 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs

are updated periodically and may differ from the last 

printed version. Although references to material found 

on a Web site bear the date the material was 

accessed, the material available on the date cited may 

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical 

libraries include all open literature items, such as 

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal 

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and 

congressional reports. Such documents as theses, 

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased 

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are 

maintained atC

The NRC Technical Library 

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852B2738

These standards are available in the library for 

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are 

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the 

originating organization or, if they are American 

National Standards, fromC

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036B8002

www.ansi.org 

212B642B4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only 

in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical 

specifications; or orders, not in 

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed in 

contractor-prepared publications in this series are not 

necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and 

administrative reports and books prepared by the staff 

(NUREGBXXXX) or agency contractors 

(NUREG/CRBXXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences 

(NUREG/CPBXXXX), (3) reports resulting from 

international agreements (NUREG/IABXXXX), (4) 

brochures (NUREG/BRBXXXX), and (5) compilations 

of legal decisions and orders of the Commission and 

Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors=

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC=s regulations 

(NUREGB0750).
Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for

License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants

Supplement 44 

Regarding 

Crystal River Unit 3

Nuclear Generating Plant 

Draft Report for Comment 

Manuscript Completed: May 2011 

Date Published: May 2011 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

NUREG-1437

Supplement 44 

 iii 

1 Proposed Action Issuance of a renewed operating license, DPR-72, for Crystal River Unit 3 

2 Nuclear Generating Plant in the city of Crystal River, Citrus County, 

3 Florida. 

4 Type of Statement Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

5 Agency Contact Daniel Doyle 

6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

7 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

8 Mail Stop O-11F1 

9 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

10 Phone: 301-415-3748 

11 E-mail: Daniel.Doyle@nrc.gov

12 Comments Any interested party may submit comments on this supplemental 

13 environmental impact statement. Please specify NUREG-1437, 

14 Supplement 44, draft, in your comments. Comments must be received by 

15 July 25, 2011. Comments received after the expiration of the comment 

16 period will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of 

17 consideration of late comments will not be given. Comments may be 

18 submitted electronically by searching for docket ID NRC-2009-0039 at the 

19 federal rulemaking website, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments may 

20 also be mailed to: 

21 Cindy Bladey, Chief 

22 Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch 

23 Division of Administrative Services 

24 Office of Administration 

25 Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M 

26 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

27 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

28 Please be aware that any comments that you submit to the NRC will be 

29 considered a public record and entered into the Agencywide Documents 

30 Access and Management System (ADAMS). Do not provide information 

31 you would not want to be publicly available.

 v 

1 ABSTRACT 

2 This draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response 

3 to an application submitted by Florida Power Corporation, doing business as Progress Energy 

4 Florida, Inc., to renew the operating license for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

5 (CR-3) for an additional 20 years. 

6 This draft SEIS includes the preliminary analysis that evaluates the environmental impacts of 

7 the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. Alternatives considered include 

8 replacement power from a new supercritical coal-fired plant, a new natural gas-fired 

9 combined-cycle plant, a combination of alternatives that includes some natural gas-fired 

10 capacity and energy conservation, and not renewing the license (the no-action alternative). 

11 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) preliminary recommendation is that the 

12 adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for CR-3 are not great enough to deny the 

13 option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers. This recommendation is based 

14 on: (1) the analysis and findings in NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Generic Environmental 

15 Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; (2) the environmental report 

16 submitted by Florida Power Corporation; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local 

17 agencies; (4) the NRC’s environmental review; and (5) consideration of public comments 

18 received during the scoping process. 

 vii 

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 

2 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... v 

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. vii 

4 FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... xv 

5 TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... xvi 

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... xxi 

7 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................................... xxix 

8 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................................................................... 1-1 

9 1.1 Proposed Federal Action ................................................................................................ 1-1 

10 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Federal Action ...................................................... 1-1 

11 1.3 Major Environmental Review Milestones ........................................................................ 1-2 

12 1.4 Generic Environmental Impact Statement ...................................................................... 1-3 

13 1.5 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................ 1-5 

14 1.6 Cooperating Agencies .................................................................................................... 1-6 

15 1.7 Consultations .................................................................................................................. 1-6 

16 1.8 Correspondence ............................................................................................................. 1-7 

17 1.9 Statutes and Regulatory Requirements.......................................................................... 1-7 

18 1.10 References ................................................................................................................... 1-7 

19 2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................ 2-1 

20 2.1 Facility Description ......................................................................................................... 2-1 

21 2.1.1 Reactor and Containment Systems ......................................................................... 2-5 

22 2.1.2 Radioactive Waste ................................................................................................... 2-6 

23 2.1.2.1 Radioactive Liquid Waste .................................................................................. 2-6 

24 2.1.2.2 Radioactive Gaseous Waste ............................................................................. 2-7 

25 2.1.2.3 Radioactive Solid Waste ................................................................................... 2-7 

26 2.1.3 Nonradiological Wastes ........................................................................................... 2-8 

27 2.1.4 Plant Operation and Maintenance ........................................................................... 2-9 

28 2.1.5 Power Transmission System ................................................................................... 2-9 

29 2.1.6 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems .................................................................... 2-13 

30 2.1.7 Facility Water Use and Quality .............................................................................. 2-17 

31 2.1.7.1 Groundwater Use ............................................................................................ 2-17 

32 2.1.7.2 Surface Water Use .......................................................................................... 2-18 

33 2.1.7.3 Groundwater Quality ....................................................................................... 2-19 

34 2.1.7.4 Surface Water Quality ..................................................................................... 2-24 
Table of Contents 

 viii 

1 2.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................................... 2-33 

2 2.2.1 Land Use ............................................................................................................... 2-33 

3 2.2.2 Air Quality and Meteorology .................................................................................. 2-33 

4 2.2.2.1 Regional Air Quality Impacts ........................................................................... 2-35 

5 2.2.3 Groundwater Resources ........................................................................................ 2-39 

6 2.2.4 Surface Water Resources ...................................................................................... 2-40 

7 2.2.5 Aquatic Resources................................................................................................. 2-41

8 2.2.5.1 General Characteristics of Aquatic Systems near Crystal River 

9 Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant ................................................................................... 2-42 

10 2.2.5.2 Major Aquatic Habitats near Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

11 Generating Plant ........................................................................................................... 2-42 

12 2.2.5.3 Aquatic Biota near Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant.................. 2-46 

13 2.2.5.4 Selected Important Species near Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

14 Generating Plant ........................................................................................................... 2-52 

15 2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources ............................................................................................ 2-60

16 2.2.6.1 Terrestrial Resources at the Crystal River Energy Complex Site .................... 2-60 

17 2.2.6.2 Terrestrial Resources Along the Transmission Line Rights-of-Way ................ 2-63 

18 2.2.7 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................... 2-64 

19 2.2.7.1 Aquatic Species .............................................................................................. 2-65 

20 2.2.7.2 Terrestrial Species .......................................................................................... 2-73 

21 2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors ......................................................................................... 2-88 

22 2.2.8.1 Housing ........................................................................................................... 2-88 

23 2.2.8.2 Public Services ................................................................................................ 2-89

24 2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use ............................................................................................. 2-91 

25 2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise ............................................................................ 2-92 

26 2.2.8.5 Demography .................................................................................................... 2-93 

27 2.2.8.6 Economy ......................................................................................................... 2-97 

28 2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources ................................................................. 2-99 

29 2.2.9.1 Cultural Background ........................................................................................ 2-99 

30 2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

31 Generating Plant Site .................................................................................................. 2-101 

32 2.3 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations ................................................. 2-104 

33 2.3.1 Coastal Zone Management Act ........................................................................... 2-104 

34 2.4 References ................................................................................................................. 2-105 

35 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF REFURBISHMENT ..................................................... 3-1 

36 3.1 References ..................................................................................................................... 3-3 

37 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF OPERATION ............................................................... 4-1 

38 4.1 Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 4-1 

39 4.2 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 4-1 

40 4.3 Groundwater ................................................................................................................... 4-6 

41 4.3.1 Generic Groundwater Issues ................................................................................... 4-7 
Table of Contents 

 ix 

1 4.3.2 Groundwater Use Conflicts (plants using greater than 100 gallons per minute) ..... 4-7 

2 4.4 Surface Water ................................................................................................................ 4-8 

3 4.4.1 Generic Surface Water Issues ................................................................................. 4-8 

4 4.5 Aquatic Resources ....................................................................................................... 4-10 

5 4.5.1 Generic Aquatic Resources Issues ........................................................................ 4-10 

6 4.5.2 Entrainment ........................................................................................................... 4-10 

7 4.5.3 Impingement .......................................................................................................... 4-15 

8 4.5.4 Heat Shock ............................................................................................................ 4-23 

9 4.5.5 Total Impacts on Aquatics Resources ................................................................... 4-29 

10 4.6 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................................................... 4-32 

11 4.7 Threatened or Endangered Species............................................................................. 4-33 

12 4.7.1 Aquatic Species ..................................................................................................... 4-33 

13 4.7.1.1 Gulf Sturgeon and Smalltooth Sawfish ........................................................... 4-34 

14 4.7.1.2 Sea Turtles ...................................................................................................... 4-35 

15 4.7.1.3 American Alligator ........................................................................................... 4-37 

16 4.7.1.4 Florida Manatee .............................................................................................. 4-37 

17 4.7.1.5 Summary ......................................................................................................... 4-39 

18 4.7.2 Terrestrial Species ................................................................................................. 4-39 

19 4.8 Human Health .............................................................................................................. 4-44 

20 4.8.1 Generic Human Health Issues ............................................................................... 4-45 

21 4.8.1.1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program ............................................ 4-45 

22 4.8.1.2 Radioactive Effluent Release Program ........................................................... 4-46 

23 4.8.2 Microbiological Organisms – Public Health ........................................................... 4-47 

24 4.8.3 Electromagnetic Fields – Acute Effects ................................................................. 4-47 

25 4.8.4 Electromagnetic Fields – Chronic Effects .............................................................. 4-48 

26 4.9 Socioeconomics ........................................................................................................... 4-49 

27 4.9.1 Generic Socioeconomic Issues ............................................................................. 4-49 

28 4.9.2 Housing Impacts .................................................................................................... 4-50 

29 4.9.3 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts .................................................................. 4-50 

30 4.9.4 Offsite Land Use .................................................................................................... 4-51 

31 4.9.4.1 Population-Related Impacts ............................................................................ 4-51 

32 4.9.4.2 Tax-Revenue-Related Impacts ....................................................................... 4-52 

33 4.9.5 Public Services: Transportation Impacts .............................................................. 4-52 

34 4.9.6 Historic and Archaeological Resources ................................................................. 4-53 

35 4.9.7 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................ 4-54 

36 4.9.7.1 Minority Population in 2000 ............................................................................. 4-55 

37 4.9.7.2 Low-Income Population in 2000 ...................................................................... 4-58 

38 4.9.7.3 Analysis of Impacts ......................................................................................... 4-59 

39 4.9.7.4 Subsistence Consumption of Fish and Wildlife ............................................... 4-60 
Table of Contents 

 x 

1 4.10 Evaluation of New and Potentially Significant Information ......................................... 4-61 

2 4.11 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................... 4-62 

3 4.11.1 Cumulative Impacts on Water Resources ........................................................... 4-65 

4 4.11.1.1 Groundwater Use .......................................................................................... 4-65 

5 4.11.1.2 Surface Water Use ........................................................................................ 4-66 

6 4.11.1.3 Groundwater Quality ..................................................................................... 4-67 

7 4.11.1.4 Surface Water Quality ................................................................................... 4-68 

8 4.11.2 Cumulative Impacts on Aquatic Resources ......................................................... 4-69 

9 4.11.3 Cumulative Impacts on Terrestrial Resources ..................................................... 4-77 

10 4.11.4 Cumulative Human Health Impacts ..................................................................... 4-80 

11 4.11.5 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts .................................................................... 4-81 

12 4.11.6 Cumulative Impacts on Air Quality ....................................................................... 4-84 

13 4.11.7 Summary of Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................... 4-87 

14 4.12 References ................................................................................................................. 4-88 

15 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS ...................................... 5-1 

16 5.1 Design Basis Accidents .................................................................................................. 5-1 

17 5.2 Severe Accidents ........................................................................................................... 5-2 

18 5.3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ......................................................................... 5-3 

19 5.3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5-3 

20 5.3.2 Estimate of Risk ....................................................................................................... 5-4 

21 5.3.3 Potential Plant Improvements .................................................................................. 5-5 

22 5.3.4 Evaluation of Risk Reduction and Costs of Improvements ...................................... 5-6 

23 5.3.5 Cost-Benefit Comparison ......................................................................................... 5-6 

24 5.3.6 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 5-8 

25 5.4 References ..................................................................................................................... 5-8 

26 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE AND WASTE 

27 MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................................... 6-1 

28 6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management ......................................................... 6-1 

29 6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................... 6-2 

30 6.2.1 Existing Studies ....................................................................................................... 6-2 

31 6.2.1.1 Qualitative Studies ............................................................................................ 6-2 

32 6.2.1.2 Quantitative Studies .......................................................................................... 6-3 

33 6.2.1.3 Summary of Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Coal.............. 6-4 

34 6.2.1.4 Summary of Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Natural Gas .. 6-5 

35 6.2.1.5 Summary of Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Renewable 

36 Energy Sources ............................................................................................................... 6-6 

37 6.2.2 Conclusions: Relative Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................... 6-7 
Table of Contents 

 xi 

1 6.3 References ..................................................................................................................... 6-9 

2 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DECOMMISSIONING ................................................. 7-1 

3 7.1 Decommissioning ........................................................................................................... 7-1 

4 7.2 References ..................................................................................................................... 7-2 

5 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES ......................................................... 8-1 

6 8.1 Supercritical Coal-Fired Generation ............................................................................... 8-3 

7 8.1.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 8-4 

8 8.1.1.1 Sulfur Oxides ..................................................................................................... 8-6 

9 8.1.1.2 Nitrogen Oxides ................................................................................................ 8-6 

10 8.1.1.3 Particulates ....................................................................................................... 8-6 

11 8.1.1.4 Carbon Monoxide .............................................................................................. 8-7 

12 8.1.1.5 Hazardous Air Pollutants ................................................................................... 8-7 

13 8.1.1.6 Carbon Dioxide ................................................................................................. 8-7 

14 8.1.1.7 Summary of Air Quality ..................................................................................... 8-7 

15 8.1.2 Groundwater Use and Quality ................................................................................. 8-8 

16 8.1.3 Surface Water Use and Quality ............................................................................... 8-8 

17 8.1.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology ............................................................................... 8-8 

18 8.1.4.1 Aquatic Ecology ................................................................................................ 8-8 

19 8.1.4.2 Terrestrial Ecology ............................................................................................ 8-8 

20 8.1.5 Human Health .......................................................................................................... 8-9 

21 8.1.6 Socioeconomics ....................................................................................................... 8-9 

22 8.1.6.1 Land Use ........................................................................................................... 8-9 

23 8.1.6.2 Socioeconomics .............................................................................................. 8-10 

24 8.1.6.3 Transportation ................................................................................................. 8-11

25 8.1.6.4 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................ 8-11 

26 8.1.6.5 Historic and Archeological Resources ............................................................ 8-11 

27 8.1.6.6 Environmental Justice ..................................................................................... 8-12 

28 8.1.7 Waste Management ............................................................................................... 8-13 

29 8.2 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Generation .................................................................... 8-14 

30 8.2.1 Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 8-15 

31 8.2.1.1 Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxides ............................................................................. 8-16 

32 8.2.1.2 Particulates ..................................................................................................... 8-16 

33 8.2.1.3 Hazardous Air Pollutants ................................................................................. 8-16 

34 8.2.1.4 Carbon Monoxide ............................................................................................ 8-17 

35 8.2.1.5 Construction Impacts ...................................................................................... 8-17 

36 8.2.2 Groundwater Use and Quality ............................................................................... 8-17 

37 8.2.3 Surface Water Use and Quality ............................................................................. 8-17 

38 8.2.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology ............................................................................. 8-17 

39 8.2.4.1 Aquatic Ecology .............................................................................................. 8-17 

40 8.2.4.2 Terrestrial Ecology .......................................................................................... 8-18 

41 8.2.5 Human Health ........................................................................................................ 8-18 
Table of Contents 

 xii 

1 8.2.6 Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................... 8-19 

2 8.2.6.1 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 8-19 

3 8.2.6.2 Socioeconomics .............................................................................................. 8-19 

4 8.2.6.3 Transportation ................................................................................................. 8-20

5 8.2.6.4 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................ 8-20 

6 8.2.6.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources .......................................................... 8-21 

7 8.2.6.6 Environmental Justice ..................................................................................... 8-21 

8 8.2.7 Waste Management ............................................................................................... 8-22 

9 8.3 Combination Alternative ............................................................................................... 8-23 

10 8.3.1 Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 8-23 

11 8.3.2 Groundwater Use and Quality ............................................................................... 8-25 

12 8.3.3 Surface Water Use and Quality ............................................................................. 8-25 

13 8.3.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology ............................................................................. 8-25 

14 8.3.4.1 Aquatic Ecology .............................................................................................. 8-25 

15 8.3.4.2 Terrestrial Ecology .......................................................................................... 8-26 

16 8.3.5 Human Health ........................................................................................................ 8-26 

17 8.3.6 Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................... 8-26 

18 8.3.6.1 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 8-26 

19 8.3.6.2 Socioeconomics .............................................................................................. 8-27 

20 8.3.6.3 Transportation ................................................................................................. 8-27

21 8.3.6.4 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................ 8-28 

22 8.3.6.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources .......................................................... 8-28 

23 8.3.6.6 Environmental Justice ..................................................................................... 8-28 

24 8.3.7 Waste Management ............................................................................................... 8-30 

25 8.4 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed ........................................................................ 8-30 

26 8.4.1 Offsite Coal- and Gas-Fired Capacity .................................................................... 8-30 

27 8.4.2 Coal-Fired Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle ............................................. 8-31 

28 8.4.3 New Nuclear .......................................................................................................... 8-31 

29 8.4.4 Energy Conservation/Energy Efficiency ................................................................ 8-32 

30 8.4.5 Purchased Power .................................................................................................. 8-33

31 8.4.6 Wind Power (Onshore/Offshore) ........................................................................... 8-33 

32 8.4.7 Solar Power ........................................................................................................... 8-34 

33 8.4.8 Wood Waste .......................................................................................................... 8-35 

34 8.4.9 Hydroelectric Power ............................................................................................... 8-35 

35 8.4.10 Wave and Ocean Energy ..................................................................................... 8-35 

36 8.4.11 Geothermal Power ............................................................................................... 8-36 

37 8.4.12 Municipal Solid Waste ......................................................................................... 8-36 

38 8.4.13 Biofuels ................................................................................................................ 8-37 

39 8.4.14 Oil-Fired Power .................................................................................................... 8-38 
Table of Contents 

 xiii 

1 8.4.15 Fuel Cells ............................................................................................................. 8-38 

2 8.4.16 Delayed Retirement ............................................................................................. 8-38 

3 8.5 No-Action Alternative .................................................................................................... 8-39 

4 8.5.1 Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 8-39 

5 8.5.2 Groundwater Use and Quality ............................................................................... 8-39 

6 8.5.3 Surface Water Use and Quality ............................................................................. 8-39 

7 8.5.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources ........................................................................ 8-39 

8 8.5.4.1 Aquatic Ecology .............................................................................................. 8-39 

9 8.5.4.2 Terrestrial Ecology .......................................................................................... 8-40 

10 8.5.5 Human Health ........................................................................................................ 8-40 

11 8.5.6 Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................... 8-40 

12 8.5.6.1 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 8-40 

13 8.5.6.2 Socioeconomics .............................................................................................. 8-40 

14 8.5.6.3 Transportation ................................................................................................. 8-40

15 8.5.6.4 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................ 8-40 

16 8.5.6.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources .......................................................... 8-40 

17 8.5.6.6 Environmental Justice ..................................................................................... 8-41 

18 8.5.7 Waste Management ............................................................................................... 8-41 

19 8.6 Alternatives Summary .................................................................................................. 8-41 

20 8.7 References ................................................................................................................... 8-44 

21 9.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 9-1 

22 9.1 Environmental Impacts of License Renewal ................................................................... 9-1 

23 9.2 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of License Renewal and Alternatives ............... 9-1 

24 9.3 Resource Commitments ................................................................................................. 9-1 

25 9.3.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts ......................................................... 9-1 

26 9.3.2 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the 

27 Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ............................................... 9-2 

28 9.3.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ....................................... 9-3 

29 9.4 Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 9-3 

30 10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................. 10-1 

31 11.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM 

32 COPIES OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

33 ARE SENT ............................................................................................................................... 11-1 

34 APPENDIX A. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE CRYSTAL RIVER 

35 UNIT 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ................................ A-1 

36 APPENDIX B. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT ISSUES FOR 

37 LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS .......................................................... B-1 
Table of Contents 

 xiv 

1 APPENDIX C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, LAWS, AND AGREEMENTS ..................... C-1 

2 APPENDIX D. CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE .................................................... D-1 

3 APPENDIX D.1. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

4 PROPOSED RENEWAL OF THE CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR 

5 GENERATING PLANT OPERATING LICENSE .................................................................... D.1-1 

6 APPENDIX E. CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE . E-1 

7 APPENDIX F. U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF 

8 EVALUATION OF SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR 

9 CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT IN SUPPORT OF LICENSE 

10 RENEWAL APPLICATION REVIEW ........................................................................................ F-1 

11 INDEX ......................................................................................................................................... I-1
Table of Contents 

 xv 

1 FIGURES 

2 Figure 1.3-1. Environmental Review Process. .......................................................................... 1-2

3 Figure 1.4-1. Environmental Issues Evaluated During License Renewal ................................. 1-5

4 Figure 2.1-1. Location of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, 50-Mile 

5 (80-Kilometer) Region ................................................................................................................ 2-2

6 Figure 2.1-2. Location of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, 6-Mile 

7 (10-Kilometer) Region ................................................................................................................ 2-3

8 Figure 2.1-3. Crystal River Site ................................................................................................. 2-4

9 Figure 2.1-4. Layout of the Crystal River Energy Complex ....................................................... 2-5

10 Figure 2.1-5. Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Transmission Lines .................. 2-12

11 Figure 2.1.7-2. Monitoring Well Locations at the Crystal River Energy Complex ................... 2-23

12 Figure 2.1.7-3. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Outfall Locations 

13 at the Crystal River Energy Complex ....................................................................................... 2-26

14 Figure 2.2.2-1. Landfalling Hurricanes in the Continental United States over the 

15 Period 1950 through 2008 ....................................................................................................... 2-34

16 Figure 2.2.4-1. Surface Water in the Vicinity of the Crystal River Energy Complex ............... 2-41

17 Figure 4.9.7-1. Minority Block Groups in 2000 within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) 

18 Radius of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant ........................................................ 4-57

19 Figure 4.9.7-2. Low-Income Block Groups in 2000 within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) 

20 Radius of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant ........................................................ 4-59

21 Figure 1. Location of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant at the Crystal 

22 River Energy Complex ........................................................................................................... D.1-2

23 Figure 2. Surface Waters in the Vicinity of the Crystal River Energy Complex ..................... D.1-4
Table of Contents 

 xvi 

1 TABLES 

2 Table ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action and 

3 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... xxvi

4 Table 2.1.5-1. Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Transmission Lines ................. 2-13

5 Table 2.1.7-1. Crystal River Energy Complex Production Wells ............................................. 2-18

6 Table 2.1.7-2. Crystal River Energy Complex Facilities Regulated under State of 

7 Florida Permits ......................................................................................................................... 2-20

8 Table 2.1.7-3. Groundwater Monitoring Requirements ........................................................... 2-22

9 Table 2.1.7-4. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Outfall Locations at 

10 the Crystal River Energy Complex ........................................................................................... 2-27

11 Table 2.1.7-5. Monitoring Requirements for Water Quality Parameters at National 

12 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Outfalls for Crystal River Energy Complex 

13 Units 1, 2, and 3 ....................................................................................................................... 2-29

14 Table 2.1.7-6. Monitoring Requirements for Water Quality Parameters at National 

15 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Outfalls for Crystal River Energy Complex 

16 Units 4 and 5 ............................................................................................................................ 2-30

17 Table 2.2.2-1. Monthly Climate Summary for Inverness 3 SE, Florida (National 

18 Weather Service Station 084289) ............................................................................................ 2-34

19 Table 2.2.4.2-1. National and Florida Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)..................... 2-38

20 Table 2.2.7-1. Federally- and State-Listed Aquatic Species that Could Occur in the 

21 Vicinity of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant and Associated 

22 Transmission Lines .................................................................................................................. 2-66

23 Table 2-6. Federally- and State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species that 

24 Could Occur in the Vicinity of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant and 

25 Associated Transmission Lines ............................................................................................... 2-80

26 Table 2.2.8-1. Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Permanent Employee 

27 Residence by County in 2006 .................................................................................................. 2-88

28 Table 2.2.8.1-1. Housing in Citrus County, Florida ................................................................. 2-89

29 Table 2.2.8.2-1. Major Public Water Supply Systems (million gallons per day) ...................... 2-90

30 Table 2.2.8.2-2. Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts in the Vicinity of Crystal River 

31 Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant .............................................................................................. 2-91

32 Table 2.2.8.5-1. Population and Percent Growth in Citrus County, Florida, from 

33 1970 to 2000 and Projected for 2010 and 2050 ....................................................................... 2-93

34 Table 2.2.8.5-2. Demographic Profile of the Population in the Crystal River Unit 3 

35 Nuclear Generating Plant Region of Influence in 2000 ............................................................ 2-94

36 Table 2.2.8.5-3. Demographic Profile of the Population in the Crystal River Unit 3 

37 Nuclear Generating Plant Region of Influence in 2009 ............................................................ 2-95

38 Table 2.2.8.5-4. Seasonal Housing within 50 Miles (80 Kilometers) of Crystal River 

39 Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, 2000 .................................................................................... 2-96
Table of Contents 

 xvii 

1 Table 2.2.8.5-5. Migrant Farm Workers and Temporary Farm Labor within 50 Miles 

2 (80 Kilometers) of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, 2007 ................................. 2-97

3 Table 2.2.8.6-1. Major Employers in Citrus County in 2006 ................................................... 2-98

4 Table 2.2.8.6-2. Income Information for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating 

5 Plant, 2009 ............................................................................................................................... 2-98

6 Table 2.2.8.6-3. Citrus County Property Tax Revenues, 2005 to 2008, and 

7 Progress Energy Property Taxes, 2005 to 2008 ...................................................................... 2-99

8 Table 2.2.9.2-1. Historic and Archaeological Sites in the Crystal River Energy 

9 Complex Associated Transmission Lines .............................................................................. 2-103

10 Table 3-1. Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation .................................................... 3-1

11 Table 3-2. Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation .................................................... 3-2

12 Table 4.1-1. Land Use Issues ................................................................................................... 4-1

13 Table 4.2-1. Internal Combustion Engine Stationary Sources of Criteria Pollutants 

14 Associated with the Operation of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant ...................... 4-2

15 Table 4.2-2. Criteria Pollutant Emissions from the Operation of 3,500-kW 

16 Emergency Generators Supporting Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

17 Operation ................................................................................................................................... 4-3

18 Table 4.2-3. Other Air Quality Issues Associated with Continued Operation of 

19 Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant ........................................................................... 4-6

20 Table 4.3-1. Groundwater Use and Quality Issues ................................................................... 4-6

21 Table 4.4-1. Surface Water Quality Issues ............................................................................... 4-8

22 Table 4.5-1. Aquatic Resources Issues .................................................................................. 4-10

23 Table 4.5-2. Estimated Annual Entrainment and Equivalent Adult Loss of Selected 

24 Representative Species at the Crystal River Energy Complex ................................................ 4-13

25 Table 4.5-3. Comparison of the Estimated Number of Selected Important Fish and 

26 Shellfish Species Impinged Per Year in 1977/1978, 1983/1984, and 2007/2008 .................... 4-19

27 Table 4.5-4. Comparison of the Estimated Biomass of Selected Fish and Shellfish 

28 Species Impinged at the Crystal River Energy Complex to Commercial Catches ................... 4-22

29 Table 4.5-4. Predicted Acreage of the Crystal River Energy Complex Thermal 

30 Plume Due to the Addition of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant .......................... 4-24

31 Table 4.5-5. Effects of the Crystal River Energy Complex Thermal Discharges on 

32 Selected Representative Species ............................................................................................ 4-26

33 Table 4.5-6. Projected Post-Uprate Summer Operational Discharges and 

34 Temperatures for the Crystal River Energy Complex .............................................................. 4-28

35 Table 4-6. Terrestrial Resources Issues ................................................................................. 4-32

36 Table 4-7. Threatened or Endangered Species Issue ............................................................ 4-33

37 Table 4.7.1.2-1. Sea Strandings at the Crystal River Energy Complex .................................. 4-36

38 Table 4-8. Human Health Issues ............................................................................................ 4-44

39 Table 4.9-1. Socioeconomic Issues ........................................................................................ 4-49
Table of Contents 

 xviii 

1 Table 4.11-1. Other Projects and Actions Considered in the Cumulative Analysis 

2 for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant ................................................................... 4-63

3 Table 4.11.2-1. Aquatic Resource Stressors .......................................................................... 4-70

4 Table 4.11.5-1. Projected Workforce at Levy Nuclear Plant during the First 8 Years 

5 of Operation ............................................................................................................................. 4-83

6 Table 4.11.7-1. Summary of Cumulative Impacts on Resources Areas ................................. 4-87

7 Table 5-1. Issues Related to Postulated Accidents. ................................................................. 5-1

8 Table 5-2. Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Core Damage Frequency 

9 for Internal Events ...................................................................................................................... 5-4

10 Table 5-3. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode ............................. 5-5

11 Table 6-1. Issues Related to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management ...................... 6-1

12 Table 6.2-1. Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Coal ..................................... 6-5

13 Table 6.2-2. Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Natural Gas .......................... 6-6

14 Table 6.2-3. Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Renewable Energy 

15 Sources ...................................................................................................................................... 6-7

16 Table 7-1. Issues Related to Decommissioning ........................................................................ 7-1

17 Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Supercritical Coal-Fired 

18 Alternative Compared to Continued Operation of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

19 Generating Plant ...................................................................................................................... 8-13

20 Table 8-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Natural Gas Combined-Cycle 

21 Generation Alternative Compared to Continued Operation of Crystal River Unit 3 

22 Nuclear Generating Plant ......................................................................................................... 8-22

23 Table 8-3. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Combination Alternative 

24 Compared to Continued Operation of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant ............. 8-30

25 Table 8-4. Summary of Environmental Impacts of No Action Compared to 

26 Continued Operation of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant .................................. 8-41

27 Table 8-5. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives ............ 8-43

28 Table 10-1. List of Preparers .................................................................................................. 10-1

29 Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments During the Scoping Period ................................. A-2

30 Table B-1. Summary of Issues and Findings. .......................................................................... B-1

31 Table C-1. Federal and State Environmental Requirements ................................................... C-2

32 Table C-2. Licenses and Permits ............................................................................................. C-4

33 Table D-1. Consultation Correspondence ................................................................................ D-1

34 Table 1. Ecoregion 2 Species Managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

35 Council ................................................................................................................................. D.1-14

36 Table 2. Species or Life Stages Excluded from and Retained for the Essential Fish 

37 Habitat Assessment ............................................................................................................. D.1-18

38 Table 3. Aquatic Resource Issues Identified in the GEIS ................................................... D.1-32
Table of Contents 

 xix 

1 Table 4. Ecoregion 2 Species Listed in the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

2 Plans Impinged at the Crystal River Energy Complex, December 2006 through 

3 November 2007 ................................................................................................................... D.1-35

4 Table 5. Predicted Acreage of the Crystal River Energy Complex Thermal Plume ............ D.1-40

5 Table 6. Projected Post-Uprate Summer Operational Discharges and 

6 Temperatures for the Crystal River Energy Complex .......................................................... D.1-42

7 Table 7. Stressors to Habitats and Biota in Florida ............................................................. D.1-55

8 Table 8. Commercial Landings of Federally-Managed Species for Citrus County 

9 and the West Coast of Florida for 1986, 2007, and 2010 .................................................... D.1-59

10 Table 9. Impacts of Continued Operation of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

11 Generating Plant on Ecoregion 2 Species and Their Essential Fish Habitat ....................... D.1-66

12 Table F-1. Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Core Damage Frequency 

13 for Internal Events ...................................................................................................................... F-2

14 Table F-2. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode ............................. F-4

15 Table F-3. Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Probabilistic Safety 

16 Assessment Historical Summary ............................................................................................... F-5

17 Table F-4. Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Fire Zones and Their 

18 Contribution to Fire Core Damage Frequency ........................................................................... F-9 

19 Table F-5. Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis 

20 for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant ................................................................... F-20 

 xxi 

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

2 BACKGROUND 

3 By letter dated December 16, 2008, Florida Power Corporation (FPC), doing business as 

4 Progress Energy Florida, Inc., submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

5 Commission (NRC) to issue a renewed operating license for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

6 Generating Plant (CR-3) for an additional 20-year period. 

7 Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 51.20(b)(2) 

8 (10 CFR 51.20(b)(2)), the NRC notes that a renewal of a power reactor operating license 

9 requires preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a supplement to an existing 

10 EIS. In addition, 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the NRC shall prepare an EIS which is a 

11 supplement to NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

12 License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) (NRC, 1996), (NRC, 1999a). 

13 Upon acceptance of FPC’s application, the NRC staff (Staff) began the environmental review 

14 process, described in 10 CFR Part 51, by publishing a Notice of Intent to prepare a 

15 supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) and conduct scoping. In preparation of 

16 this SEIS for CR-3, the Staff performed the following actions: 

17 ● conducted public scoping meetings on April 16, 2009, in Crystal River, Florida 

18 ● conducted a site visit at the plant in July 2009 

19 ● reviewed FPC’s environmental report (ER) (Progress Energy, 2008) and 

20 compared it to the GEIS 

21 ● consulted with other agencies 

22 ● conducted a review of the issues following the guidance set forth in 

23 NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear 

24 Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal (NRC, 1999b) 

25 ● considered public comments received during the scoping process 

26 PROPOSED ACTION 

27 FPC initiated the proposed Federal action—issuing a renewed power reactor operating 

28 license—by submitting an application for license renewal of CR-3, for which the existing license, 

29 DPR-72, will expire on December 3, 2016. The NRC’s Federal action is the decision whether to 

30 renew the license for an additional 20 years. 

31 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

32 The purpose and need for the proposed action (issuance of a renewed license) is to provide an 

33 option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of the current nuclear power 

34 plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be 

35 determined by other energy-planning decisionmakers. This definition of purpose and need 
Executive Summary 

 xxii 

1 reflects the NRC’s recognition that, unless there are findings in the safety review required by the 

2 Atomic Energy Act or findings in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental 

3 analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the NRC does not 

4 have a role in the energy-planning decisions such as those of State regulators and utility 

5 officials as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. 

6 If the renewed license is issued, the appropriate energy-planning decisionmakers and FPC will 

7 ultimately decide if the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for 

8 power or other energy-planning matters. If the operating license is not renewed, then the facility 

9 must be shut down on or before the expiration date of the current operating license, 

10 December 3, 2016. 

11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF LICENSE RENEWAL 

12 The SEIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. The 

13 environmental impacts from the proposed action are designated as SMALL, MODERATE, or 

14 LARGE. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of the following 

15 criteria: 

16 ● The environmental impacts associated with the issue are determined to apply 

17 either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling 

18 system or other specified plant or site characteristics. 

19 ● A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been 

20 assigned to the impacts, except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the 

21 fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal. 

22 ● Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue is considered in the 

23 analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation 

24 measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. 

25 For Category 1 issues, no additional site-specific analysis is required in this SEIS unless new 

26 and significant information is found. Chapter 4 of this SEIS presents the process for finding and 

27 evaluating new and significant information. Site-specific issues (Category 2) are those that do 

28 not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1 issues; therefore, a site-specific review is 

29 required, and the results are documented in the SEIS. 

30 The NRC has reviewed FPC’s established process for finding and evaluating new and 

31 significant information on the environmental impacts of renewing the CR-3 operating license. 

32 The CR-3 ER, scoping comments, and other available data records on CR-3 were reviewed by 

33 the NRC and evaluated for new and significant information. However, no new and significant 

34 information on Category 1 issues was identified during this review that would change the 

35 conclusions presented in the GEIS. Therefore, for these Category 1 issues, impacts during the 

36 renewal term are not expected to exceed those discussed in the GEIS. 

37 LAND USE 

38 SMALL. The NRC did not note any Category 2 issues for land use, nor did the Staff find any 

39 new and significant information during the environmental review. Therefore, for plant operation 

40 during the license renewal term, there are no land use impacts beyond those discussed in the 

41 GEIS. For these issues, the NRC concludes in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL. 
Executive Summary 

 xxiii 

1 AIR QUALITY 

2 SMALL. The NRC did not note any Category 2 issues for air quality impacts, nor did the Staff 

3 find any new and significant information during the environmental review. Therefore, for plant 

4 operation during the license renewal term, there are no air quality impacts beyond those 

5 discussed in the GEIS. For these issues, the NRC concludes in the GEIS that the impacts are 

6 SMALL. 

7 GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY 

8 SMALL. The NRC evaluated the direct and indirect impacts due to groundwater use conflicts 

9 during the license renewal term and concluded that the impacts would be SMALL. The GEIS 

10 considers this a Category 2 issue. All other groundwater issues are considered Category 1. 

11 The NRC did not find any new and significant information during the environmental review 

12 regarding these Category 1 issues. Therefore, for plant operation during the license renewal 

13 term, there are no impacts beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For these Category 1 issues, 

14 the NRC concludes in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL. 

15 SURFACE WATER USE AND QUALITY 

16 SMALL. All surface water issues are considered Category 1. The NRC did not find any new 

17 and significant information during the environmental review. Therefore, for plant operation 

18 during the license renewal term, there are no surface water impacts beyond those discussed in 

19 the GEIS. For these issues, the NRC concludes in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL. 

20 AQUATIC RESOURCES 

21 SMALL to MODERATE. The NRC evaluated the direct and indirect impacts of entrainment, 

22 impingement, and heat shock from continued operations during the license renewal term on fish 

23 and shellfish and concluded that the impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. The GEIS 

24 considers these Category 2 issues. All other aquatic ecology issues are considered Category 1. 

25 The NRC did not find any new and significant information during the environmental review 

26 regarding these Category 1 issues. 

27 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES 

28 SMALL. With the exception of threatened or endangered species (discussed below), all 

29 terrestrial ecology issues are considered Category 1, and, for these, the NRC did not find any 

30 new and significant information during the environmental review. Therefore, for plant operation 

31 during the license renewal term, there are no impacts to terrestrial resources beyond those 

32 discussed in the GEIS. For these Category 1 issues, the NRC concludes in the GEIS that the 

33 impacts are SMALL. 

34 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

35 SMALL. The NRC evaluated the direct and indirect impacts of continued operations during the 

36 license renewal term on terrestrial and aquatic threatened and endangered species and 

37 concluded that the impacts would be SMALL. The GEIS considers this a Category 2 issue. 

38 HUMAN HEALTH 

39 SMALL. With regard to Category 1 human health issues during the license renewal term— 

40 microbiological organisms (occupational health), noise, radiation exposures to public, and 

41 occupational radiation exposures—the NRC did not identify any new and significant information 

42 during the environmental review. In addition, the NRC’s review of the historical data on 
Executive Summary 

 xxiv 

1 radiation doses from radioactive releases from CR-3 demonstrates that it is operating in 

2 compliance with Federal radiation protection standards. Continued compliance with regulatory 

3 requirements is expected during the license renewal term. Therefore, for plant operations 

4 during the license renewal term, there are no impacts beyond those discussed in the GEIS for 

5 these Category 1 issues, and the NRC concludes in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL. 

6 Microbiological organisms (public health) and electromagnetic fields – acute effects (electric 

7 shock) are Category 2 human health issues. The issue of microbiological organisms does not 

8 apply to CR-3. Based on its review of relevant information, the NRC concludes that the 

9 potential impacts from electric shock during the renewal term would be SMALL. For chronic 

10 effects of electromagnetic fields, the NRC considers the GEIS finding of “uncertain” still 

11 appropriate and will continue to follow developments on this issue. 

12 SOCIOECONOMICS 

13 SMALL. For Category 1 issues (public services and aesthetic impacts), no new and significant 

14 information was found during the environmental review. Therefore, there would be no impacts 

15 beyond those discussed in the GEIS. Category 2 socioeconomic impact issues include housing 

16 impacts, public services (public utilities), offsite land use, public services (public transportation), 

17 and historic and archaeological resources. 

18 Since FPC has no plans to add additional outage and non-outage employees during the license 

19 renewal period, employment levels at CR-3 would remain relatively constant with no additional 

20 demand for permanent housing during the license renewal term. Based on this information, 

21 there would be no impact on housing during the license renewal term beyond what has already 

22 been experienced. 

23 For the same reason, demand for public water services will remain relatively unchanged with no 

24 additional demand. Public water systems in the region would be adequate to meet the 

25 demands of residential and industrial customers in the area. Therefore, there would be no 

26 additional impact to public water services during the license renewal term beyond what is 

27 currently being experienced. 

28 Since non-outage employment levels at CR-3 would remain relatively constant during the 

29 license renewal period, there would be no land use impacts related to population or tax 

30 revenues and no transportation impacts. Therefore, offsite land use and transportation issues 

31 would remain relatively unchanged. 

32 No impacts to known historic and archaeological resources are expected from the continued 

33 operation of CR-3 during the license renewal term. This conclusion is based on the results of 

34 archaeological surveys done on the property before initial plant and transmission line 

35 construction; a review of Florida State Historic Preservation Office Master Site Files, published 

36 literature, and information supplied by FPC; and verified use of existing environmental 

37 procedures by CR-3. 

38 With respect to environmental justice, the NRC also finds that no disproportionately high and 

39 adverse human health impacts would be expected in special pathway receptor populations in 

40 the region as a result of subsistence consumption of water, local food, fish, and wildlife. 
Executive Summary 

 xxv 

1 SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES 

2 Since FPC had not previously considered alternatives to reduce the likelihood or potential 

3 consequences of a variety of highly uncommon but potentially serious accidents at CR-3, NRC 

4 regulation 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) requires that FPC evaluate severe accident mitigation 

5 alternatives (SAMAs) in the course of the license renewal review. SAMAs are potential ways to 

6 reduce the risk or potential impacts of uncommon but potentially severe accidents and may 

7 include changes to plant components, systems, procedures, and training. 

8 The NRC reviewed the ER’s evaluation of potential SAMAs. Based on the review, the NRC 

9 concluded that none of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs relate to managing the effects of 

10 aging during the period of extended operation. Therefore, they need not be implemented as 

11 part of the license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. 

12 ALTERNATIVES 

13 The NRC considered the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to renewing the 

14 CR-3 operating license. These alternatives include other methods of power generation and not 

15 renewing the CR-3 operating license (the no-action alternative). Replacement power 

16 alternatives considered were supercritical coal-fired generation, natural gas combined-cycle 

17 generation; and a combination alternative that includes natural gas and conservation. The 

18 no-action alternative and the effects it would have were also considered by the NRC. The NRC 

19 evaluated each alternative using the same impact areas that were used in evaluating impacts 

20 from license renewal. Where possible, the NRC considered the existing infrastructure at the 

21 CR-3 site (e.g., transmission facilities, water intakes, and discharges) and whether it could be 

22 used by new alternative power plants. The results of this evaluation are summarized in 

23 Table ES-1. 

24 The NRC also considered a number of replacement power alternatives to renewing the CR-3 

25 operating license; these were later eliminated from detailed study due to technical, resource 

26 availability, or commercial limitations that currently exist and are likely to continue to exist when 

27 the existing CR-3 license expires. Replacement power alternatives considered but eliminated 

28 from detailed study include: offsite coal- and gas-fired capacity, coal-fired integrated 

29 gasification combined-cycle generation, new nuclear, energy conservation/energy efficiency, 

30 purchased power, wind power (onshore/offshore), solar power, wood waste, hydroelectric 

31 power, wave and ocean energy, geothermal power, municipal solid waste, biofuels, oil-fired 

32 power, fuel cells, and delayed retirement. 

33 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

34 The supercritical coal-fired generation alternative is not an environmentally preferable 

35 alternative due to impacts to air quality from nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, 

36 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and mercury (and the 

37 corresponding human health impacts), as well as construction impacts to aquatic, terrestrial, 

38 and potential historic and archaeological resources. 

39 The natural gas combined-cycle generation alternative would have slightly lower air emissions, 

40 and waste management and socioeconomic impacts would be lower than the coal-fired 

41 alternative. The combination alternative would have lower air emissions and waste 

42 management impacts than both the gas-fired and coal-fired alternatives. 

43 In conclusion, the environmentally preferred alternative in this case is the license renewal of 

44 CR-3. All other alternatives capable of meeting the needs currently served by CR-3 entail 
Executive Summary 

 xxvi 

1 potentially greater impacts than the proposed action of license renewal of CR-3. Because the 

2 no-action alternative necessitates the implementation of one or a combination of alternatives, all 

3 of which have greater impacts than the proposed action, the no-action alternative would have 

4 environmental impacts greater than or equal to the proposed license renewal action. 

5 Table ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Alternative 

Impact Area 

Air Quality 

Groundwater 

Surface Water 

Aquatic and 

Terrestrial 

Resources 

Human Health 

Socioeconomics 

Waste 

Management 

License renewal 

of CR-3 

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Supercritical 

coal-fired 

generation 

MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

MODERATE 

Natural gas 

combined-cycle 

generation 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL 

Combination 

alternative 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

No-action 

alternative 

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL 

6 RECOMMENDATION 

7 The NRC’s preliminary recommendation is that the environmental impacts of license renewal for 

8 CR-3 are not great enough to deny the option of license renewal for energy-planning 

9 decisionmakers. This recommendation is based on the following: 

10 ● the analysis and findings in the GEIS (NRC, 1996), (NRC, 1999) 

11 ● the ER submitted by FPC (Progress Energy, 2008) 

12 ● consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies 

13 ● the NRC’s environmental review 

14 ● consideration of public comments received during the scoping process 
Executive Summary 

 xxvii 

1 REFERENCES 

2 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

3 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

4 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for 

5 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

6 Atomic Energy Act of 1954. § 42 U.S.C. § 2011, et seq. 

7 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. § 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq. 

8 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

9 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C., 

10 May 1996, Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession 

11 Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738. 

12 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

13 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

14 Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final 

15 Report,” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C., August 1999, ADAMS 

16 Accession No. ML04069720. 

17 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999b. Standard Review Plans for 

18 Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, 

19 NUREG-1555, Washington, D.C., October 1999, ADAMS Accession No. ML003702019. 

20 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2008. “Crystal River Unit 3 – License 

21 Renewal Application, Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage,” 

22 November 2008, ADAMS Accession No. ML090080731. 

 xxix 

1 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

2 AADT annual average daily traffic 

3 ac acre 

4 AC alternating current 

5 ACC averted cleanup and decontamination cost 

6 ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

7 ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

8 AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 

9 AFW auxiliary feedwater 

10 ALARA as low as is reasonably achievable 

11 AOC averted offsite property damage cost 

12 AOE averted occupational exposure 

13 AOSC averted onsite cost 

14 APE area of potential effect 

15 AQCR Air Quality Control Region 

16 AQI Air Quality Index 

17 APE averted public exposure 

18 B.P. before present 

19 BEST backup engineered safeguards transformer 

20 BTU British thermal unit 

21 BWST borated water storage tank 

22 °C degrees Celsius 

23 CAA Clean Air Act 

24 CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule 

25 CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule 

26 CCP Coal Combustion Products 

27 CCUD Citrus County Utilities Division 

28 CDF core damage frequency 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

 xxx 

1 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

2 CET containment event tree 

3 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

4 cfs cubic feet per second 

5 CGCC coal gasification combined cycle 

6 cm centimeter 

7 CO carbon monoxide 

8 COE cost of enhancement 

9 COL combined license 

10 COLA combined operating license application 

11 CR-3 Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

12 CRD control rod drive 

13 CREC Crystal River Energy Complex 

14 CST condensate storage tank 

15 CWA Clean Water Act 

16 CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

17 DAW dry active waste 

18 dBA decibel 

19 DBA design-basis accident 

20 dbh diameter at breast height 

21 DC direct current 

22 DECON decontamination and dismantlement 

23 DH decay heat 

24 DHCC decay heat closed cooling 

25 DHR decay heat removal 

26 DHV decay heat valve 

27 DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

28 DSM demand-side management 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

 xxxi 

1 E.O. executive order 

2 EAC Early Action Compact 

3 EDG emergency diesel generator 

4 EFIC emergency feedwater initiation and control 

5 EFP emergency feedwater pump 

6 EFW emergency feedwater 

7 EIS environmental impact statement 

8 ELF-EMF extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field 

9 EOP emergency operating procedure 

10 EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

11 EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

12 EPU extended power uprate 

13 EPZ emergency planning zone 

14 ER environmental report 

15 ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 

16 °F degrees Fahrenheit 

17 F&O fact and observation 

18 FAC Florida Administrative Code 

19 FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

20 FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

21 FES final environmental statement 

22 FGD flue gas desulfurization 

23 FGT Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC 

24 FGUA Florida Government Utilities Authority 

25 FIVE fire-induced vulnerability evaluation 

26 FL Florida 

27 FNAI Florida Natural Areas Inventory 

28 FPC Florida Power Corporation 

29 FPSC Florida Public Service Commission 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

 xxxii 

1 FSAR final safety analysis report 

2 ft feet 

ft2 3 square foot 

4 FTS failure to start 

5 FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

6 FWP feedwater pump 

7 FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

8 gal gallon 

9 GCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

10 GElS generic environmental impact statement 

11 GGC groundwater guidance concentrations 

12 GIS geographic information system 

13 GL generic letter 

14 gpd gallons per day 

15 gpm gallons per minute 

16 ha hectare 

17 HCLPF high confidence in low probability of failure 

18 HEP human-error probability 

19 HEPA high-efficiency particulate air 

20 HIC high-integrity container 

21 hp horsepower 

22 HPI high-pressure injection 

23 hr hour 

24 HRA human reliability analysis 

25 HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

26 HX heat exchanger 

27 Hz hertz 

28 IPA integrated plant assessment 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

 xxxiii 

1 IPE individual plant examination 

2 IPEE individual plant examination of external events 

3 ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation 

4 ISLOCA interfacing system loss-of-coolant accident 

5 ITS Incidental Take Statement 

6 kg kilogram per year 

7 km kilometer 

km2 8 square kilometer 

9 kV kilovolt 

10 kW kilowatt 

11 L liter 

12 lb pound 

13 LERF large early release frequency 

14 LOCA loss-of-coolant accident 

15 LOOP loss of offsite power 

16 LOS level of service 

17 μg/L micrograms per liter 

18 m meter 

m2 19 square meter 

m3 20 cubic meter 

m3 21 /d cubic meter per day 

22 MAAP modular accident analysis program 

23 MACCS2 MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2 

24 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

25 mg/L milligrams per liter 

26 mgpd million gallons per day 

27 mGy milligray 

28 mi mile 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

 xxxiv 

1 MMACR modified maximum averted cost risk 

2 MOR model of record 

3 MOV motor-operated valve 

4 mrad millirad 

5 mrem millirem 

6 MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area 

7 msl mean sea level 

8 MSO multiple spurious operation 

9 mSv millisievert 

10 MSW municipal solid waste 

11 MTHM metric ton 

12 MUP makeup and purification system 

13 MUV makeup valve 

14 MW megawatt 

15 MWd/MTU megawatt days per metric ton uranium 

16 MWe megawatts-electric 

17 MWt megawatts-thermal 

18 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

19 NAS National Academy of Sciences 

20 NCDC National Climatic Data Center 

21 NEI Nuclear Energy Institute 

22 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

23 NESC® National Electrical Safety Code® 

24 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

25 NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

26 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

27 NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

28 NOx oxides of nitrogen 

29 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

 xxxv 

1 NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

2 NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

3 NSSS nuclear steam supply system 

4 NWS National Weather Service 

5 O3 ozone 

6 ODC ozone depleting compounds 

7 ODCM offsite dose calculation manual 

8 OTCW once-through condenser cooling water 

9 OTSG once-through steam generator 

10 PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 

11 Pb lead 

12 pCi/L picocuries per liter 

13 PD&E project development and environment 

14 PDS plant damage state 

15 PDWS primary drinking water standards 

16 PM particulate matter 

17 PM10 particulate matter, 10 microns or less in diameter 

18 PM2.5 particulate matter, 2.5 microns or less in diameter 

19 POD point of discharge 

20 PORV power-operated relief valve 

21 ppm parts per million 

22 ppt parts per thousand 

23 PRA probabilistic risk assessment 

24 PSA probabilistic safety assessment 

25 PTE potential to emit 

26 psu practical salinity units 

27 PWR pressurized-water reactor 

28 RAI request for additional information 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

 xxxvi 

1 rad radiation absorbed dose 

2 RB reactor building 

3 rem roentgen equivalent man 

4 REMP radiological environmental monitoring program 

5 RFO refueling outage 

6 RG regulatory guide 

7 RGWDS radioactive gas waste disposal system 

8 RICE reciprocating internal combustion engine 

9 RLE review level earthquake 

10 RLWDS radioactive liquid waste disposal system 

11 ROI region of influence 

12 ROW right-of-way 

13 RPC replacement power cost 

14 RRW risk reduction worth 

15 RWP raw water pump 

16 s second 

17 SAFSTOR safe storage of the stabilized and defueled facility 

18 SAMA severe accident mitigation alternatives 

19 SAR safety analysis report 

20 SAV submerged aquatic vegetation 

21 SCPC supercritical pulverized coal 

22 SCT south cooling tower 

23 SDWS secondary drinking water standards 

24 SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement 

25 SER safety evaluation report 

26 SERCC Southeast Regional Climate Center 

27 SG steam generator 

28 SGTR steam generator tube rupture 

29 SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

 xxxvii 

1 SMA Seismic Margins Assessment 

2 SMITTR surveillance, monitoring, inspections, testing, trending, and 

3 recordkeeping 

4 SO2 sulfur dioxide 

5 SOx oxides of sulfur 

6 SQUG Seismic Qualification User’s Group 

7 Sv sievert 

8 SFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District 

9 TDS total dissolved solids 

10 TECO Tampa Electric Company 

11 TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter 

12 TtNUS Tetra Tech NUS 

13 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

14 USCB U.S. Census Bureau 

15 USDOI U.S. Department of Interior 

16 USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

17 USI unresolved safety issue 

18 WRWSA Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority 

19 WTE waste-to-energy 

20 WUCA Water Use Caution Areas 

21 yr year 

 1-1 

1 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

2 Under the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) environmental protection regulations 

3 in Title 10, Part 51, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 51)—which carry out the 

4 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)—issuance of a new nuclear power plant 

5 operating license requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). 

6 The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA) originally specified that licenses for commercial power 

7 reactors be granted for up to 40 years with an option to renew for another 20 years. The 

8 40-year licensing period was based on economic and antitrust considerations rather than on 

9 technical limitations of the nuclear facility. 

10 The decision to seek a license renewal rests entirely with nuclear power facility owners and, 

11 typically, is based on the facility’s economic viability and the investment necessary to continue 

12 to meet NRC safety and environmental requirements. The NRC makes the decision to grant or 

13 deny license renewal based on whether the applicant has demonstrated that the environmental 

14 and safety requirements in the agency’s regulations can be met during the period of extended 

15 operation. 

16 1.1 PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION 

17 Florida Power Corporation (FPC), doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc., initiated the 

18 proposed Federal action by submitting an application for license renewal of Crystal River Unit 3 

19 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3), for which the existing license, DPR-72, expires on 

20 December 3, 2016. The NRC’s proposed Federal action is the decision whether to renew the 

21 license for an additional 20 years. 

22 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION 

23 The purpose and need for the proposed action (issuance of a renewed license) is to provide an 

24 option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current nuclear power 

25 plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be 

26 determined by other energy-planning decisionmakers. This definition of purpose and need 

27 reflects the NRC’s recognition that, unless there are findings in the safety review required by the 

28 AEA or findings in the NEPA environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a license 

29 renewal application, the NRC does not have a role in the energy-planning decisions of State 

30 regulators and utility officials as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to 

31 operate. 

32 If the renewed license is issued, State regulatory agencies and FPC will ultimately decide 

33 whether the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or other 

34 matters within the State’s jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. If the operating license is 

35 not renewed, then the facility must be shut down on or before the expiration date of the current 

36 operating license, December 3, 2016. 
Purpose and Need for Action 

 1-2 

1 1.3 MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MILESTONES 

2 FPC submitted an environmental report (ER) (Progress Energy, 2008b) as part of its license 

3 renewal application (Progress Energy, 2008a) in December 2008. After reviewing the 

4 application and the ER for sufficiency, the NRC published a Notice of Acceptance and 

5 Opportunity for Hearing in the Federal Register (NRC, 2009a) on March 9, 2009. The NRC 

6 published another notice in the Federal Register on April 6, 2009 (NRC, 2009b), announcing its 

7 intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping, thus beginning the scoping period. 

8 The NRC held two public scoping meetings on April 16, 2009, in Crystal River, Florida. The 

9 NRC report entitled, “Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process Summary Report for 

10 Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant,” dated March 2011, presents the comments 

11 received during the scoping process (NRC, 2011). Appendix A to this draft supplemental 

12 environmental impact statement (SEIS) presents the comments considered to be within the 

13 scope of the environmental license renewal review and the associated NRC responses. 

14 In order to verify information given in the ER, NRC staff visited the CR-3 site in July 2009. 

15 During the site visit, NRC staff met with plant personnel; reviewed specific documentation; 

16 toured the facility; and met with interested Federal, State, and local agencies. 

17 Figure 1.3-1 shows the major milestones in the public review of the SEIS. Upon completion of 

18 the scoping period and site visit, the NRC prepared and issued this draft SEIS. This document 

19 is made available for public comment for 45 days. During this time, the NRC will host public 

20 meetings and collect public comments. Based on the information gathered, the NRC will amend 

21 the draft SEIS findings as necessary and then publish the final SEIS. 

22 

23 Figure 1.3-1. Environmental Review Process. The process gives opportunities for public 

24 involvement. 
Purpose and Need for Action 

 1-3 

1 The NRC has established a license renewal process that can be completed in a reasonable 

2 period of time with clear requirements to assure safe plant operation for up to an additional 

3 20 years of plant life. The safety review is done simultaneously with the environmental review. 

4 The findings of the safety review are documented in a safety evaluation report (SER). The NRC 

5 considers the findings in both the SEIS and the SER in its decision to either grant or deny the 

6 issuance of a renewed license. 

7 1.4 GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

8 To help in the preparation of individual operating license renewal EISs, the NRC prepared the 

9 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (GEIS), 

10 NUREG-1437. In preparing the GEIS, the Commission determined that certain environmental 

11 impacts associated with the renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license were the same 

12 or similar for all plants and, as such, could be treated on a generic basis. In this way, repetitive 

13 reviews of these environmental impacts could be avoided. The generic assessment of the 

14 environmental impacts associated with license renewal was used to improve the efficiency of 

15 the license renewal process. The GEIS documents the findings of a systematic inquiry into the 

16 environmental impacts of continued operations and refurbishment activities associated with 

17 license renewal. 

18 During the preparation of the GEIS, the NRC identified 92 environmental issues associated with 

19 license renewal. Of the 92 environmental issues analyzed, 69 issues were resolved generically 

20 (i.e., Category 1); 21 would require plant-specific analysis assessments by license renewal 

21 applicants and review by the NRC (i.e., Category 2); and 2 issues, chronic effects of 

22 electromagnetic fields and environmental justice, were not categorized. The NRC performs a 

23 plant-specific environmental justice impact analysis for each license renewal. Appendix B of 

24 this SEIS lists all 92 issues. 

25 For each potential environmental issue, the GEIS provides the following information: 

26 ● describes the activity that affects the environment 

27 ● notes the population or resource that is affected 

28 ● assesses the nature and magnitude of the impact on the affected population or 

29 resource 

30 ● characterizes the significance of the effect for both beneficial and adverse effects 

31 ● determines if the results of the analysis apply to all plants 

32 ● considers if additional mitigation measures would be warranted for impacts that 

33 would have the same significance level for all plants 
Purpose and Need for Action 

 1-4 

1 The NRC’s standard of significance for impacts was established using the Council on 

2 Environmental Quality (CEQ) terminology for “significantly” as used in the NEPA, which requires 

3 consideration of both context and intensity (see 40 CFR 1508.27). The NRC established three 

4 levels of significance for potential impacts—SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE—as defined 

5 below: 

6 ● SMALL—Environmental effects are not 

7 detectable or are so minor that they will 

8 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter 

9 any important attribute of the resource. 

10 ● MODERATE—Environmental effects 

11 are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not 

12 to destabilize, important attributes of 

13 the resource. 

14 ● LARGE—Environmental effects are 

15 clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 

16 destabilize important attributes of the 

17 resource. 

18 The GEIS includes a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issue could be 

19 applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted 

20 (Figure 1.4-1). Issues are assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As presented in 

21 the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet the following criteria: 

22 ● The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to 

23 apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of 

24 cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristics. 

25 ● A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been 

26 assigned to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the 

27 fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal). 

28 ● Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in 

29 the analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation 

30 measures are likely not to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. 

Significance shows the importance 

of likely environmental impacts and is 

determined by considering two 

variables: context and intensity. 

Context is the geographic, 

biophysical, and social context in 

which the effects will occur. 

Intensity refers to the severity of the 

impact, in whatever context it occurs.
Purpose and Need for Action 

 1-5 

1 

2 Figure 1.4-1. Environmental Issues Evaluated During License Renewal. As previously 

3 discussed, the GEIS evaluated 92 issues. Of those 92 issues, 23 require a site-specific 

4 analysis. 

5 For generic issues (Category 1), a site-specific analysis is not required in this SEIS unless new 

6 and significant information is found. Chapter 4 of this SEIS presents the process for finding new 

7 and significant information. Site-specific issues (Category 2) are those that do not meet one or 

8 more of the criteria of Category 1 issues, and, therefore, a site-specific review for these issues 

9 is required. The SEIS presents the results of the site-specific review. 

10 1.5 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

11 The SEIS presents an analysis that considers the environmental effects of the continued 

12 operation of CR-3, alternatives to license renewal, and mitigation measures for minimizing 

13 adverse environmental impacts. Chapter 8 contains an analysis and comparison of the 

14 potential environmental impacts from alternatives, and Chapter 9 presents the preliminary 

15 recommendation to the Commission as to whether or not the environmental impacts of license 

16 renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal would be unreasonable. The 
Purpose and Need for Action 

 1-6 

1 recommendation will be made after consideration of comments received during the public 

2 scoping period and on the draft SEIS. 

3 In the preparation of this SEIS for CR-3, the NRC carried out the following activities: 

4 ● reviewed the information given in the FPC ER 

5 ● consulted with other Federal, State, and local agencies 

6 ● carried out an independent review of the issues during the site visit 

7 ● considered the public comments received during the scoping process 

8 New and significant information either notes a significant environmental issue that was not 

9 covered in the GEIS or was not considered in the analysis in the GEIS and leads to an impact 

10 finding that is different from the finding presented in the GEIS. 

11 New information can be found from many sources, including the applicant, the NRC, other 

12 agencies, or public comments. If a new issue is revealed, then it is first analyzed to determine if 

13 it is within the scope of the license renewal evaluation. If it is not addressed in the GEIS, the 

14 NRC determines its significance and documents its analysis in the SEIS. 

15 1.6 COOPERATING AGENCIES 

16 During the scoping process, no Federal, State, or local agencies were identified as cooperating 

17 agencies in the preparation of this SEIS. 

18 1.7 CONSULTATIONS 

19 The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries 

20 Conservation and Management Act of 1996, as amended; and the National Historic 

21 Preservation Act of 1966 require that Federal agencies consult with applicable State and 

22 Federal agencies and groups before taking action that may affect endangered species, 

23 fisheries, or historic and archaeological resources, respectively. Below are the agencies and 

24 groups with whom the NRC consulted; Appendix D includes copies of consultation documents. 

25 ● Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

26 ● Crystal River Refuge Manager 

27 ● Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

28 ● Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

29 ● Florida Natural Areas Inventory 

30 ● Florida State Historic Preservation Office 

31 ● Miccosukee Tribe of Florida 
Purpose and Need for Action 

 1-7 

1 ● National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Region 

2 ● Seminole Indian Tribe 

3 ● Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 

4 ● U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 

5 ● U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Regional Office 

6 1.8 CORRESPONDENCE 

7 During the course of the environmental review, the NRC contacted the Federal, State, regional, 

8 local, and Tribal agencies listed in Section 1.7. 

9 Appendix E contains a chronological list of all the documents sent and received during the 

10 environmental review. 

11 A list of persons who received a copy of this draft SEIS is provided in Chapter 11. 

12 1.9 STATUTES AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

13 FPC is responsible for complying with all NRC regulations and other applicable Federal, State, 

14 and local requirements. Appendix H to the GEIS describes some of the major Federal statutes. 

15 Appendix C to this SEIS includes a list of the permits and licenses issued by Federal, State, and 

16 local authorities for activities at CR-3. 

17 1.10 REFERENCES 

18 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

19 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

20 Atomic Energy Act of 1954. § 42 U.S.C. § 2011, et seq. 

21 Endangered Species Act of 1973. § 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq. 

22 Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the 

23 Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. § 16 U.S.C. § 1855, et seq. 

24 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. § 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq. 

25 National Historic Preservation Act. § 16 U.S.C. § 470, et seq. 

26 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

27 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C., 

28 May 1996, Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession 

29 Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738. 

30 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

31 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

32 Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final 

33 Report,” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C., August 1999, ADAMS 

34 Accession No. ML040690720. 
Purpose and Need for Action 

 1-8 

1 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009a. “Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of 

2 the Application and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding Renewal of Facility Operating 

3 License No. DPR-72 for an Additional 20-Year Period; Florida Power Corporation; Crystal River 

4 Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant,” Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 44, March 9, 2009, 

5 pp. 10099–10101. 

6 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009b. “Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating 

7 Plant; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping 

8 Process,” Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 64, April 6, 2009, pp. 15523–15525. 

9 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. “Environmental Impact Statement Scoping 

10 Process Summary Report for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant,” ADAMS 

11 Accession No. ML110490462. 

12 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2008a. “Crystal River Unit 3 – License 

13 Renewal Application,” November 2008, ADAMS Accession No. ML090080053. 

14 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2008b. “Crystal River Unit 3 – License 

15 Renewal Application, Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage,” 

16 November 2008, ADAMS Accession No. ML090080731. 
 2-1 

1 2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

2 Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3) is located in Citrus County, Florida, on 

3 Crystal Bay, an embayment of the Gulf of Mexico. The plant lies approximately 80 miles (mi) 

4 (129 kilometers [km]) north of Tampa, Florida. Figure 2.1-1 and Figure 2.1-2 present the 50-mi 

5 (80-km) and 6-mi (10-km) vicinity maps, respectively. 

6 The plant is part of the larger Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC), which includes the single 

7 nuclear unit and four fossil-fueled units, Crystal River Units 1, 2, 4, and 5 (CR-1, CR-2, CR-4, 

8 and CR-5). 

9 The CR-3 facility operating license lists 10 licensees: Florida Power Corporation (FPC), City of 

10 Alachua, City of Bushnell, City of Gainesville, City of Kissimmee, City of Leesburg, City of New 

11 Smyrna Beach Utilities Commission and City of New Smyrna Beach, City of Ocala, Orlando 

12 Utilities Commission and City of Orlando, and Seminole Electric Cooperative. FPC, now doing 

13 business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc., submitted the CR-3 license renewal application to 

14 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Progress Energy Florida, Inc. is a wholly 

15 owned subsidiary of Progress Energy, a diversified energy services company headquartered in 

16 Raleigh, North Carolina. In this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), the 

17 applicant is referred to as FPC. In the environmental report and correspondence, the applicant 

18 refers to itself as Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (Progress Energy). 

19 For purposes of the evaluation in this SEIS, the “affected environment” is the environment that 

20 currently exists at and around CR-3. Because existing conditions are at least partially the result 

21 of past construction and operation at the plant, the impacts of these past and ongoing actions 

22 and how they have shaped the environment are presented here. The facility and its operation 

23 are described in Section 2.1, and the affected environment is presented in Section 2.2. 

24 2.1 FACILITY DESCRIPTION 

25 CR-3 is single unit nuclear power plant that began commercial operation in March 1977. The 

26 CREC site boundary encloses approximately 4,738 acres (ac) (1,917 hectares [ha]). The most 

27 conspicuous structures on the CREC include four fossil-fueled units, two large cooling towers, 

28 coal delivery and storage areas, ash storage basins, office buildings, warehouses, stacks, 

29 roads, barge handling docks, and a railroad. Figure 2.1-3 provides an overview of the CREC 

30 site boundary and Figure 2.1-4 provides the general layout of the CREC. 
Affected Environment 

 2-2 

1 

2 Figure 2.1-1. Location of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, 50-Mile 

3 (80-Kilometer) Region (Source: Progress Energy, 2008a) 
Affected Environment 

 2-3 

1 

2 Figure 2.1-2. Location of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, 6-Mile 

3 (10-Kilometer) Region (Source: Progress Energy, 2008a) 
Affected Environment 

 2-4 

1 

2 Figure 2.1-3. Crystal River Site (Source: Progress Energy, 2008a) 
Affected Environment 

 2-5 

1 

2 Figure 2.1-4. Layout of the Crystal River Energy Complex 

3 2.1.1 Reactor and Containment Systems 

4 CR-3 is a single-unit plant with a conventional domed concrete containment building. The plant 

5 includes a pressurized light-water reactor (PWR) nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) supplied 

6 by Babcock & Wilcox and a turbine generator designed and manufactured by Westinghouse 

7 Electric Company. 

8 The reactor containment structure is a steel-lined, reinforced-concrete structure in the shape of 

9 a cylinder and capped with a hemispheric dome. The walls of the containment structure are 

10 approximately 3.5 feet (ft) (1.1 meters [m]) thick. With its engineered safety features, the 

11 containment structure (reactor building) is designed to withstand severe weather 

12 (e.g., tornadoes and hurricanes) and provide radiation protection during normal operations and 

13 design-basis accidents (DBAs). 

14 The NSSS at CR-3 is typical of PWRs. The reactor core produces heated water that flows 

15 through a steam generator. The heated water in the steam generator creates steam which is 

16 routed to the turbines. The steam yields its energy to the turbines, which are connected to the 

17 electrical generator (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

18 CR-3 fuel is low-enriched uranium dioxide cylindrical pellets. The pellets are clad in zirconium 

19 alloy tubing and sealed by zirconium alloy end caps, welded at each end. The maximum fuel 

20 rod burn-up is 62,000 megawatt days per metric ton uranium (MWd/MTU). CR-3 was initially 

21 licensed to operate at a maximum of 2,452 megawatts-thermal (MWt). In 1981, the NRC 
Affected Environment 

 2-6 

1 approved operation of CR-3 at up to 2,544 MWt. On June 5, 2002, FPC submitted a license 

2 amendment request, seeking NRC approval to operate at a power level of 2,568 MWt. On 

3 December 6, 2002, the NRC approved the request, noting that it would increase the generating 

4 capacity of the plant by 0.9 percent, from 895 megawatts-electric (MWe) to 903 MWe. On 

5 December 26, 2007, the NRC approved an FPC request to increase the licensed core power 

6 level of CR-3 by 1.6 percent, to 2,609 MWt. FPC has notified the NRC that it intends to submit 

7 a license amendment request for an extended power uprate (EPU) which would increase the 

8 power level from 2,609 MWt to 3,014 MWt (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

9 2.1.2 Radioactive Waste 

10 The radioactive waste systems collect, treat, and dispose of radioactive and potential 

11 radioactive wastes that are byproducts of plant operations. The byproducts are activation 

12 products resulting from the irradiation of reactor water and impurities (principally metallic 

13 corrosion products), and fission products resulting from defective fuel cladding or uranium 

14 contamination within the reactor coolant system. Operating procedures for the radioactive 

15 waste system ensure that radioactive wastes are safely processed and discharged from the 

16 plant. The systems are designed and operated to assure that the quantities of radioactive 

17 materials released from the plant are as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) and within 

18 the dose standards set forth in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20 

19 (10 CFR Part 20), “Standards for Protection Against Radiation,” and Appendix I to 

20 10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.” The CR-3 offsite 

21 dose calculation manual (ODCM) contains the methodology and parameters used to calculate 

22 offsite doses resulting from radioactive effluents. The methodology is used to ensure that 

23 radioactive material discharged from the plant meets regulatory dose standards. 

24 Radioactive wastes resulting from plant operations are classified as liquid, gaseous, and solid. 

25 Radioactive liquid wastes are generated from liquids received directly from portions of the 

26 reactor coolant system or were contaminated by contact with liquids from the reactor coolant 

27 system. Radioactive gaseous wastes are generated from gases or airborne particulates vented 

28 from reactor and turbine equipment containing radioactive material. Radioactive solid wastes 

29 are solids filtered out of the reactor coolant system, material or equipment that came into 

30 contact with reactor coolant system liquids or gases, or solids used in the reactor coolant 

31 system or the power conversion system (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

32 Reactor fuel that has exhausted a certain percentage of its fissile uranium content is referred to 

33 as spent fuel. Spent fuel assemblies are removed from the reactor core and replaced with fresh 

34 fuel assemblies during routine refueling outages (RFOs), typically every 24 months. Spent fuel 

35 assemblies are stored in the spent fuel pool. In addition to the spent fuel pool, FPC began 

36 construction activities for an onsite independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) in 2009 to 

37 store spent nuclear fuel in dry casks (Progress Energy, 2009f), (NRC, 2010). 

38 2.1.2.1 Radioactive Liquid Waste 

39 The radioactive liquid waste disposal system (RLWDS) is used to collect, store, and process 

40 radioactive liquid wastes for disposal or reuse. The RLWDS provides a means to process 

41 radioactive liquid waste prior to release and ensures that waste releases are performed in a 

42 controlled manner. The system is designed to minimize the total radioactivity and volume of 

43 radioactive liquid waste released to the environment. The components of the RLWDS are 

44 tanks, pumps, demineralizers, coolers, floor and equipment drains, sumps, valves, and piping. 

45 The system provides for the recovery of concentrated boric acid and purified water resulting 

46 from the cleanup of primary reactor coolant and refueling water. Recycle capability is provided 
Affected Environment 

 2-7 

1 to minimize the total radioactivity released to the environment. The collection and processing of 

2 liquid wastes is divided into two separate processing streams, dependent upon the quality of the 

3 waste. The primary processing stream is used to process the high purity waste, such as reactor 

4 coolant and refueling water. The second or miscellaneous processing stream is used to 

5 process the miscellaneous wastes from radioactive laboratory drains, building and equipment 

6 drains and sumps, regeneration solution for deborating demineralizers, and demineralizer 

7 backwash. The processed radioactive liquid waste is released into the discharge canal which 

8 flows into the Gulf of Mexico (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

9 2.1.2.2 Radioactive Gaseous Waste 

10 The radioactive gas waste disposal system (RGWDS) safely collects, stores, monitors, and 

11 releases gases released from reactor coolant and the RLWDS. The mixture of gases collected 

12 (nitrogen, hydrogen, and radioactive gaseous isotopes) is compressed and stored to allow for 

13 decay of its radioactive components prior to recycling or disposal through the plant vent stack to 

14 the atmosphere. 

15 The RGWDS consists of gas compressors, waste gas decay tanks, a waste gas decay tank 

16 sequencer, a waste sampling system, and the interconnecting piping, control valves, and 

17 instrumentation. 

18 The functions of the RGWDS include: 

19 (1) a means for compressing gases contained above the liquids in the radioactive liquid 

20 waste and reactor coolant system 

21 (2) capability for recycling and reuse of collected gases from the waste gas decay tanks 

22 (3) storage for the decay of radioactive gases 

23 (4) a means for controlling and monitoring the release of radioactive gases to the 

24 environment 

25 Prior to their release into the atmosphere, the radioactive gases are sampled and analyzed in 

26 accordance with the surveillance requirements of the ODCM. The gases are filtered through 

27 charcoal and high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters to further reduce the amount of any 

28 radioactive iodine and particulates that may be present in the waste stream 

29 (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

30 2.1.2.3 Radioactive Solid Waste 

31 The radioactive solid waste management process is designed to safely package, store, and 

32 transport radioactive waste, while minimizing radiation exposure to personnel. Wastes are 

33 packaged for storage, shipment to offsite waste processors, or shipment to burial facilities. 

34 Waste can also be returned to CR-3 from offsite waste processors for long-term storage. Solid 

35 waste packaging and transportation is performed in accordance with Department of 

36 Transportation and NRC regulations. 

37 The types of radioactive waste generated at CR-3 include: 

38 (1) dry active waste (DAW) 

39 (2) spent resins 
Affected Environment 

 2-8 

1 (3) tank and sump sludge 

2 (4) spent filters 

3 (5) contaminated oil 

4 DAW consists of contaminated paper, plastic, cloth, rubber, glass, and metals. DAW can be 

5 placed into a strong, tight container for shipment to an offsite processor or compacted into 

6 55-gallon drums. 

7 Spent resins are generated primarily from the reactor coolant water makeup and purification, 

8 liquid waste processing, and condensate systems. The used resins are stored in the spent 

9 resin storage tank for radioactive decay. After a period of time, the resins are transferred into 

10 high-integrity containers (HICs), located within a shielded cask in the truck loading area of the 

11 auxiliary building. Resins are de-watered prior to shipment for offsite processing or direct 

12 disposal. 

13 Tank and sump sludge is generated during the cleaning of various tanks and sumps located in 

14 the auxiliary and reactor buildings. The sludge is transferred into suitable containers and 

15 de-watered. Sludge can be processed into a form (i.e., solidified waste) suitable for disposal 

16 either onsite or by offsite waste processors using the process control program and procedures. 

17 Spent filters are removed from service and stored to allow for radioactive decay. Filters are 

18 loaded for shipment into appropriate containers (e.g., HICs or 55-gallon drums) for disposal. 

19 Contaminated oil is routinely generated during pump oil changes and sump cleaning. This oil is 

20 collected and sent to an offsite processor for disposal. 

21 Low-level radioactive waste is stored on the CR-3 site in outside storage areas and the 

22 radioactive material storage warehouse. 

23 The State of South Carolina’s licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility, located in 

24 Barnwell, has limited the access from radioactive waste generators located in States that are 

25 not part of the Atlantic Low-Level Waste Compact. Florida is not a member of the Atlantic 

26 Low-Level Waste Compact. This has not affected CR-3’s ability to safely handle its radioactive 

27 solid low-level waste. CR-3 has storage capacity for its radioactive waste during the license 

28 renewal term (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

29 2.1.3 Nonradiological Wastes 

30 CR-3 is part of the CREC which also includes four coal-fired steam plants. In addition to 

31 radioactive waste and mixed waste produced from CR-3 operations, the CREC also generates 

32 wastes categorized as regulated waste, universal waste, and hazardous waste as part of routine 

33 plant maintenance, cleaning activities, and plant operations. The Resource Conservation and 

34 Recovery Act (RCRA) governs the disposal of solid and hazardous waste. RCRA regulations 

35 are contained in 40 CFR, Protection of Environment, Parts 239 through 299 (40 CFR Part 239, 

36 et seq.). Parts 239 through 259 of these regulations cover solid (nonhazardous) waste, and 

37 Parts 260 through 279 regulate hazardous waste. RCRA Subtitle C establishes a system for 

38 controlling hazardous waste from “cradle to grave,” and RCRA Subtitle D encourages States to 

39 develop comprehensive plans to manage nonhazardous solid waste and mandates minimum 

40 technological standards for municipal solid waste landfills. 
Affected Environment 

 2-9 

1 The CREC has a sitewide coal combustion products (CCP)/solid waste materials management 

2 plan for all five units. To the extent possible, wastes are recycled or minimized by chemical 

3 control management. The applicant approves the vendors used for handling, recycling, or 

4 disposing of wastes. The appropriate waste characterization, waste profile, and disposal 

5 methods are determined by the appropriate CR-3 personnel in accordance with plant 

6 procedures. All recycling and disposal methods are done in compliance with State and Federal 

7 regulations (Progress Energy, 2010a). 

8 In Florida, universal waste includes most rechargeable batteries; recalled pesticides or those 

9 collected due to a pesticide waste collection program; mercury-containing thermostats, 

10 manometers, switches, and fluorescent lamps; and hazardous waste pharmaceuticals 

11 (FDEP, 2010c). 

12 2.1.4 Plant Operation and Maintenance 

13 Various types of maintenance activities are performed at CR-3, including inspection, testing, 

14 and surveillance to maintain the current licensing basis of the facility and to ensure compliance 

15 with environmental and safety requirements. CR-3 has a quality assurance program in place to 

16 ensure facility equipment is maintained, inspected, tested, and monitored on a routine basis. 

17 These maintenance activities include inspection requirements for reactor vessel materials, boiler 

18 and pressure vessel in-service inspection and testing, a maintenance structures monitoring 

19 program, and maintenance of water chemistry. 

20 Other programs include those implemented in response to NRC generic communications; those 

21 implemented to meet technical specification surveillance requirements; and various periodic 

22 maintenance, testing, and inspection procedures. Certain program activities are performed 

23 during the operation of CR-3 while others are performed during scheduled refueling outages. 

24 Nuclear power plants must periodically shutdown to remove spent fuel from the reactor and to 

25 load new fuel. During periods of plant shutdown, periodic in-service inspections are conducted 

26 and routine maintenance activities in those areas not accessible during power operation are 

27 performed. 

28 2.1.5 Power Transmission System 

29 Transmission lines considered within the scope of license renewal are those constructed 

30 specifically to connect the facility to the transmission system. The final environmental statement 

31 (FES) (AEC, 1973) discussed two 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines that were built to connect 

32 CR-3 to the regional transmission grid: (1) the Central Florida line terminating at the Central 

33 Florida Substation in Sumter County and (2) the Lake Tarpon line terminating at the Lake 

34 Tarpon Substation in Pinellas County. Combined, the two transmission corridors are 

35 approximately 125 mi (201 km) long and occupy 2,271 ac (919 ha). Both lines are owned and 

36 operated by the applicant. The applicant plans to maintain these transmission lines indefinitely, 

37 and the lines will remain a part of the transmission system after CR-3 is decommissioned 

38 (Progress Energy, 2008a). The Central Florida and Lake Tarpon corridors run parallel to each 

39 other but are separated by an undeveloped strip of land for the first 5.3 mi (8.5 km) and then 

40 diverge as the Central Florida line continues generally eastward and the Lake Tarpon line heads 

41 generally southward toward Tarpon Springs. These lines are shown in Figure 2.1-5 and 

42 described in the following paragraphs and Table 2.1.5-1. 
Affected Environment 

 2-10 

1 The Central Florida line was placed into service in 1973. The line extends from the 500-kV 

2 switchyard at the CREC site and runs generally eastward and then southeast, for a total of 

3 about 53 mi (85 km) to the Central Florida Substation, located on the Sumter-Lake County line 

4 about 4 mi (6 km) west of Leesburg, Florida. The corridor is approximately 150 ft (46 m) wide 

5 and is within an easement already established for lines from an existing 230-kV switchyard that 

6 is not connected to CR-3. The Central Florida line crosses Citrus, Marion, and Sumter 

7 Counties. 

8 The Lake Tarpon line, placed into service in 1973, runs generally south for 34.4 mi (55.4 km) to 

9 the Brookridge Substation approximately 1.7 mi (2.7 km) northwest of Brookridge, Florida, and 

10 then another 37.6 mi (60.5 km) to the Lake Tarpon Substation, approximately 8.5 mi (13.7 km) 

11 southeast of Tarpon Springs, Florida. The total line length is about 72 mi (116 km), and the 

12 corridor width is approximately 150 ft (46 m). Like the Central Florida line, the Lake Tarpon line 

13 follows an existing corridor for lines from the 230-kV switchyard that is not connected to CR-3. 

14 The Lake Tarpon line crosses Citrus, Hernando, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties. 

15 The corridors pass through low population areas that are primarily forest and agricultural land 

16 (Progress Energy, 2008a), but also include commercial and rural residential areas (AEC, 1973). 

17 The lines cross several State and U.S. highways and the Withlacoochee, Pithlachascotee, and 

18 Anclote rivers. Where the transmission line corridors cross agricultural land, most of the land 

19 below the lines continues to be used for agriculture. 

20 The NRC staff (Staff) reviewed National Wetland Inventory maps produced by the U.S. Fish and 

21 Wildlife Service (FWS) and determined that both lines also cross several areas of wetlands. 

22 The initial 5.3-mi (8-km) segment of both lines crosses several small emergent and open water 

23 wetlands. Forested wetlands occur in the undeveloped strip between the two corridors and to 

24 the north and south of the corridors. A 1.5-mi (2.4-km) portion of the southern edge of the 

25 common corridor is adjacent to the northern boundary of the Crystal River Preserve State Park. 

26 The Lake Tarpon line crosses several extensive wetland areas associated with the Starkey 

27 Wilderness Preserve (about 13 mi [21 km] of corridor) and the Brooker Creek Preserve (about 

28 9 mi [14 km] of corridor). Wetland types that are crossed in these two segments include 

29 forested, scrub-shrub, emergent, and open water wetlands. The Central Florida line traverses 

30 fewer wetland areas. About 1.5 mi (2.4 km) of the line crosses emergent and open water 

31 wetlands in the Withlacoochee State Forest; about 1.2 mi (1.9 km) of the line crosses mostly 

32 forested wetlands associated with the Withlacoochee River floodplain in the Hálpata Tastanaki 

33 Preserve; and the line crosses another 0.7 mi (1.1 km) of emergent wetlands in the Ross Prairie 

34 State Forest. The portion of the Central Florida line that heads to the southeast crosses about 

35 3.8 mi (6.1 km) of forested and emergent wetlands adjacent to the Lake Panasoffkee Wildlife 

36 Management Area. The final 3 mi (5 km) of the line crosses several emergent wetlands. 

37 In 1973, FPC designed and constructed the CR-3 transmission lines in accordance with the 

38 National Electrical Safety Code and industry guidance that was current at the time (Progress 

39 Energy, 2008a). Right-of-way (ROW) surveillance and maintenance of these transmission 

40 facilities ensure continued conformance to these design standards. 

41 FPC uses an Integrated Vegetation Management approach that includes both mechanical and 

42 chemical methods to maintain acceptable clearance between energized wires and tree 

43 branches (Progress Energy, 2004), (Progress Energy, 2006). Routine inspection and 

44 maintenance of the ROWs are a component of this approach. FPC chooses vegetation control 

45 methods based on terrain, soils, land use, and vegetation type. Mechanical methods of 

46 vegetation control include pruning, felling, mowing, and hand clearing. Herbicides registered 
Affected Environment 

 2-11 

1 with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are used to control woody vegetation that 

2 re-seeds or re-sprouts after mowing. Herbicide applications are to be performed according to 

3 the EPA and State of Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services requirements 

4 (Progress Energy, 2004), (Progress Energy, 2006). Herbicide treatments include low volume 

5 foliar applications, stump applications, and foliage herbicide treatments (Progress Energy, 

6 2004), (Progress Energy, 2006). Certain conditions can restrict herbicide use including 

7 proximity to desirable vegetation (e.g., trees, crops, landscape plantings), rainy or windy 

8 conditions, and high temperatures. FPC requires low ground pressure equipment when working 

9 in designated wetland areas to avoid damaging plant roots (Progress Energy, 2004). Over time, 

10 the use of herbicides results in the growth of low-growing, nonwoody plants, such as grasses 

11 and other native plants, that do not interfere with power lines and provide habitat for species 

12 dependent on such conditions (Progress Energy, 2009e). Low-growing shrubs or small tree 

13 species such as yaupon holly (Ilex vomitoria), native viburnums (Viburnum spp.), and crape 

14 myrtles (Lagerstroemia indica) are not removed (Progress Energy, 2004), (Progress Energy, 

15 2006). This vegetation management approach reduces the need for mowing and herbicide 

16 applications. 
Affected Environment 

 2-12 

1 

2 Figure 2.1-5. Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Transmission Lines 

3 (Source: Progress Energy, 2008a) 
Affected Environment 

 2-13 

1 Table 2.1.5-1. Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Transmission Lines 

Transmission 

Line Name Line Segment Approximate Distance ROW Area 

Central Florida CR-3 to Central Florida Substation 52.9 mi (85.1 km) 962 ac (389 ha) 

Lake Tarpon CR-3 to Brookridge Substation 34.4 mi (55.4 km) 625 ac (253 ha) 

Lake Tarpon Brookridge Substation to Lake Tarpon 

Substation 

37.6 mi (60.5 km) 684 ac (277 ha) 

Total – 125 mi (201 km) 2,271 ac (919 ha)

Source: Progress Energy, 2008a 

(a) All lines are 500 kV and are located in a 150-ft (46-m) wide ROW 

2 2.1.6 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems 

3 CR-3 has a once-through heat dissipation system that withdraws water from, and discharges it 

4 to, Crystal Bay in the Gulf of Mexico. Cooling water circulates through CR-3 in one of two 

5 modes of operation: open cycle (once-through cooling, with no cooling towers in operation) and 

6 helper cycle (once-through cooling, with mechanical draft cooling towers in operation). The 

7 applicant selects the mode of operation so that thermal discharges at the point of discharge 

8 (POD) to Crystal Bay are in compliance with the thermal limits of the National Pollutant 

9 Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. FL0000159 (FDEP, 2005a). Unless 

10 otherwise cited, the applicant’s ER (Progress Energy, 2008a) is the source of the following 

11 information on the CR-3 cooling and auxiliary water systems. 

12 The CR-3 cooling water system consists of the intake canal, intake structure and pumps, 

13 circulating water intake piping, condensers, circulating water discharge piping, outfall structure, 

14 discharge canal, and cooling towers. The intake canal, discharge canal, and cooling towers are 

15 shared systems with CR-1 and CR-2. CR-4 and CR-5 withdraw makeup water from, and 

16 discharge cooling tower blowdown to, the discharge canal. The cooling towers, described later 

17 in this section, were not a component of the cooling water system as described in the original 

18 FES for CR-3 (AEC, 1973). 

19 The intake canal, which extends into the Gulf of Mexico, is 14 mi (22.5 km) long. It has a 

20 minimum depth of 20 ft (6 m) to accommodate barge traffic used to deliver coal for the fossil fuel 

21 units. A southern and northern dike parallel the intake canal for about 3.4 mi (5.4 km) offshore. 

22 The southern dike terminates at this point, while the northern dike extends an additional 5.3 mi 

23 (8.5 km) into the Gulf of Mexico. Starting at Fisherman’s Pass, irregularly-spaced openings 

24 occur in the northern dike to allow boat traffic to pass in a north-south direction without having to 

25 completely circumnavigate the dike. The dikes are about 50 to 100-ft (15 to 30-m) wide on top 

26 and are elevated about 10 ft (3 m) above the water surface at mean low tide (FPC, 2002). The 

27 dikes are comprised of intake canal construction spoils (SWEC, 1985). Starting at the east end, 

28 the intake canal is 150 ft (45.6 m) wide for 2.8 mi (4.5 km); 225 ft (69.5 m) wide for the next 

29 6.3 mi (10 km); and 300 ft (91 m) wide for the last 4.9 mi (7.8 km) (FPC, 2002). Current 

30 velocities at the mouth of the intake canal range from 0.6 to 2.6 feet per second (ft/s) (0.2 to 0.8 

31 meters per second [m/s]) (SWEC, 1985). Dredging occurs in the intake canal every 5 to 7 

32 years. 

33 The cooling water intake structure for CR-3 is located near the eastern end of the intake canal 

34 and about 400 ft (122 m) east of the intake structures for CR-1 and CR-2. The intake structures 

35 for all three units are located on the north side of the intake canal. A security boom, to intercept 
Affected Environment 

 2-14 

1 floating and partially submerged debris and restrict access to CR-3, extends across the intake 

2 canal downstream of the intake structures for CR-1 and CR-2 and about 200 ft (61 m) from the 

3 face of the CR-3 intake structure. The CR-3 intake structure is 118 ft (36 m) wide. It is fitted 

4 with eight external trash racks with 0.38- by 4-inch (1- by 10-centimeter [cm]) steel bars on 

5 4-inch (10-cm) centers, resulting in a 3.63-inch (9.2-cm) distance between adjacent bars. The 

6 bars extend from above the water line to the concrete slab on the bottom of the intake structure. 

7 The bar racks are aligned 10° from vertical with the bottoms of the bar racks extending about 

8 5 ft (1.5 m) into the intake canal (FPC, 2002). Seven of the bar racks are in front of the traveling 

9 screens for the circulating water condenser system. They are each 33-ft (10-m) high and 15.6-ft 

10 (4.75-m) wide. The eighth bar rack is in front of the traveling screen that serves the nuclear 

11 services and decay heat water system. It is 33-ft (10-m) high and 9.3-ft (2.8-m) wide 

12 (FPC, 2002). A catwalk extends across the front of the bar racks in order to allow the racks to 

13 be inspected for debris. An overhead rail-mounted trash rake removes collected debris. About 

14 four times per year, bar racks are removed and pressure washed to remove barnacles or other 

15 marine growth and then coated with a biofouling material (FPC, 2002). Under normal water 

16 elevation and full-flow conditions, the velocity approaching the bar racks is 0.9 ft/s (0.27 m/s) 

17 and increases to 1 ft/s (0.30 m/s) at the traveling screens. 

18 The CR-3 intake structure has four pump bays and eight traveling screens. The seven traveling 

19 screens for the circulating water system are 10 ft (3 m) wide by 35 ft (11 m) high with 0.38-inch 

20 (1-cm) mesh. The eighth traveling screen, used for the nuclear services and decay heat cooling 

21 water system, is of similar design but is only 6 ft (2 m) wide (Golder Associates, 2007a). 

22 Rotation and washing of the intake screens occurs every 8 hours or when there is a greater 

23 than or equal to 6-inch (15-cm) pressure differential across the screens. Debris washed from 

24 the screens goes into a common trough and then into a sump adjacent to the intake structure. 

25 Solid material (including impinged organisms) in the screen wash is collected in a screened 

26 basket. The solid material collected from the bar racks and intake screens is placed into the 

27 trash for ultimate disposal in the Citrus County landfill. The screen wash water, which is 

28 seawater pumped from the intake canal, is discharged back into the intake canal (Golder 

29 Associates, 2007b). Refurbishment of the traveling screens occurs every 7 years. 

30 CR-3 has two circulating water pumps rated at 167,000 gallons per minute (gpm) (372 cubic 

feet per second [cfs] or 10.5 cubic meters per second [m3 31 /s]) and two rated at 179,000 gpm 

(399 cfs or 11.3 m3 32 /s). The design intake volume for CR-3 is 680,000 gpm (1,515 cfs or 

42.9 m3 33 /s). The combined condenser flow limit for the three units is 1,897.9 million gallons per 

day (gpd) (2,936 cfs or 83.2 m3 34 /s) from May 1 through October 31 and 1,120,000 gpd (2,495 cfs 

or 70.7 m3 35 /s) from November 1 through April 30 (FDEP, 2005a). Throttling back on CR-1 and 

36 CR-2 accomplishes the flow reduction from November 1 through April 30 (Progress Energy, 

37 2010a). 

38 The four circulating water pumps send water through four 90-inch (229-cm) internal diameter 

39 reinforced concrete pipes to four 6.5- by 7.5-ft (2.0- by 2.3-m) rectangular reinforced concrete 

40 flumes that are connected to the four condenser tube banks. A separate flow path exists for the 

41 nuclear services and decay heat cooling water heat exchangers. Each condenser tube bank 

42 discharges separately into a 6.5- by 7.5-ft (2.0- by 2.3-m) reinforced concrete flume connected 

43 to a 90-inch (229-cm) diameter reinforced concrete pipe. The four concrete pipes terminate in a 

44 common outfall structure provided with a weir. Water flows over the weir and into the discharge 

45 canal (Wahanik, 1969). At operating design capacity, the discharge temperature rise from 

46 condenser passage from CR-1 through CR-3 are 14.9 °F (8.3 °C), 16.9 °F (9.4 °C), and 17.5 °F 

47 (9.7 °C), respectively (Mattson et al., 1998). The corresponding condenser cooling system heat 

48 rejection rate for each unit are approximately 2.28, 2.74, and 5.88 billion British thermal units 
Affected Environment 

 2-15 

1 per hour (Btu/hr), respectively. For all three units, the total heat rejection rate is 10.91 billion 

2 Btu/hr (Golder Associates, 2007a). 

3 The nuclear services and decay heat cooling water system for CR-3 withdraws 10,000 gpm 

(22.3 cfs or 0.6 m3

/s) under normal conditions and up to 20,000 gpm (44.6 cfs or 1.3 m3 4 /s) 

5 under emergency conditions in order to provide sufficient capacity to remove heat generated by 

6 system operations. The nuclear services water system uses most of this flow. The decay heat 

7 cooling water system only operates for short time periods during unit shutdown, which occurs 

8 predominately during refueling outages once every 2 years (Progress Energy, 2010a). 

9 Periodic addition of chlorine prevents the growth of biofouling organisms. The maximum total 

10 residual oxidant (as chlorine) concentration at the unit outfall cannot exceed 0.01 milligrams per 

11 liter (mg/L) (FDEP, 2005a). Cleaning balls, recirculated through the condensers, provides 

12 mechanical cleaning of the CR-3 condenser tubes (Golder Associates, 2007a). The applicant 

13 periodically injects the biocide Spectrus CT1300 into the nuclear services and decay heat 

14 cooling water system (Golder Associates, 2007a). The NPDES permit limits the rate of CT1300 

15 application to no more than 4.5 mg/L for a period not to exceed 18 hours and at an interval of at 

16 least 21 days between applications (written approval is required to extend the length of 

17 applications or decrease the interval between applications) (FDEP, 2005a). 

18 CR-3 cooling water discharges into a 125-ft (38-m) wide discharge canal just north of the unit. 

19 Cooling water from CR-1 and CR-2 also discharge into the canal. The discharge canal extends 

20 west about 1.6 mi (2.6 km) to the POD to Crystal Bay. The discharge canal, and an associated 

21 south dike, extends an additional 1.2 mi (1.9 km) from the POD. The dike is comprised of 

22 discharge canal construction spoils (SWEC, 1985). The discharge canal is the source of 

23 cooling system makeup for CR-4 and CR-5. The intake pumps for those units are located on 

24 the north side of the discharge canal and over 900 ft (274 m) west of the discharge for CR-1. 

25 The combined blowdown canal for CR-4 and CR-5 is also on the north side of the discharge 

26 canal and is located over 1,400 ft (427 m) east of the two units’ intake pumps. The blowdown 

27 canal is located about 1,700 ft (518 m) upstream of the bank of cooling towers used for CR-1, 

28 CR-2, and CR-3. The bank of cooling towers consists of 4 permanent cooling towers (36 cells) 

29 and 67 modular cooling towers. When units CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 are operating at maximum 

30 pumping capacity, the velocity in the discharge canal is about 2.4 ft/s (0.7 m/s) at low tide 

31 (Golder Associates, 2007a). Dredging maintains the discharge canal at a depth of about 10 ft 

32 (3 m). 

33 Through NPDES Permit No. FL0000159, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

34 (FDEP) (2005) regulates the thermal limits of the combined discharge of CR-1 through CR-3 at 

35 the POD to Crystal Bay. The discharge temperature at the POD cannot exceed 96.5 °F 

36 (35.8 °C) as a 3-hour rolling average. Four permanent mechanical draft cooling towers (36 

37 cells), installed in 1993, usually allow CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 to meet this requirement without 

38 the need to reduce power generation for CR-1 and CR-2. The combined flow rate of the four 

permanent cooling towers is 684,600 gpm (1,525 cfs or 43.2 m3 39 /s) with a design heat dissipation 

rate of 4.569 billion Btu/hr. Each cell has a water flow rate of 19,017 gpm (42.4 cfs or 1.2 m3 40 /s) 

41 and a heat dissipation rate of 0.127 billion Btu/hr (Golder Associates, 2007a). Evaporative 

losses for the existing helper cooling towers total 9,957 gpm (22.2 cfs or 0.63 m3 42 /s) (Golder 

43 Associates, 2007a). An additional 67 modular cooling towers, installed in 2006, generally allow 

44 CR-1 and CR-2 to operate most of the time during the hottest times of summer without having to 

45 reduce their power in order to meet thermal discharge permit requirements. The combined flow 

rate of the modular cooling towers is 180,000 gpm (401 cfs or 11.4 m3 46 /s) with a design heat 

47 dissipation rate of 1.317 billion Btu/hr (Golder Associates, 2007a). The modular cooling towers 
Affected Environment 

 2-16 

1 are normally used after all of the permanent cooling towers have been placed in service and 

2 when the POD temperature limits may otherwise be exceeded without load reduction on the 

3 CREC generating units. The modular cooling towers are also the first turned off. Generally, the 

4 permanent and modular cooling towers operate between May 1 through October 31 (Progress 

5 Energy, 2007). 

6 As mentioned in Section 2.1.1, FPC plans to add 180 megawatts (MW) of electrical generation 

7 to CR-3 (Golder Associates, 2007a). Two phases are required for the extended power uprate 

8 (EPU). Phase I, which is completed, added 40 MW of power and included a retrofit of the low 

9 pressure turbines and electrical generator, replacement of the main steam reheaters, and 

10 replacement of the steam generator (FDEP, 2008a). Phase II, which will add the remaining 140 

11 MW, will occur before the current CR-3 operating license expires (December 3, 2016). This 

12 phase will retrofit the high-pressure turbine and turbine/generator coolers and replace the 

13 circulating water pumps, condensate and feedwater booster pumps, and motors (FDEP, 2008a). 

14 This will include alterations that will elevate temperatures within the reactor and the use of 

15 enriched uranium fuel. The four new circulating water pumps will each deliver as much as 

207,778 gpm (463 cfs or 13.1 m3 16 /s) each. As a result, through-screen velocity will increase from 

17 1.45 ft/s (0.44 m/s) (maximum at mean low water level) to as high as 2.02 ft/s (0.62 m/s) 

18 (maximum at mean low water level) (Golder Associates, 2007a). 

19 The net increase in heat rejection for the CR-3 EPU would be 0.768 billion Btu/hr which is about 

20 a 13.1 percent increase over CR-3’s current heat rejection (Golder Associates, 2007a). Unless 

21 mitigated in some manner, the increased heat rejection will result in an elevated thermal 

22 discharge temperature at the POD. Thus, plans for Phase II of the EPU called for the 

23 installation of a new south cooling tower. The south cooling tower would assist in offsetting the 

24 increased circulating water rejected heat, avoid potential increase in flow into the intake canal 

25 from Crystal Bay, and allow removal of the existing 67 modular cooling towers. One option for 

26 the operation of the south cooling tower is to recirculate some of the flow from the cooling tower 

27 discharge back into the intake canal, thus avoiding any increase in flow into the intake canal 

28 from Crystal Bay (FDEP, 2008a). Under this option, flow through the south cooling tower would 

be as high as 534,000 gpm (1,190 cfs or 33.7 m3 29 /s) which would include a maximum discharge 

of 320,000 gpm (713 cfs or 20.2 m3 30 /s) to the discharge canal and 214,000 gpm (477 cfs or 

13.5 m3 31 /s) to the intake canal (Progress Energy, 2010a). This option will most likely occur if the 

intake for CR-3 increases from the current 680,000 gpm (1,515 cfs or 42.9 m3 32 /s) to 830,000 

gpm (1,849 cfs or 52.4 m3 33 /s) (Golder Associates, 2007a), (Golder Associates, 2007b). 

34 The more likely option is no change in the existing CR-3 flow of 680,000 gpm (1,515 cfs or 

42.9 m3 35 /s) as a result of the EPU, but rather an increase in thermal load (increased 

36 temperature) to the discharge canal (Progress Energy, 2009a). Under this option, the south 

cooling tower will only discharge a maximum of 320,000 gpm (713 cfs or 20.2 m3 37 /s) to the 

38 discharge canal. The total heat rejection to Crystal Bay due to the EPU for either option will not 

39 exceed the currently permitted maximum rate of 10.91 billion Btu/hr (FDEP, 2008a). 

40 The applicant planned to complete Phase II of the EPU in 2011. Due to the containment issues 

41 at CR-3, Phase II of the EPU is delayed and so will not be part of the renewed NPDES permit 

42 (i.e., aspects of the NPDES application related to the south cooling tower will be withdrawn). A 

43 renewed NPDES permit, expected in July 2011, will essentially involve the renewal of existing 

44 operating permit limits. Should Phase II of the EPU occur before the end of the next NPDES 

45 permit period, the applicant will be required to conduct a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(a) 

46 Demonstration study, likely involving a 2-year study period initiated after completion of the 

47 Phase II EPU. The need for the study is to demonstrate compliance with CWA Section 316(a) 
Affected Environment 

 2-17 

1 in order to renew any applicable Section 316(a) variance (i.e., a variance from applicable 

2 thermal limitations to surface waters is allowed if the permittee demonstrates that the balanced 

3 indigenous community of aquatic organisms is protected and maintained). 

4 Expediting Phase II of the EPU will occur by issuing an FDEP Administrative Order with the new 

5 NPDES permit. The Administrative Order would require the applicant to demonstrate 

6 reasonable assurance that it could meet the current POD thermal limit by derating the fossil 

7 units in place of building the south cooling tower. Tentatively, issuance of both the new NPDES 

8 permit and the Administrative Order will occur by midsummer of 2011 (NRC, 2011). Should the 

9 applicant decide to add the south cooling tower at a later date, an NPDES permit modification 

10 pertaining to the cooling tower will be required. 

11 2.1.7 Facility Water Use and Quality 

12 The CREC does not use public water supplies for plant operations, but instead relies on surface 

13 water from the Gulf of Mexico and groundwater from onsite production wells located east of the 

14 main complex. The following sections describe groundwater and surface water use and quality 

15 in both the south plant area (where CR-3 is located) and the north plant area of the CREC. The 

16 north plant area is included here because activities that impact water resources in the north 

17 plant area may also affect water resources in the south plant area. 

18 2.1.7.1 Groundwater Use 

19 Groundwater from the Upper Floridan aquifer is used by all the units at the CREC, including 

20 CR-3, for their operation. Specifically, groundwater is used for boilers and steam generators, 

21 ash processes, fire protection, and drinking water. Groundwater is withdrawn from production 

22 wells located to the east (upgradient) of the CREC and pumped to two water treatment plants: 

23 the north water treatment plant and the south water treatment plant. The plant maintains 

24 14 production wells (Table 2.1.7-1). These wells are completed in the Upper Floridan aquifer 

25 and are permitted and regulated by the State of Florida. Water from wells PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, 

26 and PW-4 is treated in the north water treatment plant which serves CR-4 and CR-5. Water 

27 from wells SPW-3, SPW-4, and SPW-5 is treated in the south water treatment plant which 

28 serves CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3. Well water is filtered, softened, and chlorinated at the treatment 

29 plants to produce potable and demineralized water for use in boilers and steam generators. 

30 Well PW-1A/B produces brackish water that is used (untreated) for ash processes (Progress 

31 Energy, 2008a). Standby wells PW-5, PW-6, and PW-7 and new wells PW-8, PW-9a, and 

32 PW-10a provide water to the flue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubber which began operating in 

33 December 2009 (Progress Energy, 2010a). Water for fire protection is kept in two dedicated 

34 600,000-gallon storage tanks near CR-1 and CR-2; water is pumped from the storage tanks 

35 through a main line to the CR-3 fire service water system (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

36 For the period 2001 through 2005, CR-3 used groundwater supplied to the south water 

37 treatment plant at a rate of 227 gpm or 49 percent of the south water treatment plant’s 

38 production of 461 gpm during the same period (Johnson, 2006). From 2001 through 2009, the 

39 average annual groundwater usage for wells supplying both the north and south water treatment 

40 plants was 601 million gallons; the average production rate for wells during this period was 

41 1,144 gpm or 1.65 million gpd (Progress Energy, 2010a). Annual groundwater usage at the 

42 plant has increased by about 22 percent since 2001; however, production rates remain well 

43 below the 2 million gpd authorized by the Southwest Florida Water Management District 

44 (SFWMD) water use permit (SFWMD, 2007) and the FDEP Conditions of Certification (FDEP, 

45 2010b). On January 15, 2010, the FDEP increased the CREC’s groundwater usage for wells 
Affected Environment 

 2-18 

1 PW-1 through PW-8, PW-9a, and PW-10a to a combined annual average of 4.309 million gpd 

2 (FDEP, 2010a). 

3 Table 2.1.7-1. Crystal River Energy Complex Production Wells 

Well(a)(b) Status Areas Served Well Casing/ 

Total Depth (ft) 

Well Rating/ 

Capacity (gpd)(d)

PW-1 Active North water treatment plant 35/200 250,000 

PW-2 Active North water treatment plant 47/200 250,000 

PW-3 Active North water treatment plant 60/200 250,000 

PW-4 Active North water treatment plant 41/200 250,000 

PW-5 Standby FGD scrubber 35/200 521,520 

PW-6 Standby FGD scrubber 50/200 521,520 

PW-7 Standby FGD scrubber 50/200 521,520 

PW-8 Active FGD scrubber 50/200 521,520 

PW-9a Active FGD scrubber 50/200 521,520 

PW-10a Active FGD scrubber 50/200 521,520 

SPW-3 Active South water treatment plant 36/90 380,000 

SPW-4 Active South water treatment plant 37/125 285,000 

SPW-5 Active South water treatment plant U(c)/72 285,000 

PW-1A/B Active Ash processes (brackish) 42/42 25,000 

(a) Water use from wells PW-1 through PW-7 is authorized, pursuant to the conditions of certification approved by 

the FDEP. The combined pumping limit for these wells is 1 million gpd on an annual average basis and 

3 million gpd on a peak daily basis. Water use from new wells PW-8, PW-9a, and PW-10, which will serve the 

FGD scrubber, will increase the approved combined usage (on an annual average basis) to 4.309 million gpd 

(FDEP, 2010b). 

(b) Wells SPW-3 through SPW-5 and PW-1A/B are operated under SFWMD Water Use Permit 2004695.004 for 

the operation of Units 1, 2, and 3. Their combined pumping limit is 1 million gpd on an annual average basis 

and 1.5 million gpd on a peak monthly basis (SFWMD, 2007). 

(c) A “U” indicates that the casing depth in well SPW-5 is unknown (FDEP, 2010b). 

(d) Well capacity based on an annual average. 

4 2.1.7.2 Surface Water Use 

5 Surface water is withdrawn from and discharged back to the Gulf of Mexico for use in the 

6 once-through cooling system employed by CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3. CR-4 and CR-5 are 

7 closed-cycle units with natural draft cooling towers; cooling tower makeup water for these units 

8 is withdrawn from the discharge canal for CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3. The intake canal is located to 

9 the south of CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 (Figure 2.1-4). 

10 It is defined by two parallel dikes that extend westward into the Gulf of Mexico for about 3.4 mi 

11 (5.5 km). The southern dike terminates at this point; the northern dike extends another 5.3 mi 

12 (8.5 km) further into the Gulf of Mexico. The intake canal is dredged to a depth of about 20 ft 

13 (6.1 m) to accommodate coal barges, which dock on the south side of the canal (near the coal 

14 storage area) just west of the intakes for CR-1 and CR-2. There are openings in both dikes at 

15 irregular intervals to allow north-south boat traffic in the plant area. Measurements taken in 

16 1983–1984 indicated velocities at the mouth of the canal ranged from 0.6 to 2.6 ft/s (0.2 to 0.8 

17 m/s). Movement of water into the canal is influenced by tidal conditions (Golder Associates, 

18 2006). 
Affected Environment 

 2-19 

1 The intake structure for the CR-3 main condenser uses four circulating water pumps, which 

2 provide a total flow capacity of 680,000 gpm. Two of the pumps are rated at 167,000 gpm and 

3 two are rated at 179,000 gpm. Service pumps withdraw an additional 10,000 to 20,000 gpm, 

4 depending on the system demand. The combined condenser flow for CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 is 

5 limited by the NPDES permit to 1,898 million gpd during the summer period (May 1 to 

6 October 31) and 1,613 million gpd during the winter period (November 1 and April 30) 

7 (FDEP, 2005a). 

8 Cooling water for all CREC units is discharged back to the Gulf of Mexico through a common 

discharge canal1 9 , located to the north of CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 (Figure 2.1-4). The site 

10 discharge canal extends westward into the Gulf of Mexico, about 1.6 mi (2.6 km) to the POD 

11 into Crystal Bay. The canal is bordered to the south by a spoil bank, which extends another 

12 1.2 mi (1.9 km) beyond the POD into the bay. It is dredged to maintain a depth of about 10 ft 

13 (3 m). NPDES outfall locations and their monitoring requirements are discussed in 

14 Section 2.1.7.4. Helper cooling towers withdraw water from the combined discharge of CR-1, 

15 CR-2, and CR-3 to help the plant meet the NPDES daily maximum discharge limit of 96.5 °F 

16 (35.8 °C) (FDEP, 2005a). 

17 2.1.7.3 Groundwater Quality 

18 Groundwater at the CREC is a Class G-II water. Class G-II waters occur in aquifers with a total 

19 dissolved solids content of less than 10,000 mg/L and are considered suitable for potable use. 

20 As such, these waters are subject to the Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards for 

21 public water systems established pursuant to the Florida Safe Drinking Water Act, excluding 

22 permitted zones of discharge (see Florida Administrative Code [FAC], Rules 62-550.310, 

23 62-550.320, 62-520.410, 62-520.620, and 62-520.465 [FDS, 2011a], [FDS, 2011b]). These 

24 standards are the basis of the compliance limits set in the Industrial Wastewater Permit that 

25 specifies groundwater monitoring requirements. 

26 South Plant Area

27 In the south plant area where CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 are located, the FDEP authorizes the 

28 operation of the domestic wastewater treatment plant, the percolation pond system, and the 

29 coal storage area (Figure 2.7.1-1). Permitted facilities at the CREC and their monitoring 

30 requirements are listed in Table 2.1.7-2. Only Industrial Wastewater Permit FLA016960 

31 (FDEP, 2007a), (FDEP, 2008b), which regulates the percolation pond system, specifies 

groundwater monitoring requirements2 32 . The coal storage area, which discharges to the site 

33 discharge canal via the CR-4 and CR-5 canal, is regulated under Industrial Wastewater 

34 (NPDES) Facility Permit FL0000159 and discussed in Section 2.1.7.4. 

 

1

 The common discharge canal is referred to as the site discharge canal in this section to distinguish it 

from the Units 4 and 5 discharge canal which receives cooling tower blowdown and runoff collection 

system discharges from Units 4 and 5 and empties into the site discharge canal just east of the helper 

cooling towers. 2

 Although groundwater monitoring is detailed in the plant’s Industrial Wastewater Facility Permit 

FLA016960 (for the percolation pond system), the objectives of the plant’s Groundwater Monitoring 

Plan (Golder Associates, 2007c) include monitoring the ash storage area (north plant), detecting 

potential releases to groundwater, and ensuring compliance with the plant’s Conditions of Certification 

(FDEP, 2010b) and applicable groundwater quality regulations (Progress Energy, 2009b). In 2009, a 

new monitoring well (MWC-31) was installed to monitor the FGD blowdown ponds which began 

operating in December 2009 (FDEP, 2010b). 
Affected Environment 

 2-20 

1 Domestic Wastewater Facility (Units 1, 2, and 3). The sewage treatment plant serving CR-1, 

2 CR-2, and CR-3 is authorized by Domestic Wastewater Facility Permit FLA118753 (FDEP, 

3 2009a). The treatment plant, located to the south of CR-1 and CR-2 (Figure 2.1-4), has a 

4 30,000 gpd 3-month average daily flow capacity and provides secondary treatment with basic 

5 disinfection (using sodium hypochlorite). It consists of three 5,000-gallon flow equalization 

6 basins, seven 5,000-gallon aeration basins, two 5,200-gallon clarifiers (with a total surface area 

of 156 square feet (ft2

) [14 square meters (m2 7 )]), one chlorine contact chamber (1,250 gallons), 

8 and two digesters (7,240 gallons). The treatment plant discharges its wastewater effluents to 

9 the percolation pond system (FDEP, 2009a). 

10 Table 2.1.7-2. Crystal River Energy Complex Facilities Regulated under State of Florida 

11 Permits 

Facility Monitoring Requirements 

South Plant Area 

Domestic Wastewater Treatment 

Facility(a) ● Flow monitoring (daily; 5 days/week) 

● Reclaimed water monitoring (daily, monthly) 

Percolation Pond System(b) ● Flow monitoring (daily) 

● Discharge monitoring (quarterly) 

● Groundwater monitoring (quarterly) 

Coal Storage Area(c) ● Flow monitoring (daily when discharging) 

● Discharge monitoring (daily when discharging) 

North Plant Area 

Ash Storage Area(d) ● Flow monitoring (per discharge) 

● Discharge monitoring (prior to discharge) 

● Groundwater monitoring (quarterly) 

Coal Storage Area(d) ● Flow monitoring (per discharge) 

● Discharge monitoring (prior to discharge) 

Runoff Collection System(d) ● Flow monitoring (per discharge) 

● Discharge monitoring (per discharge) 

FGD Settling Ponds(c) ● Flow monitoring (per discharge) 

● Discharge monitoring (per discharge) 

● Groundwater monitoring (quarterly) 

Stormwater Pond(c) ● Flow monitoring (per discharge) 

● Discharge monitoring (per discharge) 

(a) This wastewater treatment facility is regulated under Domestic Wastewater Facility Permit FLA118753 for 

Units 1, 2, and 3 (FDEP, 2009a). 

(b) The percolation pond system and FGD settling ponds are regulated under Industrial Wastewater Facility 

Permit FLA016960 (FDEP, 2007a), (FDEP, 2008b). 

(c) The south plant coal storage area for Units 1 and 2 is regulated under Industrial Wastewater Facility (NPDES) 

Permit FL0000159 (FDEP, 2005a). A former ash pond located just north of the site discharge canal was also 

regulated under NPDES Permit FL0000159; it was clean closed on December 15, 2009 (FDEP, 2009b) and is 

currently the location of the plant’s new stormwater and FGD settling ponds. 

(d) The north plant ash storage and coal storage area and runoff collection system are regulated under Industrial 

Wastewater Facility (NPDES) Permit FL0036366 (FDEP, 2005b). 
Affected Environment 

 2-21 

1 Percolation Pond System. The percolation pond system is located between the site discharge 

and intake canals immediately to the west of the oil storage tank warehouses3 2 . It is referred to 

3 as Land Application System G-001 in the Industrial Wastewater Permit FLA016960, issued by 

4 the FDEP on January 9, 2007 (Figure 2.1-4), (FDEP, 2007a), (FDEP, 2008b). The pond system 

5 consists of three ponds: Ponds 1, 2, and 3. Ponds 1 and 2 are settling basins with a total 

bottom surface area of about 87,120 ft2

 (8,094 m2 6 ); industrial effluents are directed to one or the 

7 other pond (alternately). Settled effluents from either of these ponds is then routed to Pond 3. 

8 Pond 3 overflows into an 11-ac area called the “South Pond Expansion” for percolation. The 

9 pond system is authorized to receive (on average) 0.91 million gpd of process and non-process 

10 wastewater; discharges from power plant equipment drains, laboratory drains, and floor drains; 

11 neutralized regeneration wastes from demineralizer resin beds; reclaimed water from the water 

12 treatment process; boiler blowdown and drains (chemical cleanings); air pre-heater wash drains; 

13 sewage treatment plant effluents; stormwater drainage from the transformer area; blowdown 

14 from the FGD scrubber; precipitator washes; boiler washes; cooling water blowdown; and 

15 reverse osmosis/microfiltration concentrate. The south pond expansion area is designed to 

16 contain a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event with no overflow to surface waters. Overflow from the 

17 expansion area rarely occurs but discharges to the Gulf of Mexico (Crystal Bay) via NPDES 

18 Outfall D-0C2 on the site discharge canal (FDEP, 2008b), (FDEP, 2009a). 

19 Effluents from the percolation pond system are sampled quarterly at two monitoring locations 

20 within the ponds (at the discharge pipe to Pond 1 or 2, whichever is active, and within the 

21 percolation pond). Groundwater in the Upper Floridan aquifer is sampled quarterly from a well 

22 monitoring network to characterize ambient (background) conditions and ensure compliance 

23 with the limits specified in the wastewater permit (Table 2.1.7-3). Water levels relative to the 

24 National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) are also measured. Monitoring wells range in depth 

25 from 14 ft to 33 ft, although most are about 20 ft deep (FDEP, 2007a), (FDEP, 2008b). 

26 Figure 2.1.7-2 shows the monitoring well locations at the CREC. 

27 Two wells are used to monitor groundwater in the vicinity of the percolation pond system: 

28 MWC-27 and MWC-1F2. From 2005 through 2009, sodium measured in these wells was 

29 consistently detected at concentrations exceeding the compliance limit (160 mg/L), with 

30 concentrations as high as 750 mg/L in the third quarter of 2007. Given their proximity to the 

31 intake and discharge canals, elevated sodium levels in these wells may reflect natural 

32 background levels associated with sea water influences from the Gulf of Mexico. The applicant 

33 is currently conducting a sodium background study to develop a conceptual model of the site’s 

34 hydrogeologic conditions and to evaluate background surface water and groundwater quality, 

35 plant operational processes, and potential sodium sources in the area (Progress Energy, 

36 2010b). Measurable levels of tritium ranging from 86 to 611 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) were 

37 also detected in these wells in 2009, down significantly from levels ranging from 244 to 1,199 

38 pCi/L detected in 2007 (Progress Energy, 2008b), (Progress Energy, 2010b). 

39 Well MWC-29 is located to the southwest (downgradient) of the south plant coal storage area. 

40 From 2005 through 2009, this well had few exceedences; however, gross alpha (measured in 

41 2007, 2008, and 2009) was consistently at or just above the FDEP’s Primary Drinking Water 

42 Standards (PDWS) and compliance limit of 15 pCi/L during most quarters. 

 

3

 The oil storage tanks were clean-closed and are currently being used as warehouse facilities (Progress 

Energy, 2010b). 
Affected Environment 

 2-22 

Table 2.1.7-3. Groundwater Monitoring Requirements(a)(b) 1 

Parameter Compliance Limit (units) 

Total dissolved solids Report (mg/L) 

pH Report (SU) 

Temperature Report (°F; in situ) 

Specific conductance Report (mmhos/cm; in situ) 

Turbidity Report (NTU; in situ) 

Dissolved oxygen Report (mg/L; in situ) 

Nitrogen, Nitrate total (as N) 10.0 mg/L 

Radium-226, -228 5.0 pCi/L 

Gross alpha 15.0 pCi/L 

Copper Report (mg/L) 

Chloride (as Cl) Report (mg/L) 

Sodium 160 mg/L 

Iron Report (mg/L) 

Antimony 6.0 μg/L 

Arsenic 10.0 μg/L 

Boron Report (mg/L) 

Barium 2.0 mg/L 

Beryllium 4.0 μg/L 

Cadmium 5.0 μg/L 

Mercury 2.0 μg/L 

Selenium 50.0 μg/L 

Chromium 100.0 μg/L 

Lead 15.0 μg/L 

Nickel 100.0 μg/L 

Thallium 2.0 μg/L 

Zinc Report (mg/L) 

Fluoride (as F) Report (mg/L) 

Cyanide 0.2 mg/L 

(a) Groundwater monitoring requirements are specified in Industrial Wastewater Facility Permit FLA016960 

(FDEP, 2007a). 

(b) All groundwater samples are grab samples unless indicated otherwise; parameters are analyzed on a 

quarterly basis (FDEP, 2007a). 
Affected Environment 

 2-23 

1 

2 Figure 2.1.7-2. Monitoring Well Locations at the Crystal River Energy Complex 

3 (Monitoring well locations based on: Golder Associates, 2007c and FDEP, 2010b) 

4 North Plant Area

5 In the north plant area where CR-4 and CR-5 are located, the FDEP authorizes the operation of 

6 the ash storage area, the coal storage area, the runoff collection system, the FGD settling 

7 ponds, and a stormwater pond (Table 2.1.7-2). Groundwater monitoring for these facilities is 

8 done in accordance with Industrial Wastewater Permit FLA016960 (FDEP, 2007a), (FDEP, 

9 2008b). Analytical reports are submitted to the FDEP on a quarterly basis. 

10 Because the coal storage area and runoff collection system are lined impoundments that 

11 discharge only to the CR-4 and CR-5 discharge canal (which discharges to the Gulf of Mexico 

12 via the site discharge canal), there are no groundwater monitoring requirements for these 

13 facilities. These facilities are regulated under Industrial Wastewater (NPDES) Facility Permit 

14 FL0036366 and discussed in Section 2.1.7.4. 

15 Ash Storage Area. The ash storage area, located to the east of CR-4 and CR-5 (Figure 2.1-4), 

16 is a 95-ac (38-ha), unlined impoundment used to manage piles of dry fly ash and bottom ash 

17 from CR-1, CR-2, CR-4, and CR-5; commingled materials; and high chloride ash (Progress 

18 Energy, 2009c). Because it is unlined, leachate from the ash storage area has the potential to 

19 contaminate soil and groundwater. In 2007, the applicant sampled and analyzed ash storage 

20 area materials by synthetic precipitation leaching procedure and compared the results to PDWS 

21 (FAC Chapter 62-550), Secondary Drinking Water Standards (SDWS) (FAC Chapter 62-550), 

22 and Florida’s Groundwater Guidance Concentrations (GGC) (FAC Chapter 62-777). Several 

23 constituents were found to exceed one or more of these standards: aluminum (SDWS), 
Affected Environment 

 2-24 

1 antimony (PDWS), arsenic (PDWS), boron (GGC), molybdenum (GGC), selenium (PDWS), 

2 sulfate (SDWS), vanadium (GGC), and total dissolved solids (SDWS). To minimize the 

3 potential for leaching and infiltration, active areas of ash storage are sloped and compacted 

4 (Progress Energy, 2009c). 

5 Four wells are used to monitor groundwater in the vicinity of the ash storage area: MWI-2R 

6 (downgradient), MWC-12R (upgradient), MWC-21R (downgradient), and MWB-30 (background) 

7 (Figure 2.1.7-2). Groundwater is collected on a quarterly basis and analyzed for the parameters 

8 listed in Table 2.1.7-3. Between 2005 and 2009, arsenic and gross alpha were detected at 

9 concentrations exceeding the PDWS and compliance limits (10 micrograms per liter [μg/L] and 

10 15 pCi/L, respectively) in well MWC-2R, immediately downgradient of the ash storage area. In 

11 January 2009, gross alpha was also found to exceed the PDWS in well MWC-21R further 

12 downgradient (Progress Energy, 2009d). 

13 FGD Settling and Stormwater Ponds. The FGD settling and stormwater ponds are located on 

14 the 29-ac site of the former north ash pond, just north of the helper cooling towers 

15 (Figure 2.1-4). The former ash pond was inspected by the FDEP and officially closed on 

16 December 15, 2009 (FDEP, 2009b). In 2007, the applicant sampled and analyzed ash 

17 materials by synthetic precipitation leaching procedure and compared the results to PDWS, 

18 SDWS, and Florida’s GGC. Several constituents were found to exceed one or more of these 

19 standards: aluminum (SDWS), arsenic (PDWS), iron (SDWS), selenium (PDWS), and 

20 vanadium (GGC). Since then, residual ash has been removed and transferred to the high 

21 chloride ash pile within the north plant ash storage area. The FGD settling and stormwater 

22 ponds currently occupy the area (Progress Energy, 2009c). 

23 Three wells are used to monitor groundwater in the vicinity of the former north ash pond/FGD 

24 settling ponds area: MWC-28 (upgradient; and downgradient of CR-4 and CR-5), MWC-16 

25 (downgradient), and new well MWC-31 (downgradient) (Figure 2.1.7-2). New well MWC-31 has 

26 not been sampled yet and is not discussed here. Between 2005 and 2009, gross alpha and 

27 total radium-226 and -228 were consistently detected at concentrations exceeding the PDWS 

28 and compliance limits (15 pCi/L and 5 pCi/L, respectively) in both wells MWC-28 and MWC-16, 

29 with the highest concentrations occurring in well MWC-16. Sodium was also found to exceed its 

30 compliance limit of 160 mg/L (e.g., 7,400 mg/L in the fourth quarter of 2009). FPC is currently 

31 working with the FDEP to obtain a site-specific exemption for these constituents because it 

32 believes they are naturally occurring and not a result of contamination caused by the plant’s 

33 operations (Progress Energy, 2009c), (Progress Energy, 2010a). 

34 2.1.7.4 Surface Water Quality 

35 Surface water quality is regulated through the EPA’s NPDES permit program. Section 402 of 

36 the CWA specifies that, “NPDES prohibits [discharges] of pollutants from any point source into 

37 the nation’s waters except as allowed under an NPDES permit.” Its purpose is to regulate the 

38 discharge of wastewater to maintain water quality of receiving water bodies. The State of 

39 Florida has been delegated responsibility by the EPA for administration of the NPDES program 

40 in Florida. NPDES permits are issued by the FDEP on a 5-year cycle. 

41 CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 are currently operating under Industrial Wastewater Facility NPDES 

42 Permit FL0000159 issued on May 9, 2005 (FDEP, 2005a). CR-4 and CR-5 operate under 

43 Industrial Wastewater Facility NPDES Permit FL0036366 issued on August 15, 2005 

44 (FDEP, 2005b). These permits specify the discharge standards and monitoring requirements 

45 for effluents at the CREC’s outfalls on the Gulf of Mexico (Crystal Bay). The locations of the 
Affected Environment 

 2-25 

1 NPDES outfalls are shown on Figure 2.1.7-3, and their monitoring requirements are 

2 summarized in Tables 2.1.7-5 and 2.1.7-6. 

3 The Gulf of Mexico is a Class III marine water. Class III waters are managed to achieve and 

4 maintain a level of quality that supports recreation and the propagation and maintenance of a 

5 healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife (FAC Chapter 62-302 [FDS, 2011c]). 

6 In addition to the water quality parameters listed in Tables 2.1.7-5 and 2.1.7-6, the CREC is also 

7 required to monitor and report: 

8 ● discharge rates at all outfalls either by recordation or calculation 

9 ● discharge temperature at sampling point EFF-3D, the point of discharge from the 

10 site discharge canal to the Gulf of Mexico (“POD” on Figure 2.1.7-3), as a 3-hour 

11 rolling average (not to exceed 96.5 °F [35.8 °C]) 

12 ● discharge temperature at sampling point EFF-3A, the monitoring point for the 

13 combined discharge of CR-4 and CR-5 cooling tower blowdown within the CR-4 

14 and CR-5 discharge canal (report only) 

15 ● intake temperature at sampling point INT-1 

16 ● chlorination duration (in minutes) for once-through cooling water discharge, at 

17 sampling points EFF-1A, EFF-1B, and EFF-1C 
Affected Environment 

 2-26 

1 

2 Figure 2.1.7-3. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Outfall Locations at the 

3 Crystal River Energy Complex (Outfall locations based on: FDEP, 2005a and FDEP, 

4 2005b) 
Affected Environment 

 2-27 

1 Table 2.1.7-4. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Outfall Locations at the 

2 Crystal River Energy Complex 

Outfall Permitted Daily Flow Rate (mgpd) Description 

Units 1, 2, and 3(a)

D-011 1,897.9 (combined discharge; May 1 

to October 31) 

1,613.2 (combined discharge; 

November 1 to April 30) 

Filtration and/or other biocide treatment of once-through 

non-contact condenser cooling water (OTCW) for Unit 1. 

Discharged to the Gulf of Mexico via the site discharge 

canal. 

D-012 (b) Filtration and/or other biocide treatment of OTCW for 

Unit 2. Discharged to the Gulf of Mexico via the site 

discharge canal. 

D-013 (b) Filtration and/or other biocide treatment of OTCW for 

Unit 3. Discharged to the Gulf of Mexico via the site 

discharge canal. 

D-091 (c) Unit 1 intake screen wash water discharged to the Gulf of 

Mexico via the intake canal. 

D-092 (c) Unit 2 intake screen wash water discharged to the Gulf of 

Mexico via the intake canal. 

D-093 (c) Unit 3 intake screen wash water discharged to the Gulf of 

Mexico via the intake canal. 

D-0C1 (d) Ash pond water (Units 1 and 2) discharged to the Gulf of 

Mexico via the discharge canal. 

D-0C2 (d) Percolation pond system wastewater (Units 1 and 2) 

discharged to the Gulf of Mexico via the discharge canal. 

D-00F (e) Nuclear services and decay heat seawater system 

effluent discharged to the Gulf of Mexico via the 

discharge canal. Also receives effluents from internal 

discharges I-FG (regeneration waste neutralization tank) 

and I-FE (laundry and shower sump tank). 

D-00H (f) Coal pile runoff (Units 1 and 2) discharged to an adjacent 

salt marsh. 

D-071 (g) OTCW from the helper cooling tower system (cells 1 and 

2) to the Gulf of Mexico via the discharge canal. 

D-072 (g) OTCW from the helper cooling tower system (cells 3 and 

4) to the Gulf of Mexico via the discharge canal. 

D-094 (c) Helper cooling tower intake screen wash water 

discharged to the Gulf of Mexico via the discharge canal. 

D-100, D-200, 

D-300, D-400, 

D-500, D-600 

(h) Stormwater from plant areas discharged to the Gulf of 

Mexico via the intake (D-600) and discharge (D-100, 

D-200, D-300, D-400, and D-500) canals. 
Affected Environment 

 2-28 

1 Table 2.1.7-4. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Outfall Locations at the 

2 Crystal River Energy Complex (continued) 

Outfall Permitted Daily Flow Rate (mgpd) Description 

Units 4 and 5(i)

D-074, D-075 44 (combined discharge) Cooling tower blowdown for Units 4 and 5. Discharges to 

the Gulf of Mexico via the site discharge canal which 

receives discharge from the Units 4 and 5 discharge 

canal. 

D-0CO (j) Runoff collection system overflow from Units 4 and 5 and 

from internal outfalls I-CHO (coal storage area runoff) and 

I-C40 (ash landfill area runoff). Also collects stormwater 

discharge. Discharges to the Gulf of Mexico via the site 

discharge canal which receives discharge from the 

Units 4 and 5 discharge canal. 

mgpd = million gallons per day 

(a) Discharges for Units 1, 2, and 3 are regulated by Industrial Wastewater Facility (NPDES) Permit FL0000159 

(FDEP, 2005a). 

(b) Same as for Outfall D-011. 

(c) Effluent volume limits and monitoring are not required for intake screen wash water discharges. 

(d) Effluent volume limits not required for ash pond or percolation pond system wastewater discharges; however, 

discharge volumes must be reported. 

(e) Effluent volume limits not required for process wastewater; however, discharge volumes must be reported. 

(f) Effluent volume limits not required for coal pile runoff. 

(g) Effluent volume limits not required for OTCW; however, discharge volumes must be reported. 

(h) Effluent volume limits and monitoring are not required for stormwater discharges which drain water from 

building areas, drainage ditches, parking lots, and roofs (Progress Energy, 2009b). 

(i) Discharges for Units 4 and 5 are regulated by Industrial Wastewater Facility (NPDES) Permit FL0036366 

(FDEP, 2005b). 

(j) Effluent volume limits not required for runoff collection system overflow; however, discharge volumes from 

weir (EFF-4) must be reported when discharge occurs. 

Sources: FDEP, 2005a; FDEP, 2005b; Progress Energy, 2009b 
Affected Environment 

 2-29 

1 Table 2.1.7-5. Monitoring Requirements for Water Quality Parameters at National 

2 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Outfalls for Crystal River Energy Complex 

Units 1, 2, and 3(a) 3 

Outfall Parameter (Daily Maximum Limit) Monitoring Requirements 

D-011, D-012, 

and D-013 

Total residual oxidants (0.01 mg/L) Twice per week (when OTCW is being chlorinated); 

multiple grab samples 

D-00F Oil and grease (20 mg/L) 

Total suspended solids (100 mg/L) 

pH (6.5–8.5) 

Copper (3.7 mg/L) 

Iron (8.345 mg/L) 

Hydrazine (0.341 mg/L) 

Total ammonia (0.047 mg/L) 

Morpholine (1.78 mg/L) 

Spectrus CT1300 (report only) 

Toxicity (LC50 < 30%) 

Weekly (when discharging) 

Weekly (when discharging) 

Daily (when discharging) 

Daily (when discharging) 

Daily (when discharging) 

Daily (when discharging) 

Daily (when discharging) 

Daily (when discharging) 

Once per application 

Once every 2 months until 6 valid bimonthly tests are 

completed 

I-OFG (internal 

- to D-00F) 

Oil and grease (20 mg/L) 

Total suspended solids (100 mg/L) 

pH (6.0–9.0) 

Copper (8.345 μg/L) 

Iron (8.345 μg/L) 

One grab sample per monthly batch 

One grab sample per monthly batch 

One grab sample per monthly batch 

One grab sample per monthly batch 

One grab sample per monthly batch 

D-0C1 and 

D-0C2 

Oil and grease (5.0 mg/L) 

Total suspended solids (100 mg/L) 

pH (6.5–8.5) 

Arsenic (50.0 μg/L) 

Cadmium (9.3 μg/L) 

Chromium (50 μg/L) 

Copper (3.7 μg/L) 

Lead (8.5 μg/L) 

Iron (0.3 mg/L) 

Mercury (0.025 g/L) 

Nickel (8.3 g/L) 

Selenium (71 μg/L) 

Zinc (8.5 μg/L) 

Weekly (when discharging) 

Three times per week (when discharging); grab sample

Monthly (when discharging) 

Monthly (when discharging) 

Monthly (when discharging) 

Monthly (when discharging) 

Monthly (when discharging) 

Monthly (when discharging) 

Monthly (when discharging) 

Monthly (when discharging) 

Monthly (when discharging) 

Monthly (when discharging) 

Monthly (when discharging) 

D-00H Total suspended solids (50 mg/L) 

pH (6.5–8.5) 

Arsenic (50 mg/L) 

Cadmium (9.3 mg/L) 

Chromium (50 mg/L) 

Copper (3.7 μg/L) 

Lead (8.5 μg/L) 

Iron (0.3 mg/L) 

Mercury (0.025 g/L) 

Nickel (8.3 g/L) 

Selenium (71 μg/L) 

Zinc (86 μg/L) 

Vanadium (report) 

Daily (when discharging) 

Daily (when discharging) 

Daily (when discharging) 

Daily (when discharging) 

Daily (when discharging) 

Daily (when discharging) 

Daily (when discharging) 

Daily (when discharging) 

Daily (when discharging) 

Daily (when discharging) 

Daily (when discharging) 

Daily (when discharging) 

Daily (when discharging) 

D-071 and 

D-072 

Total residual oxidants (0.01 mg/L) 

Total residual oxidant discharge time 

(60 min/day) 

pH (6.5–8.5) 

Continuous 

Continuous 

Quarterly 

(a) Discharges for Units 1, 2, and 3 are regulated by Industrial Wastewater Facility (NPDES) Permit FL0000159 

(FDEP, 2005a). 

(b) Permit FL0000159 authorizes intake screen wash water to be discharged from Outfalls D-091, D-092, D-093, 

and D-094 and stormwater to be discharged from Outfalls D-100, D-200, D-300, D-400, and D-500 to the 

discharge canal; and stormwater to be discharged from Outfall D-600 to intake canal, without limits or 

monitoring requirements. 

Source: FDEP, 2005a 
Affected Environment 

 2-30 

1 Table 2.1.7-6. Monitoring Requirements for Water Quality Parameters at National 

2 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Outfalls for Crystal River Energy Complex 

Units 4 and 5(a) 3 

Outfall Parameter (Daily Maximum Limit) Monitoring Requirements 

D-074, D-075 Total residual oxidants (0.05 mg/L) 

Total dissolved solids (report) 

Biocides (report) 

Toxicity (LC50 < 30%) 

Continuous 

Weekly 

Once per application 

Quarterly until six valid quarterly tests are 

completed 

I-CHO (internal - coal 

area runoff to 

D-0CO) 

Total suspended solids (50 mg/L) 

Arsenic (report) 

Cadmium (report) 

Chromium (report) 

Copper (report) 

Iron (report) 

Lead (report) 

Mercury (report) 

Nickel (report) 

Vanadium (report) 

Zinc (report) 

Selenium (report) 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

I-C40 (internal - ash 

area runoff to 

D-0CO) 

Total suspended solids (50 mg/L) 

Arsenic (report) 

Cadmium (report) 

Chromium (report) 

Copper (report) 

Iron (report) 

Lead (report) 

Mercury (report) 

Nickel (report) 

Vanadium (report) 

Zinc (report) 

Selenium (report) 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

Prior to discharge 

D-0CO Total suspended solids (50 mg/L) 

pH (6.5–8.5) 

Arsenic (50 μg/L) 

Cadmium (9.3 μg/L) 

Chromium (50 μg/L) 

Copper (3.7 μg/L) 

Iron (0.3 mg/L) 

Lead (8.5 μg/L) 

Mercury (0.25 μg/L) 

Nickel (8.3 μg/L) 

Vanadium (report; μg/L) 

Zinc (86 μg/L) 

Selenium (71 μg/L) 

Per discharge 

Per discharge 

Per discharge 

Per discharge 

Per discharge 

Per discharge 

Per discharge 

Per discharge 

Per discharge 

Per discharge 

Per discharge 

Per discharge 

Per discharge 

(a) Discharges for Units 4 and 5 are regulated by Industrial Wastewater Facility (NPDES) Permit FL0036366 

(FDEP, 2005b). 

Source: FDEP, 2005b

4 South Plant Area

5 Surface water discharges in the south plant area are regulated by Industrial Wastewater Facility 

6 (NPDES) Permit FL0000159, issued by the FDEP on May 9, 2005, for CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 

7 (FDEP, 2005a). The permit authorizes discharges to State waters via 12 outfall locations along 

8 the site discharge canal (Figure 2.1.7-3), two internal discharge locations, and six stormwater 

9 discharge locations (Table 2.1.7-4). The site discharge canal receives the following types of 

10 discharge: once-through condenser cooling water, treated nuclear auxiliary cooling water, 

11 treated coal pile rainfall runoff, intake screen wash water, and treated radioactive and 
Affected Environment 

 2-31 

1 nonradioactive waste. Surface impoundments in the south plant area include the percolation 

2 pond system and the coal storage area. The percolation pond system is regulated by Industrial 

3 Wastewater Permit FLA016960 (FDEP, 2007a), (FDEP, 2008b) and is discussed in 

4 Section 2.1.7-3. FPC submitted its application for a modification (extended power uprate of 

CR-34 5 ) to NPDES Permit FL0000159 to the FDEP on September 11, 2009. Its permit renewal 

6 application was submitted on October 30, 2009. 

7 The coal storage area is a lined impoundment located to the south of the intake canal that 

8 contains piles of coal, rock, and pyrite (Figure 2.1-4). It is designed to retain the runoff from a 

9 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event with no overflow. Runoff from the coal storage area discharges 

10 to an adjacent salt marsh (southwest of the coal pile), a Class III marine water, via NPDES 

11 Outfall D-00H (FDEP, 2005a). Monitoring requirements for this outfall are listed in 

12 Table 2.1.7-5. 

13 Between 2005 and 2009, one exceedence occurred on June 21, 2009, when the water 

14 temperature at the POD exceeded the 3-hour rolling average temperature limit of 96.5 °F 

15 (35.8 °C) for a period of about 2 hours (with a maximum 3-hour rolling average temperature of 

16 96.7 °F [35.9 °C]). The exceedence was attributed to extreme heat, high humidity (which lowers 

17 the efficiency of cooling towers), and high tide. The facility performed load reductions at CR-1 

18 and CR-2 throughout the 2-hour exceedence period and continued until the 3-hour rolling 

19 average temperature was maintained below 96.5 °F (35.8 °C) (Holt, 2009). 

20 North Plant Area

21 Surface water discharges in the north plant area are regulated by Industrial Wastewater Facility 

22 (NPDES) Permit FL0036366, issued by the FDEP on August 15, 2005, for CR-4 and CR-5 

23 (FDEP, 2005b). The permit authorizes discharges to the Gulf of Mexico (Crystal Bay) via two 

24 outfalls (D-074 and D-075) and one stormwater discharge location (D-0CO, which also captures 

25 internal overflow drainage from the sedimentation ponds at the ash and coal storage areas) 

26 along the CR-4 and CR-5 discharge canal, which in turn discharges to the site discharge canal 

27 via a concrete flume located just east of the helper cooling towers (Figure 2.1.7-3 and 

28 Table 2.1.7-4). FPC submitted its NPDES permit renewal application for Permit FL0036366 to 

29 the FDEP on January 25, 2010. 

30 Surface impoundments in the north plant area include the ash storage area and stormwater 

31 retention system, the coal storage area, the runoff collection system, the FGD settling ponds, 

32 and a stormwater pond (discussed below). The FGD settlement and stormwater ponds are 

33 located on the site of the former north ash pond and are discussed under that heading. 

34 Ash Storage Area and Stormwater Retention System. The north plant ash storage area, located 

35 to the east of CR-4 and CR-5 (Figure 2.1-4), is a 95-ac (38-ha), unlined impoundment used to 

36 manage piles of dry fly ash and bottom ash from CR-1, CR-2, CR-4, and CR-5; commingled 

37 materials; and high chloride ash (Progress Energy, 2009c). The storage area is permitted by 

 

4

 The extended power uprate of CR-3 would increase the thermal load to the site discharge canal. For 

this reason, Progress Energy would construct and operate a new cooling tower (called the helper 

cooling tower south) to comply with the existing permitted thermal limit at the point of discharge. The 

intake and discharge for the new cooling tower would be located on the site discharge canal. The 

permit modification would authorize two new outfalls to the site discharge canal and the relocation of an 

outfall to the intake canal (Shrader, 2009). 
Affected Environment 

 2-32 

1 the plant’s Conditions of Certification (PA77-09N) issued by the FDEP and most recently 

2 revised on January 15, 2010 (FDEP, 2010a). 

3 Runoff from the ash storage area is diverted to the stormwater retention system to be disposed 

4 of by evaporation and percolation. The stormwater retention system consists of unlined 

5 retention ponds located on the south side of the ash storage area and a drainage ditch that runs 

6 along its west side. A retention canal is located on the east and north sides of the ash storage 

7 area. It is designed to retain the runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event (8.34-inches); if 

8 this rainfall total is exceeded, water from the canal would discharge to the CR-4 and CR-5 

9 retention ditch system via an overflow structure. Ash storage area runoff is initially held in a 

10 temporary settlement pond to allow for the settling of suspended solids before it is discharged to 

11 the stormwater system. All overflow runoff from the ash storage area ultimately discharges to 

12 the runoff collection system at NPDES Internal Outfall I-C40 (Figure 2.1.7-3) (FDEP, 2005b). 

13 Surface water is monitored on a per discharge basis at the I-C40 overflow weir before it is 

14 discharged to the runoff collection system; the parameters to be reported per discharge are 

15 listed in Table 2.1.7-6. 

16 Coal Storage Area. The north plant coal storage area is a lined impoundment located to the 

17 east of CR-4 and CR-5 (Figure 2.1-4). The storage area is permitted by the plant’s Conditions 

18 of Certification (PA77-09N) issued by the FDEP and most recently revised on January 15, 2010 

19 (FDEP, 2010a). It is designed to retain the runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event. 

20 Overflow runoff from the coal storage area discharges to the runoff collection system at NPDES 

21 Internal Outfall I-CHO (Figure 2.1.7-3) (FDEP, 2005b). Runoff is initially held in temporary 

22 settlement ponds to allow for the settling of suspended solids and buffering before it is 

23 discharged to the stormwater system. Surface water is monitored on a per discharge basis at 

24 the I-C40 overflow weir before it is discharged to the runoff collection system; the parameters to 

25 be reported per discharge are listed in Table 2.1.7-6. 

26 Runoff Collection System. The runoff collection system is a lined impoundment designed to 

27 contain a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event with no overflow. It receives infrequent overflow 

28 discharge from the north plant area ash storage area via internal Outfall I-C40 and the coal 

29 storage area via internal Outfall I-CHO and stormwater via Outfall D-0CO. Wastewaters from 

30 these areas are treated by settlement in the collection system. Overflow from the runoff 

31 collection system discharges to the Gulf of Mexico (Crystal Bay) via the site discharge canal 

32 which receives discharge from the CR-4 and CR-5 discharge canal (FDEP, 2005b). Monitoring 

33 requirements for this outfall are listed in Table 2.1.7-6. 

34 Between 2007 and 2009, only one overflow event occurred at D-0CO due to excessive rainfall 

35 during a tropical storm (on August 22, 2008). Overflow was sampled but no permit limits were 

36 exceeded (Progress Energy, 2008b). 

37 Former North Ash Pond/FGD Settling Ponds. Runoff from the former north ash storage pond is 

38 discharged to the Gulf of Mexico (Crystal Bay) via NPDES Outfall D-0C1 on the site discharge 

39 canal (FDEP, 2005a). Monitoring requirements for this outfall are listed in Table 2.1.7-5. 

40 Currently, the area is occupied by the FGD settlement and stormwater ponds. The FGD settling 

41 ponds are lined impoundments that receive FGD scrubber blowdown; each pond has a total 

bottom surface area of about 186,000 ft2

 (17,280 m2 42 ) and a peak storage capacity of 26 ac-ft. 

43 NPDES Outfall D-0C1 will continue to provide an outlet for emergency overflow from these 

44 ponds to the site discharge canal (Progress Energy, 2010a). 
Affected Environment 

 2-33 

1 2.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

2 This section provides general descriptions of the environment near CR-3 as background 

3 information and to support the analysis of potential environmental impacts in Chapter 4. 

4 2.2.1 Land Use 

5 CR-3 uses approximately 27 ac (11 ha) of previously disturbed land within the 1,062-ac 

6 (430-ha) developed portion of the 4,738-ac (1,917-ha) CREC. The remainder of the CREC site 

7 has been left undeveloped, providing a buffer zone containing 3,676 ac (1,488 ha) of primarily 

8 hardwood hammock forest and pineland, salt marches, small tidal creeks, and freshwater 

9 swamps, protected against encroachment from any other coastal development (Golder 

10 Associates, 2007a), (AEC, 1973), (Progress Energy, 2008a). The Citrus County 

11 Comprehensive Plan and the Citrus County Future Land Use Map designate the site on which 

12 the CREC and CR-3 are built for transportation, communication, and utilities (Golder 

13 Associates, 2007a). 

14 The CREC includes the CR-3 and ancillary facilities, four fossil-fueled units, two large cooling 

15 towers, coal delivery and storage areas, ash storage basins, office buildings, warehouses, 

16 stacks, roads, barge handling docks, and a railroad. An ISFSI for storage of spent fuel will be 

17 located in a low-lying, 7-ac (3-ha) grassy area east of the CR-3 containment building currently 

18 used as a staging and storage area during RFOs (Progress Energy, 2008a). Cooling water is 

19 withdrawn through a 14-mi (22-km) long intake canal dredged to accommodate coal barges, 

20 while the 1.6-mi (2.7-km) discharge canal extends west to the bay (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

21 U.S. Highway (US) 19 is located 1 mi (2 km) to the east of the CREC, its closest point, and 

22 State Routes (SRs) 44 and 490, and County Road (CR) 495 are located to the east of US 19 

23 (see Figure 2.1-1). Public access to the plant site is restricted with no unauthorized public 

24 access or activity allowed on FPC property. The site boundary is posted and fenced to prevent 

25 public access. No public roads, railways, or waterways traverse the CREC. 

26 2.2.2 Air Quality and Meteorology 

27 CR-3 is located in the CREC in Citrus County, Florida, near the town of Crystal River. The 

28 closest National Weather Service (NWS) weather station is located in nearby Inverness, Florida 

29 [Inverness 3 SE, Florida (084289)]. Climate in the vicinity of the CREC is humid, subtropical, 

30 characterized by dry winters and rainy summers, but nevertheless with a high degree of 

31 sunshine days. The majority of weather systems impacting the area originate in the Gulf of 

32 Mexico. Because of Crystal River’s proximity to the western Gulf of Mexico coast, temperatures 

33 are moderated relative to locations further inland and typically range between 90 °F and 32 °F. 

34 Rainfall averages greater than 50 inches per year, but snowfall is virtually non-existent. Fog 

35 occurs regularly during winter months. Prevailing winds are from the east; however, Crystal 

36 River’s coastal location results in frequent erratic wind direction changes. The majority of 

37 weather systems impacting the area originate in the Gulf of Mexico. Because of Crystal River’s 

38 proximity to the western Gulf coast, temperatures are moderated 

39 Data compiled at the NWS Station 084289, Inverness 3 SE, for the period of February 1, 1899, 

40 to December 31, 2008, are displayed in Table 2.2.2-1. 
Affected Environment 

 2-34 

1 Table 2.2.2-1. Monthly Climate Summary for Inverness 3 SE, Florida 

2 (National Weather Service Station 084289) 

Value Range Annual Average 

Average maximum temperature (°F) 70.3 (Jan) – 91.0 (Jul) 81.9 

Average minimum temperature (°F) 45.5 (Jan) – 71.8 (Aug) 59.2 

Average total precipitation (inches)(a)

1.85 (Nov) – 8.22 (Jul) 52.77 

(annual total) 

Percentages of possible observations for period of record range from 97% to 97.2% 

(a) Total precipitation occurred as rain only 

Source: National Climate Data Center, Southeast Regional Climate Center (SERCC) Complete data available 

electronically at: http://www.sercc.com/cgi-bin/sercc/cliRECtM.pl?fl4289 (accessed May 15, 2009)

3 The area is also subject to severe storms. Tropical storms, including hurricanes originating in 

4 the warm Caribbean waters and approaching from the Gulf of Mexico, or, less frequently, across 

5 the Florida peninsula having made landfall on Florida’s Atlantic Ocean coast, have impacted 

6 Citrus County. All landfalling hurricanes over that period are shown in Figure 2.2.2-1. 

7 

8 Figure 2.2.2-1. Landfalling Hurricanes in the Continental United States over the Period 

9 1950 through 2008 (Source: NCDC, 2009) 

10 Queries of the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Storm Events database 

11 (http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms) (NOAA, 2010) for Citrus 

12 County, Florida, over the period January 1, 1950, through December 31, 2009, identified 

13 471 individual extreme weather events, among which were included: 133 thunderstorm and high 

14 wind events, 67 hail events, 60 fog events, 46 tornadoes (38 of which resulted in minor to 
Affected Environment 

 2-35 

1 moderate property damage), 45 occasions of 

2 temperature extremes (below freezing, with or 

3 without wind chill) (7 of which resulted in significant 

4 crop damage), 29 flood events (all but 6 of which 

5 resulted in minor to moderate property damage), 20 

6 lightning events, 15 hurricane and tropical storm 

7 events (6 hurricanes landfalling on the west coast of 

8 Florida’s peninsula – see Figure 2.2.2-1), 3 funnel 

9 clouds, 8 heavy precipitation events, 4 ocean storm 

10 surge events (2 of which resulted in moderate 

11 property damage), and 2 wild/forest fires (1 of which 

12 occurred in Crystal River in 2000). There were no 

13 drought, dust storm, or snow and ice events over the 

14 reporting period. 

15 2.2.2.1 Regional Air Quality Impacts 

16 Citrus County is within the West Florida Intrastate Air 

17 Quality Control Region (AQCR) (see 

18 40 CFR Part 81). All of Florida, including the West 

19 Florida IAQCR, is currently in attainment for all 

20 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAASQ5

) (see 40 CFR 81.3106 21 ). Orange County, 

22 Duval County, the Tampa Bay area including 

23 Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties, and Southeast 

24 Florida including Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach 

25 Counties continue to be classified by the FDEP as 

26 attainment/maintenance areas for ozone and Tampa 

27 is a maintenance area for lead. The entire State 

28 remains unclassifiable for particulate matter, 

29 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10); although 

30 sufficient monitoring data exist, the EPA has not 

31 considered this pollutant for attainment 

32 determinations yet. 

33 The current Primary NAAQS are shown in 

34 Table 2.2.2.1-1. In 2006, there were 216 ambient air 

35 monitors operating Statewide in 34 counties to 

36 monitor ambient air quality against Federal or State 

37 standards. Citrus County has one monitoring station 

38 monitoring continuously for particulate matter, 

 

5

 In October 2006, the EPA revised the 24-hour PM2.5 standard and revoked the annual PM10 standard 

(see Federal Register, Volume 71, No. 200, 61144-61233, October 17, 2006). The final ozone rule 

was issued in March 2008. Implementation rules for the revised standard are currently under 

development. See the EPA Office of Air and Radiation website for additional details on all NAAQS: 

http://www.epa.gov/oar. 6

 The EPA designated Florida in attainment in 2006, based on ambient air monitoring data collected over 

the previous 3 years. Data collected since that EPA designation still demonstrate conformance with all 

criteria pollutants in all AQCRs in the State. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 established 

NAAQS for six pollutants, known as “criteria” 

pollutants—sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone 

(O3), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and 

lead (Pb) (40 CFR Part 50). Collectively, the 

criteria pollutants are indicative of the quality 

of the ambient air. The primary standards are 

referred to as “health effects standards.” 

These standards are set at levels to protect 

the health of the most susceptible individuals 

in the population: the very young, the very 

old, and those with respiratory problems. The 

EPA has designated secondary standards to 

protect public welfare. These are referred to 

as “quality of life standards.” All of the 

standards are expressed as concentration in 

air and duration of exposure. Many standards 

address both short- and long-term exposures. 

Any individual State may adopt a more 

stringent set of standards. For example, the 

State of Florida has ambient standards for 

SO2 that are somewhat more stringent than 

the NAAQS. 

When the pollutant levels in an area have 

caused repeated violations of a particular 

standard, the area is classified as in 

“nonattainment” for that pollutant. The EPA 

has established classification designations 

based on regional monitored levels of ambient 

air quality in accordance with the CAA 

Amendments of 1990. Nonattainment 

designations require States to develop and 

implement a plan for attaining compliance. 

Such State Implementation Plans are 

approved by the EPA and invariably include 

increasingly stringent controls on major 

sources of criteria pollutants. 
Affected Environment 

 2-36 

1 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5) only. In 2006, for the 121 days for which valid monitoring 

data were available, the Air Quality Index 7 2 for Citrus County was in the “good” category 110 

3 days and in the “moderate” category for 11 days (FDEP, 2007b). Statewide monitoring results 

4 included: 

5 ● CO (1-hour): all 22 monitors below 25 percent of the standard 

6 ● CO (8-hour): all 22 monitors below 35 percent of the standard 

7 ● NO2: all 14 monitors were below 25 percent of the standard 

8 ● O3 (1-hour): no exceedances at 53 monitors 

9 ● O3 (8-hour): there were 30 exceedances (daily concentration greater than 

10 0.08 parts per million [ppm]); however, none have contributed to a violation 

11 (3-year average of the fourth highest concentration greater than or equal to 

12 0.08 ppm) 

13 ● PM10 (annual): all 45 monitors were less than 75 percent of the standard 

14 ● PM10 (24-hour): 44 of 45 monitors were below 65 percent of the standard; 

highest concentration of 130 μg/m3 15 occurred in Hillsborough County 

16 ● PM2.5 (annual): All monitors using the Federal Reference Method were less than 

17 85 percent of the standard 

18 ● PM2.5 (24-hour): two exceedances among 32 monitors; highest concentration 

occurred in Brevard County at 36 μg/ m3 19 

20 ● Sulfur Oxides (annual Florida): all 26 monitors were below 25 percent of the 

21 standard 

22 ● Sulfur Oxides (24-hour Florida): all 26 monitors were below 65 percent of the 

23 standard 

24 ● Sulfur Oxides (3-hour Florida): all 26 monitors were below 35 percent of the 

25 standard 

● Pb: No violations at any of the three monitors: highest value was 0.83 μg/m3 26 in 

27 Hillsborough County 

 

7

 The Air Quality Index (AQI) is a simplified way of notifying the public on a daily basis of possible 

adverse health effects of pollutant levels in the ambient air. Measured values of five criteria pollutants 

are combined to create a single number corresponding generally to the descriptors of air quality: good, 

moderate, unhealthy for sensitive groups, unhealthy, and very unhealthy. For PM2.5, an AQI of “good” 

corresponds to an ambient air concentration from 0.0 to 15.4 mg/m3

 while a “moderate” AQI 

corresponds to a concentration range of 15.4 to 40.4 mg/m3

. 
Affected Environment 

 2-37 

1 Section 169A of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C., § 7491, Title I, Air Pollution 

2 Prevention and Control, Part C, Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, Subpart 2, 

3 Visibility Protection for Federal Class I Areas) authorized the Secretary of the Interior, in 

4 consultation with other Federal land managers to “...review all mandatory class I Federal areas 

5 and identify those where visibility is an important value of the area.” Altogether, 156 mandatory 

6 class I Federal areas were thus identified in 40 CFR Part 81 where deterioration of visibility 

7 could not be tolerated. There are three mandatory Class I Federal areas in the State of Florida: 

8 Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area, Everglades National Park, and St. Marks Wilderness Area, 

9 all under the stewardship of the FWS or within 62 mi (100 km) of the CREC. The closest Class I 

10 Federal area is the Okefenokee Wilderness Area in Georgia (also under the control of the 

11 FWS), approximately 110 mi (177 km) north-northeast of the CREC. Given the distances 

12 involved and the nature of the stationary air pollutant sources at the CREC associated with the 

13 nuclear reactor that have the potential to impact visibility, no adverse impacts on Class I Federal 

14 area visibilities can be reasonably anticipated from CREC operation. 

15 Two other major regulatory programs recently promulgated under the CAA authority are the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR)8 16 . Although the CAIR 

17 has since been struck down, Progress Energy is nevertheless going forward with modifications 

18 to its CR-4 and CR-5 coal units by installing pollution control devices that would have been 

19 required under the CAIR. The CAMR regulation does not apply to the nuclear reactor (CR-3) at 

20 the CREC, but it does apply to the other four coal-burning units at the CREC. 

The CREC qualifies as a major source9 21 under the Title V permit program by virtue of the 

22 operation of the coal-fired units on contiguous parcels all under the control of Progress Energy 

23 and, therefore, is required to obtain a Title V permit. Although none of the permit stipulations 

24 pertain directly to the operation of CR-3, the existence of that permit nevertheless has an 

25 indirect impact on the operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements for stationary 

26 sources of criteria pollutants affiliated with CR-3. Specifically, drift from an auxiliary cooling 

27 tower shared between CR-3 and two coal-fired units is addressed in the permit and three 

28 diesel-fueled emergency power generators affiliated exclusively with the nuclear reactor are 

29 identified in the permit as unregulated stationary sources (FDEP, 2008c). The Florida Siting 

30 Board approved a 180-MW extended power uprate for CR-3 in August 2008 (Florida Siting 

31 Board, 2008). The FDEP issued Conditions of Certification for CR-3 and for CR-4 and CR-5, 

32 which are two coal-fired units, on August 28, 2008 (FDEP, 2008c). 

 

8

 In July 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington DC District struck down EPA’s CAIR 

rulemaking after determining that EPA overstepped its authority. In December, 2008, that same Court 

reinstated CAIR. CAIR is designed to limit the amounts of SO2 and NOx released from fossil fuel power 

plants that threaten the ambient air quality in 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia. EPA is 

currently developing implementing regulations. CAMR was published on March 15, 2005 and is 

designed to cap mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants. More details on these regulations 

are available at the EPA Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oar/. 9

 Under the title V operating Permit program, EPA defines a Major Source as a stationary source with the 

potential to emit (PTE) any criteria pollutant at a rate > 100 tons/year, or any single HAP at a rate of > 

10 tons/year or a combination of HAPs at a rate > 25 tons/year. 
Affected Environment 

 2-38 

Table 2.2.4.2-1. National and Florida Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)(a) 1 

Pollutant(b) Averaging Time National Standards Standard Type(c) Florida Standards 

SO2 3-hour 0.5 ppm (1,300 μg/m3) S 0.5 ppm 

(1,300 μg/m3

) 

24-hour 0.14 ppm (365 μg/m3

) P 0.10 ppm 

(260 μg/m3

) 

Annual 0.030 ppm (80 μg/m3

) P 0.02 ppm 

(60 μg/m3

) 

NO2 Annual 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3

) P, S 0.05 ppm 

(100 μg/m3

) 

 

CO 1-hour 35 ppm (40 mg/m3

) P 35 ppm 

 8-hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m3

) P 9 ppm 

 

O3 1-hour 0.12 ppm(d) (235 μg/m3

) P,S 0.12 ppm 

 8-hour 0.075 ppm (157 μg/m3

) P, S – 

 

PM10 24-hour 150 μg/m3

 P, S 150 μg/m3

 Annual –(g)

 P, S 50 μg/m3

 

PM2.5 24-hour 35 μg/m3(e)

 P, S –(g)

 Annual 15 μg/m3

 P, S –(g)

 

Pb Calendar quarter(f) 1.5 μg/m3 P, S 1.5 μg/m3

(a) Refer to 40 CFR Part 50 for detailed information on attainment determination and reference method for 

monitoring (refer to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html and http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/

01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/06-8477.pdf). 

(b) CO = carbon monoxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; O3 = ozone; Pb = lead; PM2.5 = particulate matter ≤ 2.5 μm; 

PM10 = particulate matter ≤ 10 μm; and SO2 = sulfur dioxide. 

(c) P = primary standards, which set limits to protect public health; S = secondary standards, which set limits to 

protect welfare and quality of life. 

(d) On June 15, 2005, the 1-hour O3 standard was revoked for all areas except the 8-hour O3 nonattainment Early 

Action Compact (EAC) areas (those do not yet have an effective date for their 8-hour designations). The 

1-hour standard will be revoked for these areas 1 year after the effective date of their designation as 

attainment or nonattainment for the 8-hour O3 standard. 

(e) Effective December 17, 2006, the EPA revoked the annual PM10 standard of the current 50 μg/m3

 and revised 

the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 μg/m3

 to 35 μg/m3 (refer to http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/

01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/06-8477.pdf). 

(f) On October 15, 2008, the EPA revised the lead standard from a calendar-quarter average of 1.5 μg/m3

 to a 

rolling 3-month average of 0.15 μg/m3

. 

(g) No standard. 

(h) As noted in (d) above, the Federal 1-hour ozone standard was vacated in February 1998 in Florida. It was 

reinstated in July 2000. Finally it was vacated again on June 15, 2005, but remains a Florida standard. 

Sources: 40 CFR Part 50; 40 CFR 52.21 
Affected Environment 

 2-39 

1 2.2.3 Groundwater Resources 

2 CR-3 is located in the central portion of the CREC within the Gulf coastal lowlands of 

3 west-central Florida’s coastal plain province. The CREC site occupies a filled area that was 

4 once marshland. Surface fill at the site ranges in thickness from 3 to 5 ft (0.9 to 1.5 m). The fill 

5 is underlain by a natural soil consisting of deposits of thinly laminated organic sandy silts and 

6 clays (typical of tidal marshes) inter-layered with marine sediments of the Pamlico Terrace 

7 formation (Pleistocene age). The Pamlico Terrace is an ancient shoreline that trends parallel to 

8 the present shoreline (Progress Energy, 2008a), (Knochenmus and Yobbi, 2001), 

9 (USDA, 1988). 

10 Groundwater at the CREC is drawn from the Floridan aquifer system, which is a thick, vertically 

11 continuous sequence of Tertiary-age carbonate rocks (limestone and dolomite) with high 

12 relative permeability and regional extent. The system consists of the Upper Floridan aquifer, the 

13 middle confining unit, the Lower Floridan aquifer, and the sub-Floridan confining unit. The 

14 Upper Floridan aquifer is the principal source of potable water in west-central Florida; the Lower 

15 Floridan contains saltwater and is not used as a water supply source. The geologic units 

16 comprising the freshwater part of the Upper Floridan aquifer are (from oldest to youngest) the 

17 Avon Park formation and Ocala limestone (Eocene age), and the Suwannee limestone 

18 (Oligocene age). The Inglis formation (part of the Ocala limestone) is the uppermost unit below 

19 the CREC; the Suwannee limestone is absent. Because the surficial and intermediate aquifer 

20 systems that act as confining units to the Upper Floridan aquifer in other parts of Florida are 

21 absent in the west-central coastal area, the Upper Floridan aquifer is unconfined (Yobbi, 1992), 

22 (Knochenmus and Yobbi, 2001), (Marella and Berndt, 2005), (Sacks, 1996). 

23 EnHydro (2007) describes two primary zones within the shallow portion (i.e., Inglis formation) of 

24 the Upper Floridan aquifer at the CREC: (1) an upper zone, consisting of a highly permeable 

25 network of interconnected solution cavities and channels, that extends from ground surface to a 

26 depth of about 30 ft; and (2) a deeper, less permeable zone, consisting of smaller voids and 

27 solution channels, that extends from a depth of about 40 to 60 ft (to the underlying Avon Park 

28 formation). The two zones are separated by a 10-ft thick unit of unfractured limestone. 

29 Annual recharge to the aquifer is high (ranging from 10 to 30 inches [25 to 76 cm]) and occurs 

30 mainly in upland areas as infiltration through the ground surface and drainage into sinkholes. 

31 Flow within the aquifer at the site is mainly through solution cavities and along fractures. The 

hydraulic gradient in the vicinity of the CREC is about 2 ft/mi (0.379 m/km or 3.8x10−4 32 ) to the 

33 west toward the coast (Ortiz, 2006). Natural discharge from the Upper Floridan aquifer occurs 

34 through numerous springs that feed coastal rivers, salt marshes, and swamps along the coast. 

35 Several springs also discharge offshore into the Gulf of Mexico. Groundwater in the vicinity of 

36 CR-3 flows to the west-southwest and discharges near the head of the intake and discharge 

37 canals. Shallow gradients fluctuate as much as 1 ft with tidal conditions, resulting in a steep 

38 gradient at low tide and a more flat gradient at high tide (EnHydro, 2007), (Florida Power, 2005), 

39 (Trommer, 1993), (Yobbi, 1992), (Marella and Berndt, 2005). 

40 Water in the Upper Floridan aquifer is predominantly a calcium bicarbonate type formed by the 

41 dissolution of the aquifer by groundwater (Trommer, 1993). The CREC lies within the transition 

42 zone where water composition reflects a mixture of freshwater and saltwater. The landward 

43 extent of the transition zone is defined by Trommer (1993) as the location where all groundwater 

44 in a vertical section of an aquifer contains chloride concentrations of 25 mg/L or less. 

45 Causseaux and Fretwell (1982) use the value of 250 mg/L or less to define the 

46 freshwater-saltwater interface because it is the drinking water standard (Secondary Maximum 
Affected Environment 

 2-40 

1 Contaminant Level) defined by the EPA for chloride, as a nonthreatening contaminant 

2 (EPA, 2009a). In the Upper Floridan aquifer, the 250-mg/L line of equal chloride concentration 

3 extends about 3 mi (5 km) inland, as measured in wells between 1987 and 1990 

4 (Trommer, 1993). The landward extent of the transition zone (using the 25-mg/L line of equal 

5 chloride concentration) is about 9 mi (14 km). Chloride concentrations in CREC production 

6 wells are greater than 250 mg/L (Florida Power, 2005). 

7 2.2.4 Surface Water Resources 

8 The CREC is located on Crystal Bay, a shallow embayment of the Gulf of Mexico, midway 

between the mouths of two rivers10 9 : the Withlacoochee River, about 4.5 mi (7.2 km) to the 

10 north, and the Crystal River, about 2.5 mi (4 km) to the south (Figure 2.2.4-1). The 

11 Withlacoochee River flows from the Green Swamp in northern Polk County along the 

12 Citrus-Levy County line to the Gulf of Mexico, and drains an area of about 2,020 square miles 

(m2

) (5,232 square kilometers [km2]). It has an average annual flow of 1,027 cfs (29 m3 13 /s) at the 

14 Bypass Channel near Inglis, about 1.4 mi (2.3 km) upstream of its mouth (USGS, 2009a). The 

15 Withlacoochee River is in hydrologic contact with the Upper Floridan aquifer along much of its 

16 course. In its lower reaches, about half of its base flow is from the aquifer. The Crystal River 

17 originates from several fresh- and brackish-water springs at King’s Bay, about 6 mi (10 km) 

inland. It has an annual average flow of about 846 cfs (24 m3 18 /s) at Bagley Cove, located about 

19 3.6 mi (5.8 km) upstream of its mouth (USGS, 2009b). It is one of several shallow streams 

20 south of the CREC that alternately floods and drains the estuarine marshes during tidal 

21 fluctuations. Most of the water in these rivers derives from groundwater (from the Upper 

22 Floridan aquifer) and there is little surface drainage in the area. Diurnal tidal ranges are about 

23 4.1 ft (1.2 m) at the mouth of the Withlacoochee River and 2.6 ft (0.79 m) near the mouth of the 

24 Crystal River (AEC, 1973), (Yobbi and Knochenmus, 1989), (Champion and Starks, 2001). 

25 While forested wetlands and salt marshes are found in the undeveloped (northeastern and 

26 southeastern) portions of the CREC and to the south of the site, there are no natural surface 

27 water bodies on or immediately adjacent to CR-3. 

28 The west-central coast of Florida is an area of low relief, ranging in elevation from mean sea 

29 level to about 5 ft (1.5 m). It is a low-wave energy coast dominated by salt marshes and 

30 swamps that are dissected by dendritic tidal channels. These features occur in a 1-mi (1.6-km) 

31 wide band along the coast near the CREC, separating the uplands to the east from the Gulf of 

32 Mexico. Nearshore areas off the coast are shallow (with an average depth of less than 20 ft 

33 [6.1 m]), broad, and gently sloping. Thin, discontinuous sands cover a carbonate (karst) 

34 platform with limestone outcrops, sinks, and submarine springs. Many sinks and springs have 

35 been filled with sand carried by a northward-flowing longshore current. Karst features decrease 

36 away from the shore (USGS, 1997), (Morton et al., 2004), (Yobbi and Knochenmus, 1989). 

37 Salinities in spring-fed streams and marshes are seasonally variable and depend mainly on the 

38 effects of streamflow and tidal conditions. Streamflows and tides are typically higher in summer 

39 and fall than in the winter and spring. Salinities rise during periods of lower freshwater flow and 

 

10 As Class III water bodies, the Withlacoochee River and Crystal River are designated for recreational 

use and for the propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife 

(see FAC, Rule 62-302.400). They are also designated for special protection under the Outstanding 

Florida Waters listing (see FAC, Rule 62-302.700). 
Affected Environment 

 2-41 

1 higher tides, and fall during periods of higher freshwater flow and lower tides. Salinity in springs 

2 along the coast tends to be high (brackish) but generally decreases with distance inland from 

3 the coast, since water level elevations in the Upper Floridan aquifer are higher away from the 

4 coast and saltwater in the aquifer occurs only at depth (Section 2.2.3). Spring discharges tend 

5 to be freshest during times of high water levels in the aquifer. When water levels in the aquifer 

6 are low, saltwater mixes with freshwater as it flows toward the spring opening, increasing 

7 salinity in the spring discharge (Yobbi and Knochenmus, 1989). 

8 Because of high rainfall and large volumes of freshwater that discharge from rivers and springs 

9 along the coast, nearshore waters in the Gulf of Mexico are generally low in salinity. Wind 

10 direction and the direction of currents in the Gulf of Mexico are also important factors in 

11 distributing freshwater along the coast and out to sea (Yobbi and Knochenmus, 1989). 

12 

13 Figure 2.2.4-1. Surface Water in the Vicinity of the Crystal River Energy Complex 

14 2.2.5 Aquatic Resources 

15 CR-3 has a once-through condenser and auxiliary cooling system that withdraws water from, 

16 and discharges it to Crystal Bay (Section 2.1.6). Crystal Bay is a shallow estuarine embayment 

17 of the Gulf of Mexico largely located between the Cross Florida Barge Canal (Marjorie Harris 

18 Carr Cross Florida Greenway) and Crystal River, and extending offshore for about 10 mi 

19 (16 km) (SWEC, 1985). It is located within Florida’s Big Bend which includes the coastlines 

20 between Franklin County and Pinellas County (i.e., the coastlines of Wakulla, Jefferson, Taylor, 

21 Dixie, Levy, Citrus, Hernando, and Pasco Counties). The estuary areas of Big Bend total over 
Affected Environment 

 2-42 

1 250,000 ac (101,000 ha) (Kilgen and Dugas, 1989). Section 2.2.4 provides an overview of the 

2 hydrology of Crystal Bay. 

3 2.2.5.1 General Characteristics of Aquatic Systems near Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

4 Generating Plant 

5 Very gentle slopes characterize the Big Bend bathymetry, increasing about 3 ft (1 m) in depth 

6 per 3 mi (5 km) distance from shore (Hale et al., 2004). Crystal Bay is shallow with depths less 

7 than 10 ft (3 m) out to 3 mi (5 km) from shore. Oyster reefs parallel the shore. It has relatively 

8 low wave energy with many rocky reef areas, oyster bars, and seagrass beds. Salt marshes 

9 are extensive in undeveloped areas of the coast (SWEC, 1985). Most oyster reefs are 

10 underwater at high tide with portions exposed at low tide (SWEC, 1985). Small numerous 

11 basins created by the oyster reefs run in a north-south orientation in the area of the CREC 

12 intake and discharge canals (Progress Energy, 2008a). During the tidal cycle, water levels 

13 fluctuate from 2 to 4 ft (0.6 to 1.2 m) (ReMetrix, 2007). Salinities tend to be higher offshore and 

14 near the POD, while areas near the rivers and the Cross Florida Barge Canal have reduced 

15 salinities (SWEC, 1985). Nearshore waters of Crystal Bay have a salinity of 22 to 29 parts per 

16 thousand (ppt) (AEC, 1973); while salinities about 8 to 10 mi (13 to 16 km) offshore are about 

17 35 ppt, a value typical of open ocean waters (National Ocean Service, 2008). Shallow estuaries 

18 are less able to store heat compared to deeper waters, and water temperatures fluctuate from 

19 39 °F to 90 °F (4 °C to 32 °C) annually (EPA, 1999). Annual water temperatures near the 

20 CREC intake average 71.2 °F (21.8 °C), ranging from 43 °F (6.1 °C) to 94.6 °F (34.8 °C) 

21 (Golder Associates, 2007a). 

22 Overall, the shallow waters of Florida’s Big Bend have exceptional water quality and clarity 

23 (Handley et al., 2007). Land use practices such as agriculture, urbanization, and industrial 

24 development affect water quality; resulting in hydrologic alterations to watersheds that flow into 

25 Big Bend and result in nutrient enrichment of the estuarine and coastal waters (GMP, 2004), 

26 (Mattson et al., 2007). Water quality within the estuarine areas of Citrus County are affected by 

27 increased urban stormwater runoff, seepage from onsite sanitary sewage disposal, sewage 

28 treatment plant effluent, residential use of pesticides, herbicide and fertilizers, and activities 

29 associated with commercial and leisure boating (CCBCC, 2009). 

30 2.2.5.2 Major Aquatic Habitats near Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

31 A variety of habitats, discussed below, support an abundance of aquatic resources in Crystal 

32 Bay. Open water habitats include saltwater, tidally-influenced water of variable salinities, and 

33 tidal freshwater areas. The bottom of Crystal Bay provides a number of different benthic 

34 habitats, with their characteristics dictated by salinity, tides, and substrate type. Unless cited 

35 otherwise, the habitat descriptions are from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

36 Commission (FWC, 2005). 

37 Artificial Structures

38 Artificial structures include artificial reefs and hardened shorelines. The construction of artificial 

39 reefs can enhance recreational fishing and diving opportunities; while hardened shorelines 

40 (e.g., rip-rap, other types of coastal armoring, breakwaters, piers, and docks) enhance coastal 

41 development. While hardened shorelines provide some habitat for bivalves, shellfish, and some 

42 finfish, they alter natural marine and estuarine shoreline processes and alter or replace 

43 naturally-occurring coastal habitats. The dikes that parallel the CREC intake and discharge 

44 canals are artificial structures. Other artificial structures in the area are the spoils islands 

45 located along the South Florida Barge Canal. These structures and the oyster reefs (discussed 
Affected Environment 

 2-43 

1 later in this section) affect tidal flux and current patterns in the area of the CREC (Steidinger and 

2 Van Breedveld, 1971). 

3 Coastal Tidal Rivers and Streams

4 Coastal tidal rivers and streams are the segments of rivers and streams that experience a tidal 

5 influence that affects water levels, flow rates, and salinity concentrations. Water flow in tidal 

6 rivers and streams is bidirectional, and salinity can range from freshwater to brackish. Many 

7 tidal rivers and streams occur within the Big Bend region of Florida. Tidal rivers and streams 

8 near the CREC include the Withlacoochee River, Cross Florida Barge Canal, Crystal River, 

9 Cutoff Creek, and Salt Creek. 

10 Oyster Reefs

11 Dense concentrations of Eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica) attach to hard substrates and 

12 to each other to create oyster reefs. The Eastern oyster occurs within estuarine areas with 

13 salinities of 15 to 30 ppt. Oyster reefs generally consist of an upper layer of live oysters over a 

14 core of buried shell and mud. The reefs can range from small mounds or patches to long ridges 

15 extending several miles. Large reefs have a significant role in the energy flow dynamics of 

16 estuaries by dividing bays, changing circulation patterns (GMFMC, 2004), and causing flow 

17 restrictions during portions of the tidal cycle (Galya and McDougall, 1985). Oyster reefs also 

18 absorb wave energy, which helps to minimize shore erosion, and help to maintain water quality 

19 through live oyster filtering capacities (GMFMC, 2004). Oyster reef habitats provide nursery 

20 grounds, refugia, and foraging areas for over 300 species of macroinvertebrates and fishes 

(Stanley and Sellers, 1986). Peterson et al. (2003) determined that 108 ft2

 (10 m2 21 ) of restored 

22 oyster reef can yield an additional 2.5 kilograms per year (kg/yr) (5.5 pounds per year [lb/yr]) of 

23 production of fish and large mobile crustaceans. Under 13,600 ac (5,500 ha) of oyster reefs are 

24 currently mapped for Florida, but spatial data are lacking for most oyster and other bivalve reefs 

25 (FWC, 2005). A number of oyster reefs parallel the shoreline near the CREC (Progress Energy, 

26 2008a). 

27 Oyster spawning occurs between March and November at temperatures consistently above 

28 68 °F (20 °C) with mass spawning occurring at temperatures above 77 °F (25 °C) (Stanley and 

29 Sellers, 1986). Generally, spawning only occurs at salinities above 10 ppt (GMFMC, 2004). 

30 The Eastern oyster is a broadcast spawner. A female produces 15 to 115 million eggs per 

31 spawning event and may spawn several times in a season (Stanley and Sellers, 1986). Eggs 

32 hatch into free-swimming trochophore larvae, followed by the veliger larval stage (GMFMC, 

33 2004). The daily mortality rate for larvae is about 10 percent (Stanley and Sellers, 1986). After 

34 3 weeks, a larva develops a “foot” and settles to the bottom where it seeks a hard substrate, 

35 preferably an adult oyster. The newly settled larvae (spat) cement themselves to the substrate 

36 and start their metamorphosis to an adult (GMFMC, 2004). The Eastern oyster can reach 

37 maturity in as little as 4 weeks after settling (FWC, 2009a). In the Gulf, Eastern oysters obtain 

38 lengths of 3 inches (7.6 cm) within 2 years and nearly 6 inches (15 cm) by 5 or 6 years. They 

39 can live up to 30 years and attain a size of almost 12 inches (30.5 cm) (FWC, 2009a). Annual 

40 mortality of spat is typically 60 percent but can be as high as 99 percent, and the annual 

41 mortality of adults can range from 5 to 80 percent (Stanley and Sellers, 1986). 

42 The Eastern oyster tolerates widely fluctuating temperatures, salinities, and suspended solids 

43 concentrations (Stanley and Sellers, 1986). Optimal temperatures for growth, reproduction, and 

44 survival are 68 °F to 86 °F (20 °C to 30 °C) (Stanley and Sellers, 1986); while optimal salinities 

45 are 12 to 25 ppt (GMFMC, 2004). Exposure of Eastern oysters to 95 °F (35 °C) rarely caused 

46 death, but did inhibit effective reproduction by causing premature spawning, spawning out of 
Affected Environment 

 2-44 

1 season, and deterioration of oyster condition (Quick, 1971). Mortality can occur from extended 

2 exposure to salinities less than 2 ppt (GMFMC, 2004). 

3 Larval oysters feed on phytoplankton; while adults consume phytoplankton, bacteria, detritus, 

4 and other organisms less than 10 microns in size (GMFMC, 2004). Protozoans, ctenophores, 

5 jellyfish, hydroids, worms, bivalves, barnacles, crabs, and fish consume eggs, embryos, and 

6 early oyster larvae. Stone crabs, mud crabs, blue crabs, southern oyster drill, crown conch, 

7 lightning whelk, starfish, boring sponge, sea anemone, flatworms, and some fishes such as 

8 black drum and rays consume oyster spat and adults (GMFMC, 2004). 

9 Most commercial landings of Eastern oyster in Florida occur along the panhandle and Big Bend 

10 area. The FWC (2011a) reported 2010 annual commercial landings of oysters to be 

11 1,694,664 lb (768,687 kg) for the west coast of Florida with no commercial landings reported for 

12 Citrus County. In Citrus County, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

13 (2011) allows oyster harvesting south of the Crystal River intake (normally opened to 

14 harvesting, but may be temporarily closed during periods of red tide, hurricanes, and sewage 

15 spills) during spring and fall months; and conditionally approved (periodically closed to shellfish 

16 harvesting during predictable pollution events) during winter months. 

17 Salt Marshes

18 Salt marshes occur where wave energies are low and mangroves are absent. About 

19 442,600 ac (179,100 ha) of salt marshes occur in Florida. Tidal rivers and streams often dissect 

20 larger stretches of salt marsh. The herbaceous plants of salt marshes include grasses, sedges, 

21 and rushes. Salt marshes provide nursery areas for many larval and juvenile invertebrates and 

22 fishes; provide a major source of organic matter to sustain estuarine detrital food webs; and 

23 reduce erosion, buffer inland areas from storm damage, recycle inorganic nutrients, and remove 

24 contaminants (GMFMC, 2004). The salinity of salt marsh waters ranges from 0.5 to 34 ppt 

25 (Ward, 1999). Soil salinity and tidal frequency affect primary production in salt marshes. When 

26 the density, growth, and survival of juvenile fishes and decapod crustaceans are considered, the 

27 relative nursery value of salt marsh habitats for nekton appear higher than open water habitats 

28 but lower than seagrass habitats (Minello et al., 2003). 

29 A 0.5 to 1 mi (0.8 to 1.6 km) band of salt marshes drained by numerous small creeks occurs in 

30 the CREC area (SWEC, 1985). The salt marshes near the CREC are typical of northwest Gulf 

31 shoreline areas. Sediments in the salt marsh area are primarily mud with small areas of 

32 exposed limestone and oyster shell banks. Rushes and cordgrass (e.g., Juncus roemerianus

33 and Spartina patens, respectively) and other salt-tolerant plants border shallow creeks and 

34 bayous. Smaller areas of mangroves and glasswort (Salicornia spp.) are scattered throughout 

35 the salt marshes. Spartina-dominated areas also occur along the intake and discharge spoil 

36 banks for the CREC. 

37 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

38 Submerged aquatic vegetation habitats include any combination of seagrasses, attached 

39 macroalgae, and drift algae that cover 10 to 100 percent of the substrate (GMP, 2004). 

40 Seagrasses are marine flowering plants adapted for underwater growth and reproduction. 

41 Seagrass beds occur in areas of low wave energy and often occur next to tidal-flat, salt-marsh, 

42 and mangrove communities. Salt marshes and adjacent seagrass beds share a diverse fauna 

43 (Dawes et al., 2004). Seagrasses help maintain water clarity, stabilize substrates, provide 

44 habitat for fish and shellfish, provide food for some marine animals, and provide nursery areas 

45 for recreationally and commercially important fish and shellfish (Sargent et al., 1995), (FDEP, 
Affected Environment 

 2-45 

1 2008d), (Handley et al., 2007). Nearly all of the commercially and recreationally valuable 

2 estuarine and marine animals depend on seagrass beds as refuge or habitat for parts or all of 

3 their lifecycles (Dawes et al., 2004). 

4 Over 2.4 million ac (1 million ha) of seagrass beds occur in Florida (FWC, 2005). The Big Bend 

5 area of Florida has the highest acreage of seagrass along the northern Gulf of Mexico. 

6 Potential seagrass habitat in Big Bend out to a depth of 60 ft (18 m), which includes deepwater 

7 Halophila beds, is 3,496,534 ac (1,415,028 ha) (Handley et al., 2007). 

8 Handley et al. (2007) reported the following areal coverage of seagrasses in Big Bend: 

9 ● In 1984 – 197,880 ac (80,891 ha) of continuous seagrass and 619,648 ac 

10 (250,768 ha) of patchy seagrass 

11 ● In 1992 – 67,110 ac (27,159 ha) of continuous seagrass and 200,529 ac 

12 (81,153 ha) of patchy seagrass 

13 ● In 2003 – 70,443 ac (28,508 ha) of continuous seagrass and 541,372 ac 

14 (219,090 ha) of patchy seagrass 

15 Seagrass habitats occur within the shallows of Crystal Bay and extend westward about 7 to 

16 12 mi (11 to 19 km) into the Gulf (CCBCC, 2009). 

17 Seven seagrass species occur in Florida (FDEP, 2008d). The four most widespread species 

18 are shoal grass (Halodule beaudettei, formerly known as Halodule wrightii), ditch grass or 

19 widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima), turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum), and manatee grass 

20 (Syringodium filiforme). The other three species are star grass (Halophila engelmannii), paddle 

21 grass (Halophila decipiens), and Johnson’s seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) (FDEP, 2008d). 

22 Turtle grass, manatee grass, and shoal grass are the major species of seagrass present in the 

23 Big Bend area (GMP, 2004). Shoal grass, widgeon grass, star grass, and attached macroalgae 

24 are pioneer species that rapidly colonize bare areas. Manatee grass then occurs, usually 

25 intermixed with shoal grass in early stages of seagrass bed development and turtle grass in 

26 later stages. Turtle grass is the climax species in seagrass succession (GMFMC, 2004). 

27 Shoal grass, ditch grass, turtle grass, manatee grass, and star grass occur near the CREC 

28 (AEC, 1973), (SWEC, 1985), (Progress Energy, 2008a). However, during the 316 

29 Demonstration study (SWEC, 1985) to determine potential water intake and discharge impacts 

30 from CREC operations on Crystal Bay, only shoal grass occurred at sampling stations most 

31 affected by the CREC’s heated discharge; whereas the biomass of shoal grass, ditch grass, and 

32 turtle grass were lower in areas less affected by thermal discharges compared to areas 

33 unaffected by thermal discharges. Section 4.5.4 provides further information on the effect of 

34 CREC thermal discharges on seagrasses. 

35 Submerged aquatic vegetation habitats, including those dominated by seagrasses, can also 

36 contain rooted green algae, particularly Caulerpa and Sargassum spp., and epiphytic algae. 

37 Algae can contribute over 50 percent of primary production in seagrass habitats (GMFMC, 

38 2004). Epiphytic algae growth may affect seagrass photosynthesis by intercepting incident light 

39 (Hale et al., 2004). Some macroalgae found in submerged aquatic vegetation habitats include 

40 attached macroalgae that has broken loose from other locations. These drift algae can 

41 comprise an important component of submerged aquatic vegetation habitat (Dawes et al., 
Affected Environment 

 2-46 

1 2004), (GMFMC, 2004). Crabs, isopods, and sea urchins are direct grazers on seagrasses; 

2 while other invertebrates may feed on the epiphytes that occur on the seagrasses (Dawes et al., 

3 2004). Total fish density in Tampa Bay was similar at sites dominated by either drift algae or 

4 seagrasses but was significantly reduced at sites with little cover by either vegetation type. 

5 Thus, both drift algae and seagrasses are essential habitats for juvenile and small adult fishes 

6 (Rydene and Matheson, 2003). Drift algae functions as both a dispersal mechanism and an 

7 alternative habitat for seagrass-associated fish and macroinvertebrates (Rydene and Matheson, 

8 2003). 

9 Both natural perturbations (e.g., storms, floods, droughts, hurricanes, and overgrazing by 

10 manatees and sea turtles) and anthropogenic perturbations (e.g., nutrient loading) can affect 

11 submerged aquatic vegetation (Dawes et al., 2004), (GMP, 2004), (Handley et al., 2007). Since 

12 the 1950s, over 2 million ac (800,000 ha) of seagrasses were eliminated in Florida due to 

13 nutrient loading, salinity changes caused by water control projects, boat propeller and trawl net 

14 damage, dredging, and other human-related causes (Sargent et al., 1995). Eutrophication from 

15 nutrient loading is the major cause of seagrass habitat degradation (GMP, 2004), (Hale et al., 

16 2004). Increased nutrient loading in the Big Bend region has increased phytoplankton 

17 abundance and possibly periphyton abundance on seagrass blades. This has altered the light 

18 regime available to seagrasses, reducing the maximum depth of occurrence since the late 

19 1970s (Hale et al., 2004). Similar effects on seagrasses can occur when nutrients increase 

20 macroalgae growth (Dawes et al., 2004). 

21 Subtidal Unconsolidated Marine/Estuary Sediments

22 Subtidal unconsolidated marine/estuary sediment habitats consist of open areas of mineral 

23 substrates within tidal zones (i.e., less than 10 percent of the habitat is comprised of submerged 

24 aquatic vegetation or corals). Substrates consisting of unconsolidated sediments (e.g., mud, 

25 mud/sand, sand, or shell) occur throughout the coastal areas of Florida. These habitats can 

26 support large populations of infaunal organisms such as tube worms, sand dollars, mollusks, 

27 isopods, amphipods, burrowing shrimp, and crabs and are important feeding grounds for 

28 bottom-feeding fish and invertebrate species. Microscopic photosynthetic eukaryotic algae and 

29 cyanobacteria, anaerobic photosynthetic bacteria, and chemosynthetic bacteria occur in 

30 unconsolidated sediments (MacIntyre et al., 1996). 

31 2.2.5.3 Aquatic Biota near Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

32 The following provides an overview of the plankton, macrophytes and marine algae, 

33 macroinvertebrates, and fishes that occur near the CREC. Section 2.2.5.2 also addresses 

34 macrophytes, marine algae, and oysters, as these organisms are the foundation of submerged 

35 aquatic vegetation and oyster reef habitats. 

36 Plankton

37 Plankton includes primary producers (phytoplankton) and consumers (zooplankton) whose 

38 movements are controlled more by tides and currents than by their own movements. 

39 Phytoplankton includes microscopic, single-celled algae that are responsible for most of the 

40 primary production in the water column. Components of the estuarine phytoplankton include 

41 green algae (Chlorophyta), blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria), golden-brown algae 

42 (Chrysophyta), brown algae (Phaeophyta), and red algae (Rhodophyta). Periphyton (algae 

43 attached to solid submerged objects) includes species of diatoms (Bacillariophyta) and other 

44 algae that grow on natural or artificial substrates. These species can become planktonic as a 

45 result of scouring or other actions that separate individuals from their substrate. 
Affected Environment 

 2-47 

1 Zooplankton is defined as the heterotrophic plankton that prey on phytoplankton, detritus, and 

2 other zooplankton. In turn, zooplankton is a food source for filter feeders, fish larvae, 

3 invertebrates, and larger zooplankton. Components of the zooplankton include: 

4 ● Holoplankton (organisms planktonic for their entire life such as amphipods and 

5 copepods) 

6 ● Meroplankton (organisms that are planktonic for a portion of their life [usually 

7 during the larval stage] such as sea urchins, sea stars, crustaceans, marine 

8 worms, some marine gastropods, and many fish) 

9 ● Ichthyoplankton (eggs and larvae of many fish species) 

10 The AEC (1973) reported few protozoa species in the intake and discharge canals at the CREC. 

11 Bacterial populations were also low. Most nanoplankton consisted of algal cells dominated by 

12 diatoms (AEC, 1973). Calanoid copepods dominated the zooplankton population in the intake 

13 and discharge canals (AEC, 1973). 

14 In 2008, CH2M Hill (2009) collected zooplankton on four occasions in the portion of Crystal Bay 

15 affected by CREC discharge. Zooplankton abundance ranged from 570 to 2,541 

individuals/100 ft3

 (20,132 to 89,743 individuals/100 m3 16 ). Holoplankton, dominated by copepods 

17 and chaetognath (arrow) worms, accounted for about 32 percent of the zooplankton; 

18 meroplankton, dominated by larvae of mud crabs, brachyuran crabs, mud shrimps, caridean 

19 shrimps, and gastropods, accounted for 32 percent of the zooplankton; and ichthyoplankton, 

20 dominated by anchovy eggs and larvae and goby larvae, accounted for about 1 percent of the 

21 zooplankton. Overall, mud crab larvae and copepods accounted for 57 to 66 percent of the 

22 mean zooplankton numbers, respectively (CH2M Hill, 2009). 

The mean abundance of fish eggs ranged from 0.4 to 34.6 individuals/100 ft3 23 (15 to 1,224 

individuals/100 m3 24 ) and included eggs of Carangidae, Clupeidae (sardines and menhaden), 

25 Engraulidae (anchovies), Haemulidae, Merluccidae, Paralichthyidae, Sciaenidae (croakers and 

26 drums), and Serranidae (CH2M Hill, 2009). The mean abundance of fish larvae ranged from 

2.2 to 11.7 individuals/ft3

 (76 to 414 individuals/100 m3 27 ). Larvae of Gobiidae (gobies) and 

28 Engraulidae were collected year-round indicating they have year-round resident populations 

29 with continuous reproduction (CH2M Hill, 2009). Larvae of pelagic fishes collected included 

30 Sciaenidae, Clupeidae, Atherinopsidae (silversides), and Gerridae (mojarras); while larvae of 

31 the demersal fishes from the families Blenniidae (blennies) and Achiridae were also collected 

32 (CH2M Hill, 2009). Zooplankton samples also included post-yolk-sac larvae of the commercially 

33 or recreationally important silver perch, red drum, spotted seatrout, and southern kingfish 

34 (Menticirrhus americanus) (CH2M Hill, 2009). 

35 Macrophytes and Marine Algae

36 Submerged aquatic vegetation (including both macrophytes and macroalgae) performs a variety 

37 of roles in aquatic ecosystems, including serving as food, habitat, and/or shelter for a variety of 

38 waterfowl, fish, shellfish, and invertebrates; and contributing to important aquatic chemical 

39 processes, such as absorbing nutrients and oxygenating the water column. Dense vegetative 

40 beds can also attenuate wave energy and slow water currents, thereby allowing suspended 

41 sediment to settle out of the water column, reducing resuspension of sediments, and reducing 

42 erosion of shoreline areas (Hall et al., 1978), (EPRI, 2003). Factors that affect the distribution 

43 and condition of submerged aquatic vascular plants include weather and hydrology, 
Affected Environment 

 2-48 

1 sedimentation, suspended solids and water quality, and consumption and disturbance by fish 

2 and wildlife (Handley et al., 2007). 

3 Phillips (1960) collected marine plants from Crystal Bay (south of CREC) in 1958 and 1959. He 

4 collected five species of seagrasses: shoal grass, widgeon grass, turtle grass, manatee grass, 

5 and star grass. These species of seagrass currently occur in the CREC area (Progress Energy, 

6 2008a). Phillips (1960) also collected 46 taxa of algae of which 25 were epiphytic forms. These 

7 included 5 blue-green algae taxa, 7 green algae taxa, 8 brown algae taxa, and 26 red algae 

8 taxa. The marine algae occurred on both muddy sand substrates between oyster bars and on 

9 oyster bars. The brown alga Sargassum pteropleuron, occurring on oyster bars, was 

10 particularly abundant (Phillips, 1960). 

11 Steidinger and Van Breedveld (1971) identified 106 taxa of marine algae in Gulf waters adjacent 

12 to the CREC. These included 19 taxa of green algae, 24 taxa of brown algae, and 63 taxa of 

13 red algae. Lowest algal species diversity occurred in winter (Steidinger and Van Breedveld, 

14 1971). Steidinger and Van Breedveld (1971) also identified the same five species of 

15 seagrasses collected by Phillips (1960). Epiphytes and invertebrates attached to benthic algae 

16 included bryozoans, hydroids, and chain-forming diatoms. Steidinger and Van Breedveld 

17 (1971) noted that these organisms can stress benthic algae by causing physical stress, 

18 competing for nutrients, reducing available light, and possibly by producing inhibitory 

19 metabolites. 

20 During the 316 Demonstration study, 5 species of seagrasses, 10 species of benthic green 

21 algae, 33 species of drift algae (mostly red algae), 2 species of attached brown algae, and 

22 42 species of epiphytic algae were identified (Mattson et al., 1988). Red algae, particularly 

23 Gracilaria spp., were the dominant component of drift algae in the study area. Percent cover, 

24 the only parameter of drift algae quantitatively measured, showed no clear trends in distribution 

25 in the area of the CREC (Mattson et al., 1988). 

26 While all species of seagrasses in Florida flower within a temperature range of 68 °F to 79 °F 

27 (20 °C to 26 °C), vegetative growth from rhizomes is the principal way that seagrasses expand 

28 in the Gulf coast (Dawes et al., 2004). Most seagrass species decline in areal density and 

29 blade length below 68 °F (20 °C) (ReMetrix, 2007). The following provides some environmental 

30 characteristics for the five seagrass species that occur in Crystal Bay: 

31 ● Shoal grass occurs from the intertidal zone to relatively deep water. It probably 

32 grows in pure stands closer to shore than other species of seagrass. Optimum 

33 temperature for shoal grass is between 68 °F to 86 °F (20 °C to 30 °C) (Dineen, 

34 2001a). Shoal grass is most abundant at salinity ranges of 12 to 38.5 ppt. It 

35 grows on silty mud to coarse sands with varying amounts of mud (Dineen, 

36 2001a). 

37 ● Widgeon grass can survive a temperature range of 44.6 °F to 102.9 °F (7 °C to 

38 39.4 °C) (Dineen, 2001b). It generally occurs at salinities of 25 ppt or less. 

39 Widgeon grass predominantly grows on a mixture of mud and silt with fine 

40 textured sand. It occurs in intertidal areas to depths of 7 ft (2.1 m), with densest 

41 growth at mean high tide depths of 2 to 4 ft (0.6 to1.2 m) (Dineen, 2001b). 

42 ● Turtle grass is the dominant seagrass species along the Florida Gulf coast. 

43 Turtle grass occurs at depths up to 46 ft (14 m), but is most abundant at depths 

44 less than 16 ft (5 m). In murky conditions, turtle grass only occurs at depths up 
Affected Environment 

 2-49 

1 to 6 ft (1.8 m) (Dineen, 2001c). Temperatures of 68 °F to 86 °F (20 °C to 30 °C) 

2 are the optimal range for turtle grass growth, while temperatures of 95 °F (35 °C) 

3 or more will kill turtle grass leaves (Dineen, 2001c). Optimal salinity range is 25 

4 to 38.5 ppt, although turtle grass occurs at salinities as low as 10 ppt in Crystal 

5 Bay (Dineen, 2001c). 

6 ● The densest growth of manatee grass occurs at depths of 2 to 4.5 ft (0.6 to1.4 m) 

7 mean low tide. Manatee grass is eurythermal, although leaf kill occurs when 

8 temperatures drop to about 68 °F (20 °C) (Dineen, 2001d). Manatee grass forms 

9 dense beds at salinities of 22 to 35 ppt. It can withstand periods of salinity as low 

10 as 10 ppt (Dineen, 2001d). 

11 ● Star grass occurs at depths up to 47 ft (14.4 m). Temperatures of 71.6 °F to 

12 81.5 °F (22 °C to 27.5 °C) and a photoperiod over 12 hours are required for 

13 sexual reproduction to occur (Dineen, 2001e). 

14 Aquatic weeds, particularly hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), have become a problem in many of the 

15 freshwaters of Citrus County as it can displace native aquatic plant species, alter water 

16 chemistry, alter aquatic fauna, and choke waterways an public water supplies (Masterson, 

17 2007). Control of hydrilla includes mechanical, biological, and chemical procedures. These 

18 procedures do not occur in winter, as overwintering Florida manatees (Trichechus manatus 

19 latirostris) eat hydrilla (CCBCC, 2009). 

20 Macroinvertebrates

21 Macroinvertebrates are animals without backbones that are generally large enough to see with 

22 the naked eye. This group of organisms performs many ecological functions. Some benthic 

23 macroinvertebrates form habitat by building reefs (e.g., oysters, corals, and some polychaetes) 

24 or by stabilizing or destabilizing soft substrates (e.g., some bivalves, amphipods, and 

25 polychaetes). Some macroinvertebrates are filter feeders that clean the overlying water (such 

26 as oysters, other bivalves, and some polychaetes), and others consume detritus. 

27 Macroinvertebrates also provide a trophic base for fish and shellfish valued as commercial and 

28 recreational species by humans. 

29 Species composition and abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates can indicate ecosystem 

30 health. Generally, the greater the diversity of species and the more abundant those species 

31 are, the healthier the ecosystem is considered. Lyons et al. (1971) identified 286 taxa of 

32 macroinvertebrates in trawl samples from the estuary area near the CREC in 1969 (only CR-1 

33 was operational in January through October; CR-2 came online in November 1969). Most 

34 invertebrate species were wide-ranging estuarine forms capable of withstanding a wide variation 

35 of environmental conditions and included 128 species of mollusks and 83 species of arthropods 

36 (Lyons et al., 1971). Selected limitations of trawl collections limited the number of species 

37 collected and some groups such as sponges, amphipods, and ascidians (sea squirts) were not 

38 included in the totals due to taxonomic difficulties. Macroinvertebrates collected by Lyons et al. 

39 (1971) included cnidarians (hydroids, jellyfish, anemones, and corals), gastropods (snails), 

40 pelecypods (bivalves), cephalopods (squids and octopi), polychaetes (bristleworms), isopods, 

41 decapods (e.g., shrimp and crabs), bryozoans, and echinoderms (sea stars, sea urchins, and 

42 sea cucumbers). The most abundant cnidarian was the sea whip (Leptogorgia virgulata). 

43 Abundant mollusks included the variable bittium (Bittium varium), semiplicate dove shell 

44 (Anachis semiplicata), lunar dove shell (Mitrella lunata), common eastern nassa (Nassarius 

45 vibex), scorched mussel (Brachidontes exustus), lateral musculus (Musculus lateralis), and 
Affected Environment 

 2-50 

1 Eastern oyster. The most abundant cephalopod was the brief squid (Lolliguncula brevis). The 

2 most numerous shellfish in the Crystal Bay area were the Eastern oyster, blue crab (Callinectes 

3 sapidus), Florida stone crab (Menippe mercenaria), and pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus 

4 duorarum) (AEC, 1973). 

5 Benthic collections made between June 1983 and August 1984 for the combined 316a and 

6 316b Demonstration contained over 900 macroinvertebrate taxa (SWEC, 1985). Polychaetes, 

7 mollusks, and crustaceans dominated the study area, as is typical of marine benthic 

8 communities. Generally, the number of species increased offshore. Among nearshore stations, 

9 the lowest number of species occurred in the thermal area and near the intake canal (SWEC, 

10 1985). The lowest densities of benthic infauna occurred during July through September and the 

11 highest densities in April (SWEC, 1985). Many species of polychaetes were common to 

12 abundant. Nine species of polychaetes, plus a shrimp-like crustacean in the Order Tanaidacea, 

13 comprised over 50 percent of the benthic fauna (SWEC, 1985). SWEC (1985) recognized two 

14 benthic communities: (1) the polychaete genera Aricides, Streblospio, Tharyx, and Fabricia

15 numerically dominated the inshore community (which included areas potentially affected by the 

16 thermal discharge); and (2) the polychaete genera Mediomastus, Myriochele, and Goniadides

17 numerically dominated the offshore community (SWEC, 1985). As summarized by Hutchings 

18 (1998) and Marzialetti et al. (2009), polychaetes are often the dominant component in most 

19 benthic marine and estuarine sediments (both in numbers of individuals and number of species) 

20 and play a major role in the functional structure of macroinvertebrate communities by recycling 

21 and reworking of sediments, burying of organic matter, and enhancing various sedimentary 

22 processes by their feeding and burrowing activities. 

23 CH2M Hill (2009) collected benthic macroinvertebrates in July and November 2008 in the 

24 portion of Crystal Bay affected by CREC discharge. Densities ranged from 739 to 

1,333 individuals/ft2

 (7,980 to 14,395 individuals/m2 25 ); and were comprised of polychaetes, 

26 oligochaetes, bivalves, crustaceans, gastropods, and cnidarians (jellyfish, box jellies, 

27 hydrozoans, sea anemones, and corals). Polychaetes dominated the infaunal community and 

28 accounted for 77 to 91 percent of the sampling station means; while oligochaetes and bivalves 

29 accounted for 3.3 and 3.2 percent of the mean abundance, respectively (CH2M Hill, 2009). 

30 Dominant species included Mediomastus spp., Fabricinuda trilobata, Monticellina 

31 dorsobranchialis, and Lumbrineris verrilli. 

32 CH2M Hill (2009) also collected motile macroinvertebrates in trawls and crab traps in April, 

33 June, August, and November 2008. Trawling collected 21 macroinvertebrate species. The 

34 most abundant species were the yellowline arrow crab (Stenorhynchus seticornis), pink shrimp, 

35 and mud crabs which represented 19, 15, and 10 percent of the total catch, respectively. The 

36 crab traps collected 66 Florida stone crabs, 16 blue crabs, and 1 crown conch (Melongena 

37 corona) (CH2M Hill, 2009). 

38 Fishes

39 In a 2.5-year study of fishes near the CREC conducted from 1969 through the first half of 1971, 

40 96 species plus 9 taxa either grouped together or identified only to genus were collected 

41 (Mountain, 1972). The frequency of occurrence of the four most abundant species (pigfish 

42 [Orthopristis chrysoptera], silver perch [Bairdiella chrysoura], spot [Leiostomus xanthurus], and 

43 pinfish [Lagodon rhomboides]) collected throughout 1970 were not significantly different 

44 between areas affected by thermal discharges from CR-1 and CR-2 and areas that were not 

45 affected by thermal discharges (Grimes and Mountain, 1971). A trend of generally increasing 

46 species diversity from the Cross Florida Barge Canal to south of the CREC intake canal was 
Affected Environment 

 2-51 

1 noted and may be potentially related to similar increases in salinity from north to south. Habitat 

2 destruction associated with dredging of the Cross Florida Barge Canal, Withlacoochee River 

3 channel, and CREC canals may have also accounted for the decreased diversity of fishes north 

4 of the CREC discharge and intake canals (Grimes and Mountain, 1971). 

5 The striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) is among the important forage species that occurs near the 

6 CREC; while species sought by anglers include spot, Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias 

7 undulatus), red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), 

8 sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus), black drum (Pogonias cromis), and crevalle jack 

9 (Caranx hippos) (AEC, 1973). Due to security and safety concerns, fishing is no longer allowed 

10 within the inshore portion of the discharge canal or shoreward from where the south intake 

11 canal dike ends. The shallow waters and oyster bars hinder commercial fishing in the area of 

12 the CREC. 

13 For the combined 316a and 316b Demonstration (SWEC, 1985), adult and juvenile fish were 

14 collected monthly from June 1983 through May 1984 using trawls and seines from inshore and 

15 offshore marine habitats and from tidal creek habitats. Trawls collected 98 species from marine 

16 habitats and 43 species in creeks, while seines collected 49 species from marine habitats. The 

17 composition of fish species collected during the 316 Demonstration was similar to that collected 

18 during the CR-3 preoperational surveys (SWEC, 1985). 

19 As part of the fish impingement study conducted from December 2006 to November 2007, Ager 

20 et al. (2008) conducted monthly nearfield trawling at three locations near the CREC intake 

21 canal. Ager et al. (2008) collected 50 fish species in the limited area sampled by trawls. Most 

22 of the species collected were the same as those collected in more intensive collections reported 

23 by Mountain (1972) and SWEC (1985). 

24 On four sampling events in 2008, CH2M Hill (2009) collected 1,290 fish from 63 species of adult 

25 and juvenile fishes using beach seines, otter trawls, gill nets, cast nets, and minnow traps at two 

26 stations in the area of the CREC discharge. In beach seines, 664 individuals from 13 fish 

27 species were collected. The dominant species collected were typical inhabitants of salt 

28 marshes and included killifishes, mojarras, needlefish, tidewater silverside (Menidia peninsulae), 

29 and sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) (CH2M Hill, 2009). Trawls, used to collect 

30 demersal fish, collected 391 individuals from 20 fish species (CH2M Hill, 2009). On all four 

31 sampling dates, collections included silver perch, pinfish, and pigfish. Gill nets collected 

32 107 individuals from 24 fish species. The numerically dominant species were yellowfin 

33 menhaden (Brevoortia smithi, 18 percent of the total catch), black drum (12 percent), Atlantic 

34 thread herring (Opisthonema oglinum, 10 percent), pinfish (9 percent), and spinner shark 

35 (Carcharhinus brevipinna, 9 percent) (CH2M Hill, 2009). Cast netting collected 87 individuals 

36 from 18 fish species. Striped mullet accounted for 35 percent of the total catch and white mullet 

37 (Mugil curema) accounted for 24 percent of the total catch (CH2M Hill, 2009). Minnow traps 

38 collected 27 individuals among 8 fish species. Pinfish and pigfish were the most abundant fish 

39 caught representing 39 and 23 percent of the total catch, respectively (CH2M Hill, 2009). 

40 Overall, fish species composition based on fish collections from Crystal Bay near the CREC, 

41 coupled with information from impingement collections made at the CREC (see Section 4.5.3), 

42 indicate that a diverse, stabile fish community has occurred near the CREC since the late 

43 1960s. 
Affected Environment 

 2-52 

1 2.2.5.4 Selected Important Species near Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

2 Important species include: (1) species sensitive to adverse harm from plant operations 

3 (e.g., thermally sensitive species), (2) species that use the local area for spawning or nursery 

4 grounds (including those species that migrate past the plant to spawn), (3) species of 

5 commercial or recreational value, (4) species that are habitat formers and critical to the 

6 functioning of the local environment, and (5) species that are important links in the local food 

7 web (McLean et al., 2002). The following is an overview of the life history and environmental 

8 characteristics for 13 selected important fish and shellfish species in the area of the CREC. The 

9 selected important species, as originally chosen by SWEC (1985) for the 316 Demonstration 

10 study, include the bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), polka-dot batfish (Ogcocephalus radiatus), 

11 pigfish, pinfish, silver perch, spotted seatrout, spot, red drum, striped mullet, brief squid, blue 

12 crab, Florida stone crab, and pink shrimp. 

13 Bay Anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli)

14 The bay anchovy, a member of the anchovy family (Engraulidae), occurs from the Gulf of Maine 

15 and Cape Cod, Massachusetts, south to Yucatan, Mexico, and throughout the Gulf of Mexico 

16 (Masterson, 2008a). The bay anchovy is one of the most common coastal fish species 

17 (Robinette, 1983). It grows to about 4 inches (10 cm) in length (Masterson, 2008a). The bay 

18 anchovy is often numerically dominant, at least seasonally, where it occurs. It is a pelagic 

19 species that is encountered over seagrass beds and unvegetated benthic areas (Masterson, 

20 2008a). Spawning occurs both within estuaries and in offshore waters to depths of 100 ft (30 m) 

21 (SCDNR, 2006) and takes place from February to October, peaking in July (Benson, 1982). 

22 Nine gravid bay anchovy females collected during the 316 Demonstration averaged 2,240 eggs 

23 per female (SWEC, 1985). Eggs hatch in about 24 hours (Benson, 1982). 

24 The bay anchovy exhibits a broad temperature range and is euryhaline. It has been collected at 

25 temperatures ranging from 40.1 °F to 103.6 °F (4.5 °C to 39.8 °C) (Robinette, 1983), but the 

26 largest numbers occurred at water temperatures of 50 °F to 58.8 °F (10 °C to 14.9 °C) (Benson, 

27 1982). It has a general offshore movement from shallow, cooler waters to deeper, warmer 

28 waters in winter (Benson, 1982). The bay anchovy occurs in salinities ranging from freshwater 

29 to 45 ppt (Robinette, 1983). The bay anchovy is intolerant of low oxygen levels (Masterson, 

30 2008a). 

31 Larvae and juvenile bay anchovies prey mostly on calanoid copepods. At least 50 percent of 

32 the adult diet is also copepods, but mysid shrimp become important in its diet (Benson, 1982). 

33 Most piscivorous fish species and many seabirds prey upon the bay anchovy (Benson, 1982). 

34 The FWC (2011a) did not report 2010 annual commercial landings for the bay anchovy. 

35 Pigfish (Orthopristis chrysoptera)

36 The pigfish, a member of the grunt family (Congiopodidae), occurs from Massachusetts to the 

37 tip of Florida, throughout the Gulf of Mexico, and the coastal waters of Bermuda (Sutter and 

38 McIlwain, 1987). Most pigfish live past 4 years of age. Pigfish are sexually mature by their 

39 second year (Sutter and McIlwain, 1987). It spawns around March near the Crystal River area 

40 of the Gulf (Grimes and Mountain, 1971). Eggs are buoyant (Sutter and McIlwain, 1987). 

41 Larvae occur at depths less than 164 ft (50 m); while juveniles inhabit shallow bays over shallow 

42 flats with abundant plant growth during spring and early summer. In late summer and fall, 

43 pigfish juveniles move to deep flats and edges of channels (Sutter and McIlwain, 1987). Adults 

44 occur in deeper flats and channels with sparse vegetation and in offshore and open-shelf areas 

45 of the Gulf (Sutter and McIlwain, 1987). Pigfish attain a standard length of 18 inches (46 cm) 

46 and a weight of 2 lb (0.9 kg) (Sutter and McIlwain, 1987). 
Affected Environment 

 2-53 

1 The pigfish is most abundant at a temperature of about 77 °F (25 °C) and a salinity of 25.1 ppt; 

2 and occurs at a temperature range of about 57 °F to 97 °F (14 °C to 36 °C) and a salinity range 

3 of 0 to 38 ppt (Sutter and McIlwain, 1987). However, pigfish generally avoid temperatures 

4 below 57 °F (14 °C) by migrating to deeper waters. It also tends to avoid salinities less than 

5 15 ppt (Sutter and McIlwain, 1987). 

6 Young pigfish primarily consume copepods, while adults consume amphipods, shrimp, and 

7 other benthic organisms (Sutter and McIlwain, 1987). Other predatory fishes prey upon pigfish. 

8 It has limited commercial value, but recreational fishermen often catch pigfish (Sutter and 

9 McIlwain, 1987). The FWC (2011a) did not report 2010 annual landings for the pigfish. 

10 Pinfish (Lagodon rhomboids)

11 The pinfish, a member of the porgy family (Sparidae), occurs in coastal waters from New 

12 England south to Florida, Bermuda, the northern Gulf of Mexico, northern coast of Cuba, and 

13 the Yucatan (Masterson, 2008b). Pinfish occur in estuarine and nearshore waters along all 

14 Florida counties (Masterson, 2008b). It has been collected at depths from less than 1 to 121 ft 

15 (0.3 to 73 m) deep (Benson, 1982). The pinfish is a demersal estuarine species found in 

16 seagrass beds, rocky reefs, jetties, and mangrove swamps (Muncy, 1984), (Masterson, 2008b). 

17 It can live to be 7 years old, but few live that long. Pinfish mature after 1 or, usually, 2 years 

18 (Masterson, 2008b). Mature pinfish migrate offshore in the late fall to spawn from late fall 

19 through early spring. Fecundity averages 21,600 eggs. Fertile eggs are semibuoyant 

20 (Masterson, 2008b). Larval pinfish begin moving into estuarine waters through spring and early 

21 summer (Masterson, 2008b). Late larvae and juvenile pinfish are numerically dominant in 

22 seagrass beds during spring and summer (Benson, 1982). During summer, adults and older 

23 juveniles occur in deeper open areas of estuaries and channel edges (Benson, 1982). 

24 Pinfish can tolerate temperatures between 50 °F and 95 °F (10 °C and 35 °C); however, most 

25 will move into cooler deep waters when shallow estuaries exceed 89.6 °F (32 °C). It stops 

26 feeding at 95 °F to 96.8 °F (35 °C to 36 °C) and succumbs after a 24-hour exposure to 96.8 °F 

27 (36 °C) (Masterson, 2008b). Pinfish are euryhaline, occurring at a salinity range of 1 to 75 ppt 

28 (Muncy, 1984). 

29 Larval pinfish primarily feed on copepods; while juvenile and subadult pinfish feed primarily on 

30 small crustaceans. Adult pinfish feed on plant material in addition to animal prey, particularly 

31 bivalves (Benson, 1982). A number of larger fish species and the bottlenose dolphin prey upon 

32 pinfish (Masterson, 2008b). The FWC (2011a) reported 2010 annual landings of pinfish to be 

33 171,351 lb (77,724 kg) for the west coast of Florida and 360 lb (163 kg) for Citrus County. 

34 Polka-dot Batfish (Ogcocephalus radiatus)

35 The polka-dot batfish, a member of the batfish family (Ogcocephalidae), ranges from North 

36 Carolina to Mexico at depths from shoreline to 230 ft (70 m). It may attain a length of 15 inches 

37 (38 cm). It is a benthic species, inhabiting seagrass beds and open substrates of coral rubble, 

38 mud, or sand. The polka-dot batfish preys on small crabs, shrimp, mollusks, polychaetes, and 

39 small fish (Patton, 2010). The FWC (2011a) did not report 2010 annual landings for the 

40 polka-dot batfish. 

41 Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellatus)

42 The red drum, a member of the drum family (Sciaenidae), occurs from the Gulf of Maine to 

43 Tuxpan, Mexico (Reagan, 1985). In the Gulf of Mexico, red drum can live up to 40 years; males 

44 mature when 1 to 3 years old and females when 3 to 6 years old (FWC, 2009a). Spawning 
Affected Environment 

 2-54 

1 occurs in inlets, estuaries, or nearshore shelf waters during late summer and early fall (FWC, 

2 2009a). Most spawning in the Gulf of Mexico occurs from mid-August to December, with 

3 spawning along the west coast of Florida beginning in September and peaking in October 

4 (Reagan, 1985). A female red drum can produce 20,000 to 2 million eggs per spawn 

5 (Reagan, 1985). Newly hatched larvae spend about 20 days in the water column before 

6 becoming demersal (FWC, 2009a). While in the water column, the larvae passively move into 

7 estuaries (GMFMC, 2004). Within estuaries, small juveniles inhabit rivers, bays, canals, tidal 

8 creeks, boat basins, and passes. Subadults also occur in these habitats. Additionally, large 

9 aggregations of subadults occur on seagrass beds, oyster reefs, mud flats, and sand bottoms. 

10 Adults mostly occur in nearshore shelf waters (FWC, 2009a). Schools of red drum are common 

11 at depths less than 230 ft (70 m) (GMFMC, 2004). 

12 The red drum tolerates a temperature range of 35.6 °F to 99.5 °F (2 °C to 37.5 °C) and a salinity 

13 range of less than 1 to over 50 ppt (Reagan, 1985). Adults are most abundant at salinities of 

14 30 to 55 ppt (Buckley, 1984). The red drum spawns at temperatures from 71.5 °F to 86 °F 

15 (22 °C to 30 °C) with optimal temperatures at 71.5 °F to 77 °F (22 °C to 25 °C) (Buckley, 1984). 

16 The red drum is a major estuarine predator (Reagan, 1985). Juveniles feed on copepods, 

17 mysids, and amphipods (FWC, 2009a). Larger juveniles and adults feed on fish and shellfish 

18 (Buckley, 1984), (GMFMC, 2004). Spot and Atlantic croaker feed on juvenile red drum; while 

19 sharks, amberjacks, and other large fish feed on adults (GMFMC, 2004). No commercial 

20 landings of red drum occur in Florida as there is a prohibition on the sale of red drum in Florida. 

21 No permitted commercial harvesting of red drum occurs in Florida (FWC, 2011b). 

22 Silver Perch (Bairdiella chrysoura)

23 The silver perch, a member of the drum family (Sciaenidae), occurs from New York to northern 

24 Mexico (Murdy et al., 1997). It seldom exceeds 9 inches (23 cm) in length (FWC, 2011c). The 

25 silver perch occurs in deeper offshore waters in winter and moves to bays and coastal lagoons 

26 in spring where it inhabits seagrass beds, salt marshes, and tidal creeks and rivers 

27 (FWC, 2011c), (CH2M Hill, 2009). It matures by the second or third year and may live up to 6 

28 years (FWC, 2011c). Spawning occurs between May and September within shallow, saline 

29 areas of bays and other inshore areas (FWC, 2011c). Females collected near the CREC 

30 averaged 48,140 eggs per female (SWEC, 1985). Eggs are pelagic and hatch in 40 to 50 hours 

31 at 64.4 °F to 70 °F (18 °C to 21 °C) and within 18 hours at higher temperatures (Welsh and 

32 Breder, 1923), (Kuntz, 1913). The silver perch preys upon small crustaceans, polychaetes, and 

33 fish (Murdy et al., 1997) and is prey for many economically important fish species (Waggy et al., 

34 2007). As it is very abundant, it is an important link in the estuarine food web (Waggy et al., 

35 2007). The silver perch is not an important commercial or recreational fish (Murdy et al., 1997). 

36 The FWC (2011a) did not report 2011 annual landings for the silver perch. 

37 Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)

38 The spot, a member of the drum family (Sciaenidae), occurs along the Atlantic coast from 

39 Massachusetts Bay to the Gulf of Mexico and south to the Bay of Campeche, Mexico (Benson, 

40 1982). Highest abundance occurs from Chesapeake Bay through the Carolinas (Murdy et al., 

41 1997). The spot inhabits waters to a depth of at least 670 ft (204 m) (FWC, 2009a), but typically 

42 occurs on sandy or muddy bottoms at depths up to 197 ft (60 m) (Hill, 2005a). It grows to about 

43 11 inches (28 cm) in total length. The lifespan is up to 5 years (Hill, 2005a), but spot usually do 

44 not live longer than 2 years (Stickney and Cuenco, 1982). Most spot spawn in deep waters 

45 (e.g., 15 mi [24 km] offshore at depths of 90 ft [27 m]) (Benson, 1982), although some spawn in 

46 nearshore waters and estuaries. In the Gulf of Mexico, spawning begins in December and 
Affected Environment 

 2-55 

1 peaks in January and February. Spot may spawn repeatedly over several weeks (Hill, 2005a). 

2 Fecundity for spot is about 77,000 to 84,000 eggs per season. The buoyant eggs hatch within 

3 48 hours (Hales and Van Den Avyle, 1989). Larvae, which are initially found in surface waters 

4 and become more demersal as they grow, are passively transported into estuary and bay 

5 nursery habitats; reaching these areas when about 40 to 47 days old (Hill, 2005a). Post-larvae 

6 and smaller juveniles congregate in shallow water areas of tidal creeks for 3 to 6 months, after 

7 which they migrate to other estuarine habitats and often to deeper waters (Hill, 2005a). 

8 The lower and upper thermal tolerance of the spot are about 41 °F and 95 °F (5 °C and 35 °C), 

9 respectively (Benson, 1982), (Hill, 2005a). Spot are euryhaline, occurring at salinities of 0 to 

10 60 ppt (Benson, 1982). Adult spot mostly occur at salinities above 5 ppt (Murdy et al., 1997). 

11 Larvae are selective zooplankton feeders, while juveniles and adults are benthic feeders preying 

12 on infaunal and epifaunal invertebrates. Due to its abundance, the spot is an important prey 

13 item for piscivorous fishes (Hales and Van Den Avyle, 1989). The spot has limited commercial 

14 and recreational importance. The FWC (2011a) reported 2010 annual commercial landings of 

15 spot to be 1,703 lb (772 kg) for the west coast of Florida, with no commercial landings for Citrus 

16 County. 

17 Spotted Seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus)

18 The spotted seatrout, a member of the drum family (Sciaenidae), ranges from Massachusetts 

19 through Florida and into the Gulf of Mexico to Texas and Mexico (Hill, 2005b). It can reach a 

20 total length of 3.3 ft (1 m) and a weight of 17.4 lb (7.9 kg) (Hill, 2005b). The spotted seatrout 

21 generally occurs in shallow, vegetated, brackish, and marine waters to a depth of 33 ft (10 m) 

22 (Hill, 2005b). The spotted seatrout depends on estuaries for feeding, spawning, and nursery 

23 grounds (Lassuy, 1983). There tends to be little movement of spotted seatrout from one estuary 

24 to another (Kostecki, 1984). Lifespan in Florida is 9 years for males and 8 years for females 

25 (FWC, 2009a). Juvenile spotted seatrout tend to occur in or adjacent to seagrass habitats 

26 (Kostecki, 1984). The spotted seatrout matures at 1 to 4 years of age (Hill, 2005b). Spawning 

27 occurs from March to September, peaking in April to July (Benson, 1982). Spawning occurs in 

28 nearshore and estuarine waters including tidal rivers above the area of tidal influence (Kostecki, 

29 1984), (Hill, 2005b). A female may spawn 9 to 60 times during the spawning season and 

30 release 3 to 20 million eggs annually. Eggs hatch about 18 hours after fertilization (Hill, 2005b). 

31 Eggs are pelagic or demersal depending on salinity (e.g., they sink at 25 ppt but are buoyant at 

32 30 ppt) (Kostecki, 1984). The larvae are most common in seagrass beds. After about 20 days, 

33 larvae metamorphose into juveniles. After about 6 to 8 weeks, juveniles form schools of 

34 similar-sized individuals. Schooling behavior persists until about age 6 or 7 when they become 

35 semi-solitary. Adults occur in seagrass beds, oyster reefs, and over sand bottoms (Hill, 2005b). 

36 Spawning occurs at temperatures of 68 °F to 86 °F (20 °C to 30 °C) and salinities of 30 to 

37 35 ppt (Benson, 1982), (Hill, 2005b). Spawning tends to cease at temperatures over 82.4 °F 

38 (28 °C) (Hill, 2005b). Optimal temperatures for adult spotted seatrout are 15 °F to 80.6 °F 

39 (15 °C to 27 °C) and 73.4 °F to 91.4 °F (23 °C to 33 °C) for larvae. Spotted seatrout will migrate 

40 to deeper waters when temperatures fall below 45 °F (7 °C) or in response to high water 

41 temperatures during hot summer months (Benson, 1982), (Hill, 2005b). The spotted seatrout is 

42 euryhaline: larvae occur at 0 to 36 ppt, juveniles at 10 to 25 ppt, and adults at 2 to 75 ppt 

43 (Benson, 1982), (Bester, 2010a). 

44 The spotted seatrout is among the top estuarine predators (Lassuy, 1983). It feeds in the water 

45 column and near the bottom over all types of substrates (Benson, 1982). Seatrout that are 0.8 

46 to 2 inches in size (2 to 5 cm) feed on zooplankton. As they grow, their diet shifts to mysids, 
Affected Environment 

 2-56 

1 then to penaeid shrimp and small fish, and then to primarily fish when adults. Adults feed on 

2 anchovies, pinfish, silversides, mullet, croakers, menhaden, snappers, gobies, mojarras, and 

3 silver trout. It is a major commercial and game fish species throughout its range (Lassuy, 

4 1983). The FWC (2011a) reported the 2010 annual commercial landings of spotted seatrout to 

5 be 13,289 lb (6,028 kg) for the west coast of Florida and 24 lb (11 kg) for Citrus County. 

6 Striped Mullet (Mugil cephalus)

7 The striped mullet, a member of the mullet family (Mugilidae), occurs worldwide in subtropical 

8 and tropical climates (Benson, 1982). In the western Atlantic Ocean, the striped mullet occurs 

9 from Cape Cod to Brazil, including the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, and the West Indies (Hill, 

10 2004a). The striped mullet can attain a length of 47.2 inches (120 cm) and a weight of 17.6 lb 

11 (8 kg), and lives between 4 to 16 years (Bester, 2010b). The striped mullet occurs at depths 

12 from 3 to 394 ft (1 to 120 m) (GMFMC, 2004), occurring in estuarine intertidal, freshwater, and 

13 coastal marine habitats (Hill, 2004a). The striped mullet is catadromous, spending most of its 

14 life in freshwater, but spawns in saltwater as much as 50 mi (80 km) offshore at depths over 

15 3,200 ft (1,000 m) (Bester, 2010b). Females mature in their fourth year and males in their third 

16 (Hill, 2004a). In early fall, large schools of mullet gather in lower reaches of estuaries and river 

17 mouths prior to migration to offshore spawning grounds (Hill, 2004a). Although the striped 

18 mullet has been reported to spawn inshore, most spawning in the Gulf of Mexico occurs 37 to 

19 50 mi (60 to 80 km) offshore in water 3,280 to 5,905 ft (1,000 to 1,800 m) deep (Collins, 1985). 

20 Spawning occurs from October through May, and some females may spawn more than once 

21 per season (Benson, 1982). Fecundity ranges from 270,000 to 1.6 million eggs per individual 

22 per season. Over her lifetime, a female may produce 2.9 to 16 million eggs (Hill, 2004a). Eggs 

23 are pelagic and hatch within 48 hours (Collins, 1985). The pelagic larvae become abundant 

24 between November and December in water temperatures between 73.4 °F to 77 °F (23 °C to 

25 25 °C). The larvae migrate into estuaries. Juveniles inhabit salt marshes, impoundments, and 

26 high intertidal areas over mud and sand (Hill, 2004a). Following spawning, adults return to their 

27 home estuary (GMFMC, 2004). Within estuaries, adults inhabit mud flats, oyster reefs, salt 

28 marshes, seagrass beds, and tidal freshwater and riverine habitats (SCDNR, 2006). 

29 The striped mullet occurs at a temperature range of 40.1 °F to 98.6 °F (4.5 °C to 37 °C) 

30 (Benson, 1982). Juveniles (up to 3.1 inches or 8 cm long) mostly occur at a temperature range 

31 of 77 °F to 86 °F (25 °C to 30 °C) and salinities of 0 to 10 ppt. Those up to 4 inches (10 cm) 

32 long are abundant at temperatures of 45 °F to 86 °F (7 °C to 30 °C) and salinities of 0 to 20 ppt 

33 (Benson, 1982). Adults are euryhaline and can survive a range of salinities from 0 to 75 ppt 

34 (Collins, 1985). 

35 Larval striped mullet eat phytoplankton and zooplankton; while juveniles and adults consume 

36 detritus and algae. Other fish, dolphins, seabirds, and American alligators (Alligator 

37 mississippiensis) prey upon juvenile and adult striped mullet (GMFMC, 2004). The striped 

38 mullet is highly susceptible to red tide organisms (Hill, 2004a). The striped mullet is an 

39 important component in both the commercial and recreational fishery. The FWC (2011a) 

40 reported 2010 annual commercial landings of striped mullet to be 4,256,791 lb (1,930,848 kg) 

41 for the west coast of Florida and 221,153 lb (100,313 kg) for Citrus County. 

42 Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus)

43 The blue crab, a member of the swimming crab family (Portunidae), ranges from Nova Scotia 

44 though Argentina (FWC, 2009a). It occurs throughout the Gulf of Mexico in estuaries, rivers, 

45 nearshore, and offshore habitats at depths of 3 to 295 ft (1 to 90 m) and salinities of 0 to 60 ppt. 

46 Blue crabs reach maturity during their second year at a carapace length of 4.7 to 6.7 inches 
Affected Environment 

 2-57 

1 (12 to 17 cm), and may grow as large as 9.8 inches (25 cm) carapace length. Female blue 

2 crabs only mate once in their lifetime. Following mating, males tend to stay in the estuary, while 

3 females migrate to high salinity nearshore areas near barrier islands, bays, and passes to 

4 spawn. In the Gulf of Mexico, two spawning periods are common: February through March and 

5 August through September (Hill, 2004b). Some females overwinter in mud burrows before 

6 spawning. The female extrudes her fertilized eggs (an average of 2 million) into a cohesive 

7 mass (sponge) that remains attached to her abdomen until the larvae emerge (Zinski, 2006). 

8 Eggs hatch in about 2 weeks. Optimal salinities for hatching are between 23 and 30 ppt at a 

9 temperature range of 66 °F to 84 °F (19 °C to 29 °C). The upper temperature range for 

10 hatching is about 90 °F (32 °C) (Benson, 1982). 

11 Blue crabs undergo a series of developmental stages. After hatching, the larvae pass through 

12 zoeal and megalopal stages. The first zoeae are about 0.01 inches (0.25 mm) in width. Zoeae 

13 live a planktonic existence. There are usually seven zoeal molts. The zoeal stage lasts 31 to 

14 49 days (Zinski, 2006). Zoeae occur at temperatures ranging from 66 °F to 90 °F (19 °C to 

15 32 °C) and salinities of 21 to 32 ppt (Benson, 1982). The final zoeae are about 0.04 inches 

16 (1 mm) in width. Its molt results in the metamorphosis to the megalopal stage (Zinski, 2006). 

17 Megalopae migrate into estuaries where they settle to the bottom in seagrass beds or shoreline 

18 habitats (GMFMC, 2004). They have been collected at temperatures ranging from 55 °F to 

19 90 °F (13 °C to 32 °C) and salinities of 5 to 37 ppt (Benson, 1982). The megalopal stage lasts 

20 6 to 20 days after which it molts into the juvenile whose appearance is similar to that of the 

21 adults (i.e., first crab stage). Initial juveniles are about 0.1 inches (2.5 mm) wide (Zinski, 2006). 

22 Juvenile blue crabs live in estuarine nursery grounds throughout the year, inhabiting seagrass 

23 beds, salt marsh edge habitats, rivers, mud, sand, benthic algae, and drift algae (GMFMC, 

24 2004). The juveniles live in waters that range from 39 °F to 95 °F (4 °C to 37 °C) and salinities 

25 of 0 to 32 ppt. Optimal conditions are temperatures between 68 °F to 79 °F (20 °C to 26 °C) 

26 and salinities of 5 to 15 ppt (Benson, 1982). Juveniles molt about nine times by winter. Molting 

27 stops during winter and resumes when waters warm in the spring. Juveniles reach maturity 

28 during spring or summer after a total of about 18 to 20 post-larval molts (Zinski, 2006). 

29 Adults range in size from 3.9 to 9.4 inches (9.9 to 23.9 cm) carapace width (FWC, 2009a). 

30 Adults live an average of less than 1 year after reaching maturity (Zinski, 2006). Adults inhabit 

31 seagrass beds, benthic and drift algae, mud, sand, and salt marshes (GMFMC, 2004). Growth 

32 occurs at temperatures of 59 °F to 86 °F (15 °C to 30 °C) and ceases at temperatures below 

33 50 °F (10 °C). Torpor occurs at temperatures below 41 °F (5 °C) (Hill, 2004b). Females tend to 

34 occur in higher salinity areas than males (GMFMC, 2004). 

35 Larvae are planktivorous; post-larvae consume fish larvae, small shellfish, and aquatic plants; 

36 juveniles eat macroinvertebrates, fish, carrion, and vegetation; and adults consume oysters, 

37 clams, fish, carrion, vegetation, detritus, crustaceans, gastropods, oligochaetes, and insect 

38 larvae. Juveniles and adults are also cannibalistic (GMFMC, 2004). Many fishes and birds prey 

39 upon blue crabs. Some sea turtles and raccoons (Procyon lotor) also eat blue crabs (GMFMC, 

40 2004). The blue crab is an important commercial and recreational resource. Commercial 

41 landings of blue crabs in Florida were about 10.4 million lb (4.7 million kg) during 2007, with 

42 59 percent caught in the Gulf. Between 25 to 33 percent of blue crab landings in Florida are 

43 from the Big Bend area (GMP, 2004). The FWC (2011a) reported 2010 annual commercial 

44 landings of blue crab to be 4,589,614 lb (2,081,814 kg) for the west coast of Florida and 

45 570,991 lb (258,997 kg) for Citrus County. 
Affected Environment 

 2-58 

1 Brief Squid (Lolliguncula brevis)

2 The brief squid, a member of the squid family (Loliginidae), ranges from Maryland to Rio de la 

3 Plata, Argentina, including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico (Laughlin and Livingston, 

4 1982). The brief squid is the most abundant squid in estuaries and nearshore marine waters 

5 along the Gulf of Mexico (Benson, 1982) and is considered an important indicator species for 

6 the health of these communities (SCDNR, 2006). In Tampa Bay, the brief squid occurs over 

7 substrates of mud, clay, or silt and were absent over substrates of coarse sand and seagrasses 

8 (Dragovich and Kelly, 1967). In the Gulf of Mexico, the brief squid lives about 100 to 200 days. 

9 It obtains a maximum dorsal mantle length (body length excluding the head and arms) of 

10 3.9 inches (10 cm) for females and 3.3 inches (8.3 cm) for males (Jackson et al., 1997). 

11 Spawning occurs year-round, peaking in April to July and September to November (Bartol et al., 

12 2002). Fecundity ranges from 1,400 to 3,900 eggs (Benson, 1982). Squid typically attach egg 

13 strings to oyster shells, clam shells, or other bare, solid objects (SCDNR, 2006). Alteration of 

14 intertidal and subtidal mud flats, especially if it causes siltation that covers shell and other hard 

15 structures, could reduce optimal substrate for brief squid egg string attachment (SCDNR, 2006). 

16 From spring through fall, they occur in estuaries but move to warmer, deeper waters during 

17 winter (December through March). Maximum abundance in estuaries occurs in summer and 

18 early fall (Benson, 1982). 

19 Unlike most squids, the brief squid tolerates a wide range of environmental conditions including 

20 low salinities (Bartol et al., 2002). The brief squid occurs at a temperature range of 41 °F to 

21 95 °F (5 °C to 35 °C) and at salinities ranging from 5 to 35.5 ppt (Benson, 1982). Most catches 

22 of brief squid have occurred at temperatures of 55 °F to 61 °F (12.8 °C to 16.1 °C) and salinities 

23 above 15 ppt (Benson, 1982). In the Gulf of Mexico, the brief squid occurs at temperatures of 

24 51.8 °F to 88.9 °F (11 °C to 31.6 °C) (Bartol et al., 2002). Slight increases in temperature during 

25 the early stages of development of the brief squid can shorten its life span (Jackson et al., 

26 1997). 

27 Smaller brief squid feed on benthic crustaceans and small fish; larger squid feed on small fish 

28 such as schooling anchovies and silversides (SCDNR, 2006). A strong predator-prey 

29 association seems to exist between the brief squid and bay anchovy (Masterson, 2008a). The 

30 brief squid is an important prey item for commercial and recreational fish species (Benson, 

31 1982). The FWC (2011a) reported 2010 annual commercial landings of squid to be 30,825 lb 

32 (13,982 kg) for the west coast of Florida; no commercial landings were reported for Citrus 

33 County. 

34 Florida Stone Crab (Menippe mercenaria)

35 Stone crabs, members of the mud crab family (Xanthidae), range from North Carolina to the 

36 Yucatan Peninsula and Belize and throughout the Bahamas and Greater Antilles (FWC, 2009a). 

37 Two species of stone crabs occur along the Gulf coast of Florida: the Florida stone crab and 

38 the Gulf stone crab (Menippe adina). The Gulf stone crab generally replaces the Florida stone 

39 crab in the northern and western portions of the Gulf of Mexico. Some hybridization between 

40 the species occurs between Cedar Key, Levy County, Florida, and Cape San Blas, Gulf County, 

41 Florida (GMFMC ,2004). Most stone crabs in the Crystal Bay area would be the Florida stone 

42 crab. 

43 Generally, the Florida stone crab occurs in subtidal areas but does occur to depths of 197 ft 

44 (60 m) (Puglisi, 2008). Juvenile stone crabs are benthic dwellers that inhabit any refugia closely 

45 located to their food source. Such habitats include shell bottoms, sponges, sargassum mats, 

46 and deep seagrass flats. Adult stone crabs inhabit burrows under rock ledges, coral heads, 
Affected Environment 

 2-59 

1 dead shells, and seagrass patches; they also occur on oyster bars, rock jetties, and artificial 

2 reefs that have adequate refugia (GMFMC, 2004). Females generally spawn when they reach 

3 2 years of age (Puglisi, 2008). Spawning occurs year-round, but most often from April through 

4 September (GMFMC, 2004); an individual female may produce 4 to 6 egg masses during a 

5 single mating season, with each egg mass containing 160,000 to 1 million eggs (Lindberg and 

6 Marshall, 1984). The female carries the fertilized eggs under her abdomen until they hatch 

7 (Puglisi, 2008). The Florida stone crab has five zoeal stages and one megalopal stage. The 

8 first crab stage occurs about 27 to 30 days after egg hatch (Puglisi, 2008). 

9 The most rapid growth of the planktonic stone crab larvae occurs in warm water 86 °F (30 °C) 

10 and salinities of 30 to 35 ppt; with larval survival and growth declining rapidly below 

11 temperatures of 77 °F (25 °C) and a salinity of 25 ppt (GMFMC, 2004). At temperatures of 

12 68 °F (20 °C) or less, larval crabs do not survive past the megalopal stage; while temperatures 

13 of 41 °F to 59 °F (5 °C to 15 °C) inhibit molting of post-settlement juveniles (Puglisi, 2008). The 

14 upper temperature limit for survival is between 95 °F and 104 °F (35 °C and 40 °C) (Brown and 

15 Bert, 1993). Adult stone crabs occur at temperatures ranging from 46.4 °F to 89.6 °F (8 °C to 

16 32 °C) (Lindberg and Marshall, 1984). 

17 Larvae consume zooplankton and phytoplankton; juveniles consume small mollusks, 

18 polychaetes, and crustaceans; and adults prey on mollusks, carrion, and vegetation such as 

19 seagrasses (GMFMC, 2004). Fish, conchs, octopus, and sea turtles prey on stone crabs. 

20 Stone crabs are also cannibalistic (GMFMC, 2004). The commercial fishery only involves the 

21 larger claw; the crab is released after the claw is removed (Gerhart and Bert, 2008). The FWC 

22 (2011a) reported 2010 annual commercial landings of stone crab claws to be 1,806,341 lb 

23 (819,342 kg) for the west coast of Florida and 188,443 lb (85,476 kg) for Citrus County. 

24 Pink Shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum)

25 The pink shrimp, a member of the penaeid shrimp family (Panaeidae), occurs from the lower 

26 Chesapeake Bay to south Florida, into the Gulf of Mexico, and to Isla Mujeres, Mexico (Bielsa et 

27 al., 1983). It inhabits coastal waters and estuaries (Hill, 2002). Pink shrimp occur to depths of 

28 361 ft (110 m), although most occur in waters less than 164 ft (50 m) deep (GMFMC, 2004). 

29 Most adult pink shrimp occur at depths between 29 and 144 ft (9 and 44 m) (Bielsa et al., 1983). 

30 Primary habitats are sand, sand-shell, or coral-mud substrates (Hill, 2002). As pink shrimp near 

31 maturity, they move to deeper areas of the estuary before final emigration to offshore habitats 

32 (GMFMC, 2004). Pink shrimp may live a year or more (Hill, 2002). Large males reach a total 

33 length of 6.7 inches (170 mm) and obtain sexual maturity at 2.9 inches (74 mm); while large 

34 females are 8.3 inches (210 mm) long and reach sexual maturity at 3.3 inches (85 mm) (Bielsa 

35 et al., 1983). 

36 The pink shrimp spawns offshore at depths between 13 and 499 ft (4 and 52 m) (Benson, 

37 1982). It can spawn multiple times, with peak spawning occurring from April through July. 

38 Spawning occurs at temperatures between 66 °F and 86 °F (19 °C and 30 °C) (Hill, 2002). 

39 Fecundity ranges from 44,000 to 534,000 eggs (Hill, 2002). Mating occurs between 

40 hard-shelled males and soft-shelled females. Fertilization occurs as eggs and spermatozoa are 

41 simultaneously released from the female (NMFS, 2010a). Hatching takes only 2 to 3 minutes. 

42 There are five naupliar, three protozoeal, three mysid, and several post-larval stages (Hill, 

43 2002). Post-larvae migrate into estuaries and become benthic once reaching their nursery 

44 grounds. Pink shrimp then metamorphose to the juvenile stage (GMFMC, 2004). Post-larval 

45 and juvenile pink shrimp commonly occur in seagrass habitats. Subadults and adults burrow 
Affected Environment 

 2-60 

1 into the substrate during the day and feed at night (Hill, 2002). Preferred substrates are 

2 calcareous-type sediments and sand/shell/mud mixtures (GMFMC, 2004). 

3 Pink shrimp larvae occur at temperatures as high as 99 °F (37 °C). Juveniles have been 

4 collected at temperatures from 39 °F to 93 °F (4 °C to 34 °C) and adults at a temperature range 

5 of 50 °F to 97 °F (10 °C to 36 °C) (Benson, 1982). Pink shrimp are euryhaline, and juveniles 

6 and adults have been collected at salinities ranging from 0 to 70 ppt (Benson, 1982). 

7 The pelagic larvae prey on planktonic algae and zooplankton. Juvenile and adult pink shrimp 

8 are opportunistic feeders on detritus, small invertebrates and fishes, and plants. In turn, fish, 

9 blue crabs, and seabirds prey upon them. The FWC (2011a) reported 2010 annual commercial 

10 landings of pink shrimp to be 6,839,868 lb (3,102,512 kg) for the west coast of Florida and 

11 1,180 lb (535 kg) for Citrus County. 

12 2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources 

13 2.2.6.1 Terrestrial Resources at the Crystal River Energy Complex Site 

14 The CREC is located in Citrus County in west-central Florida between the mouths of the 

15 Withlacoochee and Crystal rivers and adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. The site and associated 

16 transmission lines are within the Southern Coastal Plain Ecoregion, which consists of mostly flat 

17 plains, but also barrier islands, coastal lagoons, marshes, and swampy lowlands along the Gulf 

18 and Atlantic coasts (EPA, 2002). The region was once covered by a variety of forest 

19 communities that included longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), slash pine (P. elliottii), pond pine 

20 (P. serotina), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), 

21 large-flower magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), white oak (Quercus alba), and laurel-leaf oak 

22 (Q. laurifolia), but is now predominantly slash and loblolly pine (P. taeda) (with oak-gum-cypress 

23 forest in some low lying areas), citrus groves, cattle pasture, and urban development. Much of 

24 the area adjacent to the CREC is undeveloped wetland habitat, especially near the coast, but 

25 extensive areas of pine plantations and about 900 ac (360 ha) of quarry lakes also occur in the 

26 vicinity. Terrain in the northwestern portion of Citrus County, in which the CREC is located, 

27 rises gradually from mangrove swamp and coastal marshes along the coast to gently rolling hills 

28 about 16 mi (26 km) inland. The CREC site and surrounding areas are about 2 to 5 ft (0.6 to 

29 1.5 m) above mean sea level (AEC, 1973). 

30 The CREC site occupies about 4,738 ac (1,917 ha). The developed portions of the site occupy 

31 about 1,062 ac (430 ha) and contain a single nuclear unit (CR-3), four fossil-fueled units (CR-1, 

32 CR-2, CR-4, and CR-5), associated buildings, maintenance facilities, parking lots, roads, 

33 railroads, and transmission facilities. The remaining 3,676 ac (1,488 ha) are largely 

34 undeveloped and support four habitat types: salt marsh, hardwood hammock forest, pineland, 

35 and freshwater swamp (AEC, 1973). 

36 Salt or tidal marshes (FNAI, 1990) occur on the westernmost portion of the site along the Gulf 

37 coast in a band about 0.75 mi (1.2 km) wide and are crossed by the intake and discharge canals 

38 associated with CR-3 (Progress Energy, 2008a). Salt marshes are wetland habitats that are 

39 tidally-influenced and dissected by many naturally occurring tidal creeks or channels. Salt 

40 marshes of the site are dominated by smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) and Roemer’s 

41 rush (Juncus roemerianus) (AEC, 1973). Salt marshes are used by many animal species, 

42 especially wading bird such as egrets and herons (Ardeidae) (Progress Energy, 2008a). The 

43 FES (AEC, 1973) listed the following vertebrate animals as occurring in onsite salt marshes: 

44 great blue heron (Ardea herodias), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), 

45 red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), marsh rice rat (Oryzomys palustris), round-tailed 
Affected Environment 

 2-61 

1 muskrat (Neofiber alleni), and American mink (Neovison vison). According to the Florida 

2 Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI, 1990), typical animals of this community type include salt marsh 

3 snails (Littorinidae, Ellobiidae), periwinkle (Littorinidae), mud snails (Nassariidae), spiders, 

4 fiddler crabs (Uca spp.), marsh crab (Decapoda spp.), isopods, amphipods, diamondback 

5 terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin), saltmarsh snake (Nerodia clarkii), wading birds, waterfowl, 

6 osprey (Pandion haliaetus), rails (Rallus spp.), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), seaside 

7 sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus), round-tailed muskrat, and raccoon (Procyon lotor). 

8 Hardwood hammock forests (hydric hammock in FNAI, 1990) lie immediately inland of the salt 

9 marshes and is the habitat type on which most CREC facilities were developed (AEC, 1973). 

10 Numerous hardwood hammocks are scattered throughout the undeveloped portion of the site, 

11 especially to the south and southeast of most facilities. Hardwood hammocks support a diverse 

12 flora and are slightly elevated and drier than the surrounding areas and often have an island-like 

13 appearance. Common plant species of hardwood hammocks at the CREC include 

14 large-flowered magnolia, laurel-leaf oak, and American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana) 

15 (AEC, 1973). Hardwood hammocks provide habitat for many different birds, mammals, reptiles, 

16 and amphibians (Progress Energy, 2008a). The FES (AEC, 1973) listed the following 

17 vertebrate animals as present in onsite hardwood hammocks: turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), 

18 northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris), eastern gray 

19 squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and bobcat (Lynx rufus). According to the FNAI (1990), typical 

20 animals of this community type include the green anole (Anolis carolinensis), flycatchers 

21 (Tyrannidae), warblers (Parulidae), and the eastern gray squirrel (FNAI, 1990). 

22 Pine flatwoods (mesic flatwoods in FNAI, 1990) are found inland of hardwood hammocks on the 

23 CREC site. Onsite pine flatwoods are dominated by slash pine and loblolly pine, often with a 

24 dense understory of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) (Progress Energy, 2008a). In general, the 

25 number of species of plants and animals in pine flatwoods is considerably lower than in 

26 hardwood hammocks (AEC, 1973). The FES (AEC, 1973) listed the following vertebrate 

27 animals as present in onsite pine flatwoods: northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), prairie 

28 warbler (Dendroica discolor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Florida deermouse 

29 (Podomys floridanus), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). According to the FNAI (1990), 

30 typical animals of this community type include the oak toad (Bufo quercicus), little grass frog 

31 (Pseudacris ocularis), eastern narrowmouth toad (Gastrophryne carolinensis), southern black 

32 racer (Coluber constrictor priapus), red cornsnake (Pantherophis guttatus), southeastern 

33 American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus), brown-headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla), pine warbler 

34 (Dendroica pinus), Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon 

35 hispidus), Florida deermouse, American black bear (Ursus americanus), raccoon, gray fox 

36 (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), bobcat, and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). 

37 Freshwater swamps (basin swamp in FNAI, 1990) occur in occasionally flooded wet 

38 depressions within pine flatwoods on the CREC site (Progress Energy, 2008a). The extent of 

39 surface water present in these habitats depends on recent rainfall and, in some areas, saltwater 

40 intrusion (AEC, 1973). Typical tree species in these swamps are pond cypress (Taxodium 

41 ascendens), swamp blackgum (Nyssa biflora), and Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana) (AEC, 

42 1973). According to the FNAI (1990), typical animals of this community type include the 

43 southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus), southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus), 

44 little grass frog, chicken turtle (Deirochelys reticularia), striped mud turtle (Kinosternon baurii), 

45 ring-necked snake (Diadophis punctatus), scarlet kingsnake (Lampropeltis triangulum 

46 elapsoides), crayfish snake (Regina spp.), cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), wood duck 

47 (Aix sponsa), hawks, wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), 

48 barred owl (Strix varia), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), songbirds (Order 
Affected Environment 

 2-62 

1 Passeriformes), eastern gray squirrel, American black bear, raccoon, American mink, North 

2 American river otter (Lontra canadensis), bobcat, and white-tailed deer. 

3 Old-field and other early successional or human-altered plant communities exist on the CREC 

4 site wherever construction disturbance has somewhat stabilized, such as roadway borrow pits 

5 and drainage ditches, or where the vegetation is managed (e.g., beneath transmission lines and 

6 adjacent to facilities) (AEC, 1973). Plant species found in these communities vary and depend 

7 in part on the original habitat type, the degree of disturbance, and the current maintenance 

8 practices. A variety of shrubs and small trees occur along the length of the intake and 

9 discharge canals. In general, these developed portions of the CREC site provide habitat for 

10 animal species commonly encountered in urban landscapes in Florida, including the southern 

11 toad (Bufo terrestris), green anole, eastern ratsnake (Pantherophis alleghaniensis), house 

12 sparrow (Passer domesticus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), blue jay (Cyanocitta 

13 cristata), hispid cotton rat, and gray squirrel (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

14 The FWS National Wetland Inventory (FWS, 2010b) has mapped most of the undeveloped 

15 portions of the CREC site, where CR-3 and associated facilities are located, as wetland. Salt 

16 marsh habitat described above is classified by the FWS as estuarine intertidal emergent and 

17 shrub/scrub wetland (Cowardin et al., 1979). Hardwood hammocks are classified as palustrine 

18 forested evergreen and deciduous wetlands. Palustrine emergent wetlands exist as patches 

19 within these habitats and within pine flatwoods. Freshwater swamps within pine flatwoods 

20 (described above) are classified as palustrine forested evergreen and deciduous wetland by the 

21 FWS (2010b). 

22 The FWC (2009c) identified a number of potentially affected terrestrial resources near the 

23 CREC site including the following: (1) American black bear range (Chassahowitzka 

24 subpopulation); (2) priority wetlands for the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), 

25 American oystercatcher, Homosassa shrew (Sorex longirostris eionis), and other wildlife 

26 species of concern; (3) strategic habitat conservation areas for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

27 leucocephalus) and Scott’s seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus peninsulae); (4) FNAI 

28 conservation lands (Waccasassa Bay Preserve State Park, Crystal River Archeological State 

29 Park, Crystal River Preserve State Park, Felburn Park, Yankeetown Conservation Area, and 

30 Marjorie Harris Carr Conservation Area); and (5) underrepresented natural communities (pine 

31 flatwoods and sandhill). These areas are all within 5 mi (8 km) of the CREC site, but none are 

32 within the CREC site boundary (FWC, 2009c). 

33 In 2003, the applicant granted permission for the FWC to post signs for the protection of 

34 shorebird and sea bird nesting sites on the CREC site, especially those of least terns (Sternula 

35 antillarum), black skimmers (Rynchops niger), and American oystercatchers (Haematopus 

36 palliatus) (Progress Energy, 2008a). Posted areas are on sandbars and spoil islands owned or 

37 managed by the applicant and on spoil islands along the barge canal leading to the intake 

38 canal. 

39 From 1981 through 1994, FPC conducted a monitoring study of the potential effects of salt drift 

40 from the CREC power plant cooling towers (CR-1 through CR-5). The study compared 

41 vegetation conditions (including damage to plants) and salt deposition rates (sodium and 

42 chloride) in control areas and in different onsite and offsite habitat types exposed to cooling 

43 tower drift (KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., 1995). Monitoring demonstrated that 

44 annual salt deposition levels were higher in areas exposed to cooling tower drift relative to 

45 control areas, but salt drift injury was limited to only a few individual plants. The highest 

46 deposition levels appeared to have been caused by coastal storms. On the basis of these 
Affected Environment 

 2-63 

1 results, FPC requested permission of the FDEP to discontinue salt drift monitoring (FPC, 1995). 

2 This request was approved in 1996 (FDEP, 1996). 

3 2.2.6.2 Terrestrial Resources Along the Transmission Line Rights-of-Way 

4 Section 2.1.5 describes the routes of the transmission lines that were built to connect CR-3 to 

5 the transmission system and that are within the scope of this SEIS. These transmission 

6 corridors are maintained to keep vegetation heights low enough to prevent interference with the 

7 transmission lines. The principal land use types traversed by the transmission corridors are 

8 agriculture and forest (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

9 The Central Florida and Lake Tarpon transmission lines use a common corridor for the first 

10 5.3 mi (8.5 km) east of CR-3. A 1.5-mi (2.4-km) portion of the southern edge of the common 

11 corridor is adjacent to the northern boundary of the Crystal River Preserve State Park. 

12 Three segments of the Lake Tarpon corridor cross State forest and natural areas. The Lake 

13 Tarpon corridor crosses 4 mi (6 km) of the Citrus Tract within the Withlacoochee State Forest, 

14 and an additional 2-mi (3-km) segment is adjacent to the Citrus Tract (FDACS, 2004), (Progress 

15 Energy, 2008a). Typical tree species of this forest habitat include slash pine, longleaf pine, 

16 pond cypress, bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), large-flowered magnolia, and various 

17 hardwood trees (FDACS, 2004). Animal species inhabiting the forest include fox squirrel 

18 (Sciurus niger), white-tailed deer, wild turkey, eastern cottontail, gray squirrel, bald eagle, and 

19 gopher tortoise. An 8-mi (13-km) segment of the Lake Tarpon corridor crosses the Starkey 

20 Wilderness Preserve in Pasco County, one of the largest undeveloped tracts in Pasco County. 

21 The preserve supports a variety of natural habitats including pine flatwoods, cypress domes, 

22 freshwater marshes, stream and lake swamps, sandhill, and scrub communities (SFWMD, 

23 2010). About 6,000 ac (2,400 ha) of wetland occur in the Starkey Wilderness Preserve 

24 (SFWMD, 2010). 

25 In northeastern Pinellas County, the Lake Tarpon transmission corridor crosses a 4.5-mi 

26 segment of the 8,500-ac (3,500-ha) Brooker Creek Preserve. Natural plant communities consist 

27 mainly of pine flatwoods and freshwater swamps (Progress Energy, 2008a). The preserve 

28 supports populations of white-tailed deer, wild turkey, North American otter, gopher tortoise, 

29 bobcat, and coyote (Canis latrans) (Friends of Brooker Creek Preserve, 2009). Also, the 

30 preserve contains a variety of orchids, Bachman’s sparrow, and the tiger swallowtail butterfly 

31 (Papilio glaucus). 

32 The FWC (2009c) identified potentially affected terrestrial resources near the Lake Tarpon 

33 transmission line corridor including: (1) American black bear range (Chassahowitzka 

34 subpopulation); (2) priority wetlands for the American alligator, limpkin (Aramus guarauna), 

35 Homosassa shrew, and other wildlife species of concern; (3) strategic habitat conservation 

36 areas for wading birds and scrub communities; (4) FNAI conservation lands (Starkey 

37 Wilderness Park, Brooker Creek Preserve, Withlacoochee State Forest, Annutteliga Hammock, 

38 Chassahowitzka Wildlife Management Area, and Lake Dan Preserve); and 

39 (5) underrepresented natural communities (pine flatwoods, sandhill, and scrub). 

40 The Central Florida transmission corridor crosses an area identified by the FNAI as oak scrub 

41 habitat (Progress Energy, 2008a). Scrub habitat is considered by the FNAI to be imperiled in 

42 Florida (FNAI, 2009a). Scrub communities have variable characteristics but are often 

43 characterized as a closed to open canopy forest of sand pines with dense clumps or vast 

44 thickets of scrub oaks and other shrubs dominating the understory (FNAI, 1990). Typical tree 

45 species in scrub habitat include sand pine (P. clausa), sand live oak (Quercus geminata), myrtle 
Affected Environment 

 2-64 

1 oak (Q. myrtifolia), Chapman’s oak (Q. chapmanii), and scrub oak (Q. inopina). Because of the 

2 openness of the canopy, scrub habitat typically supports several shrub species. Typical animals 

3 include the six-lined racerunner (Aspidoscelis sexlineata), sand skink (Neoseps reynoldsi), 

4 blue-tailed mole skink (Plestiodon egregius lividus), Florida scrub lizard (Sceloporus woodi), oak 

5 toad, coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), common ground-dove (Columbina passerina), Florida 

6 scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), yellow-rumped 

7 warbler (Dendroica coronata), eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), Florida deermouse, 

8 and eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius) (FNAI, 1990). 

9 In Marion County, portions of the Central Florida transmission corridor run along the edge of the 

10 16,000-ac (6,500-ha) Ross Prairie Conservation Area, which includes the Hálpata Tastanaki 

11 Preserve and the Ross Prairie State Forest. The conservation area contains a mosaic of habitat 

12 types, including bottomland hardwood swamps, hardwood hammocks, pine flatwoods, oak 

13 scrub, wet prairies, and longleaf pine-wiregrass sandhills (Smith, 2006), (SFWMD, 2009). 

14 Animal species in the Ross Prairie Conservation Area include many rare and listed species 

15 including the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi), gopher tortoise, Florida scrub jay, 

16 Florida deermouse, and Florida gopher frog (Rana capito aesopus). 

17 The FWC (2009c) identified potentially affected terrestrial resources near the Central Florida 

18 transmission line corridor including: (1) American black bear range (Chassahowitzka and Ocala 

19 subpopulations); (2) priority wetlands for the American alligator, limpkin, Homosassa shrew, and 

20 other wildlife species of concern; (3) strategic habitat conservation areas for the bald eagle, 

21 limpkin, sandhill communities, and rare plant species; (4) FNAI conservation lands (Ventura 

22 Ranch, Gum Slough Springs, Ross Prairie State Forest, Hálpata Tastanaki Preserve, 

23 Withlacoochee State Forest, Potts Preserve, Lake Panasoffkee, and Crystal River Preserve 

24 State Park); and (5) underrepresented natural communities (pine flatwoods, sandhill, and 

25 upland hardwood forest). 

26 2.2.7 Threatened and Endangered Species 

27 The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the FWS are responsible for listing aquatic 

28 and terrestrial species as threatened and endangered at the Federal level, as delegated by the 

29 Endangered Species Act (ESA). The State of Florida lists additional species that are regionally 

30 threatened or endangered. This section describes the Federally- and State-listed species that 

31 occur or potentially occur in the counties in which CR-3 (Citrus County) and the associated 

32 transmission line corridors lie (Citrus, Hernando, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sumter 

33 Counties). Aquatic species and terrestrial species are discussed in Sections 2.2.7.1 and 

34 2.2.7.2, respectively. 

35 The applicant (Holt, 2008a), (Holt, 2008b) and the NRC (2009a; 2009b) contacted both the FWS 

36 and NMFS to determine the Federally-listed species and their habitats that could be affected by 

37 continued operations of CR-3 under the license renewal term. Responses from both agencies 

38 were received (FWS, 2008a), (NMFS, 2009a), (NMFS, 2009b). The Staff also contacted the 

39 FWC (NRC, 2009c) and the FNAI (NRC, 2009d) to request information that could assist the 

40 NRC in its assessment of the environmental impacts associated with license renewal. The 

41 FWC responded to the NRC request by letter dated July 20, 2009, and provided information on 

42 State-listed natural resources and their habitats potentially affected by the relicensing action at 

43 the CREC site and potentially affected by maintenance activities along the ROWs (FWC 2009c). 

44 The NRC did not receive a response from the FNAI. 
Affected Environment 

 2-65 

1 2.2.7.1 Aquatic Species 

2 Table 2.2.7-1 lists the Federally- and State-listed aquatic species that occur in the Gulf of 

3 Mexico in the area of CR-3 and from other aquatic habitats within the counties where CR-3 and 

4 associated transmission lines are located. The text that follows addresses the Federally-listed 

5 species.
Affected Environment 

2-66 

Table 2.2.7-1. Federally- and State-Listed Aquatic Species that Could Occur in the Vicinity of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 1 

Generating Plant and Associated Transmission Lines 2 

Species Status(a)

Habitat(b) Occurrence in Project Area(c) Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status 

Fishes Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi 

Gulf sturgeon T SC Primarily marine and estuarine waters 

in winter; migrates to upper rivers in spring for spawning and returns to sea/estuary in fall. Spends first 2 years in riverine habitats. 

Citrus, Hernando, Pasco, Pinellas(d)

Cyprinodon variegates hubbsi 

Lake Eustis minnow -- SC Lake Eustis and other headwater 

lakes of the Oklawaha River. 

Marion 

Etheostoma olmstedi maculaticeps 

Southern tessellated darter 

-- SC Sandy and muddy pools of 

headwaters, creeks, and small to medium rivers; shores of lakes. 

Marion 

Pristis pectinata Smalltooth sawfish E -- Shallow coastal, estuarine, and fresh 

waters; often in brackish water near river mouths and large embayments. Mature individuals regularly at depths over 164 ft (50 m). 

Citrus, Hernando, Pasco, Pinellas(d)

Pteronotropis welaka Bluenose shiner -- SC Backwaters and quiet vegetated 

pools of creeks and small to medium rivers, over mud and sand. Schools in water 3 to 6 ft (1 to 2 m) deep. 

Marion 

Sea Turtles 

Caretta caretta Loggerhead T T Open seas, mostly over continental 

shelf; also bays, estuaries, lagoons, creeks, and mouths of rivers. 

Citrus, Hernando, Pasco, Pinellas 

Chelonia mydas Green turtle E E Fairly shallow waters (except when 

migrating) inside reefs, bays, and inlets. 

Citrus, Hernando, Pasco, Pinellas 

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback E E Open oceans, often near edge of 

continental shelf; also seas, gulfs, bays, and estuaries 

Citrus, Hernando, Pasco, Pinellas 
Affected Environment 

2-67 

Species Status(a)

Habitat(b) Occurrence in Project Area(c) Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status 

Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill E E Shallow coastal waters with rocky 

bottoms, coral reefs, and mangrove-bordered bays and estuaries. 

Citrus, Hernando, Pasco, Pinellas 

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s ridley E E Open ocean and gulf waters. Citrus, Hernando, Pasco, 

Pinellas 

Crocodilians 

Alligator mississippiensis American alligator SAT SC Fresh and brackish marshes, ponds, 

lakes, rivers, swamps, bayous, and large spring runs. Basks on land by water. 

Citrus, Hernando, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, Sumter 

Marine Mammals Trichechus manatus latirostris

Florida manatee E E Shallow coastal waters, estuaries, 

bays, rivers, and lakes; prefers rivers and estuaries over marine habitats. 

Citrus, Hernando, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas 

(a) E = endangered; T = threatened; SAT = threatened due to similarity of appearance; SC = special concern; -- = not listed (FWC, 2009b), (FWS, 2009b). 

(b) Source of habitat information: FNAI, 2001a; NatureServe, 2009a; Page and Burr, 1991; FWS, 2009a. (c) Source of distribution occurrence: FNAI, 2009a. (d) Not reported from these counties by FNAI, 2009a; however, its probable occurrence is assumed based on known distribution within the Gulf of Mexico. 
Affected Environment 

 2-68 

1 Gulf Sturgeon

2 The Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), a 

3 subspecies of the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser 

4 oxyrinchus), is a Federally-threatened species 

5 (NMFS, 1991) and a State species of special concern 

6 (FWC, 2009b). The FWS and NMFS (2003) 

7 designated 14 geographic areas as critical habitat for 

8 the Gulf sturgeon. These areas include over 1,727 mi 

9 (2,780 km) of rivers and 1.5 million ac (600,000 ha) of 

10 estuarine and marine habitat. None of the geographic 

11 areas of critical habitat occur near the CREC. 

12 Reproducing populations range from the Suwannee 

13 River, Florida, to the Pearl River, Louisiana (USGS, 

14 2008), (FNAI, 2001a). The Suwannee, 

15 Choctawhatchee, and Yellow rivers are the only high-quality spawning areas for the species 

16 (FNAI, 2001a). Non-breeding individuals occur as far south as Florida Bay (FNAI, 2001a). The 

17 Gulf sturgeon reaches a length of 8 ft (2.4 m) and a weight of 200 lb (91 kg) (USGS, 2008). 

18 Sexual maturity occurs at 8 to 17 years for females and 7 to 12 years for males. They can live 

19 at least 25 to 30 years (Bester, 2009). Spawning occurs in the headwaters of rivers in areas of 

20 limestone outcrops (FNAI, 2001a). Adults spend the summer in the mid- to lower-reaches of the 

21 river (USGS, 2008). When in marine waters, it inhabits shallow seagrass beds and muddy and 

22 sandy substrates of the continental shelf (Bester, 2009). They feed on benthic invertebrates 

23 while in the Gulf, but do not feed while inhabiting rivers (USGS, 2008). Threats to the Gulf 

24 sturgeon include blockage of spawning migration by dams, pollution, dredging, incidental 

25 bycatch, poaching, watercraft collisions, and habitat loss and degradation (USGS, 2008), (FWS 

26 and NMFS, 2009). Natural events such as red tide outbreaks also threaten the species (FWS 

27 and NMFS, 2009). 

28 Smalltooth Sawfish

29 The smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) within the United States is a distinct population 

30 segment that is Federally-listed as endangered (NMFS, 2003), (FWS, 2005a); it is not 

31 State-listed (FWC, 2009b). The smalltooth sawfish is a circumtropical species. In the western 

32 Atlantic, they range from the southern Chesapeake Bay to Brazil (Hill, 2006). The core range of 

33 the smalltooth sawfish is located between Charlotte Harbor and Florida Bay in southwestern 

34 Florida (Simpfendorfer and Wiley, 2006). Critical habitat for the smalltooth sawfish includes two 

35 units located within this core area (NMFS, 2009c). Regular encounters of the smalltooth 

36 sawfish occur only in south Florida between the Caloosahatchee River and the Florida Keys 

37 (NMFS, 2009c). Juveniles occur year-round throughout Florida; while reports for adults occur 

38 south of Charlotte Harbor (Simpfendorfer and Wiley, 2006). The abundance of the smalltooth 

39 sawfish is unknown (NMFS, 2009d). 

40 Smalltooth sawfish mature at about 10 years of age and may live up to 30 years (Hill, 2006). 

41 Young are born in late winter and spring (Hill, 2006). Females produce litters every other year 

42 with brood size averaging about seven individuals (NMFS, 2009d). Smalltooth sawfish are 

43 about 31 inches (79 cm) long at birth and may grow to a maximum length of 25 ft (7.6 m) (Hill, 

44 2006), (NMFS, 2009d). They most commonly occur within 1 mi (1.6 km) of land at depths less 

45 than 33 ft (10 m) (NMFS, 2009d). Juveniles inhabit shallow coastal bays, banks, estuaries, and 

46 river mouths; over substrates of mud, sand, seagrass, limestone hard bottom, rock, coral reef, 

47 and sponge bottom (Poulakis and Seitz, 2004). Adults also occur in these habitats, as well as 

48 offshore to depths greater than or equal to 394 ft (120 m) (NMFS, 2009d). Lower thermal limits 

Critical Habitat 

Specific geographic areas, 

whether occupied by listed species 

or not, that are determined to be 

essential for the conservation and 

management of listed species, and 

that have been formally described 

in the Federal Register. 

(FWS, 2010a) 
Affected Environment 

 2-69 

1 for the smalltooth sawfish is about 60.8 °F to 64.4 °F (16 °C to 18 °C). The smalltooth sawfish 

2 is euryhaline and will enter freshwater areas for extended periods of time (NMFS, 2009d). They 

3 prey upon small schooling fish and also feed on crustaceans and other benthic invertebrates 

4 (NMFS, 2009d). Threats to the species include bycatch, habitat loss and degradation, 

5 entanglement in debris, pollution, harassment, and injury by saw removal (Seitz and Poulakis, 

6 2006), (NMFS, 2009d). 

7 American Alligator

8 The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) is Federally-listed as similarity of appearance 

9 (threatened) due to its similarity in appearance to the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), 

10 which is a Federally-threatened species that occurs in Dade County, Florida (FWS, 2009b). It is 

11 a State species of special concern (FWC, 2009b). The American alligator ranges from North 

12 Carolina to Texas; it occurs Statewide in Florida although it is rare in the Keys. It inhabits most 

13 permanent freshwaters and occasionally will enter brackish and salt waters (FNAI, 2001a). One 

14 observation has been made of an American alligator in the Gulf of Mexico 39 mi (63 km) from 

15 the nearest point of mainland in Louisiana (Elsey, 2005). Maximum total length is about 19 ft 

16 (5.8 m), but most are usually less than or equal to 13 ft (4 m) (NatureServe, 2009a). American 

17 alligators become sexually mature at about 6 or 7 years of age. Nesting occurs between May 

18 and July. Twenty-five to 30 percent of adult females nest each year. Mounded nests are 

19 comprised of leaves, mud, rotting vegetation, rocks, and other debris. They are located in 

20 marshes or lake or river margins. A female lays about 20 to 60 eggs. Hatchlings may stay in 

21 the vicinity of the nest and mother for up to 3 years (NatureServe, 2009a). The American 

22 alligator is an opportunistic feeder. Juveniles primarily consume small invertebrates, fish, and 

23 frogs. Large adults will eat nearly all aquatic and terrestrial prey; mostly fish, turtles and other 

24 reptiles, birds, and small mammals. They tend to stop eating at temperatures below 73 °F 

25 (23 °C) (Britton, 2009). During winter, the American alligator hibernates in its den although it 

26 may occasionally emerge during brief spells of warmer weather (Britton, 2009). It basks on land 

27 adjacent to water and digs dens in river or lake margins or in marshes (NatureServe, 2009a). 

28 The American alligator occurs within larger wetlands on the CREC site and along the two 

29 transmission corridors (FWC, 2009c). Current threats to the species include habitat destruction 

30 and pollution (FNAI, 2001a). 

31 Green Turtle

32 The green turtle (Chelonia mydas) is Federally-listed as endangered for Florida and Mexico’s 

33 coastal breeding colonies and as threatened for all other areas (NMFS, 2010b). Critical habitat 

34 includes the coastal waters surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto Rico (NMFS, 1998). The State 

35 of Florida lists the green turtle as endangered (FWC, 2009b). Green turtles occur in temperate 

36 and tropical estuarine and marine coastal and oceanic waters throughout the world. In the 

37 southeastern United States, it occurs in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and along the 

38 shorelines of the Gulf and Atlantic coasts from Texas to Massachusetts (NMFS, 2010b). 

39 Carapace lengths of adults generally range from 35 to 48 inches (88 to 122 cm) and weigh 

40 between 220 to 450 lb (104 to 204 kg) (FNAI, 2001a). Green turtles spend most of their time in 

41 coastal foraging grounds (i.e., open coastlines and protected lagoons and bays) (NMFS and 

42 FWS, 2007a). They most commonly feed in shallow, low-energy waters with abundant 

43 seagrass beds (NatureServe, 2009a). The diet of this species changes as it grows; younger 

44 green turtles eat polychaete worms, small crustaceans, aquatic insects, seagrasses, and algae; 

45 adults are primarily herbivorous, eating seagrasses and algae (NMFS and FWS, 2007a), 

46 (FWS, 2009c). 
Affected Environment 

 2-70 

1 Age to maturity ranges from less than 20 years to 40 years or more (NMFS and FWS, 2007a). 

2 Females return to their natal beaches for nesting. A female nests every 2 to 4 years, but 

3 averages over three clutches during a nesting season. Each clutch averages about 136 eggs 

4 (FWS, 2009a). About 5,600 green turtle nests occur each year in Florida (NMFS and FWS, 

5 2007a). These nests mostly occur along the Atlantic coast of Florida and in the Gulf coasts 

6 along southwestern Florida, and the western panhandle of Florida (FNAI, 2001a). Nesting does 

7 not occur in the Big Bend area of Florida, which includes Citrus County (NMFS and FWS, 

8 2007a). The Gulf coast along Citrus and Levy Counties, the Indian River Lagoon, shallow hard 

9 substrates along the southeastern coast of Florida, and Florida Bay are important areas for 

10 young green turtles (FNAI, 2001a). The primary threats to this species are the commercial 

11 harvest of eggs for food, incidental catch in commercial fishing nets, habitat loss and 

12 degradation, watercraft strikes, and artificial lighting at nesting sites. Natural causes such as 

13 red tide outbreaks can also lead to mortality of adults and juveniles (FNAI, 2001a), (NMFS and 

14 FWS, 2007a). 

15 Hawksbill

16 The hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) is Federally- and State-endangered (NMFS, 2009a), 

17 (FWC, 2009b). Critical habitat includes the coastal waters surrounding Mona and Monito 

18 Islands, Puerto Rico (NMFS, 1998). The hawksbill is primarily tropical, but occurs along the 

19 Atlantic seaboard as far north as Maine. It occurs yearlong in southern Florida (FNAI, 2001a). 

20 Adults generally have a carapace length of 25 to 37 inches (63 to 94 cm) and weigh between 

21 95 to 165 lb (43 to 75 kg) (FNAI, 2001a). Hawksbills inhabit rocky areas, coral reefs, shallow 

22 coastal areas, lagoons or oceanic islands, and narrow creeks and passes; seldom occurring in 

23 areas with water depths over 65 ft (20 m). Hatchlings often occur on masses of floating sea 

24 plants (FWS, 2009d). Hawksbills feed primarily in coral reef systems on sponges, anemones, 

25 squid, and shrimp. 

26 Age at sexual maturity is unknown, but is probably over 30 years of age (FWS, 2009d). About 

27 15,000 females nest each year throughout the world (FWS, 2009d). Females nest at intervals 

28 of 2 to 3 years. However, they may nest more than four times per season. Each clutch 

29 averages about 140 eggs (FWS, 2009d). Nesting occurs on sand beaches, often in vegetation. 

30 No primary nesting rookeries are located in the United States (NMFS and FWS, 2007b). 

31 Nesting does not occur in Citrus County (FNAI, 2001a). The primary threats to this species 

32 include harvest for its shell to create “tortoise shell” ornaments, removal of eggs from nesting 

33 sites, incidental take by commercial fishing operations, destruction or disruption of nesting 

34 beaches, pollution, watercraft strikes, and the disorientation of adults and juveniles from artificial 

35 lighting of shorelines (NMFS and FWS, 2007b), (FWS, 2009d). 

36 Kemp’s Ridley

37 The Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) is Federally- and State-listed as endangered 

38 (NOAA, 2009), (FWC, 2009b). It is the most seriously endangered sea turtle species; however, 

39 critical habitat for the species is not designated (FWS, 2009e). Kemp’s ridley sea turtles occur 

40 in the Gulf of Mexico, but juveniles can range north along the Atlantic Ocean. Adults generally 

41 have a carapace length of 23 to 28 inches (58 to 71 cm) and weigh 70 to 100 lb (32 to 45 kg) 

42 (FNAI, 2001a). Preferred habitat is shallow areas with sandy or muddy bottoms where crabs, 

43 their primary diet, are numerous (NatureServe, 2009a). They also eat mussels, shrimp, sea 

44 urchins, squids, jellyfish, and fish (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 2008). Kemp’s ridleys 

45 occur year-round in Florida. Gulf waters are important for young (FNAI, 2001a). It nests 

46 primarily in northern Mexico and southernmost Texas. Although rare, nesting has occurred in 

47 Florida since 1989. Nesting does not occur in Citrus County (FNAI, 2001a). Like all sea turtles, 
Affected Environment 

 2-71 

1 the Kemp’s ridley nests multiple times in a nesting season (NMFS and FWS, 2007c). The major 

2 threats to the species include destruction of nests, habitat destruction, pollution, collection of 

3 eggs, entanglement in commercial fishing nets, watercraft strikes, impingement at power plants, 

4 and ingestion of debris (NMFS and FWS, 2007c). Habitat destruction and degradation, 

5 including pollution of estuaries and marine waters, also threatens immature turtles using Florida 

6 waters (FNAI, 2001a). 

7 Leatherback

8 The leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) is Federally- and State-listed as endangered 

9 (NMFS, 2009a), (FWC, 2009b). Critical habitat for the leatherback is the waters adjacent to 

10 Sandy Point Beach, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (NMFS, 1979). The NMFS (2010c) has 

11 proposed to revise the critical habitat to include crucial feeding areas off the west coast of the 

12 United States. It has the widest distribution of sea turtles, nesting on beaches of tropical and 

13 subtropical waters and foraging into sub-polar waters. They are present year-round in Florida. 

14 Juveniles occur in waters warmer than 79 °F (26 °C) (NMFS and FWS, 2007d). Adults 

15 generally have a carapace length of 53 to 70 inches (135 to 178 cm) and weigh between 650 to 

16 1,300 lb (295 and 590 kg) (FNAI, 2001a). Leatherbacks primarily feed on jellyfish, although 

17 they will also consume other invertebrates, fish, and aquatic plants (NatureServe, 2009a). 

18 Leatherbacks reach sexual maturity at 6 to 10 years of age (FWS, 2009f). Females nest at 2- to 

19 3-year intervals. Nesting occurs from early spring through early summer with hatchlings 

20 emerging in late spring and summer. A female will nest an average of five to seven times 

21 during the nesting season (FWS, 2009f). Clutches are typically 70 to 90 eggs (NatureServe, 

22 2009a). Worldwide, 26,000 to 43,000 females nest annually (FWS, 2009f). About 800 and 

23 900 nests per year occur in Florida (NMFS and FWS, 2007d). Nesting does not occur in Citrus 

24 County (FNAI, 2001a). The primary threats to the leatherback include bycatch in commercial 

25 fishing nets, loss and degradation of nesting habitat, artificial lighting, pollution, harvest of 

26 females and eggs, watercraft strikes, and the ingestion of marine debris such as plastic bags 

27 (NMFS and FWS, 2007d). 

28 Loggerhead

29 The loggerhead (Caretta caretta) is Federally- and State-listed as a threatened species 

30 (NMFS, 2009a), (FWC, 2009b). Critical habitat for the loggerhead is not designated (FWS, 

31 2009g). Loggerheads are found in temperate and tropical waters throughout the world and feed 

32 in coastal bays and estuaries and in the shallow waters along the continental shelves of the 

33 Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, where they spend most of their lives. The loggerhead is 

34 the most common sea turtle in the coastal waters of the United States. They are present 

35 year-round in Florida (FNAI, 2001a). Carapace lengths of adults range from 28 to 49 inches 

36 (70 to 125 cm) and adults can weigh up to 350 lb (159 kg) (FNAI, 2001a). Their diet consists of 

37 shellfish, including horseshoe crabs (Limulus polyphemus), clams, and mussels. A female will 

38 nest about four times per season with a clutch size of up to 126 eggs (FWS, 2009g). A female 

39 will generally nest every 2 to 3 years (FWS, 2009f). Nesting occurs late April to early 

40 September, with hatchlings emerging from July through November. The number of nesting 

41 females along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts is between 32,000 and 56,000 (NMFS and 

42 FWS, 2007e). Nesting does not occur in Citrus County (FNAI, 2001a). The greatest threats to 

43 survival include the destruction or alteration of nesting and feeding habitats, incidental capture 

44 by commercial and recreational fishermen, entanglement in shallow-water debris, legal and 

45 illegal harvesting, pollution, artificial lighting, and watercraft strikes (NMFS and FWS, 2007e). 
Affected Environment 

 2-72 

1 Florida Manatee

2 The Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris), a subspecies of the West Indian manatee 

3 (Trichechus manatus), is Federally- and State-listed as endangered (FWS, 2009a), 

4 (FWC, 2009b). The Florida manatee has designated critical habitat (FWS, 1976). Critical 

5 habitat within Citrus County occurs in the Crystal River and its headwaters (Kings Bay) 

6 (exclusive of areas that have man-made structures or settlements) (FWS, 1976). This area of 

7 critical habitat is adjacent to the southern boundary of the CREC. The Florida manatee inhabits 

8 marine, estuarine, and freshwater habitats (coastal tidal rivers and streams, mangrove swamps, 

9 salt marshes, freshwater springs, and vegetated bottoms). It makes use of specific areas for 

10 foraging (especially shallow grass beds with ready access to deep water), drinking (springs and 

11 freshwater runoff sites), resting (secluded canals, creeks, embayments, and lagoons), and for 

12 travel corridors (open waterways and channels) (FWS, 2007). While Florida manatees can 

13 occur at depths greater than 12 ft (4 m), most occur in relatively shallow water (Haubold et al., 

14 2006). 

15 Most adults are about 10 ft long and weigh 800 to 1,200 lb (363 to 544 kg) (FWS, 2008b). They 

16 can live up to 60 years of age (Haubold et al., 2006). The Florida manatee reaches breeding 

17 maturity when 3 to 10 years old. Females give birth every 2 to 5 years, usually to a single calf 

18 (FWS, 2008b). The Florida manatee feeds on submerged, floating, and emergent vegetation 

19 and requires freshwater for drinking (FWS, 2009h). In some cases (e.g., at docks), they actively 

20 consume invertebrates (Courbis and Worthy, 2003). The Florida manatee is intolerant of cold 

21 waters. They seek warm-water sites when temperatures drop below 68 °F (20 °C) and are 

22 unable to tolerate prolonged exposures to temperatures colder than 61 °F (16 °C) (Haubold et 

23 al., 2006). To avoid cold water, the Florida manatee seeks refuge in natural, warm-water sites 

24 (e.g., springs, deep water areas, and areas thermally-influenced by the Gulf Stream) and 

25 industrial plant thermal discharges (Laist and Reynolds, 2005). Nearly two-thirds of Florida 

26 manatees winter in industrial plant discharges, most of which are power plants (FWS, 2007). In 

27 the spring, they leave warm-water sites and often travel large distances along the Gulf and 

28 Atlantic coastlines. During warmer months, they range from Texas to Massachusetts but 

29 remain most common in Florida and coastal Georgia (FWS, 2007), (FWS, 2009h). 

30 There are about 3,800 Florida manatees with 3,300 of them occurring in Florida during winter 

31 (FWS, 2007). The FWS (2007) has identified four relatively distinct management units of 

32 Florida manatees. However, preliminary genetic analyses indicate that the four management 

33 units are not genetically isolated enough to be subpopulations (FWS, 2007). Exchange of 

34 individuals among the management units is limited during winter. The Northwest Management 

35 Unit, home to at least 377 Florida manatees, extends from the Florida panhandle to the Paso 

36 County line. It encompasses the area which includes the CREC. Among the warm-water 

37 refuges for the Northwest Management Unit, the CREC is a secondary warm-water refuge site 

38 for the Florida manatee. The nearby Crystal River Springs is a primary warm-water refuge site 

39 (FWS, 2007). 

40 Threats to the Florida manatee include watercraft-related strikes, habitat loss, entrapment 

41 and/or crushing in water control structures, entanglement in fishing and crabbing gear, and 

42 harassment (e.g., from swimmers, snorkelers, and divers); natural threats include cold stress 

43 syndrome and brevitoxicosis (caused by neurotoxins known as brevetoxins that are produced 

44 by the red tide dinoflagellate Karenia brevis) (Ackerman et al., 1995), (FWS, 2007). 

45 The Citrus County Manatee Protection Plan, coupled with coastal speed zones and manatee 

46 sanctuaries, has significantly reduced man-related fatalities in the county (CCBCC, 2009). 
Affected Environment 

 2-73 

1 Seven manatee sanctuaries (areas that prohibit human activities so that manatees can breed, 

2 nurse, and rest free from human harassment) occur in Citrus County, all of which are in Kings 

3 Bay. Manatee refuges also occur in the county. These are areas that allow interaction, but 

4 where certain waterborne activities are restricted. Florida manatees use the CREC discharge 

5 area during spring and fall as a layover area. The FPC discharge canal (like most warm 

6 industrial discharge areas) usually lack vegetation necessary to maintain manatees over the 

7 winter months. As boat access to the discharge canal is restricted, manatees in the canal 

8 receive protection from boat collisions (CCBCC, 2009). Most of the shoreline areas in the area 

9 of the Florida Power Energy Complex are 25 mile per hour (mi/hr) (40 kilometer per hour 

10 [km/hr]) speed zones. The area within the discharge canal and area just north of the discharge 

11 dike is a slow speed zone (speed that makes little or no wake) from November 15 through 

12 April 30 and a 25 mi/hr (40 km/hr) speed zone the remainder of the year (FWC, 2002). 

13 2.2.7.2 Terrestrial Species 

14 Table 2-6 includes all Federally- and State-listed terrestrial species that occur or potentially 

15 occur in the counties in which CR-3 and the associated transmission line corridors lie. The 

16 preferred habitat of each of these species is also provided in this table. 

17 Federally-Protected Species

18 Eight Federally-listed plant species and eleven Federally-listed animal species have been 

19 reported in the counties in which the CREC site is located or that are traversed by CR-3 

20 transmission line corridors. The endangered wood stork (Mycteria americana) is the only 

21 Federally-listed species that has been observed at the CREC site (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

22 The gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) is currently under review for listing under the ESA 

23 (FWS, 2009i). Each of the Federally-listed species known from counties of the project area is 

24 discussed below. In addition, the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) and the bald eagle 

25 (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) have either been observed at the CREC site or within the counties 

26 traversed by the transmission line corridors (FNAI, 2009b), (FNAI, 2009c), (Progress 

27 Energy, 2008a), (NatureServe, 2009a). The peregrine falcon was once a Federally-listed 

28 species, but was delisted in 1999. The bald eagle was likewise a listed species, but was 

29 delisted in 2007. Both the peregrine falcon and the bald eagle are protected under the 

30 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the bald eagle is also protected under the Bald and 

31 Golden Eagle Protection Act. 

32 Plant Species

33 Florida Bonamia. The Florida bonamia (Bonamia grandiflora), a perennial trailing vine with stout 

34 stems and blue flowers, is Federally-listed as threatened and State-listed as endangered. 

35 Florida bonamia is endemic to the Florida peninsula, where most of its known populations exist 

36 in the Ocala National Forest in Marion County (FWS, 2005b), about 14 mi (23 km) northeast of 

37 the Central Florida transmission corridor (Progress Energy, 2008a). The species occurs in 

38 vegetated sandy areas with openings or disturbed areas in white sand scrub on central Florida 

39 ridges, with scrub oaks, sand pine, and lichens (FNAI, 2000a). In the Ocala National Forest, 

40 Florida bonamia is restricted to bare sunny sand areas, including the margins of sand pine 

41 stands on road ROWs, fire lanes, and other places that are kept clear of trees and shrubs 

42 (FWS, 2005b). Florida bonamia habitat has been drastically reduced and fragmented by citrus 

43 groves, housing developments, and fire suppression (FNAI, 2000a). 
Affected Environment 

 2-74 

1 Brooksville Bellflower. The Brooksville bellflower (Campanula robinsiae), an annual herb 

2 (6 inches [15 cm] tall) with solitary blue to purple flowers, is Federally- and State-listed as 

3 endangered. The species is found only on the Brooksville Ridge in north-central Hernando 

4 County in wet prairie and along the edges of ponds near pastureland (FNAI, 2000b), (FWS, 

5 2005c). There are only two known populations of this species (FWS, 2005c). Known locations 

6 occupied by the species are approximately 8 mi (13 km) east of the Lake Tarpon transmission 

7 line corridor. Primary threats to the Brooksville bellflower are alterations of hydrology from 

8 changes in runoff and residential development (FWS, 2005c). 

9 Florida Golden Aster. The Florida golden aster (Chrysopsis floridana), a perennial herb 

10 (10 to16 inches [25 to 40 cm] tall) with yellow flowers in flat-topped clusters, is Federally- and 

11 State-listed as endangered. The species grows in open, sunny areas in sand pine-evergreen 

12 oak scrub vegetation on fine sand (FNAI, 2000d), (FWS, 2005d), and along railroad and 

13 highway ROWs (FNAI, 2000d). The Florida golden aster is known to occur in several central 

14 Florida counties including Pinellas County, which is crossed by the Lake Tarpon transmission 

15 line corridor (Progress Energy, 2008a). No information is available on its possible distribution in 

16 Pinellas County. The major threat to continued existence of this species is habitat loss from 

17 residential and commercial development; the plant does not tolerate mowing (FWS, 2005d). 

18 Longspurred Mint. The longspurred mint (Dicerandra cornutissima), a perennial herb (up to 

19 1.6 ft [0.5 m] tall) with pink axillary flowers, is Federally- and State-listed as endangered. The 

20 species occurs in open areas in sand pine scrub or oak scrub, and in the ecotones between 

21 these and turkey oak communities, and along the edges of road ROWs (FWS, 2005e). The 

22 15 known populations are in Marion and Sumter Counties (FWS, 2005e), which are crossed by 

23 the Central Florida transmission line corridor (Progress Energy, 2008a). The FNAI database 

24 indicates the occurrence of this species (recorded in 1988) in the vicinity of the Central Florida 

25 transmission line corridor approximately 0.5 mi (0.8 km) south of the Marion-Sumter County line 

26 (Progress Energy, 2008a). The primary threat to the longspurred mint is development; mild 

27 disturbances appear to have little effect and may stimulate the species by reducing competition 

28 (FWS, 2005e). 

29 Scrub Buckwheat. Scrub buckwheat (Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium), a perennial 

30 herb (up to 3 ft [1 m] tall) with small, white, silky haired flowers, is Federally-listed as threatened 

31 and State-listed as endangered. The species occurs in sandhill, oak-hickory scrub on yellow 

32 sands, high pineland between scrub and sandhill, and turkey oak barrens in seven counties of 

33 central Florida (FNAI, 2000e); two of which (Marion and Sumter) are crossed by the Central 

34 Florida transmission line corridor. No information is available on its distribution along the 

35 Central Florida transmission line corridor in Marion and Sumter Counties. It is threatened by 

36 habitat loss from land use conversions to agriculture and residential development (FWS, 2005f). 

37 Cooley’s Water Willow. Cooley’s water willow (Justicia cooleyi), a perennial herb (16 inches 

38 [40 cm] tall) with dark pink flowers, is Federally- and State-listed as endangered. It is native to 

39 the Brooksville Ridge in north central Hernando County approximately 8 mi (13 km) east of the 

40 Lake Tarpon transmission line corridor (FWS, 2005c). The species is found in hardwood forests 

41 on uplands or hills, but some occur on low rises in wet hammocks or swamps (FWS, 2005c). 

42 Seventeen populations of this species are known, but the species’ habitat has been greatly 

43 diminished by limerock mining, clearcutting, and agricultural and residential development 

44 (FNAI, 2000c). 
Affected Environment 

 2-75 

1 Britton’s Beargrass. Britton’s beargrass (Nolina brittoniana), a perennial herb (3 to 6 ft [1 to 2 m] 

2 tall) with long, stiff leaves in a grass-like clump with showy white flowers, is Federally- and 

3 State-listed as endangered. This species occurs in scrub, sandhill, scrubby flatwoods, and xeric 

4 hammocks (FNAI, 2000f), (FWS, 2005g). Britton’s beargrass has been recorded in Marion 

5 County, which is crossed by the Central Florida transmission line corridor, and in Hernando and 

6 Pasco Counties (FNAI, 2009b), (FNAI, 2009c) which are crossed by the Lake Tarpon 

7 transmission line corridor. No information is available on distribution of this species along or in 

8 the vicinity of the transmission lines. The FNAI indicates that greater than 90 percent of historic 

9 habitat has been lost to agriculture and development (FNAI, 2000f). 

10 Lewton’s Polygala. Lewton’s polygala (Polygala lewtonii), also known as Lewton’s milkwort, is a 

11 perennial herb (up to 8 inches [20 cm] tall) with small dark pink flowers. The species is 

12 Federally- and State-listed as endangered. Lewton’s polygala is endemic to the central Florida 

13 ridges in oak scrub, sandhills, and transition zones between high pine and turkey oaks (FNAI, 

14 2000g). About 100 populations are known, mostly from the Ocala National Forest and nine 

15 conservation areas. The Central Florida transmission line corridor traverses a portion of Marion 

16 County west of the central ridges, making it unlikely that the species would be found within or 

17 near the transmission line corridor. 

18 Animal Species

19 Frosted Flatwoods Salamander. The frosted flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum), a 

20 small (up to 4.5-inch [11-cm] long) salamander with a silvery net-like pattern on a black 

21 background, is Federally-listed as threatened. The frosted flatwoods salamander occurs in pine 

22 flatwoods (longleaf pine [Pinus palustris] or slash pine [P. elliottii]) communities with wiregrass 

23 (Aristida stricta) ground cover and scattered wetlands often dominated by cypress (Taxodium 

24 spp.) or gum (Nyssa spp.). The species’ diet consists of earthworms and other invertebrates. 

25 Frosted flatwoods salamanders breed in wetland ponds with emergent vegetation that lack 

26 predatory fish. Within the project area it is known from Marion County, but only historically 

27 (FNAI, 2001b). Flatwoods salamanders are not likely to occur in the project area since the 

28 geographic range of the species is mostly in northern Florida and southern Georgia (FWS, 

29 2009j); the FWS North Florida Ecological Species Office does not list any Federally-listed 

30 amphibian species in any of the project counties (FWS, 2009b). The major threat to the frosted 

31 flatwoods salamander is loss of both its longleaf pine-slash pine flatwoods terrestrial habitat and 

32 its ponded breeding habitat (FWS, 2009j). 

33 Eastern Indigo Snake. The eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), a large (up to 

34 8-ft [2.4-m] long), stout-bodied, shiny black snake, is Federally- and State-listed as threatened. 

35 This species is found throughout Florida and uses a variety of habitat types including sandhills, 

36 flatwoods, hammocks, coastal scrub, dry glades, palmetto flats, prairie; riparian habitats; and 

37 wet fields (NatureServe, 2009b), (FNAI, 2001c). It is often found near wetlands and in 

38 association with gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) burrows (NatureServe, 2009b). It 

39 forages for small mammals, birds, frogs, snakes, and lizards, especially along the edges of 

40 wetlands (NatureServe, 2009b). The eastern indigo snake could occur in suitable habitats on 

41 the CREC or any of the CR-3 transmission line corridors. In the 1970s and 1980s, it was 

42 recorded in the Withlacoochee State Forest in the general vicinity of the Lake Tarpon 

43 transmission line corridor (Progress Energy, 2008a). Major threats are habitat loss, 

44 degradation, and fragmentation; highway mortality; and illegal collection (FNAI, 2001c). 
Affected Environment 

 2-76 

1 Sand Skink. The sand skink (Neoseps reynoldsi), a small (4- to 5-inch [10- to 13-cm] long), light 

2 brown, nearly legless lizard, is Federally- and State-listed as threatened and is endemic to 

3 Florida (FNAI, 2001d). The species occurs only on Florida’s Central Ridge region 

4 (NatureServe, 2009c). It requires large patches of relatively unvegetated loose sand for 

5 burrowing (FNAI, 2001d). Its preferred habitat is rosemary scrub, but it also occurs in sand pine 

6 and oak scrub, scrubby flatwoods, turkey oak ridges within scrub, and along edges of citrus 

7 groves that have been created in scrub habitat (FNAI, 2001d). Sand skinks feed on 

8 invertebrates including adult beetles, beetle larvae, caterpillars, spiders, and termites 

9 (NatureServe, 2009c). Of the counties in the project area, the species is known only from 

10 Marion County, but it is unlikely to occur along the CR-3 transmission line corridors because its 

11 range in the county is limited to areas of the Central Ridge further east and southeast of the 

12 lines. Loss of scrub habitat to citrus groves and commercial and residential development along 

13 the Central Ridge is a major threat to this species (FNAI, 2001d), (NatureServe, 2009c). 

14 Gopher Tortoise. The gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) is a medium size terrestrial turtle 

15 with a domed, unmarked, brown carapace. The species is currently listed under the ESA as 

16 threatened in the western portion of its range (Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana). The 

17 eastern population is under review for listing as threatened (FWS, 2009i). The gopher tortoise 

18 is endemic to the southeastern Coastal Plain of the United States; the largest portion of the 

19 species’ total range occurs in the State of Florida (FWS, 2009i). Gopher tortoises excavate and 

20 use deep burrows for refuge from predators, weather, and fire. Consequently, it occurs in 

21 habitats with relatively well-drained, sandy soils, and in association with a variety of plant 

22 community types including longleaf pine-xeric oak sandhills, scrub, xeric hammock, pine 

23 flatwoods, dry prairie, coastal grasslands and dunes, mixed hardwood-pine communities, and 

24 disturbed habitats (FWS, 2009i), (FNAI, 2001e). Although the species has not been observed 

25 along the CR-3-associated transmission line corridors, it could occur in suitable habitat along 

26 either line. Threats to the species include loss of preferred habitats to agriculture, citrus groves, 

27 forestry, mining, and urban and residential development, and the recent outbreak of a bacterial 

28 respiratory disease (FWS, 2009i), (FNAI, 2001e). 

29 Florida Scrub-Jay. The Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), a medium size, pale blue 

30 and gray, crestless bird, is Federally- and State-listed as threatened. It is restricted in 

31 distribution to peninsular Florida and occurs in fire-dominated open canopied oak-scrub habitat 

32 on well-drained soils (FNAI, 2001f), (NatureServe, 2009d). Florida scrub-jays are opportunistic 

33 omnivores and consume mostly lizards and arthropods in spring and summer, and acorns in fall 

34 and winter (NatureServe, 2009d). The scrub jay could occur in suitable habitat along the CR-3 

35 transmission line corridors. The Central Florida transmission line corridor crosses oak scrub 

36 habitat in Marion County very close to the Citrus County line. The applicant reported that the 

37 FWS observed several scrub-jays along the transmission line corridors from 1992–1996 

38 (Progress Energy, 2008a). The greatest threats to Florida scrub-jays are fire suppression and 

39 habitat loss (NatureServe, 2009d). 

40 Piping Plover. The piping plover (Charadrius melodus), a small, pale brown, shorebird with a 

41 black bill and yellow legs, is Federally- and State-listed as threatened in Florida. Piping plovers 

42 are rare or uncommon winter residents on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of Florida where they are 

43 found on open, sandy beaches and on tidal mud flats and sand flats (FNAI, 2001g). Winter diet 

44 consists of invertebrates found on the sandy beaches or on mudflats (NatureServe, 2009e). 

45 The piping plover has not been observed along the CR-3-associated transmission line corridors 

46 or at the CREC site (Progress Energy, 2008a), although mud flats are present along the 

47 western shoreline of the CREC site. Primary threats are destruction and degradation of 
Affected Environment 

 2-77 

1 summer and winter habitat, shoreline erosion, disturbance of nesting and foraging birds, and 

2 predation (NatureServe, 2009e). 

3 Wood Stork. The wood stork, a tall, mostly white, long-legged bird, is Federally- and 

4 State-listed as endangered. It occurs throughout peninsular Florida in freshwater marshes, 

5 swamps, lagoons, ponds, flooded fields, and brackish wetlands (FNAI, 2001i), (NatureServe, 

6 2009f). It nests in rookeries in the upper portions of cypress, mangrove, or dead hardwood 

7 trees over water or on islands, and forages mainly in shallow water for small fishes 

8 (NatureServe, 2009f). It has been observed using the percolation ponds and other wetlands of 

9 the CREC site (Progress Energy, 2008a) and could occur in wetlands crossed by and in the 

10 vicinity of both CR-3 transmission line corridors. The Staff observed several wood storks flying 

11 over the CREC site during the site visit in July 2009. The applicant indicated that there are no 

12 rookeries at the CREC site, but surveys for rookeries have not been conducted (Progress 

13 Energy, 2008a). The main threats to the wood stork include alteration of normal water regimes 

14 in wetlands that reduce fish supplies, nest predation by raccoons, prolonged drought, and loss 

15 of nesting trees (NatureServe, 2009f). 

16 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), a medium 

17 size, black and white woodpecker, is Federally-listed as endangered and is designated a 

18 species of special concern by the State of Florida. It inhabits open, mature pine woodlands that 

19 have a diversity of grasses, forbs, and shrubs in longleaf pine flatwoods in north and central 

20 Florida, mixed longleaf pine and slash pine in south-central Florida, and slash pine in south 

21 Florida (FNAI, 2001j). Preferred habitats are often open and park-like with little mid-story 

22 vegetation that are maintained by regular, low-intensity fires (NatureServe, 2009g). Its 

23 distribution is tied to the remaining areas of old-growth pine forests in the State (FNAI, 2001j). 

24 Red-cockaded woodpeckers nest and roost in cavities that are almost exclusively in old but 

25 living pine trees, usually with a diameter of at least 14 inches (35 cm) and often infected with red 

26 heart disease, which attacks the heartwood and causes the wood to become soft and pithy. 

27 Food consists primarily of invertebrates (NatureServe, 2009g). The red-cockaded woodpecker 

28 has been recorded in all of the counties of the project area (FNAI, 2009b), (FNAI, 2009c) but 

29 suitable habitat does not appear to occur on the CREC site or along the CR3 transmission line 

30 corridors (Progress Energy, 2008a). Major threats include loss of habitat, forest fragmentation, 

31 competition with other cavity-nesting species, catastrophic events, and genetic isolation 

32 (NatureServe, 2009g). 

33 Everglade Snail Kite. The Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus), a medium 

34 size, dark brown hawk, is Federally- and State-listed as endangered. Critical habitat for the 

35 Everglade snail kite was designated in Broward, Dade, Glades, and Palm Beach Counties in 

36 extreme southeastern Florida (FWS, 1977). It formerly occurred throughout peninsular Florida, 

37 but now occurs primarily in southern Florida in the St. Johns River headwaters; southwestern 

38 Lake Okeechobee; small areas in Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach Counties; parts of 

39 Everglades National Park; Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge; and Big Cypress National 

40 Preserve (FNAI, 2001k), (NatureServe, 2009h). Preferred habitat for the Everglade snail kite is 

41 large, open, and shallow freshwater marshes and lakes with a low density of emergent 

42 vegetation where it feeds exclusively on applesnails (Pomacea paludosa) caught at the water’s 

43 surface (FNAI, 2001k). Nests are usually located over the water in low trees or shrubs (FNAI, 

44 2001k). Within the project area, the Everglade snail kite has been recorded in Marion County 

45 (FNAI, 2001k), (NatureServe, 2009h). It is likely that these are records of transients since the 

46 geographic range is mainly in southern Florida (Progress Energy, 2008a). Threats to the 

47 species include wetland drainage, development, introduction of nonnative plants, and pollution 

48 from agricultural runoff that causes eutrophication and snail die-off (FNAI, 2001k). 
Affected Environment 

 2-78 

1 Florida Panther. The Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), a large, light brown cat, is 

2 Federally- and State-listed as endangered. Although the species ranged historically throughout 

3 most of the southeastern United States, it is apparently extirpated in all States but Florida, and 

4 is now limited in range to the southern portions of Florida (NatureServe, 2009i). The Florida 

5 panther requires extensive blocks of mostly forested areas with large wetlands that are 

6 inaccessible to humans for refuge during the day; panthers also occur in developed areas 

7 interspersed in a landscape of natural communities (FNAI, 2001l). Florida panthers are 

8 carnivores that feed on a variety of vertebrates. Data from southwestern Florida panthers 

9 indicate that wild hog (Sus scropha), white-tailed deer, raccoons, and nine-banded armadillos 

10 (Dasypus novemcinctus) comprised the bulk of their diet (NatureServe, 2009i). The FNAI 

11 database shows records of the Florida panther from Citrus and Marion Counties traversed by 

12 the Central Florida transmission line corridor (FNAI, 2009b), (FNAI, 2009c) but NatureServe 

13 (2009i) reports no records of the species in any of the counties of the project area. Major 

14 threats to the Florida panther are habitat loss from logging, wetland drainage, oil field activity, 

15 housing development, citrus agriculture, and road construction. Other factors include the 

16 possibility of mercury contamination from their prey (in areas where panthers consume mostly 

17 raccoons), vehicle collisions, and loss of genetic variability (NatureServe, 2009i). 

18 Whooping Crane. The whooping crane (Grus americana), a large, tall, mostly white, 

19 long-legged bird, is Federally-listed as endangered (considered a non-essential, experimental 

20 population in Florida) and is State-listed as a species of special concern (FNAI, 2009b), 

21 (FNAI, 2009c). The species is also protected under the MBTA. Habitat during migration and 

22 winter includes marshes, shallow lakes, lagoons, salt flats, grain and stubble fields, and barrier 

23 islands (NatureServe, 2009j). Whooping cranes are omnivores and consume grains, acorns, 

24 berries, insects, crustaceans, mollusks, fish, amphibians, and reptiles (NatureServe, 2009j). 

25 Fifty nine captive-raised individuals were released in Florida to create a non-migratory 

26 population in central Florida; 64 individuals were introduced between 2001 and 2005 that 

27 migrate between Wisconsin and Florida in an eastern migratory population (NatureServe, 

28 2009j). New classes of young cranes are brought each June to Necedah National Wildlife 

29 Refuge in central Wisconsin to begin a summer of conditioning behind ultralight aircraft to 

30 prepare them for their fall migration to Florida (FWS, 2009k). In 2009, 14 juvenile whooping 

31 cranes from Necedah National Wildlife Refuge were led by ultralight aircraft to St. Marks 

32 National Wildlife Refuge along the Gulf coast south of Tallahassee, Florida (FWS, 2009k). 

33 About half of the migrants were expected to overwinter there and the remainder to migrate 

34 southward to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge, located 10 mi (16 km) south of the 

35 CREC (FWS, 2009k). In 2010, 10 juvenile cranes were led to the Chassahowitzka National 

36 Wildlife Refuge from Wisconsin (FWS, 2010c). At least 17 juvenile whooping cranes died at the 

37 refuge during a storm on February 1 and 2, 2007 (International Crane Foundation, 2011). 

38 Most recently, five juvenile whooping cranes led by ultralight aircraft arrived at the 

39 Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge from Wisconsin on January 15, 2011. Additionally, 

40 four of the endangered whooping cranes from the essential, wild population were killed by 

41 gunshot in Georgia and Alabama in December 2010 and January 2011. A new experimental 

42 population of whooping cranes is being introduced into Louisiana in February 2011 

43 (International Crane Foundation, 2011). 

44 Whooping cranes could occur within the project area as migrants or winter residents. Whooping 

45 cranes cross the transmission line corridor several miles east of the CREC during migration 

46 from Wisconsin to wintering grounds at the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge. The 
Affected Environment 

 2-79 

1 whooping cranes also overwinter in the immediate vicinity of the eastern section of the shared 

2 transmission line corridor. 

3 State Protected Species

4 A total of 59 plants and 17 animals that are listed by the State of Florida as endangered, 

5 threatened, or species of special concern are known to occur in the county in which the CREC 

6 is located (Citrus County) or in the counties that are crossed by the Central Florida or Lake 

7 Tarpon transmission line corridors (Citrus, Hernando, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sumter 

8 Counties). Most of the Federally-listed plant and animal species that were discussed in the 

9 preceding section are also State-listed; only the frosted flatwoods salamander and 

10 red-cockaded woodpecker are not State-listed species. The habitats and potential occurrences 

11 of each State-listed species in the project area are presented in Table 2-6. 

12 The bald eagle and the wood stork (both State-listed as endangered) are the only two 

13 State-listed species that are known to occur on the CREC site. The wood stork was discussed 

14 in the preceding section, and the bald eagle is discussed below. Additional information on these 

15 species is also found in Section 4.7.2 of this SEIS. 

16 The bald eagle, a large, dark brown raptor with a white head and tail, is State-listed as 

17 threatened and is no longer a Federally-listed species under the ESA. Bald eagles are typically 

18 found along coastal areas, bays, lakes, and rivers or other bodies of water that provide 

19 concentrations of their preferred foods, which include fish, waterfowl, and wading birds (FNAI, 

20 2001h), (NatureServe, 2009k). Florida has the largest breeding population of bald eagles of any 

21 State outside of Alaska. The species usually nests in tall trees near water, with clear views of 

22 surrounding areas (FNAI, 2001h). Three bald eagle nests have been documented within the 

23 CREC site boundaries, but no eagle nests have been recorded along the CR-3 transmission line 

24 corridors (FWC, 2009d). Each of these three eagle nests was located to the south of the 

25 developed portions of the site. One of the nests was last active in 1991; one was active from 

26 2005 through 2007; and the other was active from 2005 through 2008. Another bald eagle nest 

27 was recorded slightly north of the CREC and was active from 2005 through 2008 (FWC, 2009b). 

28 None of these nests were surveyed in 2009. Bald eagles are occasionally observed flying and 

29 foraging along Crystal Bay and perching in trees at the CREC (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

30 State-listed species that are known to occur along the Central Florida transmission line corridor 

31 include the longspurred mint (endangered; Marion County) and the Florida scrub-jay 

32 (threatened; Citrus and Marion Counties). 

33 State-listed species known to occur along the Lake Tarpon transmission line corridor include 

34 pondspice (Litsea aestivalis; endangered; Pasco County), scrub stylisma (Stylisma abdita; 

35 endangered; Citrus County), eastern indigo snake (threatened; Citrus County), Florida scrub-jay 

36 (threatened; Pasco and Pinellas Counties), southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius 

37 paulus; threatened; Citrus, Hernando, and Pasco Counties), and the bald eagle (threatened; 

38 known to nest along the corridor in Pasco County). It is likely that the whooping crane 

39 (discussed in the preceding section and State-listed as a species of special concern) flies over 

40 both transmission line corridors during its migrations. 
Affected Environment 

2-80 

Table 2-6. Federally- and State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species that Could Occur in the Vicinity of Crystal River 1 

Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant and Associated Transmission Lines 2 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) Habitat(b) Occurrence in Project Area Plants Acrostichum aureum golden leather fern -- T Brackish and freshwater 

marshes 

Known to occur in Pinellas County 

Adiantum tenerum brittle maidenhair 

fern 

-- E Shaded limestone ledges and 

walls of sinkholes 

Known to occur in Citrus, Hernando, and Marion Counties 

Agrimonia incisa incised groove-bur -- E Herbaceous layer of longleaf 

pine-oak forest 

Known to occur in Citrus, Hernando, and Marion Counties 

Asplenium erosum auricled spleenwort -- E Epiphyte on trees and logs in 

swamps, hammocks 

Known to occur in Hernando, Pasco, and Sumter Counties 

Asplenium pumilum dwarf spleenwort -- E Shaded limestone boulders in 

forests 

Known to occur in Citrus, Hernando, and Marion Counties 

Asplenium verecundum 

modest spleenwort -- E Limestone outcrops on boulders 

and cliffs in shaded forests 

Known to occur in Citrus and Sumter Counties 

Bigelowia nuttallii Nuttall’s 

rayless-goldenrod 

-- E Sand pine scrub on sandstone 

outcrops; disturbed sand, and slash pine forest 

Known to occur in Pinellas County 

Blechnum occidentale sinkhole fern -- E Shady hammocks in rocky areas Known to occur in Citrus, 

Hernando, and Pasco Counties 

Bonamia grandiflora Florida bonamia T E Sand pine (Pinus clausa) scrub 

vegetation with evergreen scrub oaks and sand pine 

Known to occur in Marion County 

Calamintha ahsei Ashe’s savory -- T Openings of sand pine scrub or 

along roadsides, fire lanes, abandoned fields 

Known to occur in Marion County 

Campanula robinsiae Brooksville 

bellflower 

E E Pond margins in wet prairies or 

in seepage areas of adjacent hardwood forests. 

Known to occur in Hernando County 

Carex chapmanii Chapman’s sedge -- E Well-drained hammock 

woodlands, sandy hammocks; in beech-magnolia-maple with some oak-pine; floodplains of black-water streams 

Known to occur in Citrus, Hernando, and Marion Counties 
Affected Environment 

2-81 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) Habitat(b) Occurrence in Project Area Centrosema arenicola sand butterfly-pea -- E Open areas in slash pine-turkey 

oak sandhills 

Known to occur in Marion, Pasco, and Sumter Counties 

Chamaesyce cumulicola 

sand-dune spurge -- E Coastal scrub and stabilized 

dunes 

Known to occur in Pinellas County 

Cheilanthes microphylla 

southern lip fern -- E Crevices of limestone outcrops 

and on terrestrial shell mounds in partial to full sun 

Known to occur in Citrus County 

Coelorachis tuberculosa 

Piedmont jointgrass -- T Margins or shallow of lakes and 

ponds or in wet savanna swales 

Known to occur in Hernando and Marion Counties 

Chrysopsis floridana Florida golden aster E E Sand pine scrub with exposed 

sunny openings or ecotonal edges of scrub 

Known to occur in Pinellas County 

Dicerandra cornutissima 

longspurred mint E E Openings in longleaf pine-turkey 

oak scrub/sandhill or low rises in slash pine-palmetto scrub 

Known to occur in Marion and Sumter Counties; known to occur along the central Florida line in Marion County 

Drosera intermedia spoon-leaved 

sundew 

-- T Wet sandy marsh areas Known to occur in Marion County 

Eragrostis pectinacea tracyi 

Sanibel Island lovegrass 

-- E Dry compact soils of disturbed 

beach dunes, maritime hammocks, coastal strands, coastal grasslands, old fields, and clearings 

Known to occur in Pinellas County 

Erigonum longifolum var. gnaphalifo-lium 

scrub buckwheat T E Dry pinelands, sandhills, and 

scrub; in transition habitats between scrub and high pine and in turkey oak barrens 

Known to occur in Marion and Sumter Counties 

Euphorbia communta wood spurge -- E Rocky wooded areas along 

streams 

Known to occur in Marion County 

Forestiera godfreyi Godfrey’s privet -- E Upland hardwood forest on 

slopes, along lakes, and rivers 

Known to occur in Marion County 

Glandularia maritima coastal vervain __ E Sandy clearings in coastal dune 

swales, scrub, pinelands, and open live oak-cabbage palm woods 

Known to occur in Citrus County 
Affected Environment 

2-82 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) Habitat(b) Occurrence in Project Area Glandularia tampensis Tampa vervain -- E Sandy coastal hammocks and 

dunes, clearings, well-drained live oak-slash or longleaf pine-saw palmetto flats, and disturbed areas 

Known to occur in Citrus, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties 

Gossypium hirsutum wild cotton -- E Disturbed sites along roads in 

well-drained areas 

Known to occur in Pinellas County 

Hartwrightia floridana hartwrightia -- T Slash pine/longleaf pine 

flatwoods, pineland swamps, or bogs 

Known to occur in Marion County 

Illicium parviflorum star anise -- E Sandy loams or sandy peat 

mucks in hydric hammock and floodplain swamps, along relatively large spring-fed streams and in bayheads 

Known to occur in Marion County 

Justica cooleyi Cooley’s water 

willow 

E E Fine sandy loams or silty, clay 

loams of shady, moist, deciduous hammocks underlain by limestone, along small gullies or meandering streams, low rises in swamp woodlands, and hammocks 

Known to occur in Hernando and Sumter Counties 

Lechea cemua nodding pinweed -- T Evergreen scrub oak on deep 

sand soils 

Known to occur in Pinellas County 

Lechea divaricata pine pinweed -- E Deep sands of sand pine scrub, 

ancient dunes, scrub oak, and moist dune swales 

Known to occur in Hernando and Pinellas Counties 

Litsea aestivalis pondspice -- E Wet, sandy, or peaty acidic soils 

on margins of swamps, ponds, bay heads, pitcher plant savannas, and in low wet woodlands 

Known to occur in Marion and Pasco Counties; known to occur along the Lake Tarpon line in Pasco County 

Matelea floridana Florida spiny-pod -- E Moist woods to dry, open 

oak-hickory or oak-hickory-pine upland forests 

Known to occur in Citrus, Marion, and Sumter Counties 

Monotropa hypopthys pinesap -- E Sand pines in dry sandy soil Known to occur in Marion County 
Affected Environment 

2-83 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) Habitat(b) Occurrence in Project Area Monotropsis reynolsiae pygmy pipes -- E Upland mixed hardwood forest, 

mesic and xeric hammocks, sand pine, and oak scrub 

Known to occur in Citrus, Marion, Hernando, and Pasco Counties 

Najas filifolia narrowleaf naiad -- T Freshwater lakes and river 

reaches that are dark water habitats 

Known to occur in Marion County 

Nemastylis floridana celestial lily -- E Sunny areas in wet flatwoods, 

swamp, marsh borders; wet, grassy, clearings in slash pine-saw palmetto vegetation and cabbage palm hammocks 

Known to occur in Pasco County 

Nolina atoopocarpa Florida beargrass -- T Wet pine flatwoods in black, 

sandy-peaty soil 

Known to occur in Marion County 

Nolina brittoniana Britton’s beargrass E E Deep, fine-textured, well-drained 

sands in openings of sand pine-evergreen, oak scrub, or longleaf pine-turkey oak sandhill forest 

Known to occur in Hernando, Marion, and Pasco Counties 

Ophioglossum palmatus 

hand fern -- E Epiphyte on persistent leaf 

bases of Sabal palmetto in moist hammocks 

Known to occur in Pasco County 

Parnassia grandifolia large-leaved 

grass-of-parnassas 

-- E Ecotonal seepage slopes 

between mesic flatwoods and swamps; calcareous seeps, fens, and springs 

Known to occur in Marion County 

Pecluma dispersa widespread 

polypody 

-- E Tree branches and limestone 

outcrops in dry hammocks 

Known to occur in Hernando and Marion Counties 

Pecluma plumula plume polypody -- E Tree branches or limestone on 

hammocks; wet forests 

Known to occur in Hernando, Marion, and Sumter Counties 

Pecluma ptilodon swamp plume 

polypody 

-- E Rocky hammocks; wet forests 

on fallen logs and bases of trees 

Known to occur in Citrus, Marion, and Sumter Counties 

Peperomia humilis terrestrial 

peperomia 

-- E Shell mounds, limestone 

outcrops in mesic hammocks; coastal berms, cypress swamps 

Known to occur in Citrus, Hernando, and Sumter Counties 
Affected Environment 

2-84 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) Habitat(b) Occurrence in Project Area Polygala lewtonii Lewton’s polygala E E Sandhills with longleaf pine and 

low scrub oaks; occasionally, inhabits power line clearings or new roadsides 

Known to occur in Marion County 

Pteroglossaspis ecristata 

giant orchid -- T Scrub oak, pine rocklands, 

pine-palmetto flatwoods, and dry-mesic pine savanna 

Known to occur in Citrus, Hernando, Marion, and Pinellas Counties 

Pycnan-themum floridanum 

Florida mountain-mint 

-- T No information found Known to occur in Hernando and 

Marion Counties 

Salix floridana Florida willow -- E Very wet, calcareous soils, 

usually in dense floodplain woods, edges of cool, clear spring runs, and roadside ditches 

Known to occur in Marion County 

Schizachy-rium niveum scrub bluestem -- E Dry, deep, white or yellow sandy 

areas in sandhill or scrub 

Known to occur in Hernando County 

Sideroxylon alachuense 

silver buckthorn -- E Hammocks in upland hardwood 

forests on calcareous sandy soils and shell middens; often occurs around limesinks 

Known to occur in Marion County 

Sideroxylon lycoides buckthorn -- E Floodplain forests, bordering 

streams, or cypress ponds 

Known to occur in Marion County 

Spigelia loganoides pinkroot -- E Floodplain forests, upland and 

wet hardwood forests; hammocks 

Known to occur in Marion and Sumter Counties 

Spiranthes polyantha green 

ladies’-tresses 

-- E In cracks and crevices of 

limestone in thin scrub oak forests 

Known to occur in Citrus County 

Stylisma abdita scrub stylisma -- E Dry, sandy soil in oak or sand 

pine scrub or turkey oak barrens 

Known to occur in Citrus and Marion Counties; known to occur along the Lake Tarpon line in Citrus County 

Thelypteris reptans creeping maiden 

fern 

-- E Rocky calcareous banks, 

ledges, cliffs and limestone sinks; hammocks and upland mixed forests 

Known to occur in Citrus County 
Affected Environment 

2-85 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) Habitat(b) Occurrence in Project Area Trichomanes punctatum ssp. floridanum 

Florida filmy fern -- E Limestone sinks or on rocks in 

hammocks 

Known to occur in Sumter County 

Triphora craigheadii Craighead’s 

noddingcaps 

-- E Hammocks in mesic hardwood 

forests 

Known to occur in Citrus, Hernando, and Sumter Counties 

Vicia ocalensis Ocala vetch -- E Sandy peat of open, wet 

thickets, open marshlands, and stream margins 

Known to occur in Marion County 

Amphibians Ambystoma cingulatum 

frosted flatwoods salamander 

T -- Longleaf pine-wiregrass 

flatwoods and savannas 

Historically occurred in Marion County 

Reptiles Drymarchon couperi eastern indigo 

snake 

T T Sandhill regions dominated by 

mature longleaf pine, turkey oak, and wiregrass; flatwoods; hammocks; coastal scrub; dry glades; palmetto flats; prairie; brushy riparian corridors; and wet fields 

Known to occur in Citrus, Hernando, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sumter Counties; known to occur along the Lake Tarpon line in Citrus County 

Neoseps reynoldsi sand skink T T In areas of loose sand, including 

sand pine and oak scrub, scrubby flatwoods, turkey oak ridges within scrub, and along edges of citrus groves in former scrub 

Known to occur in Marion County 

Stilosoma extenuatum short-tailed snake -- T Dry, sandy uplands, especially 

longleaf pine-turkey oak and adjacent xeric oak hammocks and rosemary-sand pine scrub; also sphagnum bogs adjacent to typical habitat 

Known to occur in Citrus, Hernando, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sumter Counties 

Gopherus polyphemus gopher tortoise UR T Dry upland habitats, including 

sandhills, scrub, xeric oak hammock, and dry pine flatwoods; also disturbed habitats such as pastures, oldfields, and road shoulders 

Known to occur in Citrus, Hernando, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sumter Counties 
Affected Environment 

2-86 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) Habitat(b) Occurrence in Project Area Birds Aphelocoma coerulescens 

Florida scrub-jay T T Open, fire-maintained oak scrub 

without a dense canopy 

Known to occur in Citrus, Hernando, Marion, Pasco, and Sumter Counties; known to occur along the central Florida line in Citrus and Marion Counties; also, along the Lake Tarpon line in Pasco and Pinellas Counties 

Charadrius alexandrinus 

snowy plover -- T Nest on dry, sandy beaches; 

forage in tidal flats along inlets and creeks 

Known to occur in Pinellas County 

Charadrius melodus piping plover T T Winter habitat in Florida is open, 

sandy beaches, tidal mudflats, and sandflats along both coasts 

Known to occur in Citrus, Hernando, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties 

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon -- E Farmlands, marshes, 

lakeshores, river mouths, tidal flats, dunes and beaches, broad river valleys, cities, and airports 

Known to occur in Citrus, Hernando, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sumter Counties 

Falco sparverius paulus 

southeastern American kestrel 

-- T Optimal habitat is sandhill, 

although occurs in a wide variety of other open habitats 

Known to occur in Citrus, Hernando, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sumter Counties; known to occur along the Lake Tarpon line in Citrus, Hernando, and Pasco Counties 

Grus americana whooping crane E, XN SC Habitat during migration and 

winter includes marshes, shallow lakes, lagoons, salt flats, grain and stubble fields, and barrier islands 

Experimental population overwinters in Florida, in the project area, or as a transient during migration 

Grus canadensis pratensis 

Florida sandhill crane 

-- T Wet prairies, marshy lake 

regions, low lying pastures, and shallow flooded open areas 

Known to occur in Citrus, Hernando, Marion, Pasco, and Sumter Counties 
Affected Environment 

2-87 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a) State Status(a) Habitat(b) Occurrence in Project Area  Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

bald eagle -- T Coastal areas, bays, rivers, 

lakes, or other large bodies of water 

Known to occur in Citrus, Hernando, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sumter Counties; known to use the CREC site for nesting and foraging; known to nest along the Lake Tarpon line in Pasco County 

Mycteria americana wood stork E E Freshwater wetlands, including 

marshes, swamps, lagoons, ponds, and flooded fields 

Known to occur in Citrus, Hernando, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sumter Counties; has been observed on the CREC site 

Picoides borealis red-cockaded 

woodpecker 

E -- Open, mature pine woodlands Known to occur in Citrus, 

Hernando, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sumter Counties 

Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus 

Everglade snail kite E E Large, open freshwater marshes 

and lakes with shallow open waters 

Known to occur in Marion County 

Sterna antillarum least tern -- T Coastal areas throughout 

Florida, including beaches, lagoons, bays, and estuaries 

Known to occur in Citrus, Hernando, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties 

Mammals Puma concolor coryi Florida panther E E Forested areas in lowlands and 

swamps, but also upland forests in some parts of range; depends on large contiguous blocks of wooded habitat 

Known to occur in Citrus and Marion Counties 

Ursus americanus floridanus 

Florida black bear -- T Large undeveloped wooded 

tracts 

Known to occur in Citrus, Hernando, Marion, and Pasco Counties 

(a) E = Endangered, T =Threatened, SC = Species of Special Concern; UR = under review for listing; XN = experimental, non-essential population (b) NatureServe, 2009a (c) FNAI, 2009b and FNAI, 2009c (d) FWC, 2009a 
Affected Environment 

 2-88 

1 2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors 

2 This section describes current socioeconomic factors that have the potential to be directly or 

3 indirectly affected by changes in operations at CR-3. The nuclear plant and the communities 

4 that support it can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The communities provide 

5 the people, goods, and services required to operate the nuclear power plant. Power plant 

6 operations, in turn, provide wages and benefits for people and dollar expenditures for goods and 

7 services. The measure of the communities’ ability to support CR-3 operations depends on the 

8 ability of the community to respond to changing environmental, social, economic, and 

9 demographic conditions. 

10 The socioeconomics region of influence (ROI) is defined by the area where CR-3 employees 

11 and their families reside, spend their income, and use their benefits, thereby affecting the 

12 economic conditions of the region. The CR-3 ROI consists of Citrus County, where 

13 approximately 83 percent of plant employees reside, and includes the cities of Inverness 

14 (estimated 2008 population of 7,276) and Crystal River (3,553). 

15 FPC employs approximately 450 permanent workers at CR-3 (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

16 Approximately 83 percent live in Citrus County, Florida (Table 2.2.8-1). The remaining 

17 17 percent of the workforce is divided among 8 counties in Florida with numbers ranging from 1 

18 to 32 employees per county. Given the residential locations of CR-3 employees, the most 

19 significant impacts of plant operations are likely to occur in Citrus County. The focus of the 

20 analysis in this SEIS is, therefore, on the impacts of CR-3 in this county. 

21 Table 2.2.8-1. Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Permanent Employee 

22 Residence by County in 2006 

County Number of Employees Percentage of Total 

Citrus County 372 83 

Marion County 32 7 

Levy County 21 5 

Hernando County 15 3 

Others (5) 11 2 

Total 451 100 

Source: Progress Energy, 2009f 

23 Refueling outages at CR-3 normally occur at 24-month intervals. During refueling outages, site 

24 employment increases by 1,540 workers for approximately 40 days (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

25 Most of these workers are assumed to be located in the same geographic areas as the 

26 permanent CR-3 employees. The following subsections describe the housing, public services, 

27 offsite land use, visual aesthetics and noise, population demography, and the economy in the 

28 ROI surrounding the CR-3 site. 

29 2.2.8.1 Housing 

30 Table 2.2.8.1-1 lists the total number of occupied housing units, vacancy rates, and median 

31 value in the ROI. According to the 2000 census, there were over 62,000 housing units in the 

32 ROI, of which approximately 53,000 were occupied. The median value of owner-occupied units 
Affected Environment 

 2-89 

1 was $84,400. The vacancy rate was 15.3 percent, partly due to the large number of seasonal 

2 and recreational housing units in the county (8.3 percent; see Table 2.2.8.5-4). 

3 By 2009, the total number of housing units in Citrus County grew by almost 24 percent 

4 (15,000 units) to an estimated total of approximately 77,000 units. The total number of occupied 

5 units grew by approximately 8,000 units to 60,522. As a result, the number of available vacant 

6 housing units increased by almost 7,000 units to 16,566, or 21.5 percent, of all housing units 

7 (USCB, 2011) 

8 Table 2.2.8.1-1. Housing in Citrus County, Florida 

Citrus County 

2000 

Total 62,204 

Occupied housing units 52,634 

Vacant units 9,570 

Vacancy rate (percent) 15.4 

Median value (dollars) 84,400 

2009 estimate 

Total 77,088 

Occupied housing units 60,522 

Vacant units 16,566 

Vacancy rate (percent) 21.5 

Median value (dollars) 137,700 

Source: USCB, 2009a; USCB, 2011 

9 2.2.8.2 Public Services 

10 This section presents a discussion of public services, including water supply, education, and 

11 transportation. 

12 Water Supply

13 CR-3 obtains potable water from three groundwater wells on the plant site and is not connected 

14 to the public water system. 

15 Historically, the majority of Citrus County residents received potable water from private wells, 

16 drawing groundwater from the aquifer system. As the population in the county increased, 

17 several communities developed water service utilities, and in the 1980s, Citrus County 

18 established the Citrus County Utilities Division (CCUD). Prompted, in part, by increasing 

19 saltwater intrusion into coastal groundwater supplies, the CCUD also began a coordinated effort 

20 to develop a public water supply system by acquiring and developing private water systems and 

21 constructing distribution lines (Citrus County, 2006). 
Affected Environment 

 2-90 

1 The CCUD currently operates two major interconnected water treatment and distribution 

2 facilities, as well as a number of small, isolated systems. The county is also served by six 

3 facilities operated by private and semi-public utilities. Table 2.2.8.2-1 details usage and 

4 capacity information for the major water-providing systems. 

5 Although there are currently no water supply capacity restrictions in Citrus County, there are 

6 some water quality issues in coastal areas and other selected parts of the county, particularly 

7 with regard to saltwater intrusion and water supply contamination. Very few individual wells in 

8 this portion of the county meet Federal drinking water standards (Citrus County, 2006). In 

9 response, the county installed new wells further inland in productive aquifer areas, transporting 

10 water to coastal users, and has connected water users to other water suppliers from other parts 

11 of the county. Water supplies in certain areas west of the US 41 corridor have high mineral 

12 content, particularly iron and manganese, and additional treatment of the raw water in these 

13 locations is sometimes required (Citrus County, 2006). 

14 Table 2.2.8.2-1. Major Public Water Supply Systems (million gallons per day) 

Water Supplier(a) Water Source(a) Average Daily 

Production(b) Maximum Daily Production(b) Design Capacity(b)

Citrus County Utilities Department GW 6.1 7.8 14.5 

Beverly Hills Subdivision GW 4.0 7.5 5.6 

Citrus Springs GW 4.1 7.2 5.2 

Inverness Water Department GW 1.5 1.9 3.5 

City of Crystal River GW 0.9 1.4 2.2 

Floral City Water Association GW 0.4 0.8 1.8 

Homosassa Special Water District GW 1.1 10.7 1.6 

GW = groundwater 

(a) EPA, 2009b 

(b) FDEP, 2009c 

15 Education

16 CR-3 is located in the Citrus School District, Citrus County. The school district has 24 schools 

17 and in 2007, had an enrollment of approximately 16,087 students and employed 1,034 teachers 

18 (NCES, 2009). There are no other public school districts in Citrus County. 

19 Transportation

20 Road access to CR-3 is via US 19 (see Figure 2.1–5). The plant access road, West Power Line 

21 Street, intersects with US 19. North of this intersection, US 19 intersects with CR 488. 

22 Employees traveling from the north, northwest, northeast, east, and west of CR-3 would use 

23 these roads to reach the CR-3 site. South of the access road intersection, US 19 intersects with 

24 CR 495, SR 44, CR 494, CR 490, and CR 480. Employees traveling from the south, southeast, 

25 southwest, east, and west would use a combination of these roads to reach CR-3 (Progress 

26 Energy, 2008a). 
Affected Environment 

 2-91 

1 With projected increases in recreational visitation and in retirement in Citrus County, traffic 

2 volumes are expected to increase over the next several decades. To meet current and 

3 projected capacity requirements, the county plans to upgrade the county road system. 

4 Additionally, the Florida Department of Transportation is currently conducting a project 

5 development and environment (PD&E) study supporting Suncoast Parkway 2, a new four-lane 

6 highway, which would extend from US 98 to US 19, alleviating congestion along US 19, around 

7 Crystal River and other towns along the west coast of Citrus County (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

8 In determining the significance levels of transportation impacts for license renewal, the Staff 

9 used the Transportation Research Board’s level of service (LOS) definitions (NRC, 1996). In its 

10 Citrus County Comprehensive Plan, Draft Evaluation and Appraisal Report Based Amendments, 

11 “Chapter 6: Traffic Circulation Element,” the county calculated LOS ratings for most roads in 

12 Citrus County (Citrus County, 2007). Table 2.2.8.2-2 lists roadways in the vicinity of CR-3, the 

13 annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes, and the LOS determinations, as assessed by 

14 Citrus County. LOS designations were developed by the Transportation Research Board (1985) 

15 and range from “A” to “F.” “A” through “C” represent good traffic operating conditions with some 

16 minor delays experienced by motorists, with “F” representing jammed roadway conditions. 

17 Although traffic volumes are slightly lower on those segments of US 19 nearer the plant access 

18 road compared to the segments in the northern and southern portions of Citrus County, the LOS 

19 is also lower on the segment of US 19 closer to the plant. Venable Street, CR 44, SR 44, and 

20 CR 495 are classified as minor arterial roads. 

21 Table 2.2.8.2-2. Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts in the Vicinity of Crystal River Unit 3 

Nuclear Generating Plant(a) 22 

Roadway and Location Annual Average Daily Traffic (2004) Level of Service (AADT) (2007)

US 19 

From CR 494 to Venable Street 30,768 C 

From Venable Street to CR 44 33,115 B 

From CR 44 to SR 44 35,584 B 

From SR 44 to CR 495 36,698 B 

Sources: Citrus County, 2006; Citrus County, 2008 

(a) All AADTs represent traffic volume during the average 24-hour day during 2004 

23 2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use 

24 This section focuses on Citrus County because approximately 83 percent of the permanent 

25 CR-3 workforce lives in this county and because CR-3 pays property taxes in Citrus County. 

Citrus County encompasses approximately 773 mi2 26 (494,720 ac), including approximately 

584 mi2

 (373,760 ac) of land and 104 mi2 27 (66,233 ac) of inland water with the remaining area 

28 encompassing estuaries and coastal river systems (Citrus County, 2009). Although much of 

29 Citrus County is still rural in nature with a large percentage of land area undeveloped, the 

30 county has been experiencing rapid population growth with an influx of retirees and a growing 

31 tourism industry, and the consequent expansion of the construction, wholesale and retail trade, 

32 and service sectors (Citrus County, 2009). Residential and commercial developments, as well 

33 as other land uses, are sporadically located throughout the county (Citrus County, 2009). Citrus 
Affected Environment 

 2-92 

1 County uses its comprehensive land use plan and land development regulations (Citrus County 

2 Land Development Code) to guide development. Although the county has no formal growth 

3 control measures, housing density limits are used to: (1) encourage growth in areas where 

4 public facilities, such as water and sewer systems, exist or are scheduled to be built in the 

5 future; and (2) promote the preservation of the communities’ natural resources. 

6 Land committed to residential use is currently the largest single use of developed land in the 

county, with 107 mi2 7 (68,727 ac) of residentially committed land, representing 18 percent of the 

8 unincorporated land area as of 2004 (Citrus County, 2009). The greatest concentrations of 

9 residential land are located adjacent to the incorporated cities of Inverness and Crystal River, 

10 and the unincorporated areas of Homosassa Springs and Beverly Hills. Commercial 

11 development is located along US 19, SR 44, US 41, and on CR 491 near the urbanized areas of 

12 Crystal River, Inverness, Homosassa, Beverly Hills, and Hernando. Although, due to 

13 widespread urban development, agricultural land in the county is limited; this land use type still 

14 constitutes approximately 20 percent of the unincorporated land in the county. The majority of 

15 the county agricultural land is classified as improved pasture, and most of the farms are owned 

16 by individual or family organizations. There has been little change in agricultural acreage over 

17 the past decade (Citrus County, 2009). 

18 Conservation lands in Citrus County, designated for such purposes as protecting and managing 

natural resources and including private, Federal, State, and county reserves stood at 195 mi2 19 

20 (124,498 ac) of land and inland water at the end of 2004 (Citrus County, 2009). Expansion of 

21 conservation acreage has come as a result of land purchases by the State and the SFWMD, 

22 and also serves flood control purposes. Conservation areas have been used for the 

23 Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge, Crystal River State Buffer Preserve, Crystal River 

24 National Wildlife Refuge, Withlacoochee State Forest, Flying Eagle Ranch, Pott’s Preserve, 

25 Chassahowitzka Riverine Swamp Sanctuary, Two-Mile Prairie, the McGregor-Smith Boy Scout 

26 Reservation, Annuteliga Hammock, and the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway 

27 (Citrus County, 2011). 

28 2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise 

29 The CR-3 facility is situated within the 4,738-ac (1,917-ha) CREC and includes four principal 

30 structures. The reactor containment building is the tallest building at CR-3 at 157 ft (48 m), and 

31 the primary auxiliary building, control complex building, and the turbine building are lower in 

32 height. Also located on the CREC site are four fossil-fueled power units with two 600-ft (183-m) 

33 and two 500-ft (152-m) exhaust stacks, a 550-ft (168-m) scrubber flue, and two 450-ft (137-m) 

34 hyperbolic cooling towers (Progress Energy, 2009f). Other facilities supporting fossil-fuel power 

35 generation at the CREC site include coal delivery and storage areas, ash storage basins, office 

36 buildings, and warehouses. Compared to the fossil-fuel power generation facilities at the 

37 CREC, CR-3 is less noticeable. The size of the overall land parcel has a substantial buffer zone 

38 around the developed portion of the site (AEC, 1973). 

39 There are no public access roads to land areas adjacent to the plant site except for the plant 

40 access road (Progress Energy, 2008a). An FWC program to protect shorebird and sea bird 

41 nesting sites along the CREC shoreline restricts access in the area to the public (Progress 

42 Energy, 2008a). 

43 Noise from nuclear plant operations can be detected offsite. Sources of noise at CR-3 and 

44 CREC include the turbines, construction activities, large pump motors, and rail traffic moving on 

45 and off the site (Progress Energy, 2008a). Given the industrial nature of the station, noise 

46 emissions from the station are generally nothing more than an intermittent minor nuisance. 
Affected Environment 

 2-93 

1 However, noise levels may sometimes exceed the 55 decibal (dBA) level that the EPA uses as 

2 a threshold level to protect against excess noise during outdoor activities (EPA, 1974). 

3 However, according to the EPA this threshold does “not constitute a standard, specification, or 

4 regulation,” but was intended to provide a basis for State and local governments establishing 

5 noise standards. To date, no noise complaints associated with operations at CR-3 have been 

6 reported from neighboring communities. 

7 2.2.8.5 Demography 

8 In 2000, approximately 89,491 persons lived within a 20-mi (32-km) radius of CR-3, which 

equates to a population density of 125 persons per mi2 9 (Progress Energy, 2008a). This density 

translates to a Category 4 (greater than or equal to 120 persons per mi2 10 within 20 mi) using the 

11 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) 

12 measure of sparseness (NRC, 1996), (NRC, 1999). At the same time, there were 

13 approximately 825,847 persons living within a 50-mi radius of the plant, for a density of 

170 persons per mi2 14 (Progress Energy, 2008a). Therefore, CR-3 falls into Category 2 (no city 

with 100,000 or more persons and between 50 and 190 persons per mi2 15 within 50 mi) on the 

16 NRC sparseness and proximity matrix. A Category 2 value indicates that CR-3 is in a medium 

17 density population area. 

18 Table 2.2.8.5-1 shows population projections and growth rates from 1970 to 2050 in Citrus 

19 County. The growth rate in Citrus County since 1970 has been substantial and the population 

20 has grown, and is projected to continue to grow, through 2050. 

21 Table 2.2.8.5-1. Population and Percent Growth in Citrus County, Florida, from 1970 to 

22 2000 and Projected for 2010 and 2050 

Year

Citrus County 

Population Percent Growth(a)

1970 19,196 — 

1980 54,703 184.9 

1990 93,513 70.9 

2000 118,085 26.3 

2009 142,609 20.8 

2010 142,800 20.9 

2020 165,700 16.0 

2030 189,700 14.5 

2040 212,967 12.3 

2050 236,417 11.0 

— = No data available. 

(a) Percent growth rate is calculated over the previous decade. 

Sources: Population data for 1970 through 1990 (USCB, 2009c); 2000 (USCB, 2011); projected population data for 

2009, 2010, 2020, and 2030 (BEBR, 2010); population projections for 2040 and 2050 (calculated) 
Affected Environment 

 2-94 

1 The 2000 demographic profile of the ROI population is included in Table 2.2.8.5-2. Persons 

2 self-designated as minority individuals comprise 7 percent of the total population in 2000. The 

3 minority population is composed largely of Hispanic or Latino and Black or African American 

4 residents. 

5 Table 2.2.8.5-2. Demographic Profile of the Population in the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

6 Generating Plant Region of Influence in 2000 

Citrus County Percent 

Total Population 118,085 -- 

Race (Not-Hispanic or Latino)

White 109,828 93.0 

Black or African American 2,712 2.3 

American Indian and Alaska Native 389 0.3 

Asian 886 0.8 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 29 0.0 

Some other race 45 0.0 

Two or more races 1,055 0.9 

Ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino 3,141 2.7 

Minority Population (including Hispanic or Latino ethnicity)

Total minority population 8,257 7.0 

Source: USCB, 2009d 

7 According to American Community Survey 2009 estimates, minority populations in Citrus 

8 County increased by approximately 6,700 persons and comprised 10.6 percent of the total 

9 population (see Table 2.2.8.5-3). Most of this increase was due to an estimated increase of 

10 Hispanic or Latinos (over 2,800 persons); an increase in population of 89.8 percent from 2000. 

11 The next largest increase in minority population was Black or African American, an estimated 

12 additional 1,980 persons or an increase of 73.2 percent from 2000, followed by Asian, an 

13 estimated 1,200 persons or an increase of 135.4 percent from 2000 (USCB, 2011). 
Affected Environment 

 2-95 

1 Table 2.2.8.5-3. Demographic Profile of the Population in the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

2 Generating Plant Region of Influence in 2009 

Citrus County Percent 

Total Population 140,357 -- 

Race (Not-Hispanic or Latino) 

White 125,442 89.4 

Black or African American 4,696 3.3 

American Indian and Alaska Native 353 0.3 

Asian 2,086 1.5 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 125 0.1 

Some other race 594 0.4 

Two or more races 1,099 0.8 

Ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino 5,962 4.2 

Minority Population (including Hispanic or Latino ethnicity)

Total minority population 14,915 10.6 

Source: USCB, 2011 

3 Transient Population

4 Within 50 mi (80 km) of CR-3, colleges and recreational opportunities attract daily and seasonal 

5 visitors who create demand for temporary housing and services. In 2004, there were 

6 approximately 385 students attending colleges and universities within 50 mi (80 km) of CR-3 

7 (NCES, 2009). 

8 In 2000, 8.3 percent of all housing units in Citrus County were considered temporary housing for 

9 seasonal, recreational, or occasional use (USCB, 2009a). Table 2.2.8.5-4 provides information 

10 on seasonal housing within 50 mi (80 km) of CR-3. 
Affected Environment 

 2-96 

1 Table 2.2.8.5-4. Seasonal Housing within 50 Miles (80 Kilometers) of Crystal River Unit 3 

2 Nuclear Generating Plant, 2000 

County(a) Number of Housing Units Vacant Housing Units for Seasonal, 

Recreational, or Occasional Use Percent 

Alachua 95,113 688 0.7 

Citrus 62,204 5,192 8.3 

Dixie 7,362 1,375 18.7 

Gilchrist 5,906 384 6.5 

Hernando 62,727 3,566 5.7 

Lake 102,830 6,721 6.5 

Levy 16,570 1,085 6.5 

Marion 122,663 5,256 4.3 

Pasco 173,717 14,915 8.6 

Sumter 25,195 2,283 9.1 

Total 674,287 41,465 6.1 

(a) Counties within 50 mi (80 km) of CR-3 with at least one block group located within the 50-mi (80-km) radius 

Source: USCB, 2009a

3 Migrant Farm Workers

4 Migrant farm workers are individuals whose employment requires travel to harvest agricultural 

5 crops. These workers may or may not have a permanent residence. Some migrant workers 

6 may follow the harvesting of crops, particularly fruit, throughout the northeastern U.S. rural 

7 areas. Others may be permanent residents near CR-3, who travel from farm to farm harvesting 

8 crops. 

9 Migrant workers may be members of minority or low-income populations. Because they travel 

10 and can spend a significant amount of time in an area without being actual residents, migrant 

11 workers may not be included in the local census. If uncounted, these workers would be 

12 “underrepresented” in the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) minority and low-income population 

13 counts. 

14 The 2007 Census of Agriculture collected information on migrant farm and temporary labor. 

15 Table 2.2.8.5-5 provides information on migrant farm workers and temporary (less than 

16 150 days) farm labor within 50 mi (80 km) of CR-3. According to 2007 Census of Agriculture 

17 estimates, Citrus County hosts relatively small numbers of migrant workers, with 594 temporary 

18 farm laborers employed on 82 farms in the county (USDA, 2009). The county with the most 

19 temporary farm workers within 50 mi (80 km) of CR-3 was Lake County with 2,251 workers on 

20 223 farms. 
Affected Environment 

 2-97 

1 Table 2.2.8.5-5. Migrant Farm Workers and Temporary Farm Labor within 50 Miles 

2 (80 Kilometers) of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, 2007 

County(a)

Number of Farm 

Workers Working for 

Less than 150 Days 

Number of Farms 

Hiring Workers for 

Less than 150 Days 

Number of Farms 

Reporting Migrant 

Farm Labor 

Number of Farms with 

Hired Farm Labor 

Alachua 2,158 186 20 234 

Citrus 594 82 9 99 

Dixie 67 21 4 27 

Gilchrist 550 57 10 77 

Hernando 270 100 13 133 

Lake 2,251 223 39 321 

Levy 374 123 12 174 

Marion 1,543 483 34 732 

Pasco 1,285 157 27 213 

Sumter 563 126 12 154 

Total 9,655 1,558 180 2,164 

3 Source: USDA, 2009 

4 (a) Counties within 50 mi (80 km) of CR-3, with at least one block group located within the 50-mi (80-km) radius 

5 2.2.8.6 Economy 

6 This section contains a discussion of the economy, including employment and income, 

7 unemployment, and taxes. 

8 Employment and Income

9 Between 2000 and 2008, the civilian labor force in Citrus County increased at an annual 

10 average rate of 3 percent to 52,822 (USDOL, 2009). In 2009, the educational services, health 

11 care, and social assistance industry employed the most people in Citrus County, followed by 

12 retail and arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services industries (USCB, 

13 2011). The largest employer in Citrus County in 2006 was the Citrus County School Board with 

14 1,000 employees (Table 2.2.8.6-1). The majority of employment in Citrus County is located in 

15 the cities of Crystal River and Inverness. 
Affected Environment 

 2-98 

1 Table 2.2.8.6-1. Major Employers in Citrus County in 2006 

Firm Number of Employees 

Citrus County School Board 1,000 

Florida Power Corporation 1,000 

Citrus Memorial Hospital 1,000 

Seven Rivers Community Hospital 500 

Pro-Line Boats 250 

Citrus County Sheriff’s Department 250 

Spring Lodge 378 100 

Service Zone, Inc. 100 

Citrus County Detention Facility 100 

Cypress Creek Correctional Facility 100 

Source: Enterprise Florida, 2009 

2 Estimated income information for the CR-3 ROI is presented in Table 2.2.8.6-2. According to 

3 the American Community Survey 2009 estimates, median household and per capita income in 

4 Citrus County were both below the Florida average. In 2009, an estimated 15.8 percent of the 

5 population and 11 percent of families in Citrus County were living below the official poverty 

6 level, while the percentages for Florida as a whole were slightly lower at 14.9 and 10.7 percent, 

7 respectively (USCB, 2011). 

8 Table 2.2.8.6-2. Income Information for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, 

9 2009 

Citrus County Florida 

Median household income (dollars)(a) 38,128 44,736 

Per capita income (dollars)(a) 21,890 24,692 

Percent of persons below the poverty level 15.8 14.9 

Percent of families living below the poverty level 11.0 10.7 

(a) In 2008 inflation-adjusted dollars 

Source: USCB, 2011 

10 Unemployment

11 According to the American Community Survey 2009 estimates, the annual unemployment 

12 average for Citrus County was 16.1 percent, which was higher than the annual unemployment 

13 average of 12.1 percent for Florida (USCB, 2011). 

14 Taxes

15 The owners of CR-3 pay annual property taxes to Citrus County. From 2005 through 2008, 

16 Citrus County collected between $8.4 and $10.1 million annually in property tax revenues from 

17 CR-3 owners (See Table 2.2.8.6-3). Each year, Citrus County collects these taxes and 

18 disburses them to the Board of County Commissioners, the Citrus County School District, the 
Affected Environment 

 2-99 

1 Southwest Florida Water Management District, the Citrus County Hospital Board, the 

2 Homosassa Special Water District, mosquito control, and the county’s municipalities to fund 

3 their respective operating budgets (Progress Energy, 2009f). For the years 2005 through 2008, 

4 CR-3’s property taxes have represented 4.6 to 5.3 percent of Citrus County’s total property tax 

5 revenues. 

6 Any changes in assessed valuation of plant property and equipment that may occur in the future 

7 could affect property tax payments to Citrus County and other jurisdictions in the county, 

8 including school districts. However, any changes to CR-3 property tax rates due to deregulation 

9 would be independent of license renewal. 

10 Table 2.2.8.6-3. Citrus County Property Tax Revenues, 2005 to 2008, and Progress 

11 Energy Property Taxes, 2005 to 2008 

Year

Citrus County Total Property Tax 

Revenues (in millions of dollars) 

Property Taxes Paid by 

Progress Energy 

(in millions of dollars) 

Progress Energy Property Tax 

as a Percentage of the Total 

County Tax Revenues 

2005 160.9 8.4 5.2 

2006 194.3 9.0 4.6 

2007 198.8 10.1 5.1 

2008 186.1 9.9 5.3 

Sources: Progress Energy, 2009f; FDOR, 2010 

12 2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources 

13 This section discusses the cultural background and the known historic and archaeological 

14 resources at the CR-3 site and in the surrounding area. 

15 2.2.9.1 Cultural Background 

16 The area in and around CR-3 has the potential for significant prehistoric and historic resources. 

17 Many sites (e.g., shell middens) have been recorded within the CREC (see Section 2.2.9.2) and 

18 surrounding vicinity. Human occupation in this region roughly follows a standard chronological 

19 sequence for prehistory in the southeastern United States, starting with the Paleoindian Period 

20 (12,000 years before present [B.P.] to 10,000 B.P.) and the Archaic Period (10,000 B.P. to 

21 3,000 B.P.). The Archaic period is followed by periods of increased regional variation and 

22 cultural diversity, identified as the Middle and Late Prehistoric periods (3,000 to 1,000 B.P. and 

23 A.D. 1,000 to the time of European contact (circa 1600), respectively). 

24 In general, the Paleoindian Period is characterized by highly mobile bands of hunters and 

25 gatherers, hunting both small game and now-extinct megafauna (e.g., mastodon, saber-tooth 

26 tiger, and camel), and gathering wild plants and shellfish. A typical Paleoindian site might 

27 consist of an isolated stone point or knife (of a style characteristic of the period) in an upland 

28 area near permanent fresh surface water. Less than 100 Paleoindian sites have been recorded 

29 in Florida (Milanich and Payne, 1993); many unrecorded sites undoubtedly exist but are: 

30 (1) submerged offshore on the continental shelf, (2) in wet areas, or (3) deeply buried. Sea 

31 level at that time was 197 to 328 ft (60 to 100 m) lower than today and current coastal areas 

32 would have been well inland from the coast and in upland areas (Milanich and Payne, 1993). 
Affected Environment 

 2-100 

1 The Archaic Period represents a transition from a highly mobile existence to a more sedentary 

2 existence. It is a period of increased local resource exploitation (e.g., hunting deer, waterfowl, 

3 and small mammals; fishing and collecting shellfish and other aquatic resources; and gathering 

4 nuts and seeds), more advanced tool development, and increased complexity in social 

5 organization (including burials). The sea level was continuing to rise, so, similar to the 

6 Paleoindian sites, many Archaic sites are possibly submerged offshore. Approximately 

7 1,500 Archaic sites have been recorded in Florida (Milanich and Payne, 1993). 

8 The Middle and Late Prehistoric periods date in this area from roughly 2,500 B.P. to A.D. 1600. 

9 Approximately 300 sites from this period have been recorded in this region (Milanich and Payne, 

10 1993). Many of the sites along the coast are linear shell middens, and almost all of them are 

11 actively eroding into the Gulf of Mexico due to the rising sea levels. These middens are an 

12 accumulation of shells and bone, including, but not limited to, oyster, clam, scallop, whelk, 

13 conch, crab shells and fish, turtle, and alligator bones, from either seasonal camps or village 

14 sites. Larger sites with circular middens on larger landforms, some of which are large mounds, 

15 are spaced with some regularity along the coast (every 3 to 6 mi [5 to 10 km]) and are thought 

16 to be associated with more permanent villages. Burial mounds are also associated with the 

17 larger sites, although isolated burials have also been found along the rivers and coastal areas 

18 (islands and mainland) (Milanich and Payne, 1993). 

19 Much of what is known archaeologically for the region near the CREC is based on work that 

20 was completed in the early 1900s at the Crystal River Indian Mounds, located approximately 

21 5 mi southwest of CR-3 at the mouth of the Crystal River. The site was occupied by Native 

22 Americans from approximately 500 B.P., until it was abandoned shortly before Spaniards 

23 arrived in the region in the 16th century. The mound complex is thought to be a ceremonial 

24 center or gathering place and is considered one of the most significant sites on the coast. Many 

25 of the other mound sites in the region have been destroyed by excavation and looting, including 

26 portions of this site, but the Crystal River Indian Mounds are receiving some protection. The 

27 site was purchased by the State of Florida in the mid-1960s. It was listed in the National 

28 Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1970 and was designated a National Historic Landmark in 

29 1990. The site is managed and preserved as part of the 61-ac (25-ha) Crystal River 

30 Archaeological State Park (Florida State Parks, 2002). 

31 The historic period begins with the arrival of Spanish conquistadors searching for precious 

32 metals. The first Spaniard recorded in the area is Panfilo de Narvaez, who, with an army of 

33 300, proceeded north along the Gulf Coast looking for gold in 1528 (MacRae, 1993). He was 

34 followed by an expedition led by Hernando de Soto in 1539 that was looking for gold and silver. 

35 Neither expedition was successful. In 1559, Tristan de Luna y Arellano attempted to colonize 

36 the area and establish a settlement in Pensacola Bay; his attempt failed. Spain controlled the 

37 area from 1565 until 1763. England occupied the region between 1763 and 1784, but then lost 

38 control to the Spanish again until 1821. The United States reclaimed the area in 1821 

39 (FDS, 2010a). U.S. settlement in the region began in places like Port Inglis and Red Level, and 

40 centered around phosphate mining, timber production, ranching, farming, and commerce 

41 (MacRae, 1993), (AEC, 1973). 

42 Three Seminole wars took place in the region between 1817 and 1855. The first was initiated 

43 when President Andrew Jackson attacked the Seminoles in 1817, because the Seminoles 

44 enlisted with the British against the United States in a fight to control Florida, and would harbor 

45 escaped slaves from other southern States. The second war began in 1835 to enforce the 

46 Treaty of Payne’s Landing. This treaty required the Seminole Indians to give up their land and 

47 move west; however, many Seminoles refused to leave. Small battles between settlers and the 
Affected Environment 

 2-101 

1 Seminoles are reported to have occurred within the vicinity of the CREC during this second war. 

2 The third war lasted from 1855 to 1858. This war occurred as a result of land disputes between 

3 the remaining Seminoles and settlers. By the end of the war, the Seminole population in Florida 

4 was reduced to approximately 200 (FDS, 2010b). 

5 Despite few systematic surveys or formal excavations in the area, there are 195 recorded 

6 archaeological sites within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the CREC site (New South 

7 Associates, 2006). Most of the sites (173) are associated with prehistoric cultures. Four of the 

8 sites are historic, including two homesteads, one shipwreck, and one fort. The affiliations of the 

9 remaining 18 sites are unspecified in the Florida Master Site File (New South Associates, 2006). 

10 Eight properties are listed on the NRHP within Citrus County, but only two of them are within a 

11 6-mi (10-km) radius of the CREC site. The two properties are the Crystal River Indian Mounds 

12 (as discussed above) and Mullet Key. Mullet Key is an historic island just south of the mouth of 

13 the Crystal River, where Fort De Soto County Park is located. Fort De Soto is a military post 

14 that was installed in 1898 to defend Tampa Bay during a U.S. conflict with Cuba. A mortar 

15 battery associated with the fort is the property listed on the NRHP. The battery housed eight 

16 12-inch (30-cm) mortars (Pinellas County Parks and Recreation, 2010). In addition, three 

17 historic period cemeteries (dating from 1860 to 1925) are also recorded within the 6-mi (10-km) 

18 radius of the site (New South Associates, 2006). 

19 2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating 

20 Plant Site 

21 The CREC site encompasses approximately 4,738 ac (1,917 ha) of land. The undeveloped 

22 portions of the site (approximately 3,676 ac [1,488 ha]) consist primarily of salt marsh, 

23 hardwood hammock forest, pineland, and freshwater swamp. Approximately 1,062 ac (430 ha) 

24 of the site are developed or maintained. The developed or maintained areas include power 

25 production and support facilities, parking lots, roads, railroads, transmission corridors, and other 

26 related infrastructure. As discussed in Section 2.2.9.1, prehistoric shell middens and other site 

27 types, including mound sites, are known to have been situated within physiographic settings 

28 similar to portions of the CREC site. 

29 In 1972, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) consulted with the Florida Division of 

30 Archives, History, and Records Management regarding the issuance of an operating license for 

31 CR-3. By letter dated March 30, 1972, the Florida Division of Archives, History, and Records 

32 Management stated that the coastal salt marshes were favorable to prehistoric occupation and 

33 the area had not been adequately surveyed. The letter recommended an intensive 

34 archaeological survey to facilitate the Division’s review of the project (Williams, 1972). The 

35 survey was conducted as recommended and resulted in the recordation of the 20 

36 archaeological sites (Miller, 1973). 

37 The survey focused on islands, coastal marshes, and streams north and south of the developed 

38 core of the CREC. Twenty archaeological sites were recorded (Miller, 1973). Of these 20 sites, 

39 18 are prehistoric, 1 has prehistoric and historic components, and 1 is of unspecified affiliation; 

40 all are associated with shell middens. None of the sites were impacted during the construction 

41 of CR-3. A file search of the Florida Master Site File conducted through the Florida Division of 

42 Historical Resources in July 2009 indicated that these are the only recorded sites within the 

43 CREC. 

44 There are no NRHP-listed properties on the CR-3 site. However, none of the 20 recorded 

45 archaeological sites on the CREC have been evaluated for listing on the NRHP. Therefore, all 
Affected Environment 

 2-102 

1 of these sites are considered potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP until a formal evaluation 

2 and determination of eligibility or non-eligibility has been made. In addition, one of the sites 

3 recorded in 1972, 8CI91, was considered at the time to be a rich shell midden that “should be 

4 preserved for future excavation,” and it was “recommended that the Division of Archives, 

5 History, and Records Management be notified if this site is to be disturbed in any manner” 

6 (Miller, 1973). 

7 A search of the Florida Master Site File of recorded archaeological sites along the Lake Tarpon 

8 and Central Florida transmission lines found 63 recorded sites within the ROWs. The 72-mi 

9 (116-km) long Lake Tarpon line running generally south from the CREC has approximately 

10 54 recorded sites within the ROW and 20 sites in close proximity. The 53-mi (85-km) long 

11 Central Florida line running generally eastward from the CREC has 9 recorded sites within the 

12 ROW and 12 additional sites in close proximity. Table 2.2.9.2-1 provides the site numbers of 

13 the sites recorded within the ROWs. Most of the sites located along the transmission line 

14 ROWs were determined to be not eligible for listing on the NRHP. However, nine sites have 

15 received no evaluation of eligibility according to the Florida Master Site File, and one site, 

16 8CI00795 (the Etna Turpentine Camp Archaeological Site), was recently listed in the NRHP in 

17 December 2009. All recorded sites that have not been evaluated are considered potentially 

18 eligible for listing on the NRHP until a formal evaluation and determination of eligibility can be 

19 made. 
Affected Environment 

 2-103 

1 Table 2.2.9.2-1. Historic and Archaeological Sites in the Crystal River Energy Complex 

2 Associated Transmission Lines 

Site Name NRHP Status Site Name NRHP Status 

8PA00662 Not Eligible 8HE00347 Not Eligible 

8PA00661 Not Eligible 8HE00244 Not Eligible 

8PA00109 Not Eligible 8HE00349 Not Eligible 

8PA00660 Not Eligible 8HE00346 Not Eligible 

8PA00092 Not Eligible 8HE00345 Not Eligible 

8PA00659 Not Eligible 8HE00344 Not Eligible 

8PA00095 Not Eligible 8HE00343 Not Eligible 

8PA00098 Not Eligible 8CI00799 Not Eligible 

8PA00640 Not Eligible 8CI00798 Not Eligible 

8PA00658 Not Eligible 8CI00797 Not Eligible 

8PA00639 Not Eligible 8CI00796 Not Eligible 

8PA00657 Not Eligible 8CI00795 Listed 

8PA00638 Not Eligible 8CI00804 Not Eligible 

8PA00418 Not Eligible 8CI00802 Not Eligible 

8PA00417 Not Eligible 8CI00801 Not Eligible 

8PA00433 Not Eligible 8CI00794 Not Eligible 

8PA00033 Not Eligible 8CI00793 Not Eligible 

8PA00436 Not Eligible 8CI01075 Not Eligible 

8PA00435 Not Eligible 8CI00792 Not Eligible 

8HE00364 Not Eligible 8CI00805 Not Eligible 

8HE00356 Undetermined 8CI00800 Not Eligible 

8HE00355 Not Eligible 8CI01039 Not Eligible 

8HE00363 Not Eligible 8CI00977 Undetermined 

8HE00362 Not Eligible 8MR01108 Undetermined 

8HE00361 Not Eligible 8MR01910 Undetermined 

8HE00358 Not Eligible 8MR01911 Undetermined 

8HE00357 Not Eligible 8MR01912 Undetermined 

8HE00351 Not Eligible 8SM00076 Undetermined 

8HE00350 Not Eligible 8SM00130 Undetermined 

8HE00404 Not Eligible 8SM00131 Undetermined 

8HE00402 Not Eligible 8SM00093 Not Eligible 

8HE00348 Not Eligible 
Affected Environment 

 2-104 

1 2.3 RELATED FEDERAL PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND CONSULTATIONS 

2 The Staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might impact the 

3 renewal of the operating license for CR-3. Any such activity could result in cumulative 

4 environmental impacts and the possible need for a Federal agency to become a cooperating 

5 agency in the preparation of the CR-3 SEIS. 

6 The Staff has determined that there are no Federal projects that would make it desirable for 

7 another Federal agency to become a cooperating agency in the preparation of the SEIS. 

8 Federal lands, facilities, national wildlife refuges, forests, and parks within 50 mi (80 km) of 

9 CR-3 are listed below. 

10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land

11 ● Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuge 

12 ● Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge 

13 ● Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge 

14 ● Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge 

15 U.S. Forest Service Land

16 ● Ocala National Forest 

17 The NRC is required under Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

18 (NEPA) to consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by 

19 law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. Federal agency 

20 consultation correspondence and comments on the SEIS are presented in Appendix D. 

21 2.3.1 Coastal Zone Management Act 

22 In the United States, coastal areas are managed through the Coastal Zone Management Act of 

23 1972 (CZMA). The Act, administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

24 Administration’s (NOAA’s) Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, provides for 

25 management of the Nation’s coastal resources, including the Great Lakes, and balances 

26 economic development with environmental conservation. Federal consistency is the CZMA 

27 requirement where Federal agency activities that have reasonably foreseeable effects on any 

28 land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone must be consistent to the maximum 

29 extent practicable with the enforceable policies of a coastal State’s Federally-approved coastal 

30 management program. The Federal consistency regulations implemented by the NOAA are 

31 contained in 15 CFR Part 930. This law authorizes individual States to develop plans that 

32 incorporate the strategies and policies they will employ to manage development and use of 

33 coastal land and water areas. The NOAA must approve each plan. One of the components of 

34 an approved plan is “enforceable policies,” by which a State exerts control over coastal uses 

35 and resources (NOAA, 2011a), (NOAA, 2011b). 

36 The NOAA approved the Florida Coastal Management Program in 1981. The program consists 

37 of 23 Florida statutes administered by eight State agencies and five water management 
Affected Environment 

 2-105 

1 districts. The FDEP is responsible for directing the implementation of the statewide coastal 

2 management program and maintains a Web site that describes the program 

3 (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cmp/default.htm). Florida’s coastal zone includes the entire State, 

4 but only coastal cities and counties which include or are contiguous to State water bodies are 

5 eligible to receive coastal management funds (NOAA, 2011c). 

6 CR-3 is located in Citrus County and is subject to the rules and policies of Florida’s Coastal 

7 Management Program, which administers the CZMA. License renewal requires a coastal zone 

8 consistency certification for States like Florida that are managed through the CZMA. For CR-3, 

9 CR-4, and CR-5, this certification is documented by the FDEP in Section XXV, “Coastal Zone 

10 Consistency,” of Progress Energy Florida’s Conditions of Certification (FDEP, 2010b). 

11 2.4 REFERENCES 

12 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

13 Protection Against Radiation.” 

14 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

15 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

16 10 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 61, “Licensing 

17 Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste.” 

18 10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, “Packaging and 

19 Transportation of Radioactive Material.” 

20 15 CFR Part 930. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 15, Commerce and Foreign Trade, 

21 Part 930, “Federal Consistency with Approved Coastal Management Programs.” 

22 40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50, 

23 “National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.” 

24 40 CFR Part 52.21. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 52, 

25 “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, Subpart A, Section 21, Prevention of 

26 Significant Deterioration of Air Quality.” 

27 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, 

28 “Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.” 

29 40 CFR Part 81.310. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, 

30 “Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes, Subpart C, Section 107, Attainment 

31 Status Designations, Florida.” 

32 40 CFR Part 82. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 82, 

33 “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone.” 

34 40 CFR Part 239. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 239, 

35 “Requirements for State Permit Program Determination of Adequacy.” 

36 42 U.S.C. § 7410. United States Code. Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 85, 

37 Air Pollution Prevention and Control, Subchapter I, Programs and Activities, Part C, “Prevention 

38 of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality,” Subpart ii, “Visibility Protection,” § 7491, “Visibility 

39 protection for Federal Class I areas.” 

40 Ackerman, B.B., S.D. Wright, R.K. Bonde, D.K. Odell, and D.J. Banowetz. 1995. “Trends and 

41 Patterns in Mortality of Manatees in Florida, 1974–1992,” in O’Shea, T.J., B.B. Ackerman, and 

42 H.F. Percival (eds.), Population of the Florida Manatee, Information and Technology Report 1, 
Affected Environment 

 2-106 

1 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, pp. 223–258. Available URL: 

2 http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=ackermanwrigh%5F2

3 108%2Epdf&objid=42514&dltype=publication (accessed April 1, 2010). 

4 AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). 1973. “Final Environmental Statement Related to the 

5 Proposed Crystal River Unit 3, Florida Power Corporation, Docket No. 50-302,” U.S. Atomic 

6 Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing, Washington, D.C., May 1973, Agencywide 

7 Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML091520178. 

8 Ager, D.D., S. Rkman-Filipovic, and S. Mac. 2008. “Crystal River Power Plant Fish 

9 Impingement Study Report,” Kinectrics Report: 012974-001-RA-0001-R00, Kinectrics North 

10 America Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada, March 3, 2008. 

11 Bartol, I.K., R. Mann, and M. Vecchione. 2002. “Distribution of the Euryhaline Squid 

12 Lolliguncula brevis in Chesapeake Bay: Effects of Selected Abiotic Factors,” Marine Ecology 

13 Progress Series, 226:235-247. 

14 BEBR (Bureau of Economic and Business Research). 2010. “Projections of Florida Population 

15 by County, 2009–2035,” Florida Population Studies, Volume 43, Bulletin 156, March 2010. 

16 Available URL: http://www.news-press.com/assets/pdf/A415294132.PDF (accessed 

17 February 15, 2011). 

18 Benson, N.G. (ed.) 1982. “Life History Requirements of Selected Finfish and Shellfish in 

19 Mississippi Sound and Adjacent Areas,” FWS/OBS-81/51, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office 

20 of Biological Services, Washington, D.C., March 1982. Available URL: 

21 http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3936.pdf (accessed April 7, 2010). 

22 Bester, C. 2009. “Biological Profiles: Gulf Sturgeon,” Florida Museum of Natural History, 

23 Gainesville, Florida. Available URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/

24 GulfSturgeon/GulfSturgeon.html (accessed May 30, 2009). 

25 Bester, C. 2010a. “Biological Profiles: Spotted Seatrout,” Florida Museum of Natural History, 

26 Gainesville, Florida. Available URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/

27 SpottedSeatrout/SpottedSeatrout.html (accessed April 29, 2010). 

28 Bester, C. 2010b. “Biological Profiles: Striped Mullet,” Florida Museum of Natural History, 

29 Gainesville, Florida. Available URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/

30 StripedMullet/StripedMullet.html (accessed April 29, 2010). 

31 Bielsa, L.M., W.H. Murdich, and R.F. Labisky. 1983. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and 

32 Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Florida) – Pink 

33 Shrimp,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/11.17, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

34 TR EL-82-4, 21 pp. Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-

35 017.pdf (accessed March 3, 2010). 

36 Britton, A. 2009. “Alligator mississippiensis (Daudin, 1801),” Crocodilians Natural History & 

37 Conservation. Available URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/csp_amis.htm (accessed June 4, 

38 2009). 

39 Brown, S.D., and T.M. Bert. 1993. “The Effects of Temperature and Salinity on Molting and 

40 Survival of Menippe adina and M. mercenaria (Crustacea, Decapoda) Postsettlement 

41 Juveniles,” Marine Ecology Press Series, 99:41–49. 

42 Buckley, J. 1984. “Habitat Suitability Index Models: Larval and Juvenile Red Drum,” 

43 FWS/OBS-82/10.74, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 15 pp. 
Affected Environment 

 2-107 

1 Causseaux, K.W. and J.D. Fretwell. 1982. “Position of the Saltwater-Freshwater Interface in 

2 the Upper Part of the Floridan Aquifer, Southwest Florida, 1979,” U.S. Geological Survey 

3 Water-Resources Investigations Open-File Report 82-90. 

4 CCBCC (Citrus County Board of County Commissioners). 2009. Citrus County Florida 

5 Comprehensive Plan, Citrus County Board of County Commissioners, Inverness, Florida. 

6 Available URL: http://www.bocc.citrus.fl.us/devservices/planning/comp_plan/comp_plan.htm

7 (accessed March 3, 2010). 

8 CH2M Hill. 2009. “Aquatic Sampling Report Levy Nuclear Plant,” 33884-TMEM-087, 

9 Revision 1, January 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML091260539. 

10 Champion, K.M. and R. Starks. 2001. “The Hydrology and Water Quality of Springs in 

11 West-Central Florida,” Southwest Florida Water Management District, Water Quality Monitoring 

12 Program, May 2001. 

13 Citrus County. 2006. Citrus County Comprehensive Plan, “Chapter 5: Infrastructure Element, 

14 Potable Water Subelement,” Board of Commissioners, Department of Development Services, 

15 Planning Division. Available at URL: http://www.bocc.citrus.fl.us/devservices/planning/

16 comp_plan/chapter_5_water.pdf

17 Citrus County. 2007. Citrus County Comprehensive Plan, “Chapter 6: Traffic Circulation 

18 Element,” Board of Commissioners, Department of Development Services, Planning Division. 

19 Available at URL: http://www.bocc.citrus.fl.us/devservices/planning/comp_plan/chapter_6.pdf

20 Citrus County. 2009. Citrus County Comprehensive Plan, “Chapter 10: Future Land Use 

21 Element,” Board of Commissioners, Department of Development Services, Planning Division. 

22 Available URL: http://www.bocc.citrus.fl.us/devservices/planning/comp_plan/chapter_10.pdf

23 (accessed March 7, 2011). 

24 Clean Air Act of 1963. § 42 U.S.C. § 7401, et seq. 

25 Clean Water Act of 1977. § 33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq. 

26 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. § 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(A). 

27 Collins, M.R. 1985. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of 

28 Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Florida) – Striped Mullet,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

29 Service FWS/OBS-82(11.34), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, 11 pp. 

30 Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-034.pdf

31 (accessed March 3, 2010). 

32 Courbis, S.S., and G.A.J. Worthy. 2003. “Opportunistic Carnivory by Florida Manatees 

33 (Trichechus manatus latirostris),” Aquatic Mammals, 22.1:104–107. 

34 Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. “Classification of Wetlands and 

35 Deepwater Habitats of the United States,” FWS/OBS-79/31, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

36 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

37 Dawes, C.J., R.C. Phillips, and G. Morrison. 2004. “Seagrass Communities of the Gulf Coast 

38 of Florida: Status and Ecology,” Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and 

39 Wildlife Research Institute and Tampa Bay Estuary Program, St. Petersburg, Florida, 

40 August 2004. 

41 Dineen, J. 2001a. “Halodule beaudettei (Shoal Grass),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort 

42 Pierce, Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Halodu_beaudet.htm

43 (accessed April 7, 2010). 
Affected Environment 

 2-108 

1 Dineen, J. 2001b. “Ruppia maritima (Widgeon Grass),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort 

2 Pierce, Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Ruppia_mariti.htm

3 (accessed April 7, 2010). 

4 Dineen, J. 2001c. “Thalassia testudinum (Turtle Grass),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort 

5 Pierce, Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Thalas_testud.htm

6 (accessed April 7, 2010). 

7 Dineen, J. 2001d. “Syringodium filiforme (Manatee Grass),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort 

8 Pierce, Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Syring_filifo.htm (accessed 

9 April 7, 2010). 

10 Dineen, J. 2001e. “Halophila engelmannii (Star Grass),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort 

11 Pierce, Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Halop_engelm.htm (accessed 

12 April 7, 2010). 

13 Dragovich, A., and J.A. Kelly, Jr. 1967. “Occurrence of the Squid, Lolliguncula brevis, in Some 

14 Coastal Waters of Western Florida,” Bulletin of Marine Science, 17(4):840–844. 

15 Elsey, R.M. 2005. “Unusual Offshore Occurrence of an American Alligator,” Southeastern 

16 Naturalist, 4(3):533–536. 

17 Endangered Species Act of 1973. § 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq. 

18 EnHydro. 2007. Groundwater Flow Study Report – Progress Energy Florida, CR-3 Power 

19 Generating Facility, Crystal River Energy Complex, Crystal River, Florida, January 22, 2007. 

20 Enterprise Florida. 2009. Citrus County Information. Available URL: 

21 http://www.citruscountyfloridalistings.com/pdf/citruscountyinfo.pdf

22 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. “Information on Levels of Environmental 

23 Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety,” 

24 EPA 550/9-74-004, Washington, D.C., March 1974. Available URL: http://www.nonoise.org/

25 library/levels74/levels74.htm (See also “EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and 

26 Welfare,” September 21, 2007. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/history/

27 topics/noise/01.htm). 

28 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. “The Ecological Condition of Estuaries in 

29 the Gulf of Mexico,” EPA 620-R-98-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

30 Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, 

31 Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, Florida, July 1999. 

32 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. “Primary Distinguishing Characteristics of 

33 Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United States.” Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/

34 wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii.htm (accessed June 16, 2009). 

35 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009a. “Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: 

36 Guidance for Nuisance Chemicals,” based on EPA 810/K-92-001, July 1992. Available URL: 

37 http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/consumer/2ndstandards.html (accessed June 24, 2009). 

38 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009b. “List of Water Systems in Safe Drinking 

39 Water Information System database for Citrus County,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

40 Local Drinking Water Information, Florida Drinking Water. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/

41 enviro/html/sdwis/sdwis_query.html

42 EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2003. “Enhancement Strategies for Mitigating 

43 Potential Operational Impacts of Cooling Water Intake Structures: Approaches for Enhancing 
Affected Environment 

 2-109 

1 Environmental Resources,” Technical Report 1007454, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo 

2 Alto, California, June 2003. 

3 FDACS (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumers Services). 2004. “Withlacoochee 

4 State Forest,” Division of Forestry. Available URL: http://fl-dof.com/state_forests/

5 withlacoochee.html (accessed April 2, 2010). 

6 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 1996. Letter from H.L. Rhodes, 

7 FDEP, to W.J. Pardue, FPC, March 20, 1996, ADAMS Accession No. ML091320177. 

8 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2005a. State of Florida Industrial 

9 Wastewater Facility Permit, Permit Number FL0000159, issued May 9, 2005. 

10 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2005b. State of Florida Industrial 

11 Wastewater Facility Permit, Permit Number FL0036366, issued August 15, 2005. 

12 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2007a. State of Florida Industrial 

13 Wastewater Facility Permit, Permit Number FLA016960, issued January 9, 2007. 

14 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2007b. “2006 Florida Air Monitoring 

15 Report,” Division of Air Resource Management, Tallahassee, Florida. Available URL: 

16 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/air_quality/techrpt/amr06.pdf (accessed June 11, 2009). 

17 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2008a. “Progress Energy Florida, 

18 Crystal River Energy Complex, Unit CR3 Nuclear Uprate Project,” Electric Power Plant Site 

19 Certification Staff Analysis Report, PA 77-09A2, State of Florida Department of Environmental 

20 Protection, Tallahassee, Florida, February 1, 2008. 

21 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2008b. State of Florida Industrial 

22 Wastewater Facility Permit, Permit Number FLA016960, revised August 26, 2008. 

23 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2008c. Conditions of Certification – 

24 Progress Energy Florida, Crystal River Energy Complex, Unit 3 Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 4 and 

25 Unit 5 Fossil Plant, PA 77-09A2, August 28, 2008, ADAMS Accession No. ML100980527. 

26 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2008d. “Seagrasses,” Florida 

27 Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida. Available URL: 

28 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/habitats/seagrass (accessed December 14, 2009). 

29 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2009a. State of Florida Domestic 

30 Wastewater Facility Permit, Permit Number FLA118753, issued April 22, 2009. 

31 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2009b. Inspection and Closure 

32 Report on the Former Ash Storage Area, December 15, 2009. 

33 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2009c. “Drinking Water. Flow Data 

34 for 2008.” Available URL: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/flow.htm

35 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2010a. Conditions of Certification – 

36 Progress Energy Florida, Crystal River Energy Complex, Unit 3 Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 4 and 

37 Unit 5 Fossil Plant, PA 77-09N, January 15, 2010. 

38 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2010b. Conditions of Certification – 

39 Progress Energy Florida, Crystal River Energy Complex, Unit 3 Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 4 and 

40 Unit 5 Fossil Plant, PA 77-09O, May 14, 2010. Available URL: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/

41 siting/files/certification/pa77_09_2010_O.pdf (accessed April 1, 2011). 
Affected Environment 

 2-110 

1 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2010c. “Universal Wastes,” 

2 December 10, 2010. Available URL: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/

3 hazardous/pages/universal.htm (accessed April 6, 2011). 

4 FDOR (Florida Department of Revenue). 2010. Florida Property Valuation and Tax Data Book. 

5 Available URL: http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/property/rp/databk.html

6 FDS (Florida Department of State). 2010a. A Brief History of Florida. Available URL: 

7 http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/facts/history/summary/ (accessed March 9, 2010). 

8 FDS (Florida Department of State). 2010b. The Seminole Wars. Available URL: 

9 http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/facts/history/seminole/wars.cfm (accessed March 9, 2010). 

10 FDS (Florida Department of State). 2011a. Chapter 62-550: Drinking Water Standards, 

11 Monitoring, and Reporting, Florida Administrative Code. 

12 FDS (Florida Department of State). 2011b. Chapter 62-520: Ground Water Classes, 

13 Standards, and Exemptions, Florida Administrative Code. 

14 FDS (Florida Department of State). 2011c. Chapter 62-302: Surface Water Quality Standards, 

15 Florida Administrative Code. 

16 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2011. “Shellfish Harvesting.” 

17 Available URL: http://www.floridaaquaculture.com/seas/seas_intro.htm (accessed February 11, 

18 2011). 

19 Florida Power. 2005. “Crystal River Unit 3 Final Safety Analysis Report,” Revision 29, 

20 August 2005. 

21 Florida Siting Board. 2008. Progress Energy Florida, Crystal River Unit 3 Uprate Project Power 

22 Plant Siting Application No. PA77-09A2, OGC Case No. 07-1062, DOAH Case 

23 No. 07-2713EPP, Final Order Approving Certification, August 12, 2008. Available URL: 

24 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Final_Orders/2008/dep08-0863.pdf (accessed January 11, 

25 2010). 

26 Florida State Parks. 2002. “West Central Florida Archaeological State Park: A Pre-Columbian 

27 Ceremonial Indian-Mound Complex,” Pamphlet prepared by Florida State Parks, Florida 

28 Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks, October 30, 2002. 

29 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 1990. “Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida,” 

30 Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Florida Department of Natural Resources, February 1990. 

31 Available URL: http://www.fnai.org/PDF/Natural_Communities_Guide.pdf (accessed June 17, 

32 2009). 

33 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2000a. “Florida Bonamia” in Field Guide to the Rare 

34 Plants and Animals of Florida Online. Available URL: http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/pdf/

35 Bonamia_grandiflora.PDF (accessed July 3, 2009). 

36 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2000b. “Brooksville Bellflower” in Field Guide to the 

37 Rare Plants and Animals of Florida Online. Available URL: http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/pdf/

38 Campanula_robinsiae.PDF (accessed July 3, 2009). 

39 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2000c. “Cooley’s Water Willow” in Field Guide to the 

40 Rare Plants and Animals of Florida Online. Available URL: http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/pdf/

41 Justicia_cooleyi.PDF (accessed July 3, 2009). 

42 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2000d. “Florida Golden Aster” in Field Guide to the 

43 Rare Plants and Animals of Florida Online. Available URL: http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/pdf/

44 Chrysopsis_floridana.PDF (accessed July 3, 2009). 
Affected Environment 

 2-111 

1 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2000e. “Scrub Buckwheat” in Field Guide to the Rare 

2 Plants and Animals of Florida Online. Available URL: http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/pdf/

3 Eriogonum_longifolium_var_gnaphalifolium.PDF (accessed July 3, 2009). 

4 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2000f. “Britton’s Beargrass” in Field Guide to the Rare 

5 Plants and Animals of Florida Online. Available URL: http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/pdf/

6 Nolina_brittoniana.PDF (accessed July 3, 2009). 

7 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2000g. “Lewton’s Milkwort” in Field Guide to the Rare 

8 Plants and Animals of Florida Online. Available URL: http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/pdf/

9 Polygala_lewtonii.PDF (accessed July 3, 2009). 

10 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2001a. Field Guide to the Rare Animals of Florida 

11 Online, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida. Available URL: 

12 http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/index.cfm (accessed March 4, 2010). 

13 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2001b. “Flatwoods Salamander, Ambystoma 

14 cingulatum” in Field Guide to the Rare Plants and Animals of Florida Online. Available URL: 

15 http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/pdf/Ambystoma_cingulatum.PDF (accessed November 28, 

16 2009). 

17 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2001c. “Eastern Indigo Snake, Drymarchon corais 

18 couperi” in Field Guide to the Rare Plants and Animals of Florida Online. Available URL: 

19 http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/pdf/Drymarchon_couperi.PDF (accessed November 28, 2009). 

20 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2001d. “Sand Skink, Neoseps reynoldsi” in Field Guide 

21 to the Rare Plants and Animals of Florida Online. Available URL: http://www.fnai.org/

22 FieldGuide/pdf/Neoseps_reynoldsi.PDF (accessed November 29, 2009). 

23 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2001e. “Gopher Tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus” in 

24 Field Guide to the Rare Plants and Animals of Florida Online. Available URL: 

25 http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/pdf/Aphelocoma_coerulescens.PDF (accessed November 29, 

26 2009). 

27 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2001f. “Florida Scrub-Jay, Aphelocoma coerulescens” 

28 in Field Guide to the Rare Plants and Animals of Florida Online. Available URL: 

29 http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/pdf/Gopherus_polyphemus.PDF (accessed April 2, 2010). 

30 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2001g. “Piping Plover, Charadrius melodus” in Field 

31 Guide to the Rare Plants and Animals of Florida Online. Available URL: http://www.fnai.org/

32 FieldGuide/pdf/Charadrius_melodus.PDF (accessed November 29, 2009). 

33 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2001h. “Bald Eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus” in Field 

34 Guide to the Rare Plants and Animals of Florida Online. Available URL: http://www.fnai.org/

35 FieldGuide/pdf/Haliaeetus_leucocephalus.pdf (accessed November 29, 2009). 

36 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2001i. “Wood Stork, Mycteria americana” in Field 

37 Guide to the Rare Plants and Animals of Florida Online. Available URL: http://www.fnai.org/

38 FieldGuide/pdf/Mycteria_americana.pdf (accessed November 29, 2009). 

39 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2001j. “Red-Cockaded Woodpecker, Picoides borealis” 

40 in Field Guide to the Rare Plants and Animals of Florida Online. Available URL: 

41 http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/pdf/Picoides_borealis.pdf (accessed November 29, 2009). 

42 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2001k. “Snail Kite, Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus” in 

43 Field Guide to the Rare Plants and Animals of Florida Online. Available URL: 

44 http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/pdf/Rostrhamus_sociabilis_plumbeus.pdf (accessed 

45 November 29, 2009). 
Affected Environment 

 2-112 

1 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2001l. “Florida Panther, Puma concolor coryi” in Field 

2 Guide to the Rare Plants and Animals of Florida Online. Available URL: http://www.fnai.org/

3 FieldGuide/pdf/Puma_concolor_coryi.PDF (accessed November 29, 2009). 

4 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2009a. “FNAI – Element Tracking Summary,” Florida 

5 Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida. Available URL: http://www.fnai.org/PDF/

6 Element_tracking_summary_201003.pdf (accessed June 17, 2009). 

7 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2009b. “FNAI Tracking List,” Florida Natural Areas 

8 Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida. Available URL: http://www.fnai.org/bioticssearch.cfm

9 (accessed May 28, 2009). 

10 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2009c. Florida Natural Areas Inventory Database. 

11 Available URL: http://www.fnai.org/trackinglist.cfm (accessed on June 18, 2009). 

12 FPC (Florida Power Corporation). 1995. Letter from W.J. Pardue, FPC, to H.S. Oven, Jr., 

13 FDEP, Subject: “Crystal River Salt Drift Study, Permit Number PSD-FL-007,” ADAMS Accession 

14 No. ML091320177. 

15 FPC (Florida Power Corporation). 2002. “Biological Assessment of Impact to Sea Turtles at 

16 Florida Power Corporation’s Crystal River Energy Complex, Revision 2,” Florida Power 

17 Corporation, St. Petersburg, Florida, ADAMS Accession No. ML030070232. 

18 FPC (Florida Power Corporation). 2008. Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision 31, 

19 May 9, 2008. 

20 Friends of Brooker Creek Preserve. 2009. Fact Sheet on the Brooker Creek Preserve. 

21 Available URL: http://www.friendsofbrookercreekpreserve.org/ (accessed on June 9, 2009). 

22 FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2002. Citrus County Manatee 

23 Protection Zones 68C-22.011, F.A.C., November 2002. Available URL: http://myfwc.com/

24 media/415127/Manatee_citrusMPZ.pdf (accessed January 3, 2011). 

25 FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2005. “Florida’s Wildlife Legacy 

26 Initiative. Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy,” Florida Fish and Wildlife 

27 Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Available URL: http://www.masgc.org/

28 gmrp/plans/FL%20FWCII.pdf (accessed June 3, 2010). 

29 FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2009a. “Florida’s Inshore and 

30 Nearshore Species: 2008 Status and Trends Report,” Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

31 Commission, St. Petersburg, Florida, July 10, 2009. Available URL: http://research.myfwc.com/

32 features/category_sub.asp?id=2972 (accessed April 1, 2010). 

33 FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2009b. “Florida’s Endangered 

34 Species, Threatened Species, and Species of Special Concern,” Florida Fish and Wildlife 

35 Conservation Commission, St. Petersburg, Florida, July 2009. Available URL: 

36 http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Threatened_Endangered_Species.pdf

37 (accessed March 9, 2010). 

38 FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2009c. Letter from M.A. Poole, 

39 FWC, to D.J. Wrona, NRC. Subject: “Reply to Request for a List of Protected Species within the 

40 Area under Evaluation for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant License Renewal 

41 Application Review, Citrus County,” July 22, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML092170380. 

42 FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2009d. “Eagle Nest Locator.” 

43 Available URL: http://www.myfwc.com/eagle/eaglenests/nestlocator.aspx (accessed 

44 November 29, 2009). 
Affected Environment 

 2-113 

1 FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2011a. “Commercial Fisheries 

2 Landings in Florida.” Available URL: http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/fishstats/commercial3 fisheries/landings-in-florida/ (accessed February 8, 2011). 

4 FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2011b. “Rules and Regulations: 

5 Red Drum.” Available URL: http://myfwc.com/fishing/saltwater/regulations/red-drum/

6 (accessed February 16, 2011). 

7 FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2011c. “Drums: Silver Perch 

8 (Yellowtail),” Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. 

9 Available URL: http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/profiles/fish/saltwater-fish/silver-perch/

10 (accessed February 22, 2011). 

11 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1976. “Determination of Critical Habitat for American 

12 Crocodile, California Condor, Indiana Bat, and Florida Manatee,” Federal Register, Vol. 41, 

13 No. 187, pp. 41914–41916. 

14 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1977. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 

15 Determination of Critical Habitat for Six Endangered Species,” Federal Register, Vol. 42, 

16 No. 155, August 11, 1977, pp. 40685–40690. 

17 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005a. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

18 Plants; Addition of White Abalone and the United States District Vertebrate Population Segment 

19 of the Smalltooth Sawfish to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,” Federal Register

20 Vol. 70, No. 220, pp. 69464–69466. 

21 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005b. “Florida Bonamia, Bonamia grandiflora.” 

22 Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Species-Accounts/PDFVersions/

23 Fla-Bonamia-2005.pdf (accessed July 3, 2009). 

24 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005c. “Brooksville Bellflower, Campanula robinsiae and 

25 Cooley’s Water Willow, Justicia cooleyi.” Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/

26 Species-Accounts/Bellflower-Waterwillow-2005.htm (accessed July 3, 2009). 

27 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005d. “Florida Golden Aster, Chrysopsis floridana.” 

28 Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Species-Accounts/PDFVersions/

29 Fla-Goldern-Aster-2005.pdf (accessed July 3, 2009). 

30 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005e. “Longspurred Mint, Dicerandra cornutissima.” 

31 Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Species-Accounts/PDFVersions/

32 Longspurred-Mint-2005.pdf (accessed July 3, 2009). 

33 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005f. “Scrub Buckwheat, Eriogonum longifolium var. 

34 gnaphalifolium.” Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Species-Accounts/

35 PDFVersions/Scrub-Buckwheat-2005.pdf (accessed July 3, 2009). 

36 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005g. “Britton’s Beargrass, Nolina brittoniana.” 

37 Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Species-Accounts/PDFVersions/

38 Brittons-Beargrass-2005.pdf (accessed July 3, 2009). 

39 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. “West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus) 

40 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, 

41 Jacksonville, Florida, and Caribbean Field Office, Boqueron, Puerto Rico. Available URL: 

42 http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Manatee/2007%205-yr%20Review/2007-Manatee-5-Year43 Review-Final-color-signed.pdf (accessed August 31, 2009). 
Affected Environment 

 2-114 

1 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008a. Letter from D.L. Hankla, Field Supervisor, FWS, 

2 Jacksonville, Florida, to J.W. Holt, Progress Energy, Crystal River Nuclear Plant, Crystal River, 

3 Florida, FWS Log No. 41910-1-0015, October 28, 2008, ADAMS Accession No. ML100980520. 

4 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008b. “West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus.” 

5 Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/manatee.pdf (accessed 

6 June 1, 2009). 

7 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009a. “Florida County Index of Listed Species,” 

8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Florida Field Office, Jacksonville, Florida. Available URL: 

9 http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/gotocty.htm (accessed March 9, 2010). 

10 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009b. “North Florida Federally-Listed Species.” 

11 Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Species-Accounts/

12 North_Florida_Fed_TE_Species_Info.htm (accessed November 28, 2009). 

13 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009c. “Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas).” 

14 Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/green-sea15 turtle.htm (accessed March 5, 2010). 

16 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009d. “Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata).” 

17 Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/hawksbill-sea18 turtle.htm (accessed March 5, 2010). 

19 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009e. “Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys 

20 kempii).” Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/

21 kemps-ridley-sea-turtle.htm (accessed March 5, 2010). 

22 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009f. “Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys 

23 coriacea).” Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/

24 leatherback-sea-turtle.htm (accessed March 5, 2010). 

25 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009g. “Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta).” 

26 Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/loggerhead27 sea-turtle.htm (accessed March 5, 2010). 

28 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009h. “Species Profile West Indian Manatee 

29 (Trichechus manatus).” Available URL: http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/

30 speciesProfile.action?spcode=A007 (accessed May 27, 2009). 

31 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009i. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

32 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Eastern Population of the Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus 

33 polyphemus) as Threatened,” Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 173, September 9, 2009, 

34 pp. 46401–46406. 

35 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009j. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

36 Determination of Endangered Status for Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander; Designation of 

37 Critical Habitat for Frosted Flatwoods Salamander and Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander; 

38 Final Rule,” Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 26, February 10, 2009, pp. 6699–6774. 

39 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009k. “Ultralight-Led Whooping Cranes Reach Florida,” 

40 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service News Release, January 22, 2009. Available URL: 

41 http://onlinepressroom.net/fws/ (accessed November 29, 2009). 

42 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010a. “Endangered Species Glossary.” Available URL: 

43 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/glossary/ (accessed May 4, 2011). 
Affected Environment 

 2-115 

1 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010b. “National Wetlands Inventory,” U.S. Fish and 

2 Wildlife Service, Branch of Resource and Mapping Support. Available URL: 

3 http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ (accessed April 1, 2010). 

4 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010c. “Ultralight-Led Whooping Cranes Arrive at Final 

5 Wintering Destination in Florida,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service News Release, January 21, 

6 2010. Available URL: http://www.bringbackthecranes.org/media/2010/nr21January2010.html

7 (accessed April 2, 2010). 

8 FWS and NMFS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service). 2003. 

9 “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plant; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Gulf 

10 Sturgeon; Final Rule,” Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 53, pp. 13370–13495. 

11 FWS and NMFS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. 

12 “Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 5-year Review: Summary and Evaluation, 

13 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Panama City, Florida, and National Marine 

14 Fisheries Service, Southeast Region, St. Petersburg, Florida. Available URL: 

15 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/gulfsturgeon_5yearreview.pdf (accessed 

16 January 10, 2010). 

17 Galya, D.P., and D.W. McDougall. 1985. “Finite Element Modeling of an Offshore Region with 

18 Restricted Flow,” Oceans, 17:913–918. 

19 Gerhart, S.D., and T.M. Bert. 2008. “Life-History Aspects of Stone Crabs (Genus Menippe): 

20 Size at Maturity, Growth, and Age,” Journal of Crustacean Biology, 28(2):252–261. 

21 GMFMC (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council). 2004. “Final Environmental Impact 

22 Statement for the Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment to the Following Fishery 

23 Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM): Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Red 

24 Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Stone Crab Fishery 

25 of the Gulf of Mexico, Coral and Coral Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Spiny Lobster Fishery of 

26 the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, and Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of 

27 Mexico and South Atlantic. Appendix C Information on Species Distribution and Habitat 

28 Associations,” Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, Florida, March 2004. 

29 Available URL: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/

30 Final%20EFH%20EIS.pdf (accessed March 10, 2010). 

31 GMP (Gulf of Mexico Program). 2004. “Seagrass Habitat in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: 

32 Degradation, Conservation and Restoration of a Valuable Resource,” 855-R-04-001, U.S. 

33 Geological Survey, Florida Integrated Science Center, St. Petersburg, Florida. Available URL: 

34 http://gulfsci.usgs.gov/gom_ims/pdf/pubs_gom.pdf (accessed February 17, 2010). 

35 Golder Associates, Inc. 2006. 

36 Golder Associates, Inc. 2007a. “Site Certification Application Crystal River Unit 3 Power Uprate 

37 Project Crystal River, Florida,” Progress Energy Florida, Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida, June 

38 2007, ADAMS Accession No. ML093170487. 

39 Golder Associates, Inc. 2007b. “Response to Comments on Crystal River Unit 3 Uprate Project 

40 Site Certification Application,” Progress Energy Florida, Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida, 

41 August 2007. 

42 Golder Associates, Inc. 2007c. Revised Groundwater Monitoring Plan, Progress Energy 

43 Florida, Crystal River Energy Complex, April 2007. 

44 Grimes, C.B., and J.A. Mountain. 1971. “Effects of Thermal Effluent upon Marine Fishes near 

45 the Crystal River Steam Electric Station,” Professional Papers Series, Number Seventeen, 
Affected Environment 

 2-116 

1 Florida Department of Natural Resources, Marine Research Laboratory, St. Petersburg, Florida, 

2 October 1971. 

3 Hale, J.A., T.K. Frazer, D.A. Tomasko, and M.O. Hall. 2004. “Changes in the Distribution of 

4 Seagrass Species along Florida’s Central Gulf Coast: Iverson and Bittaker Revisited,” 

5 Estuaries, 27(1):36–43. 

6 Hales, L.S., and M.J. Van Den Avyle. 1989. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and 

7 Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Atlantic) – Spot,” 

8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82(11.91), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR 

9 EL-82-4, 24 pp. Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/

10 82_11-091.pdf (accessed March 3, 2010). 

11 Hall, C.A.S., R. Howarth, B. Moore, III, and C.J. Vorosmarty. 1978. “Environmental Impacts of 

12 Industrial Energy Systems in the Coastal Zone,” Annual Review of Energy, 3:395–475. 

13 Handley, L., D. Altsman, and R. DeMay (eds.). 2007. “Seagrass Status and Trends in the 

14 Northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940–2002,” U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

15 2006-5287 and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 855-R-04-003. Available URL: 

16 http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287 (accessed December 11, 2009). 

17 Haubold, E.M., C. Deutsch, and C. Fonnesbeck. 2006. “Final Biological Status Review of the 

18 Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris),” Report by Florida Fish and Wildlife 

19 Conservation Commission, St. Petersburg, Florida, April 2006. Available URL: 

20 http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=finalreport_3230.pdf

21 &objid=26364&dltype=article (accessed September 9, 2009). 

22 Hill, K. 2002. “Penaeus duorarum (Pink Shrimp),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort Pierce, 

23 Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Penaeu_duorar.htm (accessed 

24 April 7, 2010). 

25 Hill, K. 2004a. “Mugil cephalus (Striped Mullet),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort Pierce, 

26 Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Mugil_cephal.htm (accessed 

27 April 7, 2010). 

28 Hill, K. 2004b. “Callinectes sapidus (Blue Crab),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort Pierce, 

29 Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Callin_sapidu.htm (accessed 

30 April 7, 2010). 

31 Hill, K. 2005a. “Leiostomus xanthurus (Spot),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort Pierce, 

32 Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Leiosto_xanthu.htm (accessed 

33 April 7, 2010). 

34 Hill, K. 2005b. “Cynoscion nebulosus (Spotted Seatrout),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort 

35 Pierce, Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Cynosc_nebulo.htm (accessed 

36 April 7, 2010). 

37 Hill, K. 2006. “Pristis pectinata (Smalltooth Sawfish),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort Pierce, 

38 Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Pristi_pectin.htm (accessed 

39 April 7, 2010). 

40 Holt, J.W. 2008a. Letter from J.W. Holt, Progress Energy, to J. Herrington, FWS, Subject: 

41 “Progress Energy Crystal River Unit 3, License Renewal Project, Request for Information on 

42 Listed Species and Sensitive Habitats,” September 25, 2008, ADAMS Accession 

43 No. ML090080731. 

44 Holt, J.W. 2008b. Letter from J.W. Holt, Progress Energy, to D. Bernhardt, NMFS, Subject: 

45 “Progress Energy Crystal River Unit 3, License Renewal Project, Request for Information on 
Affected Environment 

 2-117 

1 Listed Species and Sensitive Habitats,” September 25, 2008, ADAMS Accession 

2 No. ML090080731. 

3 Holt, J.W. 2009. Letter from J.W. Holt, Progress Energy, to FDEP. Subject: “Discharge 

4 Monitoring Report for the Month of June 2009, Crystal River Unit 3, Permit ID# NPDES 

5 FL0000159-001-IWIS,” July 27, 2009. 

6 Hutchings, P. 1998. “Biodiversity and Functioning of Polychaetes in Benthic Sediments,” 

7 Biodiversity and Conservation, 7:1133–1145. 

8 International Crane Foundation. 2011. “Update on the ‘Chass. Five’ January 25, 2011,” 

9 Available URL: http://www.savingcranes.org/whooping%20crane%20reintroduction%

10 20updates%2022.html (accessed February 22, 2011). 

11 Jackson, G.D., J.W. Forsythe, R.F. Hixon, and R.T. Hanlon. 1997. “Age, Growth, and 

12 Maturation of Lolliguncula brevis (Cephalopoda: Loliginidae) in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico 

13 with a Comparison of Length-Frequency Versus Statolith Age Analysis,” Canadian Journal of 

14 Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 54:2907–2929. 

15 Johnson, R. 2006. Request for Information on Groundwater from Gary Gunter, TETRA TECH 

16 NUS, Inc. for Crystal River Unit Re-Licensing Effort, from Ron Johnson, Senior Environmental 

17 Specialist, Crystal River Fossil Plant, to Jan S. Kozyra, Licensing Lead, License Renewal 

18 Section, Robinson Nuclear Plant, July 26, 2006. 

19 KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc. 1995. “Crystal River Salt Drift Study, 1993–1994 

20 Annual Report,” Gainesville, Florida. 

21 Kilgen, R.H., and R.J. Dugas. 1989. “The Ecology of Oyster Reefs of the Northern Gulf of 

22 Mexico: An Open File Report,” NWRC Open File Report 89-03. Available URL: 

23 http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3757.pdf (accessed January 1, 2011). 

24 Knochenmus, L.A., and D.K. Yobbi. 2001. “Hydrology of the Coastal Springs Ground-Water 

25 Basin and Adjacent Parts of Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus Counties, Florida,” U.S. Geological 

26 Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4230, Tallahassee, Florida. 

27 Kostecki, P.T. 1984. “Habitat Suitability Index Models: Spotted Seatrout,” FWS/OBS-82/10.75, 

28 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 22 pp. 

29 Kuntz, A. 1913. “The Embryology and Larval Development of Bairdiella Chrysura and 

30 Anchovia Mitchilli,” Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries, 33:3–19. 

31 Laist, D.W., and J.E. Reynolds, III. 2005. “Florida Manatees, Warm-Water Refuges, and an 

32 Uncertain Future,” Coastal Management, 33:279–295. 

33 Lassuy, D.R. 1983. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of 

34 Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) – Spotted Seatrout,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

35 Service FWS/OBS-82/11.4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, 14 pp. Available URL: 

36 http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-004.pdf (accessed March 3, 2010). 

37 Laughlin, R.A., and R.J. Livingston. 1982. “Environmental and Trophic Determinants of the 

38 Spatial/Temporal Distribution of the Brief Squid (Lolliguncula brevis) in the Apalachicola Estuary 

39 (North Florida, USA),” Bulletin of Marine Science, 32(2):489–497. 

40 Lindberg, W.J., and M.J. Marshall. 1984. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental 

41 Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Florida) – Stone Crab,” U.S. Fish and 

42 Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/11.21, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, 17 pp. 

43 Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-021.pdf (accessed 

44 March 3, 2010). 
Affected Environment 

 2-118 

1 Lyons, W.G., S.P. Cobb, D.K. Camp, J.A. Mountain, T. Savage, L. Lyons, and E.A. Joyce, Jr. 

2 1971. “Preliminary Inventory of Marine Invertebrates Collected near the Electrical Generating 

3 Plant, Crystal River, Florida, in 1969,” Professional Papers Series Number Fourteen, Florida 

4 Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida, June 1971. 

5 MacIntyre, H.L., R.J. Geider, and D.C. Miller. 1996. “Microphytobenthos: The Ecological Role 

6 of the ‘Secret Garden’ of Unvegetated, Shallow-Water Marine Habitats. I. Distribution, 

7 Abundance and Primary Production,” Estuaries, 19(2A):186–201. 

8 MacRae, M.I. 1993. “Citrus County Historical Notes,” Citrus County Historical Society, 

9 Inverness, Florida. 

10 Marella, R.L., and M.P. Berndt. 2005. “Water Withdrawals and Trends from the Floridan 

11 Aquifer System in the Southeastern United States, 1950–2000,” U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

12 1278, Reston, Virginia. 

13 Marzialetti, S., L. Nicoletti, and G.D. Ardizzone. 2009. “The Polychaete Community of the 

14 Fregene Artificial Reef (Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy): A 20-Year Study (1981–2001),” Zoosymposia, 

15 2:551–566. 

16 Masterson, J. 2007. “Hydrilla verticillata (Hydrilla),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort Pierce, 

17 Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/hydrilla_verticillata.htm (accessed 

18 February 7, 2011). 

19 Masterson, J. 2008a. “Anchoa mitchilli (Bay Anchovy),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort 

20 Pierce, Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Anchoa_mitchi.htm (accessed 

21 April 7, 2010). 

22 Masterson, J. 2008b. “Lagodon rhomboides (Pinfish),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort 

23 Pierce, Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Lagodo_rhombo.htm (accessed 

24 April 7, 2010). 

25 Mattson, R.A., J.A. Derrenbacker, Jr., and R.R. Lewis, III. 1988. “Effects of Thermal Addition 

26 from the Crystal River Generating Complex on the Submergent Macrophyte Communities in 

27 Crystal Bay, Florida,” in Mahadevan, K., R.K. Evans, P. Behrens, T. Biffar, and L. Olsen (eds.), 

28 Proceedings Southeastern Workshop on Aquatic Ecological Effects of Power Generation, 

29 December 1986, Report Number 124, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida, May 1988. 

30 McLean, R., W.A. Richkus, S.P. Schreiner, and D. Fluke. 2002. “Maryland Power Plant 

31 Cooling Water Intake Regulations and their Application in Evaluation of Adverse Environmental 

32 Impacts,” PPRP-R-127, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Power Plant 

33 Research Program, Annapolis, Maryland, March 2002. Available URL: http://esm.versar.com/

34 pprp/316/PPRP-127.pdf (accessed November 28, 2007). 

35 Milanich, J.T., and C. Payne (eds). 1993. Florida Historical Contexts, Florida Department of 

36 State Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee, Florida, September 27, 1993. 

37 Available URL: http://www.flheritage.com/facts/reports/contexts (accessed May 28, 2009). 

38 Miller, J.J. 1973. “An Archaeological Survey of the Florida Power Corporation Crystal River 

39 Tract, Citrus County, Florida,” Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Division of Archives, 

40 History and Records Management, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida, Survey 

41 Report Number 313, June 1973, on file at the Florida Master Site File. 

42 Minello, T.J., K.W. Able, M.P. Weinstein, and C.G. Hays. 2003. “Salt Marshes as Nurseries for 

43 Nekton: Testing Hypotheses on Density, Growth and Survival through Meta-Analysis,” Marine 

44 Ecology Progress Series, 246:39–59. 
Affected Environment 

 2-119 

1 Morton, R.A., T.L. Miller, and L.J. Moore. 2004. “National Assessment of Shoreline Change: 

2 Part 1 Historical Shoreline Changes and Associated Coastal Land Loss along the U.S. Gulf of 

3 Mexico,” U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2004-1043, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

4 Mountain, J.A. 1972. “Further Thermal Addition Studies at Crystal River, Florida with an 

5 Annotated Checklist of Marine Fishes Collected 1969–1971,” Professional Papers Series 

6 Number Twenty, Florida Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida, 

7 December 1972. 

8 Muncy, R.J. 1984. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of 

9 Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) – Pinfish,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

10 FWS/OBS-82/11.26, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, 18 pp. Available URL: 

11 http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-026.pdf (accessed March 3, 2010). 

12 Murdy, E.O., R.S. Birdsong, and J.A. Musick. 1997. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay, Smithsonian 

13 Institution Press, Washington and London, 324 pp. 

14 National Ocean Service. 2008. “Salinity,” NOAA’s National Ocean Service Education. 

15 Available URL: http://www.oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/estuaries/media/

16 supp_estuar10c_salinity.html (accessed March 2, 2010). 

17 NatureServe. 2009a. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life, Version 7.1, 

18 NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available URL: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

19 (accessed November 28, 2009). 

20 NatureServe. 2009b. “Drymarchon couperi - (Holbrook, 1842), Eastern Indigo Snake,” 

21 NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life, Version 7.1, NatureServe, Arlington, 

22 Virginia. Available URL: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (accessed November 28, 2009). 

23 NatureServe. 2009c. “Neoseps reynoldsi - (Stejneger, 1910), Sand Skink,” NatureServe 

24 Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life, Version 7.1, NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. 

25 Available URL: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (accessed November 29, 2009). 

26 NatureServe. 2009d. “Aphelocoma coerulescens - (Bosc, 1795), Florida Scrub-jay,” 

27 NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life, Version 7.1, NatureServe, Arlington, 

28 Virginia. Available URL: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (accessed November 29, 2009). 

29 NatureServe. 2009e. “Charadrius melodus - (Ord, 1824), Piping Plover,” NatureServe 

30 Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life, Version 7.1, NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. 

31 Available URL: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (accessed November 29, 2009). 

32 NatureServe. 2009f. “Falco peregrinus - (Tunstall, 1771), Peregrine Falcon,” NatureServe 

33 Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life, Version 7.1, NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. 

34 Available URL: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (accessed November 29, 2009). 

35 NatureServe. 2009f. “Mycteria americana - (Linnaeus, 1758), Wood Stork,” NatureServe 

36 Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life, Version 7.1, NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. 

37 Available URL: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (accessed November 29, 2009). 

38 NatureServe. 2009g. “Picoides borealis - (Vieillot, 1809), Red-cockaded Woodpecker,” 

39 NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life, Version 7.1, NatureServe, Arlington, 

40 Virginia. Available URL: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (accessed November 29, 2009). 

41 NatureServe. 2009h. “Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus - (Ridgway, 1874), Snail Kite,” 

42 NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life, Version 7.1, NatureServe, Arlington, 

43 Virginia. Available URL: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (accessed November 29, 2009). 
Affected Environment 

 2-120 

1 NatureServe. 2009i. “Puma concolor coryi - (Bangs, 1896), Florida Panther,” NatureServe 

2 Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life, Version 7.1, NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. 

3 Available URL: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (accessed November 29, 2009). 

4 NatureServe. 2009j. “Grus americana - (Linnaeus, 1758), Whooping Crane,” NatureServe 

5 Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life, Version 7.1, NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. 

6 Available URL: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (accessed November 29, 2009). 

7 NatureServe. 2009k. “Haliaeetus leucocephalus - (Linnaeus, 1766), Bald Eagle,” NatureServe 

8 Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life, Version 7.1, NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. 

9 Available URL: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (accessed November 29, 2009). 

10 NCES (National Center for Education Statistics). 2009. “Search for Public School Districts,” 

11 U.S. Department of Education. Available URL: http://www.nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/

12 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. § 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq. 

13 New South Associates. 2006. “Cultural Resources Background Research Supporting License 

14 Renewal, Crystal River Nuclear Plant, Citrus and Levy Counties, Florida,” New South 

15 Associates Technical Report 1433, Report prepared by New South Associates, St. Augustine, 

16 Florida for Tetra Tech NUS, Aiken, South Carolina, December 19, 2006. 

17 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1979. “Determination of Critical Habitat for the 

18 Leatherback Sea Turtle,” Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 58, pp. 17710–17712. 

19 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1991. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

20 Plant; Threatened Status for the Gulf Sturgeon,” Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 189, pp. 49653–

21 49657. 

22 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. “Designated Critical Habitat; Green and 

23 Hawksbill Sea Turtles,” Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 170, pp. 46693–46701. 

24 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2003. “Endangered and Threatened Species; Final 

25 Endangered Status for a Distinct Population Segment of Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata) 

26 in the United States,” Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 62, pp. 15674–15680. 

27 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009a. Letter from T. Mincey, NMFS, to D.J. 

28 Wrona, NRC. Subject: “Reply to Request for List of Species Protected by the Endangered 

29 Species Act and under the Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service for the State of 

30 Florida,” April 20, 2009. 

31 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009b. Letter from M.M. Croom, NMFS, to D.J. 

32 Wrona, NRC, May 4, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML091460257. 

33 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009c. “Endangered and Threatened Species; 

34 Critical Habitat for the Endangered Distinct Population Segment of Smalltooth Sawfish,” Federal 

35 Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, pp. 45353–45378. 

36 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009d. “Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Plan (Pristis 

37 pectinata),” Prepared by the Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Team for the National Marine 

38 Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, January 2009. Available URL: 

39 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/smalltoothsawfish.pdf (accessed March 10, 2010). 

40 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2010a. “FishWatch – U.S. Seafood Facts: Pink 

41 Shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum).” Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishwatch/

42 species/pink_shrimp.htm (accessed February 8, 2011). 

43 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2010b. “Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas).” Available 

44 URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm (accessed April 26, 2010). 
Affected Environment 

 2-121 

1 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2010c. “Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys 

2 coriacea).” Available URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/leatherback.htm

3 (accessed April 26, 2010). 

4 NMFS and FWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007a. 

5 “Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation,” National 

6 Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Springs, Maryland, and 

7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Jacksonville, Florida. Available URL: 

8 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/greenturtle_5yearreview.pdf (accessed 

9 January 10, 2010). 

10 NMFS and FWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007b. 

11 “Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation,” 

12 National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Springs, Maryland, and 

13 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Jacksonville, Florida. Available URL: 

14 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/hawksbill_5yearreview.pdf (accessed 

15 January 10, 2010). 

16 NMFS and FWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007c. 

17 “Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation,” 

18 National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Springs, Maryland, and 

19 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Available URL: 

20 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/kempsridley_5yearreview.pdf (accessed 

21 January 10, 2010). 

22 NMFS and FWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007d. 

23 “Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation,” 

24 National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Springs, Maryland, and 

25 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Jacksonville, Florida. Available URL: 

26 http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/2007-Reviews/2007-leatherback-turtle-5-year27 review-final.pdf (accessed January 10, 2010). 

28 NMFS and FWS (National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007e. 

29 “Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation,” National 

30 Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Springs, Maryland, and U.S. 

31 Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Jacksonville, Florida. Available URL: 

32 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/loggerhead_5yearreview.pdf (accessed 

33 January 10, 2010). 

34 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009. National Climatic Data 

35 Center Interactive Storm Events Database. Available URL: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi36 win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms (accessed March 30, 2010). 

37 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2011a. “Coastal Zone 

38 Management Act – Congressional Action to Help Manage Our Nation’s Coasts.” Available URL: 

39 http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/czm/czm_act.html (accessed March 31, 2011). 

40 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2011b. “Ocean and Coastal 

41 Management in Florida – Federal Consistency Overview.” Available URL: 

42 http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/consistency/welcome.html (acessed March 31, 2011). 

43 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2011c. “Ocean and Coastal 

44 Management in Florida – Florida’s Coastal Program.” Available URL: 

45 http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/mystate/fl.html (accessed March 31, 2011). 
Affected Environment 

 2-122 

1 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

2 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C., 

3 May 1996, ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738. 

4 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

5 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

6 Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final 

7 Report,” NUREG 1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C., August 1999, ADAMS 

8 Accession No. ML04069720. 

9 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009a. Letter from D.J. Wrona, NRC, to 

10 S.D. Hamilton, FWS. Subject: “Request for List of Protected Species within the Area under 

11 Evaluation for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant License Renewal Application 

12 Review,” April 13, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML090400392. 

13 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009b. Letter from D.J. Wrona, NRC, to 

14 R.E. Crabtree, NMFS. Subject: “Request for List of Protected Species and Essential Fish 

15 Habitat within the Area under Evaluation for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

16 License Renewal Application Review,” April 13, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML090360156. 

17 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009c. Letter from D.J. Wrona, NRC, to 

18 K. Frohlich, FWC. Subject: “Request for List of Protected Species within the Area under 

19 Evaluation for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant License Renewal Application 

20 Review,” June 8, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML091540774. 

21 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009d. Letter from D.J. Wrona, NRC, to 

22 G. Knight, FNAI. Subject: “Request for List of Protected Species within the Area under 

23 Evaluation for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant License Renewal Application 

24 Review,” June 8, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML09154075. 

25 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010. “Summary of October 13, 2010, Public 

26 Meeting with Florida Power Corporation Regarding Crystal River’s Proposed License 

27 Amendment Request to Support the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility Project,” 

28 December 16, 2010, ADAMS Accession No. ML103480634. 

29 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. E-mail from D. Doyle, NRC, to 

30 W.S. Vinikour, Argonne National Laboratory. Subject: “RE: Outstanding Information Items for 

31 Crystal River,” February 15, 2011. 

32 Ortiz, A.G. 2006. “Potentiometric Surface of the Upper Floridan Aquifer, West-Central Florida, 

33 May 2006,” U.S. Geological Society Open File Report 2007-1032, Prepared in cooperation with 

34 the Southwest Florida Water Management District, May 2006. 

35 Page, L.M., and B.M. Burr. 1991. A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes, Houghton Mifflin 

36 Company, Boston, 432 pp. 

37 Patton, C. 2010. “Biological Profiles Polka-dot Batfish,” Florida Museum of Natural History, 

38 Gainesville, Florida. Available URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/BatFish/

39 Batfish.htm (accessed April 29, 2010). 

40 Perry, H.M., and T.D. McIlwain. 1986. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental 

41 Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) – Blue Crab,” U.S. Fish and 

42 Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82(11.55), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, 21 pp. 

43 Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-055.pdf (accessed 

44 March 3, 2010). 
Affected Environment 

 2-123 

1 Peterson, C.H., J.H. Grabowski, and S.P. Powers. 2003. “Estimated Enhancement of Fish 

2 Production Resulting from Restoring Oyster Reef Habitat: Quantitative Valuation,” Marine 

3 Ecology Progress Series, 264:249–264. 

4 Phillips, R.C. 1960. “The Ecology of Marine Plants of Crystal Bay, Florida,” Quarterly Journal of 

5 the Florida Academy of Sciences, 23(4):328–337. 

6 Pinellas County Parks and Recreation. 2010. “Fort De Soto Park” and “Fort De Soto Historic 

7 Guide.” Available URL: http://www.pinellascounty.org/park/05_ft_desoto.htm (accessed 

8 March 9, 2010). 

9 Poulakis, G.R., and J.C. Seitz. 2004. “Recent Occurrence of the Smalltooth Sawfish, Pristis 

10 pectinata (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Pristidae), in Florida Bay and the Florida Keys, with 

11 Comments on Sawfish Ecology,” Florida Scientist, 67(1):27–35. 

12 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2004. “General Guidelines for Herbicide 

13 Applications on Transmission Rights-of-Way,” February 2004, ADAMS Accession 

14 No. ML100980528. 

15 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2006. “General Guidelines for Vegetation 

16 Maintenance/Re-clearing of Transmission Rights-of-Way,” March 2006, ADAMS Accession 

17 No. ML100980528. 

18 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2007. Letter from D.A. Bruzek, Progress 

19 Energy, to B. Nori, FDEP. Subject: “Progress Energy Florida, Inc. – Crystal River, Units 1, 2, 

20 and 3 NPDES Permit No. FL0000159 Thermal Plume Assessment Plan of Study,” 

21 September 17, 2007. 

22 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2008a. “Crystal River Unit 3 – License 

23 Renewal Application, Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage,” 

24 November 2008, ADAMS Accession No. ML090080731. 

25 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2008b. “Crystal River Unit 3 – 2007 Annual 

26 Radiological Environmental Operating Report,” ADAMS Accession No. ML081360204. 

27 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009a. Letter from G.D. Miller, Progress 

28 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Letter from Douglas Bruner (NRC) to James 

29 Scarola (Progress Energy), Dated June 23, 2009, ‘Supplemental Request for Additional 

30 Information Regarding the Environmental Review of the Combined License Application for the 

31 Levy Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2,’” July 29, 2009, ADAMS Accession 

32 No. ML092160830. 

33 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009b. Crystal River Units 1, 2, and 3 – 

34 Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Best Management Practices Plan, Revision 5, 

35 August 2009. 

36 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009c. Coal Combustion Product and Solid 

37 Waste Management Plan – Crystal River Energy Complex, revised December 11, 2009. 

38 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009d. Monthly Monitoring Report for Florida 

39 Power Corporation, Crystal River Energy Complex, Permit ID FLA016960, January 2009, report 

40 from Larry Hatcher, Progress Energy, submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental 

41 Protection, February 25, 2009. 

42 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009e. “Herbicide Usage - Progress Energy 

43 Carolinas, Inc.” Available URL: http://www.progress-energy.com/environment/vegetation/

44 herbicide.asp (accessed June 29, 2009). 
Affected Environment 

 2-124 

1 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009f. Crystal River Unit 3 – Response to 

2 Request for Additional Information Regarding the Review of the License Renewal Application for 

3 the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (TAC No. ME0278), November 2009, ADAMS 

4 Accession No. ML093170487. 

5 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2010a. Letter from J.A. Franke, Progress 

6 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River Unit 3 – Response to Request 

7 for Additional Information for the Review of the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, 

8 License Renewal Application (TAC No. ME0278) – Environmental Review,” June 28, 2010, 

9 ADAMS Accession No. ML102150284. 

10 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2010b. “Crystal River Unit 3 – 2009 Annual 

11 Radiological Environmental Operating Report,” February 25, 2010. 

12 Puglisi, M.P. 2008. “Menippe mercenaria (Florida Stone Crab),” Smithsonian Marine Station, 

13 Fort Pierce, Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Menippe_mercenaria.htm

14 (accessed April 7, 2010). 

15 Quick, J.A., Jr. (ed.). 1971. “A Preliminary Investigation: The Effect of Elevated Temperature 

16 on the American Oyster Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin). A Symposium,” Professional Papers 

17 Series Number Fifteen, Florida Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida, 

18 June 1971. 

19 Reagan, R.E. 1985. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of 

20 Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) – Red Drum,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

21 FWS/OBS-82(11.36), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, 16 pp. Available URL: 

22 http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-036.pdf (accessed March 3, 2010). 

23 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. § 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq. 

24 ReMetrix. 2007. “Seagrass Quantification Plan for Progress Energy Florida, Inc. 

25 Hydroacoustic Sampling with Species Point Sampling,” Revised Proposal Submitted to 

26 Progress Energy Florida, Inc., July 5, 2007, ADAMS Accession No. ML100210790. 

27 Robinette, H.R. 1983. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of 

28 Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) – Bay Anchovy and Striped Anchovy,” U.S. 

29 Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/11.14, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, 

30 15 pp. Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-014.pdf

31 (accessed March 3, 2010). 

32 Rydene, D.A., and R.E. Matheson, Jr. 2003. “Diurnal Fish Density in Relation to Seagrass and 

33 Drift Algae Cover in Tampa Bay, Florida,” Gulf of Mexico Science, 2003(1):35–58. 

34 Sacks, L.A., 1996. “Geochemical and Isotopic Composition of Ground Water with Emphasis on 

35 Sources of Sulfate in the Upper Floridan Aquifer in Parts of Marion, Sumter, and Citrus 

36 Counties, Florida,” U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 95-4251, 

37 Tallahassee, Florida. 

38 Sargent, F.J., T.J. Leary, D.W. Crewz, and C.R. Kruer. 1995. “Scarring of Florida’s 

39 Seagrasses: Assessment and Management Options,” FMRI Technical Report TR-1, Florida 

40 Department of Environmental Protection, St. Petersburg, Florida. Available URL: 

41 http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=tr%2D1report%5F39

42 18%2Epdf&objid=35289&dltype=publication (accessed September 9, 2009). 

43 SCDNR (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources). 2006. “Comprehensive Wildlife 

44 Conservation Strategy – Brief Squid Lolliguncula brevis,” Available URL: http://www.dnr.sc.gov/

45 cwcs/pdf/Briefsquid.pdf (accessed April 20, 2010). 
Affected Environment 

 2-125 

1 Seitz, J.C., and G.R. Poulakis. 2006. “Anthropogenic Effects on the Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis 

2 pectinata) in the United States,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52:1533–1540. 

3 Shrader, M. 2009. Letter from M. Shrader, Progress Energy, to M. Harris, FDEP. 

4 Subject: “Crystal River Units 1, 2, & 3 NPDES Permit No. FL0000159, Major Permit 

5 Modification – Helper Cooling Tower South,” September 11, 2009. 

6 Simpfendorfer, C.A., and T.R. Wiley. 2006. “Final Report, National Smalltooth Sawfish 

7 Encounter Database,” Center for Shark Research, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida, 

8 January 2006. Available URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2075/239 (accessed April 15, 2010). 

9 Smith, D.J. 2006. “Ecological Impacts of SR 200 on the Ross Prairie Ecosystem,” in 

10 Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Irwin C.L., 

11 P. Garrett, and K.P. McDermott (eds.), Center for Transportation and the Environment, North 

12 Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, pp. 380–396. Available URL: 

13 http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1330&context=jmie/roadeco

14 (accessed June 18, 2009). 

15 Stanley, J.G., and M.A. Sellers. 1986. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental 

16 Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) – American Oyster,” U.S. 

17 Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82(11.65), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, 

18 25 pp. Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-065.pdf

19 (accessed March 3, 2010). 

20 Steidinger, K.A., and J.F. Van Breedveld. 1971. “Benthic Marine Algae from Waters Adjacent 

21 to the Crystal River Electric Power Plant (1969 and 1970),” Professional Papers Series Number 

22 Sixteen, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Marine Research Laboratory, 

23 St. Petersburg, Florida, June 1971. 

24 Stickney, R.L., and M.L. Cuenco. 1982. “Habitat Suitability Index Models: Juvenile Spot,” 

25 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 

26 FWS/OBS-82/10.20, 12 pp. 

27 Sutter, F.C., and T.D. McIlwain. 1987. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental 

28 Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) – Pigfish,” U.S. Fish and 

29 Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82(11.71), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, 114 pp. 

30 Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-071.pdf

31 (accessed March 3, 2010). 

32 SWEC (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation). 1985. “Final Report: Crystal River 316 

33 Studies,” Prepared for Florida Power Corporation, January 15, 1985. 

34 SFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District). 2006. Aquifer Characteristics within 

35 the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Report 99-1, Fourth Edition, Technical 

36 Services Department Resource Regulation of the SFWMD, February 2006. 

37 SFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District). 2007. Water Use Individual Permit 

38 20004695.004, issued November 26, 2007. 

39 SFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District). 2008. Governing Board Meeting – 

40 Agenda and Meeting Information, January 29, 2008. 

41 SFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District). 2009. “Hálpata Tastanaki Preserve.” 

42 Available URL: http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/recreation/areas/halpata.html (accessed 

43 June 18, 2008). 
Affected Environment 

 2-126 

1 SFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District). 2010. “Starkey Wilderness 

2 Preserve.” Available URL: http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/recreation/areas/

3 starkeywilderness.html (accessed April 2, 2010). 

4 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2008. “Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys 

5 kempii),” Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas. Available URL: 

6 http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/endang/animals/reptiles_amphibians/

7 kempsrid.phtml (accessed June 1, 2009). 

8 Trommer, J.T. 1993. “Description and Monitoring of the Saltwater-Freshwater Transition Zone 

9 in Aquifers along the West-Central Coast of Florida,” U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources 

10 Investigations Report 93-4120, Tallahassee, Florida. 

11 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2009a. QT-H1. “General Housing Characteristics: 2000.” 

12 Available URL: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-context=

13 qt&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_QTH1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-tree_id=4001&-redo

14 Log=true&-all_geo_types=N&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=05000US12017&-search_results=01

15 000US&-format=&-_lang=en

16 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2009b. QT-H14. “Value, Mortgage Status, and Selected 

17 Conditions: 2000.” Available URL: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/

18 QTTable?_bm=y&-context=qt&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_QTH14&-ds_name=DEC_2000_

19 SF3_U&-tree_id=403&-redoLog=true&-all_geo_types=N&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=05000US

20 12017&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en

21 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2009c. “FLORIDA: Population of Counties by Decennial 

22 Census: 1900 to 1990.” Available URL: http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/

23 cencounts/files/fl190090.txt

24 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2009d. QT-P4. “Race, Combinations of Two Races, and Not 

25 Hispanic or Latino: 2000, Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data 

26 Geographic Area: Citrus County, Florida.” Available URL: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/

27 QTTable?_bm=y&-context=qt&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_QTP4&-ds_name=DEC_2000_S

28 F1_U&-CONTEXT=qt&-tree_id=4001&-redoLog=true&-all_geo_types=N&-_caller=geoselect&-g

29 eo_id=05000US12017&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en (accessed March 24, 

30 2010). 

31 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2011. Citrus County, Florida and State of Florida, “American 

32 Community Survey; ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2009; Selected Economic 

33 Characteristics: 2009.” Available URL: http://factfinder.census.gov (accessed February 2011). 

34 USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1988. Soil Survey for Citrus County, Florida, Soil 

35 Conservation Service, November 1988. 

36 USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2009. “Table 7. Hired Farm Labor - Workers and 

37 Payroll: 2007.” Available URL: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/

38 Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Florida/st12_2_007_007.pdf

39 USDOL (U.S. Department of Labor). 2009. “Local Area Unemployment Statistics.” Available 

40 URL: http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables

41 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1997. “West-Central Florida Coast – Limited Sand Resources 

42 for Eroding Beaches,” Fact Sheet 069-97, February 1997. 

43 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2008. “Gulf Sturgeon Facts,” U.S. Geological Survey, Florida 

44 Integrated Science Center, Gainesville, Florida. Available URL: http://fl.biology.usgs.gov/

45 Marine_Studies/Sturgeon_FAQs/sturgeon_faqs.html (accessed May 30, 2009). 
Affected Environment 

 2-127 

1 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2009a. Surface Water Annual Statistics for the Nation: 

2 USGS 02313250 Withlacoochee River Bypass Channel near Inglis, Florida. Available URL: 

3 http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ (accessed June 19, 2009). 

4 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2009b. Surface Water Annual Statistics for the Nation: 

5 USGS 02310747 Crystal River at Bagley Cove near Crystal River, Florida (tidally filtered; 

6 incomplete data). Available URL: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ (accessed June 19, 2009). 

7 Waggy, G.L., M.S. Peterson, and B.H. Comyns. 2007. “Feeding Habits and Mouth Morphology 

8 of Young Silver Perch (Bairdiella chrysoura) from the North-Central Gulf of Mexico,” 

9 Southeastern Naturalist, 6(4):743–751. 

10 Wahanik, R.J. 1969. “Circulating Water System Study,” GAI Report No. 1702, Prepared by 

11 Gilbert Associates, for Florida Power Corporation, June 9, 1969. 

12 Ward, A.E. 1999. “Maine’s Coastal Wetlands: I. Types, Distribution, Rankings, Functions and 

13 Values,” DEPLW1999 – 13, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Land & 

14 Water Quality, Division of Environmental Assessment, Augusta, Maine, September 1999. 

15 Welsh, W.W., and C.M. Breder, Jr. 1923. “Contributions to Life Histories of Sciaenidae of the 

16 Eastern United States Coast,” Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries, 34:141–201. 

17 Williams, R. 1972. Letter from R. Williams, Director, Division of Archives, History, and Records 

18 Management, Tallahassee, Florida, to H.E. Still, Jr., State Planning and Development 

19 Clearinghouse, Tallahassee, Florida, March 30, 1972. 

20 Yobbi, D.K., and L.A. Knochenmus. 1989. “Effects of River Discharge and High-Tide Stage on 

21 Salinity Intrusion of the Weeki Wachee, Crystal, and Withlacoochee River Estuaries, Southwest 

22 Florida,” U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4116, Prepared in 

23 Cooperation with the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Tallahassee, Florida. 

24 Yobbi, D.K. 1992. “Effects of Tidal Stage and Ground-Water Levels on the Discharge and 

25 Water Quality of Springs in Coastal Citrus and Hernando Counties, Florida,” U.S. Geological 

26 Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-4069, Prepared in Cooperation with the 

27 Southwest Florida Water Management District, Tallahassee, Florida. 

28 Zinski, S.C. 2006. “Blue Crab Life Cycle.” Available URL: http://www.bluecrab.info/

29 lifecycle.html (accessed April 8, 2010).

 3-1 

1 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF REFURBISHMENT 

2 License renewal actions include refurbishment for the extended plant life. These actions may 

3 have an impact on the environment that requires evaluation, depending on the type of action 

4 and the plant-specific design. Environmental issues associated with refurbishment, which were 

5 determined to be Category 1 issues, are listed in Table 3-1. 

6 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff analyzed site-specific issues 

7 (Category 2) for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3) and assigned them a 

8 significance level of SMALL, MODERATE, LARGE, or not applicable to CR-3 because of site 

9 characteristics or plant features. Section 1.4 in Chapter 1 explains the criteria for Category 1 

10 and Category 2 issues and defines the impact designations of SMALL, MODERATE, and 

11 LARGE. 

12 Table 3-1. Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B GEIS Sections 

Surface Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use (for all plants) 

Impacts of refurbishment on surface water quality 3.4.1 

Impacts of refurbishment on surface water use 3.4.1 

Aquatic Ecology (for all plants) 

Refurbishment 3.5 

Groundwater Use and Quality 

Impacts of refurbishment on groundwater use and quality 3.4.2 

Land Use 

Onsite land use 3.2 

Human Health 

Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment 3.8.1 

Occupational radiation exposures during refurbishment 3.8.2 

Socioeconomics 

Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation 3.7.4, 3.7.4.3, 3.7.4.4, 3.7.4.6 

Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment) 3.7.8 

13 Environmental issues related to refurbishment considered in the Generic Environmental Impact 

14 Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) (NRC, 1996), (NRC, 1999) that are 

15 inconclusive for all plants, or for specific classes of plants, are Category 2 issues. Table 3-2 

16 lists these issues. 
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment 

 3-2 

1 Table 3-2. Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation 

ISSUE—10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections 

10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) 

Subparagraph 

Terrestrial Resources 

Refurbishment impacts 3.6 E 

Threatened or Endangered Species (for all plants) 

Threatened or endangered species 3.9 E 

Air Quality 

Air quality during refurbishment (nonattainment and maintenance areas) 3.3 F 

Socioeconomics 

Housing impacts 3.7.2 I 

Public services: public utilities 3.7.4.5 I 

Public services: education (refurbishment) 3.7.4.1 I 

Offsite land use (refurbishment) 3.7.5 I 

Public services, transportation 3.7.4.2 J 

Historic and archaeological resources 3.7.7 K 

Environmental Justice 

Environmental justice(a) Not addressed Not addressed 

(a) Guidance related to environmental justice was not in place at the time the NRC prepared the GEIS and the 

associated revision to 10 CFR Part 51. If an applicant plans to undertake refurbishment activities for license 

renewal, the applicant’s environmental report and the NRC staff’s environmental impact statement must address 

environmental justice. 

2 The potential environmental effects of refurbishment actions are noted, and the analysis will be 

3 summarized within this section, if such actions are planned. The applicant stated in its 

4 environmental report (Progress Energy, 2008) that it has performed an evaluation of systems, 

5 structures, and components under Section 54.21 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

6 (10 CFR 54.21) to note the need to undertake any major refurbishment activities that are 

7 necessary to support continued operation of CR-3 during the requested 20-year period of 

8 extended operation. Table B.2 of the GEIS lists items that are subject to aging and might 

9 require refurbishment to support continued operation during the renewal period. 

10 The results of the evaluation of systems, structures, and components for CR-3, as required by 

11 10 CFR 54.21, noted steam generator replacement as a refurbishment activity. The 

12 environmental report contained an analysis of the potential impacts of this activity. However, 

13 after the submission of the environmental report but prior to the issuance of the new license, the 

14 steam generator replacement was completed as described in the environmental report. Since 

15 the applicant subsequently determined that this activity was necessary regardless of the 

16 outcome of the NRC’s license renewal review, the NRC does not consider the steam generator 

17 replacement a refurbishment activity. In February 2009, the NRC issued a Federal Register

18 notice which explained how National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) obligations were fulfilled 

19 and that the steam generator replacement met the conditions for a categorical exclusion 

20 (NRC, 2009a). In May 2009, the NRC approved a license amendment which authorized the 

21 activity (NRC, 2009b). Subsequently, no further detailed analysis of the steam generator 

22 replacement is required in this supplemental environmental impact statement. 
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment 

 3-3 

1 3.1 REFERENCES 

2 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

3 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

4 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for 

5 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

6 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. § 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq. 

7 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

8 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C., 

9 May 1996, Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession 

10 Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738. 

11 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

12 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

13 Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final 

14 Report,” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C., August 1999, ADAMS 

15 Accession No. ML040690720. 

16 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009a. “Biweekly Notice; Applications and 

17 Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations,” 

18 Federal Register, Vol. 74, February 24, 2009, p. 8284, Washington, D.C. 

19 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009b. Letter from F.E. Saba, NRC, to D.E. 

20 Young, Crystal River Nuclear Plant. Subject: “Crystal River Unit 3 – Issuance of Amendment 

21 Regarding the Revision of the Steam Generator Portion of the Technical Specifications to 

22 Reflect the Replacement of the Steam Generators (TAC No. MD9547),” May 29, 2009, ADAMS 

23 Accession No. ML091100056. 

24 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2008. “Crystal River Unit 3 – License 

25 Renewal Application, Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage,” 

26 November 2008, ADAMS Accession No. ML090080731.

 4-1 

1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF OPERATION 

2 This chapter addresses potential environmental impacts related to the period of extended 

3 operation of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3). These impacts are grouped 

4 and presented according to resource. Generic issues (Category 1) rely on the analysis provided 

5 in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), 

6 NUREG-1437, prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and are discussed 

7 briefly (NRC, 1996), (NRC, 1999). The NRC staff (Staff) analyzed site-specific issues 

8 (Category 2) for CR-3 and assigned them a significance level of SMALL, MODERATE, LARGE, 

9 or not applicable to CR-3 because of site characteristics or plant features. Section 1.4 in 

10 Chapter 1 explains the criteria for Category 1 and Category 2 issues and defines the impact 

11 designations of SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE. 

12 4.1 LAND USE 

13 Onsite land use issues that could be affected by license renewal are listed in Table 4.1-1. As 

14 discussed in the GEIS, onsite land use and power line right-of-way (ROW) conditions are 

15 expected to remain unchanged during the license renewal term at all nuclear plants and thus 

16 impacts would be SMALL. These issues were, therefore, classified as Category 1 issues. 

17 Section 2.2.1 of this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) describes the land 

18 use conditions at CR-3. 

19 The NRC did not find any new and significant information that would change the conclusions 

20 presented in the GEIS during its review of the applicant’s environmental report (ER) (Progress 

21 Energy, 2008a), the site visit, or the scoping process. Therefore, for these Category 1 issues, 

22 impacts during the renewal term are not expected to exceed those discussed in the GEIS. 

23 Table 4.1-1. Land Use Issues. Section 2.2.1 of this SEIS describes the land use around 

24 CR-3. 

Issues GEIS Section Category 

Onsite land use 4.5.3 1 

Power line right-of-way 4.5.3 1 

25 4.2 AIR QUALITY 

26 As discussed in Section 2.2.2.1, all of Florida, including Citrus County is currently in attainment 

27 for all National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). CR-3 is located within the Crystal 

28 River Energy Complex (CREC) in Citrus County. In addition to the CR-3 nuclear reactor, the 

29 CREC includes four large coal-burning boilers, as well as facilities for the handling of coal, coal 

30 combustion residue (fly ash and bottom ash), and other waste materials related to the operation 

31 of pollution control devices. Because of those boilers, the CREC is considered to be a major 

32 source with respect to its potential to emit (PTE) greater than 100 tons/year of any criteria 

pollutant1 33 . Consequently, all sources of criteria pollutant emissions at the CREC, including 

34 those associated exclusively with the operation of the nuclear reactor, are subject to a Title V 

35 operating permit, issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The 

 

1

 A major air pollution source is defined in Florida Administrative Code (FAC), Rule 62-212.400. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-2 

1 Title V permit (No. 0170004-024-AV) (FDEP, 2006a), issued on May 29, 2006, and renewed on 

2 December 28, 2009 (FDEP, 2009a), now addresses the operation of all stationary sources of 

3 criteria pollutants as well as portable sources such as portable emergency generators. While 

4 the majority of the sources addressed by the permit are associated with the coal-fired boilers at 

5 CREC, there are also 12 diesel-fueled reciprocating internal combustion engine (RICE) sources 

6 listed in the permit that are exclusive to CR-3 operation. All of these sources, either individually 

7 or collectively, have the potential for only minor impact on air quality either because of their 

8 small size or limited hours of operation. Table 4.2-1 provides critical parameters for the CR-3 

9 RICE stationary sources. 

10 Table 4.2-1. Internal Combustion Engine Stationary Sources of Criteria Pollutants 

11 Associated with the Operation of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

Source Design Heat 

Rating/Horsepower (hp) 

Five-Year Maximum Annual 

Run Time (hour/year) 

Diesel Emergency Generator EGDG 1A 3,500 kW/4,694 hp 38.1 

Diesel Emergency Generator EGDG 1B 3,500 kW/4,694 hp 34.3 

Diesel Emergency Generator EGDG 1C 3,500 kW/4,694 hp 49.5 

Diesel Emergency Generator - Met-1 260 kW/349 hp 6 

Diesel-Fired Pump Data not provided 30 

Diesel-Fired Pump Data not provided 6 

Diesel Emergency Generator - Security 30 kW/40 hp 70 

Diesel Emergency Generator - SAB 125 kW/168 hp 47.5 

Diesel-Driven Emergency Feed Pump EFP-3 1,670 hp 6.1 

CR-3 Diesel Emergency Fire Pump FSP-2A 255 hp 7.2 

CR-3 Diesel Emergency Fire Pump FSP-2B 255 hp 5.4 

Diesel Driven Emergency Makeup Pump (B.5.b) 230 hp 20 

kW = kilowatts 

Source: CREC Operating Data Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine Diesel Usage Summary Database, 

Progress Energy, 2009a 

12 Each of the RICE sources listed in Table 4.2-1 is enrolled in a preventative maintenance 

13 program that calls for periodic inspection and operation, triggered by recurring work orders, to 

14 ensure operability. Records reviewed demonstrate that required preventative maintenance 

15 actions are completed in a timely way and problems are corrected promptly (Progress Energy, 

16 2009b), (Progress Energy, 2009c), (Progress Energy, 2009d), (Progress Energy, 2009e), 

17 (Progress Energy, 2009f), (Progress Energy, 2009g), (Progress Energy, 2009h). Annual 

18 emission reports submitted by the applicant to the FDEP for the period 2004 through 2008 

19 (Progress Energy, 2005a), (Progress Energy, 2006a), (Progress Energy, 2007a), (Progress 

20 Energy, 2008b), (Progress Energy, 2009i) report on the criteria pollutant emissions from each of 

21 the RICE sources. Table 4.2-2 shows the criteria pollutant emissions from two of the largest 

22 emergency generators. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-3 

1 Table 4.2-2. Criteria Pollutant Emissions from the Operation of 3,500-kW Emergency 

Generators Supporting Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Operation(a) 2 

Emissions in Tons/Year 

Year Carbon Monoxide Particulate Nitrogen Oxides Sulfur Dioxide 

2004 1.004 0.118 3.781 0.597 

2005 1.449 0.170 5.455 0.086 

2006 0.933 0.110 3.512 0.055 

2007 0.933 0.110 3.512 0.055 

2008 0.987 0.116 3.714 0.059 

(a) Depending on the year, totals represent the operation of two or three 3,500-kW generators. 

Sources: Progress Energy, 2005a; Progress Energy, 2006a; Progress Energy, 2007a; Progress Energy, 

2008b; Progress Energy, 2009i 

3 In addition to RICE sources, the numerous cooling towers operating at the CREC are also 

sources of particulate emissions in the form of drift2 4 . Heated seawater returned from heat 

5 exchangers of the steam cycles of all the CREC steam generators (fossil fuel CR-1, CR-2, 

6 CR-4, and CR-5 and nuclear reactor CR-3) is discharged to a common intake/discharge canal. 

7 Water is withdrawn from the canal and passed through as many as four mechanical draft helper 

8 cooling towers (collectively, emission Unit 13 in the Title V permit) and as many as four modular 

9 mechanical draft cooling towers (collectively, emission Unit 20 in the Title V permit) in sequence 

10 to the extent necessary to meet the thermal limits of the National Pollutant Discharge 

11 Elimination System (NPDES) permit applicable to seawater at its point of ultimate release from 

the intake/discharge canal3 12 . Because of this configuration and extant operating protocols, air 

13 quality impacts from individual cooling tower operations cannot be exclusively attributed to the 

14 operation of CR-3. Annual reports of emissions submitted to FDEP for the years 2004 through 

15 2008 (Progress Energy, 2005a), (Progress Energy, 2006a), (Progress Energy, 2007a), 

16 (Progress Energy, 2008b), (Progress Energy, 2009i) show that the hours of operation of the four 

17 helper cooling towers varied from a low of 2,331 hours in 2008 to a high of 3,265 hours in 2007, 

18 operating, on average, 30.5 percent of the time. Over the period 2006 through 2008, the 

modular cooling towers operated only 8.6 percent of the time4 19 . In 2008, the helper cooling 

20 towers emitted 42.1 tons/year of particulate matter (PM), including 21 tons/year of particulate 

21 matter, 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10), while the modular towers emitted 8.2 tons/year of 

22 PM, including 0.5 tons/year PM10 (Meyer, 2009). However, as noted above, cooling tower 

23 configuration prevents a precise determination of how much of those amounts were attributable 

24 exclusively to supporting the operation of CR-3 over those timeframes. 

25 To accommodate increased heat rejection demands of CR-3 as a result of the 40-megawatt 

26 (MW) power uprate undertaken in the fall of 2009, the applicant is constructing an additional 

27 cooling tower on the south leg of the intake/discharge canal. Known as the south cooling tower 

 

2

 The cooling towers act to cool heated seawater. Because the cooling towers are once-through 

systems, the seawater is not chemically treated for control of scale and biological organisms. Drift from 

the towers involves droplets of seawater which Florida rules define as particulate. 3

 Two natural draft cooling towers are also operational on the CREC; however, they support coal-fired 

CR-4 and CR-5 exclusively and are not in any way associated with the other cooling towers discussed 

here or with the intake/discharge canal. 4

 Modular cooling towers were installed in 2006. Operating hours will vary based on steam loads, as 

well as ambient temperature and humidity conditions. Modular towers are used only as needed to 

meet permit thermal limits. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-4 

1 (SCT), this new tower will have a cooling capacity greater than what is demanded by the CR-3 

2 uprate. Because the SCT discharges into the canal at a point upstream of the existing towers, 

3 once it is operational (and all 18 cells are installed), the applicant anticipates being able to retire 

4 the helper towers and still meet the collective heat rejection demands of all the CREC steam 

5 cycles. The permit issued by the FDEP for the SCT (FDEP, 2009b) authorizes a maximum flow 

6 rate of 342,306 gallons per minute (gpm) and limits drift (with drift eliminators installed) to 

7 0.0005 percent of the circulating water flow, representing a water consumption rate of 

1.8x1011 8 gallons/year if the tower were to operate continuously. Based on a typical total 

9 dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of saltwater of 25,307 parts per million (ppm) and a 

saltwater density of 8.57 pounds/gallon (lb/gal) (64.2 pounds per cubic feet [lb/ft3 10 ]), this equates 

11 to a maximum emission rate of 22.3 lb/hour or 97.9 tons/year of PM, of which 1.35 lb/hour or 

12 5.9 tons/year is expected to be released as PM10, based on all 18 cells installed and continuous 

13 operation (8,760 hours/year) (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007a). Although operating data are not 

14 yet available, it can be reasonably anticipated that the projected increase in particulate 

15 emissions of 97.9 tons/year will be offset by the reduction in emissions due to retirement of the 

16 helper towers (averaging 46.5 tons/year over the period 2004 through 2008) for a net projected 

17 annual particulate emission of 51.4 tons/year, notwithstanding additional minor contributions 

18 from the limited operation (expected to be no more than 10 percent of the time) of the modular 

19 towers. 

20 Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment as well as industrial chillers in 

21 service at CR-3 contain refrigerants, including R-11 (trichlorofluoromethane), R-22 

22 (chlorodifluoromethane), and R-134a (1,1,1,2-tetraflouroethane). Depending on the refrigerant 

23 and the amount present, Federal regulations (40 CFR Part 82) applicable to ozone depleting 

24 compounds (ODC) apply to the operation and maintenance of this equipment. All 

25 refrigerant-containing equipment is enrolled in preventative maintenance programs to ensure 

26 their proper, uninterrupted operation and also to ensure that management of ODCs remains 

27 compliant with Federal regulations. Various written procedures outlining the preventative 

28 maintenance of this equipment (Progress Energy, 2009b), (Progress Energy, 2009c), (Progress 

29 Energy, 2009d) require regular inspections, guarantee proper management of refrigerants and 

30 compressor oils removed from the equipment, and require documentation adequate to 

31 demonstrate compliance with applicable regulations. Scheduled preventative maintenance 

32 events are directed by work order, as are service visits to correct reported malfunctions. 

33 Representative preventative maintenance logs reviewed by the Staff (Progress Energy, 2009e), 

34 (Progress Energy, 2009f) demonstrate that preventative maintenance procedures are being 

35 followed. All servicing is performed by properly certified Progress Energy employees. 

36 Written procedures are also in place for preventative maintenance of meteorological instruments 

37 and for management of meteorological data (Progress Energy, 2009g), (Progress Energy, 

38 2009h), (Progress Energy, 2009j). Procedures integrate instrument manufacturers’ 

39 maintenance and calibration recommendations with relevant NRC regulations and FPC policies 

40 to ensure acceptable quality of meteorological data and adequate data capture frequencies. 

41 Procedures call for visual inspections of instruments, the tower and surrounding vicinity to 

42 identify and remove any potential interference to data quality, verification of proper instrument 

43 function, documentation of completion of required checks and calibrations, and resolution of 

44 identified problems. Procedures also prescribe notifications to key FPC personnel in the event 

45 of observed malfunctions so that alternative data capture procedures can be implemented until 

46 repairs are completed. 

47 In late 2009, the applicant shut down CR-3 for a planned steam generator replacement refueling 

48 outage. The existing transportation infrastructure was sufficient to support delivery of the new 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-5 

1 steam generators. A temporary concrete batch plant was constructed on site to support the 

2 project. Air quality impacts included those related to operation of the concrete batch plant, 

3 those associated with operation of RICE in construction vehicles and equipment and in the 

4 privately owned vehicles of the commuting construction workforce, and potential emissions of 

wind-eroded particulate from disturbed land surfaces5 5 . Air quality was also modestly impacted 

6 by a temporary increase in workforce traffic to support the steam generator replacement. 

7 Overall, steam generator replacement related impacts are minimal and will cease once the 

8 steam generator installation is complete. Subsequent operation of CR-3 will not result in new 

9 air impacts during the period covered by a license renewal. 

10 CR-3 will also undergo a major extended power uprate (EPU). The EPU will be accomplished 

11 in two phases, the first began in the fall of 2009 and the second was planned to occur in 2011. 

12 The EPU will be completed within the term of the current license. Air impacts will result from the 

13 operation of RICEs in construction equipment and workforce vehicles, as well as from wind 

14 erosion on disturbed ground. The estimated impacts (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007b) are 

15 minimal and will occur over a very limited period of time, ceasing completely once the EPU 

16 action is completed. Subsequent operation of the uprated reactor will not result in increases to 

17 air impacts over those now occurring from reactor operation. 

18 Finally, to ensure compliance with new Florida air pollution regulations such as the Clean Air 

Interstate rule (CAIR6 19 ), the applicant has undertaken major construction and modification 

20 projects for its two largest coal-fired boilers, CR-4 and CR-5. Under Florida regulations, such 

21 major modifications require the applicant to obtain permits to construct the new equipment and 

22 to apply for modifications to its Title V operating permit to accommodate operation of the newly 

23 installed equipment. Other actions such as the steam generator replacement involved the 

24 introduction of new air pollution sources which also required permit modifications. Although 

25 none of these actions directly impact the operation of CR-3, the minor stationary sources of 

26 criteria pollutants associated with CR-3 are listed in a common Title V permit that addresses the 

27 entirety of operations at the CREC. Therefore, the applicant’s compliance with FDEP 

28 administrative requirements relating to permitting of new or modified air pollution sources is 

29 critical to retention of its Title V permit which is essential to the continued safe operation of 

30 CR-3. Consequently, the Staff reviewed the administrative record to determine whether the 

31 applicant has met its compliance obligations with respect to construction and modification 

32 projects at CREC. In addition to the Title V permit (FDEP, 2006a) and the construction permit 

33 for the SCT (FDEP, 2009a) referenced above, the applicant has applied for and received the 

34 following necessary permits for construction or modifications of conditions of certification: 

35 helper cooling towers for CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 (ARMS Permit No. 0170004-010-AC) (FDEP, 

36 2006b); installation of low-nitrogen oxide (NOx) burners; selective catalytic reduction equipment; 

37 flue gas desulfurization equipment for coal-fired CR-4 and CR-5; construction of one 550-foot 

 

5

 In October 2009, FPC discovered delamination in the containment building wall. Following repairs, 

additional delaminated concrete was discovered in March 2011. As a result, further changes to the 

scope and timing of the repairs will be necessary. 6

 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the final CAIR on March 10, 2005. The 

rule was vacated by the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on July 11, 2008, but 

reinstated by the Court for an indefinite period of time on December 23, 2008; however, the EPA is 

required to make major revisions to the rule to address what the Court identified as fatal flaws in its 

construction. The FDEP adopted the CAIR implementation regulations at FAC, Rule 62-296.470 and 

associated definitions at FAC, Rule 62-210.200. In addition, the FDEP issued an administrative order 

in July 2007 providing annual and ozone-season CAIR NOx allowance allocations for each source in 

Florida subject to CAIR for control periods 2009 through 2012. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-6 

1 (ft) exhaust stack (Air Permit No. PSD-FL-383) (FDEP, 2007a); and air construction permits for 

2 modifications to CR-4 and CR-5 (Permit No. 0170004-014-AC and final Title V permit 

3 0170004-015-AV modifications to conditions of certification) (FDEP, 2007b). In addition, the 

4 applicant has made timely notice to the FDEP for modifications to its Title V permit involving the 

5 introduction of an insignificant source (the concrete batch plant) needed to support its steam 

generator replacement (Progress Energy, 2009k7 6 ). 

7 Table 4.2-3 lists the air quality issue applicable to CR-3. The Staff did not identify any 

8 Category 2 issues for air quality. The Staff also did not identify any new and significant 

9 information regarding Category 1 issues during the review of the applicant’s ER (Progress, 

10 Energy, 2008a), the site visit, or during the scoping process or review of public comments. A 

11 review of the administrative record finds the applicant to be in good standing with respect to the 

12 Title V operating permit that authorizes the continued operation of the stationary sources of 

13 criteria pollutants on the CREC, including those minor sources that are critical to the safe 

14 operation of CR-3. This conclusion is consistent with the findings of the State’s Power Plant 

15 Siting Authority which affirmed the applicant’s compliance with local and State regulations at the 

time of the CREC certification in August 2008 (Florida Siting Board, 2008).8 16 Therefore, for plant 

17 operation during the license renewal term, there are no air quality impacts beyond those 

18 discussed in the GEIS. For these issues, the NRC concludes in the GEIS that the impacts are 

19 SMALL. 

20 Table 4.2-3. Other Air Quality Issues Associated with Continued Operation of Crystal 

21 River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

Issue GEIS Section Category 

Air quality effects of transmission lines 4.5.2 1 

22 4.3 GROUNDWATER 

23 The Category 1 and Category 2 groundwater issues applicable to the CREC are listed in 

24 Table 4.3-1 and discussed below. An overview of groundwater use and quality at the CREC is 

25 provided in Section 2.1.7. 

Table 4.3-1. Groundwater Use and Quality Issues 

Issue GEIS Sections Category 

Impacts of refurbishment on groundwater use and quality 3.4.2 1

Groundwater use conflicts (potable and service water, and dewatering 

plants that use >100 gpm) 4.8.1.1 2 

Groundwater quality degradation (saltwater intrusion) 4.8.2 1 

 

7

 Under Florida regulations, Title V permit modifications are not required to accommodate the 

introduction of an insignificant source. Instead, a timely notice of the intent to install such a source 

must be made and the appendix to the Title V permit that provides an inventory of all insignificant 

sources will be modified at the next scheduled revision date for that inventory. 8

 The CREC was already in existence when the State’s requirement that power plant sites be certified 

went into effect. However, the decision to uprate CR-3 was considered a major modification that 

triggered the applicability of the power plant certification requirement. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-7 

1 4.3.1 Generic Groundwater Issues 

2 A brief description of the Staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Title 10 of the 

3 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51), Table B-1, follows: 

4 ● Impacts of refurbishment on groundwater use and quality. Based on information 

5 in the GEIS, the Commission concluded that refurbishment would not affect 

6 groundwater use and quality because no liquid wastes would be discharged to 

7 groundwater and deep excavations and site dewatering (which could induce 

8 saltwater intrusion) would not be required. 

9 ● Groundwater quality degradation (saltwater intrusion). Based on information in 

10 the GEIS, the Commission concluded that groundwater quality degradation due 

11 to saltwater intrusion would not occur as a result of plant operations because 

12 groundwater withdrawals represent less than 10 percent of the regional total (in 

13 rural Citrus County). 

14 The Staff did not identify any new and significant information regarding Category 1 issues during 

15 the review of the applicant’s ER (Progress Energy, 2008a), the site visit, or during the scoping 

16 process or review of public comments. The Staff also evaluated and reviewed the plant’s 

17 various industrial wastewater permits, the Conditions of Certification, solid waste management 

18 plan, and monitoring reports. Therefore, for plant operation during the license renewal term, 

19 there are no impacts beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For these Category 1 issues, the 

20 NRC concludes in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL. 

21 Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1 and, 

22 therefore, require additional plant-specific review. Category 2 issues related to groundwater use 

23 that are applicable to the CREC during the renewal term are discussed in the section that 

24 follows. 

25 4.3.2 Groundwater Use Conflicts (plants using greater than 100 gallons per minute) 

26 For power plants that pump more than 100 gpm (379 liters per minute [L/min]) of groundwater 

27 from onsite wells, groundwater use conflicts with nearby groundwater users are considered a 

28 Category 2 issue that requires a plant-specific assessment before license renewal. 

29 Although the CREC currently maintains 14 onsite production wells completed in the Upper 

30 Floridan aquifer (Table 2.1.7-1), CR-3 draws its water only from the south treatment plant, which 

31 is supplied by three wells: SPW-3, SPW-4, and SPW-5. The average annual pump rate for 

32 these wells from 2001 through 2009 was 504 gpm (0.73 million gallons per day [mgpd]). This 

33 rate is well below the 1 mgpd authorized by the Southwest Florida Water Management District 

(SFWMD) water use permit (SFWMD, 2007)9 34 . 

35 The SFWMD (2009) estimates that the rate of groundwater withdrawals by public supply, 

36 self-supply, recreational, agricultural, mining, and industrial/commercial users in Citrus County 

37 was 27.764 gpd in 2008. Assuming the highest average annual pump rate of 585 gpm 

 

9

 As shown in Table 2.1.7-1, the 1 mgpd authorized by the SFWMD water use permit applies to the three 

wells (SPW-3, SPW-4, and SPW-5) that supply the south treatment plant and one well (PW-1A/B) that 

supplies water for ash processes (SFWMD, 2007). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-8 

1 (0.84 mgpd), reported for the south treatment plant in 2008, the south treatment plant uses as 

2 much as 3 percent of the total groundwater consumed in Citrus County. Because the wells 

3 supplying the south treatment plant pump groundwater at rates well below the authorized water 

4 right and CR-3 uses only a portion of the water from the south treatment plant (about 49 percent 

5 [Johnson, 2006]), the Staff concludes that impacts due to groundwater use conflicts would be 

6 SMALL and no additional mitigation is warranted. 

7 4.4 SURFACE WATER 

8 4.4.1 Generic Surface Water Issues 

9 The Category 1 surface water quality issues applicable to the CREC are listed in Table 4.4-1 

10 and discussed below. An overview of surface water use and quality at the CREC is provided in 

11 Section 2.1.7. None of the Category 2 issues set forth in the GEIS apply to the CREC. 

12 Table 4.4-1. Surface Water Quality Issues 

Issue GEIS Sections Category 

Impacts of refurbishment on surface water quality 3.4.1 1

Impacts of refurbishment on surface water use 3.4.1 1 

Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures 4.2.1.2.1 1 

Altered salinity gradients 4.2.1.2.2 1 

Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity 4.2.1.2.3 1 

Scouring caused by discharged cooling water 4.2.1.2.3 1 

Eutrophication 4.2.1.2.3 1 

Discharge of chlorine or other biocides 4.2.1.2.4 1 

Discharge of other metals in waste water 4.2.1.2.4 1 

Water use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems) 4.2.1.3 1 

13 A brief description of the Staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in 

14 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, follows: 

15 ● Impacts of refurbishment on surface water quality. Based on information in the 

16 GEIS, the Commission concluded that the potential impacts of refurbishment on 

17 surface water quality would be small for all plants and could, if needed, be further 

18 reduced by additional mitigation measures such as more stringent construction 

19 control practices. 

20 ● Impacts of refurbishment on surface water use. Based on information in the 

21 GEIS, the Commission concluded that increases in water consumption during 

22 refurbishment would be of small significance. 

23 ● Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures. Based on 

24 information in the GEIS, the Commission concluded that altered current patterns 

25 at intake and discharge structures would be localized and of small significance. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-9 

1 ● Altered salinity gradients. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission 

2 concluded that alterations in salinity gradients would be localized and of small 

3 significance. 

4 ● Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity. Based on information in the 

5 GEIS, the Commission found no indication that increased temperature (and the 

6 resulting decreased viscosity of water) caused changes in sediment transport 

7 capacity to a significant extent. Altered sediment transport processes are likely 

8 the result of structures such as jetties and canals or current patterns near intakes 

9 and discharges and are readily mitigated. 

10 ● Scouring caused by discharged cooling water. Based on information in the 

11 GEIS, the Commission found that sediment scouring due to cooling water 

12 discharges has not been a problem at most power plants and that where it 

13 occurs, it is localized and of small significance. 

14 ● Eutrophication. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that 

15 power plant-induced eutrophication has not been a problem at most power plants 

16 and that where it occurs, it is localized and of small significance. 

17 ● Discharge of chlorine or other biocides. Based on information in the GEIS, the 

18 Commission found that chlorine and other biocides are regulated by the NPDES 

19 permit of each power plant and that due to their toxic effects, many power plants 

20 have reduced or eliminated their usage. It concluded that the water quality 

21 effects of discharge of chlorine and other biocides are of small significance for all 

22 power plants as long as water quality criteria such as those set in NPDES 

23 permits are not violated. 

24 ● Discharge of other metals in waste water. Based on information in the GEIS, the 

25 Commission found that concentrations of discharged metals are regulated by the 

26 NPDES permit of each power plant and that due to their toxic effects, States may 

27 develop their own control strategies. It concluded that potential impacts of heavy 

28 metal discharges are of small significance for all power plants as long as water 

29 quality criteria such as those set in NPDES permits are not violated. 

30 ● Water use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems). Based on 

31 information in the GEIS, the Commission concluded that impacts of power plant 

32 water use are of small significance because net consumption is negligible 

33 compared with the size of the body of water used. 

34 The Staff did not identify any new and significant information during its review of the applicant’s 

35 ER (Progress Energy, 2008a), the site visit, or the scoping process. The Staff also evaluated 

36 and reviewed the plant’s various industrial wastewater permits, the Conditions of Certification, 

37 solid waste management plan, and monitoring reports. Therefore, for plant operation during the 

38 license renewal term, there are no surface water impacts beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

39 For these issues, the NRC concludes in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-10 

1 4.5 AQUATIC RESOURCES 

2 Section 2.1.6 of this SEIS describes the CR-3 cooling water system; Section 2.2.5 describes the 

3 aquatic resources. The following discussion addresses the Category 1 and Category 2 issues 

4 related to aquatic resources applicable to CR-3 (Table 4.5-1). 

5 Table 4.5-1. Aquatic Resources Issues

Issues GEIS Sections Category 

For All Plants 

Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota 4.2.1.2.4 1 

Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton 4.2.2.1.1 1 

Cold shock 4.2.2.1.5 1 

Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish 4.2.2.1.6 1 

Distribution of aquatic organisms 4.2.2.1.6 1 

Premature emergence of aquatic insects 4.2.2.1.7 1 

Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease) 4.2.2.1.8 1 

Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge 4.2.2.1.9 1 

Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms 

exposed to sublethal stresses 4.2.2.1.10 1 

Stimulation of nuisance organisms 4.2.2.1.11 1 

For Plants with Cooling-Tower-Based Heat Dissipation Systems 

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 4.3.3 1 

Impingement of fish and shellfish 4.3.3 1 

Heat shock 4.3.3 1 

For Plants with Once-Through and Cooling Pond Heat Dissipation Systems 

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 4.1.2 2 

Impingement of fish and shellfish 4.1.3 2 

Heat shock 4.1.4 2 

6 4.5.1 Generic Aquatic Resources Issues 

7 The NRC did not find any new and significant information during the environmental review 

8 regarding these Category 1 issues. Therefore, for plant operation during the license renewal 

9 term, there are no impacts beyond those discussed in the GEIS for these Category 1 issues, 

10 and the NRC concludes in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL. 

11 4.5.2 Entrainment 

12 For power plants with once-through cooling systems, such as CR-3, the entrainment of fish and 

13 shellfish in early life stages by nuclear power plant cooling systems is a site-specific, or 

14 Category 2, issue and requires a site-specific assessment for the license renewal review. 

15 Entrained organisms include ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae), eggs and larval stages of 

16 shellfish and other macroinvertebrates, and all life stages of zooplankton and phytoplankton. 

17 During transport through the cooling system, entrained organisms experience thermal stress, 

18 mechanical and hydraulic forces, and exposure to chemical contaminants. While some 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-11 

1 entrainment survival may occur in once-through cooling systems, an estimate of 100 percent 

2 mortality of entrained organisms is normally assumed (EPA, 2004), (NRC, 1999b). 

3 To perform the entrainment assessment for CR-3, the Staff reviewed the applicant’s ER 

4 (Progress Energy, 2008a), related documents, entrainment studies conducted at CR-3 

5 (SWEC, 1985), and visited the CREC site. The Staff also reviewed the applicant’s NPDES 

6 permit; documents related to the planned EPU for CR-3; and scientific articles, documents, 

7 technical reports, and compilations associated with 

8 the Crystal Bay area and with entrainment impacts. 

9 The Staff notes that the applicant’s NPDES permit 

10 (No. FL0000159) was issued on May 9, 2005, with an 

11 expiration date of May 8, 2010 (FDEP, 2005a). The 

12 applicant submitted an application for renewal of its 

13 NPDES permit on October 28, 2009 (Progress 

14 Energy, 2009l). Since the applicant applied for its 

15 permit on time, the existing NPDES permit remains in 

16 effect until issuance of a new NPDES permit. 

17 On July 9, 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule in the 

18 Federal Register (EPA, 2004) that addressed cooling water intake structures at existing plants, 

19 such as CR-3, where flow levels exceeded a minimum threshold value of 50 mgpd. The rule 

20 was Phase II in the EPA’s development of Clean Water Act (CWA) 316(b) regulations that were 

21 to establish national requirements applicable to the location, design, construction, and capacity 

22 of cooling water intake structures at existing facilities that exceeded the threshold value for 

23 water withdrawals. The national requirements, implemented through the NPDES permitting 

24 process, would minimize the adverse environmental impacts associated with the continued use 

25 of the intake systems. Section 316(b) of the CWA requires that the location, design, 

26 construction, and capacity of the cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology 

27 available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts (Title 33, Section 1326, of the United 

28 States Code [33 U.S.C. § 1326]). 

29 Under the Phase II rule, licensees would have been required to demonstrate compliance with 

30 the Phase II performance standards at the time of renewal of their NPDES permit. As part of 

31 the NPDES permit renewal, licensees may have been required to alter the intake structure, 

32 redesign the cooling system, modify station operation, or take other mitigative measures to 

33 comply with this regulation. The new performance standards were designed to significantly 

34 reduce environmental losses due to water withdrawals associated with cooling water intake 

35 structures used for power production. Any additional site-specific mitigation required as a result 

36 of the 316(b) Phase II reviews would result in less impact from entrainment during the license 

37 renewal period. On March 20, 2007, the EPA issued a memorandum informing its Regional 

38 Administrators that they should consider the Phase II rule suspended (EPA, 2007a). Effective 

39 July 9, 2007, the EPA suspended the Phase II rule (EPA, 2007b). As a result, all NPDES 

40 permits for Phase II facilities should include conditions under Section 316(b) of the CWA 

41 developed on a best professional judgment basis, rather than the best technology available. 

42 Any site-specific mitigation required under the NPDES permitting process would result in a 

43 reduction in the impacts of continued plant operations. 

44 Entrainment at the CREC is limited to those organisms that can pass through the 3/8-inch 

45 (1-centimeter [cm]) mesh intake screens and are a function of the volume of water withdrawn 

46 from the intake canal that is connected to Crystal Bay. Water intake for the CREC is 

310,000 gpm (690 cubic feet per second [cfs] or 19.6 cubic meters per second [m3 47 /s]) for CR-1, 

Entrainment 

Entrainment is the incorporation of 

all life stages of fish and shellfish 

with intake water flow entering and 

passing through a cooling-water 

intake structure and into a cooling 

water system (40 CFR § 125.83). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-12 

328,000 gpm (731 cfs or 20.7 m3

/s) for CR-2, and 680,000 gpm (1,515 cfs or 42.9 m3 1 /s) for 

2 CR-3 (NUS Corporation, 1978). 

3 Adults and other stages of small planktonic invertebrates (e.g., copepods) and phytoplankton 

4 (e.g., diatoms) are generally not sampled in entrainment studies due to their small size and the 

5 assumption that their large population sizes and rapid growth and reproduction make 

6 ecologically important impacts (e.g., population loss or alteration of community structure) 

7 unlikely (York et al., 2005). Nevertheless, prior to CR-3 becoming operational, Fox and Moyer 

8 (1973) and Alden (1976) determined entrainment survival of phytoplankton and zooplankton at 

9 the CREC. 

10 Fox and Moyer (1973) observed that phytoplankton were either killed or at least hindered in 

11 their ability to assimilate carbon due to passage through the CREC; whereas, bacteria survive 

12 the passage and even increased in numbers due to prolonged exposure to increased heat. 

13 Primary production decreased 13.8 to 48.1 percent from passage through the CREC when the 

14 intake temperature was 80.6 °F (27 °C) or higher. In summary, if the intake temperature is 

15 80.6 °F (27 °C) or more, there is a loss of primary production by a temperature increase of 9 °F 

16 (5 °C). Fox and Moyer (1973) concluded that as long as the temperature remains above 

17 89.6 °F (32 °C), primary production will continue to drop. However, Fox and Moyer (1973) 

18 noted that phytoplankton recovery was rapid; primary production values reached or exceeded 

19 those recorded at the intake water within 1 mile (mi) from the plant discharge (i.e., recovery 

20 would occur within the discharge canal). 

21 Alden (1976) analyzed the growth, reproduction, and survival of copepods subject to 

22 entrainment at the CREC and the associated thermal stress on copepods of the Crystal River 

23 estuary. Mortality was generally low for temperatures below 86 °F (30 °C), moderate at 87.8 °F 

24 to 95 °F (31 °C to 35 °C), and increased exponentially between 95 °F and 98.6 °F (35 °C and 

25 37 °C). He noted that entrained juvenile copepods and juveniles collected from the discharge 

26 canal showed depressed growth and reproduction rates compared to copepods collected from 

27 the intake canal. Alden (1976) concluded that mechanical damage from condenser passage 

28 accounted for only a small percentage of the mortality, but may be the major lethal factor during 

29 colder months. Alden (1976) observed that the long-term survival of copepods that did survive 

30 entrainment was not significantly different from control populations. 

31 The only study conducted at CREC to determine potential entrainment effects on fish and 

32 shellfish is that done as part of the 316 Demonstration study (SWEC, 1985). Ichthyoplankton 

33 and other meroplankton collections occurred at 15 locations over a 15-month period from 1983 

34 through 1984. The sample locations included sites within the intake and discharge canals, as 

35 well as sites located offshore in Crystal Bay. To determine entrainment at the CREC, SWEC 

36 (1985) first used the highest meroplankton densities determined from the intake or discharge 

canal sample locations to obtain a conservative estimate of the number of organisms per m3 37 of 

water. SWEC (1985) then multiplied this value by how many m3 38 of water the CREC withdrew to 

39 obtain the number of organisms entrained. 

40 SWEC (1985) observed the highest densities of fish eggs in April and May and the highest 

41 invertebrate meroplankton densities in July and August. As determined by SWEC (1985), 

42 Table 4.5-2 presents the annual entrainment and equivalent adult loss for the selected 

43 representative species described in Section 2.2.5. Among these species, the most entrained 

44 finfish was the bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli). Annual entrainment totaled over 14.5 billion 

45 eggs, prolarvae, post-larvae, and juveniles. The equivalent adult loss was about 32.4 million 

46 bay anchovies. Invertebrate entrainment included about 3.35 billion Florida stone crab 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-13 

1 (Menippe mercenaria) zoea and megalops (SWEC, 1985). The equivalent adult loss was about 

2 3,642 Florida stone crabs. 

3 Table 4.5-2. Estimated Annual Entrainment and Equivalent Adult Loss of Selected 

4 Representative Species at the Crystal River Energy Complex 

Species Life Stage Total Entrainment Equivalent Adult 

Loss(a)

Bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli)

(b) Eggs 11,674,000,000 10,400,000 

 Prolarvae 960,400,000 940,000 

 Post-larvae 1,774,600,000 17,300,000 

 Juveniles 154,600,000 3,800,000 

Pigfish (Orthopristis chrysoptera)

(c) Eggs 433,500,000 40,000 

 Post-larvae 760,000 76,000 

Pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides) Post-larvae 16,690,000 37,000 

 Juveniles 2,150,000 47,000 

Polka-dot batfish (Ogocephalus radiatus) Juveniles 190,000 19,000 

Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) Post-larvae 300,000 18 

Silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura) Prolarvae 80,000 2 

 Postlarvae 21,640,000 6,000 

 Juveniles 220,000 600 

Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)

(d) Eggs 1,102,000,000 27,500 

 Prolarvae 14,630,000 360 

 Post-larvae 12,280,000 280,000 

 Juveniles 1,730,000 410,000 

Spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus) Post-larvae 6,500,000 900 

Striped mullet (Mugil cephalus)

(e) Post-larvae 57,000 95 

 Juveniles 3,500,000 5,800 

Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus)

(f) Megalops 35,190,000 202 

Brief squid (Lolliguncula brevis) All 910,000 3,600 

Florida stone crab (Menippe mercenaria) Zoeal stage 1 3,029,430,000 3,297 

 Zoeal stage 2 254,630,000 6 

 Zoeal stage 3 52,010,000 15 

 Zoeal stage 4 14,840,000 6 

 Zoeal stage 5 380,000 5 

 Megalops 2,350,000 313 

Pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum)

(g) Mysis 220,000 22 

 Post-larvae 18,830,000 18,830 

 Juveniles 1,023,000 10,230 

(a) A 10 percent survival between development stages was assumed where data on survivorship was not known. 

(b) Includes some prolarvae and post-larvae identified only to genus. 

(c) All entrained Haemulidae eggs were assumed to be pigfish. 

(d) All Sciaenidae eggs and prolarvae were assumed to be spot. 

(e) All entrained Mugillidae post-larvae and juveniles were assumed to be striped mullet. 

(f) Includes some megalops identified only to genus. 

(g) All entrained penaeid shrimp were assumed to be pink shrimp. 

Source: SWEC, 1985 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-14 

1 SWEC (1985) concluded that entrainment only had a localized effect on fish and invertebrates 

2 of Crystal Bay, with populations concentrated offshore and in the northwest section of the 

3 Crystal Bay study area less affected by entrainment. An EPA fact sheet on the CREC NPDES 

4 permit prepared in 1993 (as cited in Golder Associates, Inc., 2006) stated that the results of the 

5 316 Demonstration study (SWEC, 1985) showed that entrainment at the CREC has an adverse 

6 impact to the aquatic resources of Crystal Bay. The applicant and the EPA determined that a 

7 combination of seasonal flow reduction and stock enhancement through rearing and stocking of 

8 commercially and recreationally important species would be the most prudent methods to 

9 mitigate entrainment losses (Progress Energy, 2008a). Flow reductions at the CREC began in 

10 1992; the NPDES permit for the CREC (CR-1 through CR-3) stipulated that cooling water 

11 withdrawals would be limited to 1,318,000 gpm over the period May 1 through October 31 and 

12 1,132,792 gpm from November 1 through April 30 (Progress Energy, 2008a). The 15 percent 

13 withdrawal reduction from November 1 through April 30 minimizes impacts to fall, winter, and 

14 early spring spawners including pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias 

15 undulates), Gulf flounder (Paralichthys albigutta), Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia patronus), striped 

16 mullet (Mugil cephalus), and spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007b). The 

17 flow reductions at the CREC began in 1992. Golder Associates (2006) determined that the 

18 hydraulic zone of influence (that portion of Crystal Bay hydraulically influenced by the intake 

19 within which very weakly motile or planktonic organisms are possibly influenced by the induced 

20 flow and, therefore, most likely to be entrained) is up to 197 acres (ac) (79.7 hectares [ha]) 

when the maximum intake flow is 1,318,000 gpm (2,937 cfs or 83.2 m3 21 /s) (May 1 through 

22 October 31) and up to 142 ac (57.5 ha) when the maximum intake flow is 1,132,792 gpm 

(2,524 cfs or 71.5 m3 23 /s) (November 1 through April 30) (Golder Associates, Inc., 2006). The 

24 acreages assume an ambient mean velocity in the Bay of 0.1 ft/s (0.03 m/s); as ambient 

25 velocities increase, the hydraulic zone of influence would decrease (Golder Associates, 

26 Inc., 2006). 

27 The logic behind fish stocking is that releasing a large number of larvae, juvenile, or adult fish or 

28 shellfish into a water body may directly compensate for the mortality associated with 

29 impingement and entrainment (EPRI, 2003). As part of the negotiated settlement with the EPA 

30 to mitigate impacts of the CREC once-through cooling system, Florida Power Corporation (FPC) 

31 opened the Crystal River Mariculture Center in 1991 (FWC, undated). Initial cultures included 

32 red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), spotted seatrout 

33 (Cynoscion nebulosus), striped mullet, and pink 

34 shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum). Subsequent 

35 species cultured at the Mariculture Center included 

36 pigfish (Orthopristis chrysoptera), silver perch 

37 (Bairdiella chrysoura), blue crab, and Florida stone 

38 crab. To date, Mariculture Center releases of 

39 pigfish to Crystal Bay have not occurred. Total 

40 releases made from 1992 through 2009 for the 

41 other seven species are as follows (Progress 

42 Energy, 2010a): 

43 ● Red drum – 947,394 fingerlings and 1,375,500 larvae 

44 ● Silver perch – 39,942 first feeding larvae 

45 ● Spotted seatrout - 1,131,813 fingerlings and 715,000 larvae 

Mariculture 

Mariculture is the farming and 

husbandry of marine plants and 

animals to replenish natural 

populations of marine biota 

depleted by natural or man-made 

effects (FWC, undated). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-15 

1 ● Striped mullet – 525,000 first feeding larvae 

2 ● Blue crab – 93,746,281 zoeal stage I 

3 ● Pink shrimp – 415,102 

4 ● Stone crab – 32,347,962 zoeal stage I 

5 Releases of fish and shellfish produced at the Mariculture Center occur in areas of the Gulf for 

6 which they are best suited, based on time of year and water quality conditions (Progress 

7 Energy, 2008a). 

8 As discussed in Section 2.1.6, Phase II of the planned CR-3 EPU should not alter the volume of 

9 water withdrawn at the entrance of the intake canal. Therefore, an increase in the number of 

10 organisms entrained at CR-3 due to the EPU is not expected. Annual entrainment losses will 

11 continue at CR-3 during the license renewal term; with numbers of fish and shellfish entrained 

12 expected to be in the billions of organisms with equivalent adult losses in the millions, as 

13 observed by SWEC (1985). Nevertheless, studies conducted near the CREC since the late 

14 1960s (Mountain, 1972), (Grimes and Mountain, 1971), (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 

15 1985), (Ager et al., 2008), (CH2M Hill, 2009) indicate that Crystal Bay near the CREC has 

16 maintained a diverse assemblage of fish and shellfish species. 

17 Based on the review of the information presented above, coupled with the paucity of 

18 entrainment studies at the CREC, the Staff has determined that the potential impacts of 

19 entrainment of fish and shellfish by CR-3 on the Crystal Bay aquatic community during the 

20 20-year renewal period would be SMALL to MODERATE. Under the provisions of the CWA 

21 316(b), the FDEP may impose further restrictions or require modifications to the cooling system 

22 to reduce the impact of entrainment under the NPDES permitting process. The Site Certification 

23 Application for the Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) was approved by the Governor’s Siting Board on 

24 August 11, 2009, and includes a requirement that the applicant shut down CR-1 and CR-2 by 

25 the end of 2020 (or by the end of the year when LNP begins operation) (Progress Energy, 

26 2009m). This will lessen entrainment impacts to Crystal Bay due to CREC operations. 

27 4.5.3 Impingement 

28 For power plants with once-through cooling systems, such as CR-3, the impingement of fish and 

29 shellfish in early life stages by nuclear power plant cooling systems is a Category 2 issue that 

30 requires a site-specific assessment for license renewal review. Impinged organisms at CR-3 

31 include fish and shellfish. Impingement of sea turtles 

32 also occurs on the trash (bar) racks and, more rarely, 

33 intake screens at the CREC (see Section 4.7.1). 

34 Impingement can kill organisms due to starvation and 

35 exhaustion, suffocation, injury, or exposure to air 

36 (e.g., during the rotation of the intake screens for 

37 cleaning). The potential for injury or death relates to 

38 how long an organism is on the intake screen, its 

39 susceptibility to injury, and the physical 

40 characteristics of the screen washing and, if used, 

41 the fish return system at the facility. 

Impingement 

Impingement is the entrapment of 

all life stages of fish and shellfish 

on the outer part of an intake 

structure or against a screening 

device during periods of water 

withdrawal (40 CFR § 125.83). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-16 

1 To perform the impingement assessment for CR-3, the Staff reviewed the applicant’s ER 

2 (Progress Energy, 2008a), related documents, impingement studies conducted at CR-3 (NUS 

3 Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008), and visited the CREC site. The Staff 

4 also reviewed the applicant’s NPDES permit; documents related to the planned EPU for CR-3; 

5 and scientific articles, documents, technical reports, and compilations associated with the 

6 Crystal Bay area and with impingement impacts. The Staff notes that the applicant’s NPDES 

7 permit (No. FL0000159) was issued on May 9, 2005, with an expiration date of May 8, 2010 

8 (FDEP, 2005a). The applicant submitted an application for renewal of its NPDES permit on 

9 October 28, 2009 (Progress Energy, 2009l). Since the applicant applied for its permit on time, 

10 the existing NPDES permit remains in effect until issuance of a new NPDES permit. 

11 On July 9, 2004, the EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register (EPA, 2004) that 

12 addressed cooling water intake structures at existing plants, such as CR-3, where flow levels 

13 exceeded a minimum threshold value of 50 mgpd. The rule was Phase II in the EPA’s 

14 development of CWA 316(b) regulations that were to establish national requirements applicable 

15 to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at existing 

16 facilities that exceeded the threshold value for water withdrawals. The national requirements, 

17 implemented through the NPDES permitting process, would minimize the adverse 

18 environmental impacts associated with the continued use of the intake systems. Section 316(b) 

19 of the CWA requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of the cooling water 

20 intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental 

21 impacts (33 U.S.C. § 1326). 

22 Under the Phase II rule, licensees would have been required to demonstrate compliance with 

23 the Phase II performance standards at the time of renewal of their NPDES permit. As part of 

24 the NPDES permit renewal, licensees may have been required to alter the intake structure, 

25 redesign the cooling system, modify station operation, or take other mitigative measures to 

26 comply with this regulation. The new performance standards were designed to significantly 

27 reduce environmental losses due to water withdrawals associated with cooling water intake 

28 structures used for power production. Any additional site-specific mitigation required as a result 

29 of the 316(b) Phase II reviews would result in less impact from impingement during the license 

30 renewal period. On March 20, 2007, the EPA issued a memorandum informing its Regional 

31 Administrators that they should consider the Phase II rule suspended (EPA, 2007a). Effective 

32 July 9, 2007, the EPA suspended the Phase II rule (EPA, 2007b). As a result, all NPDES 

33 permits for Phase II facilities should include conditions under Section 316(b) of the CWA 

34 developed on a best professional judgment basis, rather than the best technology available. 

35 Any site-specific mitigation required under the NPDES permitting process would result in a 

36 reduction in the impacts of continued plant operations. 

37 The intake design through-screen velocity can influence the rate of impingement. Generally, the 

38 higher the through-screen velocity, the greater the number of fish impinged. The EPA 

39 established a national standard for the maximum design through-screen velocity of no more 

40 than 0.5 ft/s (66 FR 65256). The EPA determined that species and life stages evaluated in 

41 various studies could endure a velocity of 1 ft/s, then applied a safety factor of 2 to derive the 

42 threshold of 0.5 ft/s. The mean intake velocities at the CREC’s once-through units are: 0.64 ft/s 

43 (0.20 m/s) during high tide and 0.7 ft/s (0.21 m/s) during low tide for CR-1; 0.87 ft/s (0.27 m/s) 

44 during high tide and 0.94 ft/s (0.29 m/s) during low tide for CR-2; and 0.81 ft/s (0.25 m/s) during 

45 high tide and 0.97 ft/s (0.03 m/s) during low tide for CR-3 (NUS Corporation, 1978). Average 

46 velocities in the intake canal are currently about 1.05 ft/s (0.32 m/s) during high tide and 

47 1.26 ft/s (0.38 m/s) during low tide from May through October and 0.89 ft/s (0.27 m/s) during 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-17 

1 high tide and 1.07 ft/s (0.33 m/s) during low tide from November through April (Golder 

2 Associates, Inc., 2007c). 

3 There is no fish return system at the CREC so all organisms impinged on the intake screens are 

4 considered losses from the Crystal Bay ecosystem. Impingement on the CREC intake screens 

5 is limited to individuals that can first pass through the 3.6-inch (9.2-cm) openings of the trash 

6 racks located in front of the intake screens. 

7 Mountain (1972) reported 59 taxa of fishes and 15 taxa of invertebrates from 24-hour screen 

8 wash samples collected monthly from CR-1 and CR-2 from January 1969 through February 

9 1971. Most impinged individuals were juveniles or weak-swimming species. Grimes (1971) 

10 noted an inverse relationship between intake water temperature and impingement. Highest 

11 impingement occurred during the first cold temperatures of winter and when the lowest water 

12 temperatures of winter occurred (Grimes, 1971). Based on the impingement samples collected 

13 at CR-1 and CR-2, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) (1973) calculated that 

14 impingement at CR-1 and CR-2 totals about 200,000 finfish and 50,000 shellfish annually; and 

15 that this total would double once CR-3 began operation. 

16 The following three major impingement studies occurred at the CREC since CR-3 became 

17 operational: 

18 ● impingement samples collected between March 13, 1977, and March 13, 1978, 

19 to meet NRC environmental technical specifications (NUS Corporation, 1978) 

20 ● impingement samples collected from June 1983 to June 1984 as part of a 

21 316 Demonstration (SWEC, 1985) 

22 ● impingement samples collected from December 2006 to November 2007 to serve 

23 as a baseline assessment against which to compare impingement from the 

24 proposed EPU of CR-3 (Ager et al., 2008) 

25 For the NUS Corporation (1978) study, estimated yearly impingement totaled 2,642,402 fishes 

26 and 271,672 invertebrates for CR-1 through CR-3. Estimated annual numbers impinged at 

27 each unit were as follows: 

28 ● CR-1 – 245,535 (9.3 percent of fish) and 46,952 invertebrates (17.4 percent of 

29 invertebrates) 

30 ● CR-2 – 323,471 fish (12.2 percent of fish) and 92,005 invertebrates (33.9 percent 

31 of invertebrates) 

32 ● CR-3 – 2,073,396 fish (78.5 percent of fish) and 132,715 invertebrates (48.9 

33 percent of invertebrates) 

34 Impingement was much higher than predicted by the AEC (1973). CR-2 was not online during 

35 November and December of 1977. Had CR-2 been operational, impingement numbers would 

36 have been even higher; especially since 64 percent of all impinged fishes and 56 percent of all 

37 impinged organisms occurred in December and January. High impingement in these 2 months 

38 was primarily due to large catches of scaled sardine (Harengula jaguana) and Atlantic thread 

39 herring (Opisthonema oglinum). Cold snaps may make these two species more susceptible to 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-18 

1 impingement (e.g., due to the fish being dead or moribund from exposure to cold water). 

2 Increased impingement was also associated with increased turbidity and large amounts of 

3 seagrass carried into plant intake caused by barge movements (NUS Corporation, 1978). 

4 Impingement numbers were lowest in May, June, and October (NUS Corporation, 1978). 

5 Scaled sardine, bay anchovy, pinfish, sea catfish (Arius felis), and silver perch were the most 

6 abundant of the 106 finfish species impinged. Fish species impinged every month included 

7 shrimp eel (Ophichthus gomesi), bay anchovy, gulf toadfish (Opsanus beta), polka-dot batfish 

8 (Ogcocephalus radiatus), tidewater silverside (Menidia beryllina), lined seahorse (Hippocampus 

9 erectus), dusky pipefish (Syngnathus floridae), chain pipefish (Syngnathus louisianae), pigfish 

10 (Orthopristis chrysoptera), pinfish, spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), scrawled cowfish (Lactophrys 

11 quadricornis), southern puffer (Sphoeroides nephelus), and striped burrfish (Chilomycterus 

12 schoepfi) (NUS Corporation, 1978). Among the 45 invertebrate taxa impinged, the pink shrimp, 

13 iridescent swimming crab (Portunus gibbesii), false arrow crab (Metaporhaphis calcarata), and 

14 blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) were most numerous (NUS Corporation, 1978). Invertebrates 

15 impinged every month included brief squid (Lolliguncula brevis), pink shrimp, blue crab, stone 

16 crab, mantis shrimp (Squilla empusa), roughneck shrimp (Trachypenaeus constrictus), bigclaw 

17 snapping shrimp (Alpheus heterochaelis), Florida grass shrimp (Palaemon floridanus), 

18 iridescent swimming crab, Atlantic mud crab (Panopeus herbstii), longnose spider crab (Libinia 

19 dubia), and false arrow crab (NUS Corporation, 1978). 

20 Table 4.5-3 provides the estimated annual number of the selected important species (discussed 

21 in Section 2.2.5) impinged between March 13, 1977, and March 13, 1978 (NUS Corporation, 

22 1978). Other impinged species that were numerically abundant included: scaled sardine 

23 (911,895 at CR-3 and 1,166,696 impinged at all three units); sea catfish (159,327 at CR-3 and 

24 203,846 at all units); Atlantic thread herring (67,677 at CR-3 and 86,587 at all units); scrawled 

25 cowfish (22,625 at CR-3 and 28,947 at all units); silver jenny (16,235 at CR-3 and 20,772 at all 

26 units); and ocellated flounder (11,310 at CR-3 and 14,470 at all units); iridescent swimming crab 

27 (63,099 at CR-3 and 129,095 at all units; false arrow crab (44,487 at CR-3 and 91,016 at all 

28 units); roughneck shrimp (Rimapenaeus constrictus) (17,265 at CR-3 and 35,322 at all units); 

29 Florida grass shrimp (9,168 at CR-3 and 18,756 at all units); Gulf grassflat crab (Dyspanopeus 

30 texana) (6,938 at CR-3 and 14,194 at all units); and bigclaw snapping shrimp (3,798 at CR-3 

31 and 7,770 at all units) (NUS Corporation, 1978). 

32 For the 316 Demonstration study (SWEC, 1985), estimated yearly impingement totaled 

33 647,435 fish and 1,319,341 invertebrates for CR-1 through CR-3. Estimated annual numbers 

34 impinged at each unit were as follows: 

35 ● CR-1 – 64,987 (10 percent of fish) and 196,985 invertebrates (14.9 percent of 

36 invertebrates) 

37 ● CR-2 – 280,012 fish (43.2 percent of fish) and 282,302 invertebrates 

38 (21.4 percent of invertebrates) 

39 ● CR-3 – 302,436 fish (46.7 percent of fish) and 840,054 invertebrates 

40 (63.7 percent of invertebrates) 

41 As was the case for the NUS Corporation (1978) study, annual impingement for the 

42 316 Demonstration study (SWEC, 1985) was much higher than projected by the AEC (1973), 

43 particularly for invertebrates. Significantly higher rates of impingement occurred during lower 

44 temperatures and there was also a correlation of barge traffic with increased impingement 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-19 

1 (SWEC, 1985). The major differences between the SWEC (1985) and NUS Corporation (1978) 

2 studies were the absence of a major influx of scaled sardines and Atlantic thread herring in the 

3 SWEC (1985) study and the increase in the number of invertebrates impinged in the SWEC 

4 (1985) study. 

5 Impingement samples included 130 taxa of fishes and 53 taxa of invertebrates (SWEC, 1985). 

6 Nearly 61 percent of total impingement occurred at CR-3 (SWEC, 1985). The most commonly 

7 impinged fishes (for all units) were bay anchovy (18.3 percent), polka-dot batfish (14.6 percent), 

8 and bighead searobin (Prionotus tribulus) (13 percent); and the most abundant invertebrates 

9 were pink shrimp (44.7 percent), blue crab (24.2 percent), and false arrow crab (9.9 percent) 

10 (SWEC, 1985). Table 4.5-3 provides the numbers of the selected important fish and shellfish 

11 species impinged at CR-3 and for all units combined. The four selected important invertebrate 

12 species represent 83.2 percent of the total number of the 13 selected important species 

13 impinged annually and 42.3 percent of all organisms impinged (SWEC, 1985). 

14 Table 4.5-3. Comparison of the Estimated Number of Selected Important Fish and 

15 Shellfish Species Impinged Per Year in 1977/1978, 1983/1984, and 2007/2008 

Species 

Impingement Collection Period 

1977/1978 1983/1984 2006/2007 

CR-3 (all units)(a) CR-3 (all units)(a) CR-3 (all units)(a)

Bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) 314,790 (402,097) 64,518 (87,978) 129,020 (138,865) 

Pigfish (Orthopristis chrysoptera) --b 956 (3,697) 53,669 (66,783) 

Pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides) 164,805 (210,856) 6,189 (15,235) 27,446 (33,489) 

Polka-dot batfish (Ogocephalus radiatus) 67,096 (85,844) 40,728 (74,483) 60,454 (87,548) 

Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) 0 (0) 8 (8) 0 (0) 

Silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura) 147,019 (188,100) 6,214 (12,000) 68,889 (85,809) 

Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) 34,422 (44,040) 12,744 (28,094) 0 (0) 

Spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus) -- 1,607 (2,804) 1,267 (1,432) 

Striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) -- 362 (1,120) 30 (108) 

Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) 35,811 (73,264) 255,518 (383,560) 26,511 (31,567) 

Brief squid (Lolliguncula brevis) 12,753 (26,090) 55,715 (86,965) 44,430 (54,316) 

Florida stone crab (Menippe mercenaria) -- 608 (1,535) 4,960 (7,950) 

Pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum) 140,706 (287,860) 391,457 (640,887) 114,442 (149,710) 

(a) Includes CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 

(b) -- = Number of individuals impinged not provided in report 

Sources: NUS Corporation, 1978; SWEC, 1985; Ager et al., 2008 

16 An EPA fact sheet on the CREC NPDES permit prepared in 1993 (as cited in Golder 

17 Associates, Inc., 2006) stated that the results of the 316 Demonstration study (SWEC, 1985) 

18 showed that impingement at the CREC has an adverse impact to the aquatic resources of 

19 Crystal Bay. The applicant and the EPA determined that a combination of seasonal flow 

20 reduction and stock enhancement through rearing and stocking of recreationally important 

21 species would be the most prudent methods to mitigate impingement losses (Progress Energy, 

22 2008a). The subsequent NPDES permit for the CREC (CR-1 through CR-3) stipulated that 

23 cooling water withdrawals would be limited to 1,318,000 gpm over the period May 1 through 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-20 

1 October 31 and 1,132,792 gpm from November 1 through April 30 (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

2 The 15 percent withdrawal reduction from November 1 through April 30 minimizes impacts to 

3 fall, winter, and early spring spawners including pinfish, Atlantic croaker, Gulf flounder, Gulf 

4 menhaden, striped mullet, and spot (Golder Associates, 2007b). The flow reductions at the 

5 CREC began in 1992. 

6 The logic behind fish stocking is that releasing a large number of larvae, juvenile, or adult fish or 

7 shellfish into a water body may directly compensate for the mortality associated with 

8 impingement and entrainment (EPRI, 2003). As part of the negotiated settlement with the EPA 

9 to mitigate impacts of the CREC once-through cooling system, FPC opened the Crystal River 

10 Mariculture Center in 1991. Initial cultures included red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), spotted 

11 seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), striped mullet, and pink shrimp. Subsequent species cultured 

12 at the Mariculture Center included pigfish, silver perch, blue crab, and stone crab. To date, 

13 releases of pigfish to Crystal Bay have not occurred. Total releases made from 1992 through 

14 2009 for the other seven species are as follows (Progress Energy, 2010a): 

15 ● Red drum – 947,394 fingerlings and 1,375,500 larvae 

16 ● Silver perch – 39,942 first feeding larvae 

17 ● Spotted seatrout - 1,131,813 fingerlings and 715,000 larvae 

18 ● Striped mullet – 525,000 first feeding larvae 

19 ● Blue crab – 93,746,281 zoea stage I 

20 ● Pink shrimp – 415,102 

21 ● Stone crab – 32,347,962 zoea stage I 

22 Releases of fish and shellfish produced at the Mariculture Center occur in areas of the Gulf for 

23 which they are best suited, based on time of year and water quality conditions (Progress 

24 Energy, 2008a). 

25 Since the negotiated settlement with the EPA, one impingement study has occurred at the 

26 CREC from December 2006 to November 2007 (Ager et al., 2008). For all three units, 

27 estimated annual impingement numbers totaled 945,631 fish and 341,780 invertebrates (Ager et 

28 al., 2008). Estimated annual impingement numbers at each unit were as follows: 

29 ● CR-1 – 40,930 fish (4.3 percent of fish) and 35,165 invertebrates (10.3 percent of 

30 invertebrates) 

31 ● CR-2 – 83,566 fish (8.8 percent of fish) and 50,178 invertebrates (14.7 percent of 

32 invertebrates) 

33 ● CR-3 – 821,423 fish (86.9 percent of fish) and 256,468 invertebrates (75 percent 

34 of invertebrates) 

35 Consistent with the other impingement studies at the CREC (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 

36 1985), annual impingement was much higher than predicted by the AEC (1973). Ager et al. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-21 

1 (2008) observed peak impingement to occur in February and March 2007, with 69 percent of all 

2 fishes impinged during this period and 46 percent of all organisms (based on total biomass) 

3 impinged during these 2 months. 

4 The most abundant fish species impinged were Atlantic thread herring (21.6 percent), bay 

5 anchovy (14.7 percent), and scaled sardines (11.4 percent). The most abundant invertebrates 

6 impinged were pink shrimp (43.8 percent), Atlantic brief squid (15.9 percent), and false arrow 

7 crab (10.5 percent) (Ager et al., 2008). Table 4.5-3 provides the number of the 13 selected 

8 important fish and shellfish species impinged at CR-3 and for all units combined. 

9 Impinged species that were numerically abundant included: Atlantic thread herring (194,141 at 

10 CR-3 and 204,060 at all units); scaled sardine (104,005 at CR-3 and 107,731 at all units); 

11 blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) (63,478 at unit CR-3 and 63,478 at all units); spotted mojarra 

12 (Eucinostomus argenteus) (16,763 at CR-3 and 30,800 at all units); striped mojarra (Eugerres 

13 plumieri) (15,965 at CR-3 and 19,871 at all units); false arrow crab (27,756 at CR-3 and 36,767 

14 at all units); iridescent swimming crab (22,889 at CR-3 and 33,957 at all units); and mantis 

15 shrimp (6,796 at CR-3 and 9,820 at all units) (Ager et al., 2008). 

16 Ager et al. (2008) determined that fish densities near the entrance to the intake canal were 7 to 

17 62 times greater than observed in the immediate vicinity of the CREC intakes; while invertebrate 

18 densities were 2 to 19 times greater near the entrance of the intake canal compared to the 

19 immediate area of the intakes. Ager et al. (2008) concluded that, overall, the extended intake 

20 canal appears to offer an impingement reduction of about 95 percent for all three units and a 

21 94 percent reduction for CR-3. 

22 Both NUS Corporation (1978) and SWEC (1985) made several comparisons of impingement of 

23 select species (e.g., blue crab and pink shrimp) to commercial catches. Estimated impingement 

24 at the CREC was generally 1 percent or less of local commercial catches and so was not 

25 competing with or impacting commercial catches (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985). 

26 Table 4.5-4 presents comparisons of annual impingement biomass determined by Ager et al. 

27 (2008) and commercial catches reported by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

28 Commission (FWC) (2011) for several of the selected important species. Evident from 

29 Table 4.5-4 is that for commercially important species (e.g., striped mullet, blue crab, Florida 

30 stone crab, and pink shrimp), impingement losses at CR-3 are only a small percentage of 

31 commercial catches. For these four species, impingement losses ranged from less than 0.001 

32 percent (striped mullet) to 0.04 percent (pink shrimp) of commercial catch for the west coast of 

33 Florida. For species of lower commercial importance (e.g., pinfish, spotted seatrout, and squid), 

34 impingement losses at CR-3 were up to 2 percent of the commercial catch for the west coast of 

35 Florida. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-22 

1 Table 4.5-4. Comparison of the Estimated Biomass of Selected Fish and Shellfish 

2 Species Impinged at the Crystal River Energy Complex to Commercial Catches 

Species 

Pounds Impinged(a) Pounds Harvested(a)

CR-3 CREC(b) Citrus County 

Florida West 

Coast 

Pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides) 784 953 4937 76,924 

Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) 0 0 1 4429 

Spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus) 69 85 58 5162 

Striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) 46 62 236,368 5,540,254 

All Fish Species 32,840 42,437 413,932 30,644,493 

Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) 2178 2795 743,882 6,114,553 

Brief squid (Lolliguncula brevis) 668 896 0 34,843 

Florida stone crab (Menippe mercenaria) 99 195 350,646(c) 5,846,631(c)

Pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum) 2034 2776 1361 5,011,894 

All Invertebrate Species 5805 8434 1,603,490 29,105,797 

(a) To convert to kilograms, multiply by 0.45 

(b) Includes CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 

(c) Weight of only the largest claw 

Sources: Ager et al., 2008; FWC, 2011 

3 The NPDES permit contains no requirements for the applicant to conduct impingement 

4 monitoring at CR-3 (FDEP, 2005a). As discussed in Section 2.1.6, Phase II of the planned 

5 CR-3 EPU should not alter the volume of water withdrawn at the entrance of the intake canal. 

6 Therefore, an increase in the number of organisms impinged at CR-3 due to the EPU is not 

7 expected. Studies conducted near the CREC since the late 1960s indicate that Crystal Bay 

8 near the CREC has maintained a diverse assemblage of fish and shellfish species. 

9 Impingement losses will continue at CR-3 during the license renewal term; with numbers of fish 

10 and shellfish impinged expected to be in the annual range of the 1.1 to 1.2 million organisms 

11 reported by NUS Corporation (1978), SWEC (1985), and Ager et al. (2008). CR-3 has an intake 

12 flow rate greater than that recommended by the EPA and its annual impingement numbers are 

13 much higher than the 250,000 estimated by the AEC (1973). Based on the preceding 

14 information, the Staff has determined that the potential impacts of impingement of fish and 

15 shellfish by CR-3 on the Crystal Bay aquatic community during the 20-year renewal period 

16 would be SMALL to MODERATE. Under the provisions of the CWA 316(b), the FDEP may 

17 impose further restrictions or require modifications to the cooling system to reduce the impact of 

18 impingement under the NPDES permitting process. The Site Certification Application for LNP 

19 was approved by the Governor’s Siting Board on August 11, 2009, and includes a requirement 

20 that the applicant shut down CR-1 and CR-2 by the end of 2020 (or by the end of the year when 

21 LNP begins operation) (Progress Energy, 2009m). This will lessen impingement impacts to 

22 Crystal Bay due to CREC operations. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-23 

1 4.5.4 Heat Shock 

2 For plants with once-through cooling systems, such as CR-3, the effects of heat shock are a 

3 Category 2 issue that require a site-specific assessment for license renewal review. Impacts on 

4 fish and shellfish resources resulting from heat shock are a site-specific issue because of 

5 continuing concerns about acute thermal-discharge impacts and the possible need to modify 

6 thermal discharges in the future in response to changing environmental conditions (NRC, 1996). 

7 Heat shock may occur when the water temperature meets or exceeds the thermal tolerance of 

8 aquatic biota; duration of exposure to high water temperatures is a factor contributing to heat 

9 shock. Mobile organisms such as fish can typically avoid adverse effects from a thermal plume 

10 through behavioral avoidance (e.g., swimming away from the plume). The thermal plume may 

11 exclude some aquatic biota from a small area of habitat near the CREC discharge. The 

12 discharge of heated water into Crystal Bay can cause lethal or sublethal effects on resident fish 

13 and shellfish, influence food web characteristics and structure, and create barriers to 

14 nearshore/offshore or along shore movements of fish and shellfish. The Staff did not uncover 

15 any incidents of fish mortality reportedly due to heat shock at the CREC. 

16 Information considered by the Staff for its assessment of heat shock included: (1) the type of 

17 cooling system, (2) evidence of CWA Section 316(a) variance or equivalent State 

18 documentation, and (3) any temperature 

19 excursions above the thermal limits. To perform 

20 this assessment, the Staff reviewed the applicant’s 

21 ER (Progress Energy, 2008a) and related 

22 documents, including the CWA Section 316 

23 Demonstration studies (SWEC, 1985), and visited 

24 the CREC site. The Staff also reviewed the 

25 applicant’s NPDES permit; documents related to 

26 the planned EPU for CR-3; scientific articles, 

27 documents, technical reports, and compilations 

28 associated with the Crystal Bay area and with 

29 thermal impacts; and the thermal plume analysis 

30 prepared for the proposed LNP (NRC, 2010b), 

31 which will discharge its cooling tower blowdown to 

32 the CREC discharge canal. The Staff notes that the applicant’s NPDES permit 

33 (No. FL0000159) was issued on May 9, 2005, with an expiration date of May 8, 2010 

34 (FDEP, 2005a). The applicant submitted an application for renewal of its NPDES permit on 

35 October 28, 2009 (Progress Energy, 2009l). Since the applicant applied for its permit on time, 

36 the existing NPDES permit remains in effect until issuance of a new NPDES permit. 

37 At the CREC, CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 have once-through cooling systems that withdraw water 

38 from and discharge water to the Gulf of Mexico; while CR-4 and CR-5 have closed-cycle 

39 systems that withdraw water from the CREC discharge canal and discharge their blowdown 

40 back to the discharge canal (Section 2.1.6). At operating design capacity, the discharge 

41 temperature rises from condenser passage from CR-1 through CR-3 are 14.9 °F (8.3 °C), 

42 16.9 °F (9.4 °C), and 17.5 °F (9.7 °C), respectively (Mattson et al., 1988). Combined blowdown 

43 temperature from CR-4 and CR-5 is less than their combined intake flow. For example, at a 

44 combined intake temperature of 107.3 °F (41.8 °C), the combined blowdown temperature is 

45 94.7 °F (34.8 °C) (Progress Energy, 2009n). Average intake temperature at the CREC is 

46 85.6 °F (29.8 °C) in summer and 63.5 °F (17.5 °C) in winter; while the average discharge 

47 temperature at the point of discharge (POD) is 93.4 °F (34.1 °C) in summer and 78.1 °F 

48 (25.6 °C) in winter (Progress Energy, 2010b). Through NPDES Permit FL0000159, FDEP 

Heat Shock 

Heat shock is an acute thermal stress 

caused by exposure to a sudden 

elevation of water temperature that 

adversely affects the metabolism and 

behavior of fish or other aquatic 

organisms and can lead to death. Heat 

shock is most likely to occur when an 

offline unit returns to service or when a 

station has a discharge canal. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-24 

1 (2005a) regulates the thermal limits of the combined discharge of CR-1 through CR-3 at the 

2 POD to Crystal Bay. The discharge temperature at the POD cannot exceed 96.5 °F (35.8 °C) 

3 as a 3-hour rolling average. 

4 Various factors affect the thermal plume from the CREC. The north spoil bank of the intake 

5 canal prevents southward flow of the thermal plume, which also prevents recycling of heated 

6 effluent back into the intake canal (AEC, 1973). Tide-induced flow and water influx from the 

7 Withlacoochee River-Cross Florida Barge Canal area govern water flow patterns within the 

8 thermal mixing zone for the CREC (AEC, 1973). Hall et al. (1978) stated that in cases where 

9 cooling water discharges are relatively large in comparison to the dissipative capacity of the 

10 receiving body that a detrimental increase in temperature is likely to occur over a substantial 

11 area. Shallow, enclosed, and/or poorly mixed bodies of water are most vulnerable to heat 

12 loading (Hall et al., 1978). As an example, Hall et al. (1978) mentioned that the addition of CR-2 

and CR-3 would increase the temperature of about 2 square kilometers (km2 13 ) (494 ac or 200 ha) 

of Crystal Bay by about 9.9 °F (5.5 °C) and about 15 km2 14 (3,707 ac or 1,500 ha) by 1.8 °F 

15 (1 °C). Table 4.5-4 tabulates AEC’s (1973) predicted area of the thermal plume due to the 

16 addition of CR-3. 

17 Table 4.5-4. Predicted Acreage of the Crystal River Energy Complex Thermal Plume Due 

18 to the Addition of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

Temperature Increase 

above Ambient 

Acres(a)

Flood Tide Ebb Tide Complete Tidal Cycle(b)

1 °F (0.6 °C) 2,860 (1,230) 3,770 (1,620) 4,600 (2,350) 

2 °F (1.1 °C) 2,100 (870) 2,760 (1,140) 3,500 (1,700) 

4 °F (2.2 °C) 1,350 (420) 1,750 (650) 2,300 (1,050) 

6 °F (3.3 °C) 730 (200) 1,130 (360) 1,500 (510) 

8 °F (4.4 °C) 400 (90) 740 (160) 950 (220) 

10 °F (5.5 °C) 220 (-)(c) 430 (-) 500 (-) 

(a) To convert to hectares, multiply by 0.4047. 

(b) Numbers in parentheses are thermal plume area for CR-1 and CR-2 only. 

(c) - = not provided. 

Source: AEC, 1973 

19 Prior to CR-3 operation, Grimes and Mountain (1971) reported that the thermal discharge from 

20 CR-1 and CR-2 resulted in a localized effect on Crystal Bay fishes—attracting them during late 

21 fall and early winter and repulsing them during summer. However, the occurrence of the four 

22 most abundant fish species near the CREC (pigfish, silver perch, spot, and pinfish) was not 

23 significantly different between thermally-affected and non-affected areas (Grimes and Mountain, 

24 1971). Lyons et al. (1971) concluded that the salinity gradient (i.e., increasing from the Cross 

25 Florida Barge Canal to the CREC discharge canal dike) was more influential than temperature 

26 in determining local distribution of macroinvertebrates, which increased in diversity as salinity 

27 increased. However, Lyons et al. (1971) theorized that the thermal plume from the addition of 

28 CR-3 at the CREC may prove to be more influential than salinity in determining the distribution 

29 of macroinvertebrates. 

30 In the final environmental statement (FES), the AEC (1973) concluded that a localized impact 

31 could be expected to occur to sessile marine invertebrates, attached algae and plants, some 

32 planktonic organisms, and possibly some fishes in the discharge area due to increase of 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-25 

1 temperature in the discharge effluent from 11.5 °F (6.4 °C) to about 14.5 °F (8.1 °C) and more 

2 notably to a more than doubling in the size of the thermal plume (Table 4.5-4). The AEC (1973) 

3 concluded that most adverse ecological impacts would occur when temperatures exceed 95 °F 

4 (35 °C); a condition that would occur about 53 percent of the time annually. Most biological and 

5 ecological effects were expected to occur within the 6 °F (3.3 °C) isotherm, an area that would 

6 cover about 1,500 ac (607 ha) over a complete tidal cycle with all three units operating 

7 (1,000 ac [405 ha] of which is contributed by operation of CR-3) (AEC, 1973). 

8 During the combined CWA Section 316(a) and 316(b) Demonstration study (SWEC, 1985), the 

9 mean weekly POD water temperatures ranged from 63.2 °F (17.3 °C) (for the period January 1 

10 through January 7, 1984) to 100.1 °F (37.8 °C) (for the period August 21 through August 27, 

11 1983). For 9 weeks during the summers of 1983 and 1984, weekly temperatures at the POD 

12 ranged between 96.9 °F and 100.1 °F (36.1 °C and 37.8 °C) (SWEC, 1985). These summer 

13 discharge temperatures are above the temperature preference, and in some cases tolerance, of 

14 a number of aquatic organisms that occur in the area (Section 2.2.5). SWEC (1985) observed 

15 that the lowest densities of fish and invertebrates occurred in the sample transects most 

16 affected by thermal discharges. SWEC (1985) concluded that the thermal discharges from the 

17 CREC had an adverse impact on the benthic infaunal community within an area less than 

18 400 ac (162 ha) and minimal benthic infaunal community alterations within an area less than 

19 2,400 ac (971 ha). Table 4.5-5 presents SWEC’s (1985) conclusions on CREC thermal 

20 discharge impacts on the selected representative fish and invertebrate species described in 

21 Section 2.2.5. In general, the thermal effects were limited to an area within about 2.2 mi 

22 (3.5 km) from the POD, which encompasses less than 2,400 ac (971 ha) (SWEC, 1985). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-26 

1 Table 4.5-5. Effects of the Crystal River Energy Complex Thermal Discharges on 

2 Selected Representative Species 

Species Thermal Discharge Effects 

Bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) Preferred thermal area where temperatures were as much as 7.2 °F to 

12.6 °F (4 °C to 7 °C) above ambient. Summer discharge 

temperatures did not prevent the species from occupying the thermal 

plume area. Young-of-the-year were more common in the thermal 

plume than thermally-unaltered areas except in spring. Those in the 

thermal plume did not weigh as much as equivalently-sized specimens 

in the control area. Growth rate was apparently faster in the thermal 

area than in the control area. 

Pigfish (Orthopristis chrysoptera) Avoided the thermal discharge area in spring and summer. 

Reproduction at the CREC probably occurs south of the intake canal. 

Pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides) Tended to avoid the thermal discharge area where temperatures were 

in excess of 3.6 °F (2 °C) above ambient. 

Polka-dot batfish (Ogocephalus radiatus) Ratio of females to males higher in discharge plume area and 

immature individuals less common in discharge plume area. 

Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) Data did not support any conclusions concerning thermal discharge 

impacts. 

Silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura) Avoided higher temperature areas of the thermal plume area but 

utilized areas that were 3.6 °F to 5.4 °F (2 °C to 3 °C) above ambient. 

Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) Appeared to use the outer portions of the thermal plume area, 

although may also use higher thermal portions in early spring. 

Spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus) Not excluded from the thermal plume area but appeared to utilize 

areas subject to temperatures only up to about 5.4 °F (3 °C) above 

ambient. 

Striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) Data did not support any conclusions concerning thermal discharge 

impacts. 

Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) Avoided warmer portions of the thermal plume, particularly during the 

summer. 

Brief squid (Lolliguncula brevis) Data did not support any conclusions concerning thermal discharge 

impacts. 

Florida stone crab (Menippe mercenaria) Has a more offshore distribution that is associated with factor or 

factors other than thermal discharges. 

Pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum) Avoided warmer portions of the thermal plume, particularly in August. 

Source: SWEC, 1985 

3 Hall et al. (1978) reported that temperatures 9 °F (5 °C) above ambient resulting from power 

4 plant operations in South Biscayne Bay caused the total disappearance of turtle grass 

5 (Thalassia testudinum) and elevations of 5.4 °F to 7.2 °F (3 °C to 4 °C) brought a 50 percent 

6 loss of turtle grass and depressed macroalgae populations by 30 percent. Mattson et al. (1988) 

7 found that the standing crop, productivity, and growth rates of seagrasses were lower in the 

8 thermally-impacted area near the POD at the CREC. The monitoring site exposed to the 

9 highest CREC temperature elevations routinely contained only shoal grass (Halodule 

10 beaudettei), while monitoring sites exposed to lower thermal discharge temperatures contained 

11 three to four seagrass species. Control stations, not exposed to CREC thermal discharges, 

12 contained 0 to 4 species of seagrasses (Mattson et al., 1988). Several environmental variables 

13 (e.g., salinity and substrates) affect the submergent macrophyte communities near the CREC. 

14 Therefore, Mattson et al. (1988) concluded that differences in seagrass communities between 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-27 

1 thermally-unimpacted and moderately impacted areas could not be attributed to just the thermal 

2 addition from the CREC (Mattson et al., 1988). 

3 A fact sheet on the CREC NPDES permit prepared in 1993 by the EPA, abstracted in Golder 

4 Associates, Inc. (2006), stated that the results of the 316 Demonstration study (SWEC, 1985) 

5 showed that thermal discharges at the CREC have an adverse impact to the aquatic resources 

6 of Crystal Bay. These impacts included substantial damage to about 1,100 ac (445 ha) of 

7 Crystal Bay (FPC, undated). Therefore, the 1989 NPDES permit for CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 

8 included a requirement for the construction and operation of helper cooling towers, which 

9 became operational in 1993. The cooling tower requirement was primarily to mitigate thermal 

10 impacts to water quality and seagrasses (FPC, undated). Additional NPDES permit 

11 requirements included a seagrass monitoring and planting program, and a limitation on plant 

12 operations to maintain a 3-hour average temperature not to exceed 96.5 °F (35.8 °C) at the 

13 POD. 

14 From May 1 through October 31, a portion of the heated discharge from the CREC flows 

15 through the helper cooling towers to meet the NPDES permitted 3-hour rolling average of 

16 96.5 °F (35.8 °C) (FDEP, 2005a). During hot summers, the applicant occasionally reduces 

17 power at the coal-fired units (CR-1 and CR-2) to stay within NPDES permit thermal limits. In 

18 April 2006, the applicant received approval from the FDEP to install additional modular cooling 

19 towers. The 67 modular cooling towers allow CR-1 and CR-2 to operate most of the time during 

20 the warmest periods of the year without reducing power (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

21 The Mote Marine Laboratory surveyed submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) from 1993 through 

22 1995 to determine the potential beneficial effect of the CREC helper cooling towers on the 

23 distribution of SAV in the thermal discharge area (FPC, undated). Results indicated that several 

24 new SAV beds occurred in areas that were completely barren of vegetation in 1993, although 

25 recruitment of seagrasses into barren areas was not extensive. Additionally, 8 of 15 surveyed 

26 seagrass beds showed some expansion beyond their original boundaries, but the percent 

27 coverage of SAV declined at 10 of 15 sites surveyed (FPC, undated), (Marshall, 2002). 

28 In 2001, the Coastal Seas Consortium, Inc. resurveyed the same area surveyed by the Mote 

29 Marine Laboratory to determine what changes in SAV beds occurred since 1995 (Marshall, 

30 2002). Seagrass beds first began at a point 245 ft (74.6 m) from the POD, and shoal grass had 

31 spread throughout the area most affected by thermal discharges. The occurrence of shoal 

32 grass seemed to be only constrained by rocky bars, shelly substrates inappropriate for seagrass 

33 growth, and water depths too shallow or too deep for seagrass (Marshall, 2002). Marshall 

34 (2002) concluded that the helper cooling towers have altered the thermal regime to the degree 

35 that suitable conditions for seagrass survival, bed expansion, and reproduction exist. However, 

36 seagrass recolonization has not been dramatic since the helper cooling towers have become 

37 operational. The Seagrass Technical Advisory Committee suggested that light intensity, salinity 

38 variation, and suspended solids load could be more influential than temperature in affecting 

39 seagrass colonization; had temperature been the primary factor, a more dramatic recolonization 

40 of seagrass should have occurred after the cooling towers became operational (FPC, undated). 

41 As discussed in Section 2.1.6, the scheduled completion of the CR-3 EPU has changed from 

42 2011 to, supposedly, prior to the expiration of the next NPDES permit period. Original EPU 

43 plans called for the construction and operation of a new south cooling tower to mitigate 

44 increased thermal load resulting from the EPU. Golder Associates, Inc. (2007c) concluded that 

45 the use of the south cooling tower will ensure that the heat rejection rate from the three units will 

46 not exceed the allowable maximum rate of 10.91 billion British thermal units per hour (Btu/hour) 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-28 

1 at the POD and, therefore, the EPU will not change the shape or increase the extent of the 

2 thermal plume. Table 4.5-6 lists the projected summer operational discharges and 

3 temperatures for the CREC based on the CR-3 EPU. 

4 Table 4.5-6. Projected Post-Uprate Summer Operational Discharges and Temperatures 

5 for the Crystal River Energy Complex 

CREC Unit 

Discharge Flow 

(gpm)(a) Intake Temperature (°F)(b) Discharge Temperature (°F)(b)

CR-1 310,001 91.0 101.7 

CR-2 328,001 91.0 105.1 

CR-3 (uprated) 680,001 91.0 110.9 

CR-4 and CR-5 

(combined)(c) 7,000 107.3 94.7 

Harmon cooling towers 

(existing) 673,944 107.2 92.0 

South cooling tower (new) 314,018 107.2 91.0 

Point of discharge 1,291,212 -- 95.4 

(a) To convert to m3

/min multiply by 0.00455. 

(b) High summer design values in August. To convert to °C: (°F-32) x 0.556. 

(c) Net internal discharge to the CREC discharge canal from CR-4 and CR-5 cooling towers. 

Source: Progress Energy, 2009n 

6 The applicant stated that there would be no change to the existing CR-3 flow of 680,000 gpm 

(1,849 cfs or 3,142 m3 7 /s) as a result of the EPU but there would be an increase in the thermal 

8 load (increased temperature) (Progress Energy, 2009n). The new south cooling tower will allow 

9 CR-3 to operate similarly before and after the EPU, maintain compliance with the NPDES permit 

10 limitations, and allow for the removal of the rental modular cooling towers (Progress Energy, 

11 2009n). As discussed in Section 2.1.6, the CR-3 EPU may be completed without, or prior to, 

12 the south cooling tower. In this case, derating of CR-1 and CR-2 may be required to meet the 

13 NPDES permit temperature requirement at the POD. Should the EPU occur before the end of 

14 the next NPDES permit period, the applicant will be required to conduct a CWA Section 316(a) 

15 Demonstration study, likely involving a 2-year study period initiated after completion of the EPU. 

16 The need for the study is to demonstrate compliance with CWA Section 316(a) in order to renew 

17 any applicable Section 316(a) variance (i.e., a variance from applicable thermal limitations to 

18 surface waters is allowed if the permittee demonstrates that the balanced indigenous 

19 community of aquatic organisms is protected and maintained). The applicant has proposed a 

20 plan of study (not yet approved by the FDEP) to assess the potential impacts of the thermal 

21 plume from current operation of the CREC on seagrasses, benthic macroinvertebrates, and 

22 other aquatic species, as appropriate (Progress Energy, 2007b). 

23 The Staff has determined that the potential for acute heat shock during the license renewal term 

24 is unlikely because of the design, location, and operation of CR-3 (and the other units at the 

25 CREC). The plant discharges via a discharge canal to the Gulf of Mexico, a large body of 

26 water. In high-temperature plumes, mobile organisms are generally able to detect the limits to 

27 their survival and escape dangerous situations. For this reason, direct kills from heat shock are 

28 rare (Hall et al., 1978). Chronic thermal effects occur within less than 2,400 ac (971 ha) 

29 affected by the thermal discharges from the CREC. Most notable are impacts to seagrasses, 

30 although light intensity, salinity variation, and suspended solids load also influence seagrass 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-29 

1 habitats in the area of the thermal plume. The Staff concludes that thermal impacts could range 

2 from SMALL to MODERATE depending on the extent and magnitude of the thermal plume, the 

3 sensitivity of various aquatic species and the life stages likely to encounter the thermal plume, 

4 and the probability of an encounter occurring that could result in lethal or sublethal effects. The 

5 range of the impact level expresses the uncertainty resulting from the current lack of studies and 

6 data. Additional thermal studies or modeling and verification of the applicant’s past thermal 

7 studies might generate data to refine or modify this impact level. 

8 For the purpose of this SEIS, the Staff’s conclusion that the thermal impact level could range 

9 from SMALL to MODERATE satisfies the NRC’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

10 obligations and is not meant to prejudice any determinations the FDEP may reach in response 

11 to new studies and information submitted to it by the applicant. The Site Certification 

12 Application for LNP was approved by the Governor’s Siting Board on August 11, 2009, and 

13 includes a requirement that the applicant shut down CR-1 and CR-2 by the end of 2020 (or by 

14 the end of the year when LNP begins operation) (Progress Energy, 2009m). Shutting down 

15 CR-1 and CR-2 will lessen thermal impacts to Crystal Bay due to CREC operations. 

16 4.5.5 Total Impacts on Aquatics Resources 

17 Impingement, entrainment, and heat shock all act on the aquatic resources of Crystal Bay near 

18 the CREC. The purpose of this section is to provide perspective on the total impact of CREC 

19 cooling system operation on fish and other aquatic resources. The Staff concluded that the 

20 level of individual impacts associated with entrainment, impingement, and thermal discharges is 

21 SMALL to MODERATE; the Staff believes that the total impact from all of these stressors 

22 together on aquatic resources would also be SMALL to MODERATE through the period of CR-3 

23 license renewal. 

24 A fact sheet on the CREC NPDES permit prepared in 1993 by the EPA, abstracted in Golder 

25 Associates, Inc. (2006), determined that a reduction of plant flow by 15 percent during the 

26 months of November through April and the operation of a fish hatchery (the Mariculture Center) 

27 over the lifetime of the CREC would constitute minimization of the effects of the CREC cooling 

28 water intake on aquatic resources; and that the addition of helper cooling towers and limitation 

29 on temperature at the POD constituted minimization of environmental impacts of the cooling 

30 water discharge (the cost of installing closed-cycle cooling towers was considered to be wholly 

31 disproportionate to the environmental benefits to be derived). 

32 The Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, in the “Yellow Creek” case, determined that the 

33 EPA has sole jurisdiction over the regulation of water quality with respect to the withdrawal and 

34 discharge of waters for nuclear power stations and that the NRC is prohibited from placing any 

35 restrictions or requirements upon the licensees of those facilities with regards to water quality 

36 (Tennessee Valley Authority [Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2], ALAB-515, 8 NRC 

37 702, 712-13 [1978]). Nevertheless, the Staff has identified a variety of measures that could 

38 mitigate potential impacts resulting from continued operation of the CR-3 cooling water system. 

39 These could include: 

40 ● behavioral barriers 

41 ● diversion devices 

42 ● alternative intake systems 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-30 

1 ● alternative intake screen systems 

2 ● closed-cycle systems 

3 ● variable-speed pumps 

4 ● cooling water flow adjustments 

5 ● scheduled outages 

6 ● fish return system 

7 ● habitat restoration or enhancement 

8 ● fish stocking 

9 The Staff has not conducted an analysis of each of these measures relative to their applicability 

10 to CR-3. The following discussion provides only a brief overview of these technologies. Based 

11 on results of the 316 Demonstration (SWEC, 1985), several of these technologies were 

12 incorporated at the CREC and are components of the NPDES permit for CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3. 

13 The design of behavioral barriers potentially causes fish to actively avoid entry into the intake 

14 area. These may include sound, light, or air bubbles (Clay, 1995). Sound barriers, which would 

15 be located at an intake structure, include low-frequency, infra-wave sound; pneumatic or 

16 mechanically generated low-frequency sounds; or transducer-generated sound. Light barriers 

17 may emit either a constant or strobe-type beam of light. Air bubble curtains produce a 

18 continuous, dense chain of bubbles. These barrier types may deter some species of fish from 

19 entering the intake structure. The effectiveness of behavioral barriers varies among species 

20 and behavioral technologies would also be ineffective on fish eggs, early larval stages, or other 

21 planktonic organisms. At the CREC, the effectiveness of behavioral barriers at the end of an 

22 intake canal; and in an area that would be subject to drift algae, suspended sediments, and 

23 biofouling organisms; would be limited and difficult to maintain. 

24 Diversion devices, the most commonly used barriers, are physical structures, such as louvers, 

25 barrier nets, or chains and cables designed to guide fish away from a certain area, such as the 

26 intake (Clay, 1995). Louvers consist of a series of evenly spaced vertical slats that create 

27 localized turbulence that fish can detect and actively avoid. Louvers typically have a smaller 

28 spacing between the slats or bars than a standard trash rack. Barrier nets are simply nets 

29 placed across an intake channel to prevent fish from access to an intake structure. The design 

30 of a barrier net system has to finely balance the mesh size with the intake requirements. Chains 

31 or cables, vertically hung in an intake structure, form a physical and visible barrier to fish. 

32 However, like barrier nets, they may alter hydraulic flow patterns in an intake. These types of 

33 structures only affect those organisms that can actively respond and would not prevent 

34 entrainment of fish eggs, larvae, or other planktonic organisms. At the CREC, the effectiveness 

35 of diversion devices at the end of an intake canal; and in an area that would be subject to drift 

36 algae, suspended sediments, and biofouling organisms; would be limited and difficult to 

37 maintain. 

38 Another type of mitigation measure may be an alternative intake system. An alternative surface 

39 water intake system could include an offshore intake structure with a velocity cap. Use of 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-31 

1 groundwater can also mitigate impacts on aquatic resources that result from the use of surface 

2 water as a cooling water source. 

3 Alternate intake screen systems may include Ristroph traveling screens, wedge-wire screens, 

4 and/or fine-mesh screens. Ristroph screens are traveling screens fitted with fish buckets that 

5 collect fish and lift them out of the water where they are gently sluiced away prior to debris 

6 removal with a high-pressure spray. Several States approve Ristroph screens as the best 

7 technology available to mitigate impingement impacts. Studies have shown survival of species 

8 can exceed 90 percent when using the Ristroph screen (Pankratz, 2004). Wedge-wire screens, 

9 constructed of wire of triangular cross section so that the surface of the screen is smooth while 

10 the screen openings widen inwards, are widely used for hydropower diversion structures and 

11 essentially eliminate impingement and reduce larval entrainment. Fine-mesh screens are 

12 simply wire screens with the mesh sized to minimize ichthyoplankton entrainment. However, 

13 smaller mesh could result in more clogging and biofouling problems. Also, as flow rates through 

14 fine-mesh screens are low (e.g., as low as 0.02 ft/s [0.006 m/s]), a large area is required for this 

15 technology to ensure sufficient water is available to meet intake flow requirements (York et al., 

16 2005). A fish return system would be required to make an alternate intake screen system 

17 practicable. The practicable alternative to using fine-mesh screens or returning fish to Salt 

18 Creek to reduce entrainment and impingement at the CREC is the reduction in intake flow, 

19 coupled with the Mariculture Center (Golder Associates Inc., 2007b). 

20 Opportunities to reduce the effects of thermal discharges include relocation, design, and 

21 operation options (York et al., 2005). Closed-cycle systems recycle cooling water in a closed 

22 piping system and use evaporative cooling (such as in a cooling tower or pond) as a means of 

23 dissipating the heat from the condensers. Cooling towers could include wet, hybrid, or dry 

24 towers. Wet and hybrid cooling towers would still require withdrawal of water from Crystal Bay 

25 to make up for water losses due to blowdown and evaporation. However, the water withdrawal 

26 rate would be significantly lower than the current once-through cooling system. A dry cooling 

27 tower uses ambient air to dissipate heat, essentially acting as an automobile radiator. Thus, no 

28 makeup water is required for dry cooling. However, this results in lower plant efficiency, 

29 requiring more fuel to produce the same amount of electricity. Design options for reducing 

30 thermal effects (other than changing to a closed-cycle system) are mainly limited to changing 

31 the type of discharge outfall used to enhance mixing or using a cooling pond or helper tower to 

32 reduce the temperature of the discharge water. Relocating the discharge outfall to deeper water 

33 can enhance mixing of the thermal plume, reduce the area affected by the higher elevated 

34 temperatures, or remove the thermal plume from proximity to sensitive biological resources, 

35 such as seagrass beds (York et al., 2005). Due to the shallow nature of Crystal Bay, this 

36 mitigation measure would be impracticable. Helper cooling towers are in use at the CREC. 

37 Cooling water flow adjustments through the plant is another type of mitigation strategy that may 

38 be applicable to CR-3. This could include the use of variable speed pumps and cooling water 

39 bypass flow. Variable speed pumps would reduce the intake flow during periods of peak 

40 entrainment or impingement. However, variable speed pumps would also decrease generating 

41 efficiency, and the thermal plume may increase in size. Another potential mitigation strategy 

42 may be to schedule outages for performing regular inspection, maintenance, and refueling 

43 during peak spawning seasons for those species that move to inshore areas to spawn. The 15 

44 percent flow reduction at the CREC from November through April currently reduces entrainment 

45 and impingement. Cooling water bypass flow would reduce the cooling water flow rate through 

46 the condensers and add a corresponding amount of bypass flow into the discharge canal. This 

47 alternative may reduce entrainment mortality but not impingement. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-32 

1 A fish return system would provide some mitigation benefits. Impinged fish at the CREC are 

2 disposed of at a landfill. A sluiceway sending impinged fish to the discharge canal would not be 

3 effective, as many impinged fish are stunned, disoriented, or injured by the impingement and 

4 would be susceptible to thermal stress in the discharge canal and/or to re-impingement by the 

5 cooling tower intakes. Similarly, returning impinged fish to the nearby Salt Creek would 

6 introduce suspended solids that would impair the quality of that system. 

7 Habitat restoration or enhancement and fish stocking are also potential mitigation strategies for 

8 some species affected by entrainment and impingement. However, these are compensatory 

9 measures as opposed to preventative measures, which are the preferred mitigation strategies of 

10 Federal and State resource agencies. Habitat restoration or enhancement can include: the 

11 creation, restoration, and banking of wetlands; planting of submerged aquatic vegetation; and 

12 construction of artificial habitats (e.g., reefs). The ultimate goals of creating, restoring, or 

13 banking of wetlands are to increase production, survival, and growth of selected species by 

14 providing or improving spawning, nursery, and foraging habitat availability or quality (EPRI, 

15 2003). The Mariculture Center, discussed in Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3, provides mitigation for 

16 entrainment and impingement losses at the CREC. For heat shock, SAV plantings were 

17 required in past NPDES permits to mitigate thermal impacts that occurred prior to the use of 

18 helper cooling towers and a POD limit on temperature. 

19 4.6 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES 

20 The issues related to terrestrial resources applicable to CR-3 are discussed below and listed in 

21 Table 4-6. With the exception of threatened or endangered species (discussed in Section 4.7), 

22 all terrestrial ecology issues are considered Category 1. The NRC did not find any new and 

23 significant information during the review of the applicant’s ER (Progress Energy, 2008a), the site 

24 visit, or during the scoping process or review of public comments. Therefore, for plant operation 

25 during the license renewal term, there are no impacts to terrestrial resources beyond those 

26 discussed in the GEIS. For these Category 1 issues, the NRC concludes in the GEIS that the 

27 impacts are SMALL. 

28 Table 4-6. Terrestrial Resources Issues. Section 2.2.6 provides a description of the 

29 terrestrial resources at the CREC and in the surrounding area. 

Issues GEIS Section Category 

Cooling tower impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation 4.3.4 1 

Cooling tower impacts on native plants 4.3.5.1 1 

Bird collisions with cooling towers 4.3.5.2 1 

Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial resources 4.4.4 1 

Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide application) 4.5.6.1 1 

Bird collisions with power lines 4.5.6.2 1 

Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural 

crops, honeybees, wildlife, livestock) 4.5.6.3 1 

Floodplains and wetland on power line right-of-way 4.5.7 1 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-33 

1 4.7 THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES 

2 The impact to threatened or endangered species is a site-specific (Category 2) issue and is 

3 discussed below and listed in Table 4-7. 

4 Table 4-7. Threatened or Endangered Species Issue. A description of the threatened or 

5 endangered species on or near the CREC site is provided in Section 2.2.7. 

Issue GEIS Section Category 

Threatened or endangered species 4.1 2 

6 Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531, 

7 et seq.) requires each Federal agency to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry 

8 out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any Federally-endangered or 

9 threatened species or to result in the destruction or adverse modification of any 

10 Federally-designated critical habitat of such species (NMFS, 2005). Sections 2.2.7.1 (Aquatic 

11 Species) and 2.2.7.2 (Terrestrial Species) describe the presence of Federally-threatened or 

12 endangered species or their critical habitat in the vicinity of CR-3 and its associated 

13 transmission lines. 

14 When license renewal may affect a species protected under the ESA, the NRC is required to 

15 consult with appropriate agencies to determine whether threatened or endangered species are 

16 present and whether they or their critical habitat are likely to be adversely affected by continued 

17 operation of the nuclear plant during the license renewal term. On April 13, 2009, the NRC 

18 separately contacted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine 

19 Fisheries Service (NMFS) to request information on Federally-listed threatened and endangered 

20 species and the impacts of license renewal (NRC, 2009a), (NRC, 2009b). In response, the 

21 NMFS sent a list of species located along the entire Florida portion of the Gulf of Mexico under 

22 their jurisdiction on April 20, 2009 (NMFS, 2009). The NMFS has previously issued two 

23 Biological Opinions with the applicant and the NRC regarding sea turtle impingement at the 

24 CREC (NMFS, 1999), (NMFS, 2002). The NRC did not receive a response from the FWS. On 

25 June 8, 2009, the NRC requested information on species by the FWC that might be in the 

26 vicinity of CR-3 and its associated transmission lines (NRC, 2009c). The July 20, 2009, 

27 response received from the FWC included both Federally- and State-listed species that may be 

28 in the vicinity of the plant and the transmission lines (FWC, 2009). 

29 4.7.1 Aquatic Species 

30 Section 2.2.7.1 describes the Federally-threatened or endangered aquatic species near CR-3. 

31 Aquatic species that are Federally-listed as threatened or endangered and that occur in the 

32 vicinity of CR-3 are limited to two species of fish, five species of sea turtles, one crocodilian 

33 species, and one marine mammal. These species include the Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser 

34 oxyrinchus desotoi), smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata), green turtle (Chelonia mydas), 

35 hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback 

36 (Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), American alligator (Alligator 

37 mississippiensis), and Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). There are no 

38 Federally-designated critical habitats for these species in the action area (i.e., the area affected 

39 by CR-3’s intake or discharge) (NMFS, 1999), (NMFS, 2002), (NMFS, 2009). 

40 The Federally-endangered whale species that have been reported from the Gulf of Mexico 

41 include the humpback whale (Megaptera novaengliae), North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-34 

1 glacialis), and sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) (NMFS, 2002). Large whale species are 

2 not likely to occur in the inshore shallow waters near the CREC. Also, the NMFS does not 

3 believe that resident stocks of the whale species occur in the Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, the 

4 NMFS (2002) concluded that the potential for CREC operations affecting listed large whale 

5 species is discountable. 

6 4.7.1.1 Gulf Sturgeon and Smalltooth Sawfish 

7 Studies conducted at the CREC resulted in no observations or collections of Gulf sturgeons or 

8 smalltooth sawfish (Grimes and Mountain, 1971), (AEC, 1973), (NUS Corporation, 1978), 

9 (SWEC, 1985), (FPC, 2002), (Ager et al., 2008), (Progress Energy, 2008a). The NMFS (2002) 

10 does not believe that Gulf sturgeon would stray from mud and sand bottom foraging areas to 

11 enter the rocky bottomed substrates found within the CREC intake canal. Based on this 

12 information, the NMFS (2002) concluded that the chance of the operation of the CREC affecting 

13 the Gulf sturgeon is discountable. 

14 The probability that CR-3 will entrain, impinge, or otherwise affect the smalltooth sawfish is very 

15 low. Smalltooth sawfish give birth to live pups that are nearly 2 ft (0.6 m) in length (Glenn, 

16 2007); therefore, entrainment of this species would not be an issue. No impingement of 

17 smalltooth sawfish has occurred at the CREC (AEC, 1973), (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 

18 1985), (Ager et al., 2008). 

19 When work is performed in the intake or discharge canal (e.g., dredging in the coal barge 

20 turning basin within the intake canal), the applicant must comply with the “Sea Turtle and 

21 Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions” that are part of the FDEP’s State Programmatic 

22 General Permit (FDEP, 2010b). The construction conditions, developed by the NMFS (2006), 

23 include the following wording: 

24 The permittee shall instruct all personnel associated with the project of the 

25 potential presence of these species and the need to avoid collisions with sea 

26 turtles and smalltooth sawfish. All construction personnel are responsible for 

27 observing water-related activities for the presence of these species. 

28 The permittee shall advise all construction personnel that there are civil and 

29 criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing sea turtles or smalltooth 

30 sawfish, which are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

31 Siltation barriers shall be made of material in which a sea turtle or smalltooth 

32 sawfish cannot become entangled, be secured properly secured, and be 

33 regularly monitored to avoid protected species entrapment. Barriers may not 

34 block sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish entry to or exit from designated critical 

35 habitat without prior agreement from the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 

36 Protected Resources Division, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

37 All vessels associated with the construction project shall operate at “no 

38 wake/idle” speeds at all times while in the construction area and while in water 

39 depths where the draft of the vessel provides less than four-foot clearance from 

40 the bottom. All vessels will preferentially follow deep-water routes (e.g., marked 

41 channels) whenever possible. 

42 If a sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish is observed within 100 yards of the active 

43 daily construction/dredging operation or vessel movement, all appropriate 

44 precautions shall be implemented to ensure its protection. These precautions 

45 shall include cessation of operation of any moving equipment closer than 50 feet 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-35 

1 of a sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish. Operations of any mechanical construction 

2 equipment shall cease immediately if a sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish is seen 

3 within a 50-ft radius of the equipment. Activities may not resume until the 

4 protected species has departed the project area on its own volition. 

5 Any collision with and/or injury to a sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish shall be 

6 reported immediately to the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Protected 

7 Resources Division ... and the local authorized sea turtle stranding/rescue 

8 organization and the local authorized sea turtle stranding/rescue organization. 

9 Any special construction conditions, required of your specific project, outside 

10 these general conditions, if applicable, will be addressed in the primary 

11 consultation. 

12 Based on the above, the Staff concludes that the operation of CR-3 for an additional 20 years 

13 associated with license renewal will not affect either Gulf sturgeon or smalltooth sawfish. 

14 4.7.1.2 Sea Turtles 

15 Sea turtles observed from the nearshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico in Citrus County include 

16 the green turtle, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, and loggerhead. However, the applicant 

17 reports no observations of leatherbacks at or near CR-3 (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

18 The primary impact of CR-3 operations on sea turtles is impingement on the trash racks 

19 associated with its once-through cooling system. Most sea turtle rescues and recoveries at the 

20 CREC occur at CR-3. Only occasional entrapment of sea turtles occurs at CR-1 and CR-2. 

21 Prior to1998, monitoring of sea turtle strandings and mortalities were not continuous. Eight 

22 observed strandings of sea turtles on the CR-3 trash racks occurred from 1994 through 1997 

23 (Progress Energy, 2008a). In 1998, the applicant initiated a continuous monitoring and rescue 

24 program to reduce sea turtle strandings and mortalities. During periods of high turtle 

25 concentrations (generally February to May), the trash racks are continuously inspected, while 

26 during periods of low sea turtle concentrations (generally June to January), they are monitored 

27 once every 2 hours (NMFS, 1999), (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

28 The applicant’s “AI-571 Sea Turtle Rescue and Handling Guidance” (Progress Energy, undated) 

29 contains procedures, that have been developed in conjunction with the NMFS, to ensure that 

30 sea turtles are safely removed from the bar racks, evaluated to determine whether they are alive 

31 or dead, identified to determine species and life stage, and examined for boat propeller wounds 

32 or other trauma (e.g., diseases). The Mariculture Center receives all obviously alive sea turtles 

33 rescued from the trash racks. The staff at the Mariculture Center tags and releases healthy sea 

34 turtles or transfers sick or injured sea turtles to a qualified center for treatment and rehabilitation. 

35 If recovered sea turtles are comatose or appear dead, resurrection is attempted. Dead sea 

36 turtles are necropsied. 

37 In 1998, there were 40 live strandings, 8 non-causally related mortalities, and 5 causally related 

38 mortalities. Most of these were Kemp’s ridleys (FPC, 2001). Table 4.7.1.2-1 summarizes sea 

39 turtle strandings at the CREC from 1999 to 2009. Most strandings were Kemp’s ridley and 

40 green turtles. Loggerheads were also captured, but in lower numbers. Strandings from 1999 to 

41 2009 included no leatherbacks and only one hawksbill. Some of the live rescues showed 

42 evidence of boat injuries or diseases (particularly fibropapilloma). Similarly, most of the 

43 non-causally related mortalities are due to either boat strikes or disease (Progress Energy, 

44 2000), (Progress Energy, 2001), (Progress Energy, 2002), (Progress Energy, 2003), (Progress 

45 Energy, 2004), (Progress Energy, 2005b), (Progress Energy, 2006b), (Progress Energy, 2007c), 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-36 

1 (Progress Energy, 2008c), (Progress Energy, 2009o), (Progress Energy, 2010d). 

2 Causally-related mortalities of sea turtles due to CR-3 operations are primarily from drowning 

3 while impinged upon the bar racks (Progress Energy, 2005c), (Progress Energy, 2007d), 

4 (Progress Energy, 2008d), (Progress Energy, 2009p), (Progress Energy, 2009q) and more 

5 rarely on the intake screens (Progress Energy, 2007e). 

The NMFS determines the incidental take10 6 for listed sea turtles at the CREC. The biennial 

7 incidental take limits established in the 1999 Biological Opinion were 50 live takes, 8 dead 

8 turtles not causally related to plant operations, and 5 dead turtles causally related to plant 

9 operations (NMFS, 1999). The NMFS-authorized incidental take limit for the January 1, 2001, 

10 through December 31, 2002, biennial reporting period was almost exceeded by September 

11 2001. The rapid recovery of Kemp’s ridley in the Gulf of Mexico potentially accounted for this; 

12 as no changes in plant operations occurred at the CREC during this period. Recovery of the 

13 species has led to an increase in the numbers of juvenile and sub-adult Kemp’s ridleys 

14 inhabiting the shallow coastal areas of the Gulf (FPC, 2002). The applicant consulted with the 

15 NMFS to request a modification to the existing take limit. In the 2002 Biological Opinion, the 

16 incidental take was modified to 75 turtles rescued alive from the bar racks annually and 3 dead 

17 turtles annually that are causally related to plant operations. Any exceedance of the amount of 

18 incidental take requires the Staff to immediately request reinitiation of formal consultation 

19 (NMFS, 2002). No limitation was set on the number of dead sea turtles captured that are not 

20 causally related to plant operations (NMFS, 2002). These include sea turtles that die from 

21 injuries or disease and that drift into the intake canal and ultimately become impinged on the bar 

22 racks. 

23 Table 4.7.1.2-1. Sea Strandings at the Crystal River Energy Complex 

Year 

Number of Sea Turtles (live/non-plant mortalities/plant-related mortalities) 

Green 

Turtle Hawksbill Kemp’s Ridley Leatherback Loggerhead Totals 

1999 1/0/0 0/0/0 6/0/0 0/0/0 2/0/0 9/0/0 

2000 5/2/0 1/0/0 6/3/0 0/0/0 1/0/0 13/5/1(a)

2001 8/1/0 0/0/0 53/2/1 0/0/0 1/0/0 62/3/1 

2002 12/1/1 0/0/0 6/3/0 0/0/0 2/0/0 20/4/1 

2003 1/0/0 0/0/0 2/0/0 0/0/0 0/0/0 3/0/0 

2004 5/1/0 0/0/0 7/1/1 0/0/0 1/1/0 13/3/1 

2005 2/1/0 0/0/0 2/0/0 0/0/0 1/0/0 5/1/0 

2006 4/1/0 0/0/0 3/1/1 0/0/0 2/3/0 9/5/1 

2007 2/0/1 0/0/0 1/1/0 0/0/0 0/0/0 3/1/1 

2008 2/1/1 0/0/0 4/0/0 0/0/0 0/0/1 6/1/2 

2009 5/2/0 0/0/0 5/0/2 0/0/0 1/0/0 11/2/2 

(a) Skeletal remains of an unidentified sea turtle. 

Sources: Progress Energy 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005b, 2006b, 2007c, 2008c, 2009o, 2010d 

 

10 Section 9 of the ESA defines take as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct”; and incidental take as “take that is incidental to, and 

not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.” 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-37 

1 The CREC currently operates under the restrictions of the August 8, 2002, Biological Opinion 

2 (NMFS, 2002). The Biological Opinion concluded that operation of the CREC is not likely to 

3 jeopardize the continued existence of the five sea turtle species. However, the NMFS 

4 anticipated that incidental takes would occur and, therefore, issued an Incidental Take 

5 Statement (ITS), pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. The ITS contained reasonable and prudent 

6 measures, with implementing terms and conditions, to help minimize incidental take (NMFS, 

7 2002). The 2002 Biological Opinion (or any approved revision or amendment to this Biological 

8 Opinion) would be in effect if the NRC renews the CR-3 license. In the 2002 Biological Opinion, 

9 the NMFS (2002) determined that operation of the CREC, when added to ongoing activities 

10 affecting the sea turtles in the area and cumulative effects, would not affect sea turtles in a way 

11 that reduces the number of animals born in a particular year, the reproductive success of adult 

12 sea turtles, or the number of young sea turtles that annually recruit into the adult breeding 

13 population. 

14 Several other procedures minimize the potential for causally harming or killing sea turtles at the 

15 CREC. Biofouling of the bar racks may be attractive to sea turtles (i.e., provide a food source 

16 for some of the species). Also, biofouling can increase the velocity of water flowing through the 

17 bars which could increase the potential for impingement, particularly by sea turtles weakened by 

18 injury or disease. Removal and cleaning of the bar racks occurs about three to four times per 

19 year. Also, routine operation of the trash rake keeps the bar racks free of debris (FPC, 2002). 

20 When work is performed that could affect the intake or discharge canal (e.g., dredging in the 

21 coal barge turning basin within the intake canal), the applicant must comply with the “Sea Turtle 

22 and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions” (USACE, 2008). Section 4.7.1.1 above 

23 provided a listing of these conditions. 

24 The measures taken by the applicant to monitor, rescue and resuscitate, and tag and release 

25 sea turtles effectively protects and minimizes the potential for power plant causally related 

26 mortalities at CR-3. In conjunction with the terms and conditions of the ITS, continued operation 

27 of CR-3 will not jeopardize sea turtle species. 

28 4.7.1.3 American Alligator 

29 The American alligator is common in Florida (Progress Energy, 2008a). Habitat for the 

30 American alligator is primarily freshwater, slow-moving streams and rivers; swamps and 

31 marshes; and ponds and lakes. It occurs in the swampy areas of the CREC and probably 

32 occurs in wetlands, ponds, and streams along the associated transmission lines (Progress 

33 Energy, 2008a). Use of aquatic-approved herbicides applied according to label instructions by 

34 licensed applicators or personnel under their supervision minimize any risks to American 

35 alligators or their prey species from transmission line maintenance (Progress Energy, 2009c). 

36 The Staff concludes that the operation of CR-3 and its associated transmission lines for an 

37 additional 20 years associated with license renewal will not affect the American alligator. 

38 4.7.1.4 Florida Manatee 

39 Manatees in northwestern Florida primarily use the headwaters of Homosassa and Crystal 

40 rivers as their winter, warmwater refuges (Rathbun et al., 1990). About 150 Florida manatees 

41 inhabit the Crystal River during winter. Some of these Florida manatees may occasionally visit 

42 the CREC discharge canal (FWS, 2008). The CREC discharge canal (like most warm industrial 

43 discharge areas) usually lacks vegetation necessary to maintain manatees over the winter 

44 months. As early as March, manatees leave the Homosassa and Crystal rivers and disperse 

45 into Waccasassa and Withlacoochee rivers, the CREC discharge canal, and the Cross Florida 

46 Barge Canal. Use of these areas primarily occurs during the spring and summer when 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-38 

1 manatees are en route from the principal winter to summer habitats. Summer habitats include 

2 the estuaries associated with the Suwannee, Crystal, Homosassa, and Chassahowitzka rivers 

3 (Rathbun et al., 1990). Up to five Florida manatees use the CREC discharge canal for short 

4 periods during cool weather, most heavily in spring as individuals disperse northward from 

5 Crystal River (FNAI, 2009). Use of the CREC discharge canal as a manatee layover area 

6 during this period would continue during the CR-3 license renewal period. 

7 Isolated incidents of manatee impingement have occurred at Turkey Point and St. Lucie plants 

8 in Florida (Gunter et al., 2001), but similar incidents have not occurred at the CREC. No 

9 significant changes in the intake (e.g., intake flow rates and velocities) are expected from the 

10 CR-3 EPU (Section 2.1.6); therefore, incidents of manatee impingement causally related to 

11 CREC operations would not be expected during the license renewal period. 

12 The applicant has implemented an FDEP-approved manatee protection plan that establishes a 

13 number of guidelines to minimize adverse impacts to Florida manatees at the intake and 

14 discharge areas (FDEP, 2002). The Manatee Protection Plan is in effect yearly during the 

15 winter period of November 13 through March 31. Key components of the plan include: 

16 ● Contact the Florida Marine Research Institute if an unplanned shutdown occurs 

17 that is expected to result in no thermal discharge for 24 hours or more. 

18 ● Under most circumstances, the FDEP and FWC’s Bureau of Protected Species 

19 Management needs to be provided a schedule of any anticipated in-water work 

20 within the discharge canal. 

21 ● The observation of a distressed manatee in the intake or discharge canal 

22 requires notification of the FWC’s Marine Pathology Laboratory and the FWS. 

23 ● Provide instruction to all personnel associated with in-water work about the 

24 potential presence of manatees and need to avoid boat collisions with them. All 

25 vessels need to have an observer onboard to identify the presence and location 

26 of manatees. 

27 ● All vessels need to operate at “no wake/idle” speeds and, whenever possible, 

28 follow routes of deep water. 

29 ● When a manatee observation occurs, the implementation of all precautions to 

30 ensure the protection of the manatee must occur. These precautions include the 

31 immediate shutdown of equipment, if necessary. Activities can only resume after 

32 the manatee has departed to a safe distance on its own volition. 

33 ● Any collision with and/or injury to a manatee needs to be immediately reported to 

34 the FWC and FWS. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-39 

1 When other work is performed in the intake or discharge canal (e.g., dredging in the coal barge 

2 turning basin within the intake canal), the applicant must also comply with the “Standard 

3 Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work – July 2009” that are part of the FDEP’s State 

4 Programmatic General Permit (FDEP, 2010b). Several of the conditions for in-water work are 

5 similar to those of the Manatee Protection Plan listed above. Conditions unique to in-water work 

6 contain the following wording (FDEP, 2010b): 

7 Temporary signs concerning manatees shall be posted prior to and during all 

8 in-water project activities. 

9 Siltation or turbidity barriers shall be made of material which prevents the 

10 potential for entanglement of manatees, the barriers shall be properly secured, 

11 and the barriers shall be regularly monitored to avoid manatee entanglement or 

12 entrapment. Barriers must not impede manatee movement. 

13 All on-site project personnel are responsible for observing water-related activities 

14 for the presence of manatee(s). All in-water operations, including vessels, must 

15 be shutdown if a manatee(s) comes within 50 feet of the operation. Activities will 

16 not resume until the manatee(s) has moved beyond the 50-foot radius of the 

17 project operation, or until 30 minutes elapses if the manatee(s) has not 

18 reappeared within 50 feet of the operation. Animals must not be herded away or 

19 harassed into leaving. 

20 As boat access to the discharge canal is restricted, manatees in the canal receive protection 

21 from boat collisions (CCBCC, 2009). Most of the shoreline areas in the area of the CREC are 

22 25 mi/hr (40 km/hr) speed zones. The area within the discharge canal and area just north of the 

23 discharge dike is a slow speed zone (speed that makes little or no wake) from November 15 

24 through April 30 and a 25 mi/hr (40 km/hr) speed zone the remainder of the year (FWC, 2002). 

25 4.7.1.5 Summary 

26 Other than the causally-related loss of a few sea turtles, current operations of CR-3 and 

27 vegetation management of the transmission lines do not affect any listed aquatic species. No 

28 significant changes in CR-3 operations and transmission line maintenance will occur during the 

29 license renewal period. Therefore, no adverse impacts to Federally-listed threatened or 

30 endangered aquatic species are expected during the license renewal period. The Staff 

31 concludes that the impact of CR-3 operations during the license renewal period would be 

32 SMALL for all Federally-listed aquatic species. 

33 4.7.2 Terrestrial Species 

34 Impacts to listed threatened and endangered species require consultation with appropriate 

35 agencies to determine whether such listed species are present and whether they would be 

36 adversely affected by continued operation of CR-3 during the license renewal term. 

37 Sections 2.2.6 and 2.2.7 of this SEIS discuss the characteristics and habitat of threatened and 

38 endangered species in the vicinity of the CREC site and associated transmission lines. 

39 Summaries of the habitat requirements of each listed species are provided below. 

40 The Staff contacted the FWS, the FWC, and the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) to 

41 request information that could assist the Staff in its assessment of the environmental impacts 

42 associated with license renewal. These letters are presented in Appendix D of this SEIS. The 

43 FWS previously responded to a request by the applicant to provide information regarding 

44 Federally-listed species that may be impacted by the proposed relicensing action. The FWS 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-40 

1 responded by letter dated October 28, 2008, and made recommendations to the applicant 

2 regarding maintenance activities in ROWs where there was a possibility of the occurrence of the 

3 eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), which is Federally-listed as threatened 

4 (FWS, 2008). The FWC responded to the Staff’s request by letter dated July 22, 2009, and 

5 provided information on State-listed natural resources and their habitats potentially affected by 

6 the relicensing action at the CREC site and potentially affected by maintenance activities along 

7 the ROWs (FWC, 2009). The Staff did not receive a response from the FNAI. 

8 Eleven Federally-listed animal species and eight plant species have been reported in the 

9 counties in which the CREC site is located or that are traversed by CR-3 transmission lines. 

10 Section 2.2.7.2 of this SEIS describes these Federally-listed species and their habitats in 

11 greater detail. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and peregrine falcon (Falco 

12 peregrinus), both formerly listed as endangered but since delisted, are also known to occur 

13 within the project area. 

14 During the license-renewal term, Federally-listed and State-listed threatened or endangered 

15 species on the CREC site could be affected by any ground-disturbing activities that occurred in 

16 potentially suitable habitat of the species. 

17 The following species could occur on the CREC site based on the presence of potentially 

18 suitable habitat and the current range of the species (see Section 2.2.7 for additional detail and 

19 supporting information): 

20 ● Eastern indigo snake. The species uses sandhills, flatwoods, hammocks, 

21 coastal scrub, dry glades, palmetto flats, prairie, riparian habitats, and wet fields. 

22 It could occur in suitable habitats on the CREC. 

23 ● Piping plover (Charadrius melodus). The piping plover has not been observed at 

24 the CREC site (Progress Energy, 2008a), but potentially suitable mud flats are 

25 present along the western shoreline of the site. 

26 ● Wood stork (Mycteria americana). This species is the only Federally-listed 

27 species that has been observed at the CREC site (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

28 ● Bald eagle. The species is no longer listed under the ESA but is still protected 

29 under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty 

30 Act. Three bald eagle nests have been documented within the CREC site 

31 boundaries (FWC, 2009). Another bald eagle nest was recorded slightly north of 

32 the CREC site. Bald eagles are occasionally observed flying and foraging along 

33 Crystal Bay and perching in trees at the CREC (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

34 A total of 18 plant and 14 animal species that are listed by the State of Florida as endangered, 

35 threatened, or species of special concern are known to occur in Citrus County, the location of 

36 the CREC. The habitats and potential occurrences of each species in the project area are 

37 presented in Table 2-6. There are only two State-listed species (discussed above) that are 

38 known to occur on the CREC site—the bald eagle (threatened) and the wood stork 

39 (endangered). The FWC indicated that 3 of these 14 animal species listed as threatened by the 

40 State of Florida can potentially occur at the CREC site—the gopher tortoise (Gopherus 

41 polyphemus), the eastern indigo snake, and the piping plover (FWC, 2009). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-41 

1 On the CREC site, the applicant currently reviews proposed projects prior to their start to 

2 determine if impacts to threatened and endangered species or other protected resources would 

3 occur. In a recent review of the laydown area for the south cooling tower, the applicant 

4 identified the habitats in the project area, performed a wetland delineation in accordance with 

5 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual, surveyed the 

6 site for listed species, used geographic information system (GIS) data to determine if previous 

records of listed species occurred within 1 square mile (mi2 7 ) of the project area, and performed 

8 a wetlands functional assessment (Golder Associates, Inc., 2009). A consistent application of 

9 this review process would ensure that impacts to listed species and their habitats were 

10 minimized during the license renewal term. 

11 The maintenance of transmission line ROWs during the license renewal term could also affect 

12 species and their habitats as regular vegetation management is conducted and occasional 

13 repairs to or replacement of transmission infrastructure occurs. 

14 The following Federally-listed species could occur along the transmission lines associated with 

15 CR-3: 

16 ● Florida bonamia (Bonamia grandiflora). Nearest known location is about 14 mi 

17 (23 km) northeast of the Central Florida transmission corridor where it occurs in 

18 bare sunny sand areas. 

19 ● Brooksville bellflower (Campanula robinsiae). Nearest known location is about 

20 8 mi (13 km) east of the Lake Tarpon transmission line where it occurs in wet 

21 prairie and along the edges of ponds. 

22 ● Florida golden aster (Chrysopsis floridana). This species is known from several 

23 central Florida counties including Pinellas County, which is crossed by the Lake 

24 Tarpon transmission line, where it occurs in open, sunny areas in sand 

25 pine-evergreen oak scrub vegetation on fine sand. 

26 ● Longspurred mint (Dicerandra cornutissima). This species has been found in 

27 Marion and Sumter Counties, which are crossed by the Central Florida 

28 transmission line, where it occurs in open areas in sand pine scrub or oak scrub, 

29 and in the ecotones between these and turkey oak communities. The FNAI 

30 database indicates the occurrence of this species in the vicinity of the Central 

31 Florida transmission line. 

32 ● Scrub buckwheat (Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium). The species is 

33 known from seven counties in central Florida, two of which (Marion and Sumter) 

34 are crossed by the Central Florida transmission line. The species occurs in 

35 sandhill, oak-hickory scrub on yellow sands, high pineland between scrub and 

36 sandhill, and turkey oak barrens. 

37 ● Cooley’s water willow (Justicia cooleyi). The species is native to the Brooksville 

38 Ridge in north central Hernando County approximately 8 mi (13 km) east of the 

39 Lake Tarpon transmission line, where it is found in hardwood forests on uplands 

40 or hills, but also on low rises in wet hammocks or swamps. 

41 ● Britton’s beargrass (Nolina brittoniana). This species has been recorded in 

42 Marion County, which is crossed by the Central Florida transmission line, and in 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-42 

1 Hernando and Pasco Counties, which are crossed by the Lake Tarpon 

2 transmission line. It occurs in scrub, sandhill, scrubby flatwoods, and xeric 

3 hammocks. 

4 ● Eastern indigo snake. The species uses sandhill, flatwoods, hammocks, coastal 

5 scrub, dry glades, palmetto flats, prairie, riparian habitats, and wet fields. The 

6 eastern indigo snake could occur in suitable habitats on any of the CR-3 

7 transmission line corridors. In the 1970s and 1980s, it was recorded in the 

8 Withlacoochee State Forest in the general vicinity of the Lake Tarpon 

9 transmission line. 

10 ● Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens). This species occurs in 

11 fire-dominated open canopied oak scrub habitat on well-drained soils. The 

12 scrub-jay could occur in suitable habitat along the CR-3 transmission lines; the 

13 FWS observed several scrub-jays along the transmission lines from 1992–1996. 

14 The Central Florida transmission line crosses oak scrub habitat in Marion County 

15 very close to the Citrus County line. 

16 ● Peregrine falcon. The species is no longer Federally-listed under the ESA. The 

17 species could occur as a transient through the areas of the CR-3 transmission 

18 lines. 

19 ● Whooping crane (Grus americana). Whooping cranes cross the project area 

20 during migration to wintering grounds in Florida. Half of the experimental 

21 population is expected to overwinter at St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge along 

22 the Gulf coast south of Tallahassee, Florida, and the remainder is expected to 

23 migrate southward to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge, just south of 

24 the CREC site. Based on FWS tracking data, both transmission lines also 

25 appear to be within the daily activity areas of wintering cranes. 

26 State-listed species that are known to occur along the Central Florida transmission line corridor 

27 include the longspurred mint (endangered; Marion County), the Florida scrub-jay (threatened; 

28 Citrus and Marion Counties), and the whooping crane (species of special concern; Citrus 

29 County), which flies over both transmission line corridors during migration and overwinters 

30 approximately 6 mi (9.6 km) east of the CREC in the immediate vicinity of the Central Florida 

31 transmission line. The FWC indicated that six additional species State-listed as threatened can 

32 potentially occur along the Central Florida transmission line corridor: the gopher tortoise, the 

33 eastern indigo snake, the short-tailed snake (Stilosoma extenuatum), the southeastern 

34 American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus), the Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis 

35 pratensis), and the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) (FWC, 2009). 

36 State-listed species known to occur along the Lake Tarpon transmission line corridor include 

37 pondspice (Litsea aestivalis; endangered; Pasco County), scrub stylisma (Stylisma abdita; 

38 endangered; Citrus County), eastern indigo snake (threatened; Citrus County), Florida scrub-jay 

39 (threatened; Pasco and Pinellas Counties), southeastern American kestrel (threatened; Citrus, 

40 Hernando, and Pasco Counties), the bald eagle (threatened; known to nest along the line in 

41 Pasco County), and the whooping crane (species of special concern; Citrus County). The FWC 

42 indicated that four additional species that are State-listed as threatened can potentially occur 

43 along the Lake Tarpon transmission line corridor: the gopher tortoise, the short-tailed snake 

44 (Stilosoma extenuatum), the Florida sandhill crane, and the Florida black bear (FWC, 2009). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-43 

1 Many of the species that could occur along the transmission lines, especially the listed plant 

2 species, prefer open, disturbed, or early succession habitats similar to those that are common 

3 along maintained transmission ROWs. Continued maintenance of the ROW in an early 

4 successional state should favor these species. 

5 The FWS, in response to a letter from the applicant describing their application for license 

6 renewal, expressed some concern for the eastern indigo snake, specifically with regard to their 

7 occurrence in transmission line ROWs (FWS, 2008). No other terrestrial species were 

8 mentioned in the FWS letter. The FWS recommended that any maintenance activity along the 

9 ROWs such as mowing, grubbing, disking, or burning should be conducted using the Standard 

10 Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake (FWS, 2004). 

11 These guidelines (as modified in the FWS letter) recommend: 

12 ● establishment of an eastern indigo snake protection/education plan for 

13 construction personnel 

14 ● only individuals who have been authorized by a Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued 

15 by the FWS or the State of Florida are permitted to come into contact with an 

16 eastern indigo snake 

17 The FWS stated in its letter that FWS approval of the protection/education plan for the snake 

18 was equivalent to a “may effect, not likely to adversely affect” determination for this species 

19 (FWS, 2008). 

20 The applicant established the following activities to protect the eastern indigo snake during 

21 ROW maintenance (Progress Energy, 2010c). All ROW maintenance personnel receive training 

22 on eastern indigo snakes. Signs are not posted because ROW maintenance activities do not 

23 typically occur within a given area for more than one day, but two educational pamphlets (in 

24 Spanish and English) are provided to maintenance personnel. The pamphlets include: (1) color 

25 photos of the eastern indigo snake; (2) a description of the eastern indigo snake, its habits, and 

26 protection under Federal law; (3) instructions not to injure, harm, harass, or kill this species, and 

27 a description of legal restrictions on take and potential legal consequences of take; and 

28 (4) instructions to stop work upon seeing an eastern indigo snake, and to wait until the snake 

29 leaves the area before resuming work. The pamphlets provide telephone numbers of personnel 

30 to be contacted to report living or dead eastern indigo snakes. If any eastern indigo snakes are 

31 found, FPC personnel are directed to contact the FWS. These activities are generally 

32 consistent with the FWS guidelines. The NRC encourages FPC to seek concurrence on these 

33 measures from the FWS. 

34 Impacts to the Florida scrub-jay could occur if maintenance of the transmission ROW resulted in 

35 the removal of existing oak scrub habitat. It is the applicant’s policy to remove trees and other 

36 vegetation that could come into contact with conductors both from within and adjacent to the 

37 ROW. Consistent application of this policy has kept and will continue to keep the ROW and 

38 adjacent areas open and in early successional habitat, thus minimizing any adverse impacts to 

39 the scrub-jay. 

40 There is a possibility for impact to whooping cranes as they fly through the area on their way to 

41 the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge. These birds could accidentally strike either the 

42 conductors or towers of either transmission line. The probability of an accidental collision by 

43 migrating cranes is not known, but no collisions have been reported for any of the cranes in this 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-44 

1 population. Based on FWS tracking data, both transmission lines appear to be within the daily 

2 activity areas of wintering cranes and could warrant mitigation such as line markers. Any such 

3 mitigation should be developed in consultation with the FWS. It should be noted that the FWS 

4 did not express concern for the whooping crane in their correspondence with the applicant on 

5 the effects of license renewal on listed species (FWS, 2008). 

6 The Staff encourages the applicant to report the existence of any Federally- or State-listed 

7 endangered or threatened species within or near the transmission line ROWs to the FWC 

8 and/or FWS if any such species are identified during the license renewal term. In particular, if 

9 any evidence of injury to or mortality of migratory birds or threatened or endangered species is 

10 observed within the corridor during the license renewal period, the Staff encourages the 

11 applicant to promptly report this to the FWS and FWC. Additionally, the Staff encourages the 

12 applicant to continue reporting information concerning wood stork use and any other listed 

13 species of the CREC to the FWC and FWS. 

14 Operation of the CR-3 site and its associated transmission lines is not expected to adversely 

15 affect any threatened or endangered species during the license renewal term. Therefore, the 

16 Staff concludes that adverse impacts on threatened or endangered species during the license 

17 renewal term would be SMALL. Mitigation measures currently in place at the CR-3 site 

18 minimize the effects of plant operation on terrestrial species. The Staff believes these current 

19 mitigation measures are adequate. The applicant should develop an eastern indigo snake 

20 protection/education plan for ROW maintenance personnel and submit that plan to the FWS for 

21 approval. 

22 4.8 HUMAN HEALTH 

23 The human health issues applicable to CR-3 are discussed below and listed in Table 4-8 for 

24 Category 1, Category 2, and uncategorized issues. 

25 Table 4-8. Human Health Issues. Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 

26 contains more information on these issues. 

Issues GEIS Section Category 

Microbiological organisms (occupational health) 4.3.6 1 

Noise 4.3.7 1 

Radiation exposures to the public (license renewal term) 4.6.1, 4.6.2 1 

Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term) 4.6.3 1 

Electromagnetic fields – acute effects (electric shock) 4.5.4.1 2 

Electromagnetic fields – chronic effects 4.5.4.2 Uncategorized 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-45 

1 4.8.1 Generic Human Health Issues 

2 The NRC did not find any new and significant information during its review of the applicant’s ER 

3 (Progress Energy, 2008a), the site visit, or the scoping process. Therefore, for plant operation 

4 during the license renewal term, there are no impacts beyond those discussed in the GEIS for 

5 these Category 1 issues, and the NRC concludes in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL. The 

6 information presented below is a discussion of selected radiological programs conducted at 

7 CR-3. 

8 4.8.1.1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 

9 The applicant conducts a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) to assess the 

10 radiological impact, if any, to its employees, the public, and the environment in the environs 

11 around the plant site. The environmental assessment process began before CR-3 began 

12 commercial operation. The operational REMP began on January 1, 1977, just before initial 

13 criticality, which was achieved on January 14, 1977. The REMP provides measurements of 

14 radiation and of radioactive materials for the exposure pathways and the radionuclides which 

15 lead to the highest potential radiation exposures to the public. The REMP supplements the 

16 radioactive effluent monitoring program by verifying that the measurable concentrations of 

17 radioactive materials and levels of radiation in the environment are not higher than those 

18 calculated using the radioactive effluent release measurements and transport models 

19 (Progress Energy, 2009r). 

20 The REMP is conducted by the State of Florida Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation 

21 Control. An annual radiological environmental operating report is issued, which contains a 

22 discussion of the results of the monitoring program. The report contains data on the monitoring 

23 performed for the most recent year and graphs which trend the data from prior years. The 

24 REMP collects samples of environmental media in order to measure the radioactivity levels that 

25 may be present. The media samples are representative of the radiation exposure pathways that 

26 may impact the public. The REMP measures the aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric 

27 environment for radioactivity, as well as the ambient radiation. Ambient radiation pathways 

28 include radiation from buildings and plant structures, and airborne material that may be released 

29 from the plant. In addition, the REMP measures background radiation (i.e., cosmic sources, 

30 global fallout, and naturally occurring radioactive material, including radon). Thermoluminescent 

31 dosimeters (TLDs) are used to measure ambient radiation. The atmospheric environmental 

32 monitoring consists of sampling and analyzing the air for particulates and radioiodine. 

33 Terrestrial environmental monitoring consists of analyzing samples of broadleaf vegetation, 

34 citrus, and watermelon. The aquatic environmental monitoring consists of analyzing samples of 

35 seawater, groundwater, drinking water, and shoreline sediment. An annual land use census is 

36 conducted to determine if the REMP needs to be revised to reflect changes in the environment 

37 or population that might alter the radiation exposure pathways. The applicant has an onsite 

38 groundwater protection program designed to monitor the onsite plant environment for early 

39 detection of leaks from plant systems and pipes containing radioactive liquid (Progress Energy, 

40 2009m). Additional information on the groundwater protection program is contained in 

41 Chapter 2. 

42 The Staff reviewed the applicant’s annual radiological environmental operating reports for 2004 

43 through 2008 to look for any significant impacts to the environment or any unusual trends in the 

44 data (Progress Energy, 2005a), (Progress Energy, 2006a), (Progress Energy, 2007a), 

45 (Progress Energy, 2008b), (Progress Energy, 2009i). No unusual trends were observed and the 

46 data showed that there was no measurable impact to the environment from operations at CR-3. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-46 

1 4.8.1.2 Radioactive Effluent Release Program 

2 All nuclear plants were licensed with the expectation that they would release radioactive 

3 material to both the air and water during normal operation. However, NRC regulations require 

4 that radioactive gaseous and liquid releases from nuclear power plants must meet radiation 

5 dose-based limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20, and the as low as is reasonably achievable 

6 (ALARA) criteria in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. Regulatory limits are placed on the radiation 

7 dose that members of the public can receive from radioactive material released by a nuclear 

8 power plant. In addition, nuclear power plants are required to file an annual report with the NRC 

9 which lists the types and quantities of radioactive effluents released into the environment. The 

10 radioactive effluent release and radiological environmental monitoring reports are available for 

11 review by the public through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

12 (ADAMS) electronic reading room available through the NRC Web site. 

13 The Staff reviewed the annual radioactive effluent release reports for 2004 through 2008 

14 (Progress Energy, 2005d), (Progress Energy, 2006c), (Progress Energy, 2007f), (Progress 

15 Energy, 2008f), (Progress Energy, 2009s). The review focused on the calculated doses to a 

16 member of the public from radioactive effluents released from CR-3. The doses were compared 

17 to the radiation protection standards in 10 CFR 20.1301 and the ALARA dose design objectives 

18 in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

19 Dose estimates for members of the public are calculated based on radioactive gaseous and 

20 liquid effluent release data, and atmospheric and aquatic transport models. The 2008 annual 

21 radioactive material release report (Progress Energy, 2009s) contains a detailed presentation of 

22 the radioactive discharges and the resultant calculated doses. The following summarizes the 

23 calculated hypothetical maximum dose to a member of the public, located outside the CR-3 site 

24 boundary, from radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents released during 2008: 

25 ● The maximum whole-body dose to an offsite member of the public from 

26 radioactive liquid effluents was 2.08 E-05 milliroentgen equivalent man (mrem) 

27 (2.08 E-07 millisievert [mSv]), which is well below the 3 mrem (0.03 mSv) dose 

28 criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

29 ● The maximum organ (GI-tract) dose to an offsite member of the public from 

30 radioactive liquid effluents was 6.76 E-05 mrem (6.76 E-07 mSv), which is well 

31 below the 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) dose criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

32 ● The maximum air dose at the site boundary from gamma radiation in gaseous 

33 effluents was 9.11 E-05 millirad (mrad) (9.11 E-07 milligray [mGy]), which is well 

34 below the 10 mrad (0.1 mGy) dose criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

35 ● The maximum air dose at the site boundary from beta radiation in gaseous 

36 effluents was 3.26 E-04 mrad (3.26 E-06 mGy), which is well below the 20 mrad 

37 (0.2 mGy) dose criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

38 ● The maximum organ (thyroid) dose to an offsite member of the public from 

39 radioactive iodine and radioactive material in particulate form was 

40 1.79 E-03 mrem (1.79 E-05 mSv), which is well below the 15 mrem (0.15 mSv) 

41 dose criterion in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-47 

1 Based on its review of CR-3’s doses to members of the public from radioactive effluents, the 

2 Staff found that CR-3 is operating in compliance with Federal radiation protection standards 

3 contained in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 20. 

4 Routine plant operational and maintenance activities currently performed would continue during 

5 the license renewal term. Based on the past performance of the radioactive waste system to 

6 maintain the dose from radioactive effluents to be ALARA, similar performance is expected 

7 during the license renewal term. 

8 In late 2009, the applicant shut down CR-3 for a planned steam generator replacement refueling 

9 outage. The old steam generators were placed into a newly constructed onsite concrete 

10 shielded storage facility. During the outage, NRC inspectors performed a radiation safety 

11 inspection of the steam generator replacement outage work. The inspection looked at the 

12 safety controls in place and the monitoring performed to protect the plant workers and members 

13 of the public from radiation. No radiation safety findings (i.e., violations of NRC regulations) of 

14 significance were reported (NRC, 2010a). 

15 The applicant informed the NRC that it intends to increase the licensed reactor core thermal 

16 power level by approximately 15.5 percent from the current licensed 2,609 megawatts-thermal 

17 (MWt) to 3,014 MWt. The change requires NRC approval prior to its implementation. As part of 

18 its review process, the Staff will perform a thorough evaluation of the safety and radiological 

19 issues associated with the proposed action to verify that all regulatory requirements are met. 

20 The applicant’s evaluation of the radioactive effluents and resulting offsite doses to the public 

21 shows that the radiation doses would increase in approximate proportion to the proposed power 

22 increase (i.e., approximately 15 percent) (Progress Energy, 2009m). A 15 percent increase in 

23 the radiation doses from radioactive effluents would still be well within the NRC’s radiation dose 

24 limits in 10 CFR Part 20 and the ALARA criteria in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. 

25 The radiological impacts from the current operation of CR-3, including those from foreseeable 

26 changes to the plant, are not expected to change significantly. Continued compliance with 

27 regulatory requirements is expected during the license renewal term; therefore, the impacts 

28 from radioactive effluents would be SMALL. 

29 4.8.2 Microbiological Organisms – Public Health 

30 Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 lists the effects of thermophilic 

31 microbiological organisms on public health as a Category 2 issue that applies to nuclear plants 

32 that use a cooling pond, lake, or canal or discharge to a small river. As discussed in 

33 Section 2.1.6, CR-3 has a once-through heat dissipation system that withdraws water from, and 

34 discharges it to, Crystal Bay in the Gulf of Mexico. Since the plant does not use cooling ponds, 

35 lakes, or canals or discharge to a small river, this issue does not apply to CR-3. 

36 4.8.3 Electromagnetic Fields – Acute Effects 

37 Based on the GEIS, the Commission found that electric shock resulting from direct access to 

38 energized conductors or from induced charges in metallic structures has not been found to be a 

39 problem at most operating plants and is generally not expected to be a problem during the 

40 license renewal term. However, site-specific review is required to determine the significance of 

41 the electric shock potential along the portions of the transmission lines that are within the scope 

42 of this SEIS. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-48 

1 In the GEIS, the Staff found that without a review of the conformance of each nuclear plant 

2 transmission line with National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) criteria (IEEE, 1997), it was not 

3 possible to determine the significance of the electric shock potential. Evaluation of individual 

4 plant transmission lines is necessary because the issue of electric shock safety was not 

5 addressed in the licensing process for some plants. For other plants, land use in the vicinity of 

6 transmission lines may have changed, or power distribution companies may have chosen to 

7 upgrade line voltage. To comply with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H), the applicant must provide an 

8 assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the potential shock hazard from the 

9 transmission lines, if the transmission lines that were constructed for the specific purpose of 

10 connecting the plant to the transmission system do not meet the recommendations of the NESC 

11 for preventing electric shock from induced currents. 

12 There are two 500-kilovolt (kV) lines that were specifically constructed to distribute power from 

13 CR-3 to the electric grid: Lake Tarpon and Central Florida. The applicant analyzed these 

14 transmission lines and identified the lines which had the highest potential for current-induced 

15 electric shock for the largest anticipated truck, vehicle, or equipment under the line. The 

16 applicant then calculated the electric field strength and induced current using a computer code, 

17 ACDCLINE, produced by the Electric Power Research Institute. The analysis showed that the 

18 maximum induced current values for both lines are in compliance with the NESC and are below 

19 the NESC limit of 5 milliamperes. The maximum induced current was calculated to be 

20 4.9 milliamperes, which corresponded with a section of the Central Florida line 

21 (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

22 The applicant has surveillance and maintenance procedures that require periodic inspections of 

23 their transmission lines to ensure that the lines continue to meet the NESC standards. These 

24 procedures include routine aerial inspections that include checks for encroachments, broken 

25 conductors, broken or leaning structures, and signs of trees burning, any of which would be 

26 evidence of ground clearance problems. Periodic ground inspections include examination for 

27 clearance at questionable locations, integrity of structures, and surveillance for dead or 

28 diseased trees that might fall on the transmission lines (Progress Energy, 2008a). 

29 In the GEIS, the Staff found that electrical shock is of SMALL significance for transmission lines 

30 that are operated in conformance with the NESC criteria. Based on a review of the information 

31 provided in the applicant’s ER, the Staff concludes that the transmission lines associated with 

32 CR-3 meet NESC criteria for limiting hazards, and thus the potential impact from electric shock 

33 during the renewal term is SMALL and no additional mitigation is warranted. 

34 4.8.4 Electromagnetic Fields – Chronic Effects 

35 In the GEIS, the chronic effects of 60-hertz (Hz) electromagnetic fields from power lines were 

36 not designated as Category 1 or 2, and will not be until a scientific consensus is reached on the 

37 health implications of these fields. 

38 The potential for chronic effects from these fields continues to be studied and is not known at 

39 this time. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related 

40 research through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-49 

1 The report by NIEHS (NIEHS, 1999) contains the following conclusion: 

2 The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF (extremely low frequency-electromagnetic 

3 field) exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific 

4 evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding 

5 is insufficient to warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because 

6 virtually everyone in the United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely 

7 exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory action is warranted such as continued 

8 emphasis on educating both the public and the regulated community on means 

9 aimed at reducing exposures. The NIEHS does not believe that other cancers or 

10 non-cancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence of a risk to currently 

11 warrant concern. 

12 This statement is not sufficient to cause the Staff to change its position with respect to the 

13 chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. The Staff considers the GEIS finding of “not 

14 applicable” still appropriate and will continue to follow developments on this issue. 

15 4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS 

16 The socioeconomic issues applicable to CR-3 are presented in Table 4.9-1 for Category 1, 

17 Category 2, and one uncategorized issue (environmental justice). Section 2.2.8 of this SEIS 

18 describes the socioeconomic conditions near CR-3. 

19 Table 4.9-1. Socioeconomic Issues. Section 2.2.9 describes the socioeconomic conditions 

20 near CR-3. 

Issues GEIS Section Category 

Housing impacts 4.7.1 2 

Public services: public safety, social services, and 

tourism and recreation 4.7.3; 4.7.3.3; 4.7.3.4; 4.7.3.6 1 

Public services: public utilities 4.7.3.5 2 

Public services: education (license renewal term) 4.7.3.1 1 

Offsite land use (license renewal term) 4.7.4 2 

Public services: transportation 4.7.3.2 2 

Historic and archaeological resources 4.7.7 2 

Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term) 4.7.6 1 

Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license 

renewal term) 4.5.8 1 

Environmental justice Not addressed(a) Uncategorized(a)

(a) Guidance related to environmental justice was not in place at the time the GEIS and the associated revisions to 

10 CFR Part 51 were prepared. Therefore, environmental justice must be addressed in plant-specific reviews. 

21 4.9.1 Generic Socioeconomic Issues 

22 The applicant’s ER, scoping comments, and other available data records on CR-3 were 

23 reviewed and evaluated for new and significant information. The review included a data 

24 gathering site visit to CR-3. No new and significant information was identified during this review 

25 that would change the conclusions presented in the GEIS. Therefore, for these Category 1 

26 issues, impacts during the license renewal term are not expected to exceed those discussed in 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-50 

1 the GEIS. For CR-3, the Staff incorporates the GEIS conclusions by reference in this SEIS. 

2 Impacts for Category 2 issues and the uncategorized issue (environmental justice) are 

3 discussed in Sections 4.9.2 through 4.9.7. 

4 4.9.2 Housing Impacts 

5 Appendix C of the GEIS presents a population characterization method based on two factors, 

6 sparseness and proximity (NRC, 1996; Section C.1.4). Sparseness measures population 

7 density within 20 mi (32 km) of the site, and proximity measures population density and city size 

8 within 50 mi (80 km). Each factor has categories of density and size (NRC, 1996; Table C.1). A 

9 matrix is used to rank the population category as low, medium, or high (NRC, 1996; Figure C.1). 

10 According to the 2000 census, an estimated 89,491 people lived within 20 mi (32 km) of CR-3, 

which equates to a population density of 125 persons per mi2 11 (Progress Energy, 2008a). This 

12 translates to a Category 4 (“least sparse”) population density using the GEIS measure of 

sparseness (greater than or equal to 120 persons per mi2 13 within 20 mi). An estimated 

14 825,847 people live within 50 mi (80 km) of CR-3 with a population density of 170 persons per 

mi2 15 (Progress Energy, 2008a). Applying the GEIS proximity measures, CR-3 is classified as 

16 proximity Category 2 (no city with 100,000 or more persons and between 50 and 190 persons 

per mi2 17 within 50 mi). Therefore, according to the sparseness and proximity matrix presented in 

18 the GEIS, rankings of sparseness Category 4 and proximity Category 2 result in the conclusion 

19 that CR-3 is located in a medium population area. 

20 Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, states that impacts on housing availability 

21 are expected to be of small significance in a medium or high population area where growth 

22 control measures are not in effect. Since CR-3 is located in a medium population area and 

23 Citrus County is not subject to growth control measures that would limit housing development; 

24 any changes in employment at CR-3 would have little noticeable effect on housing availability in 

25 the county. The recent replacement of CR-3 steam generators required a one-time increase of 

26 approximately 900 workers in addition to the normal number of refueling outage workers for up 

27 to 74 days at CR-3 (Progress Energy, 2008a). These workers increased the demand for 

28 temporary (rental) housing units in the vicinity of CR-3 beyond what is normally experienced 

29 during refueling outages. Given the short duration of the replacement activity and the 

30 availability of housing in the region, there was little or no noticeable (long-term) effect on rental 

31 housing availability or employment related housing impacts. 

32 Since the applicant has no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal 

33 period, employment levels at CR-3 would remain relatively constant with no additional demand 

34 for permanent housing during the license renewal term. Based on this information, there would 

35 be no additional impact on housing during the license renewal term beyond what has already 

36 been experienced. 

37 4.9.3 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts 

38 Impacts on public utility services (e.g., water, sewer) are considered SMALL if the public utility 

39 has the ability to respond to changes in demand and would have no need to add or modify 

40 facilities. Impacts are considered MODERATE if service capabilities are overtaxed during 

41 periods of peak demand. Impacts are considered LARGE if additional system capacity is 

42 needed to meet ongoing demand. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-51 

1 Analysis of impacts on the public water and sewer systems considered both plant demand and 

2 plant-related population growth. Section 2.1.7 describes the CR-3 permitted withdrawal rate 

3 and actual use of water. As previously discussed in Section 2.2.8.2, CR-3 has an onsite 

4 groundwater well system that provides potable water for drinking and does not require water 

5 from a municipal system. The additional number of refueling outage workers needed to replace 

6 the CR-3 steam generators caused a short-term increase in the amount of public water and 

7 sewer services used in the immediate vicinity of CR-3. However, since the region has excess 

8 capacity, there were little or no water supply impacts. 

9 Since the applicant has no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal 

10 period, employment levels at CR-3 would remain relatively unchanged with no additional 

11 demand for public water services. Public water systems in the region are adequate to meet the 

12 demand of residential and industrial customers in the area. Therefore, there would be no 

13 additional impact to public water services during the license renewal term beyond what is 

14 currently being experienced. 

15 4.9.4 Offsite Land Use 

16 Offsite land use during the license renewal term is a Category 2 issue (10 CFR Part 51, 

17 Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1). Table B-1 notes that, “significant changes in land use may 

18 be associated with population and tax revenue changes resulting from license renewal.” 

19 Section 4.7.4 of the GEIS defines the magnitude of land use changes as a result of plant 

20 operation during the license renewal term as SMALL when there would be little new 

21 development and minimal changes to an area’s land use pattern, as MODERATE when there 

22 would be considerable new development and some changes to the land use pattern, and 

23 LARGE when there would be large-scale new development and major changes in the land use 

24 pattern. 

25 Tax revenue can affect land use because it enables local jurisdictions to provide the public 

26 services (e.g., transportation and utilities) necessary to support development. Section 4.7.4.1 of 

27 the GEIS states that the assessment of tax-driven land use impacts during the license renewal 

28 term should consider: (1) the size of the plant’s payments relative to the community’s total 

29 revenues, (2) the nature of the community’s existing land use pattern, and (3) the extent to 

30 which the community already has public services in place to support and guide development. If 

31 the plant’s tax payments are projected to be small relative to the community’s total revenue, 

32 tax-driven land use changes during the plant’s license renewal term would be SMALL, 

33 especially where the community has pre-established patterns of development and has provided 

34 adequate public services to support and guide development. Section 4.7.2.1 of the GEIS states 

35 that if tax payments by the plant owner are less than 10 percent of the taxing jurisdiction’s 

36 revenue, the significance level would be SMALL. If the plant’s tax payments are 10 to 

37 20 percent of the community’s total revenue, new tax-driven land use changes would be 

38 MODERATE. If the plant’s tax payments are greater than 20 percent of the community’s total 

39 revenue, new tax-driven land use changes would be LARGE. This would be especially true 

40 where the community has no pre-established pattern of development or has not provided 

41 adequate public services to support and guide development. 

42 4.9.4.1 Population-Related Impacts 

43 As discussed in Section 4.9.2, the applicant recently replaced the CR-3 steam generators. 

44 Since CR-3 is in a medium population area, any changes in employment would have little or no 

45 noticeable effect on land use in the region. The additional number of workers and short duration 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-52 

1 of the replacement activity would not have caused any permanent changes in population-related 

2 offsite land use in the immediate vicinity of CR-3. 

3 Since the applicant has no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal 

4 period, there would be no plant operations-driven population increase or noticeable change in 

5 land use conditions in the vicinity of CR-3. Therefore, there would be no additional 

6 population-related offsite land use impacts during the license renewal term beyond those 

7 already being experienced. 

8 4.9.4.2 Tax-Revenue-Related Impacts 

9 As discussed in Chapter 2, the applicant pays annual real estate taxes to Citrus County. For 

10 the 4-year period from 2005 through 2008, tax payments to Citrus County represented between 

11 4.6 and 5.3 percent of the county’s total revenue collections. Since the applicant started making 

12 payments to local jurisdictions, population levels and land use conditions in Citrus County have 

13 not changed significantly, which might indicate that these tax revenues have had little or no 

14 effect on land use activities within the county. 

15 However, the recent replacement of the existing steam generators at CR-3 could increase the 

16 assessed value of CR-3 and, as a result, property tax payments to Citrus County. These 

17 impacts, however, occurred under the current license period prior to the license renewal term. 

18 Nevertheless, it is expected that any increase in assessed value would be small, because the 

19 improvement was made to replace existing equipment. Since the applicant’s tax payments to 

20 Citrus County are a small percentage (around 5 percent per year) of the total annual county 

21 property tax revenue, CR-3’s incremental contribution to the county’s property tax revenue, 

22 even with an increased assessment, is expected to remain small with little or no noticeable 

23 effect on offsite land use. 

24 Since the applicant has no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal 

25 period, employment levels at CR-3 would remain relatively unchanged. There would be no 

26 increase in the assessed value of CR-3, and annual property tax payments to Citrus County 

27 would also remain relatively unchanged throughout the license renewal period. Based on this 

28 information, there would be no additional tax-revenue-related offsite land use impacts during the 

29 license renewal term beyond those already being experienced. 

30 4.9.5 Public Services: Transportation Impacts 

31 Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 states the following: 

32 Transportation impacts (level of service) of highway traffic generated...during the 

33 term of the renewed license are generally expected to be of small significance. 

34 However, the increase in traffic associated with additional workers and the local 

35 road and traffic control conditions may lead to impacts of moderate or large 

36 significance at some sites. 

37 NRC regulations require all applicants to assess the impacts of highway traffic generated by the 

38 proposed project on the level of service of local highways during the term of the renewed 

39 license. The additional number of workers and truck material deliveries needed to support the 

40 recent replacement of the CR-3 steam generators during a recent refueling outage would have 

41 temporarily increased the amount of traffic on roads in the immediate vicinity of CR-3. As 

42 previously discussed in Section 2.2.8.2, major commuting routes to CR-3, including U.S. 

43 Highway (US) 19, are mostly semi-urban and uncongested. According to the applicant, 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-53 

1 increased traffic volumes entering and leaving CR-3 during refueling outages, which occur at 

2 intervals of approximately 24 months, have not degraded the level of service capacity on local 

3 roads (Progress Energy, 2008a). Based on this information and because of the short duration 

4 of the replacement activity (up to 74 days), and given that the steam generator replacement 

5 occurred during a normal refueling outage, there were little or no noticeable changes in level of 

6 service transportation impacts beyond what is experienced during normal refueling outages. 

7 Since the applicant has no plans to add non-outage employees during the license renewal 

8 period, traffic volume and levels of service on roadways in the vicinity of CR-3 would not 

9 change. Therefore, there would be no transportation impacts during the license renewal term 

10 beyond those already being experienced. 

11 4.9.6 Historic and Archaeological Resources 

12 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to take into account 

13 the potential effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Historic properties are defined 

14 as resources that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The 

15 criteria for eligibility include: (1) association with significant events in history; (2) association with 

16 the lives of persons significant in the past; (3) embodiment of distinctive characteristics of type, 

17 period, or construction; and (4) association with or potential to yield important information on 

18 history or prehistory (ACHP, 2008). The historic preservation review process mandated by 

19 Section 106 of the NHPA is outlined in regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic 

20 Preservation (ACHP) in 36 CFR Part 800. 

21 The issuance of a renewed operating license for a nuclear power plant is a Federal undertaking 

22 that could possibly affect either known or potential historic properties located on or near the 

23 plant and its associated transmission lines. In accordance with the provisions of the NHPA, the 

24 NRC is required to make a reasonable effort to identify historic properties in the areas of 

25 potential effect (APE). If no historic properties are present or affected, the NRC is required to 

26 notify the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) before proceeding. If it is determined that 

27 historic properties are present, the NRC is required to assess and resolve possible adverse 

28 effects of the undertaking. 

29 The applicant contacted the Florida SHPO by letter in September 2008 regarding license 

30 renewal (Progress Energy, 2008e). In its letter, the applicant stated that continued operation of 

31 CR-3 would not have an adverse effect on any historic or cultural property in the region. The 

32 applicant further stated that neither the license renewal nor steam generator replacement would 

33 require significant land disturbance or construction of new facilities. 

34 In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC contacted the Florida SHPO, the ACHP, and 

35 Federally-recognized Native American tribes to initiate Section 106 consultation. These letters 

36 are presented in Appendix D of this SEIS. To date, no known sites of significance to Native 

37 Americans have been identified within the APE. 

38 The Florida SHPO stated that license renewal would likely have no effect on historic properties. 

39 However, the SHPO also stated that if prehistoric or historic artifacts were encountered at any 

40 time within the project area, all subsurface activities in the vicinity of the find should cease and 

41 their office should be notified (Gaske, 2009). 

42 An NRC review of records in the Florida Master Site File found that 20 archaeological sites are 

43 present within the project APE. All of the recorded sites consist of shell middens located along 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-54 

1 the coast line within the CREC property and are not likely to be impacted by license renewal 

2 activities. Although 63 recorded sites have been found along the transmission lines, most (53) 

3 have been determined to be ineligible for listing on the NRHP; the status of nine sites is 

4 currently unknown, and one site is now listed on the NRHP. Five of the nine sites were 

5 recommended not eligible by the archaeological contractor, but these sites were not evaluated 

6 for concurrence by the Florida SHPO, according to the Florida Master Site File. The presence 

7 of these sites has been disclosed to the applicant for future management. 

8 In 2004, the applicant issued a corporate procedure (“Archaeological and Cultural Resources,” 

9 EVC SUBS 00105) for the protection of archaeological resources and consultation with the 

10 SHPO. These corporate procedures apply to any ground disturbance within the CREC and 

11 along the transmission lines. The applicant’s environmental compliance procedures were 

12 reviewed during the site visit. These procedures were developed to ensure the consideration 

13 and protection of archaeological resources at CR-3. Although archaeological sites within the 

14 CREC would not be impacted by license renewal activities, these sites should be avoided during 

15 future plant maintenance and operations activities. Currently, there is no cultural resource 

16 management plan or monitoring program in place for these sites. There is evidence of public 

17 use of the coastal areas on the applicant’s property, although, to date, no evidence of 

18 unauthorized excavation or looting has been reported. A Cultural Resources Management 

19 Plan, established in consultation with the Florida SHPO, is recommended for ensuring proper 

20 management of existing archaeological resources within the CREC and along the transmission 

21 lines. Lands not previously surveyed should be investigated by a qualified archaeologist prior to 

22 any future ground-disturbing activity. The recent CR-3 steam generator replacement did not 

23 adversely impact any historic properties or archaeological sites on or in the vicinity of CR-3 

24 because all of the replacement-related activity took place away from known archaeological sites 

25 within the developed industrial portions of the plant site. 

26 Based on a review of Florida SHPO files, published literature, and information provided by the 

27 applicant, the NRC concludes that potential impacts from license renewal of CR-3 on historic 

28 and archaeological resources would be SMALL. This conclusion is based on the results of 

29 archaeological surveys conducted prior to initial plant construction and during subsequent 

30 expansion activities. The locations of existing archaeological sites within the CREC, including 

31 areas of high potential for additional discoveries, are located away from plant maintenance and 

32 operations activities in the protected area. This conclusion is also based on the environmental 

33 protection procedures in use by CR-3 environmental staff during the environmental site visit. 

34 4.9.7 Environmental Justice 

35 Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629), Federal agencies are responsible for 

36 identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health 

37 and environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations. In 2004, the Commission 

38 issued a Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC 

39 Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040), which states, “The Commission is committed 

40 to the general goals set forth in E.O. 12898, and strives to meet those goals as part of its NEPA 

41 review process.” 

42 The Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) provides the following information in Environmental 

43 Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act (1997): 

44 Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-55 

1 Adverse health effects are measured in risks and rates that could result in latent 

2 cancer fatalities, as well as other fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human 

3 health. Adverse health effects may include bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or 

4 death. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur when the 

5 risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income 

6 population is significant (as employed by NEPA) and appreciably exceeds the 

7 risk or exposure rate for the general population or for another appropriate 

8 comparison group (CEQ, 1997). 

9 Disproportionately High and Adverse Environmental Effects. 

10 A disproportionately high environmental impact that is significant (as employed 

11 by NEPA) refers to an impact or risk of an impact on the natural or physical 

12 environment in a low-income or minority community that appreciably exceeds the 

13 environmental impact on the larger community. Such effects may include 

14 ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social impacts. An adverse 

15 environmental impact is an impact that is determined to be both harmful and 

16 significant (as employed by NEPA). In assessing cultural and aesthetic 

17 environmental impacts, impacts that uniquely affect geographically dislocated or 

18 dispersed minority or low-income populations or American Indian tribes are 

19 considered (CEQ, 1997). 

20 The environmental justice analysis assesses the potential for disproportionately high and 

21 adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 

22 could result from the operation of CR-3 during the renewal term. In assessing the impacts, the 

23 following CEQ (1997) definitions of minority individuals and populations and low-income 

24 population were used: 

25 Minority individuals. Individuals who identify themselves as members of the 

26 following population groups: Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska 

27 Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

28 Islander, or two or more races meaning individuals who identified themselves on 

29 a census form as being a member of two or more races, for example, Hispanic 

30 and Asian. 

31 Minority populations. Minority populations are identified when: (1) the minority 

32 population of an affected area exceeds 50 percent, or (2) the minority population 

33 percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority 

34 population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of 

35 geographic analysis. 

36 Low-income population. Low-income populations in an affected area are 

37 identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Census Bureau’s 

38 Current Population Reports, Series PB60, on Income and Poverty. 

39 4.9.7.1 Minority Population in 2000 

40 According to 2000 census data, 14.3 percent of the population (115,214 individuals) residing 

41 within a 50-mi (80-km) radius of CR-3 identified themselves as minority individuals 

42 (USCB, 2011). The largest minority group was Black or African American (57,214 individuals or 

43 7.1 percent), followed by Hispanic (39,499 individuals or about 4.9 percent). Approximately 

44 7 percent of the Citrus County population was minority, with Hispanic (2.7 percent) the largest 

45 minority group, followed by Black or African American (2.3 percent). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-56 

1 The 50-mi (80-km) radius around CR-3 consists of each county with at least one census block 

2 group located within the 50-mi (80-km) radius. The population demographic data from these 

3 counties were added together to derive average regional percentages. Of the 483 census block 

4 groups located wholly or partly within the 50-mi (80-km) radius of CR-3, 33 block groups were 

5 determined to have minority population percentages that exceeded the State percentage by 

6 20 percentage points or more. The largest number of minority block groups was Black or 

7 African American, with 32 block groups that exceeded the regional percentage of 20 percent or 

8 more. These block groups are concentrated in urban areas with high population densities in 

9 Marion County. The closest high density minority population to CR-3 is located in Crystal River, 

10 Florida. Figure 4.9.7-1 shows minority block groups within a 50-mi (80-km) radius of CR-3 

11 based on 2000 census data. 

12 According to American Community Survey 2009 estimates, minority populations in Citrus 

13 County increased by approximately 6,700 persons and comprised 10.6 percent of the total 

14 population (see Table 2.2.8.5-3). Most of this increase was due to an estimated increase of 

15 Hispanic or Latinos (over 2,800 persons), an increase in population of 89.8 percent from 2000. 

16 The next largest increase in minority population was Black or African American, an estimated 

17 additional 1,980 persons or an increase of 73.2 percent from 2000, followed by Asian, an 

18 estimated 1,200 persons or an increase of 135.4 percent from 2000 (USCB, 2011). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-57 

1 

2 Figure 4.9.7-1. Minority Block Groups in 2000 within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) Radius of 

3 Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (Source: USCB, 2011) 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-58 

1 4.9.7.2 Low-Income Population in 2000 

2 According to 2000 census data, 101,398 individuals (12.9 percent) residing within a 50-mi 

3 (80-km) radius of CR-3 were identified as living below the Federal poverty threshold (USCB, 

4 2011). The 1999 Federal poverty threshold was $17,029 for a family of four. In addition, 

5 according to the 2000 census, 9 percent of families and 12.5 percent of individuals in the State 

6 of Florida and 8.5 percent of families and 11.7 percent of individuals in Citrus County were living 

7 below the Federal poverty threshold (USCB, 2011). 

8 Census block groups were considered low-income block groups if the percentage of households 

9 below the Federal poverty threshold exceeded the State average by 20 percent or more. Based 

10 on 2000 census data, there were 22 block groups within the 50-mi (80-km) radius of CR-3 that 

11 exceeded the State average for low-income households by 20 percentage points or more. Most 

12 of the census block groups with low-income populations exceeding the State average were 

13 located in Marion County. The nearest low-income population to CR-3 is located in Crystal 

14 River, Florida. Figure 4.9.7-2 shows low-income block groups within a 50-mi (80-km) radius of 

15 CR-3 based on 2000 census data. 

16 According to American Community Survey 2009 estimates, the median household income for 

17 Florida was $44,736, while 14.9 percent of the State population and 10.7 percent of families 

18 were living below the 1999 Federal poverty threshold. Citrus County had a lower median 

19 household income ($38,128) and slightly higher percentages, 15.9 percent of individuals and 

20 11 percent of families living below the poverty level, when compared to the State. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-59 

1 

2 Figure 4.9.7-2. Low-Income Block Groups in 2000 within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) Radius 

3 of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (Source: USCB, 2011) 

4 4.9.7.3 Analysis of Impacts 

5 The NRC addresses environmental justice matters for license renewal through: (1) identification 

6 of minority and low-income populations that may be affected by the proposed license renewal, 

7 and (2) examining any potential human health or environmental effects on these populations to 

8 determine if these effects may be disproportionately high and adverse. 

9 The discussion and figures above indentifies the minority and low-income populations residing 

10 within a 50-mi (80-km) radius of CR-3. This area of impact is consistent with the impact 

11 analysis for public and occupational health and safety, which also focuses on populations within 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-60 

1 a 50-mi (80-km) radius of the plant. As previously discussed for the other resource areas in 

2 Chapter 4, the analyses of impacts for most resource areas indicated that the impact from 

3 license renewal would be SMALL. 

4 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of radiological 

5 effects; however, radiation doses from continued operations associated with this license 

6 renewal are expected to continue at current levels and would remain within regulatory limits. 

7 Chapter 5 of this SEIS discusses the environmental impacts from postulated accidents that 

8 might occur during the license renewal term, which include both design-basis accidents. The 

9 Commission has generically determined that impacts associated with such accidents are 

10 SMALL because nuclear plants are designed to successfully withstand design-basis accidents. 

11 In addition, the recent CR-3 steam generator replacement would have had little or no noticeable 

12 effect on minority and/or low-income populations in the region because CR-3 is located in a 

13 medium population area and because of the short duration (74 days) of the replacement activity. 

14 Therefore, based on this information and the analysis of human health and environmental 

15 impacts presented in Chapters 4 and 5, it is not likely there would be any disproportionately high 

16 and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations from the continued operation of 

17 CR-3 during the license renewal term. 

18 As part of addressing environmental justice associated with license renewal, the NRC also 

19 assessed the potential radiological risk to special population groups from exposure to 

20 radioactive material received through their unique consumption and interaction with the 

21 environment patterns including subsistence consumption of fish, native vegetation, surface 

22 waters, sediments, and local produce; absorption of contaminants in sediments through the 

23 skin; and inhalation of airborne radioactive material released from the plant during routine 

24 operation. 

25 4.9.7.4 Subsistence Consumption of Fish and Wildlife 

26 The special pathway receptors analysis is important to the environmental justice analysis 

27 because consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or cultural practices of minority and 

28 low-income populations in the area. 

29 Section 4-4 of E.O. 12898 (1994) directs Federal agencies, whenever practical and appropriate, 

30 to collect and analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations who rely 

31 principally on fish and/or wildlife for subsistence and to communicate the risks of these 

32 consumption patterns to the public. In this SEIS, the NRC considered whether there were any 

33 means for minority or low-income populations to be disproportionately affected by examining 

34 impacts to American Indian, Hispanic, and other traditional lifestyle special pathway receptors. 

35 Special pathways that took into account the levels of contaminants in native vegetation, crops, 

36 soils and sediments, surface water, fish, and game animals on or near the CR-3 site were 

37 considered. 

38 The following is a summary discussion of the Staff’s evaluation from Section 4.8.2 of the 

39 REMPs that assess the potential impacts for subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife near 

40 the CR-3 site. 

41 The applicant has a comprehensive REMP at CR-3 to assess the impact of site operations on 

42 the environment. To assess the impact of the nuclear power plant on the environment, samples 

43 of environmental media are collected and analyzed for radioactivity. Two types of samples are 

44 taken. The first type, control samples, are collected from areas that are beyond measurable 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-61 

1 influence of the nuclear plant. These samples are used as reference data. Normal background 

2 radiation levels, or radiation present due to causes other than nuclear power generation, can be 

3 compared to the environment surrounding the nuclear plant. Indicator samples are the second 

4 sample type obtained. These samples show how much radiation or radioactivity is contributed 

5 to the environment by the nuclear power plant. Indicator samples are taken from areas close to 

6 the station where any contribution would be at the highest concentration. An effect would be 

7 indicated if the radioactive material detected in an indicator sample was significantly larger than 

8 the background level or control sample. 

9 Samples of environmental media are collected from the aquatic and terrestrial pathways in the 

10 vicinity of CR-3. The aquatic pathways include fish and oysters, surface waters, groundwater, 

11 and shoreline sediment. The terrestrial pathways include airborne particulates and radioiodine, 

12 broadleaf vegetation, food products (watermelon and citrus), and direct radiation. During 2009, 

13 analyses performed samples of environmental media showed no significant or measurable 

14 radiological impact above background levels from CR-3 operations (Progress Energy, 2010e). 

15 Based on the radiological environmental monitoring data from CR-3, the Staff finds that no 

16 disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts would be expected in special 

17 pathway receptor populations in the region as a result of subsistence consumption of water, 

18 local food, fish, and wildlife. 

19 4.10 EVALUATION OF NEW AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION 

20 New and significant information is: (1) information that identifies a significant environmental 

21 issue not covered in the GEIS and codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

22 Appendix B, or (2) information that was not considered in the analyses summarized in the GEIS 

23 and that leads to an impact finding that is different from the finding presented in the GEIS and 

24 codified in 10 CFR Part 51. 

25 In preparing to submit its application to renew the CR-3 operating license, FPC developed a 

26 process to ensure that information not addressed in or available during the GEIS evaluation 

27 regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal for CR-3 would be properly reviewed 

28 before submitting the ER and to ensure that such new and potentially significant information 

29 would be identified, reviewed, and assessed during the NRC review period. FPC reviewed the 

30 Category 1 issues that appear in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, to verify 

31 that the conclusions of the GEIS remained valid with respect to CR-3. This review was 

32 performed by personnel from CR-3 and its support organization that were familiar with NEPA 

33 issues and the scientific disciplines involved in the preparation of a license renewal ER. 

34 The NRC also has a process for identifying new and significant information. That process is 

35 described in detail in NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Standard Review Plans for Environmental 

36 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal (NRC, 1999b). 

37 The search for new information includes: (1) review of an applicant’s ER and the process for 

38 discovering and evaluating the significance of new information; (2) review of records of public 

39 comments; (3) review of environmental quality standards and regulations; (4) coordination with 

40 Federal, State, and local environmental protection and resource agencies; and (5) review of the 

41 technical literature. New information discovered by the Staff is evaluated for significance using 

42 the criteria set forth in the GEIS. For Category 1 issues where new and significant information 

43 is identified, reconsideration of the conclusions for those issues is limited in scope to the 

44 assessment of the relevant new and significant information; the scope of the assessment does 

45 not include other facets of the issue that are not affected by the new information. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-62 

1 The Staff has not identified any new and significant information on environmental issues listed in 

2 Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, related to the operation of CR-3 during 

3 the period of license renewal. The Staff also determined that information provided during the 

4 public comment period did not identify any new issues that require site-specific assessment. 

5 The Staff reviewed the discussion of environmental impacts in the GEIS (NRC, 1996) and 

6 conducted its own independent review (including the public scoping meetings held in April 2009) 

7 to identify new and significant information. 

8 4.11 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

9 The Staff considered potential cumulative impacts in the environmental analysis of continued 

10 operation of CR-3 during the 20-year license renewal period. Cumulative impacts may result 

11 when the environmental effects associated with the proposed action are overlaid or added to 

12 temporary or permanent effects associated with other past, present, and reasonably 

13 foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but 

14 collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. It is possible that an impact 

15 that may be SMALL by itself could result in a MODERATE or LARGE cumulative impact when 

16 considered in combination with the impacts of other actions on the affected resource. Likewise, 

17 if a resource is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL individual impact could be 

18 important if it contributes to or accelerates the overall resource decline. 

19 For the purposes of this cumulative analysis, past actions are those before the receipt of the 

20 license renewal application. Present actions are those related to the resources at the time of 

21 current operation of the power plant, and future actions are those that are reasonably 

22 foreseeable through the end of plant operation including the period of extended operation. 

23 Therefore, the analysis considers potential impacts through the end of the current license terms 

24 as well as the 20-year renewal license term. The geographic area over which past, present, 

25 and reasonably foreseeable actions would occur is dependent on the type of action considered. 

26 To evaluate cumulative impacts, the incremental impacts of the proposed action, as described 

27 in Sections 4.1 through 4.9, are combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

28 future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non Federal) or person undertakes such 

29 actions. The Staff used the information given in the ER; responses to requests for additional 

30 information; information from other Federal, State, and local agencies; scoping comments; and 

31 information gathered during the visits to the CR-3 site to note other past, present, and 

32 reasonably foreseeable future actions. To be considered in the cumulative analysis, the Staff 

33 determined if the project would occur within the geographic areas of interest and within the 

34 period of extended operation, was reasonably foreseeable, and if there would be potential 

35 overlapping effect with the proposed project. For past actions, consideration within the 

36 cumulative impacts assessment is resource and project-specific. In general, the effects of past 

37 actions are included in the description of the affected environment in Chapter 2, which serves as 

38 the baseline for the cumulative impacts analysis. However, past actions that continue to have 

39 an overlapping effect on a resource potentially affected by the proposed action are considered 

40 in the cumulative analysis. Other actions and projects that were noted during this review and 

41 considered in the Staff’s independent analysis of the potential cumulative effects are described 

42 in Table 4.11-1. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

4-63 

Table 4.11-1. Other Projects and Actions Considered in the Cumulative Analysis 1 for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 2 Project Name Summary of Project Location Status Energy Projects Operation and decommissioning of CR-1, CR-2, CR-4, and CR-5 

CR-1, CR-2, CR-4, and CR-5 are fossil-fuel power plants. Operations began in 1966, 1969, 1982, and 1984, respectively. 

Adjacent to CR-3 Operational. The State of Florida’s Siting 

Board’s Condition of Certification for LNP would require Progress Energy Florida, Inc. to discontinue the operations of two fossilfuel units by December 31, 2020, assuming the licensing, construction, and commencement of operation of LNP occurs in a timely manner (FDEP, 2011). 

Extended power uprate of CR-3 

The CR-3 EPU would increase the thermal and electrical output of the plant (Progress Energy, 2008a). The uprate could require an increase in circulating water flow of up to 150,000 gpm (567.8 m3/min) (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007a). 

CR-3 Proposed. The application submitted to 

State of Florida was approved in August 2008. The USACE issued a public notice on May 25, 2010 (USACE, 2010). A Federal application is expected to be submitted to the NRC in 2011. 

LNP, Units 1 and 2 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. proposes to construct 

and operate two new AP1000 pressurized water reactor nuclear units. Each unit would have a core power rating of 3,400 MW(t). The units would use a closed-cycle, wet-cooling system that uses mechanical draft cooling towers for heat dissipation. 

Approximately 9 mi northeast of CR-3 

Proposed. NRC’s draft EIS was published in August 2010 (NRC, 2010b). 

Inglis Lock bypass channel spillway hydropower project 

2-MW hydroelectric project at the existing Inglis Lock bypass spillway. This project would include construction of an intake structure, intake and discharge channels, turbines, and a transmission line. 

Approximately 5 mi northeast of CR-3 

Proposed. In 2009, an application was submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and FERC accepted the application in 2010 (75 FR 10230), (Inglis Hydropower, 2009). 

Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC (FGT) Phase VIII Expansion Project 

Construction and expansion of natural gas pipelines, new compressor, meter, regulator stations, and other ancillary facilities. 

Various counties in Alabama and Florida, including Levy, Citrus, and Hernando; route passes approximately 2 mi east of CR-3 

Completion expected by spring 2011 (FERC, 2009), (Panhandle Energy, 2011). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation Project Name Summary of Project Location Status Non-Energy Projects Construction of an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at CR-3 The ISFSI will provide additional storage of spent nuclear fuel in dry casks. On the CREC site, east of the CR-3 containment building Under construction (Progress Energy, 2009m), (NRC, 2010c). Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine A 9,400-ac aggregate mining site. The mining site would be 4,900 ac (including 900 ac set aside for wetlands); with the remaining 4,500 ac donated to the State of Florida for preservation. The southern border of the site is about 8 mi north-northeast of CR-3 Proposed. A permit application was submitted to the USACE in September 2007. Construction is expected to begin in 2011, and operations are expected to begin in 2013 (KRM, 2010). Holcim Mine Limestone quarry 1 mi north of CR-3 Operational Inglis Quarry Limestone quarry 3 mi north of CR-3 Operational Crystal River Quarries 

– Red Level 

Limestone quarry 3 mi east of CR-3 Operational 

Crystal River Quarries – Lecanto 

Limestone quarry 16 mi east-southeast of 

CR-3 

Operational 

Gulf Hammock Quarry Limestone quarry 19 mi north of CR-3 Operational Cross Florida Barge Canal/Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway 

The Cross Florida Barge Canal would connect the Gulf of Mexico to the Atlantic Ocean. Partial construction was completed in 1971. 

3 mi north of CR-3 Operational and open to barge traffic 

downstream of Lake Rousseau. Construction to complete the canal was suspended in January 1971. No restart date has been published. 

Parks, Forests, and Preserves 

Numerous State and national parks, forests, preserves, and recreational areas within a 50-mi radius of CR-3 

50-mi radius of CR-3 No industrial developments are expected in 

these areas. 

Commercial forest management 

Commercial logging operations Throughout the region 

surrounding CR-3 

Operational 

Concrete companies Two ready-mix concrete plants Northern portion of Levy 

County 

Operational 

Construction of new housing units, commercial buildings, roads, bridges, and other development 

Construction of housing units and associated commercial buildings such as the proposed Port District near Inglis; roads, bridges, and railroads, such as the US-19 bridge and highway expansions; construction of water- and/or wastewater-treatment and distribution facilities and associated pipelines, as described in local land use planning documents. 

About 3 mi north of CR-3 and throughout the region. 

Proposed. Construction would occur in the future, as described in local land use planning documents (FDOT, 2011), (Citrus County, 2009). 

4-64 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-65 

1 4.11.1 Cumulative Impacts on Water Resources 

2 The following sections address the incremental impacts from the continued operation of CR-3 in 

3 combination with other past, present, and future actions—including those at the CREC—that 

4 could contribute to adverse cumulative impacts to water resources over the next 20 years. For 

5 this analysis, the geographic regions of concern include the Upper Floridan aquifer system in 

6 the immediate vicinity of the CREC site and Citrus County (groundwater) and Crystal Bay in the 

7 Gulf of Mexico (surface water). Cumulative impacts to water resources in the regions of 

8 concern result mainly from: (1) withdrawals of groundwater and surface water and the changes 

9 these cause to the hydrologic regime and (2) releases of contaminants and thermal loads that 

10 affect the quality of local water resources. 

11 4.11.1.1 Groundwater Use 

12 Groundwater supplies about 98 percent of all water used in Citrus County (SFWMD, 2006a). 

13 The Upper Floridan aquifer system is the major source of groundwater in Citrus County. It 

14 supplies water for potable (public supply and private wells), agricultural irrigation, recreational 

15 (golf courses and landscaping), industrial, and mining uses (SFWMD, 2006a). The SFWMD 

16 estimates that groundwater use in the potable supply, the largest water use category comprising 

17 about 88 percent of the total, will increase by about 16 percent between 2010 and 2020 in Citrus 

18 County, based on projected population increases of about 18 percent over the same period, to 

19 an average usage of about 32.6 mgpd in 2020. Groundwater use for agricultural irrigation and 

20 recreation would increase by about 24 and 15 percent, respectively, to an average usage of 

21 about 4.2 and 6.1 mgpd in 2020, respectively. Accounting for increases in all water use 

22 categories, the SFWMD projects a combined average usage of about 47.5 mgpd in 2020 (the 

23 last year for which the SFWMD makes projections). Assuming the same rate of category 

24 increases between 2020 and 2030, the combined average usage would be about 54.5 mgpd in 

25 2030. 

26 The CREC currently maintains 14 onsite production wells (as listed in Table 2.1.7-1), completed 

27 in the Upper Floridan aquifer and metered as required by the State of Florida Conditions of 

28 Certification (FDEP, 2010a). Three of these wells—SPW-3, SPW-4, and SPW-5—supply water 

29 to the south treatment plant, a portion of which (about 49 percent) serves CR-3. From 2001 

30 through 2009, only eight of these wells were operational: PW-1 through PW-4, serving the north 

31 treatment plant; SPW-3 through SPW-5, serving the south treatment plant; and PW-1A/1B, 

32 providing water for ash processes. During this period, the combined average annual pump rate 

33 for these wells was about 1,144 gpm (1.65 mgpd). Although water demand at the CREC 

34 increased by 22 percent between 2001 and 2009, the maximum water demand (1,252 gpm or 

35 1.80 mgpd in 2009) was below the 2 mgpd authorized by the FDEP and the SFWMD (FDEP, 

36 2010a), (SFWMD, 2007). Compared to the average annual demand for groundwater in Citrus 

37 County (estimated at 27.764 mgpd in 2008) (SFWMD, 2009), the plant’s groundwater usage 

38 between 2001 and 2009 was low (i.e., less than 7 percent of the total groundwater consumed in 

39 Citrus County). 

40 Six additional wells became operational in late 2009 to supply water to the flue gas 

41 desulfurization (FGD) system as part of the Crystal River Units 4 and 5 Clean Air Interstate Rule 

42 Compliance and Electrostatic Precipitator Rebuild Project (referred to here as the Units 4 and 5 

43 Clean Air Project). Three of these wells (PW-5 through PW-7) were deactivated wells that were 

44 reactivated; the other three (PW-8 through PW-10a) were installed in 2009. On August 7, 2008, 

45 the FDEP issued a modification to the Conditions of Certification that allows an annual average 

46 pumping rate of 4.309 mgpd for wells PW-1 through PW-10a (FDEP, 2008a). This allowance 

47 together with the annual average pumping rate of 1 mgpd allowed by the SFWMD (2007) for 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-66 

1 wells SPW-3 through SPW-5 and PW-1A/B have increased the total authorized annual average 

2 usage rate to 5.309 mgpd. While this figure represents a maximum limit and not actual water 

3 usage, it comprises about 19 percent of the total groundwater consumed in Citrus County in 

4 2008 and about 11 percent of the total groundwater consumption projected by the SFWMD for 

5 Citrus County in 2020. The Conditions of Certification require the applicant to monitor the 

6 effects of groundwater withdrawal once the pumping rate reaches 3 mgpd and prepare a 

7 mitigation plan for adverse impacts if they occur. It also requires the applicant to develop 

8 alternative freshwater sources to offset some or all of the groundwater pumped. Citrus County 

9 is currently outside of the Water Use Caution Areas (WUCAs) designated by the SFWMD as 

10 areas where water resources are or are expected to become critical within the next 20 years 

11 (the largest of these is the Southern WUCA, to the south of Citrus County) (SFWMD, 2006b). 

12 Drawdown calculations for groundwater withdrawal for CR-3 were made assuming a 

13 homogeneous, isotropic aquifer with negligible recharge and gradient and an average pump 

14 rate of 227 gpm (0.33 mgpd) from a single well (SPW-3) located about 330 ft from the CREC’s 

15 southern property line. The maximum predicted drawdown at the southern property line was 

16 estimated to be less than 1 ft (0.3 m) over the 20-year renewal period for CR-3 (Progress 

17 Energy, 2009m). This value does not take into account the effects of withdrawals from all the 

18 onsite production wells operating at the CREC (with an average pump rate of 1,144 gpm or 

19 1.65 mgpd between 2001 and 2009) or the additional production wells installed in 2009 to 

20 supply water to the FGD system as part of the Units 4 and 5 Clean Air Project. The applicant is 

21 currently conducting aquifer tests and a drawdown study for the operation of all 14 wells at the 

22 request of the State of Florida. 

23 An important trend potentially affecting groundwater supplies over the next 20 years is global 

24 climate change. Global climate change can affect groundwater supplies by changing patterns of 

25 recharge, storage, and stream discharge through increased evaporation rates and greater 

26 variations in the seasonal patterns of precipitation (Roosmalen et al., 2007), (Florida Oceans 

27 and Coastal Council, 2009). 

28 Because the additional production wells installed at the CREC are new, no annual data 

29 combining usage rates for all 14 wells currently exist. However, the Staff concludes that 

30 cumulative impacts due to groundwater usage by CR-3 in combination with the projected 

31 increase in groundwater usage for Citrus County (including the increased usage authorized by 

32 the State of Florida for the Units 4 and 5 Clean Air Project) would be SMALL to MODERATE, 

33 depending on the findings of monitoring and testing currently in progress. The incremental 

34 contribution on groundwater quality from continued license renewal would be SMALL, as 

35 described in Section 4.3. Karst environments in coastal areas, such as that in west-central 

36 Florida, present special challenges to users since overpumping causes changes in groundwater 

37 flow direction that can affect the quality of water in residential and public wells (e.g., salinity 

38 increases). Overpumping can also reduce groundwater discharge to individual springs, 

39 streams, rivers, and wetlands, causing changes in water levels and flow regimes which in turn 

40 can adversely affect aquatic resources. Section 4.11.2 provides a discussion of the impacts 

41 these changes may have to aquatic resources. 

42 4.11.1.2 Surface Water Use 

43 The CREC is located on Crystal Bay, a shallow embayment of the Gulf of Mexico, between the 

44 mouths of the Withlacoochee River to the north and the Crystal River to the south. There is little 

45 surface drainage in the region and most of the water in these rivers is derived from groundwater 

46 in the Upper Floridan aquifer. Cooling water for CR-3 is withdrawn from Crystal Bay via the 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-67 

1 plant’s intake canal by circulating pumps with a total flow capacity of about 979.2 mgpd and 

2 discharged back to Crystal Bay via a common discharge canal (see Figure 2.1-4). The CREC 

3 does not withdraw any of its cooling water from rivers or streams. 

4 Proposed actions at the CREC with the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts in Crystal 

5 Bay due to water usage include the proposed CR-3 EPU (Progress Energy, 2009n); the addition 

6 of the LNP blowdown to the CREC discharge canal, scheduled to begin in 2018 (Unit 1) and 

7 2020 (Unit 2); and the shutdown of coal-fired CR-1 and CR-2 by the end of 2020 (a condition of 

8 the LNP site certification) (Progress Energy, 2009m). 

9 Currently, the combined condenser flow for CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 is limited by the NPDES 

10 permit to 1,898 mgpd during the summer period (May 1 to October 31) and 1,613 mgpd during 

11 the winter period (November 1 to April 30). Helper cooling towers withdraw water from the 

12 combined discharge of CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 to help the plant meet the NPDES daily 

13 maximum discharge temperature limit of 96.5 °F (35.8 °C) at the final point of discharge to 

14 Crystal Bay (FDEP, 2005a). The proposed EPU would increase the heat produced by CR-3 

15 which in turn would increase the heat rejection to the site discharge canal. To accommodate 

16 this increase in discharge temperature, the facility would increase the circulating water flow rate 

17 through CR-3 by up to 150,000 gpm (216 mgpd) or by 11 percent (in summer) to 13 percent (in 

18 winter) (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007a). The proposed new south helper cooling tower would 

19 withdraw heated water from the discharge canal and, once cooled, return it back to the 

20 discharge canal. A portion of this water could also be discharged to the intake canal to maintain 

21 the existing intake flow rate from Crystal Bay. This would result in no net increase of water 

22 usage from the bay. In addition, LNP blowdown would increase the volume of water discharged 

23 to the site discharge canal by about 61,000 gpm (87.8 mgpd) (NRC, 2010b). The eventual 

24 shutdown of CR-1 and CR-2, however, would reduce the volume of cooling water withdrawn 

25 from the intake canal—effectively reducing the net usage of Crystal Bay water at the CREC by 

26 the end of 2020. 

27 Because Crystal Bay is a large water body and present and future water usage is relatively 

28 small and regulated by the State of Florida, the Staff concludes that cumulative impacts due to 

29 surface water usage by CR-3 in combination with other uses of water in Crystal Bay would be 

30 SMALL and no additional mitigation is warranted. 

31 4.11.1.3 Groundwater Quality 

32 The Upper Floridan aquifer is the primary source of water for the first magnitude springs in 

33 Citrus County. Recharge occurs through the infiltration of rainfall and seepage of surface water 

34 from Lake Tsala Apopka and the Withlacoochee River and is highest along the Brooksville 

35 Ridge where drainage occurs through sinkholes and other karst features. Because the aquifer 

36 is generally unconfined in Citrus County, recharge rates are fairly high. This condition also 

37 makes the aquifer highly susceptible to contamination from runoff carrying fertilizers, 

38 wastewater, and pollutants from roads and parking lots (SFWMD, 2006a). 

39 Although there are no cooling ponds for CR-3, the CREC has several surface impoundments, 

40 some of which are lined, associated with the coal-fired CR-1, CR-2, CR-4, and CR-5 which 

41 could potentially contaminate groundwater below the site. These include the ash storage area, 

42 the coal storage area, the runoff collection system, the FGD settling ponds, and a stormwater 

43 pond (north plant area); and the domestic wastewater treatment plant and percolation pond 

44 system (south plant area). Groundwater monitoring and corrective actions (if needed) are 

45 conducted in accordance with the requirements outlined in the plant’s industrial wastewater 

46 facility permit FLA016960 (FDEP, 2008b). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-68 

1 An important trend potentially affecting groundwater quality in the Upper Floridan aquifer system 

2 over the next 20 years is global climate change. Saltwater intrusion due to rising sea levels can 

3 degrade groundwater quality in low-lying coastal areas such as Citrus County putting public 

4 drinking water supplies at risk (Florida Oceans and Coastal Council, 2009). The CREC lies 

5 within the transition zone where water composition reflects a mixture of freshwater and 

6 saltwater. The landward extent of the transition zone (defined by Trommer [1993] as the 

7 25-mg/L line of equal chloride concentration) is currently about 9 mi (14 km). Chloride 

8 concentrations in the CREC production wells are greater than 250 mg/L (Florida Power, 2005). 

9 Because groundwater quality at the CREC is monitored in accordance with the State of Florida’s 

10 industrial wastewater facility permit and the CREC already lies within the transition zone where 

11 groundwater composition reflects a mixture of freshwater and saltwater, the Staff concludes that 

12 cumulative impacts to groundwater quality in the Upper Floridan aquifer in the vicinity of the 

13 CREC would be SMALL and no additional mitigation is warranted. It is probable, however, that 

14 the transition zone will migrate further landward as a result of sea level rise (potentially due to 

15 global climate change) over the 20-year renewal period. 

16 4.11.1.4 Surface Water Quality 

17 The quality of west-central Florida coastal waters like Crystal Bay is generally good but coastal 

18 estuarine systems are becoming degraded by nonpoint (indirect) discharges of pollution from 

19 sources such as stormwater/urban runoff, seepage from onsite sanitary sewage disposal, 

20 sewage treatment plant effluent, residential use of pesticides, herbicide and fertilizers, and 

21 facilities (marina/docking) and activities associated with commercial and leisure boating 

22 (SFWMD, 2006a). 

23 Surface water discharges to the CREC discharge canal (from CR-3 and the four coal-fired units) 

24 currently include once-through condenser cooling water, treated nuclear auxiliary cooling water, 

25 treated coal pile rainfall runoff, intake screen wash water, and treated radioactive and 

26 nonradioactive waste (south plant area); and internal overflow drainage from the sedimentation 

27 ponds at the ash and coal storage areas (north plant area) via the CR-4 and CR-5 discharge 

28 canal, which discharges to the site discharge canal. These discharges are regulated by two 

29 NPDES permits which specify limits for water quality parameters (Tables 2.1.7-5 and 2.1.7-6) 

30 and temperature at the POD from the site discharge canal to the Gulf of Mexico (not to exceed 

31 96.5 °F (35.8 °C) as a 3-hour rolling average). 

32 Proposed actions at the CREC with the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts to water 

33 quality (temperature and salinity) in Crystal Bay include the proposed CR-3 EPU (Progress 

34 Energy, 2009n); the addition of LNP blowdown to the CREC discharge canal, scheduled to 

35 begin in 2018 (Unit 1) and 2020 (Unit 2); and the shutdown of coal-fired CR-1 and CR-2 by the 

36 end of 2020 (a condition of the LNP site certification) (Progress Energy, 2009m). 

37 The proposed EPU would increase the heat produced by CR-3 which in turn would increase the 

38 heat rejection to the site discharge canal. To accommodate this increase in discharge 

39 temperature, the facility would increase the circulating water flow rate through CR-3 (Golder 

40 Associates, Inc., 2007a). The proposed new south helper cooling tower would withdraw heated 

41 water from the discharge canal and, once cooled, return it back to the discharge canal. While 

42 there would still be an increase in temperature relative to ambient conditions at the point of 

43 discharge to Crystal Bay, the maximum projected temperature (95.6 °F [35.3 °C] during summer 

44 months) would be below the NPDES permitted limit of 96.5 °F (35.8 °C) (Progress Energy, 

45 2009n). In addition, the eventual shutdown of CR-1 and CR-2 would reduce the volume of 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-69 

1 heated cooling water released to the site discharge canal—effectively reducing water 

2 temperatures in the site discharge canal. 

3 Discharges of LNP blowdown to the site discharge canal would elevate water salinity to about 

4 36.6 practical salinity units (psu) (in summer) and 36.3 psu (in winter), a small to negligible 

5 increase (about 4 to 5 percent) over ambient conditions (assumed to be 35.0 psu) at the point of 

6 discharge to Crystal Bay (Progress Energy, 2009n). 

7 An important trend potentially affecting water quality in Crystal Bay over the next 20 years is 

8 global climate change. Ocean water temperature could increase as much as 3.6 °F (2 °C) over 

9 the next 100 years, resulting in adverse effects to coastal and marine environments already 

10 stressed by pollutants from land-based sources (Florida Oceans and Coastal Council, 2009). 

11 Increases in average sea level and shoreline retreat are also predicted over this period. Such 

12 changes would increase the risk of erosion, storm surge damage, and flooding along the 

13 west-central coast of Florida (GCRP, 2009). Section 4.11.2 provides a discussion of the 

14 impacts these changes may have to aquatic resources. 

15 Although surface water discharges from the CREC are monitored in accordance with the State 

16 of Florida’s NPDES permit, the Staff concludes that cumulative impacts to water quality 

17 (temperature and salinity) in Crystal Bay would be MODERATE because of other factors such 

18 as nonpoint sources of pollution and the potential increase in ocean water temperatures over 

19 the next 20 years. The incremental contribution from continued license renewal on surface 

20 water quality would be SMALL, as described in Section 4.3. 

21 4.11.2 Cumulative Impacts on Aquatic Resources 

22 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of CR-3 license renewal on aquatic 

23 resources when added to the aggregate effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

24 future actions. The aquatic resources described in Section 2.2.5 and the Federally-listed 

25 aquatic threatened or endangered species described in Section 2.2.7.1 are the result of both 

26 past and current actions. The primary effects on aquatic resources from an additional 20 years 

27 of CR-3 operation will primarily occur from impingement, entrainment, and heat shock. The 

28 Staff concluded that the overall impacts of CR-3 license renewal on both aquatic biota 

29 (Section 4.5) and aquatic threatened or endangered species (Section 4.7.1) would be SMALL to 

30 MODERATE. 

31 Three suites of cumulative impacts are identifiable when considering power-plant-related 

32 stressors: (1) those from the power plant (e.g., interaction of entrainment, impingement, and 

33 thermal discharges); (2) those due to effects of closely located power plants; and (3) those due 

34 to multiple activities in the area (York et al., 2005). The CREC is the only electrical generating 

35 facility in Citrus County (CCBCC, 2009); however, it is comprised of five generating units. Two 

36 generating units are proposed for LNP in Levy County. Operation of LNP will begin in 2016 or 

37 later (Progress Energy, 2009n). Other stressors that contribute to cumulative impacts are 

38 discussed below. 

39 The geographic boundaries for assessing cumulative aquatic impacts are somewhat variable 

40 and depend on the specific aquatic resource. The estuary area of Crystal Bay between 

41 Withlacoochee River and Crystal River and the offshore areas of the Gulf of Mexico within 

42 Citrus and Levy Counties generally bound the potentially affected area. However, for some 

43 resources and stressors, a much larger area is considered. This area may include much of the 

44 Gulf of Mexico (e.g., due to the recent Deepwater Horizon oil spill) to North America and beyond 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-70 

1 (in the case of global warming). In large part, stressors outside the area influenced by operation 

2 of the CREC affect Federally-listed species that migrate throughout the Gulf of Mexico and the 

3 Atlantic Ocean (NMFS, 2002). 

4 In the introduction to Section 4.11, the Staff identified a variety of actions and projects that could 

5 contribute to cumulative impacts. The FWC (2005) detailed 32 stressors that could affect 

6 aquatic resources (Table 4.11.2-1). 

7 Table 4.11.2-1. Aquatic Resource Stressors 

Channel modification/shipping lanes Incompatible industrial operations 

Chemicals and toxins Incompatible recreational activities 

Climate variability Incompatible resource extraction 

Conversion to agriculture Incompatible wildlife and fisheries management 

strategies 

Conversion to housing and urban development Industrial spills 

Coastal development Invasive animals 

Conversion to recreation areas Invasive plants 

Dam operations Key predator/prey loss 

Disruption of longshore transport of sediments Management of nature (e.g., beaches) 

Fishing gear impacts Nutrient loads - agriculture 

Groundwater withdrawal Nutrient loads - urban 

Harmful algal blooms Roads, bridges, and causeways 

Inadequate stormwater management Shoreline hardening 

Incompatible fire Surface water diversion 

Incompatible fishing pressure Surface and groundwater withdrawal 

Incompatible forestry practices Vessel impacts 

Source: FWC, 2005 

8 The main stressors that can cause cumulative impacts on aquatic resources within Crystal Bay 

9 include the following: 

10 ● the continued operation of the CREC, as modified by the EPU of CR-3, discharge 

11 of LNP blowdown into the CREC discharge canal, and potential 

12 decommissioning of CR-1 and CR-2 

13 ● preconstruction, construction, and operation of LNP 

14 ● continued withdrawal of water for various human uses 

15 ● fishing (commercial and recreational) and boating 

16 ● residential, commercial, and industrial development 

17 ● water quality degradation 

18 ● invasive species 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-71 

1 ● disease 

2 ● climate change 

3 Each of these may influence the structure and function of Crystal Bay in a way that could result 

4 in observable changes to its aquatic resources. The following is a brief discussion of how the 

5 stressors listed above could contribute to cumulative impacts on aquatic resources (including 

6 Federally-listed species) of Crystal Bay. 

7 Continued Operation of CR-3 and Other CREC Units

8 Changes in the operation of the CREC since the late 1980s have had a potential influence on 

9 aquatic resources in Crystal Bay. The first is the alteration in discharge temperatures to meet 

10 the NPDES permit limit of 96.5 °F (35.8 °C) (as a 3-hour rolling limit) at the POD from the 

11 CREC. This has lessened the maximum discharge temperature at the POD during a portion of 

12 the summer and, thus, the potential size of the thermal plume. For example, the POD 

13 temperature averaged 100.1 °F (37.8 °C) the week of August 21, 1983; while most other weeks 

14 of August 1983 and 1984, and the week of September 4, 1983, averaged above 96.5 °F 

15 (35.8 °C) (SWEC, 1985). The second operational change has been in water withdrawals for 

16 operation of the CREC. The NPDES permit limits the combined flow through CR-1 through 

17 CR-3 to 1,318,000 gpm from May 1 through October 31 and 1,132,792 gpm from November 1 

18 through April 30 (FDEP, 2005a). The FDEP established these limitations to decrease 

19 entrainment and, to a lesser extent, impingement at the CREC. 

20 The CR-3 EPU will increase the thermal and electrical output of the plant (Progress Energy, 

21 2008a). The EPU could require an increase in circulating water flow of up to 150,000 gpm 

(567.8 m3 22 /min) (Golder Associates, 2007b). However, the new south cooling tower, a 

23 component of the EPU, may discharge an equivalent amount of water flow back into the intake 

24 canal resulting in no net increase water withdrawn from the intake canal. Alternatively, there 

25 may be no increase above the current circulating water flow, but there will be an increase in the 

26 thermal load (Progress Energy, 2009n). Under either operating scenario, the Staff does not 

27 expect increases in entrainment and impingement due to the EPU. The applicant reported that, 

28 following the EPU, the maximum summer temperature at the CREC POD to Crystal Bay will be 

29 95.4 °F (35.2 °C) at an ambient Crystal Bay temperature of 91 °F (32.8 °C) (Progress Energy, 

30 2009n). This will be within the 3-hour rolling limit of 96.5 °F (35.8 °C) allowed in the NPDES 

31 permit (FDEP, 2005a). 

32 Impacts to aquatic resources from the operation of the other units at the CREC will be similar to 

33 those over the past several decades. The Governor’s Siting Board approved the Site 

34 Certification Application for LNP on August 11, 2009. It includes a requirement that CR-1 and 

35 CR-2 cease operation by the end of 2020 (assuming timely licensing and construction of LNP) 

36 (Progress Energy, 2009m). If CR-1 and CR-2 cease operations, they would no longer 

37 contribute to entrainment, impingement, or thermal impacts. 

38 The Staff concludes that CREC operation will continue to be a contributor to cumulative impacts 

39 on aquatic resources. 

40 Preconstruction, Construction, and Operation of LNP

41 Preconstruction and construction of LNP and its associated transmission lines and other offsite 

42 facilities would result in the permanent and temporary loss of about 773 ac (313 ha) of wetlands. 

43 Some of these wetlands would provide spawning, nursery, and feeding habitats for some 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-72 

1 Crystal Bay fish and shellfish species. The applicant has committed to mitigate the loss or 

2 impairment of functions in all wetlands affected by the LNP project. 

3 Operational impacts from LNP would include impingement and entrainment of aquatic 

4 organisms. LNP will have closed-cycle cooling, requiring a net intake of 85,278 gpm 

(322.8 m3 5 /min). Discernable impacts on aquatic organisms from entrainment and impingement 

6 will be minor (NRC, 2010b). Combined blowdown from the LNP units will increase the 

discharge to the CREC discharge canal by about 61,000 gpm (230 m3 7 /min). With the addition of 

8 LNP blowdown, the maximum summer temperature at the POD will be 95.6 °F (35.3 °C) 

9 (Progress Energy, 2009n). This will be within the 3-hour rolling limit of 96.5 °F (35.8 °C) allowed 

10 in the NPDES permit (FDEP, 2005a). 

11 Chemical contaminants in the LNP discharge will mix with, and be highly diluted by, the CREC 

12 discharge (Progress Energy, 2010c). The combined discharges to Crystal Bay from the CREC 

13 and LNP will be subject to review and approval of the FDEP and would have to meet NPDES 

14 requirements (Progress Energy, 2010c). 

15 The Staff concluded that both the NRC-authorized construction activities and the impacts of 

16 operation of LNP on aquatic resources would be SMALL (NRC, 2010b). The Staff concludes 

17 that operation of LNP will be a contributor to cumulative impacts on aquatic resources. 

18 Continued Water Withdrawals

19 Surface and groundwater withdrawals can have a greater impact on individual springs, streams, 

20 rivers, and wetlands associated with Crystal Bay than to the bay itself. Water withdrawals can 

21 reduce stream flow, increase salinity, alter temperature regimes, and reduce wetted areas. 

22 These changes can have adverse impacts to areas used for spawning or nursery habitats by 

23 aquatic organisms. Groundwater withdrawals for human use threaten natural springs that 

24 provide warm water refuges for Florida manatees (Laist and Reynolds, 2005). Total projected 

average daily water use for Citrus County in 2020 is 47.5 mgpd (180,000 m3 25 /day); a 6.1 mgpd 

(23,100 m3 26 /day) increase over that projected for 2010. This use includes public supply 

(21.2 mgpd [80,250 m3

/day]), rural (11.4 mgpd [43,200 m3 27 /day]), agriculture (4.2 mgpd 

[15,900 m3 28 /day]), industrial (chemical manufacturing, food processing, power generation, and 

miscellaneous) (2.6 mgpd [9,800 m3

/day]), mining (2 mgpd [7,600 m3 29 /day]), and recreation 

(mostly golf course and large scale landscaped areas) (6.1 mgpd [2,300 m3 30 /day]) (CCBCC, 

31 2009). The Staff concludes that water withdrawals will continue to be a contributor to 

32 cumulative impacts on aquatic resources. 

33 Fishing and Boating

34 Many fish and shellfish species in Crystal Bay, including those that have been identified as 

35 representative species in studies at the CREC, are commercially or recreationally important and 

36 are thus subject to the effects of fishing pressure. In many cases, commercial or recreational 

37 catches are regulated by Federal or State agencies, but losses of some species (including 

38 Federally-threatened or endangered species) continue to occur as the result of bycatch or illegal 

39 capture. The extent and magnitude of fishing pressure and their relationship to overall 

40 cumulative impacts to aquatic resources of Crystal Bay are difficult to determine because of the 

41 large geographic scale of, and the natural variation in fish and shellfish populations within, the 

42 Gulf of Mexico. Normal use of fishing gear and discarded or lost fishing gear poses a threat to 

43 aquatic biota (FWC, 2005). Losses of Gulf sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, and sea turtles have 

44 occurred as a result of recreational fishing (Bester, 2009), (NMFS, 2002), (NMFS, 2005). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-73 

1 The 2010 commercial finfish and shellfish landings for Citrus and Levy Counties were 

2 491,471 lb (222,928 kg) of finfish, 1,113,817 lb (505,219 kg) of invertebrates (excluding shrimp), 

3 and 431,641 lb (195,789 kg) of shrimp. Among the representative species considered in 

4 Section 4.5, commercial landings for Citrus and Levy Counties reported by FWC (2011) totaled: 

5 ● Pinfish – 360 lb (163 kg) 

6 ● Spotted seatrout – 24 lb (11 kg) 

7 ● Striped mullet – 232,040 lb (105,252 kg) 

8 ● Blue crab – 847,216 lb (384,291 kg) 

9 ● Pink shrimp – 830 lb (376 kg) 

10 ● Stone crab (claws) – 204,720 lb (92,859 kg) 

11 Among these species, commercial landings for only striped mullet, blue crab, and stone crab 

12 occurred in both counties; whereas, for the other species, landings occurred only from Citrus 

13 County. No commercial landings of red drum are currently allowed; no commercial landings in 

14 either county occurred for spot or brief squid; and no separate categories of catch are provided 

15 for bay anchovy, pigfish, or polka-dot batfish (FWC, 2011). 

16 Boating has adversely affected aquatic resources along the Gulf coast, including Crystal Bay. 

17 Impacts from boating can range from scarring of seagrass beds to injury or death to 

18 Federally-listed species such as the smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, sea turtles, and the 

19 Florida manatee (FWC, 2005), (FWS and NMFS, 2009). Loss of seagrass from boat propellers 

20 can adversely impact other trophic levels of aquatic biota and waterfowl that inhabit or make use 

21 of these ecologically important habitats (FWC, 2005). Increases in recreational boating will 

22 increase the likelihood of future watercraft scarring of seagrass beds and collisions with the 

23 Federally-listed fish, sea turtle, and manatee species. Marina and docking facilities can 

24 introduce petroleum products, human waste, and hull anti-fouling paints to the water column 

25 and sediments; which can be detrimental to aquatic resources (CCBCC, 2009). The 

26 suspension of sediments and increased influx of detached seagrasses and drift algae caused by 

27 barge traffic within the CREC intake canal temporarily increases impingement at the facility 

28 (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985). After LNP becomes operational, CR-1 and CR-2 will 

29 cease operations as part of the FDEP’s Conditions of Certification, and the number of barge 

30 shipments to the CREC will decrease. 

31 The Staff concludes that fishing and boating will continue to be a contributor to cumulative 

32 impacts on aquatic resources. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-74 

1 Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development

2 In addition to the CREC and LNP, other existing or proposed residential, commercial, or 

3 industrial developments could impact the aquatic resources of Crystal Bay. The NRC (2010b) 

4 identified a number of existing and proposed projects in the Citrus-Levy County area including 

5 the proposed Inglis Lock bypass channel spillway hydropower project, existing limestone mines 

6 and the proposed Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine, commercial forestry operations, and 

7 future urbanization. The proposed Port District is a planned waterfront development that could 

8 include residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Stressors to aquatic biota that can occur 

9 from these projects and actions include habitat loss and alteration, erosion and sedimentation, 

10 shoreline hardening, chemical contamination, and incompatible recreational activities. 

11 The Staff concludes that residential, commercial, and industrial development will continue to be 

12 a contributor to cumulative impacts on aquatic resources. 

13 Water Quality Degradation

14 The Staff considered the potential cumulative impacts from thermal and chemical releases, 

15 including increases in total dissolved solids in the combined CREC and LNP discharge. 

16 Thermal and chemical releases from the CREC comply with NPDES permit requirements 

17 (FDEP, 2005a). The FDEP will take cumulative thermal and chemical releases from the CREC 

18 and the proposed LNP, as well as from other industrial sites discharging to the Crystal Bay, into 

19 consideration before approving an NPDES permit for LNP. The FDEP reviews and approves 

20 NPDES permits. Through the NPDES program, flows of industrial effluents to Crystal Bay and 

21 its associated streams and rivers are regulated in a manner that preserves water quality and 

22 protects aquatic resources through implementation of best technologies available and other 

23 mitigative measures. Given the lack of other discharges into the immediate area of the CREC 

24 discharge, it is likely that the cumulative impacts from the combined discharge would be 

25 minimal. Thus, thermal and chemical releases from these facilities would only have a localized 

26 impact on aquatic resources. Therefore, the contributions to thermal and chemical releases to 

27 Crystal Bay from the combined operation of the CREC and LNP would be SMALL to 

28 MODERATE for most aquatic resources and SMALL for Federally-listed species. 

29 Cumulative effects of non-point sources (e.g., urban and stormwater runoff, boating activities, 

30 sewage disposal facilities, and agricultural runoff) may be the largest stressor to estuaries and 

31 spring-fed river systems in Citrus County (CCBCC, 2009). Pesticides used to control aquatic 

32 plants and mosquitoes may be contributing directly or indirectly to degrading water quality 

33 (FWC, 2005), (CCBCC, 2009). Fertilizers, wastewater, nutrient loads, and road and parking lot 

34 pollutants have affected aquifers and springs in the county (CCBCC, 2009). These sources of 

35 non-point pollution can adversely affect a number of aquatic habitats such as coastal tidal rivers 

36 or streams, springs, tidal marshes, bivalve reefs, subtidal unconsolidated marine and estuarine 

37 sediment, and submerged aquatic vegetation (FWC, 2005). 

38 Long life spans predispose species such as the Gulf sturgeon to long-term and repeated 

39 exposure to contaminants that could lead to potential bioaccumulation of toxicants (FWS and 

40 NMFS, 2009). The Florida Department of Health (2009) lists consumption guidelines for most 

41 marine and estuarine fish from Florida due to low to medium levels of mercury. For most 

42 species, the recommended limit is one meal per week to one meal per month for women of 

43 childbearing age and young children; and one to two meals per week for all other individuals 

44 (Florida Department of Health, 2009). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-75 

1 Industrial spills can cause habitat disturbance, altered water quality, altered species 

2 composition, and sediment contamination (FWC, 2005). Some industrial spills may have little 

3 residual effects and the affected resource may recover quickly. However, some spills, 

4 particularly petroleum hydrocarbon spills, can have disastrous, widespread effects that can last 

5 decades (FWC, 2005). Petroleum spills have proven to be disastrous to marine organisms 

6 (e.g., seagrass beds) either due to direct toxicity or indirectly through habitat destruction and 

7 contamination. 

8 Marine debris can be disastrous to many marine and estuarine organisms, particularly some of 

9 the Federally-listed species such as sea turtles and the Florida manatee. Ingestion of or 

10 entanglement of sea turtles and manatees in marine debris can be fatal. 

11 The Staff concludes that water quality degradation in Crystal Bay and its wetlands and 

12 tributaries will continue to be a contributor to cumulative impacts on aquatic resources. 

13 Invasive Species

14 The presence of invasive species can benefit some endemic species. For example, hydrilla 

15 (Hydrilla verticillata) provides a food resource for the Florida manatee within the King’s Bay area 

16 of Crystal River (CCBCC, 2009). However, the introduction of new species most often is a 

17 source of critical stress on endemic species or their habitats. 

18 Estuaries and sheltered coastal areas are among the most susceptible to invasive species, 

19 especially those that have suffered prior disturbance by navigation, industrial development, and 

20 urbanization (Ray, 2005). Shipping introduces the most invasive species to estuarine and 

21 marine systems. Such species may be capable of attaching to hard surfaces (e.g., ship hulls) or 

22 found in ballast water. The aquarium trade is also a source of introduced species (Ray, 2005). 

23 Ray (2005) reported that 74 nonindigenous estuarine and marine species occur in the Gulf of 

24 Mexico. 

25 A number of species may pose serious threats to marine and freshwater habitats in Florida. 

26 Some of these are parasites and/or pathogens of native species (FWC, 2005). Ray (2005) 

27 considered the Australian spotted jellyfish (Phylloriza punctata), green mussel (Perna viridis), 

28 green porcelain crab (Petrolisthes armatus), and lionfish (Pterios volitan) to be the invasive 

29 species of most concern in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The green mussel can clog intake pipes, 

30 interfere with shellfish culture, displace local fauna, and possibly harbor algal species that cause 

31 toxic shellfish poisoning (Ray, 2005). The University of Florida (2007) expects the green mussel 

32 to spread throughout Florida. The green porcelain crab has the potential to directly and 

33 indirectly affect oyster beds (Ray, 2005), (Masterson, 2007b). The Australian spotted jellyfish is 

34 a threat to fisheries and fisheries restoration operations as it feeds on zooplankton and fish 

35 larvae and can foul fishing nets (Ray, 2005), (Masterson, 2007a). The lionfish can negatively 

36 affect coral reef fishes through consuming or competing with various species. If lionfish 

37 decrease population densities of important herbivorous species such as parrotfish, seaweeds 

38 and macroalgae could overgrow corals. Currently, observations of lionfish from the Gulf of 

39 Mexico are limited (Schofield et al., 2010). 

40 The Staff concludes that invasive and nuisance species will continue to be a contributor to 

41 cumulative impacts on aquatic resources. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-76 

1 Disease

2 Aquatic biota are subject to a number of diseases. Among the most prevalent are red tide and 

3 fibropapillomatosis. Red tide, the common name for the harmful bloom of the marine algae 

4 Karenia brevis, produces a brevetoxin that can cause mortality to hundreds of fish species 

5 (including Federally-threatened or endangered species) (FWS and NMFS, 2009). The trigger 

6 for red tide could include excess nutrients and other pollutants (FWC, 2005). 

7 Fibropapillomatosis, a disease characterized by internal and external tumors, occurs in all sea 

8 turtle species. Many of the sea turtles collected from the CREC bar racks suffer from this 

9 disease (Section 4.7.1). 

10 The Staff concludes that disease will continue to be a contributor to cumulative impacts on 

11 aquatic resources. 

12 Climate Change

13 The potential cumulative effects of climate change on Crystal Bay, whether from natural cycles 

14 or related anthropogenic activities, could result in a variety of changes that would affect aquatic 

15 resources. The environmental factors of significance that could affect estuary systems include 

16 sea level rise, temperature increases, salinity changes, and wind and water circulation changes 

17 (Kennedy, 1990). Changes in sea level could result in effects to nearshore communities, 

18 including the reduction or redistribution of submerged aquatic vegetation, changes in marsh 

19 communities, and influences to other wetland areas adjacent to nearshore systems. Water 

20 temperature changes could affect spawning patterns or success, or influence the distribution of 

21 important species (e.g., cold water species may move northward while the ranges of warm 

22 water species expand). Changes in salinity could influence the spawning and distribution of 

23 important species and the range of invasive species. Fundamental changes in precipitation 

24 could influence water circulation and change the nature of sediment and nutrient inputs to the 

25 system. This could result in changes to primary production and influence the estuarine food 

26 web. Some fisheries and aquaculture enterprises might benefit from climate change, while 

27 others might suffer (Kennedy, 1990). However, climate change could increase the frequency of 

28 red tide blooms, with adverse impacts to many fish species (FWS and NMFS, 2009). 

29 The Florida Oceans and Coastal Council (2009) concluded that the predicted effects of climate 

30 change would not benefit oceanic and estuarine aquatic resources. Climate change effects to 

31 aquatic resources could include: 

32 ● adverse impacts to corals, clams, shrimp, and other organisms with calcium 

33 carbonate shells or skeletons due to increased acidity 

34 ● more frequent die-offs of sponges, seagrasses, and other organisms could occur 

35 as sea surface temperatures increase 

36 ● increased exceedance of thermal tolerance and increases in the rate of disease 

37 in corals 

38 ● geographic range of marine species will shift northward and may drastically alter 

39 marine and estuarine community composition 

40 ● Florida coastal waters may become more favorable for invasive species 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-77 

1 ● increase in the incidence of harmful algal blooms 

2 ● increased stormwater runoff and transport of nutrients could contribute to hypoxia 

3 (low oxygen) 

4 ● sea level rises could alter the integrity of natural communities in estuaries, tidal 

5 wetlands, and tidal rivers 

6 The Staff concludes that climate change will continue to be a contributor to cumulative impacts 

7 on aquatic resources. 

8 Total Cumulative Impacts on Aquatic Resources

9 Based on the Staff’s review, multiple stressors affect the aquatic resources of Crystal Bay. 

10 Management actions may address the impacts of some of the stressors (e.g., cooling system 

11 operations, fishing pressure, and water quality). Although the impacts associated with 

12 cumulative impacts cannot be quantified, cumulative impacts on aquatic resources have 

13 stressed, and will continue to stress, aquatic resources, including Federally-threatened and 

14 endangered species. Under some unlikely scenarios (e.g., a major oil spill followed by a 

15 hurricane), destabilizing effects could occur, although evidence of this is not available at this 

16 time. The Staff finds the level of cumulative impact to be MODERATE for the purposes of this 

17 SEIS. 

18 4.11.3 Cumulative Impacts on Terrestrial Resources 

19 This section addresses past, present, and future actions that could result in adverse cumulative 

20 impacts to terrestrial resources, including wildlife populations, upland habitats, wetlands, 

21 riparian zones, invasive species, protected species, and land use. For purposes of this 

22 analysis, the geographic area considered in the evaluation includes the region of the CREC site 

23 and the in-scope transmission line ROWs (i.e., the Central Florida line terminating at the Central 

24 Florida Substation near Leesburg and the Lake Tarpon line terminating at the Lake Tarpon 

25 Substation near Tarpon Springs). 

26 Cumulative impacts to terrestrial resources in the region may result from the following: land 

27 disturbance (clearing, grading, and excavation); modification of habitats; alteration of drainage 

28 patterns; surface runoff and erosion; transport of chemicals; air emissions; surface water and 

29 groundwater withdrawals and changes in hydrologic regimes; draining of wetlands; 

30 fragmentation of habitats; spread of invasive species; disturbance of animals from noise and 

31 human presence; and vehicle-related mortality. Many of these impacts are directly related to 

32 the area of land that has been developed to accommodate various human activities and 

33 population. 

34 Much of Citrus County is still rural in nature, and a large percentage of the land area is 

35 undeveloped. The western quarter of the county along the coastline is primarily undeveloped 

36 tidal marsh. Agricultural land (mostly improved pasture), occupies about 20 percent of 

37 unincorporated areas. However, the county has experienced rapid population growth over the 

38 last two decades from an influx of retirees, a growing tourism industry, and expansion of the 

39 construction, wholesale and retail trade, and service sectors (Section 2.2.8.3). Residential and 

40 commercial developments as well as other land uses are located throughout the county, but 

41 mostly away from the coast. The greatest concentrations of residential development are located 

42 adjacent to the incorporated cities of Inverness and Crystal River, and the unincorporated areas 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-78 

1 of Homosassa Springs and Beverly Hills. Commercial development is concentrated along 

2 US-19, SR-44, US-41, and on CR- 491 near the urbanized areas of Crystal River, Inverness, 

3 Homosassa Springs, Beverly Hills, and Hernando. 

Conservation land in Citrus County occupied 105 mi2 4 in 2004, while the amount of inland water 

subject to conservation restrictions was 195 mi2 5 (Section 2.2.8.3). Conservation areas in Citrus 

6 County include Federally-managed lands (Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge, Crystal 

7 River National Wildlife Refuge, State lands (Crystal River Preserve State Park, Withlacoochee 

8 State Forest, Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway), and lands managed by the 

9 SFWMD (Flying Eagle Preserve, Pott’s Preserve, Chassahowitzka Riverine Swamp Sanctuary, 

10 Two-Mile Prairie, the McGregor-Smith Boy Scout Reservation, and the Annutteliga Hammock). 

11 CR-3 was built on an established power plant site that was occupied at the time of CR-3 

12 construction by two coal-fuel fired plants (CR-1 and CR-2) (AEC, 1973). Two additional 

13 coal-fired plants (CR-4 and CR-5) were built on the site after CR-3. Now, approximately 

14 1,062 ac (430 ha) of the 4,738-ac (1,917-ha) CREC site are developed and maintained for 

15 operation of CR-1, CR-2, CR-3, CR-4, and CR-5 (Section 2.2.6). The site is situated at the 

16 interface between coastal tidal marshes and the drier hardwood hammock and pine flatwood 

17 habitats. CREC facilities (including those associated with CR-3) were developed predominantly 

18 on hardwood hammock habitat, and much of the area adjacent to the CREC site is undeveloped 

19 wetland habitat and extensive areas of pine plantations. About 900 ac (360 ha) of quarry lakes 

20 also occur in the vicinity. 

21 CR-3-associated transmission lines originally were built within an existing transmission line 

22 corridor already partly occupied by existing lines from the site (AEC, 1973). At the time of their 

23 construction, the corridors ran through a variety of habitat types including forest, farmland, 

24 commercial, rural residential, and uninhabited areas. Although impacts were not documented, 

25 development of these corridors would have contributed to the fragmentation of existing 

26 contiguous habitats and would have resulted in subsequent changes to the wildlife and plant 

27 species in the vicinity of the corridors. Maintenance of ROWs has likely had past impacts and is 

28 expected to result in present and future impacts on terrestrial habitats. These impacts may 

29 include bio-uptake of potentially harmful chemicals, prevention of the natural successional 

30 stages of the surrounding vegetative community because of ROW maintenance, an increase in 

31 the abundance of edge species, a decrease in the abundance of interior forest species, and an 

32 increase in some invasive species populations. 

33 The applicant does not manage invasive species on its land holdings; therefore, a potential 

34 exists for these species to be inadvertently introduced on or in the vicinity of the CREC site or its 

35 associated transmission line ROWs. Introduction of these species could contribute to the 

36 establishment of invasive species populations, which could compete with native species and 

37 degrade areas of terrestrial habitat. As noted by the FDEP, Florida is particularly prone to 

38 invasions of invasive nonnative plant and animal species because of the existing widespread 

39 destruction and disturbance of native habitats, Florida’s tropical climate, and extensive 

40 waterways (FDEP, 1994). 

41 As stated previously, the CREC supports four coal-fired power plants (CR-1, CR-2, CR-4, and 

42 CR-5). Coal-fired plants are a major source of air pollution in the United States, as they release 

43 sulfur dioxide, NOx, mercury, carbon dioxide, and particulates. NOx and sulfur dioxides can 

44 combine with water to form acid rain, which can lead to erosion and changes in soil pH levels. 

45 Mercury can deposit on soils and surface water, which may then be taken up by both terrestrial 

46 and aquatic plant and animal species, and poses the risk of bioaccumulation. For these 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-79 

1 reasons, and their close proximity to CR-3, the coal-fired units on the CREC site are likely to 

2 contribute to cumulative impacts on terrestrial resources in the vicinity of the CREC site and 

3 surrounding area. 

4 The applicant has proposed construction and operation of LNP, and the draft EIS for the 

5 combined license (COL) was issued in August 2010 (NRC, 2010b). Preconstruction and 

6 construction impacts on the LNP site would result in the permanent and temporary loss of about 

7 777 ac (314 ha) of habitat, including approximately 403 ac (163 ha) of wetland losses. About 

8 2,037 ac (824 ha) of additional habitat would be disturbed to build the associated transmission 

9 lines and other offsite facilities, including about 370 ac (150 ha) of additional wetlands. The 

10 applicant has committed to mitigating for the loss or impairment of functions in all wetlands 

11 affected by the LNP project. In the LNP COL EIS, the Staff concluded that the impact from LNP 

12 preconstruction and construction activities would result in MODERATE impacts on terrestrial 

13 resources. 

14 Potential operational impacts from the proposed LNP project would include salt drift from vapor 

15 plumes, groundwater withdrawal, bird collisions with tall structures, increased noise and traffic, 

16 nighttime lights, and transmission line operation. These impacts would be similar to, and 

17 additive with, the continued operation of CR-3 and other CREC facilities. In the LNP COL EIS, 

18 the Staff concluded that the impact from LNP operations would result in SMALL to MODERATE 

19 impacts on terrestrial resources. 

20 The LNP review team concluded that the combined incremental contribution to cumulative 

21 impacts of LNP construction and operations would be MODERATE. The geographic region of 

22 interest for the LNP review and the CR-3 review are essentially the same. 

23 Other future actions within the geographic area of interest that would contribute to cumulative 

24 impacts on terrestrial resources would include the proposed Tarmac King Road Limestone 

25 Mine, the Inglis Lock bypass channel spillway hydropower project, the proposed expansion of 

26 the FGT pipeline, and the proposed US-18 bridge upgrade. Other future actions or conditions 

27 that would contribute to cumulative impacts on terrestrial resources would include building 

28 and/or upgrading of transmission lines and other utilities; other new road development and 

29 expansion; continued industrial and urban development throughout the geographic area of 

30 interest; increased outdoor recreation; nonpoint source runoff from activities such as agriculture, 

31 forestry, and ranching; and global climate change. 

32 There are a number of protected species that are known to occur on or in the vicinity of the 

33 CREC site or CR-3-associated transmission lines (Section 2.2.7), and these species may be 

34 affected by other existing projects in the area as well as by future projects. These species’ 

35 protected status reflect their rarity, and in many cases, their rarity results from the cumulative 

36 effect of past and present actions. Operation of the CR-3 site and its associated transmission 

37 lines is not expected to adversely affect any of these threatened or endangered species during 

38 the license renewal term (Section 4.7). 

39 Climate change could contribute to cumulative impacts to terrestrial resources on and around 

40 the CREC site. Average temperatures in the southeast are projected to continue to warm 

41 through the end of this century, especially during the summer (GCRP, 2009). Rainfall in winter 

42 and spring is projected to decrease along the Gulf coast and, together with increased 

43 temperatures, is expected to lead to an increase in the frequency, duration, and intensity of 

44 droughts that could lead to the drying of lakes, ponds, and wetlands and the loss of riparian 

45 species (GCRP, 2009). Sea level rise could result in the rapid loss of coastal marsh and 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-80 

1 saltwater intrusion into coastal forests (GCRP, 2009), thus eliminating breeding and foraging 

2 habitat for wildlife. Global climate change could also cause shifts in species ranges and 

3 migratory corridors as well as changes in ecological processes (NRC, 2010b). 

4 On the basis of the information and evaluations in Sections 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8.3, 4.6, and 4.7, 

5 the Staff concludes that the incremental contribution of CR-3 license renewal to cumulative 

6 impacts on terrestrial resources would be SMALL. The Staff believes that the cumulative 

7 impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on terrestrial 

8 resources during the CR-3 license renewal term would be MODERATE. This finding is 

9 consistent with the findings of the LNP COL environmental review team. The LNP COL review 

10 team’s determination was based on the extent of expected wetland losses and habitat 

11 fragmentation from ongoing and planned development projects, continued widespread 

12 manipulation of habitats for commercial forest management, and anticipated losses of habitat 

13 for important species. As the geographic region of interest for the LNP review and the CR-3 

14 review are essentially the same, these same conclusions would apply to cumulative impacts in 

15 the CR-3 geographic region. 

16 4.11.4 Cumulative Human Health Impacts 

17 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of license renewal on human health when 

18 added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

19 actions. For the purpose of this analysis, the geographic area considered is the area included 

20 within a 50-mi (80-km) radius of the CR-3 site. 

21 The NRC and EPA established radiological dose limits for the protection of the public and 

22 workers from both acute and long-term exposure to radiation and radioactive materials. As 

23 discussed in Section 4.8.1, the doses resulting from the operation of CR-3 are below regulatory 

24 limits and the impacts of these exposures would be SMALL. 

25 EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 190 limit the annual cumulative radiation dose to members of 

26 the public from all sources in the nuclear fuel cycle, including nuclear power plants, fuel 

27 fabrication facilities, waste disposal facilities, and transportation of fuel and waste to 25 mrem 

28 (0.25 mSv). The Staff’s review of radioactive releases from CR-3 shows that the annual 

29 radiation dose to the public has been less than 1 mrem (0.01 mSv). This dose is within the 

30 NRC’s and EPA’s radiation protection standards. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.8.1, the 

31 applicant conducts a REMP around its site. The program measures radiation and radioactive 

32 materials in the environment from CR-3 and all other sources. As discussed in Section 4.8.1, 

33 the Staff reviewed the historical radiological environmental monitoring results for CR-3 and 

34 found no significant environmental impact associated with the operation of the plant. There are 

35 currently no other uranium fuel cycle facilities within a 50-mi (80-km) radius of CR-3 that can 

36 contribute to the cumulative radiological impacts. However, the NRC is reviewing an application 

37 for the construction and operation of two nuclear power reactors at a site in Levy County, 

38 Florida. The proposed nuclear facility is approximately 8 mi (12.9 km) northeast of CR-3. Also, 

39 CR-3 is constructing an ISFSI on the plant site. In addition to these new facilities, the applicant 

40 is planning to increase the power level of CR-3 by approximately 15 percent. These new 

41 facilities and the EPU would contribute to the cumulative radiological impacts in the vicinity of 

42 the CR-3 site. However, as discussed above, the cumulative radiological impacts from all 

43 uranium fuel cycle facilities in proximity to each other are limited to the radiation protection 

44 standards in 10 CFR Part 20 and 40 CFR Part 190. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-81 

1 Based on the Staff’s review of CR-3’s radioactive effluent and environmental monitoring data 

2 and the expected continued compliance with Federal radiation protection standards, the 

3 cumulative radiological impacts from the operation of CR-3, including its planned EPU and its 

4 ISFSI, during the renewal term would be SMALL. The NRC and the State of Florida would 

5 regulate any future development or actions, such as the construction and operation of the 

6 proposed LNP, in the vicinity of the CR-3 site that could contribute to cumulative radiological 

7 impacts. Therefore, the Staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts to human 

8 health from the continued operation of CR-3, including the additional nuclear facilities discussed 

9 above, during the license renewal term would be SMALL. 

10 The Staff determined that the electric-field-induced currents from the CR-3 transmission lines 

11 are below the NESC criteria for preventing acute electric shock from induced currents. 

12 Therefore, the CR-3 transmission lines do not appreciably affect the overall potential for acute 

13 electric shock from induced currents within the analyzed geographic area. With respect to 

14 chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, the Staff considers the GEIS finding of “not applicable” 

15 to be appropriate for CR-3. Therefore, the Staff concludes that the cumulative impacts of the 

16 continued operation of CR-3 and its transmission lines would be SMALL. 

17 4.11.5 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts 

18 This section addresses socioeconomic factors that have the potential to be directly or indirectly 

19 affected by changes in operations at CR-3 in addition to the aggregate effects of other past, 

20 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The primary geographic area of interest 

21 considered in this cumulative analysis is Citrus County where approximately 83 percent of CR-3 

22 employees reside. This area is where the economy, tax base, and infrastructure would most 

23 likely be affected since CR-3 workers and their families reside, spend their income, and use 

24 their benefits within this county. 

25 As discussed in Section 4.9 of this SEIS, the continued operation of CR-3 during the license 

26 renewal term would have no impact on socioeconomic conditions in the region beyond those 

27 already being experienced. Since the applicant has no plans to hire additional non-outage 

28 workers during the license renewal term, overall expenditures and employment levels at CR-3 

29 would remain relatively constant, with no additional demand for permanent housing, public 

30 utilities, and public services. In addition, since employment levels and tax payments would not 

31 change, there would be no population and tax-revenue-related land use impacts. Based on this 

32 and other information presented in Chapter 4 of this SEIS, there would be no additional 

33 contributory effect on socioeconomic conditions in the future from the continued operation of 

34 CR-3 during the license renewal term beyond what is already being experienced. 

35 Extended Power Uprate

36 The applicant has notified the NRC that it intends to increase the licensed core thermal power 

37 level of CR-3 from 2,609 MWt to 3,014 MWt (Progress Energy, 2009m). EPU-related plant 

38 modifications would occur during two refueling outages. Potential socioeconomic impacts from 

39 the EPU include temporary increases in the size of the workforce at CR-3 and associated 

40 increased demand for public services, housing, and increased traffic in the region. The EPU 

41 could also increase tax payments due to increased power generation and assessed value. 

42 Approximately 740 additional workers would be on site in addition to 540 refueling outage 

43 workers during the first of two outages needed to implement the EPU. Approximately 

44 850 workers would return to complete plant modifications for the EPU during the fall 2011 

45 refueling outage. The volume of construction and worker vehicles on roads and the demand for 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-82 

1 rental housing and other commercial and public services would increase beyond what is 

2 normally experienced during refueling outages. Due to the short duration of EPU-related plant 

3 modification activities, there would be little or no noticeable long-term effect on sales and 

4 income tax revenues generated by temporary workers residing in Citrus County. Therefore, 

5 there would be no significant adverse socioeconomic impacts from EPU-related plant 

6 modifications and operations under EPU conditions in the vicinity of CR-3. The contributory 

7 cumulative effect on socioeconomic conditions of this action could be SMALL to MODERATE in 

8 the immediate vicinity of CR-3 during the two outages. 

9 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation

10 The applicant has announced plans to begin building an ISFSI for storage of spent fuel in early 

11 2010. Potential socioeconomic impacts from the ISFSI include temporary increases in the size 

12 of the workforce at CR-3 and associated increased demand for public services, housing, and 

13 increased traffic in the region. The ISFSI could also increase tax payments due to increased 

14 power generation and assessed value. 

15 The maximum number of ISFSI workers on site is expected to be around 60, during the summer 

16 of 2011. Approximately 35 workers would be from the Crystal River area. The rest would come 

17 from outside of the area. The project is expected to be completed by June 2012 (Progress 

18 Energy, 2009m). The volume of construction and worker vehicles on roads and the demand for 

19 rental housing and other commercial and public services would increase during the construction 

20 of the ISFSI. The contributory cumulative effect on socioeconomic conditions of this action 

21 could be SMALL in the immediate vicinity of CR-3. 

22 Levy Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2

23 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. submitted a combined operating license application (COLA) to the 

24 NRC for two new nuclear units at a site in southern Levy County, Florida, on July 30, 2008. The 

25 5,200-ac site is approximately 8 mi (12.9 km) northeast of CR-3. Current plans call for two 

26 1,100-MW units of the Westinghouse AP-1000 type pressurized water reactors. The facility 

27 would employ closed-cycle cooling with makeup water from the Cross Florida Barge Canal (now 

28 the canal within the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway) and blowdown piped to the 

29 Crystal River discharge canal (Progress Energy, 2009m). 

30 The contributory cumulative effect on socioeconomic conditions from the construction of these 

31 units could be MODERATE to LARGE in the immediate vicinity of the proposed LNP site. 

32 These impacts would be caused by the short-term increased demand for rental housing and 

33 other commercial and public services by construction workers during the years of plant 

34 construction. During peak construction periods, there would be a noticeable increase in the 

35 volume of construction vehicles on roads in the immediate vicinity of the LNP site. The 

36 cumulative long-term operations impacts of this action during the operation of the proposed new 

37 power plant would be SMALL to MODERATE. These impacts would be caused by the 

38 increased demand for permanent housing and other commercial and public services, such as 

39 schools, police and fire, and public water and electric services by operations workers during 

40 plant operations. During shift changes, there would be a noticeable increase in the number of 

41 commuter vehicles on roads in the immediate vicinity of the proposed LNP site. 

42 LNP site preparation is scheduled to begin in 2012 or 2013, and would take approximately 

43 18 months. Construction activity would last approximately 3 to 4 years, with a 1 year stagger 

44 between units. LNP 1 would be completed in 2018 or 2019 and LNP 2 in 2019 or 2020. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-83 

1 Table 4.11.5-1 shows the estimated workforce over the first 8 years of operation, with the peak 

2 workforce projected to be 3,300 workers in 2016 (NRC, 2010b). 

3 Table 4.11.5-1. Projected Workforce at Levy Nuclear Plant during the First 8 Years of 

4 Operation 

Year Number of Workers 

2012 750 

2013 100 

2014 1,950 

2015 3,100 

2016 3,300 

2017 2,900 

2018 1,250 

2019 100 

Source: NRC, 2010b 

5 Historic and Archaeological Resources

6 It does not appear likely that the proposed license renewal would adversely affect cultural 

7 resources at CR-3. Any ground-disturbing activities that might be conducted during the license 

8 renewal term are unlikely to result in the loss of historic and archaeological resources, given 

9 existing earthmoving procedures to protect presently undiscovered resources and the presence 

10 of known historic and archaeological resources in coastal areas that are not likely to be 

11 disturbed. Prior to any ground-disturbing activity in an undisturbed area, it is expected that the 

12 applicant would evaluate the potential for impacts on historic and archaeological resources 

13 according to their procedures (EVC-SUBS-00105) and in consultation with the SHPO and 

14 appropriate Native American Tribes, as required under Section 106 of the NHPA. In the vicinity 

15 of CR-3 and its transmission lines, some projects have the potential to affect historic and 

16 archaeological resources, such as new or expanded road systems or pipeline construction; 

17 however, linear projects have some flexibility in the siting process and can typically avoid 

18 significant cultural resources, minimizing the potential for impact. 

19 The NRC has also evaluated the impacts of the reasonably foreseeable construction and 

20 operation of two nuclear reactors at the LNP site and an EPU at CR-3 and has concluded that 

21 impacts from those projects on historic and archaeological resources would be SMALL 

22 (NRC, 2010b). Therefore, the Staff concludes that when combined with these past, present, 

23 and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the incremental contribution to a cumulative impact 

24 on historic and archaeological resources by continued operation of CR-3 during the license 

25 renewal period would be SMALL and would not result in the loss of historic and cultural 

26 resources. 

27 Environmental Justice

28 The environmental justice cumulative impact analysis assesses the potential for 

29 disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and 

30 low-income populations that could result from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

31 actions, including CR-3 operations during the renewal term. Adverse health effects are 

32 measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. 

33 Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur when the risk or rate of 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-84 

1 exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income population is significant and 

2 exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for another appropriate 

3 comparison group. Disproportionately high environmental effects refer to impacts or the risk of 

4 impact on the natural or physical environment in a minority or low-income community that are 

5 significant and appreciably exceed the environmental impact on the larger community. Such 

6 effects may include biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts. Some of these potential 

7 effects have been identified in resource areas presented in Chapter 4 of this SEIS. Minority and 

8 low-income populations are subsets of the general public residing in the area and all would be 

9 exposed to the same hazards generated from CR-3 operations. As previously discussed in this 

10 chapter, the impact from license renewal for most resource areas (e.g., land, air, water, and 

11 human health) would be SMALL. 

12 As discussed in Section 4.9.7 of this SEIS, there would be no disproportionately high and 

13 adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations from the continued operation of CR-3 

14 during the license renewal term. Since the applicant has no plans to hire additional non-outage 

15 workers during the license renewal term, employment levels at CR-3 would remain relatively 

16 constant with no additional demand for housing or increased traffic. Based on this information 

17 and the analysis of human health and environmental impacts presented in Chapters 4 and 5, it 

18 is not likely there would be any disproportionately high and adverse contributory effect on 

19 minority and low-income populations from the continued operation of CR-3 during the license 

20 renewal term. 

21 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the CR-3 EPU and ISFSI and 

22 LNP Units 1 and 2 would mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., 

23 noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Radiation doses from plant operations 

24 after the EPU are expected to continue at current levels and, along with the ISFSI at CR-3, be 

25 well below regulatory limits. 

26 Noise and dust impacts would be short-term and limited to onsite activities at CR-3 and LNP. 

27 Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads could experience 

28 increased commuter vehicle traffic during shift changes. Increased demand for rental housing 

29 during the refueling outages that would include EPU-related plant modifications and ISFSI at 

30 CR-3 and LNP site could disproportionately affect low-income populations. However, due to the 

31 short duration of the EPU- and ISFSI-related work and the availability of rental housing, impacts 

32 to minority and low-income populations would be short-term and limited. According to American 

33 Community Survey 2009 estimates, there were approximately 16,600 vacant housing units in 

34 Citrus County. 

35 Based on this information and the analysis of human health and environmental impacts 

36 presented in this SEIS, the EPU and ISFSI at CR-3 would not have disproportionately high and 

37 adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations 

38 residing in the vicinity of CR-3. The contributory cumulative effect on minority and low-income 

39 populations from the construction and operation of LNP Units 1 and 2 would be SMALL in the 

40 immediate vicinity of the proposed LNP site (NRC, 2010b). 

41 4.11.6 Cumulative Impacts on Air Quality 

42 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of license renewal on air quality resources 

43 when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

44 actions within the region of interest. The geographic region of interest for cumulative air impact 

45 assessment is the West Central Florida Intrastate Air Quality Control Region, which includes 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-85 

1 Citrus County and surrounding counties (see 40 CFR 81.96 for the geographic area 

2 encompassed by the West Central Florida Intrastate Air Quality Control Region). As discussed 

3 in Section 2.2.1, air quality throughout the entire State of Florida is currently in conformance 

4 with primary (i.e., health-based) NAAQS. In Section 4.2, the Staff determined that impact to 

5 ambient air quality from the continued operation of CR-3 under the auspices of a renewed 

6 operating license would be SMALL. Table 4.11-1 lists those past, current, and reasonably 

7 anticipated future activities that were assessed by the Staff in determining the potential 

8 cumulative impacts to ambient air quality within the region of interest. 

9 The Staff recently completed and published a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) in 

10 support of the Commission’s licensing decision for the LNP in nearby Levy County (NRC, 

11 2010b). As part of the alternatives analysis for that proposed new reactor (Chapter 9 of the 

12 draft EIS), the Staff analyzed the impacts of two new AP1000 nuclear units at the CREC site 

13 and conducted a cumulative air quality impact analysis for that alternative. The Staff has 

14 determined that the cumulative air quality impact analysis for the LNP alternative is applicable to 

15 the cumulative air quality impact analysis supporting the CR-3 license renewal decision with 

16 only minor modifications. The results of the analysis presented for the alternative location at the 

17 Crystal River site are summarized below, with appropriate adjustments to ensure its applicability 

18 to the CR-3 license renewal decision being addressed in this SEIS. 

19 Among the projects identified in Table 4.11-1, operation of the coal-fired power plants and 

20 associated activities at the CREC represent the most significant sources of criteria pollutants 

21 and fugitive dust. See Section 4.2 for a more detailed discussion. By comparison, the other 

22 facilities listed in Table 4.11-1 represent only minor and, in some instances, temporary impacts 

23 to ambient air quality. The Staff believes that it is reasonable to assume that: (1) the Title V 

24 permit issued for the CREC which applies to the operation of all stationary sources at the CREC 

25 contains appropriate limits to pollutant emissions from all CREC stationary sources and requires 

26 the application of best management practices designed to minimize releases of air pollutants, 

27 and (2) the applicant will continue to operate the CREC in a manner consistent with those 

28 permit limitations. An overall reduction in cumulative air quality impact can be anticipated with 

29 the shutdown of CR-1 and CR-2 once LNP becomes operational. Other projects and activities 

30 listed in Table 4.11-1 are expected to be conducted in conformance with best management 

31 practices as they are defined for those activities and in compliance with the terms of operating 

32 permits that have been or are expected to be issued for some of the stationary sources of air 

33 pollution associated with those other projects or activities. No new project has been identified in 

34 the region of interest that is likely to have the potential to degrade ambient air quality to a 

35 significant degree during its construction and operation. 

36 Construction and operation of LNP would be a source of criteria pollutant and fugitive dust 

37 releases during construction (including construction of a 13-mi [21-km] pipeline that will deliver 

38 cooling tower blowdown water to the CREC throughout the LNP operating period). LNP would 

39 be a minor source of criteria pollutants once operational. The EPU of CR-3 would be a minor 

40 and temporary source of criteria pollutants and fugitive dust during EPU activities. The Inglis 

41 Lock bypass channel spillway hydropower plant would be a minor source of criteria pollutants 

42 and fugitive dust during construction of the hydroelectric plant and associated transmission 

43 lines. The FGT Phase VIII Expansion Project would be a minor source of criteria pollutants and 

44 fugitive dust during pipeline and compressor station construction and a minor source of criteria 

45 pollutants during operation. The Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine, once operational, would 

46 be a possible source of criteria pollutants and fugitive dust. The nearby operational mines 

47 (Holcim Mine, Inglis Quarry, Crystal River Quarries – Red Level, Crystal River Quarries – 

48 Lecanto, and Gulf Hammock Quarry) are sources of criteria pollutants and fugitive dust. The 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-86 

1 Cross Florida Barge Canal/Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway is a possible source of 

2 criteria pollutants from barge activities. Controlled burns undertaken as part of forest 

3 management programs in nearby parks, forests, and preserves would result in temporary and 

4 localized increases in ambient particulate concentrations. No schedule for such burns is 

5 available. Criteria pollutants and fugitive dust releases will result from commercial forest 

6 management. The two nearby concrete plants release criteria pollutants and fugitive dust 

7 during operation. Construction of new housing units, commercial buildings, roads, bridges, and 

8 other development will result in the release of criteria pollutants and fugitive dust. Also, 

9 increased traffic volumes will result in criteria pollutants. 

10 In April 2009, the EPA published the official U.S. inventory of the greenhouse gas (GHG) 

11 emissions that identifies and quantifies the primary anthropogenic sources and sinks of GHGs. 

12 The EPA GHG inventory is an essential tool for addressing climate change and participating 

13 with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to compare the relative 

14 global contribution of different emission sources and GHGs to climate change. The EPA 

15 estimates that energy-related activities in the United States account for three-quarters of 

16 human-generated GHG emissions, mostly in the form of carbon dioxide emissions from burning 

17 fossil fuels. More than half of the energy-related emissions come from major stationary sources 

18 like power plants, and approximately one-third comes from transportation. Industrial processes 

19 (production of cement, steel, and aluminum), agriculture, forestry, other land use, and waste 

20 management are also important sources of GHG emissions in the United States (EPA, 2009). 

21 Section 6.2 presents an evaluation of the GHG emissions of the nuclear fuel cycle and provides 

22 comparisons to GHG emissions of similarly sized coal- and natural gas-fired power plants. The 

23 impacts of GHG emissions are not sensitive to the location of the source. Consequently, those 

24 same GHG “footprints” would result from the operation of those power plants regardless of their 

25 locations. In a report issued by the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program (GCRP), it 

26 was determined that as much as 87 percent of GHG emissions are the result of generating 

27 electricity and heat using carbonaceous fuels (GCRP, 2009). The GCRP also makes the 

28 following observations for the southeast portion of the United States (including the CREC): 

29 since 1970, annual average temperature has risen about 2 °F (1.1 °C); since 1901, average 

30 autumn precipitation for the region has increased by 30 percent while precipitation in South 

31 Florida has declined; while precipitation in South Florida is projected to continue to decline over 

32 this century, rainfall from Atlantic hurricanes is projected to increase; sea level rise and the likely 

33 increase in hurricane intensity represent the most serious consequences projected, leading to 

34 more frequent and more extensive coastal inundation and shoreline retreats, especially along 

35 the central Gulf coast as the rate of sea level rise accelerates; the salinity of estuaries will 

increase, affecting coastal ecosystems11 36 ; the overall risk of major hurricanes will be exacerbated 

37 by climate-induced changes. 

38 The Staff concludes that continued operation of the listed sources would have a noticeable 

39 effect on air quality, primarily as a result of the operation of the coal-burning units at the CREC. 

40 The Staff further concludes that continued operation of existing sources, the establishment of 

41 the new sources identified in Table 4.11-1 and additional anticipated area urban and industrial 

42 development would not result in the degradation of ambient air quality to the extent that the 

43 region would be determined to be in nonattainment for any NAAQS. Such a level of 

 

11 More specifically for the CREC, an increase in salinity of estuaries will alter the specific heat capacity of 

the seawater now being used for steam cycle cooling at the CREC, resulting in a decrease in the 

performance of the existing cooling systems. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-87 

1 degradation of air quality is even more unlikely after CR-1 and CR-2 shut down in 2020. Restart 

2 of CR-3 after the EPU, startup of the LNP reactors, and startup of the hydroelectric plant at 

3 Inglis Lock may allow for reduced reliance on the coal-fired power plants at the CREC for 

4 baseload power, further reducing the likelihood of degradation of regional ambient air quality. 

5 4.11.7 Summary of Cumulative Impacts 

6 The Staff considered the potential impacts resulting from the operation of CR-3 during the 

7 period of extended operation and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

8 near CR-3. The preliminary determination is that the potential cumulative impacts would range 

9 from SMALL to LARGE, depending on the resource. Table 4.11.7-1 summarizes the cumulative 

10 impacts on resources areas. 

11 Table 4.11.7-1. Summary of Cumulative Impacts on Resources Areas 

Resource Area Cumulative Impact 

Water Resources The Staff concludes that cumulative impacts due to groundwater usage by CR-3 in 

combination with the projected increase in groundwater usage for Citrus County (including 

the increased usage authorized by the State of Florida for the Units 4 and 5 Clean Air 

Project) would be SMALL to MODERATE, depending on the findings of monitoring and 

testing currently in progress. Although surface water discharges from the CREC are 

monitored in accordance with the State of Florida’s NPDES permit, the Staff concludes that 

cumulative impacts to water quality (temperature and salinity) in Crystal Bay would be 

MODERATE because of other factors such as nonpoint sources of pollution and the 

projected increase in ocean water temperatures over the next 20 years. Cumulative 

impacts to surface water use and groundwater quality would be SMALL. 

Aquatic Ecology Based on the Staff’s review, multiple stressors affect the aquatic resources of Crystal Bay. 

Management actions may address the impacts of some of the stressors (e.g., cooling 

system operations, fishing pressure, and water quality). Although the impacts associated 

with cumulative impacts cannot be quantified, cumulative impacts on aquatic resources 

have stressed, and will continue to stress, aquatic resources, including Federally-threatened 

and endangered species. Under some unlikely scenarios, (e.g., a major oil spill followed by 

a hurricane), destabilizing effects could occur, although evidence of this is not available at 

this time. The Staff finds the level of cumulative impact to be MODERATE for the purposes 

of this SEIS. 

Terrestrial Ecology Construction of LNP would result in MODERATE impacts to terrestrial ecology 

(NRC, 2010b). The NRC determined that cumulative impacts would be MODERATE, 

although the incremental contribution from the proposed license renewal would be SMALL 

and would not adversely affect terrestrial resources. 

Human Health Based on the Staff’s review of CR-3’s radioactive effluent and environmental monitoring 

data and the expected continued compliance with Federal radiation protection standards, 

the cumulative radiological impacts from the operation of CR-3, including its planned EPU 

and its ISFSI, during the renewal term would be SMALL. The NRC and the State of Florida 

would regulate any future development or actions, such as the construction and operation of 

the proposed LNP, in the vicinity of the CR-3 site that could contribute to cumulative 

radiological impacts. Therefore, the Staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts 

to human health from the continued operation of CR-3, including the additional nuclear 

facilities discussed above, during the license renewal term would be SMALL. The Staff 

determined that the potential for acute electric shock from the CR-3 transmission lines 

would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-88 

Resource Area Cumulative Impact 

Socioeconomics The contributory cumulative effect on socioeconomic conditions of the EPU at CR-3 could 

be SMALL to MODERATE in the immediate vicinity of CR-3 during the two outages. The 

contributory cumulative effect on socioeconomic conditions of the ISFSI could be SMALL in 

the immediate vicinity of CR-3. The contributory cumulative effect on socioeconomic 

conditions from the construction of LNP could be MODERATE to LARGE in the immediate 

vicinity of the proposed LNP site and SMALL to MODERATE during operations (NRC, 

2010b). 

Environmental 

Justice 

Based on the analysis of human health and environmental impacts presented in this SEIS, 

the EPU and ISFSI at CR-3 would not have disproportionately high and adverse human 

health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations residing in the 

vicinity of CR-3. The contributory cumulative effect on minority and low-income populations 

from the construction and operation of LNP Units 1 and 2 would be SMALL in the immediate 

vicinity of the proposed LNP site (NRC, 2010b). 

Cultural Resources The NRC evaluated the impacts of the reasonably foreseeable construction and operation of 

two nuclear reactors at the LNP site and an EPU at CR-3 and has concluded that impacts 

from those projects on historic and archaeological resources would be SMALL (NRC, 

2010b). Therefore, the NRC concludes that when combined with these past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, the incremental contribution to a cumulative impact 

on historic and archaeological resources by continued operation of CR-3 during the license 

renewal period would be SMALL and would not result in the loss of historic and cultural 

resources. 

Air Quality Cumulative impacts on air quality resources were estimated based on the information 

provided by FPC and the independent evaluation of the NRC review team. Other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the region of interest have been 

identified and incorporated into the NRC review team’s assessment. The NRC concludes 

that the cumulative impact to ambient air quality from the continued operation of CR-3 and 

other sources of criteria pollutants in the region of interest would be MODERATE. The NRC 

review team also concludes that the cumulative impact to GHG emissions from the 

continued operation of CR-3 and the other identified sources of GHG emissions in the 

region of interest would also be SMALL. 

1 4.12 REFERENCES 

2 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

3 Protection Against Radiation.” 

4 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

5 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

6 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

7 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

8 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for 

9 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

10 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

11 Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” 

12 40 CFR Part 125. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 125 

13 “Criteria and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.” 

14 40 CFR Part 81.96. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, 

15 Subpart b, Designations of Air Quality Regions, “Designations for Areas for Air Quality Planning 

16 Purposes, West Central Florida Intrastate Air Quality Control Region.” 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-89 

1 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 

2 “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.” 

3 59 FR 7629. Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

4 Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 32, 

5 February 16, 1994, pp. 7629–7634. 

6 66 FR 65256. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

7 System: Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities,” Federal 

8 Register, Vol. 66, No. 243, December 18, 2001, pp. 65256–65345. 

9 69 FR 52040. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Policy Statement on the Treatment of 

10 Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions,” Federal Register, 

11 Vol. 69, No. 163, August 24, 2004, pp. 52040–52048. 

12 75 FR 10230. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “Inglis Hydropower, LLC; Notice of 

13 Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions to Intervene and Protests,” Federal 

14 Register, Vol. 75, No. 43, March 5, 2010, pp. 10230–10231. 

15 33 U.S.C. § 1326. United States Code. Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Chapter 26, 

16 Water Pollution Prevention and Control, Section 1326, “Thermal Discharges.” 

17 ACHP (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation). 2008. “National Register Evaluation 

18 Criteria.” Available URL: http://www.achp.gov/nrcriteria.html (accessed April 13, 2010). 

19 AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). 1973. “Final Environmental Statement Related to the 

20 Proposed Crystal River Unit 3, Florida Power Corporation, Docket No. 50-302,” U.S. Atomic 

21 Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing, Washington, D.C., May 1973, ADAMS Accession 

22 No. ML091520178. 

23 Ager, D.D., S. Rkman-Filipovic, and S. Mac. 2008. “Crystal River Power Plant Fish 

24 Impingement Study Report,” Kinectrics Report: 012974-001-RA-0001-R00, Kinectrics North 

25 America Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada, March 3, 2008. 

26 Alden, R.W., III. 1976. “Growth, Reproduction and Survival of Some Marine Copepods 

27 Subjected to Thermal and Mechanical Stress,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, 

28 Gainesville, Florida. 

29 Bester, C. 2009. “Biological Profiles: Gulf Sturgeon,” Florida Museum of Natural History, 

30 Gainesville, Florida. Available URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/

31 GulfSturgeon/GulfSturgeon.html (accessed May 30, 2009). 

32 CCBCC (Citrus County Board of County Commissioners). 2009. Citrus County Florida 

33 Comprehensive Plan, Citrus County Board of County Commissioners, Inverness, Florida. 

34 Available URL: http://www.bocc.citrus.fl.us/devservices/planning/comp_plan/comp_plan.htm

35 (accessed March 3, 2010). 

36 CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the 

37 National Environmental Policy Act, ADAMS Accession No. ML082520150. Available URL: 

38 http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf 

39 (accessed September 2, 2010). 

40 CH2M Hill. 2009. “Aquatic Ecology Sampling Report, Levy Nuclear Plant, Florida,” Technical 

41 Memo 338884-TMEM-087, Revision 1, January 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML091260539. 

42 Clay, C.H. 1995. Design of Fishways and Other Fish Facilities, 2nd Edition, CRC Press, Inc. 

43 Clean Water Act of 1977. § 33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-90 

1 DeStephen, R.A., and C.P. Benson. 1993. “Groundwater Withdrawal Impacts in a Karst Area,” 

2 Environmental Geology, Volume 22. 

3 Endangered Species Act of 1973. § 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq. 

4 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

5 System – Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at 

6 Phase II Existing Facilities: Final Rule,” Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 131, July 9, 2004, 

7 pp. 41575–41693. 

8 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007a. Memorandum from B. Grumbles, EPA, 

9 to Regional Administrators. Subject: “Implementation of the Decision in Riverkeeper, Inc. v. 

10 EPA, Remanding the Cooling Water Intake Structures Phase II Regulation,” March 20, 2007, 

11 ADAMS Accession No. ML071020505. 

12 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007b. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

13 System – Suspension of Regulations Establishing Requirements for Cooling Water Intake 

14 Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities,” Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 130, July 9, 2007, 

15 pp. 37109–37111. 

16 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. “2009 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory 

17 Report. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2009.” Available URL: 

18 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html (accessed April 7, 2011). 

19 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

20 Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007,” EPA 430-R-09-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

21 Washington, D.C., April 15, 2010. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

22 emissions/usgginventory.html (accessed March 22, 2011). 

23 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. “State and Local Climate Energy 

24 Program,” Energy CO2 Emissions by State, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

25 D.C. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/state/activities/ghg-inventory.html

26 (accessed March 22, 2011). 

27 EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2003. “Enhancement Strategies for Mitigating 

28 Potential Operational Impacts of Cooling Water Intake Structures: Approaches for Enhancing 

29 Environmental Resources,” Technical Report 1007454, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo 

30 Alto, California, June 2003. 

31 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 1994. “An Assessment of Invasive 

32 Non-Indigenous Species in Florida’s Public Lands,” Florida Department of Environmental 

33 Protection, Division of Environmental Resource Permitting and Bureau of Aquatic Plant 

34 Management, Technical Report No. TSS-94-100, Tallahassee, Florida. 

35 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2002. Letter from M. Drew, Director, 

36 to K. Hedrick, Florida Power. Subject: “Approval of Florida Power Crystal River Plant Manatee 

37 Protection Plan,” May 15, 2002. 

38 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2005a. State of Florida Industrial 

39 Wastewater Facility Permit, Permit Number FL0000159, issued May 9, 2005. ADAMS 

40 Accession No. ML093170487. 

41 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2005b. State of Florida Industrial 

42 Wastewater Facility Permit, Permit Number FL0036366, issued August 15, 2005. 

43 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2006a. Title V Air Operation Permit 

44 Issued to Florida Power Corporation d.b.a., Progress Energy Florida, Inc., Revision, Crystal 

45 River Plant, Facility ID No. 0170004, Citrus County, Florida, Final Permit Number 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-91 

1 0170004-015-AV, Effective Date May 29, 2006, Revision Effective Date February 14, 2007, 

2 Renewal Application Due Date July 5, 2009, Tallahassee, Florida. 

3 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2006b. Notice of Final Permit, ARMS 

4 Permit No. 0170004-010-AC, April 3, 2006. 

5 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2007a. Air Permit No. PSD-FL-383, 

6 Project No. 0170004-16-AC, May 18, 2007. 

7 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2007b. Final Order Modifying 

8 Conditions of Certification, DEP07-1409, November 29, 2007. 

9 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2007c. State of Florida Industrial 

10 Wastewater Facility Permit, Permit Number FLA016960, issued January 9, 2007. 

11 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2008a. Conditions of Certification – 

12 Progress Energy Florida, Crystal River Energy Complex Unit 3 Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 4 and 

13 Unit 5 Fossil Plant, PA77-09N, August 7, 2008. 

14 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2008b. State of Florida Industrial 

15 Wastewater Facility Permit, Permit Number FLA016960, revised August 26, 2008. 

16 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2009a. Title V Air Operation Permit 

17 Renewal Issued to Florida Power Corporation d.b.a., Progress Energy Florida, Inc., Crystal 

18 River Plant, Facility ID No. 0170007, Citrus County, Florida, Issued by T. Vielhauser, Chief, 

19 Burear of Air Regulation, Filing and Acknowledgement filed In accordance With Section 

20 120.52(7), Florida Statutes by B. Friday, Agency Clerk on December 28, 2009. 

21 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2009b. Air Pollution Construction 

22 Permit No. PSD-FL-392, Project No. 0170004-018-AC, October 12, 2007. 

23 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2010a. Conditions of Certification – 

24 Progress Energy Florida, Crystal River Energy Complex Unit 3 Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 4 and 

25 Unit 5 Fossil Plant, PA77-09N, January 15, 2010. 

26 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2010b. “Environmental Resource 

27 Permitting Program State Programmatic General Permit Attachment 14, Sea Turtle and 

28 Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions.” Available URL: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/

29 water/wetlands/forms/spgp/SPGP_IV_Attachment_14-Sawfish_SeaTurtlesConstCond.pdf

30 (accessed November 11, 2010). 

31 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2011. Conditions of Certification, 

32 Progress Energy Florida, Levy Nuclear Power Plant, PA08-51C, January 25, 2011, Tallahassee, 

33 Florida. Available URL: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/files/certification/pa08_51_2010_C.pdf

34 (accessed March 17, 2011). 

35 FDOS (Florida Department of State). 2010a. “A Brief History of Florida.” Available URL: 

36 http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/facts/history/summary/ (accessed March 9, 2010). 

37 FDOS (Florida Department of State). 2010b. “The Seminole Wars.” Available URL: 

38 http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/facts/history/seminole/wars.cfm (accessed March 9, 2010). 

39 FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation). 2011. “US 19 from West Cornflower Dr. to West 

40 Foss Grove Path.” Available URL: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/publicinformationoffice/construc/

41 district7pio/citrus.shtm (accessed March 17, 2011). 

42 FERC (Federal Regulatory Commission). 2009. “Final Environmental Impact Statement FGT 

43 Phase VIII Expansion Project under CP09-17,” ADAMS Accession No. ML101830254. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-92 

1 Florida Department of Health. 2009. “Your Guide to Eating Fish Caught in Florida,” Florida 

2 Department of Health, Tallahassee, Florida. Available URL: http://www.doh.state.fl.us/

3 floridafishadvice/Final%202009%20Fish%20Brochure.pdf (accessed June 9, 2010). 

4 Florida Oceans and Coastal Council. 2009. “The Effects of Climate Change on Florida’s Ocean 

5 & Coastal Resources,” Florida Oceans and Coastal Council, Tallahassee, Florida, 34 pp. 

6 Available URL: http://www.floridaoceanscouncil.org/reports/Climate_Change_Report.pdf

7 (accessed February 3, 2011). 

8 Florida Siting Board. 2008. Progress Energy Florida, Crystal River Unit 3 Uprate Project Power 

9 Plant Siting Application No. PA77-09A2, OGC Case No. 07-1062, DOAH Case 

10 No. 07-2713EPP, Final Order Approving Certification, August 12, 2008. Available URL: 

11 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Final_Orders/2008/dep08-0863.pdf (accessed January 11, 

12 2010). 

13 Florida State Parks. 2002. “West Central Florida Archaeological State Park: A Pre-Columbian 

14 Ceremonial Indian-Mound Complex,” Pamphlet prepared by Florida State Parks, Florida 

15 Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks, October 30, 2002. 

16 FNAI (Florida Natural Areas Inventory). 2009. Letter from L. Horton, FNAI, to H. Ahrens, 

17 Golder Associates, Inc. Subject: “Elemental Occurrences within Citrus County,” March 23, 

18 2009. 

19 Fox, J.L., and M.S. Moyer. 1973. “Some Effects of a Power Plant on Marine Microbiota,” 

20 Chesapeake Science, 14(1):1–10. 

21 FPC (Florida Power Corporation). 2001. Letter from R.L. Roderick, FPC, to NRC Document 

22 Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River Unit 3 – Supplement to Biological Assessment of Impact 

23 to Endangered Sea Turtles,” June 27, 2001. 

24 FPC (Florida Power Corporation). 2002. “Biological Assessment of Impact to Sea Turtles at 

25 Florida Power Corporation’s Crystal River Energy Complex, Revision 2,” Florida Power 

26 Corporation, St. Petersburg, Florida, ADAMS Accession No. ML030070232. 

27 FPC (Florida Power Corporation). Undated. “Final Report of Seagrass Technical Advisory 

28 Committee,” Submitted by Florida Power Corporation Crystal River Units 1, 2, 3, NPDES Permit 

29 No. FL0000159, ADAMS Accession No. ML090750941. 

30 FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2005. “Florida’s Wildlife Legacy 

31 Initiative, Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy,” Florida Fish and Wildlife 

32 Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Available URL: http://www.masgc.org/

33 gmrp/plans/FL%20FWCII.pdf (accessed June 3, 2010). 

34 FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2009. Letter from M. Poole, FWC, 

35 to D.J. Wrona, NRC. Subject: “Reply to Request for a List of Protected Species within the Area 

36 under Evaluation for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant License Renewal 

37 Application Review, Citrus County,” July 22, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML092170380. 

38 FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2011. “Commercial Fisheries 

39 Landings in Florida.” Available URL: http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/fishstats/commercial40 fisheries/landings-in-florida/ (accessed February 8, 2011). 

41 FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). Undated. “Crystal River 

42 Mariculture Center.” Available URL: http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/stock43 enhancement/partners/crystal-river-mariculture-center (accessed November 7, 2008). 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-93 

1 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. “Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern 

2 Indigo Snake.” Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/IndigoSnakes/

3 20040212_gd_EIS_Standard_Protection_Measures.pdf (accessed March 1, 2010). 

4 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Letter from D.L. Hankla, FWS, to J.W. Holt, 

5 Progress Energy. Subject: “Information on Listed Species and Sensitive Habitats,” October 28, 

6 2008, ADAMS Accession No. ML100980520. 

7 FWS and NMFS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. 

8 “Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 5-year Review: Summary and Evaluation,” 

9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Panama City, Florida, and National Marine 

10 Fisheries Service, Southeast Region, St. Petersburg, Florida. Available URL: 

11 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/gulfsturgeon_5yearreview.pdf (accessed January 10, 

12 2010). 

13 Gaske, Frederick P. 2009. Letter from F.P. Gaske, SHPO, Florida Department of State 

14 Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee, Florida, to D.J. Wrona, NRC, Washington, D.C., 

15 May 4, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML091460261. 

16 GCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2009. Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. 

17 Peterson (eds.), Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University 

18 Press, New York, ADAMS Accession No. ML100580077. 

19 Glenn, C.R. 2007. “Earth’s Endangered Creatures – Smalltooth Sawfish Facts.” Available 

20 URL: http://www.earthsendangered.com/profile.asp?ID=9&sp=820 (accessed May 30, 2009). 

21 Golder Associates, Inc. 2006. “Crystal River Energy Complex Proposal for Information 

22 Collection NPDES Permit No. FL0000159,” Golder Associates, Inc., Tampa, Florida, 

23 January 2006. 

24 Golder Associates, Inc. 2007a. Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air 

25 Resource Management, Application for Air Permit – Long Form, DEP Form No. 62-210.900(I) – 

26 Form 07389531, Submitted to FDEP on June 6, 2007. 

27 Golder Associates, Inc. 2007b. “Site Certification Application Crystal River Unit 3 Power Uprate 

28 Project Crystal River, Florida,” Progress Energy Florida, Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida, 

29 June 2007, ADAMS Accession No. ML093170487. 

30 Golder Associates, Inc. 2007c. “Response to Comments on Crystal River Unit 3 Uprate Project 

31 Site Certification Application,” Progress Energy Florida, Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida, August 

32 2007. 

33 Golder Associates, Inc. 2009. “Environmental Support Document, Crystal River Unit 3, South 

34 Cooling Tower Laydown Area, Citrus County, Florida,” Submitted to Progress Energy, St. 

35 Petersburg, Florida, May 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML101320401. 

36 Grimes, C.B., and J.A. Mountain. 1971. “Effects of Thermal Effluent upon Marine Fishes near 

37 the Crystal River Steam Electric Station,” Professional Papers Series, Number Seventeen, 

38 Florida Department of Natural Resources, Marine Research Laboratory, St. Petersburg, Florida, 

39 October 1971. 

40 Gunter, L., P. Gunter, S. Cullen, and N. Burton. 2001. “Licensed to Kill: How the Nuclear 

41 Power Industry Destroys Endangered Marine Wildlife and Ocean Habitat to Save Money,” Safe 

42 Energy Communication Council (Washington, D.C.), Nuclear Information and Resource Service 

43 Washington, D.C.), Standing for Truth about Radiation (East Hampton, New York), and Humane 

44 Society of the United States (Washington, D.C.), 135 pp. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-94 

1 Hall, C.A.S., R. Howarth, B. Moore, III, and C.J. Vorosmarty. 1978. “Environmental Impacts of 

2 Industrial Energy Systems in the Coastal Zone,” Annual Review of Energy, 3:395–475. 

3 Inglis Hydropower (Inglis Hydropower, LLC). 2009. “Application for License for a Minor Water 

4 Power Project.” Available URL: http://inglishydropower.com/files/

5 Inglis%20la%20as%20filed.pdf (accessed March 16, 2011). 

6 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). 1997. National Electrical Safety Code, 

7 New York. 

8 Johnson, R. 2006. Request for Information on Groundwater from Gary Gunter, TETRA TECH 

9 NUS, Inc. for Crystal River Unit Re-Licensing Effort, from Ron Johnson, Senior Environmental 

10 Specialist, Crystal River Fossil Plant, to Jan S. Kozyra, Licensing Lead, License Renewal 

11 Section, Robinson Nuclear Plant, July 26, 2006. 

12 Kennedy, V.S. 1990. “Anticipated Effects of Climate Change on Estuarine and Coastal Fishes,” 

13 Fisheries, 15:16–24. 

14 KRM (King Road Mine). 2010. “The King Road Mine: A Project Update,” March 3, 2010. 

15 Available URL: http://www.kingroadmine.com/news/KRM_Project_Update.html (accessed 

16 March 17, 2011). 

17 Laist, D.W., and J.E. Reynolds, III. 2005. “Florida Manatees, Warm-Water Refuges, and an 

18 Uncertain Future,” Coastal Management, 33:279–295. 

19 Lyons, W.G., S.P. Cobb, D.K. Camp, J.A. Mountain, T. Savage, L. Lyons, and E.A. Joyce, Jr. 

20 1971. “Preliminary Inventory of Marine Invertebrates Collected near the Electrical Generating 

21 Plant, Crystal River, Florida, in 1969,” Professional Papers Series Number Fourteen, Florida 

22 Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida, June 1971. 

23 MacRae, M.I. 1993. “Citrus County Historical Notes,” Citrus County Historical Society, 

24 Inverness, Florida. 

25 Marshall, M.J. 2002. “Seagrass Survey: November 2001 Resurvey at the Florida Power 

26 Crystal River Generating Facility. Revisit to Area Last Surveyed in 1995 by MML,” Coastal 

27 Seas Consortium, Inc., Bradenton, Florida, March 7, 2002. 

28 Masterson, J. 2007a. “Phyllorhiza punctata (Australian Spotted Jellyfish),” Smithsonian Marine 

29 Station, Fort Pierce, Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/

30 Phyllorhiza_punctata.htm (accessed June 11, 2010). 

31 Masterson, J. 2007b. “Petrolisthes armatus (Green Porcelain Crab),” Smithsonian Marine 

32 Station, Fort Pierce, Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/

33 Petrolisthes_armatus.htm (accessed June 11, 2010). 

34 Mattson, R.A., J.A. Derrenbacker, Jr., and R.R. Lewis, III. 1988. “Effects of Thermal Addition 

35 from the Crystal River Generating Complex on the Submergent Macrophyte Communities in 

36 Crystal Bay, Florida,” in Mahadevan, K., R.K. Evans, P. Behrens, T. Biffar, and L. Olsen (eds.), 

37 Proceedings Southeastern Workshop on Aquatic Ecological Effects of Power Generation, 

38 December 1986, Report Number 124, Mote Marine Laboratory, pp. 11–67, Sarasota, Florida, 

39 May 1988. 

40 Meyer, D. 2009. “Calculations on Cooling Tower Data: Emissions, Operating Time for Helper 

41 Cooling Towers, Modular Cooling towers for the Years 2004 through 2008 (includes 5b 

42 operating data capture), and Associated Plant Operating Data,” submitted in the Progress 

43 Energy Response to the Revised Environmental Site Audit Needs List 3F1109-06, November 5, 

44 2009. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-95 

1 Milanich, J.T., and C. Payne (eds). 1993. Florida Historical Contexts, Florida Department of 

2 State Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee, Florida, September 27, 1993. Available 

3 URL: http://www.flheritage.com/facts/reports/contexts (accessed May 28, 2009). 

4 Miller, J.J. 1973. “An Archaeological Survey of the Florida Power Corporation Crystal River 

5 Tract, Citrus County, Florida,” Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Division of Archives, 

6 History and Records Management, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida, June 

7 1973, Survey Report Number 313, on file at the Florida Master Site File. 

8 Mountain, J.A. 1972. “Further Thermal Addition Studies at Crystal River, Florida with an 

9 Annotated Checklist of Marine Fishes Collected 1969–1971,” Professional Papers Series 

10 Number Twenty, Florida Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida, 

11 December 1972. 

12 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. § 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq. 

13 National Historic Preservation Act. § 16 U.S.C. § 470, et seq. 

14 NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences). 1999. NIEHS Report on Health 

15 Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, Publication 

16 No. 99-4493, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

17 New South Associates. 2006. “Cultural Resources Background Research Supporting License 

18 Renewal, Crystal River Nuclear Plant, Citrus and Levy Counties, Florida,” New South 

19 Associates Technical Report 1433, Report prepared by New South Associates, St. Augustine, 

20 Florida for Tetra Tech NUS, Aiken, South Carolina, December 19, 2006. 

21 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Letter from H. Diaz-Soltero, Director, Office 

22 of Protected Resources, to T.H. Essig, Acting Chief, Generic Issues and Environmental Projects 

23 Branch, NRC. Subject: “National Marine Fisheries Service’s Biological Opinion of the Cooling 

24 Water Intake System at the Crystal River Energy Complex,” June 16, 1999. 

25 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2002. Letter from J.E. Powers, Acting Regional 

26 Administrator, to H.N. Berkow, Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, NRC. 

27 Subject: “Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion Cooling Water 

28 Intake System at the Crystal River Energy Complex (F/SER/2001/01080),” August 8, 2002. 

29 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005. “Endangered Species Act – Section 7 

30 Consultation Biological Opinion for the Continued Authorization of Reef Fish Fishing under the 

31 Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (RFFMP) and Proposed 

32 Amendment 23,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

33 Service, Southeast Regional Office, Sustainable Fisheries Division, February 15, 2005. 

34 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2006. “Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish 

35 Construction Conditions.” Available URL: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

36 endangered%20species/Sea%20Turtle%20and%20Smalltooth%20Sawfish%20Construction%2

37 0Conditions%203-23-06.pdf (accessed November 11, 2010). 

38 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. Letter from T. Mincey, NMFS, to D.J. Wrona, 

39 NRC. Subject: “Reply to Request for List of Species Protected by the Endangered Species Act 

40 and under the Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service for the State of Florida,” 

41 April 20, 2009. 

42 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

43 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C., 

44 May 1996, ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-96 

1 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

2 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

3 Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final 

4 Report,” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C., August 1999, ADAMS 

5 Accession No. ML040690720. 

6 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999b. Standard Review Plans for 

7 Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, 

8 NUREG-1555, Washington, D.C., October 1999, ADAMS Accession No. ML003702019. 

9 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009a. Letter from D.J. Wrona, NRC, to S.D. 

10 Hamilton, FWS. Subject: “Request for List of Protected Species within the Area under 

11 Evaluation for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant License Renewal Application 

12 Review,” April 13, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML090400392. 

13 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009b. Letter from D.J. Wrona, Chief, NRC, to 

14 R.E. Crabtree, NMFS. Subject: “Request for List of Protected Species and Essential Fish 

15 Habitat within the Area under Evaluation for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

16 License Renewal Application Review,” April 13, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML090360156. 

17 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009c. Letter from D.J. Wrona, NRC, to 

18 R. Trindell, Biological Administrator, FWC-HSC-ISM. Subject: “Request for List of Protected 

19 Species within the Area under Evaluation for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

20 License Renewal Application Review,” June 8, 2009. 

21 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010a. Crystal River Unit 3 – NRC Integrated 

22 Inspection Report 05000302/2009009, Atlanta, Georgia, ADAMS Accession No. ML100250014. 

23 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010b. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 

24 Combined Licenses (COLs) for Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, NUREG-1941, Volumes 1 and 

25 2, August 2010, ADAMS Accession Nos. ML102140231 and ML102140235. 

26 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010c. “Summary of October 13, 2010, Public 

27 Meeting with Florida Power Corporation Regarding Crystal River’s Proposed License 

28 Amendment Request to Support the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility Project,” 

29 December 16, 2010, ADAMS Accession No. ML103480634. 

30 NUS Corporation. 1978. “Crystal River Unit 3 Environmental Technical Specifications 

31 Impingement Report March 13, 1977 to March 13, 1978,” Prepared for Florida Power 

32 Corporation, St. Petersburg, Florida, by NUS Corporation, August 21, 1978. 

33 Panhandle Energy. 2011. “FGT Phase VIII Expansion Project Description.” Available URL: 

34 http://www.panhandleenergy.com/phaseviii.asp (accessed March 16, 2011). 

35 Pankratz, T. 2004. “An Overview of Seawater Intake Facilities for Seawater Desalination.” 

36 Available URL: http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/innovativewater/desal/doc/

37 The_Future_of_Desalination_in_Texas-Volume_2/documents/C3.pdf (accessed March 29, 

38 2011). 

39 Pinellas County Parks and Recreation. 2010. “Fort De Soto Park” and “Fort De Soto Historic 

40 Guide.” Available URL: http://www.pinellascounty.org/park/05_ft_desoto.htm (accessed 

41 March 9, 2010). 

42 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2000. Letter from S.L. Bernhoft, Progress 

43 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Annual Sea Turtle Report Submitted to the 

44 U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (TAC No. MA1706),” January 26, 2007. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-97 

1 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2001. Letter from S.L. Bernhoft, Progress 

2 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Environmental Protection Plan Report,” 

3 January 25, 2001. 

4 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2002. Letter from D.L. Roderick, Progress 

5 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal Unit 3 – Environmental Protection 

6 Plan Report,” January 30, 2002. 

7 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2003. Letter from J.A. Franke, Progress 

8 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River Energy Complex – 

9 Environmental Protection Plan Report 2002 Annual Sea Turtle Report,” February 11, 2003. 

10 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2004. Letter from J.A. Franke, Progress 

11 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River Energy Complex – 

12 Environmental Protection Plan Report 2003 Annual Sea Turtle Report,” February 9, 2004. 

13 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2005a. Crystal River Unit 3, 2004 Annual 

14 Radiological Environmental Operating Report, Crystal River, Florida, ADAMS Accession 

15 No. ML051440488. 

16 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2005b. Letter from J.A. Franke, Progress 

17 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River Energy Complex – 

18 Environmental Protection Plan Report 2004 Annual Sea Turtle Report,” February 22, 2005. 

19 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2005c. Letter from S.C. Powell, Progress 

20 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River – Unit 3 – Sea Turtle 

21 Mortality,” January 20, 2005. 

22 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2005d. Crystal River Unit 3, 2004 

23 Radioactive Material Release Report, Crystal River, Florida, ADAMS Accession 

24 No. ML051250348. 

25 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2006a. Crystal River Unit 3, 2005 Annual 

26 Radiological Environmental Operating Report, Crystal River, Florida, ADAMS Accession 

27 No. ML061380637. 

28 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2006b. Letter from J.A. Franke, Progress 

29 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River Energy Complex – 

30 Environmental Protection Plan Report 2005 Annual Sea Turtle Report,” February 24, 2006. 

31 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2006c. Crystal River Unit 3, 2005 

32 Radioactive Material Release Report, Crystal River, Florida, ADAMS Accession 

33 No. ML061240069. 

34 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2007a. Crystal River Unit 3, 2006 Annual 

35 Radiological Environmental Operating Report, Crystal River, Florida, ADAMS Accession 

36 No. ML071280636. 

37 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2007b. Letter from D.A. Bruzek, Progress 

38 Energy, to B. Nori, FDEP. Subject: “Progress Energy Florida, Inc. – Crystal River, Units 1, 2, 

39 and 3 NPDES Permit No. FL0000159 Thermal Plume Assessment Plan of Study,” September 

40 17, 2007. 

41 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2007c. Letter from J.A. Franke, Progress 

42 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River Energy Complex – 

43 Environmental Protection Plan Report 2006 Annual Sea Turtle Report,” February 22, 2007. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-98 

1 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2007d. Letter from D.W. Herrin, Progress 

2 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River – Unit 3 – Sea Turtle Mortality 

3 Report,” November 1, 2007. 

4 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2007e. Letter from P.E. Infanger, Progress 

5 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River – Unit 3 – Sea Turtle Mortality 

6 Report,” February 7, 2007. 

7 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2007f. Crystal River Unit 3, 2006 Radioactive 

8 Material Release Report, Crystal River, Florida, ADAMS Accession No. ML071220460. 

9 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2008a. “Crystal River Unit 3 – License 

10 Renewal Application, Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage,” 

11 November 2008, ADAMS Accession No. ML090080731. 

12 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2008b. “Crystal River Unit 3 – 2007 Annual 

13 Radiological Environmental Operating Report,” ADAMS Accession No. ML081360204. 

14 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2008c. Letter from M.J. Annacone, Progress 

15 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River Energy Complex – 

16 Environmental Protection Plan Report 2007 Annual Sea Turtle Report,” February 26, 2008. 

17 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2008d. Letter from D. Wescott, Progress 

18 Energy, to NRC Document Control Center. Subject: “Crystal River Unit 3 – Sea Turtle Mortality 

19 Report,” August 6, 2008. 

20 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2008e. Letter from J.W. Holt, Progress 

21 Energy, to F.P. Gaske, SHPO, Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources, 

22 Tallahassee, Florida, September 25, 2008. 

23 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2008f. Crystal River Unit 3, 2007 Radioactive 

24 Material Release Report, Crystal River, Florida, ADAMS Accession No. ML081230612. 

25 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009a. Other Stationary Combustion 

26 Sources (Not Covered by CEMS), Operating Data Assembled from the CREC RICE Diesel 

27 Usage Summary, ADAMS Accession No. ML100980519. 

28 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009b. Progress Energy Crystal River Unit 3 

29 Plant Operating Manual PM-136A Control Complex Chiller CHHE-1A, Revision 4, Submitted in 

30 the Progress Energy Response to the Revised Environmental Site Audit Needs List 3F1109-06, 

31 November 5, 2009. 

32 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009c. Progress Energy Crystal River Unit 3 

33 Plant Operating Manual PM-136B Control Complex Chiller CHHE-1B, Revision 5, Submitted in 

34 the Progress Energy Response to the Revised Environmental Site Audit Needs List 3F1109-06, 

35 November 5, 2009. 

36 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009d. Preventative Maintenance Log for 

37 CHHE-1A (Water Chiller for the period 4/17/2007 through 5/13/2009, Submitted in the Progress 

38 Energy Response to the Revised Environmental Site Audit Needs List 3F1109-06, November 5, 

39 2009. 

40 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009e. Preventative Maintenance Log for 

41 CHHE-1B (Water Chiller for the period 12/20/2006 through 5/27/2009, Submitted in the 

42 Progress Energy Response to the Revised Environmental Site Audit Needs List 3F1109-06, 

43 November 5, 2009. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-99 

1 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009f. Progress Energy Crystal River Unit 3; 

2 Air Conditioning Maintenance Log for the period 2/19/2009 through 7/16/2009. 

3 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009g. Progress Energy Crystal River Unit 3 

4 Plant Operating Manual PM-157B, Primary Meteorological System (Monthly), Revision 2, 

5 Submitted in the Progress Energy Response to the Revised Environmental Site Audit Needs 

6 List 3F1109-06, November 5, 2009. 

7 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009h. Progress Energy Crystal River Unit 3 

8 Plant Operating Manual SP-153, Primary System Meteorological Monitoring Instrumentation 

9 Calibration, Revision 15, Submitted in the Progress Energy Response to the Revised 

10 Environmental Site Audit Needs List 3F1109-06, November 5, 2009. 

11 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009i. “Crystal River Unit 3 – 2008 Annual 

12 Radiological Environmental Operating Report,” ADAMS Accession No. ML091380098. 

13 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009j. Progress Energy Crystal River Unit 3 

14 Plant Operating Manual SP-157A, Meteorological System Surveillance, Revision 25, Submitted 

15 in the Progress Energy Response to the Revised Environmental Site Audit Needs List 

16 3F1109-06, November 5, 2009. 

17 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009k. Letter from D. Meyer, Progress 

18 Energy, to J. Holtom, DEP/DARM, North Permitting Section, Division of Air Resource 

19 Management, FDEP. Subject: “Crystal River Power Plant, Title V Permit Number 

20 0170004-020-AV, Notice of Intent to Install a Temporary Concrete Batch Plant to support 

21 refurbishment of Unit 3,” April 7, 2009. 

22 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009l. Letter from L.E. Hatcher, Progress 

23 Energy, to M. Harris, Power Plant NPDES Permitting, FDEP. Subject: “Progress Energy 

24 Florida, Inc. – Crystal River Units 1, 2, & 3 NPDES Permit Renewal Application – FL0000159,” 

25 October 28, 2009. ADAMS Accession No. ML102150276. 

26 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009m. Letter from J.A. Franke, Progress 

27 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River Unit 3 – Response to Request 

28 for Additional Information Regarding the Review of the License Renewal Application for the 

29 Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (TAC No. ME0278) – Environmental Review,” 

30 November 5, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML093170487. 

31 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009n. Letter from G.D. Miller, Progress 

32 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Letter from Douglas Bruner (NRC) to James 

33 Scarola (Progress Energy), Dated June 23, 2009, ‘Supplemental Request for Additional 

34 Information Regarding the Environmental Review of the Combined License Application for the 

35 Levy Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2,’” July 29, 2009, ADAMS Accession 

36 No. ML092160830. 

37 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009o. Letter from J.W. Holt, Progress 

38 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River Energy Complex – 

39 Environmental Protection Plan Report 2008 Sea Turtle Rescue and Recovery Summary 

40 Report,” February 26, 2009. 

41 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009p. Letter from D. Wescott, Progress 

42 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River Unit 3 – Sea Turtle Mortality 

43 Report,” March 9, 2009. 

44 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009q. Letter from D. Wescott, Progress 

45 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River Unit 3 – Sea Turtle Mortality 

46 Report,” April 17, 2009. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-100 

1 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009r. Crystal River Unit 3, Offsite Dose 

2 Calculation Manual, Revision 31, Crystal River, Florida, ADAMS Accession No. ML091140599. 

3 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009s. Crystal River Unit 3, 2008 

4 Radioactive Material Release Report, Crystal River, Florida, ADAMS Accession 

5 No. ML091140598. 

6 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2010a. “Crystal River Mariculture Center 

7 Fingerling/Juvenile Release Summary 1992 - 2009.” 

8 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2010b. Letter from J. Elnitsky, Progress 

9 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Levy Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Docket 

10 Nos. 52-029 and 52-030, Supplemental Response to Supplemental Request for Additional 

11 Information Regarding the Environmental Review – Hydrology 5.3.2.1-2,” May 11, 2010. 

12 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2010c. Letter from J.A. Franke, Progress 

13 Energy, to NRC Document Control Center. Subject: “Crystal River Unit 3 – Response to 

14 Request for Additional Information for the Review of the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating 

15 Plant, License Renewal Application (TAC No. ME0278) – Environmental Review,” April 1, 2010, 

16 ADAMS Accession No. ML100970076. 

17 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2010d. Letter from J.W. Holt, Progress 

18 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River Energy Complex – 

19 Environmental Protection Plan Report 2009 Sea Turtle Rescue and Recovery Summary 

20 Report,” February 24, 2010. 

21 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2010e. Crystal River Unit 3, 2009 Annual 

22 Radiological Environmental Operating Report, Crystal River, Florida, April 29, 2010. ADAMS 

23 Accession No. ML1012504890. 

24 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). Undated. “Progress Energy Crystal River 

25 Unit 3 Plant Operating Manual AI-571 Sea Turtle Rescue and Handling Guidance.” 

26 Rathbun, G.B., J.P. Reid, and G. Carowan. 1990. “Distribution and Movement Patterns of 

27 Manatees (Trichechus manatus) in Northwestern Peninsular Florida,” Florida Marine Research 

28 Publications Number 48, State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, Florida Marine 

29 Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Florida. Available URL: http://research.myfwc.com/engine/

30 download_redirection_process.asp?file=fmrp048%5F0953%2Epdf&objid=26075&dltype=public

31 ation (accessed June 3, 2010). 

32 Ray, G.L. 2005. “Invasive Marine and Estuarine Animals of the Gulf of Mexico,” ERDC/TN 

33 ANSRP-05-4, Aquatic Nuisance Species Research Program, September 2005. Available URL: 

34 http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/ansrp05-4.pdf (accessed March 3, 2010). 

35 Schofield, P.J., J.A. Morris, Jr., J.N. Langston, and P.L. Fuller. 2010. “Pterois voltans/miles 

36 (Lionfish),” USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, Florida. Available 

37 URL: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=963 (accessed June 11, 2010). 

38 SWEC (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation). 1985. “Final Report: Crystal River 316 

39 Studies,” Prepared for Florida Power Corporation, January 15, 1985. 

40 SFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District). 2006a. “Chapter 3 – Conservation 

41 Element,” in Citrus County Florida Comprehensive Plan. Available URL: 

42 http://www.bocc.citrus.fl.us/devservices/planning/comp_plan/comp_plan.htm (accessed 

43 June 13, 2010). 

44 SFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District). 2006b. Southern Water Use Caution 

45 Area Recovery Strategy, Final Report, March 2006. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation 

 4-101 

1 SFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District). 2007. Water Use Individual Permit 

2 20004695.004, issued November 26, 2007. 

3 SFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District). 2009. 2008 Estimated Water Use 

4 Report, November 20, 2009. 

5 Trommer, J.T. 1993. “Description and Monitoring of the Saltwater-Freshwater Transition Zone 

6 in Aquifers along the West-Central Coast of Florida,” U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources 

7 Investigations Report 93-4120, Tallahassee, Florida. 

8 University of Florida. 2007, “Green Mussels in Florida,” University of Florida Fisheries and 

9 Aquatic Sciences, Gainesville, Florida. Available URL: http://fishweb.ifas.ufl.edu/greenmussel/

10 Distribution.shtml (accessed June 11, 2010). 

11 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2008. Letter from C. Payne for P.L. Grosskruger, 

12 Colonel, to Florida Power Corporation. Subject: “Dredging Material from an Existing Turning 

13 Basin,” November 12, 2008. 

14 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. Public Notice, Permit Application No. SAJ-19 

15 2010-00190 (IP-TSH), May 25, 2010, Pensacola, Florida. 

16 USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2011. American FactFinder, Census 2000 and 2009 1-Year 

17 Estimates, American Community Survey, State and County QuickFacts on Citrus County. 

18 Housing Characteristics for 2000 and 2009, 1-Year Estimates. Available URL: 

19 http://factfinder.census.gov and http://quickfacts.census.gov (accessed February 2011). 

20 Williams, R. 1972. Letter from Robert Williams, Director, Division of Archives, History, and 

21 Records Management, Tallahassee, Florida, to Homer E. Still, Jr., State Planning and 

22 Development Clearinghouse, Tallahassee, Florida, March 30, 1972. 

23 York, R., M. Foster, N. Davis, J. Schoonmaker, R. Unsworth, C. Holmes, J. O’Hagan, and J. 

24 McKinney. 2005. “Issues and Environmental Impacts Associated with Once-Through Cooling 

25 at California’s Coastal Power Plants in Support of the 2005 Environmental Performance Report 

26 and 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report (Docket 04-lep-1),” CEC-700-2005-013, California 

27 Energy Commission, Sacramento, California, June 2005. Available URL: 

28 http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-700-2005-013/CEC-700-2005-013.PDF

29 (accessed June 15, 2010). 

 5-1 

1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS 

2 This chapter describes the environmental impacts from postulated accidents that the Crystal 

3 River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3) might experience during the period of extended 

4 operation. A more detailed discussion of this assessment can be found in Appendix F. The 

5 term “accident” refers to any unintentional event outside the normal plant operational envelope 

6 that results in a release, or the potential for release, of radioactive materials into the 

7 environment. Two classes of postulated accidents are evaluated in NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 

8 and 2, Generic Environmental Impact Statements for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants

9 (GEIS) (NRC, 1996), (NRC, 1999), prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

10 (NRC), as listed in Table 5-1. These two classes include: 

11 ● design-basis accidents (DBAs) 

12 ● severe accidents 

13 Table 5-1. Issues Related to Postulated Accidents. Two issues related to postulated 

14 accidents are evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) in the 

15 license renewal review: design-basis accidents and severe accidents.

Issues GEIS Section Category 

Design-basis accidents 5.3.2; 5.5.1 1 

Severe accidents 5.3.3; 5.3.3.2; 5.3.3.3; 5.3.3.4; 5.3.3.5; 5.4; 5.5.2 2 

Generic issues (Category 1 issues, see Chapter 1) rely on the analysis provided in the GEIS and are discussed 

briefly (NRC, 1996), (NRC, 1999). 

16 5.1 DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENTS 

17 As part of the process for receiving NRC approval to operate a nuclear power facility, an 

18 applicant for an initial operating license must submit a safety analysis report (SAR) as part of its 

19 application. The SAR presents the design criteria and design information for the proposed 

20 reactor and comprehensive data on the proposed site. The SAR also discusses various 

21 hypothetical accident situations and the safety features that are provided to prevent and mitigate 

22 accidents. The NRC staff (Staff) reviews the application to determine whether or not the plant 

23 design meets NRC regulations and requirements and includes, in part, the nuclear plant design 

24 and its anticipated response to an accident. 

25 DBAs are those accidents that both the licensee and the Staff evaluate to ensure that the plant 

26 can withstand normal and abnormal transients, and a broad spectrum of postulated accidents, 

27 without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public. Some of these postulated 

28 accidents are not expected to occur during the life of the plant, but are evaluated to establish 

29 the design basis for the preventive and mitigative safety systems of the facility. The acceptance 

30 criteria for DBAs are described in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 50 

31 and 100. 

32 The environmental impacts of DBAs are evaluated during the initial licensing process. Before a 

33 license renewal is issued, the DBA assessment must demonstrate that the plant can withstand 

34 these accidents. The results of these evaluations are found in license documentation, such as 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-2 

1 the applicant’s final safety analysis report (FSAR), the safety evaluation report (SER), the final 

2 environmental statement (FES), and Section 5.1 of this draft supplemental environmental 

3 impact statement (SEIS). A licensee is required to maintain the acceptable design and 

4 performance criteria throughout the life of the plant, including any extended-life operation. The 

5 consequences for these events are evaluated for the hypothetical maximum exposed individual; 

6 as such, changes in the plant environment will not affect these evaluations. Because of the 

7 requirements that continuous acceptability of the consequences and aging management 

8 programs be in effect for the period of extended operation, the environmental impacts, as 

9 calculated for DBAs, should not differ significantly from initial licensing assessments over the life 

10 of the plant, including the period of extended operation. Accordingly, the design of the plant 

11 relative to DBAs, during the period of extended operation, is considered to remain acceptable 

12 and the environmental impacts of those accidents were not examined further in the GEIS. 

13 The Commission has determined that the significance level of the environmental impacts of 

14 DBAs are SMALL for all plants because the plants were designed to successfully withstand 

15 these accidents. For the purposes of license renewal, DBAs have been designated as a 

16 Category 1 issue. The early resolution of the DBAs makes them a part of the current licensing 

17 basis of the plant. The current licensing basis of the plant is to be maintained by the licensee 

18 under its current license and, therefore, under the provisions of 10 CFR 54.30, is not subject to 

19 review under license renewal. 

20 No new and significant information related to DBAs was identified during the review of the CR-3 

21 environmental report (ER) (Progress Energy, 2008), the site visit, the scoping process, or 

22 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, there are no impacts related to these 

23 issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. 

24 5.2 SEVERE ACCIDENTS 

25 Severe nuclear accidents are those that are more severe than DBAs because they could result 

26 in substantial damage to the reactor core, whether or not there are serious offsite 

27 consequences. In the GEIS, the Staff assessed the impacts of severe accidents using the 

28 results of existing analyses and site-specific information to conservatively predict the 

29 environmental impacts of severe accidents for each plant during the period of extended 

30 operation. 

31 Severe accidents initiated by external phenomena, such as tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, 

32 fires, and sabotage, have not traditionally been discussed in quantitative terms in FESs, and 

33 were not specifically considered for the CR-3 site in the GEIS (NRC, 1996). However, the GEIS 

34 did evaluate existing impact assessments performed by the Staff and by the industry at 

35 44 nuclear plants in the United States and concluded that the risk from beyond design-basis 

36 earthquakes at existing nuclear power plants is SMALL. The GEIS for license renewal 

37 performed a discretionary analysis of sabotage in connection with license renewal, and 

38 concluded that the core damage and radiological release from such acts would be no worse 

39 than the damage and release expected from internally initiated events. In the GEIS, the Staff 

40 concludes that the risk from sabotage and beyond design-basis earthquakes at existing nuclear 

41 power plants is small, and additionally, that the risks from other external events are adequately 

42 addressed by a generic consideration of internally initiated severe accidents (NRC, 1996). 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-3 

1 Based on information in the GEIS, the Staff found that: 

2 The probability weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto 

3 open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic 

4 impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to 

5 mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not 

6 considered such alternatives. 

7 The Staff identified no new and significant information related to postulated accidents during the 

8 review of the CR-3 ER (Progress Energy, 2008), the site visit, the scoping process, or 

9 evaluation of other available information. Therefore, there are no impacts related to these 

10 issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. However, in accordance with 

11 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), the Staff reviewed severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) for 

12 the CR-3. The results of the review are discussed in Section 5.3. 

13 5.3 SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES 

14 Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) requires that license renewal applicants consider alternatives to 

15 mitigate severe accidents if the Staff has not previously evaluated SAMAs for the applicant’s 

16 plant in an environmental impact statement (EIS), or related supplement, or in an environmental 

17 assessment. The purpose of this consideration is to ensure that plant changes (i.e., hardware, 

18 procedures, and training) with the potential for improving severe accident safety performance 

19 are identified and evaluated. SAMAs have not been previously considered for CR-3; therefore, 

20 the remainder of Chapter 5 addresses those alternatives. 

21 5.3.1 Introduction 

22 This section presents a summary of the SAMA evaluation for CR-3 conducted by Florida Power 

23 Corporation (FPC) and the Staff’s review of that evaluation. The Staff performed its review with 

24 contract assistance from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The Staff’s review is available 

25 in full in Appendix F; the SAMA evaluation is available in full in CR-3’s ER. 

26 The SAMA evaluation for CR-3 was conducted with a four-step approach. In the first step, FPC 

27 quantified the level of risk associated with potential reactor accidents using the plant-specific 

28 probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and other risk models. 

29 In the second step, FPC examined the major risk contributors and identified possible ways 

30 (SAMAs) of reducing that risk. Common ways of reducing risk are changes to components, 

31 systems, procedures, and training. FPC identified 25 potential SAMAs for CR-3. FPC 

32 performed an initial screening to determine if any SAMAs could be eliminated because they are 

33 not applicable at CR-3 due to design differences, or were judged to have a low benefit relative 

34 to the cost of implementation. This screening reduced the list of potential SAMAs to 15. 

35 In the third step, FPC estimated the benefits and the costs associated with each of the 

36 remaining SAMAs. Estimates were made of how much each SAMA could reduce risk. Those 

37 estimates were developed in terms of dollars in accordance with NRC guidance for performing 

38 regulatory analyses (NRC, 1997). The cost of implementing the proposed SAMAs was also 

39 estimated. 

40 Finally, in the fourth step, the costs and benefits of each of the remaining SAMAs were 

41 compared to determine whether the SAMA was cost-beneficial, meaning the benefits of the 

42 SAMA were greater than the cost (a positive cost-benefit). FPC concluded in its ER that several 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-4 

1 of the SAMAs evaluated are potentially cost-beneficial (Progress Energy, 2008). However, in 

2 response to Staff inquiries regarding estimated benefits for certain SAMAs and lower cost 

3 alternatives, several additional potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs were identified 

4 (Progress Energy, 2009a), (Progress Energy, 2009b). 

5 The potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs do not relate to adequately managing the effects of aging 

6 during the period of extended operation; therefore, they need not be implemented as part of 

7 license renewal under 10 CFR Part 54. FPC’s SAMA analyses and the NRC’s review are 

8 discussed in more detail below. 

9 5.3.2 Estimate of Risk 

10 FPC submitted an assessment of SAMAs for CR-3 as part of the ER (Progress Energy, 2008). 

11 This assessment was based on the most recent CR-3 PRA available at that time, a 

12 plant-specific offsite consequence analysis performed using the MELCOR Accident 

13 Consequence Code System 2 (MACCS2) computer program, and insights from the CR-3 

14 individual plant examination (IPE) (FPC, 1993) and individual plant examination of external 

15 events (IPEEE) (FPC, 1996), (FPC, 1997). 

16 The baseline core damage frequency (CDF) for the purpose of the SAMA evaluation is 

approximately 5.0x10-6 17 per year. The CDF value is based on the risk assessment for 

18 internally-initiated events. FPC did not include the contributions from external events within the 

19 CR-3 risk estimates; however, it did account for the potential risk reduction benefits associated 

20 with external events by multiplying the estimated benefits for internal events by a factor of 2. 

21 The breakdown of CDF by initiating event is provided in Table 5-2. 

22 Table 5-2. Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Core Damage Frequency for 

23 Internal Events 

Initiating Event CDF (per year) Percent Contribution to CDF 

Small break loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) 1.5x10-6 30 

Transients 9.9x10-7 20 

Reactor vessel rupture 5.0x10-7 10 

Internal flooding 4.0x10-7 8 

Steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) 3.5x10-7 7 

Loss of AC buses 3.3x10-7 7 

Loss of offsite power (LOOP) 3.0x10-7 6 

Large break LOCA 1.7x10-7 3 

Loss of direct current (DC) power 1.5x10-7 3 

Loss of main feedwater 1.2x10-7 2 

Medium break LOCA 1.1x10-7 2 

Interfacing system LOCA (ISLOCA) 5.1x10-8 1 

Total CDF (internal events) 5.0x10–6 100 

24 As shown in this table, small LOCAs and transients (reactor trips, loss of intake, and loss of 

25 makeup) are the dominant contributors to the CDF. 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-5 

1 FPC estimated the dose to the population within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of the CR-3 site to be 

2 approximately 4.0 person-sievert (Sv) (40 person-rem) per year. The breakdown of the total 

3 population dose by containment release mode is summarized in Table 5-3. Containment 

4 bypass events (such as SGTR-initiated accidents or ISLOCA accidents) and small early 

5 containment failures dominate the population dose risk at CR-3. 

6 Table 5-3. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode 

Containment Release Mode Population Dose 

(Person-Rem(a) Per Year) 

Percent Contribution 

Containment intact 0.04 1 

Late containment failure 0.04 1 

Large early containment failure 0.02 <1 

Small early containment failure 0.37 9 

Containment bypass accident, small leakage rate 2.68 67 

Containment bypass accident, large leakage rate 0.83 21 

Total 3.98 100 

(a) One person-rem = 0.01 person-Sv

7 The Staff has reviewed FPC’s data and evaluation methods and concludes that the quality of 

8 the risk analyses is adequate to support an assessment of the risk reduction potential for 

9 candidate SAMAs. Accordingly, the Staff based its assessment of offsite risk on the CDFs and 

10 offsite doses reported by FPC. 

11 5.3.3 Potential Plant Improvements 

12 Once the dominant contributors to plant risk were identified, FPC searched for ways to reduce 

13 that risk. In identifying and evaluating potential SAMAs, FPC considered insights from the 

14 plant-specific PRA, and SAMA analyses performed for other operating plants that have 

15 submitted license renewal applications. FPC identified 25 potential risk-reducing improvements 

16 (SAMAs) to plant components, systems, procedures, and training. 

17 FPC removed 10 of the SAMAs from further consideration because they are not applicable at 

18 CR-3 due to design differences, or were judged to have a low benefit compared to the cost of 

19 implementation. A detailed cost-benefit analysis was performed for each of the 15 remaining 

20 SAMAs. 

21 The Staff concludes that FPC used a systematic and comprehensive process for identifying 

22 potential plant improvements for CR-3, and that the set of potential plant improvements 

23 identified by FPC is reasonably comprehensive and, therefore, acceptable. 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-6 

1 5.3.4 Evaluation of Risk Reduction and Costs of Improvements 

2 FPC evaluated the risk-reduction potential of the remaining 15 SAMAs. In response to a Staff 

3 inquiry, FPC also evaluated the risk-reduction potential of the 10 SAMAs eliminated in the initial 

4 screening (Progress Energy, 2009a). The SAMA evaluations were performed using realistic 

5 assumptions with some conservatism. 

6 FPC developed plant-specific costs of implementing the 25 candidate SAMAs. The cost 

7 estimates conservatively did not include the cost of replacement power during extended 

8 outages required to implement the modifications. In response to a Staff inquiry, FPC stated that 

9 CR-3 engineering personnel reviewed each SAMA to assess the work scope associated with 

10 implementing each SAMA and then the implementation cost was estimated by benchmarking 

11 the SAMA work scope to other projects of similar scope. 

12 The Staff reviewed FPC’s bases for calculating the risk reduction for the various plant 

13 improvements and concludes that the rationale and assumptions for estimating risk reduction 

14 are reasonable and generally conservative (i.e., the estimated risk reduction is higher than what 

15 would actually be realized). Accordingly, the Staff based its estimates of averted risk for the 

16 various SAMAs on FPC’s risk reduction estimates. 

17 The Staff reviewed the bases for the applicant’s cost estimates. For certain improvements, the 

18 Staff also compared the cost estimates to estimates developed elsewhere for similar 

19 improvements, including estimates developed as part of other licensees’ analyses of SAMAs for 

20 operating reactors and advanced light-water reactors. The Staff found the cost estimates to be 

21 reasonable, and generally consistent with estimates provided in support of other plants’ 

22 analyses. 

23 The Staff concludes that the risk reduction and the cost estimates provided by FPC are 

24 sufficient and appropriate for use in the SAMA evaluation. 

25 5.3.5 Cost-Benefit Comparison 

26 The cost-benefit analysis performed by FPC was based primarily on NUREG/BR-0184 

27 (NRC, 1997) and was executed consistent with this guidance. NUREG/BR-0058 has recently 

28 been revised to reflect the agency’s revised policy on discount rates. Revision 4 of 

29 NUREG/BR-0058 states that two sets of estimates should be developed, one at 3 percent and 

30 one at 7 percent (NRC, 2004). FPC provided both sets of estimates (Progress Energy, 2008). 

31 In the baseline analysis contained in the ER (using a 3 percent discount rate), FPC identified 

32 one potentially cost-beneficial SAMA. Based on the consideration of analysis uncertainties 

33 (multiplying benefits by 2.18), FPC identified three additional potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. 

34 In response to Staff inquiries, FPC provided the results of a revised baseline analysis, 

35 multiplying the internal events benefits by 12 to account for the additional external events 

36 benefits. The revised baseline analysis resulted in the identification of four additional potentially 

37 cost-beneficial SAMAs. FPC also provided a revised uncertainty analysis using a multiplier of 

38 12 to account for external events benefits, and an additional multiplier of 2.18 to account for 

39 analysis uncertainties, which resulted in the identification of four additional potentially 

40 cost-beneficial SAMAs. 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-7 

1 The potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs for CR-3 are: 

2 ● SAMA 4 – Automate start of auxiliary feedwater pump FWP-7 when required to 

3 supply feedwater to the once-through steam generators (OTSGs) in the event the 

4 automated emergency feedwater (EFW) system is unavailable (cost-beneficial in 

5 revised analysis, with uncertainties). 

6 ● SAMA 5 – Improve availability of auxiliary feedwater pump FWP-7 to supply 

7 feedwater to the OTSGs in the event that other EFW pumps are unavailable 

8 (cost-beneficial in revised analysis, with uncertainties). 

9 ● SAMA 8 – Provide a temporary pump to provide a backup supply of cooling 

10 water in lieu of raw water pump in the event it is unavailable (cost-beneficial in 

11 revised analysis, with uncertainties). 

12 ● SAMA 9 – Proceduralize additional responses to DHV-11 and DHV-12 in the 

13 event remote opening of these valves fails (cost-beneficial in revised analysis). 

14 ● SAMA 10 – Proceduralize additional responses to MUV-23, MUV-24, MUV-25, 

15 and MUV-26 failures in the event of a common mode failure of all four of these 

16 motor-operated valves (MOVs) (cost-beneficial with uncertainties). 

17 ● SAMA 15 – Provide control room capability to realign power to makeup pump 1B 

18 remotely in lieu of local manual operation (cost-beneficial in revised analysis, with 

19 uncertainties). 

20 ● SAMA 33 – Proceduralize manual operation of DHV-42 and DHV-43 in the event 

21 remote operation of these MOVs fails (cost-beneficial in revised analysis). 

22 ● SAMA 34 – Improve procedures for manual operation of EFW valves in order to 

23 maintain acceptable steam generator water levels in the event the automatic 

24 level control system fails. 

25 ● SAMA 35 – Update power-operated relief valve (PORV) controls to open 

26 automatically when operator action was previously required to open the PORV 

27 (cost-beneficial in revised analysis). 

28 ● SAMA 38 – Additional condensate storage tank (CST) replacement water 

29 sources are aligned through operator actions to provide backup for the EFW 

30 system when the CST is rendered unavailable (cost-beneficial in revised 

31 analysis). 

32 ● SAMA 49 – Upgrade fire barriers in battery charger room 3A (cost-beneficial with 

33 uncertainties). 

34 ● SAMA 51 – Upgrade or improve engineering analysis to qualify the emergency 

35 feedwater initiation and control (EFIC) cabinets to a higher temperature, thereby 

36 increasing the reliability of the EFIC system (cost-beneficial with uncertainties). 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-8 

1 In response to Staff inquiries, FPC identified two additional cost-beneficial SAMAs related to 

2 improvements to upgrade the fire compartment barriers in 4.16 kilovolt (kV) switchgear bus 

3 rooms 3A and 3B (Progress Energy, 2009b). 

4 FPC indicated that they plan to further evaluate all of these SAMAs using the appropriate CR-3 

5 design process, and have included these items in CR-3’s corrective action program 

6 (Progress Energy, 2008), (Progress Energy, 2009a), (Progress Energy, 2010). 

7 The Staff concludes that, with the exception of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs discussed 

8 above, the costs of the SAMAs evaluated would be higher than the associated benefits. 

9 5.3.6 Conclusions 

10 The Staff reviewed FPC’s analysis and concluded that the methods used and the 

11 implementation of those methods were sound. The treatment of SAMA benefits and costs 

12 support the general conclusion that the SAMA evaluations performed by FPC are reasonable 

13 and sufficient for the license renewal submittal. 

14 Based on its review of the SAMA analysis, the Staff concurs with FPC’s identification of areas in 

15 which risk can be further reduced in a cost-beneficial manner through the implementation of all 

16 or a subset of potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. Given the potential for cost-beneficial risk 

17 reduction, the Staff considers that further evaluation of these SAMAs by FPC is warranted. 

18 However, none of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs relate to adequately managing the 

19 effects of aging during the period of extended operation. Therefore, they need not be 

20 implemented as part of the license renewal under 10 CFR Part 54. 

21 5.4 REFERENCES 

22 FPC (Florida Power Corporation). 1993. “Individual Plant Examination for Internal Events,” 

23 March 9, 1993, Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession 

24 No. ML073551186. 

25 FPC (Florida Power Corporation). 1996. “Individual Plant Examination for External Events,” 

26 June 28, 1996, ADAMS Accession No. ML073551183. 

27 FPC (Florida Power Corporation). 1997. “Individual Plant Examination for External Events, 

28 Revision 1,” March 24, 1997, ADAMS Accession No. ML073550630. 

29 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

30 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C., 

31 May 1996, ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738. 

32 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1997. Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation 

33 Handbook, NUREG/BR-0184, Washington, D.C., January 1997. 

34 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

35 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

36 Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final 

37 Report,” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C., August 1999, ADAMS 

38 Accession No. ML04069720. 

39 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2004. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. 

40 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 4, Washington, D.C., September 

41 2004. 
Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

 5-9 

1 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2008. “Crystal River Unit 3 – License 

2 Renewal Application, Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage,” 

3 November 2008, ADAMS Accession No. ML090080731. 

4 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009a. Letter from J.A. Franke, Progress 

5 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River Unit 3 – Response to 

6 Request for Additional Information Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for Crystal 

7 River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant License Renewal Application (TAC No. ME0278),” 

8 October 9, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML092860615. 

9 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009b. Letter from J.A. Franke, Progress 

10 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River Unit 3 – Response to 

11 Follow-up to Progress Energy RAI Responses on CR-3 SAMA Evaluation (TAC No. ME0278),” 

12 December 18, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML093580090. 

13 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2010. E-mail from Mike Heath, Progress 

14 Energy, to Elaine Keegan, NRC. Subject: “RE: Question on SAMA response,” January 11, 

15 2010.

 6-1 

1 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE 

2 AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 

3 6.1 THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 

4 This chapter addresses issues related to the uranium fuel cycle and waste management during 

5 the period of extended operation. The uranium cycle includes uranium mining and milling, the 

6 production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of 

7 irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive materials, and management of low-level wastes and 

8 high-level wastes related to uranium fuel cycle activities. The generic potential impacts of the 

9 radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle and 

10 transportation of nuclear fuel and wastes are described in detail in NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 

11 and 2, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) 

12 (NRC, 1996), (NRC, 1999) based, in part, on the generic impacts provided in Title 10, 

13 Section 51.51(b), of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 51.51(b)), Table S-3, “Table of 

14 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data,” and in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Table S-4, “Environmental 

15 Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power 

16 Reactor.” 

17 Table 6-1. Issues Related to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management. There are 

18 nine generic issues related to the fuel cycle and waste management. There are no site-specific 

19 issues.

Issues GEIS Sections Category 

Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other 

than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste) 

6.1; 6.2.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.2.3; 6.2.3; 

6.2.4; 6.6 

1 

Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects) 6.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6 1 

Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high-level 

waste disposal) 

6.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6 1 

Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle 6.1; 6.2.2.6; 6.2.2.7; 6.2.2.8; 6.2.2.9; 

6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6 

1 

Low-level waste storage and disposal 6.1; 6.2.2.2; 6.4.2; 6.4.3; 6.4.3.1; 

6.4.3.2; 6.4.3.3; 6.4.4; 6.4.4.1; 

6.4.4.2; 6.4.4.3; 6.4.4.4; 6.4.4.5; 

6.4.4.5.1; 6.4.4.5.2; 6.4.4.5.3; 

6.4.4.5.4; 6.4.4.6; 6.6 

1 

Mixed waste storage and disposal 6.4.5.1; 6.4.5.2; 6.4.5.3; 6.4.5.4; 

6.4.5.5; 6.4.5.6; 6.4.5.6.1; 6.4.5.6.2; 

6.4.5.6.3; 6.4.5.6.4; 6.6 

1 

Onsite spent fuel 6.1; 6.4.6; 6.4.6.1; 6.4.6.2; 6.4.6.3; 

6.4.6.4; 6.4.6.5; 6.4.6.6; 6.4.6.7; 6.6 

1 

Nonradiological waste 6.1; 6.5; 6.5.1; 6.5.2; 6.5.3; 6.6 1 

Transportation 6.1; 6.3.1; 6.3.2.3; 6.3.3; 6.3.4; 6.6, 

Addendum 1 

1 
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management 

 6-2 

1 The staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Staff) did not find any new 

2 and significant information related to the uranium fuel cycle and waste management during its 

3 review of the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3) environmental report (ER) 

4 (Progress Energy, 2008), the site visit, or the scoping process. Therefore, there are no impacts 

5 related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For these Category 1 issues, the 

6 GEIS concludes that the impacts are SMALL, except for the offsite radiological collective 

7 impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal, which the NRC 

8 has concluded to be acceptable. 

9 6.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 

10 This section discusses the potential impacts from greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted from the 

11 uranium fuel cycle. The GEIS does not directly address these emissions, and its discussion is 

12 limited to an inference that substantial carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions may occur if coal- or 

13 oil-fired alternatives to license renewal are carried out. 

14 6.2.1 Existing Studies 

15 Since the development of the GEIS, the relative volumes of GHGs emitted by nuclear and other 

16 electricity generating methods have been widely studied. However, estimates and projections 

17 of the carbon footprint of the nuclear power lifecycle vary depending on the type of study done. 

18 Additionally, considerable debate also exists among researchers on the relative effects of 

19 nuclear and other forms of electricity generation on GHG emissions. Existing studies on GHG 

20 emissions from nuclear power plants generally take two different forms: 

21 (1) qualitative discussions of the potential to use nuclear power to reduce GHG emissions 

22 and mitigate global warming 

23 (2) technical analyses and quantitative estimates of the actual amount of GHGs generated 

24 by the nuclear fuel cycle or entire nuclear power plant lifecycle and comparisons to the 

25 operational or lifecycle emissions from other energy generation alternatives 

26 6.2.1.1 Qualitative Studies 

27 The qualitative studies consist primarily of broad, large-scale public policy or investment 

28 evaluations of whether an expansion of nuclear power is likely to be a technically, economically, 

29 or politically workable means of achieving global GHG reductions. Studies found by the Staff 

30 during the subsequent literature search include the following: 

31 ● Evaluations to determine if investments in nuclear power in developing countries 

32 should be accepted as a flexibility mechanism to assist industrialized nations in 

33 achieving their GHG reduction goals under the Kyoto Protocols (Schneider, 

34 2000), (IAEA, 2000), (NEA and OECD, 2002). Ultimately, the parties to the 

35 Kyoto Protocol did not approve nuclear power as a component under the Clean 

36 Development Mechanism due to safety and waste disposal concerns (NEA and 

37 OECD, 2002). 

38 ● Analyses developed to assist governments, including the United States, in 

39 making long-term investment and public policy decisions in nuclear power 

40 (Keepin, 1988), (Hagen et al., 2001), (MIT, 2003). 
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management 

 6-3 

1 Although the qualitative studies sometimes reference and critique the existing quantitative 

2 estimates of GHGs produced by the nuclear fuel cycle or lifecycle, their conclusions generally 

3 rely heavily on discussions of other aspects of nuclear policy decisions and investment such as 

4 safety, cost, waste generation, and political acceptability. Therefore, these studies are typically 

5 not directly applicable to an evaluation of GHG emissions associated with the proposed license 

6 renewal for a given nuclear power plant. 

7 6.2.1.2 Quantitative Studies 

8 A large number of technical studies, including calculations and estimates of the amount of 

9 GHGs emitted by nuclear and other power generation options, are available in the literature and 

10 were useful to the Staff’s efforts in addressing relative GHG emission levels. Examples of these 

11 studies include—but are not limited to—Mortimer (1990), Andseta et al. (1998), Spadaro (2000), 

12 Storm van Leeuwen and Smith (2005), Fritsche (2006), Parliamentary Office of Science and 

13 Technology (POST) (2006), AEA Technology (AEA) (2006), Weisser (2006), Fthenakis and Kim 

14 (2007), and Dones (2007). 

15 Comparing these studies and others like them is difficult because the assumptions and 

16 components of the lifecycles the authors evaluate vary widely. Examples of areas in which 

17 differing assumptions make comparing the studies difficult include the following: 

18 ● energy sources that may be used to mine uranium deposits in the future 

19 ● reprocessing or disposal of spent nuclear fuel 

20 ● current and potential future processes to enrich uranium and the energy sources 

21 that will power them 

22 ● estimated grades and quantities of recoverable uranium resources 

23 ● estimated grades and quantities of recoverable fossil fuel resources 

24 ● estimated GHG emissions other than CO2, including the conversion to CO2

25 equivalents per unit of electric energy produced 

26 ● performance of future fossil fuel power systems 

27 ● projected capacity factors for alternative means of generation 

28 ● current and potential future reactor technologies 

29 In addition, studies may vary with respect to whether all or parts of a power plant’s lifecycle are 

30 analyzed. That is, a full lifecycle analysis will typically address plant construction, operations, 

31 resource extraction (for fuel and construction materials), and decommissioning, whereas, a 

32 partial lifecycle analysis primarily focus on operational differences. 

33 In the case of license renewal, a GHG analysis for that portion of the plant’s lifecycle (operation 

34 for an additional 20 years) would not involve GHG emissions associated with construction 

35 because construction activities have already been completed at the time of relicensing. In 

36 addition, the proposed action of license renewal would also not involve additional GHG 

37 emissions associated with facility decommissioning because decommissioning must occur 
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management 

 6-4 

1 whether the facility is relicensed or not. However, in some of the above-mentioned studies, the 

2 specific contribution of GHG emissions from construction, decommissioning, or other portions of 

3 a plant’s lifecycle cannot be clearly separated from one another. In such cases, an analysis of 

4 GHG emissions would overestimate the GHG emissions attributed to a specific portion of a 

5 plant’s lifecycle. Nonetheless, these studies supply some meaningful information with respect 

6 to the relative magnitude of the emissions among nuclear power plants and other forms of 

7 electric generation, as discussed in the following sections. 

8 In Tables 6.2-1, 6.2-2, and 6.2-3, the Staff presents the results of the above-mentioned 

9 quantitative studies to supply a weight-of-evidence evaluation of the relative GHG emissions 

10 that may result from the proposed license renewal as compared to the potential alternative use 

11 of coal-fired, natural gas-fired, and renewable generation. Most studies from Mortimer (1990) 

12 onward suggest that uranium ore grades and uranium enrichment processes are leading 

13 determinants in the ultimate GHG emissions attributable to nuclear power generation. These 

14 studies show that the relatively lower order of magnitude of GHG emissions from nuclear power, 

15 when compared to fossil-fueled alternatives (especially natural gas), could potentially disappear 

16 if available uranium ore grades drop sufficiently while enrichment processes continued to rely on 

17 the same technologies. 

18 6.2.1.3 Summary of Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Coal 

19 Considering that coal fuels the largest share of electricity generation in the United States and 

20 that its burning results in the largest emissions of GHGs for any of the likely alternatives to 

21 nuclear power generation, including CR-3, most of the available quantitative studies focused on 

22 comparisons of the relative GHG emissions of nuclear to coal-fired generation. The quantitative 

23 estimates of the GHG emissions associated with the nuclear fuel cycle (and, in some cases, the 

24 nuclear lifecycle), as compared to an equivalent coal-fired plant, are presented in Table 6.2-1. 

25 The following chart does not include all existing studies, but it gives an illustrative range of 

26 estimates developed by various sources. 
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management 

 6-5 

1 Table 6.2-1. Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Coal 

Source GHG Emission Results 

Mortimer (1990) Nuclear—230,000 tons CO2

Coal—5,912,000 tons CO2

Note: Future GHG emissions from nuclear to increase because of declining ore grade. 

Andseta et al. (1998) Nuclear energy produces 1.4% of the GHG emissions compared to coal. 

Note: Future reprocessing and use of nuclear-generated electrical power in the mining 

and enrichment steps are likely to change the projections of earlier authors, such as 

Mortimer (1990). 

Spadaro et al. (2000) Nuclear—2.5 to 5.7 g Ceq/kWh 

Coal—264 to 357 g Ceq/kWh 

Storm van Leeuwen and 

Smith (2005) 

Authors did not evaluate nuclear versus coal. 

Fritsche (2006) (Values 

estimated from graph in 

Figure 4) 

Nuclear—33 g Ceq/kWh 

Coal—950 g Ceq/kWh 

POST (2006) (Nuclear 

calculations from 

AEA, 2006) 

Nuclear—5 g Ceq/kWh 

Coal—>1,000 g Ceq/kWh 

Note: Decrease of uranium ore grade to 0.03% would raise nuclear to 6.8 g Ceq/kWh. 

Future improved technology and carbon capture and storage could reduce coal-fired 

GHG emissions by 90%. 

Weisser (2006) 

(Compilation of results 

from other studies) 

Nuclear—2.8 to 24 g Ceq/kWh 

Coal—950 to 1,250 g Ceq/kWh 

Fthenakis and Kim (2007) Authors did not evaluate nuclear versus coal. 

Dones (2007) Author did not evaluate nuclear versus coal. 

g Ceq/kWh = grams of carbon equivalent per kilowatt-hour 

2 6.2.1.4 Summary of Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Natural Gas 

3 The quantitative estimates of the GHG emissions associated with the nuclear fuel cycle (and, in 

4 some cases, the nuclear lifecycle), as compared to an equivalent natural gas-fired plant, are 

5 presented in Table 6.2-2. The following chart does not include all existing studies, but it gives 

6 an illustrative range of estimates developed by various sources. 
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management 

 6-6 

1 Table 6.2-2. Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Natural Gas 

Source GHG Emission Results 

Mortimer (1990) Author did not evaluate nuclear versus natural gas. 

Andseta et al. (1998) Authors did not evaluate nuclear versus natural gas. 

Spadaro et al. (2000) Nuclear—2.5 to 5.7 g Ceq/kWh 

Natural Gas—120 to 188 g Ceq/kWh 

Storm van Leeuwen and 

Smith (2005) 

Nuclear fuel cycle produces 20 to 33% of the GHG emissions compared to natural gas 

(at high ore grades). 

Note: Future nuclear GHG emissions to increase because of declining ore grade. 

Fritsche (2006) (Values 

estimated from graph in 

Figure 4) 

Nuclear—33 g Ceq/kWh 

Cogeneration Combined Cycle Natural Gas—150 g Ceq/kWh 

POST (2006) (Nuclear 

calculations from 

AEA, 2006) 

Nuclear—5 g Ceq/kWh 

Natural Gas—500 g Ceq/kWh 

Note: Decrease of uranium ore grade to 0.03% would raise nuclear to 6.8 g Ceq/kWh. 

Future improved technology and carbon capture and storage could reduce natural gas 

GHG emissions by 90%. 

Weisser (2006) 

(Compilation of results 

from other studies) 

Nuclear—2.8 to 24 g Ceq/kWh 

Natural Gas—440 to 780 g Ceq/kWh 

Fthenakis and Kim (2007) Authors did not evaluate nuclear versus natural gas. 

Dones (2007) Author critiqued methods and assumptions of Storm van Leeuwen and Smith (2005) 

and concluded that the nuclear fuel cycle produces 15 to 27% of the GHG emissions of 

natural gas. 

2 6.2.1.5 Summary of Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Renewable Energy 

3 Sources 

4 The quantitative estimates of the GHG emissions associated with the nuclear fuel cycle, as 

5 compared to equivalent renewable energy sources, are presented in Table 6.2-3. Calculation of 

6 GHG emissions associated with these sources is more difficult than the calculations for nuclear 

7 energy and fossil fuels because of the large variation in efficiencies due to their different 

8 sources and locations. For example, the efficiency of solar and wind energy is highly dependent 

9 on the location in which the power generation facility is installed. Similarly, the range of GHG 

10 emissions estimates for hydropower varies greatly depending on the type of dam or reservoir 

11 involved (if used at all). Therefore, the GHG emissions estimates for these energy sources 

12 have a greater range of variability than the estimates for nuclear and fossil fuel sources. As 

13 noted in Section 6.2.1.2, the following chart does not include all existing studies, but it gives an 

14 illustrative range of estimates developed by various sources. 
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management 

 6-7 

1 Table 6.2-3. Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Renewable Energy 

2 Sources 

Source GHG Emission Results 

Mortimer (1990) Nuclear—230,000 tons CO2

Hydropower—78,000 tons CO2

Wind power—54,000 tons CO2

Tidal power—52,500 tons CO2

Note: Future GHG emissions from nuclear to increase because of declining ore grade. 

Andseta et al. (1998) Authors did not evaluate nuclear versus renewable energy sources. 

Spadaro et al. (2000) Nuclear—2.5 to 5.7 g Ceq/kWh 

Solar PV—27.3 to 76.4 g Ceq/kWh 

Hydroelectric—1.1 to 64.6 g Ceq/kWh 

Biomass—8.4 to 16.6 g Ceq/kWh 

Wind—2.5 to 13.1 g Ceq/kWh 

Storm van Leeuwen and 

Smith (2005) 

Authors did not evaluate nuclear versus renewable energy sources. 

Fritsche (2006) (Values 

estimated from graph in 

Figure 4) 

Nuclear—33 g Ceq/kWh 

Solar PV—125 g Ceq/kWh 

Hydroelectric—50 g Ceq/kWh 

Wind—20 g Ceq/kWh 

POST (2006) (Nuclear 

calculations from 

AEA, 2006) 

Nuclear—5 g Ceq/kWh 

Biomass—25 to 93 g Ceq/kWh 

Solar PV—35 to 58 g Ceq/kWh 

Wave/Tidal—25 to 50 g Ceq/kWh 

Hydroelectric—5 to 30 g Ceq/kWh 

Wind—4.64 to 5.25 g Ceq/kWh 

Note: Decrease of uranium ore grade to 0.03% would raise nuclear to 6.8 g Ceq/kWh. 

Weisser (2006) 

(Compilation of results from 

other studies) 

Nuclear—2.8 to 24 g Ceq/kWh 

Solar PV—43 to 73 g Ceq/kWh 

Hydroelectric—1 to 34 g Ceq/kWh 

Biomass—35 to 99 g Ceq/kWh 

Wind—8 to 30 g Ceq/kWh 

Fthenakis and Kim (2007) Nuclear—16 to 55 g Ceq/kWh 

Solar PV—17 to 49 g Ceq/kWh 

Dones (2007) Author did not evaluate nuclear versus renewable energy sources. 

Solar PV = solar photovoltaic 

3 6.2.2 Conclusions: Relative Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

4 The sampling of data presented in Tables 6.2-1, 6.2-2, and 6.2-3 demonstrates the challenges 

5 of any attempt to determine the specific amount of GHG emissions attributable to nuclear 

6 energy production sources, as different assumptions and calculation methods will yield differing 

7 results. The differences and complexities in these assumptions and analyses will further 

8 increase when they are used to project future GHG emissions. Nevertheless, several 

9 conclusions can be drawn from the information presented. 

10 First, the various studies show a general consensus that nuclear power currently produces 

11 fewer GHG emissions than fossil-fuel-based electrical generation (e.g., the GHG emissions from 

12 a complete nuclear fuel cycle currently range from 2.5 to 55 grams of carbon equivalent per 

13 kilowatt-hour (g Ceq/kWh), as compared to the use of coal plants (264 to 1,250 g Ceq/kWh) and 

14 natural gas plants (120 to 780 g Ceq/kWh). The studies also give estimates of GHG emissions 
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management 

 6-8 

1 from five renewable energy sources based on current technology. These estimates included 

2 solar photovoltaic (17 to 125 g Ceq/kWh), hydroelectric (1 to 64.6 g Ceq/kWh), biomass (8.4 to 

3 99 g Ceq/kWh), wind (2.5 to 30 g Ceq/kWh), and tidal (25 to 50 g Ceq/kWh). The range of these 

4 estimates is wide, but the general conclusion is that current GHG emissions from the nuclear 

5 fuel cycle are of the same order of magnitude as from these renewable energy sources. 

6 Second, the studies show no consensus on future relative GHG emissions from nuclear power 

7 and other sources of electricity. There is substantial disagreement among the various authors 

8 about the GHG emissions associated with declining uranium ore concentrations, future uranium 

9 enrichment methods, and other factors, including changes in technology. Similar disagreement 

10 exists about future GHG emissions associated with coal and natural gas for electricity 

11 generation. Even the most conservative studies conclude that the nuclear fuel cycle currently 

12 produces fewer GHG emissions than fossil-fuel-based sources and is expected to continue to 

13 do so in the near future. The primary difference between the authors is the projected cross-over 

14 date (the time at which GHG emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle exceed those of 

15 fossil-fuel-based sources) or whether cross-over will actually occur. 

16 Considering the current estimates and future uncertainties, it appears that GHG emissions 

17 associated with the proposed CR-3 relicensing action are likely to be lower than those 

18 associated with fossil-fuel-based energy sources. The Staff bases this conclusion on the 

19 following rationale: 

20 ● As shown in Tables 6.2-1 and 6.2-2, the current estimates of GHG emissions 

21 from the nuclear fuel cycle are far below those for fossil-fuel-based energy 

22 sources. 

23 ● CR-3 license renewal will involve continued GHG emissions due to uranium 

24 mining, processing, and enrichment but will not result in increased GHG 

25 emissions associated with plant construction or decommissioning (as the plant 

26 will have to be decommissioned at some point whether the license is renewed or 

27 not). 

28 ● Few studies predict that nuclear fuel cycle emissions will exceed those of fossil 

29 fuels within a timeframe that includes the CR-3 periods of extended operation. 

30 Several studies suggest that future extraction and enrichment methods, the 

31 potential for higher grade resource discovery, and technology improvements 

32 could extend this timeframe. 

33 With respect to comparison of GHG emissions among the proposed CR-3 license renewal 

34 action and renewable energy sources, it appears likely that there will be future technology 

35 improvements and changes in the type of energy used for mining, processing, and constructing 

36 facilities of all types. Currently, the GHG emissions associated with the nuclear fuel cycle and 

37 renewable energy sources are within the same order of magnitude. Because nuclear fuel 

38 production is the most significant contributor to possible future increases in GHG emissions 

39 from nuclear power—and because most renewable energy sources lack a fuel component—it is 

40 likely that GHG emissions from renewable energy sources would be lower than those 

41 associated with CR-3 at some point during the period of extended operation. 

42 The Staff also supplies an additional discussion about the contribution of GHG emissions to 

43 cumulative air quality impacts in Section 4.11.5 of this SEIS. 
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management 

 6-9 

1 6.3 REFERENCES 

2 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

3 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

4 10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for 

5 Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

6 AEA Technology (AEA). 2006. “Carbon Footprint of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Briefing Note,” 

7 Prepared for British Energy, March 2006. 

8 Andseta, S., M.J. Thompson, J.P. Jarrell, and D.R. Pendergast. 1998. “CANDU Reactors and 

9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Canadian Nuclear Association, 11th Pacific Basin Nuclear 

10 Conference, Banff, Alberta, Canada, May 1998. Available URL: http://www.computare.org/

11 Support%20documents/Publications/Life%20Cycle.htm

12 Dones, R. 2007. “Critical Note on the Estimation by Storm Van Leeuwen J.W. and Smith P. of 

13 the Energy Uses and Corresponding CO2 Emissions for the Complete Nuclear Energy Chain,” 

14 Paul Sherrer Institute, April 10, 2007. Available URL: http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/Critical%20

15 note%20GHG%20PSI.pdf

16 Fritsche, U.R. 2006. “Comparison of Greenhouse-Gas Emissions and Abatement Cost of 

17 Nuclear and Alternative Energy Options from a Life-Cycle Perspective,” Oko-Institut, Darmstadt 

18 Office, January 2006. Available URL: http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/315/2006-017-en.pdf

19 Fthenakis, V.M., and H.C. Kim. 2007. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Solar Electric and 

20 Nuclear Power: A Life Cycle Study,” Energy Policy, Volume 35, Number 4. 

21 Hagen, R.E., J.R. Moens, and Z.D. Nikodem. 2001. “Impact of U.S. Nuclear Generation on 

22 Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, November 

23 2001. 

24 IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). 2000. “Nuclear Power for Greenhouse Gas 

25 Mitigation under the Kyoto Protocol: The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM),” November 

26 2000. Available URL: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/GreenhouseGas/

27 greenhousegas.pdf

28 Keepin, B. 1988. “Greenhouse Warming: Efficient Solution of Nuclear Nemesis?,” Rocky 

29 Mountain Institute, Joint Hearing on Technologies for Remediating Global Warming, 

30 Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment and 

31 Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 

32 June 1988. 

33 MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). 2003. “The Future of Nuclear Power: An 

34 Interdisciplinary MIT Study.” 

35 Mortimer, N. 1990. “World Warms to Nuclear Power,” SCRAM Safe Energy Journal, 

36 December 1989 and January 1990. Available URL: http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/

37 articles/mortimer_se74.php (accessed July 15, 2010). 

38 NEA and OECD (Nuclear Energy Agency and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and 

39 Development). 2002. Nuclear Energy and the Kyoto Protocol. Available URL: 

40 http://www.nea.fr/ndd/reports/2002/nea3808-kyoto.pdf 

41 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

42 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C., 

43 May 1996, Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession 

44 Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738. 
Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management 

 6-10 

1 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

2 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

3 Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final 

4 Report,” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C., August 1999, ADAMS 

5 Accession No. ML040690720. 

6 POST (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology). 2006. “Carbon Footprint of Electricity 

7 Generation,” Postnote, Number 268, October 2006. Available URL: http://www.parliament.uk/

8 documents/post/postpn268.pdf

9 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2008. “Crystal River Unit 3 – License 

10 Renewal Application, Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage,” 

11 November 2008, ADAMS Accession No. ML090080731. 

12 Schneider, M. 2000. Climate Change and Nuclear Power, World Wildlife Fund for Nature, 

13 April 2000. Available URL: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/fullnuclearreprotwwf.pdf

14 Spadaro, J.V., L. Langlois, and B. Hamilton. 2000. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Electricity 

15 Generation Chains: Assessing the Difference,” IAEA Bulletin 42/2/2000, Vienna, Austria. 

16 Available URL: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf

17 Storm van Leeuwen, J.W., and P. Smith. 2005. Nuclear Power—The Energy Balance, 

18 August 2005. 

19 Weisser, D. 2006. “A Guide to Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Electric 

20 Supply Technologies.” Available URL: https://iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/assets/

21 GHG_manuscript_pre-print_versionDanielWeisser.pdf (accessed November 24, 2010). 
 7-1 

1 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DECOMMISSIONING 

2 Environmental impacts from the activities associated with the decommissioning of any reactor 

3 before or at the end of an initial or renewed license are evaluated in NUREG-0586, 

4 Supplement 1, Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear 

5 Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors (NRC, 

6 2002). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff’s (Staff’s) evaluation of the 

7 environmental impacts of decommissioning—presented in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1—notes 

8 a range of impacts for each environmental issue. 

9 Additionally, the incremental environmental impacts associated with decommissioning activities 

10 resulting from continued plant operation during the license renewal term are discussed in 

11 NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal 

12 of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) (NRC, 1996), (NRC, 1999). The GEIS includes a determination of 

13 whether the analysis of the environmental issue could be applied to all plants and whether 

14 additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues were then assigned a Category 1 or 

15 Category 2 designation. Section 1.4 in Chapter 1 explains the criteria for Category 1 and 

16 Category 2 issues and defines the impact designations of SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE. 

17 The Staff analyzed site-specific issues (Category 2) for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating 

18 Plant (CR-3) and assigned them a significance level of SMALL, MODERATE, LARGE, or not 

19 applicable to CR-3 because of site characteristics or plant features. There are no Category 2 

20 issues related to decommissioning. 

21 7.1 DECOMMISSIONING 

22 Table 7-1 lists the Category 1 issues in Table B-1 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

23 (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B that are applicable to CR-3 decommissioning following 

24 the renewal term. 

25 Decommissioning would occur whether CR-3 were shut down at the end of its current operating 

26 license or at the end of the period of extended operation. There are no site-specific issues 

27 related to decommissioning. 

28 Table 7-1. Issues Related to Decommissioning

Issues GEIS Sections Category 

Radiation doses 7.3.1; 7.4 1 

Waste management 7.3.2; 7.4 1 

Air quality 7.3.3; 7.4 1 

Water quality 7.3.4; 7.4 1 

Ecological resources 7.3.5; 7.4 1 

Socioeconomic impacts 7.3.7; 7.4 1 

 
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning 

 7-2 

1 A brief description of the Staff’s review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, 

2 10 CFR Part 51, for each of the issues follows: 

3 Radiation Doses. Based on information in the GEIS, the NRC noted that “[d]oses to the public 

4 will be well below applicable regulatory standards regardless of which decommissioning method 

5 is used. Occupational doses would increase no more than 1 person-rem [roentgen equivalent 

6 man] (1 person-mSv [millisievert]) caused by buildup of long lived radionuclides during the 

7 license renewal term.” 

8 Waste Management. Based on information in the GEIS, the NRC noted that 

9 “[d]ecommissioning at the end of a 20-year license renewal period would generate no more 

10 solid wastes than at the end of the current license term. No increase in the quantities of 

11 Class C or greater than Class C wastes would be expected.” 

12 Air Quality. Based on information in the GEIS, the NRC noted that “[a]ir quality impacts of 

13 decommissioning are expected to be negligible either at the end of the current operating term or 

14 at the end of the license renewal term.” 

15 Water Quality. Based on information in the GEIS, the NRC noted that “[t]he potential for 

16 significant water quality impacts from erosion or spills is no greater whether decommissioning 

17 occurs after a 20-year license renewal period or after the original 40-year operation period, and 

18 measures are readily available to avoid such impacts.” 

19 Ecological Resources. Based on information in the GEIS, the NRC noted that 

20 “[d]ecommissioning after either the initial operating period or after a 20-year license renewal 

21 period is not expected to have any direct ecological impacts.” 

22 Socioeconomic Impacts. Based on information in the GEIS, the NRC noted that 

23 “[d]ecommissioning would have some short-term socioeconomic impacts. The impacts would 

24 not be increased by delaying decommissioning until the end of a 20-year relicense period, but 

25 they might be decreased by population and economic growth.” 

26 The applicant stated in its environmental report that it is not aware of any new and significant 

27 information on the environmental impacts of CR-3 license renewal (Progress Energy, 2008). 

28 The Staff has not found any new and significant information during its independent review of the 

29 environmental report, the site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available 

30 information. Therefore, the Staff concludes that there are no impacts related to these issues, 

31 beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of these issues, the Staff concluded in the GEIS 

32 that the impacts are SMALL and additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to 

33 be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted. 

34 7.2 REFERENCES 

35 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

36 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

37 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

38 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C., 

39 May 1996, Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession 

40 Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738. 
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning 

 7-3 

1 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

2 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

3 Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final 

4 Report,” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C., August 1999, ADAMS 

5 Accession No. ML040690720. 

6 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

7 for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of 

8 Nuclear Power Reactors, NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C., 

9 November 2002, ADAMS Accession Nos. ML023500295 and ML023500395. 

10 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2008. “Crystal River Unit 3 – License 

11 Renewal Application, Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage,” 

12 November 2008, ADAMS Accession No. ML090080731. 

 8-1 

1 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES 

2 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires the consideration of a range of 

3 reasonable alternatives to the proposed action in an environmental impact statement (EIS). In 

4 this case, the proposed action is whether to issue a renewed license for Crystal River Unit 3 

5 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3), which will allow the plant to operate for 20 years beyond its 

6 current license expiration date. A license is just one of a number of conditions that a licensee 

7 must meet in order to operate its nuclear plant. State regulatory agencies and the owners of the 

8 nuclear power plant ultimately decide whether the plant will operate, and economic and 

9 environmental considerations play a primary role in this decision. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

10 Commission’s (NRC’s) responsibility is to ensure the safe operation of nuclear power facilities 

11 and not to formulate energy policy or encourage or discourage the development of alternative 

12 power generation. 

13 The license renewal process is designed to assure safe operation of the nuclear power plant 

14 and protection of the environment during the license renewal term. Under the NRC’s 

15 environmental protection regulations in Part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

16 (10 CFR Part 51), which implement Section 102(2) of the NEPA, renewal of a nuclear power 

17 plant operating license requires the preparation of an EIS. 

18 To support the preparation of these EISs, the NRC prepared the Generic Environmental Impact 

19 Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, in 1996 (NRC, 1996). 

20 The 1996 GEIS for license renewal was prepared to assess the environmental impacts 

21 associated with the continued operation of nuclear power plants during the license renewal 

22 term. The intent was to determine which environmental impacts would result in essentially the 

23 same impact at all nuclear power plants, and which ones could result in different levels of 

24 impacts at different plants and would require a plant-specific analysis to determine the impacts. 

25 For those issues that could not be generically addressed, the NRC will develop a plant-specific 

26 supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) to the GEIS. 

27 NRC regulations 10 CFR 51.71(d) implementing the NEPA for license renewal require that a 

28 SEIS consider the following: 

29 Consider and weigh the environmental effects of the proposed action [license 

30 renewal]; the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and 

31 alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects and 

32 consideration of the economic, technical, and other benefits and costs of the 

33 proposed action. 

34 In this chapter, the potential environmental impacts of alternatives to license renewal for CR-3 

35 are examined as well as alternatives that may reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts 

36 from license renewal, when and where these alternatives are applicable. 

37 While the 1996 GEIS reached generic conclusions regarding many environmental issues 

38 associated with license renewal, it did not determine which alternatives are reasonable or reach 

39 conclusions about site-specific environmental impact levels. As such, the NRC must evaluate 

40 environmental impacts of alternatives on a site-specific basis. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-2 

1 As stated in Chapter 1, alternatives to the proposed action of license renewal for CR-3 must 

2 meet the purpose and need for issuing a renewed license; they must: 

3 provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of 

4 a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating 

5 needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where 

6 authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decision makers (NRC, 1996). 

7 The NRC ultimately makes no decision about which alternative (or the proposed action) to carry 

8 out because that decision falls to the appropriate energy-planning decisionmakers to decide. 

9 Comparing the environmental effects of these alternatives will help the NRC decide whether the 

10 adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are great enough to deny the option of 

11 license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers (10 CFR 51.95(c)(4)). If the NRC acts to 

12 issue a renewed license, all of the alternatives, including the proposed action, will be available 

13 to energy-planning decisionmakers. If the NRC decides not to renew the license (or takes no 

14 action at all), then energy-planning decisionmakers may no longer elect to continue operating 

15 CR-3 and will have to resort to another alternative―which may or may not be one of the 

16 alternatives considered in this section―to meet their energy needs now being satisfied by CR-3. 

17 In evaluating alternatives to license renewal, energy technologies or options currently in 

18 commercial operation are considered, as well as some technologies not currently in commercial 

19 operation but likely to be commercially available by the time the current CR-3 operating license 

20 expires. The current CR-3 operating license will expire on December 3, 2016, and an 

21 alternative must be available (constructed, permitted, and connected to the grid) by the time the 

22 current CR-3 license expires. 

23 Alternatives that cannot meet future system needs and do not have costs or benefits that justify 

24 inclusion in the range of reasonable alternatives were eliminated from detailed study. The 

25 remaining alternatives were evaluated and are discussed in-depth in this section. Each 

26 alternative eliminated from detailed study is briefly discussed in Section 8.4 and a basis for its 

27 removal is provided. Eighteen discrete potential alternatives to the proposed action were 

28 considered and then narrowed to the two discrete alternatives and one combination alternative 

29 considered in Sections 8.1 through 8.3. 

30 The 1996 GEIS presents an overview of some energy technologies but does not reach any 

31 conclusions about which alternatives are most appropriate. Since 1996, many energy 

32 technologies have evolved significantly in capability and cost, while regulatory structures have 

33 changed to either promote or impede development of particular alternatives. 

34 As a result, the analyses include updated information from sources like the Energy Information 

35 Administration (EIA), other organizations within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. 

36 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), industry sources and publications, and information 

37 submitted by the applicant in its environmental report (ER). 

38 The evaluation of each alternative considers the environmental impacts across seven impact 

39 categories: (1) air quality, (2) groundwater use and quality, (3) surface water use and quality, 

40 (4) ecology, (5) human health, (6) socioeconomics, and (7) waste management. A three-level 

41 standard of significance―SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE―is used to show the intensity of 

42 environmental effects for each alternative that is evaluated in-depth. The order of presentation 

43 is not meant to imply an increasing or decreasing level of impact, nor does it imply that an 

44 energy-planning decisionmaker would select one or another alternative. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-3 

1 Sections 8.1 through 8.3 describe the environmental impacts of alternatives to license renewal. 

2 These alternatives include a supercritical coal-fired plant in Section 8.1, a natural gas-fired 

3 combined-cycle power plant in Section 8.2, and a combination of alternatives in Section 8.3 that 

4 includes some natural gas-fired capacity and energy conservation. In Section 8.4, alternatives 

5 considered but eliminated from detailed study are briefly discussed. Finally, in Section 8.5, 

6 environmental effects that may occur if the NRC takes no action and does not issue a renewed 

7 license for CR-3 are described. Section 8.6 summarizes the impacts of each of the alternatives 

8 considered in detail. 

9 8.1 SUPERCRITICAL COAL-FIRED GENERATION 

10 Although the GEIS indicates that an 850-megawatt-electric (MW[e]) coal-fired power plant 

11 (a plant equivalent in capacity to CR-3) could require 1,537 acres (ac) (622 hectares [ha]) and 

12 thus would not fit on the existing CR-3 site, many coal-fired power plants with larger capacities 

13 have fit on smaller sites. In the ER, the applicant indicated that onsite construction of a 

14 coal-fired alternative would be preferred over an offsite location. The NRC believes this to be 

15 reasonable and, as such, will consider a coal-fired alternative located on the current CR-3 site. 

16 Coal-fired generation accounts for a greater share of U.S. electrical power generation than any 

17 other fuel (EIA, 2010). Furthermore, the EIA projects that coal-fired power plants will account 

18 for the greatest share of capacity additions through 2030―more than natural gas, nuclear, or 

19 renewable generation options. While coal-fired power plants are widely used and likely to 

20 remain widely used, future coal capacity additions may be affected by perceived or actual efforts 

21 to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For now, the coal-fired alternative is a feasible, 

22 commercially available option that could provide electrical generating capacity after CR-3’s 

23 current license expires. 

24 Supercritical technologies are increasingly common in new coal-fired plants. Supercritical 

25 plants operate at higher temperatures and pressures than most existing coal-fired plants 

26 (beyond water’s “critical point,” where boiling no longer occurs and no clear phase change 

27 occurs between steam and liquid water). Operating at higher temperatures and pressures 

28 allows this coal-fired alternative to operate at a higher thermal efficiency than many existing 

29 coal-fired power plants do. While supercritical facilities are more expensive to construct, they 

30 consume less fuel for a given output and so reduce environmental impacts. Based on 

31 technology forecasts from the EIA, a new supercritical coal-fired plant beginning operation in 

32 2016 would operate at a heat rate of 9,069 British thermal units per kilowatt hour (Btu/kWh), or 

33 approximately 38 percent thermal efficiency (EIA, 2009a). 

34 In a supercritical coal-fired power plant, burning coal heats pressurized water. As the 

35 supercritical steam/water mixture moves through plant pipes to a turbine generator, the 

36 pressure drops and the mixture flashes to steam. The heated steam expands across the 

37 turbine stages, which then spin and turn the generator to produce electricity. After passing 

38 through the turbine, any remaining steam is condensed back to water in the plant’s condenser. 

39 In most modern U.S. facilities, condenser cooling water circulates through cooling towers or a 

40 cooling pond system (either of which are closed-cycle cooling systems). Older plants often 

41 withdraw cooling water directly from existing rivers, lakes, or estuaries and discharge heated 

42 water directly to the same body of water (called open-cycle cooling). The new facility could 

43 continue to use the existing CR-3 intake structure with a once-through cooling system, so long 

44 as a shut-down CR-3 could continue to receive sufficient water to maintain cooling and provided 

45 that no modifications would be necessary to the intake structure and associated pumps in order 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-4 

1 to provide cooling water for the new facility. Alternatively, the new facility could include the 

2 construction of a closed-cycle cooling system, such as a new natural draft cooling tower. A 

3 coal-fired alternative using closed-cycle cooling was evaluated because it will result in lower 

4 impacts―primarily to aquatic ecology―over the life of the alternative. 

5 After construction of the facility, including a new natural draft cooling tower, the plant would 

6 withdraw makeup water from and discharge blowdown (water containing concentrated dissolved 

7 solids and biocides) back to the Gulf of Mexico. 

8 In order to replace the 850 net MW(e) that CR-3 currently supplies, the coal-fired alternative 

9 would need to produce roughly 904 gross megawatts (MW), using about 6 percent of power 

10 output for onsite power usage (Progress Energy, 2008). Onsite electricity demands include 

11 scrubbers, cooling tower, coal-handling equipment, lights, communication, and other onsite 

12 needs. A supercritical coal-fired power plant equivalent in capacity to CR-3 would require less 

13 cooling water than CR-3 both because of the switch from open-cycle to closed-cycle cooling and 

14 because the plant operates at a higher thermal efficiency. 

15 This 850-MW(e) power plant would consume 4.87 million tons (2.21 million metric tons [MT]) of 

16 coal annually assuming an average heat content of 8,844 British thermal units per pound 

17 (btu/lb) (EIA, 2009a). The EIA reported that most coal consumed in Florida originates in 

18 Kentucky. Given current coal mining operations in the State of Kentucky, the coal used in this 

19 alternative would be mined in either surface or underground mines, then mechanically 

20 processed and washed before being transported―via an existing rail spur―to the power plant 

21 site. Limestone for scrubbers would also arrive by rail. This coal-fired alternative would then 

22 produce roughly 214,500 tons (195,000 MT) of ash and roughly 168,000 tons (152,000 MT) of 

23 scrubber sludge annually. As noted above, much of the coal ash and scrubber sludge could be 

24 reused depending on local recycling and reuse markets. 

25 Environmental impacts from the coal-fired alternative will be greatest during construction. Site 

26 crews will clear the plant site of vegetation, prepare the site surface, and begin excavation 

27 before other crews begin actual construction on the plant and any associated infrastructure. 

28 Because this alternative will be constructed at the CR-3 site, it is not likely that new transmission 

29 lines or a new rail spur will be necessary. 

30 8.1.1 Air Quality 

31 Air quality impacts from coal-fired generation can be substantial because it emits significant 

32 quantities of sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulates, carbon monoxide (CO), 

33 and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) such as mercury. However, many of these pollutants can 

34 be effectively controlled by various technologies. 

35 CR-3 is located in Citrus County, Florida. There are no areas designated by the EPA as 

36 nonattainment or maintenance for any of the criteria pollutants in the 50-mile (mi) (81-kilometer 

37 [km]) vicinity of CR-3. 

38 A new coal-fired generating plant would qualify as a new major-emitting industrial facility and 

39 would be subjected to Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality Review under the 

40 requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), adopted by the Florida Department of Environmental 

41 Protection (FDEP) Division of Air Resource Management in Chapter 62-204 of the Florida 

42 Administrative Code (FAC) (FDEP, 2009a). A new coal-fired generating plant would need to 

43 comply with the new source performance standards for coal-fired plants set forth in 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-5 

1 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da. The standards establish limits for particulate matter and opacity 

2 (40 CFR 60.42(a)), sulfur dioxide (SO2) (40 CFR 60.43(a)), and NOx (40 CFR 60.44(a)). 

3 Regulations issued by the FDEP adopt the EPA’s CAA rules (with modifications) to limit power 

4 plant emissions of SOx, NOx, particulate matter, and HAPs, among other matters. The new 

5 coal-fired generating plant would qualify as a Class I major source as identified in 

6 Chapter 62-213 of the FAC and would be required to obtain Class I major source permits from 

7 the FDEP, which the EPA may also elect to review prior to issuance of the permits (FDEP, 

8 2009a). 

9 Section 169A of the CAA establishes a national goal of preventing future and remedying 

10 existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas when impairment results 

11 from man-made air pollution. The EPA issued a new regional haze rule in 1999 (EPA, 1999). 

12 The rule specifies that for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within a State, the State 

13 must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress toward achieving natural visibility 

14 conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide an improvement in visibility for the 

15 most-impaired days over the period of implementation plan and ensure no degradation in 

16 visibility for the least-impaired days over the same period (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)). Five regional 

17 planning organizations (RPOs) collaborate on the visibility impairment issue, developing the 

18 technical basis for these plans. The State of Florida is among 10 member States (Florida, 

19 Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, 

20 and West Virginia), including the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, of the Visibility 

21 Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), along with tribes, Federal 

22 agencies, and other interested parties, that identifies regional haze and visibility issues and 

23 develops strategies to address them. The visibility protection regulatory requirements, 

24 contained in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P, include the review of the new sources that would be 

25 constructed in the attainment or unclassified areas and may affect visibility in any Class I 

26 Federal area (40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P, §51.307). If a coal-fired plant were located close to a 

27 mandatory Class I Federal area, additional air pollution control requirements would be imposed. 

28 There are three mandatory Class I Federal areas in the State of Florida and the closest is 

29 Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area, which is located about 20 mi south from CR-3. The other 

30 two mandatory Class I Federal areas in Florida are the Everglades National Park (265 mi south 

31 of CR-3) and St. Marks Wilderness Area (116 mi northwest of CR-3). 

32 Florida is also subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which has outlined emissions 

33 reduction goals for both SO2 and NOx for the year 2015. The CAIR will aid Florida sources in 

34 reducing SO2 emissions by 308,000 tons (or 65 percent), and NOx emissions by 192,000 tons 

35 (or 76 percent) (EPA, 2010). 

36 Based on published EIA data, EPA emission factors, and on performance characteristics for this 

37 alternative and likely emission controls, the following emissions were projected: 

38 ● Sulfur oxides (SOx) – 3,200 tons (2,900 MT) per year 

39 ● Nitrogen oxides (NOx) – 610 tons (550 MT) per year 

40 ● Total suspended particles (TSP) – 107 tons (97 MT) per year 

41 ● Particulate matter (PM) PM10 – 25 tons (22 MT) per year 

42 ● Particulate matter (PM) PM2.5 – 0.11 tons (0.10 MT) per year 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-6 

1 ● Carbon monoxide (CO) – 608.77 tons (552.28 MT) per year 

2 8.1.1.1 Sulfur Oxides 

3 The coal-fired alternative at the CR-3 site would likely use wet, limestone-based scrubbers to 

4 remove SOx. The EPA indicates that this technology can remove more than 95 percent of SOx

5 from flue gases. Total SOx emissions after scrubbing would be 3,200 tons (2,900 MT) per year. 

6 SOx emissions from a new coal-fired power plant would be subject to the requirements of Title 

7 IV of the CAA. Title IV was enacted to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOx, the two principal 

8 precursors of acid rain, by restricting emissions of these pollutants from power plants. Title IV 

9 caps aggregate annual power plant SO2 emissions and imposes controls on SO2 emissions 

10 through a system of marketable allowances. The EPA issues one allowance for each ton of 

11 SO2 that a unit is allowed to emit. New units do not receive allowances, but are required to 

12 have allowances to cover their SO2 emissions. Owners of new units must, therefore, purchase 

13 allowances from owners of other power plants or reduce SO2 emissions at other power plants 

14 they own. Allowances can be banked for use in future years. Thus, provided a new coal-fired 

15 power plant is able to purchase sufficient allowances to operate, it would not add to net regional 

16 SO2 emissions, although it might do so locally. 

17 8.1.1.2 Nitrogen Oxides 

18 A coal fired alternative at the CR-3 site would most likely employ various available NOx-control 

19 technologies, which can be grouped into two main categories: combustion modifications and 

20 post-combustion processes. Combustion modifications include low-NOx burners, over-fire air, 

21 and operational modifications. Post-combustion processes include selective catalytic reduction 

22 (SCR) and selective non-catalytic reduction. An effective combination of the combustion 

23 modifications and post-combustion processes allow the reduction of NOx emissions by up to 

24 95 percent (EPA, 1998a). The applicant indicated in its ER that it would use a combination of 

25 low-NOx burners, over-fire air, SCR, and selective non-catalytic reduction technologies in order 

26 to reduce NOx emissions from this alternative. Assuming the use of such technologies at the 

27 CR-3 site, NOx emissions after scrubbing are estimated to be 610 tons (550 MT) annually. 

28 Section 407 of the CAA establishes technology-based emission limitations for NOx emissions. 

29 A new coal-fired power plant would be subject to the new source performance standards for 

30 such plants as indicated in 40 CFR 60.44a(d)(1). This regulation, issued on September 16, 

31 1998 (EPA, 1998b), limits the discharge of any gases that contain nitrogen oxides (NO2) to 

32 200 nanograms (ng) of NOx per joule (J) of gross energy output (equivalent to 1.6 pounds per 

33 megawatt hour [lb/MWh]), based on a 30-day rolling average. Based on the projected 

34 emissions, the proposed alternative would easily meet this regulation. 

35 8.1.1.3 Particulates 

36 The new coal-fired power plant would use fabric filters to remove particulates from flue gases. 

37 The applicant indicated that fabric filters would remove 99.9 percent of particulate matter 

38 (Progress Energy, 2008). The EPA notes that filters are capable of removing in excess of 

39 99 percent of particulate matter and that SO2 scrubbers further reduce particulate matter 

40 emissions (EPA, 2008). Based on the EPA’s emission factors, the new supercritical coal-fired 

41 plant would emit 107 tons (97 MT) per year and approximately 25 tons (22 MT) per year of 

42 particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10) 

43 annually. In addition, coal burning would also result in approximately 0.11 tons (0.10 MT) per 

44 year of particulate emissions with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5). 

45 Coal-handling equipment would introduce fugitive dust emissions when fuel is being transferred 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-7 

1 to onsite storage and then reclaimed from storage for use in the plant. During the construction 

2 of a coal-fired plant, onsite activities would also generate fugitive dust. Vehicles and motorized 

3 equipment would create exhaust emissions during the construction process. However, these 

4 impacts would be intermittent and short-lived and to minimize dust generation, construction 

5 crews would use applicable dust-control measures. Operation of a new natural draft cooling 

6 tower would result in additional particulate draft. 

7 8.1.1.4 Carbon Monoxide 

8 Based on EPA emission factors (EPA, 1998a), the total CO emissions would be approximately 

9 610 tons (550 MT) per year. 

10 8.1.1.5 Hazardous Air Pollutants 

11 Consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court’s February 8, 2008, ruling that vacated its Clean Air 

12 Mercury Rule (CAMR,) the EPA is in the process of developing mercury emissions standards for 

13 power plants under the CAA (Section 112) (EPA, 2009a). Before the CAMR, the EPA 

14 determined that coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam-generating units are significant emitters 

15 of HAPs (EPA, 2000b). The EPA determined that coal plants emit arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 

16 chromium, dioxins, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, lead, manganese, and mercury 

17 (EPA, 2000b). The EPA concluded that mercury is the HAP of greatest concern and that: 

18 (1) a link exists between coal combustion and mercury emissions, (2) electric utility 

19 steam-generating units are the largest domestic source of mercury emissions, and (3) certain 

20 segments of the U.S. population (e.g., the developing fetus and subsistence fish-eating 

21 populations) are believed to be at potential risk of adverse health effects resulting from mercury 

22 exposures caused by the consumption of contaminated fish (EPA, 2000b). On February 6, 

23 2009, the Supreme Court dismissed the EPA’s request to review the 2008 Circuit Court’s 

24 decision and also denied a similar request by the Utility Air Regulatory Group later that month 

25 (EPA, 2009a). 

26 8.1.1.6 Carbon Dioxide 

27 A coal-fired plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions during 

28 operations as well as during mining, processing, and transportation, which the GEIS indicates 

29 could contribute to global warming. The coal-fired plant would emit between 5,401,000 tons 

30 (4,905,000 MT) and 5,603,000 tons (5,083,000 MT) of CO2 per year, depending on the type and 

31 quality of the coal burned. 

32 8.1.1.7 Summary of Air Quality 

33 While the GElS analysis mentions global warming from unregulated CO2 emissions and acid 

34 rain from SOx and NOx emissions as potential impacts, it does not quantify emissions from 

35 coal-fired power plants. However, the GElS analysis does imply that air impacts would be 

36 substantial (NRC, 1996). The above analysis shows that emissions of air pollutants, including 

37 SOx, NOx, CO, and particulates, exceed those produced by the existing nuclear power plant, as 

38 well as those of the other alternatives considered in this section. Operational emissions of CO2

39 are also much greater under the coal-fired alternative. Adverse human health effects such as 

40 cancer and emphysema have also been associated with air emissions from coal combustion 

41 and are discussed further in Section 8.1.5. 

42 The NRC analysis for a coal-fired alternative at the CR-3 site indicates that impacts from the 

43 coal-fired alternative would have clearly noticeable effects, but given existing regulatory 

44 regimes, permit requirements, and emissions controls, the coal-fired alternative would not 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-8 

1 destabilize air quality. Therefore, the appropriate characterization of air impacts from a 

2 coal-fired plant located at CR-3 site would be MODERATE. Existing air quality would result in 

3 varying needs for pollution control equipment to meet applicable local requirements, or varying 

4 degrees of participation in emissions trading schemes. 

5 8.1.2 Groundwater Use and Quality 

6 If the onsite coal-fired alternative continued to use groundwater for drinking water and service 

7 water, the need for groundwater at the plant would be minor. Total usage would likely be less 

8 than CR-3 because fewer workers would be onsite and the coal-fired unit would have fewer 

9 auxiliary systems requiring service water. No effect on groundwater quality would be apparent. 

10 Construction of a coal-fired plant could have a localized effect on groundwater due to temporary 

11 dewatering and run-off control measures. Because of the temporary nature of construction and 

12 the likelihood of reduced groundwater usage during operation, the impact of the coal-fired 

13 alternative would be SMALL. 

14 8.1.3 Surface Water Use and Quality 

15 The coal-fired plant alternative would withdraw approximately 10,000 gallons per minute (gpm) 

(0.6 cubic meters per second [m3 16 /s]) from the Gulf of Mexico (Crystal Bay), with an average rate 

17 of about 14.4 million gallons per day (gpd) and a consumption factor of about 0.55 percent 

18 (DOE, 2008). This is less surface water than CR-3 withdraws and, as such, the impact of 

19 surface water use would be SMALL. A new coal-fired plant would be required to obtain a 

20 National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the FDEP for 

21 regulation of industrial wastewater, stormwater, and other discharges. Assuming the plant 

22 operates within the limits of this permit, the impact from any cooling tower blowdown, site runoff, 

23 and other effluent discharges on surface water quality would be SMALL. 

24 8.1.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology 

25 8.1.4.1 Aquatic Ecology 

26 The number of fish and other aquatic resource organisms affected by impingement, 

27 entrainment, and thermal impacts will be smaller than that associated with license renewal 

28 because water consumption from and blowdown to the Gulf of Mexico would be lower. Some 

29 temporary impacts to aquatic organisms might occur due to any construction that might occur or 

30 due to any effluent discharges to the river, but these activities would be monitored by the FDEP 

31 under the project’s NPDES permit. Due to the assumed switch from open-cycle to closed-cycle 

32 cooling, the number of affected organisms would be less than for license renewal. The levels of 

33 impact for impingement, entrainment, and thermal effects would therefore be SMALL for this 

34 alternative. 

35 8.1.4.2 Terrestrial Ecology 

36 As indicated in the applicant’s ER, constructing the coal-fired alternative onsite will affect 135 ac 

37 (55 ha) of land (Progress Energy, 2008). Coal-mining operations will also affect terrestrial 

38 ecology in offsite coal mining areas, although most of the land is likely already disturbed by 

39 mining operations. Onsite and offsite land disturbances form the basis for impacts to terrestrial 

40 ecology. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-9 

1 Onsite impacts to terrestrial ecology will be moderate because the majority of the construction 

2 would require the clearing of areas that are currently woodlands. These construction activities 

3 may fragment or destroy habitats and could affect food supply and habitat of native wildlife and 

4 migratory waterfowl, however, these impacts are not expected to be destabilizing. 

5 Any onsite or offsite waste disposal by landfilling will also affect terrestrial ecology at least 

6 through the period when the disposal area is reclaimed. Deposition of acid rain resulting from 

7 NOx or SOx emissions, as well as the deposition of other pollutants, can also affect terrestrial 

8 ecology. Given the emission controls discussed in Section 8.1.1, air deposition impacts may be 

9 noticeable, but are not likely to be destabilizing. Primarily because of the potential habitat 

10 disturbances, impacts to terrestrial resources from a coal-fired alternative would be MODERATE 

11 and would occur mostly during construction. 

12 8.1.5 Human Health 

13 Coal-fired power plants introduce worker risks from coal and limestone mining, coal and 

14 limestone transportation, and coal combustion and scrubber waste disposal. In addition, there 

15 are public risks from inhalation of stack emissions (as addressed in Section 8.1.1) and the 

16 secondary effects of eating foods grown in areas subject to deposition from plant stacks. 

17 Human health risks of coal-fired power plants are described, in general, in Table 8-2 of the 

18 GEIS (NRC, 1996). Cancer and emphysema, as a result of the inhalation of toxins and 

19 particulates, are identified as potential health risks to occupational workers and members of the 

20 public (NRC, 1996). The human health risks of coal-fired power plants, both to occupational 

21 workers and to members of the public, are greater than those of the current CR-3 due to 

22 exposures to chemicals such as mercury; SOx; NOx; radioactive elements such as uranium and 

23 thorium contained in coal and coal ash; and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds, 

24 including benzo(a)pyrene. 

25 Regulations restricting emissions—enforced by the EPA or State agencies—have acted to 

26 significantly reduce potential health effects but have not entirely eliminated them. These 

27 agencies also impose site-specific emission limits as needed to protect human health. Even if 

28 the coal-fired alternative were located in a nonattainment area, emission controls and trading or 

29 offset mechanisms could prevent further regional degradation; however, local effects could be 

30 visible. Many of the byproducts of coal combustion responsible for health effects are largely 

31 controlled, captured, or converted in modern power plants (as described in Section 8.1.1), 

32 although some level of health effects may remain. 

33 Aside from emission impacts, the coal-fired alternative introduces the risk of coal pile fires and 

34 for those plants that use coal combustion liquid and sludge waste impoundments, the release of 

35 the waste due to a failure of the impoundment. Although there have been several instances of 

36 this occurring in recent years, these types of events are still relatively rare. 

37 Overall, given extensive health-based regulation, human health impacts would be SMALL. 

38 8.1.6 Socioeconomics 

39 8.1.6.1 Land Use 

40 The GEIS generically evaluates the impacts of nuclear power plant operations on land use both 

41 on and off each power plant site. The analysis of land use impacts focuses on the amount of 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-10 

1 land area that would be affected by the construction and operation of a new supercritical 

2 coal-fired power plant on the CR-3 site. 

3 The applicant indicated that approximately 135 ac (55 ha) of land would be needed to support a 

4 coal-fired alternative capable of replacing CR-3. This amount of land use includes power plant 

5 structures and associated coal delivery and waste disposal infrastructure. The applicant 

6 indicated that the site has an existing rail spur, however, an additional 118 ac (48 ha) of land 

7 area may be needed for waste disposal. The applicant indicated that this waste disposal could 

8 be accommodated onsite, but would require 118 ac (48 ha) of woodlands to be cleared 

9 (Progress Energy, 2008). Given the existence of other coal-fired power plant units at the 

10 Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC), land use impacts from construction would be SMALL to 

11 MODERATE. 

12 Offsite land use impacts would occur from coal mining in addition to land use impacts from the 

13 construction and operation of the new power plant. Scaling from GEIS estimates, approximately 

14 19,000 ac (7,700 ha) of land could be affected by mining coal and waste disposal to support the 

15 coal-fired alternative during its operational life (NRC, 1996). However, most of the land in 

16 existing coal-mining areas has already experienced some level of disturbance. The elimination 

17 of the need for uranium mining to supply fuel for CR-3 would partially offset this offsite land use 

18 impact. Scaling from GEIS estimates, approximately 850 ac (344 ha) of land would be used for 

19 uranium mining, and processing would no longer be needed. Based on this information, overall 

20 land use impacts would be MODERATE. 

21 8.1.6.2 Socioeconomics 

22 Socioeconomic impacts are defined in terms of changes to the demographic and economic 

23 characteristics and social conditions of a region. For example, the number of jobs created by 

24 the construction and operation of a new coal-fired power plant could affect regional 

25 employment, income, and expenditures. Two types of job creation result from this alternative: 

26 (1) construction-related jobs and (2) operation-related jobs in support of power plant operations, 

27 which have the greater potential for permanent, long-term socioeconomic impacts. Workforce 

28 requirements for the construction and operation of the coal-fired power plant alternative were 

29 evaluated in order to measure their possible effects on current socioeconomic conditions. 

30 Based on GEIS estimates, a peak construction workforce of up to 2,000 workers could be 

31 required to construct the coal-fired alternative at CR-3. During the construction period, the 

32 communities surrounding the plant site could experience increased demand for rental housing 

33 and public services. The relative economic contributions of these relocating workers to local 

34 business and tax revenues would vary over time. After construction, local communities may be 

35 temporarily affected by the loss of construction jobs and associated loss in demand for business 

36 services. 

37 In addition, the rental housing market could experience increased vacancies and decreased 

38 prices. As noted in the GEIS, the socioeconomic impacts at a rural construction site could be 

39 larger than at an urban site, because the workforce would need to relocate closer to the 

40 construction site. Although the ER indicates that Citrus County, where CR-3 is located, is 

41 mostly rural in nature, the site is only 70 mi from the Tampa, Florida, metropolitan area. 

42 Therefore, these effects may be somewhat lessened because workers could commute to the 

43 site from these areas instead of relocating closer to the construction site. During the 

44 construction period, worker relocation to the surrounding communities would not be expected 

45 due to the site’s proximity to Tampa. Based on the site’s proximity to a metropolitan area, 

46 construction impacts would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-11 

1 The applicant estimated an operational workforce of less than 100 workers for the 850-MW(e) 

2 alternative based on GEIS estimates (Progress Energy, 2008). The applicant’s estimate 

3 appears reasonable and is consistent with trends calling for decreased workforces at power 

4 facilities. Even at a rural site like CR-3, impacts are unlikely to be large due to its close 

5 proximity to Tampa. Therefore, operations impacts would likely be SMALL. 

6 8.1.6.3 Transportation 

7 During construction, up to 2,000 workers would be commuting to the site. In addition to 

8 commuting workers, trucks would transport construction materials and equipment to the 

9 worksite increasing the amount of traffic on local roads, while trains would transport some of the 

10 largest components to the plant site. The increase in vehicular traffic on roads would peak 

11 during shift changes resulting in temporary levels of service impacts and delays at intersections. 

12 Trains would likely be used to deliver large components to the CR-3 site given its existing rail 

13 spur. Transportation impacts are likely to be MODERATE during construction. 

14 Transportation impacts would be greatly reduced after construction, but would not disappear 

15 during plant operations. The maximum number of plant operating personnel commuting to 

16 CR-3 would be approximately 100 workers. Frequent deliveries of coal and limestone by rail 

17 would add to the overall transportation impact. Onsite coal storage would make it possible to 

18 receive several trains per day. Limestone delivered by rail could also add traffic (though 

19 considerably less traffic than that generated by coal deliveries). Overall, the coal-fired 

20 alternative would have a SMALL to MODERATE impact on transportation conditions in the 

21 region around the CREC during plant operations. 

22 8.1.6.4 Aesthetics 

23 The aesthetics impact analysis focuses on the degree of contrast between the coal-fired 

24 alternative and the surrounding landscape and the visibility of the coal plant. 

25 The coal-fired alternative would be up to 200 feet (ft) (61 meters [m]) tall with an exhaust stack 

26 up to 500 ft (152 m) and may be visible off site in daylight hours. The coal-fired plant could, 

27 therefore, be somewhat taller than the current CR-3 reactor building, which stands at 157 ft 

28 (49 m). However, the CREC currently includes four fossil-powered units, with two 600-ft 

29 (183-m) and two 500-ft (152-m) exhaust stacks. Noise and light from plant operations, as well 

30 as lighting on plant structures, may also be detectable off site. 

31 Overall, because a new coal-fired plant would be consistent with the CREC’s current aesthetic 

32 impacts, the aesthetic impacts associated with the coal-fired alternative would likely be SMALL. 

33 8.1.6.5 Historic and Archeological Resources 

34 Cultural resources are the indications of human occupation and use of the landscape as defined 

35 and protected by a series of Federal laws, regulations, and guidelines. Prehistoric resources 

36 are physical remains of human activities that predate written records; they generally consist of 

37 artifacts that may alone or collectively yield information about the past. Historic resources 

38 consist of physical remains that postdate the emergence of written records; in the United States, 

39 they are architectural structures or districts, archaeological objects, and archaeological features 

40 dating from 1492 and later. Ordinarily, sites less than 50 years old are not considered historic, 

41 but exceptions can be made for such properties if they are of particular importance, such as 

42 structures associated with the development of nuclear power (e.g., Shippingport Atomic power 

43 Station) or Cold War themes. American Indian resources are sites, areas, and materials 

44 important to American Indians for religious or heritage reasons. Such resources may include 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-12 

1 geographic features, plants, animals, cemeteries, battlefields, trails, and environmental features. 

2 The cultural resource analysis encompassed the power plant site and adjacent areas that could 

3 potentially be disturbed by the construction and operation of alternative power plants. 

4 The potential for historic and archaeological resources can vary greatly depending on the 

5 location of the proposed site. To consider a project’s effects on historic and archaeological 

6 resources, any affected areas would need to be surveyed to identify and record historic and 

7 archaeological resources, identify cultural resources (e.g., traditional cultural properties), and 

8 develop possible mitigation measures to address any adverse effects from ground disturbing 

9 activities. 

10 Based on its review of the Florida Master Site File, published literature, and information 

11 provided by the applicant, the NRC concludes that potential impacts of a new coal-fired 

12 alternative on historic and archaeological resources would be SMALL. This conclusion is based 

13 on the results of archaeological surveys conducted prior to initial plant construction and during 

14 subsequent expansion activities. The locations of existing archaeological sites within the 

15 CREC, including areas of high potential for additional discoveries, are located away from plant 

16 maintenance and operations activities in the protected area. This conclusion is also based on 

17 the existing archaeological and cultural resources and environmental protection procedures in 

18 use by CR-3 environmental staff as noted during the environmental site visit. Lands not 

19 previously surveyed should be investigated by a qualified archaeologist prior to any ground 

20 disturbing activity associated with a new coal-fired alternative at the site. 

21 8.1.6.6 Environmental Justice 

22 The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and 

23 adverse human health, environmental, and socioeconomic effects on minority and low-income 

24 populations that could result from the construction and operation of a new coal-fired power 

25 plant. Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or nonfatal 

26 adverse impacts on human health. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects 

27 occur when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income 

28 population is significant and exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for 

29 another appropriate comparison group. Disproportionately high environmental effects refer to 

30 impacts or risk of impact on the natural or physical environment in a minority or low-income 

31 community that are significant and appreciably exceed the environmental impacts on the larger 

32 community. Such effects may include biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts. Some of 

33 these potential effects have been identified in resource areas discussed in this SEIS. For 

34 example, increased demand for rental housing during power plant construction could 

35 disproportionately affect low-income populations. Minority and low-income populations are 

36 subsets of the general public residing in the vicinity of CR-3, and all are exposed to the same 

37 hazards generated from constructing and operating a new, natural gas-fired, combined-cycle 

38 power plant. For socioeconomic data regarding the analysis of environmental justice issues, the 

39 reader is referred to Section 4.9.7, “Environmental Justice.” 

40 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the construction and operation of 

41 a new coal-fired power plant at CR-3 would mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic 

42 effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts 

43 from construction would be short-term and primarily limited to onsite activities. Minority and 

44 low-income populations residing along site access roads would also be affected by increased 

45 commuter vehicle traffic during shift changes and truck traffic. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-13 

1 However, these effects would be temporary during certain hours of the day and not likely to be 

2 high and adverse. Increased demand for rental housing during construction in the vicinity of 

3 CR-3 could affect low-income populations. Given the close proximity to the Tampa metropolitan 

4 area, most construction workers would likely commute to the site, thereby reducing the potential 

5 demand for rental housing. 

6 Based on this information and the analysis of human health and environmental impacts 

7 presented in this SEIS, the construction and operation of a coal-fired power plant alternative at 

8 the CR-3 site would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health and 

9 environmental effects on minority and low-income populations residing in the vicinity of CR-3. 

10 8.1.7 Waste Management 

11 Coal combustion generates several waste streams including ash (a dry solid) and sludge (a 

12 semi-solid byproduct of emission control system operation). The 850-MW(e) power plant would 

13 generate annually a total of 250,000 tons (227,000 MT) of dry solid ash and scrubber sludge. 

14 About 230,000 tons (209,000 MT) of this waste would be recycled. Disposal of the remaining 

15 waste from the 40-year operation of this alternative would require approximately 87 ac (35 ha). 

16 Disposal of the remaining waste could noticeably affect land use and groundwater quality, but 

17 would require proper siting in accordance with Chapter 62-701, “Solid Waste Management 

18 Facilities,” of the FAC and the implementation of the required monitoring and management 

19 practices in order to minimize these impacts (FDEP, 2009a). After closure of the waste site and 

20 revegetation, the land could be available for other uses. 

21 In May 2000, the EPA issued a “Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the 

22 Combustion of Fossil Fuels” (EPA 2000a) stating that it would issue regulations for disposal of 

23 coal combustion waste under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The 

24 EPA has not yet issued these regulations. 

25 The impacts from waste generated during operation of this coal-fired alternative would be 

26 MODERATE; the impacts would be clearly visible, but would not destabilize any important 

27 resource. 

28 The impacts from waste generated during the construction stage would be short-lived. The 

29 amount of the construction waste is small compared to the amount of waste generated during 

30 the operational stage and most could be recycled. Overall, the impacts from waste generated 

31 during the construction stage would be SMALL. 

32 Therefore, the overall waste management impacts from construction and operation of this 

33 alternative would be MODERATE. 

34 Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Supercritical Coal-Fired Alternative 

35 Compared to Continued Operation of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

 Supercritical Coal-Fired Generation Continued CR-3 Operation 

Air Quality MODERATE SMALL 

Groundwater SMALL SMALL 

Surface Water SMALL SMALL 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources SMALL SMALL to MODERATE 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-14 

Human Health SMALL SMALL 

Socioeconomics SMALL to MODERATE SMALL 

Waste Management MODERATE SMALL 

1 8.2 NATURAL GAS COMBINED-CYCLE GENERATION 

2 This section evaluates the environmental impacts of natural gas-fired combined-cycle 

3 generation at the CR-3 site. 

4 Natural gas fueled 21 percent of electric generation in the United States in 2008, accounting for 

5 the second greatest share of electrical power after coal (EIA, 2010). Like coal-fired power 

6 plants, natural gas-fired plants may be affected by perceived or actual action to limit GHG 

7 emissions, although they produce markedly fewer GHGs per unit of electrical output than 

8 coal-fired plants. Natural gas-fired power plants are feasible, commercially available options for 

9 providing electrical generating capacity beyond CR-3’s current license expiration. 

10 Combined-cycle power plants differ significantly from coal-fired and existing nuclear power 

11 plants. Combined-cycle power plants derive the majority of their electrical output from a 

12 gas-turbine cycle, and then generate additional power―without burning any additional 

13 fuel―through a second, steam-turbine cycle. The first, gas turbine stage (similar to a large jet 

14 engine) burns natural gas, which turns a driveshaft that powers an electric generator. The 

15 exhaust gas from the gas turbine is still hot enough to boil water to steam. Ducts carry the hot 

16 exhaust to a heat recovery steam generator, which produces steam to drive a steam turbine and 

17 produce additional electrical power. The combined-cycle approach is significantly more efficient 

18 than any one cycle on its own; thermal efficiency can exceed 60 percent. Since the natural 

19 gas-fired alternative derives much of its power from a gas turbine cycle and because it wastes 

20 less heat than either the coal-fired alternative or the existing CR-3, it requires significantly less 

21 cooling. 

22 To replace the 850-MW(e) power that CR-3 generates, two General Electric (GE) S107H 

23 combined-cycle generating units were considered. While any number of commercially available 

24 combined-cycle units could be installed in a variety of combinations to replace the power 

25 currently produced by CR-3, the S107H was selected for its high efficiency and to minimize 

26 environmental impacts. Other manufacturers, like Siemens, offer similar high-efficiency models. 

27 This gas-fired alternative produces a net 400 MW(e) per unit. Two units produce a total of 

28 800 MW(e), or nearly the same output as the existing CR-3. 

29 The combined-cycle generating units operate at a heat rate of 5,690 Btu/kWh, or nearly 

30 60 percent thermal efficiency (GE, 2007). Allowing for onsite power usage, including cooling 

31 towers and site lighting, the gross output of these units would be roughly 830 MW(e). As noted 

32 above, this gas-fired alternative would require much less cooling water than CR-3 because it 

33 operates at a higher thermal efficiency and requires much less water for steam cycle condenser 

34 cooling. This alternative would likely make use of the site’s existing once-through cooling 

35 system. 

36 Onsite visible structures would include the gas turbine buildings and heat-recovery steam 

37 generators (which may be enclosed in a single building), two exhaust stacks, an electrical 

38 switchyard, and, if necessary, equipment associated with a natural gas pipeline, such as a 

39 compressor station. While GEIS estimates indicate that this 830-MW(e) plant would require 90 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-15 

1 ac (36 ha), the applicant indicated that a natural gas alternative of comparable size (850 MW[e]) 

2 would require only 33 ac (13 ha) (Progress Energy, 2008). 

This 830-MW(e) power plant would consume 34 billion cubic feet (ft3

) (964 million m3 3 ) of natural 

gas annually assuming an average heat content of 1,029 Btu/ft3 4 (EIA, 2009b). Natural gas 

5 would be extracted from the ground through wells, then treated to remove impurities (like 

6 hydrogen sulfide), and blended to meet pipeline gas standards, before being piped through the 

7 interstate pipeline system to the power plant site. This gas-fired alternative would produce 

8 relatively little waste, primarily in the form of spent catalysts used for emissions controls. 

9 Environmental impacts from the gas-fired alternative will be greatest during construction. Site 

10 crews will clear vegetation from the site, prepare the site surface, and begin excavation before 

11 other crews begin actual construction on the plant and any associated infrastructure, including a 

12 10-mi pipeline spur to serve the plant and electricity transmission infrastructure connecting the 

13 plant to existing transmission lines. Constructing the gas-fired alternative on the CR-3 site 

14 would allow the gas-fired alternative to make use of the existing electric transmission system. 

15 8.2.1 Air Quality 

16 CR-3 is located in Citrus County, Florida, which is in EPA Region 4. There are currently no 

17 nonattainment or maintenance areas for any criteria pollutants in the State of Florida. 

18 A new gas-fired generating plant developed at the CR-3 site would qualify as a new 

19 major-emitting industrial facility and would be subjected to Prevention of Significant 

20 Deterioration of Air Quality Review under requirements of the CAA, adopted by the FDEP 

21 Division of Air Resource Management in Chapter 62-204 of the FAC (FDEP, 2009b). The 

22 natural gas-fired plant would need to comply with the standards of performance for stationary 

23 gas turbines set forth in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart GG. 

24 Subpart P of 40 CFR Part 51 contains the visibility protection regulatory requirements, including 

25 the review of the new sources that would be constructed in the attainment or unclassified areas 

26 and may affect visibility in any Class I Federal area (40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P, §51.307). If a 

27 gas-fired alternative were located close to a mandatory Class I Federal area, additional air 

28 pollution control requirements would imply. There are three mandatory Class I Federal areas in 

29 the State of Florida and the closest is Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area, which is located about 

30 20 mi south from CR-3. The other two mandatory Class I Federal areas in Florida are the 

31 Everglades National Park (265 mi south of CR-3) and St. Marks Wilderness Area (116 mi 

32 northwest of CR-3). 

33 The following emissions are projected for a gas-fired alternative based on data published by the 

34 EIA, EPA, and on performance characteristics for this alternative and its emissions controls: 

35 ● Sulfur oxides (SOx) – 60 tons (54 MT) per year 

36 ● Nitrogen oxides (NOx) – 192 tons (177 MT) per year 

37 ● Carbon monoxide (CO) – 40 tons (36 MT) per year 

38 ● Total suspended particles (TSP) – 34 tons (30 MT) per year 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-16 

1 ● Particulate matter (PM) PM10 – 34 tons (30 MT) per year 

2 ● Carbon dioxide (CO2) – 2,050,000 tons (1,860,000 MT) per year 

3 A new natural gas-fired plant would have to comply with Title IV of the CAA reduction 

4 requirements for SO2 and NOx, which are the main precursors of acid rain and the major causes 

5 of reduced visibility. Title IV establishes maximum SO2 and NOx emission rates from the 

6 existing plants and a system of the SO2 emission allowances that can be used, sold, or saved 

7 for future use by new plants. 

8 8.2.1.1 Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxides 

9 As stated above, the new natural gas-fired alternative would produce 60 tons (54 MT) per year 

10 of SOx and 192 tons (177 MT) per year of NOx based on the use of the dry low NOx combustion 

11 technology and the use of SCR in order to significantly reduce NOx emissions. 

12 The new plant would be subjected to the continuous monitoring requirements of SO2, NOx, and 

13 CO2 specified in 40 CFR Part 75. The natural gas-fired plant would emit approximately 

14 2.1 million tons (approximately 1.9 million MT) per year of unregulated CO2 emissions. In 

15 response to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, the EPA has proposed a rule that 

16 requires mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from large sources that would allow collection 

17 of accurate and comprehensive emissions data to inform future policy decisions (EPA, 2009b). 

18 The EPA proposes that suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles 

19 and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 MT or more per year of GHG emissions submit 

20 annual reports to the EPA. The gases covered by the proposed rule are CO2), methane (CH4), 

21 nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), sulfur hexafluoride 

22 (SF6), and other fluorinated gases including nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and hydrofluorinated 

23 ethers (HFE). In June 2008, Florida Governor Charlie Crist signed legislation to create the 

24 “Florida Climate Protection Act,” which requires electric utilities in the State to report GHG 

25 emissions. The Act also authorizes the FDEP to design a cap-and-trade program to reduce 

26 GHG emissions, which is in development. 

27 8.2.1.2 Particulates 

28 The new natural gas-fired alternative would produce 34 tons (30 MT) per year of TSP, all of 

29 which would be emitted as PM10. 

30 8.2.1.3 Hazardous Air Pollutants 

31 In December 2000, the EPA issued regulatory findings (EPA, 2000b) on emissions of HAPs 

32 from electric utility steam-generating units, which identified that natural gas-fired plants emit 

33 HAPs such as arsenic, formaldehyde, and nickel, and stated that: 

34 the impacts due to HAP emissions from natural gas-fired electric utility steam 

35 generating units were negligible based on the results of the study. The 

36 Administrator finds that regulation of HAP emissions from natural gas-fired 

37 electric utility steam generating units is not appropriate or necessary. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-17 

1 8.2.1.4 Carbon Monoxide 

2 Based on EPA emission factors (EPA, 1998a), total CO emissions would be approximately 40 

3 tons (36 MT) per year. 

4 8.2.1.5 Construction Impacts 

5 Activities associated with the construction of the new natural gas-fired plant at the CR-3 site 

6 would cause some additional air effects as a result of equipment emissions and fugitive dust 

7 from operation of the earth-moving and material handling equipment. Emissions from workers’ 

8 vehicles and motorized construction equipment would be temporary. The construction crews 

9 would employ dust-control practices in order to control and reduce fugitive dust, which would be 

10 temporary in nature. The impact of vehicle exhaust emissions and fugitive dust from operation 

11 of earth-moving and material handling equipment would be SMALL. 

12 Based on this information, the overall air-quality impacts of a new natural gas-fired plant located 

13 at the CR-3 site would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

14 8.2.2 Groundwater Use and Quality 

15 If the onsite natural gas-fired plant alternative continued to use groundwater for drinking water 

16 and service water, the need for groundwater at the plant would be minor. Total usage would 

17 likely be much less than CR-3 because fewer workers would be onsite and the gas-fired 

18 alternative would have fewer auxiliary systems requiring service water. 

19 No effects on groundwater quality would be apparent except during the construction phase due 

20 to temporary dewatering and run-off control measures. Because of the temporary nature of 

21 construction and the likelihood of reduced groundwater usage during operation, the impact of 

22 the gas-fired alternative would be SMALL. 

23 8.2.3 Surface Water Use and Quality 

The natural gas-fired plant alternative would withdraw approximately 2,100 gpm (0.1 m3 24 /s) from 

25 the Gulf of Mexico (Crystal Bay), with an average rate of about 3 million gpd and a consumption 

factor of about 0.22 percent (DOE, 2008), much less than the 680,000 gpm (40 m3 26 /s) currently 

27 used on average by CR-3 (Progress Energy, 2008), as well as the amount needed for the 

28 coal-fired alternative. Because the consumptive loss of this alternative is less than that of the 

29 current CR-3, the impact of surface water use would be SMALL. 

30 A new gas-fired plant would be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the FDEP for 

31 regulation of industrial wastewater, stormwater, and other discharges. Assuming the plant 

32 operates within the limits of this permit, the impact from cooling tower blowdown, site runoff, and 

33 other effluent discharges on surface water quality would be SMALL. 

34 8.2.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology 

35 8.2.4.1 Aquatic Ecology 

36 Section 2.2.5 describes the aquatic ecology of the CR-3 site, which is associated with the Gulf 

37 of Mexico. Impacts on the aquatic ecology from the CR-3 site are associated with construction 

38 or the use of water from the Gulf of Mexico during operation of a new gas-fired generating plant. 

39 A new gas-fired generating plant at the CREC would use the existing CR-3 intake and discharge 

40 structures for cooling a new plant. The gas-fired alternative would require less cooling water to 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-18 

1 be withdrawn from the Gulf of Mexico than CR-3, and the thermal discharge would concurrently 

2 be smaller than CR-3. Therefore, the number of fish and other aquatic organisms affected by 

3 impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts would be less for a gas-fired alternative than for 

4 those associated with license renewal. 

5 Some temporary impacts to aquatic organisms might occur due to any construction or effluent 

6 discharge to the ocean, but the FDEP would monitor these activities under the project’s NPDES 

7 permit. Although the number of affected organisms would be substantially less than for license 

8 renewal, the NRC level of impact for license renewal is already small, and so the levels of 

9 impact for impingement, entrainment, and thermal effects would also be SMALL. 

10 8.2.4.2 Terrestrial Ecology 

11 Constructing the natural gas alternative will require 33 ac (13 ha) of land. These land 

12 disturbances form the basis for impacts to terrestrial ecology. 

13 Onsite impacts to terrestrial ecology will be minimal because the applicant indicated that 33 ac 

14 (13 ha) of previously disturbed land is available at the site, reducing the potential impacts that 

15 would have resulted from the clearing of areas on the property that are currently woodlands. 

16 Gas extraction and collection will also affect terrestrial ecology in offsite gas fields, although 

17 much of this land is likely already disturbed by gas extraction, and the incremental effects of this 

18 alternative on gas field terrestrial ecology are difficult to gauge. 

19 Construction of the 10-mi gas pipeline could lead to a disturbance of up to 61 ac (55 ha) of 

20 lands for the 50-ft-wide corridor. If woodlands are disturbed for this construction, it may 

21 fragment surrounding habitat and increase edge habitat, which may have adverse impacts on 

22 forest interior dwelling species, including migratory songbirds, as well as any threatened and 

23 endangered species in the affected area. However, the applicant indicated in the ER that the 

24 new pipeline would be routed along existing, previously disturbed right-of-ways (to the extent 

25 practical), so it is unlikely that a significant amount of forested land would be affected. Some 

26 wetlands may be disturbed where the existing right-of-ways cannot be used. Because of the 

27 relatively small potential for undisturbed land to be affected, impacts from construction of the 

28 pipeline are expected to be small. 

29 Based on this information, impacts to terrestrial resources would be SMALL. 

30 8.2.5 Human Health 

31 Like the coal-fired alternative discussed above, a gas-fired plant would emit criteria air 

32 pollutants, but generally in smaller quantities (except NOx, which requires additional controls to 

33 reduce emissions). Human health effects of gas-fired generation are generally low, although 

34 Table 8-2 of the GEIS (NRC, 1996) indicated cancer and emphysema as potential health risks 

35 from gas-fired plants. NOx emissions contribute to ozone formation, which in turn contributes to 

36 human health risks. Emission controls on this gas-fired alternative maintain NOx emissions well 

37 below air quality standards established for the purposes of protecting human health, and 

38 emissions trading or offset requirements mean that overall NOx in the region will not increase. 

39 Health risks to workers may also result from handling spent catalysts that may contain heavy 

40 metals. 

41 Overall, human health risks to occupational workers and to members of the public from gas-fired 

42 power plant emissions sited at CR-3 would be less than the risks described for the coal-fired 

43 alternative and, therefore, would likely be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-19 

1 8.2.6 Socioeconomics 

2 8.2.6.1 Land Use 

3 As discussed in Section 8.1.6, the GEIS generically evaluates the impacts of nuclear power 

4 plant operations on land use both on and off each power plant site. The analysis of land use 

5 impacts focuses on the amount of land area that would be affected by the construction and 

6 operation of a two unit, natural gas-fired combined-cycle power plant at the CR-3 site. 

7 The applicant indicated that approximately 33 ac (13 ha) of land would be needed to support a 

8 natural gas-fired alternative to replace CR-3 (Progress Energy, 2008). This amount of onsite 

9 land use would include other plant structures and associated infrastructure, excluding land for 

10 natural gas wells and collection stations. Onsite land use impacts from construction would be 

11 SMALL. 

12 In addition to onsite land requirements, land would be required off site for natural gas wells and 

13 collection stations. Scaling from GEIS estimates, approximately 3,000 ac (1,215 ha) would be 

14 required for wells, collection stations, and a 10-mi pipeline to bring the gas to the plant. Most of 

15 this land requirement would occur on land where gas extraction already occurs. In addition, 

16 some natural gas could come from outside the United States and be delivered as liquefied gas. 

17 The elimination of uranium fuel for CR-3 could partially offset offsite land requirements. Scaling 

18 from GEIS estimates, approximately 850 ac (344 ha) would not be needed for mining and 

19 processing uranium during the operating life of the plant. Overall land use impacts from a 

20 gas-fired power plant would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

21 8.2.6.2 Socioeconomics 

22 Socioeconomic impacts are defined in terms of changes to the demographic and economic 

23 characteristics and social conditions of a region. For example, the number of jobs created by 

24 the construction and operation of a new natural gas-fired power plant could affect regional 

25 employment, income, and expenditures. Two types of job creation would result: 

26 (1) construction-related jobs, which are transient, short in duration, and less likely to have a 

27 long-term socioeconomic impact; and (2) operation-related jobs in support of power plant 

28 operations, which have the greater potential for permanent, long-term socioeconomic impacts. 

29 Workforce requirements for the construction and operation of the natural gas fired power plant 

30 alternative were evaluated in order to measure their possible effects on current socioeconomic 

31 conditions. 

32 The socioeconomic impacts from constructing and operating a gas-fired plant would have little 

33 noticeable effect. Compared to the coal-fired alternative, the small size of the construction and 

34 operations workforce would have little or no socioeconomic impact. 

35 Based on GEIS estimates, a peak construction workforce of up to 1,000 workers could be 

36 required to construct the gas-fired alternative at CR-3. As noted in the GEIS, the 

37 socioeconomic impacts at a rural construction site could be larger than at an urban site, 

38 because the workforce would need to relocate closer to the construction site. Although the ER 

39 indicates that Citrus County where CR-3 is located is mostly rural in nature, the site is only 

40 70 mi from the Tampa, Florida, metropolitan area. Therefore, these effects may be somewhat 

41 lessened because workers could commute to the site from these areas instead of relocating 

42 closer to the construction site. During the construction period, worker relocation to the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-20 

1 surrounding communities would not be expected due to the site’s proximity to Tampa. Based 

2 on the site’s proximity to a metropolitan area, construction impacts would be SMALL. 

3 The GEIS estimates an operational workforce of about 125 workers for a gas-fired alternative of 

4 this size, although current trends are calling for decreased workforces at power facilities. Even 

5 at a rural site like CR-3, impacts are unlikely to be large due to its close proximity to Tampa. 

6 Socioeconomic impacts associated with the operation of a gas-fired power plant at CR-3 would 

7 be SMALL. 

8 8.2.6.3 Transportation 

9 Transportation impacts associated with construction and operation of a two unit gas-fired power 

10 plant would consist of commuting workers and truck deliveries of construction materials to the 

11 CR-3 site. During construction, up to 1,000 workers would be commuting to the site. In addition 

12 to commuting workers, trucks would transport construction materials and equipment to the 

13 worksite increasing the amount of traffic on local roads. The increase in vehicular traffic would 

14 peak during shift changes resulting in temporary levels of service impacts and delays at 

15 intersections. Some plant components are likely to be delivered by train via the existing onsite 

16 rail spur. Trains would likely be used to deliver large components to the CR-3 site given its 

17 existing rail spur. Pipeline construction and modification to existing natural gas pipeline systems 

18 could also have an impact. Transportation impacts are likely to be MODERATE during 

19 construction. 

20 Transportation impacts would be greatly reduced after construction, but would not disappear 

21 during plant operations. The maximum number of plant operating personnel commuting to 

22 CR-3 would be approximately 125 workers. Frequent deliveries of coal and limestone by rail 

23 would add to the overall transportation impact. Onsite coal storage would make it possible to 

24 receive several trains per day. Limestone delivered by rail could also add traffic (though 

25 considerably less traffic than that generated by coal deliveries). Because fuel for the plant is 

26 transported by pipeline, a new gas-fired plant would have to be supported by the current gas 

27 pipeline system. If the required capacity is not available, any upgrades to the current pipeline 

28 system could have additional transportation impacts on the Southeast region. Overall, the 

29 gas-fired alternative would have a SMALL to MODERATE impact on transportation conditions in 

30 the region around the CREC during plant operations. 

31 8.2.6.4 Aesthetics 

32 The aesthetics impact analysis focuses on the degree of contrast between the natural gas-fired 

33 alternative and the surrounding landscape and the visibility of the gas-fired plant. 

34 The two gas-fired units would be approximately 100 ft (30 m) tall, with an exhaust stack up to 

35 500 ft (152 m) and may be visible off site in daylight hours. However, the gas-fired plant would 

36 be shorter than the current CR-3 reactor building, which stands at 157 ft (49 m). Also, the 

37 CREC currently includes four fossil-powered units, with two 600-ft (183-m) and two 500-ft 

38 (152-m) exhaust stacks. Noise and light from plant operations, as well as lighting on plant 

39 structures, may be detectable off site as well. Pipelines delivering natural gas fuel could be 

40 audible off site near gas compressors. 

41 Overall, because a new coal-fired plant would be consistent with the CREC’s current aesthetic 

42 impacts, the aesthetic impacts associated with the gas-fired alternative would likely be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-21 

1 8.2.6.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources 

2 Cultural resources are the indications of human occupation and use of the landscape as defined 

3 and protected by a series of Federal laws, regulations, and guidelines. Prehistoric resources 

4 are physical remains of human activities that predate written records; they generally consist of 

5 artifacts that may alone or collectively yield information about the past. Historic resources 

6 consist of physical remains that postdate the emergence of written records; in the United States, 

7 they are architectural structures or districts, archaeological objects, and archaeological features 

8 dating from 1492 and later. Ordinarily, sites less than 50 years old are not considered historic, 

9 but exceptions can be made for such properties if they are of particular importance, such as 

10 structures associated with the development of nuclear power (e.g., Shippingport Atomic power 

11 Station) or Cold War themes. American Indian resources are sites, areas, and materials 

12 important to American Indians for religious or heritage reasons. Such resources may include 

13 geographic features, plants, animals, cemeteries, battlefields, trails, and environmental features. 

14 The cultural resource analysis encompassed the power plant site and adjacent areas that could 

15 potentially be disturbed by the construction and operation of alternative power plants. 

16 The potential for historic and archaeological resources can vary greatly depending on the 

17 location of the proposed site. To consider a project’s effects on historic and archaeological 

18 resources, any affected areas would need to be surveyed to identify and record historic and 

19 archaeological resources, identify cultural resources (e.g., traditional cultural properties), and 

20 develop possible mitigation measures to address any adverse effects from ground disturbing 

21 activities. 

22 Based on its review of the Florida Master Site File, published literature, and information 

23 provided by the applicant, the NRC concludes that potential impacts of a new gas-fired 

24 alternative on historic and archaeological resources would be SMALL. This conclusion is based 

25 on the results of archaeological surveys conducted prior to initial plant construction and during 

26 subsequent expansion activities. The locations of existing archaeological sites within the 

27 CREC, including areas of high potential for additional discoveries, are located away from plant 

28 maintenance and operations activities in the protected area. This conclusion is also based on 

29 the existing archaeological and cultural resources and environmental protection procedures in 

30 use by CR-3 environmental staff as noted during the environmental site visit. Lands not 

31 previously surveyed should be investigated by a qualified archaeologist prior to any ground 

32 disturbing activity associated with a new gas-fired alternative at the site. 

33 8.2.6.6 Environmental Justice 

34 The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and 

35 adverse human health, environmental, and socioeconomic effects on minority and low-income 

36 populations that could result from the construction and operation of a new gas-fired power plant. 

37 Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or nonfatal adverse 

38 impacts on human health. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur 

39 when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income 

40 population is significant and exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for 

41 another appropriate comparison group. Disproportionately high environmental effects refer to 

42 impacts or risk of impact on the natural or physical environment in a minority or low-income 

43 community that are significant and appreciably exceed the environmental impacts on the larger 

44 community. Such effects may include biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts. Some of 

45 these potential effects have been identified in resource areas discussed in this SEIS. For 

46 example, increased demand for rental housing during power plant construction could 

47 disproportionately affect low-income populations. Minority and low-income populations are 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-22 

1 subsets of the general public residing in the vicinity of CR-3, and all are exposed to the same 

2 hazards generated from constructing and operating a new natural gas-fired combined-cycle 

3 power plant. For socioeconomic data regarding the analysis of environmental justice issues, the 

4 reader is referred to Section 4.9.7, “Environmental Justice.” 

5 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the construction and operation of 

6 a new natural gas-fired combined-cycle power plant at CR-3 would mostly consist of 

7 environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing 

8 impacts). Noise and dust impacts from construction would be short-term and primarily limited to 

9 onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would 

10 also be affected by increased commuter vehicle traffic during shift changes and truck traffic. 

11 However, these effects would be temporary during certain hours of the day and not likely to be 

12 high and adverse. Increased demand for rental housing during construction in the vicinity of 

13 CR-3 could affect low-income populations. Given the close proximity to the Tampa metropolitan 

14 area, most construction workers would likely commute to the site, thereby reducing the potential 

15 demand for rental housing. 

16 Based on this information and the analysis of human health and environmental impacts 

17 presented in this SEIS, the construction and operation of a gas-fired power plant alternative at 

18 the CR-3 site would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health and 

19 environmental effects on minority and low-income populations residing in the vicinity of CR-3. 

20 8.2.7 Waste Management 

21 During the construction stage of this alternative, land clearing and other construction activities 

22 would generate waste that can be recycled, disposed onsite or shipped to an offsite waste 

23 disposal facility. Because the alternative would be constructed on the previously disturbed 

24 CR-3 site, the amounts of wastes produced during land clearing would be reduced. 

25 During the operational stage, spent SCR catalysts used to control NOx emissions from the 

26 natural gas-fired plants would make up the majority of the waste generated by this alternative. 

27 According to the GEIS (NRC, 1996), a natural gas-fired plant would generate minimal waste and 

28 the waste impacts would therefore be SMALL for a natural gas-fired alternative located at the 

29 CR-3 site. 

30 Table 8-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Natural Gas Combined-Cycle 

31 Generation Alternative Compared to Continued Operation of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

32 Generating Plant 

 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle 

Generation 

Continued CR-3 Operation 

Air Quality SMALL to MODERATE SMALL 

Groundwater SMALL SMALL 

Surface Water SMALL SMALL 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources SMALL SMALL to MODERATE 

Human Health SMALL SMALL 

Socioeconomics SMALL to MODERATE SMALL 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-23 

Waste Management SMALL SMALL 

1 8.3 COMBINATION ALTERNATIVE 

2 This section evaluates the environmental impacts of a combination of alternatives, which will 

3 include a portion of the combined-cycle gas-fired capacity identified in Section 8.2 and a 

4 conservation capacity component. This alternative requires new construction of two single 

5 gas-fired units installed at the CR-3 site. 

6 The applicant has a demand-side management (DSM) program. By the start of 2014, it plans to 

7 reduce summer peak load by 128 MW(e) and winter peak load by 400 MW(e). The goal is to 

8 reduce annual energy consumption by an additional 190 gigawatt hour (GWh) (to date, this 

9 program has successfully reduced annual consumption by 115 GWh). As of December 2007, 

10 the applicant had a total summer capacity resource of 1,922 MW. 

11 In this alternative, about 24 percent of CR-3’s output―200 MW(e)―would be replaced by 

12 conservation. Inclusion of this conservation component of the alternative is based on Florida’s 

13 energy efficiency goals and the applicant’s DSM program (FDEP, 2006). A combined-cycle 

14 power plant made up of two 280-MW(e) GE S7001FB units will provide 560 net MW(e) (GE, 

15 2007). The only major construction would occur at the current CR-3 site where the 

16 combined-cycle gas-fired power plant would be constructed. No construction is necessary for 

17 the conservation portion. 

18 The appearance of the gas-fired facility would be similar to that of the full gas-fired alternative 

19 considered in Section 8.2, though each unit would be smaller than the units considered in 

20 Section 8.2. This unit would require about 70 percent of the space necessary for the alternative 

21 considered in Section 8.2 and that all construction effects―as well as operational aesthetic, 

22 fuel-cycle, air quality, socioeconomic, land use, environmental justice, and water consumption 

23 effects―will scale accordingly. 

24 8.3.1 Air Quality 

25 CR-3 is located in Citrus County, Florida, which is in EPA Region 4. All counties in the State of 

26 Florida are in attainment for all criteria pollutants. The FDEP is responsible for managing and 

27 monitoring air quality in the State of Florida. 

28 This alternative is a combination of two 280-MW natural gas-fired combined-cycle generating 

29 units, constructed onsite, and a 200-MW equivalent of conservation/DSM. The alternative 

30 would be similar in air quality impacts to the gas-fired alternative considered in Section 8.2, but 

31 would emit lower levels of pollutants. The conservation portion would have little to no effect on 

32 air quality. 

33 A new gas-fired generating plant developed at the CR-3 site would qualify as a new 

34 major-emitting industrial facility and would be subjected to Prevention of Significant 

35 Deterioration of Air Quality Review under the requirements of the CAA, adopted by the FDEP 

36 Division of Air Resource Management in Chapter 62-204 of the FAC (FDEP, 2009a). The 

37 natural gas-fired plant would need to comply with the standards of performance for stationary 

38 gas turbines set forth in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart GG. 

39 Subpart P of 40 CFR Part 51 contains the visibility protection regulatory requirements, including 

40 the review of the new sources that would be constructed in the attainment or unclassified areas 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-24 

1 and may affect visibility in any Class I Federal area (40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P, §51.307). If a 

2 gas-fired alternative were located close to a mandatory Class I Federal area, additional air 

3 pollution control requirements would imply. There are three mandatory Class I Federal areas in 

4 the State of Florida and the closest is Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area, which is located about 

5 20 mi south from CR-3. The other two mandatory Class I Federal areas in Florida are the 

6 Everglades National Park (265 mi south of CR-3) and St. Marks Wilderness Area (116 mi 

7 northwest of CR-3). 

8 The following emissions for the gas-fired portion of this alternative were projected based on data 

9 published by the EIA, EPA, and on performance characteristics for this alternative and its 

10 emissions controls: 

11 ● Sulfur oxides (SOx) – 44 tons (40 MT) per year 

12 ● Nitrogen oxides (NOx) – 141 tons (128 MT) per year 

13 ● Carbon monoxide (CO) – 29 tons (27 MT) per year 

14 ● Total suspended particles (TSP) – 34 tons (31 MT) per year 

15 ● Particulate matter (PM) PM10 – 25 tons (22 MT) per year 

16 ● Carbon dioxide (CO2) – 1,580,000 tons (1,435,000 MT) per year 

17 The natural gas-fired component of this alternative would produce 35 tons (31 MT) per year of 

18 TSP, all of which would be emitted as PM10. 

19 In December 2000, the EPA issued regulatory findings (EPA, 2000a) on emissions of HAPs 

20 from electric utility steam-generating units, which identified that natural gas-fired plants emit 

21 HAPs such as arsenic, formaldehyde, and nickel and stated that: 

22 the impacts due to HAP emissions from natural gas-fired electric utility steam 

23 generating units were negligible based on the results of the study. The 

24 Administrator finds that regulation of HAP emissions from natural gas-fired 

25 electric utility steam generating units is not appropriate or necessary. 

26 The natural gas-fired plant would have to comply with Title IV of the CAA reduction 

27 requirements for SO2 and NOx, which are the main precursors of acid rain and major causes of 

28 reduced visibility. Title IV establishes maximum SO2 and NOx emission rates from the existing 

29 plants and a system of the SO2 emission allowances that can be used, sold, or saved for future 

30 use by the new plants. 

31 As stated above, the new natural gas-fired unit would produce 44 tons (40 MT) per year of SOx

32 and 141 tons (128 MT) per year of NOx based on the use of the dry low NOx combustion 

33 technology and the use of dry, low-NOx burners and SCR in order to significantly reduce NOx

34 emissions. 

35 The natural gas-fired component of this alternative would be subjected to the continuous 

36 monitoring requirements of SO2, NOx, and CO2 specified in 40 CFR Part 75. The natural 

37 gas-fired plant would emit approximately 1.6 million tons (approximately 1.4 million MT) per year 

38 of unregulated CO2 emissions. In response to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-25 

1 EPA has proposed a rule that requires mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from large 

2 sources, applicable to the presented alternative, in the United States that would allow collection 

3 of accurate and comprehensive emissions data to inform future policy decisions. The EPA 

4 proposes that suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and 

5 engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 MT or more per year of GHG emissions submit annual 

6 reports to the EPA (EPA, 2009b). The gases covered by the proposed rule are CO2, CH4, N2O, 

7 HFC, PFC, SF6, and other fluorinated gases including NF3 and HFE. In June 2008, Florida 

8 Governor Charlie Crist signed legislation to create the “Florida Climate Protection Act,” which 

9 requires electric utilities in the State to report GHG emissions. The Act also authorizes the 

10 FDEP to design a cap-and-trade program to reduce GHG emissions, which is in development. 

11 Activities associated with the construction of the new natural gas-fired plant at the CR-3 site 

12 would cause some additional air effects as a result of equipment emissions and fugitive dust 

13 from operation of the earth-moving and material handling equipment. Emissions from workers’ 

14 vehicles and motorized construction equipment would be temporary. The construction crews 

15 would employ dust-control practices in order to control and reduce fugitive dust, which would be 

16 temporary in nature. The impact of vehicle exhaust emissions and fugitive dust from operation 

17 of the earth-moving and material handling equipment would be SMALL. 

18 The overall air quality impacts of the combination alternative consisting of a natural gas-fired 

19 plant located at the CR-3 site and energy conservation would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

20 8.3.2 Groundwater Use and Quality 

21 If the onsite gas-fired plant continued to use groundwater for drinking water and service water, 

22 the total usage would likely be much less than CR-3 uses because fewer workers would be 

23 onsite and the gas-fired unit would have fewer auxiliary systems requiring service water. The 

24 current annual average withdrawal rate for CR-3 is about 227 gpm (Section 2.1.7.1) and 

25 pumping tests indicate this rate would not cause an effect on nearby supply wells. A reduction 

26 in this withdrawal rate means that impacts of the combination alternative would remain SMALL. 

27 8.3.3 Surface Water Use and Quality 

28 Using a combined alternative with conservation and wind power as major components will 

29 reduce the amount of surface water consumed for cooling purposes as compared to the 

30 proposed action and other alternatives considered in this section. The maximum consumptive 

31 use would be reduced from the amount of surface water consumed by the open-cycle cooling 

32 system currently in use by CR-3. The impact of this withdrawal would be SMALL. 

33 8.3.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology 

34 8.3.4.1 Aquatic Ecology 

35 Section 2.2.5 describes the aquatic ecology of the CR-3 site, which is associated with the Gulf 

36 of Mexico. Impacts on the aquatic ecology from the CR-3 site are associated with construction 

37 or the use of water from the Gulf of Mexico during operation of the gas-fired portion of the 

38 combination alternative. A new gas-fired generating plant would use the existing CR-3 intake 

39 and discharge structures for cooling a new plant. The gas-fired portion of the alternative would 

40 require less cooling water to be withdrawn from the Gulf of Mexico than CR-3, and the thermal 

41 discharge would concurrently be smaller than CR-3. Therefore, the number of fish and other 

42 aquatic organisms affected by impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts would be less for 

43 a gas-fired alternative than for those associated with license renewal. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-26 

1 Some temporary impacts to aquatic organisms might occur due to any construction or effluent 

2 discharge to the ocean, but the FDEP would monitor these activities under the project’s NPDES 

3 permit. The number of affected organisms would be substantially less than for license renewal, 

4 so the levels of impact for impingement, entrainment, and thermal effects would be SMALL. 

5 8.3.4.2 Terrestrial Ecology 

6 The gas-fired component of this alternative would use existing disturbed land at the CR-3 site. 

7 This alternative would also require land offsite for the gas pipeline. 

8 This alternative would use the existing plant site land, switchyard, the existing once-through 

9 cooling system, and transmission line system for construction of the gas-fired unit. Scaling from 

10 the applicant’s previous estimation of a slightly larger gas-fired plant, approximately 24 ac 

11 (10 ha) of land would be required on the CR-3 site to support a 580-MW(e) natural gas plant. 

12 Impacts to terrestrial ecology from onsite construction of the smaller two gas-fired units would 

13 be less than the impacts described for the two-unit gas-fired alternative. The impacts to 

14 farmland onsite would be approximately two-thirds of the impacts of the two-unit natural gas 

15 plant alternative. These onsite impacts are expected to be minor. Impacts to terrestrial ecology 

16 from offsite construction of the gas pipeline for a single gas-fired unit would be the same as for 

17 the two gas-fired unit alternative previously discussed (Progress Energy, 2008). 

18 Based on this information, impacts to terrestrial resources would be SMALL. 

19 8.3.5 Human Health 

20 The human health risks from a combination of alternatives include the already discussed 

21 combined-cycle gas-fired plant. The GEIS (NRC, 1996) notes that the environmental impacts of 

22 the conservation/DSM alternative are likely to be centered on indoor air quality. This is due to 

23 increased weatherization of homes in the form of extra insulation and reduced air turnover rates 

24 from the reduction in air leaks. However, the actual impact from the conservation alternative is 

25 highly site-specific and not yet well-established. The human health risks from the combination 

26 of alternatives are uncertain, but considered to be SMALL given that the construction and 

27 operation of the facilities are expected to comply with health-based Federal and State safety 

28 and emission standards. 

29 8.3.6 Socioeconomics 

30 8.3.6.1 Land Use 

31 The analysis of land use impacts for the combination alternative focuses on the amount of land 

32 area that would be affected by the construction and operation of a two-unit natural gas-fired 

33 power plant at the CR-3 site and demand-side energy conservation. 

34 Land use impacts of an energy efficiency alternative would be SMALL. Quickly replacing and 

35 disposing of old inefficient equipment could generate waste material and potentially increase the 

36 size of landfills. However, given the time for program development and implementation, the 

37 cost of replacements, and the average life of equipment, the replacement process would 

38 probably be more gradual. Older equipment would likely be replaced by more efficient 

39 equipment as it fails (especially in the case of frequently replaced items, like light bulbs). In 

40 addition, many items (like home appliances or industrial equipment) have substantial recycling 

41 value and would likely not be disposed of in landfills. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-27 

1 Based on the applicant’s estimates, approximately 24 ac (10 ha) would be needed to support 

2 the two-unit natural gas-fired portion of the combination alternative. Land use impacts from 

3 construction of the natural gas-fired power plant at CR-3 would be SMALL. 

4 In addition to onsite land requirements, land would be required off site for natural gas wells and 

5 collection stations. Scaling from GEIS estimates, the natural gas-fired power plant at CR-3 

6 could require 2,000 ac (810 ha) for wells, collection stations, and pipelines to bring the gas to 

7 the facility. Most of this land requirement would occur on land where gas extraction already 

8 occurs. In addition, some natural gas could come from outside of the United States and be 

9 delivered as liquefied gas. 

10 For these reasons, overall land use impacts from the combination alternative would be SMALL. 

11 8.3.6.2 Socioeconomics 

12 As previously discussed, socioeconomic impacts are defined in terms of changes to the 

13 demographic and economic characteristics and social conditions of a region. For example, the 

14 number of jobs created by the construction and operation of a new single natural gas-fired 

15 power plant at CR-3 could affect regional employment, income, and expenditures. Two types of 

16 jobs would be created: (1) construction-related jobs, which are transient, short in duration, and 

17 less likely to have a long-term socioeconomic impact; and (2) operation-related jobs in support 

18 of power generating operations, which have the greater potential for permanent, long-term 

19 socioeconomic impacts. Workforce requirements for the construction and operation of the 

20 natural gas-fired power plant component were evaluated in order to measure their possible 

21 effects on current socioeconomic conditions. 

22 Based on GEIS projections and a workforce of 1,200 for a 1,000-MW(e) plant, two 280-MW(e) 

23 units at CR-3 would require a peak estimated construction workforce of up to 700 workers. The 

24 number of additional workers would cause a short-term increase in the demand for services and 

25 temporary (rental) housing in the region around the construction site. 

26 After construction, some local communities may be temporarily affected by the loss of the 

27 construction jobs and associated loss in demand for business services. The rental housing 

28 market could also experience increased vacancies and decreased prices. The impact of 

29 construction on socioeconomic conditions would be SMALL. 

30 Following construction, a two-unit gas-fired power plant at CR-3 could provide up to 90 jobs. 

31 Given the small number of operations workers at these facilities, socioeconomic impacts 

32 associated with the operation of the natural gas-fired power plant at CR-3 would be SMALL. 

33 Socioeconomic effects of an energy efficiency program would be SMALL. As noted in the 

34 GEIS, the program would likely employ additional workers. Lower income families could benefit 

35 from weatherization and insulation programs. This effect would be greater than the effect for 

36 the general population because low-income households experience home energy burdens more 

37 than four times larger than the average household (OMB, 2007). 

38 8.3.6.3 Transportation 

39 Transportation impacts would be SMALL because the number of employees commuting to the 

40 CR-3 site, where the gas-fired portion is located, would be small. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-28 

1 Construction and operation of a natural gas-fired power plant would increase the number of 

2 vehicles on roads in the vicinity of this facility. During construction, cars and trucks would 

3 deliver workers, materials, and equipment to the worksites. The increase in vehicular traffic 

4 would peak during shift changes resulting in temporary levels of service impacts and delays at 

5 intersections. Pipeline construction and modifications to existing natural gas pipeline systems 

6 could also have an impact. 

7 During plant operations, transportation impacts would almost disappear. Given the small 

8 number of operations workers at this facility, levels of service impacts on local roads from the 

9 operation of the natural gas-fired power plant at the CR-3 site would be SMALL. 

10 8.3.6.4 Aesthetics 

11 The aesthetics impact analysis focuses on the degree of contrast between the power plant and 

12 the surrounding landscape and the visibility of the power plant. 

13 The two natural gas-fired units located at CR-3 could be approximately 100 ft (30 m) tall, with an 

14 exhaust stack up to 500 ft (152 m) tall. This is likely to be less noticeable than the current CR-3 

15 reactor building at 157 ft (49 m). Also, the CREC currently includes four fossil-powered units, 

16 with two 600-ft (183-m) and two 500-ft (152-m) exhaust stacks. Noise and light from plant 

17 operations, as well as lighting on plant structures, may also be detectable off site. Pipelines 

18 delivering natural gas fuel could be audible off site near gas compressors. 

19 Overall, because a new gas-fired plant would be consistent with the CREC’s current aesthetic 

20 impacts, the aesthetic impacts associated with the gas-fired alternative would likely be SMALL. 

21 Impacts from energy efficiency programs would be SMALL. Some noise impacts could occur in 

22 instances of energy efficiency upgrades to major building systems, though this impact would be 

23 intermittent and short-lived. 

24 8.3.6.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources 

25 Based on its review of agency files, published literature, and information provided by the 

26 applicant, the potential impacts of a new gas-fired alternative on historic and archaeological 

27 resources would be SMALL. This conclusion is based on the results of archaeological surveys 

28 conducted prior to initial plant construction and during subsequent expansion activities. The 

29 locations of existing archaeological sites within the CREC, including areas of high potential for 

30 additional discoveries, are located away from plant maintenance and operations activities in the 

31 protected area. This conclusion is also based on the existing archaeological and cultural 

32 resources and environmental protection procedures in use by CR-3 environmental staff as 

33 noted during the environmental site visit. Lands not previously surveyed should be investigated 

34 by a qualified archaeologist prior to any ground disturbing activity associated with a new 

35 gas-fired alternative at the site. 

36 A conservation alternative would not affect land use or historical or cultural resources on site or 

37 elsewhere in the State. 

38 8.3.6.6 Environmental Justice 

39 The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and 

40 adverse human health, environmental, and socioeconomic effects on minority and low-income 

41 populations that could result from the construction and operation of a new gas-fired power plant. 

42 Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or nonfatal adverse 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-29 

1 impacts on human health. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur 

2 when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income 

3 population is significant and exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for 

4 another appropriate comparison group. Disproportionately high environmental effects refer to 

5 impacts or risk of impact on the natural or physical environment in a minority or low-income 

6 community that are significant and appreciably exceed the environmental impacts on the larger 

7 community. Such effects may include biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts. Some of 

8 these potential effects have been identified in resource areas discussed in this SEIS. For 

9 example, increased demand for rental housing during power plant construction could 

10 disproportionately affect low-income populations. Minority and low-income populations are 

11 subsets of the general public residing in the vicinity of CR-3, and all are exposed to the same 

12 hazards generated from constructing and operating a new natural gas-fired combined-cycle 

13 power plant. For socioeconomic data regarding the analysis of environmental justice issues, the 

14 reader is referred to Section 4.9.7, “Environmental Justice.” 

15 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the construction and operation of 

16 a new natural gas-fired combined-cycle power plant at CR-3 would mostly consist of 

17 environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and housing 

18 impacts). Noise and dust impacts from construction would be short-term and primarily limited to 

19 onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads would 

20 also be affected by increased commuter vehicle traffic during shift changes and truck traffic. 

21 However, these effects would be temporary during certain hours of the day and not likely to be 

22 high and adverse. Increased demand for rental housing during construction in the vicinity of 

23 CR-3 could affect low-income populations. Given the close proximity to the Tampa metropolitan 

24 area, most construction workers would likely commute to the site, thereby reducing the potential 

25 demand for rental housing. 

26 Based on this information and the analysis of human health and environmental impacts 

27 presented in this SEIS, the construction and operation of a gas-fired power plant alternative at 

28 the CR-3 site would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health and 

29 environmental effects on minority and low-income populations residing in the vicinity of CR-3. 

30 For these reasons, impacts from the construction and operation of a gas-fired power plant 

31 alternative would likely be SMALL. 

32 Weatherization programs could target low-income residents as a cost-effective energy efficiency 

33 option since low-income populations tend to spend a larger proportion of their incomes paying 

34 utility bills (according to the Office of Management and Budget, low-income populations 

35 experience energy burdens more than four times as large as those of average households 

36 [OMB, 2007]). Impacts to minority and low-income populations from energy efficiency programs 

37 would be SMALL, depending on program design and enrollment. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-30 

1 8.3.7 Waste Management 

2 During the construction stage of this alternative, land clearing and other construction activities 

3 would generate waste that can be recycled, disposed onsite, or shipped to the offsite waste 

4 disposal facility. During the operational stage, spent SCR catalysts, which are used to control 

5 NOx emissions from the natural gas-fired plants, would make up the majority of the waste 

6 generated by this alternative. 

7 There will be an increase in wastes generated during installation or implementation of 

8 conservation measures, such as appropriate disposal of old appliances, installation of control 

9 devices, and building modifications. New and existing recycling programs would help to 

10 minimize the amount of generated waste. 

11 The overall waste impacts from the combination of the natural gas-fired unit constructed onsite 

12 and conservation are SMALL. 

13 Table 8-3. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Combination Alternative Compared 

14 to Continued Operation of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

 Combination Alternative Continued CR-3 Operation 

Air Quality SMALL to MODERATE SMALL 

Groundwater SMALL SMALL 

Surface Water SMALL SMALL 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources SMALL SMALL to MODERATE 

Human Health SMALL SMALL 

Socioeconomics SMALL SMALL 

Waste Management SMALL SMALL 

15 8.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED 

16 This section presents alternatives to license renewal that were eliminated from detailed study 

17 due to technical reasons, resource availability, or current commercial limitations. The NRC 

18 believes that these limitations would continue to exist when the existing CR-3 license expires. 

19 Under each of the following technology headings, the NRC explains why it dismissed each 

20 alternative from further consideration. 

21 8.4.1 Offsite Coal- and Gas-Fired Capacity 

22 While it is possible that coal- and gas-fired alternatives like those considered in Sections 8.1 

23 and 8.2, respectively, could be constructed at sites other than CR-3, greater impacts would 

24 occur from the construction of support infrastructure offsite, like intake and discharge structures, 

25 transmission lines, roads, and railway spurs that are already present and available for use on 

26 the CR-3 site. Further, the community around CR-3 is already familiar with the appearance of a 

27 power facility and it is an established part of the region’s aesthetic character. Workers skilled in 

28 power plant operations would also be available in this area. The availability of these factors is 

29 only likely to be available on other recently industrial sites. In cases where recently industrial 

30 sites exist, other remediation may also be necessary in order to make the site ready for 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-31 

1 redevelopment. In short, an existing power plant site would present the best location for a new 

2 power facility. 

3 8.4.2 Coal-Fired Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle 

4 The integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) is an emerging technology for generating 

5 electricity with coal that combines modern coal gasification technology with both gas turbine and 

6 steam turbine power generation. While utilities across the United States have considered or are 

7 considering plans for IGCC coal-fired power plants, few IGCC facilities have been constructed. 

8 Only a few IGCC plants are operating at utility scale. Operating at higher thermal efficiencies 

9 than supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) boilers, IGCC plants can produce electrical power with 

10 less air pollutants and solid wastes than SCPC boilers. To date, however, IGCC technologies 

11 have had limited application and have been plagued with operational problems such that their 

12 effective, long-term capacity factors are often not high enough for them to reliably serve as 

13 baseload units. All facilities constructed in the United States to date have been smaller than 

14 CR-3. The technology, however, is commercially available and essentially relies on a gasifier 

15 stage and a combined-cycle turbine stage. Existing combined-cycle gas turbines (like the ones 

16 considered in Section 8.2) could be used as a part of an IGCC alternative. Emissions would 

17 likely be slightly greater than those from the gas-fired alternative, but significantly lower than 

18 those from the coal-fired alternative. In addition, an IGCC alternative would require slightly less 

19 onsite space than the coal-fired alternative in Section 8.1 and operate at a higher thermal 

20 efficiency. Depending on gasification technology employed, it would likely use a similar quantity 

21 of water. Currently, no IGCC projects have been approved in the State of Florida. In 2005, 

22 Florida Power and Light attempted to move ahead with plans to build an IGCC power plant in 

23 St. Lucie County, Florida, but was denied the necessary permits by the St. Lucie County 

24 Commission. The Orlando Utilities Commission and Southern Company recently canceled 

25 plans to build an IGCC plant in Orange County, Florida, citing the increasing likelihood of a 

26 carbon pollution tax in the State. Tampa Electric Company also suspended plans to build a 

27 630-MW IGCC plant, citing Florida Governor Charlie Crist’s efforts to reduce CO2 emissions in 

28 the State. 

29 The EIA indicates that IGCC and other advanced coal plants may become increasingly common 

30 in coming years. Though current operational problems that compromise reliability and 

31 uncertainties about construction time periods and commercial viability in the near future, the 

32 IGCC is an unlikely alternative to CR-3 license renewal (EIA, 2009a). For plants whose licenses 

33 expire later, IGCC (with or without carbon capture and storage) may prove to be a viable 

34 alternative. 

35 8.4.3 New Nuclear 

36 In its ER, the applicant indicated that it is unlikely that a nuclear alternative could be sited, 

37 constructed, and operational by the time the CR-3 operating license expires December 3, 2016 

38 (Progress Energy, 2008). A potential plant would require additional time and resources to 

39 develop an application. Progress Energy Florida, Inc. has already submitted a proposal for a 

40 new nuclear plant 8 mi (13 km) north of the CR-3 site in Levy County, Florida. It remains 

41 unknown whether this new plant will be licensed by the 2016 timeframe. Progress Energy 

42 Florida, Inc. has already indicated that, if licensed, this two-reactor nuclear site will be 

43 constructed to offset the loss of the two oldest coal-fired units in the CREC upon their 

44 retirement. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-32 

1 Given the relatively short time remaining on the current CR-3 operating license, new nuclear 

2 generation was not evaluated as an alternative to license renewal. 

3 8.4.4 Energy Conservation/Energy Efficiency 

4 Though often used interchangeably, energy conservation and energy efficiency are different 

5 concepts. Energy efficiency typically means deriving a similar level of service by using less 

6 energy, while energy conservation simply indicates a reduction in energy consumption. Both fall 

7 into a larger category known as DSM. DSM measures—unlike the energy supply alternatives 

8 discussed in previous sections—address energy end uses. DSM can include measures that do 

9 the following: 

10 ● shift energy consumption to different times of the day to reduce peak loads 

11 ● interrupt certain large customers during periods of high demand 

12 ● interrupt certain appliances during high demand periods 

13 ● replace older, less efficient appliances, lighting, or control systems 

14 ● encourage customers to switch from gas to electricity for water heating and other 

15 similar measures that utilities use to boost sales 

16 Unlike other alternatives to license renewal, the GEIS notes that conservation is not a discrete 

17 power generating source; it represents an option that States and utilities may use to reduce their 

18 need for power generation capability (NRC, 1996). 

19 A 2007 study conducted on the energy efficiency potential of Florida concluded that by 2023, 

20 the State could reduce its energy consumption by 30 percent (Elliot et al., 2007). Florida 

21 Governor Charlie Crist has recently passed energy efficiency and Leadership in Energy and 

22 Environmental Design (LEED) standards for all newly constructed or renovated buildings, as 

23 well as created an Action Team on Energy and Climate Change. The resulting 2006 Energy 

24 Plan briefly outlines conservation goals, which have been set for the seven Florida utilities 

25 subject to the 1980 Florida Energy and Efficiency Conservation Act: Progress Energy Florida, 

26 Florida Power & Light, Gulf Power, Tampa Electric Company (TECO), Florida Public Utilities 

27 Company, JEA (formerly Jacksonville Electric Authority), and Orlando Utilities Commission. 

28 As of August 2009, Progress Energy is also seeking a Federal grant from the DOE to invest in 

29 smart grid technology in Florida that will allow customers to have more control over their energy 

30 usage and promote conservation. The smart grid technology lets both utility companies and 

31 customers continuously monitor and adjust their electricity use, as well as the flexibility to 

32 integrate renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power. Progress Energy is already 

33 committed to investing $320 million in this technology to be used in both Progress Energy 

34 Carolinas and Progress Energy Florida. 

35 Currently, Progress Energy has a DSM program with the goal to reduce annual energy 

36 consumption by an additional 190 GWh. To date, this program has successfully reduced annual 

37 consumption by 115 GWh. Using the lower conservation number, 128 MW(e), 

38 conservation/energy efficiency could offset roughly 15 percent of CR-3’s output. Because the 

39 current conservation practices are not enough to offset the loss of CR-3, and the future of smart 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-33 

1 grid technology (as well as the amount of energy conservation it will actually contribute) is 

2 uncertain, energy conservation/efficiency was not evaluated as an alternative to license renewal 

3 except as a component of the combination alternative. 

4 8.4.5 Purchased Power 

5 In its ER, the applicant indicated that, while not currently available, purchased electrical power 

6 was not ruled out as an alternative by the 2016 timeframe. The State of Florida relies heavily on 

7 purchased power (about 117 terawatt-hours [TWh] worth), and purchased power accounts for 

8 17 percent of Progress Energy’s current electricity supply in the State (EIA, 2010), (Progress 

9 Energy, 2008). If any current electricity purchase contracts in the State expire prior to 2016, 

10 there may be power available for Progress Energy to purchase as an alternative, however, there 

11 are no guaranteed available power sources to replace the 850 gross MW(e) that CR-3 currently 

12 provides. It is unlikely that the Florida power grid would be able to support additional electricity 

13 imports, as it is already one of the more congested transmission paths in the country, with 

14 transmission lines congested between 40 to 80 percent of the year (Rewey and 

15 Cromarty, 2006). Because of this congestion, as well as tax regulations in the area, trading into 

16 the Southeast electricity market is very difficult. In its ER, the applicant recognized that it is 

17 likely that a new capacity would have to be built for a purchased-power alternative to become 

18 available. 

19 The potential for purchased power to offset a portion of the electricity generated by CR-3, 

20 however, because of the lack of assured available purchased electrical power for the 2016 to 

21 2036 timeframe of CR-3 license renewal, was not evaluated as an alternative to license 

22 renewal. 

23 8.4.6 Wind Power (Onshore/Offshore) 

24 Wind power, by itself, is not suitable for large baseload capacity. As discussed in Section 8.3.1 

25 of the GEIS, wind has a high degree of intermittency and low average annual capacity factors 

26 (up to 30 to 40 percent). Wind power, in conjunction with energy storage mechanisms or 

27 another readily dispatchable power source, like hydropower, could serve as a means of 

28 providing baseload power. However, current energy storage technologies are too expensive for 

29 wind power to serve as a large baseload generator. 

30 The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) reports that a total of 25,369 MW of wind 

31 energy capacity was installed in the United States at the end of 2008, with 8,545 MW installed 

32 just in 2008 (AWEA, 2009). Texas is by far the leader in installed capacity with 2,671 MW, 

33 followed by Iowa (1,600 MW), Minnesota (456 MW), Kansas (450 MW), and New York 

34 (407 MW). The AWEA indicates that Florida currently ranks 45th among the States in installed 

35 wind power capacity (0 MW), and 46th among the States in potential capacity. No projects are 

36 currently under construction (AWEA, 2010). 

37 Wind energy potential in Florida is largely Class 1, with some sites registering Class 2 at best. 

38 At the current stage of wind energy technology development, wind regimes of Class 3 or higher 

39 are required to produce utility-scale amounts of electricity. The National Renewable Energy 

40 Laboratory (NREL, 2010) estimates that the State of Florida has a wind energy potential of 

41 0.4 MW of installed capacity with annual generation of 1 GWh (considering sites with capacity 

42 factors greater than or equal to 30 percent at an 80-m height). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-34 

1 Although offshore wind farms could be considered an alternative in this area, much of the 

2 Florida coasts have been designated as Marine Protected Areas, which means that the amount 

3 of area required for an offshore wind farm is unlikely to be available. Also, considering the 

4 current capacity factor of about 35 percent, to date the largest offshore farm that has been 

5 permitted in the United States is not even a third of the size that would be required to offset 

6 CR-3. 

7 Based on this available information, wind power was not evaluated as a suitable alternative to 

8 renewing the CR-3 operating license. 

9 8.4.7 Solar Power 

10 Solar technologies, photovoltaic (PV) and solar thermal (also known as concentrated solar 

11 power [CSP]), use the sun’s energy to produce electricity at a utility scale. In PV systems, the 

12 energy contained in photons of sunlight incident on special PV materials results in the 

13 production of direct current (DC) electricity which is aggregated, converted to alternating current 

14 (AC), and connected to the high-voltage transmission grid. CSP technologies produce 

15 electricity by capturing the sun’s heat energy. Two types of CSP technology that have had the 

16 greatest utility-scale applications are the parabolic trough and the power tower; both involve 

17 capturing the sun’s heat and converting it to steam which powers a conventional Rankine cycle 

18 engine. Although relatively benign in many respects, solar technology requires substantial land 

19 areas and CSP technologies require roughly the same amount of water for cooling of the steam 

20 cycle as many other thermoelectric technologies. Establishing adequate cooling for CSP 

21 facilities is often problematic since geographic areas with the highest-value direct normal 

22 isolation required for CSP are often in remote desert areas with limited or no water availability. 

23 As with other forms of renewable energy, the potential of solar technologies to serve as reliable 

24 baseload power alternatives to CR-3 depends on the value, constancy, and accessibility of the 

25 solar resource. Both PV and CSP are growing worldwide, especially for various off-grid 

26 applications or to augment grid-provided power at the point of consumption; however, discrete 

27 baseload applications still have technological limitations. Although thermal storage can 

28 markedly increase the value of CSP-derived power for baseload applications by providing 

29 energy storage capabilities, low energy conversion efficiencies and the inherent 

30 weather-dependent intermittency of solar power limit its application as baseload power in all but 

31 geographic locations with the highest solar energy values. 

32 Currently, the CR-3 site receives between 4.5 and 5.0 kWh per square meter per day, for solar 

33 collectors oriented at an angle equal to the installation’s latitude (NREL, 2008). Since flat-plate 

34 PVs tend to be roughly 24 percent efficient, a solar-powered alternative will require at least 

35 13,450 ac (5,440 ha) of collectors to provide an amount of electricity equivalent to that 

36 generated by CR-3. A solar thermal power alternative (assuming an efficiency of 32 percent) 

37 would similarly require about 21,250 ac (8,600 ha). Space between parcels and associated 

38 infrastructure increase this land requirement. This amount of land, while large, is consistent 

39 with the land required for coal and natural gas fuel cycles. 

40 Progress Energy does have current and projected solar power initiatives totaling 330 kW in the 

41 State of Florida; however, these are limited to research and demonstration projects, educational 

42 programs, and small-scale electricity generation (Progress Energy, 2008). By its nature, solar 

43 power is intermittent (i.e., it does not work at night and cannot serve baseload when the sun is 

44 not shining), and the efficiency of collectors varies greatly with weather conditions. A 

45 solar-powered alternative will require energy storage or backup power supply to provide electric 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-35 

1 power at night. Given the challenges in meeting baseload requirements, solar power was not 

2 evaluated as an alternative to license renewal of CR-3. 

3 8.4.8 Wood Waste 

4 In 1999, DOE researchers estimated that Florida has biomass fuel resources consisting of 

5 forest, mill, agricultural, and urban residues, as well as energy crop potential. Excluding 

6 potential energy crops, DOE researchers projected that Florida had 17,046,408 tons 

7 (15,465,000 MT) of plant-based biomass available at $50 per ton delivered (costs are in 1995 

8 dollars) (Walsh et al., 2000). The Bioenergy Feedstock Development Program at Oak Ridge 

9 National Laboratory estimated that each air-dry pound of wood residue produces approximately 

10 6,400 Btu of heat (ORNL, 2007). Assuming 33 percent conversion efficiency, using all biomass 

11 available in Florida at $50 per ton—the maximum price the researchers considered—would 

12 generate roughly 0.003 TWh (3,295 MWh) of electricity. 

13 Walsh et al. (2000) go on to note that these estimates of biomass capacity contain substantial 

14 uncertainty and that potential availability does not mean biomass will actually be available at the 

15 prices indicated or that resources will be usably free of contamination. Some of these plant 

16 wastes already have reuse value and would likely be more costly to deliver because of 

17 competition. Others, such as forest residues, may prove unsafe and unsustainable to harvest 

18 on a regular basis (the majority of biomass capacity in Florida comes from forest residues, with 

19 very little potential from agricultural residues). The available resource potential is likely less 

20 than the estimate totals in Walsh et al., and the total resource is not likely to be sufficient to 

21 substitute for the electrical power generation provided by CR-3. As a result, a wood-fired 

22 alternative was not evaluated as an alternative to CR-3 license renewal. 

23 8.4.9 Hydroelectric Power 

24 According to researchers at Idaho National Energy and Environmental Laboratory, Florida has 

25 an estimated 43 MW of undeveloped nameplate potential hydroelectric resources at 13 sites 

26 throughout the State (INEEL, 1997), (INEEL, 1998). Most of these sites have a potential 

27 capacity of less than 1 MW(e), with about 41 percent of the undeveloped hydroelectric power 

28 potential in Florida contained within the Florida Apalachicola River basin. Given that the 

29 available hydroelectric potential in the State of Florida constitutes less than the power 

30 generating capacity of CR-3, hydropower was not evaluated as an alternative to license 

31 renewal. 

32 8.4.10 Wave and Ocean Energy 

33 Wave and ocean energy has generated considerable interest in recent years. Differential 

34 heating of the earth’s water and land surfaces results in wind, which acts on the ocean’s surface 

35 to create waves. The gravitational pull of the moon also helps to create waves. Ocean waves, 

36 currents, and tides represent kinetic and potential energies. The total annual average wave 

37 energy off the U.S. coastlines at a water depth of 197 ft (60 m) is estimated at 2,100 TWh 

38 (MMS, 2006). Wave currents and tides are often predictable and reliable; ocean currents flow 

39 consistently, while tides can be predicted months and years in advance with well-known 

40 behavior in most coastal areas. Four principal wave energy conversion technologies have been 

41 developed to date to capture the potential or kinetic energy of waves: point absorbers, 

42 attenuators, overtopping devices, and terminators. All have similar approaches to electricity 

43 generation but differ in size, anchoring method, spacing, interconnection, array patterns, and 

44 water depth limitations. Point absorbers and attenuators both allow waves to interact with a 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-36 

1 floating buoy, subsequently converting its motion into mechanical energy to drive a generator. 

2 Overtopping devices and terminators are also similar in their function. Overtopping devices trap 

3 some portion of the incident wave at a higher elevation than the average height of the 

4 surrounding sea surface, thus giving it higher potential energy, which is then transferred to 

5 power generators. Terminators allow waves to enter a tube, compressing air trapped at the top 

6 of the tube, which is then used to drive a generator. 

7 Capacities of point absorbers range from 80 to 250 kW, with capacity factors as high as 

8 40 percent; attenuator facilities have capacities of as high as 750 kW. Overtopping devices 

9 have design capacities as high as 4 MW, while terminators have design capacities ranging from 

10 500 kW to 2 MW and capacity factors as high as 50 percent (MMS, 2007). 

11 The most advanced technology for capturing tidal and ocean current energy is the submerged 

12 turbine. Underwater turbines share many design features and functions with wind turbines, but 

13 because of the greater density of water compared to air, they have substantially greater power 

14 generating potential than wind turbines of comparable sized blades. However, only a small 

15 number of prototypes and demonstration units have been deployed to date. Underwater turbine 

16 “farms” are projected to have capacities of 2 to 3 MW, with capacity factors directly related to 

17 the constancy of the current with which they interact. 

18 The environmental impacts of wave energy conversion technologies are still largely undefined 

19 and, while expected to be generally benign, could vary substantially with site-specific 

20 circumstances. Also, large-scale deployment of wave energy conversion technologies could 

21 compete with other activities already occurring in offshore locations, including commercial and 

22 recreational fishing and commercial shipping. Although real-world examples are limited, the 

23 potential cost of commercial-scale wave energy conversion-derived power is estimated to range 

24 from $0.09 to $0.11 per KWh (MMS, 2006). The relatively modest power capacities and 

25 relatively high costs of resulting power, coupled with the fact that all wave energy conversion 

26 technologies are in their infancy, support the conclusion that wave energy conversion 

27 technologies are not feasible alternatives for renewing the CR-3 operating license. 

28 8.4.11 Geothermal Power 

29 Geothermal energy has an average capacity factor of 90 percent and can be used for baseload 

30 power where available. However, geothermal electric generation is limited by the geographical 

31 availability of geothermal resources (NRC, 1996). Florida does have some potential for 

32 geothermal energy production; however, this potential is only estimated at less than 40 MW 

33 (Green and Nix, 2006). Because the geothermal potential in the State of Florida constitutes less 

34 than the generating capacity of CR-3, geothermal energy was not evaluated as a reasonable 

35 alternative to license renewal at CR-3. 

36 8.4.12 Municipal Solid Waste 

37 Municipal solid waste combustors use three types of technologies—mass burn, modular, and 

38 refuse-derived fuel. Mass burning is currently the method used most frequently in the United 

39 States and involves no (or little) sorting, shredding, or separation. Consequently, toxic or 

40 hazardous components present in the waste stream are combusted, and toxic constituents are 

41 exhausted to the air or become part of the resulting solid wastes. Currently, approximately 

42 89 waste-to-energy plants operate in the United States. These plants generate approximately 

43 2,700 MW(e), or an average of 30 MW(e) per plant (Integrated Waste Services Association, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-37 

1 2007). More than 28 average-sized plants will be necessary to provide the same level of output 

2 as the other alternatives to CR-3 license renewal. 

3 Estimates in the GEIS suggest that the overall level of construction impact from a waste-fired 

4 plant will be approximately the same as that for a coal-fired power plant. Additionally, 

5 waste-fired plants have the same or greater operational impacts than coal-fired technologies 

6 (including impacts on the aquatic environment, air, and waste disposal). The initial capital costs 

7 for municipal solid-waste plants are greater than for comparable steam-turbine technology at 

8 coal-fired facilities or at wood-waste facilities because of the need for specialized waste 

9 separation and handling equipment (NRC, 1996). 

10 The decision to burn municipal waste to generate energy is usually driven by the need for an 

11 alternative to landfills rather than energy considerations. The use of landfills as a waste 

12 disposal option is likely to increase in the near term as energy prices increase; however, it is 

13 possible that municipal waste combustion facilities may become attractive again. 

14 Regulatory structures that once supported municipal solid waste incineration no longer exist. 

15 For example, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 made capital-intensive projects such as municipal 

16 waste combustion facilities more expensive relative to less capital-intensive waste disposal 

17 alternatives such as landfills. In addition, the 1994 Supreme Court decision C&A Carbone, Inc. 

18 v. Town of Clarkstown, New York, struck down local flow control ordinances that required waste 

19 to be delivered to specific municipal waste combustion facilities rather than landfills that may 

20 have had lower fees. In addition, environmental regulations have increased the capital cost 

21 necessary to construct and maintain municipal waste combustion facilities. 

22 Given the small average installed size of municipal solid waste plants and the unfavorable 

23 regulatory environment, municipal solid waste combustion was not considered a feasible 

24 alternative to CR-3 license renewal. 

25 8.4.13 Biofuels 

26 In addition to wood and municipal solid waste fuels, there are other concepts for biomass-fired 

27 electric generators, including direct burning of energy crops, conversion to liquid biofuels, and 

28 biomass gasification. When used here, “biomass fuels” include crop residues, switchgrass 

29 grown specifically for electricity production, forest residues, methane from landfills, methane 

30 from animal manure management, primary wood mill residues, secondary wood mill residues, 

31 urban wood wastes, and methane from domestic wastewater treatment. The feasibility of the 

32 use of biomass fuels for baseload power is dependent on their geographic distribution, available 

33 quantities, constancy of supply, and energy content. A variety of technical approaches have 

34 been developed for biomass-fired electric generators, including direct burning, conversion to 

35 liquid biofuels, and biomass gasification. 

36 None of these technologies had progressed to the point of being competitive on a large scale or 

37 of being reliable enough to replace a baseload power plant such as CR-3. Although Progress 

38 Energy has recently agreed to purchase the 117-MW(e) output from a new biomass plant to be 

39 built in central Florida (which will be the world’s first commercial-sale, closed-loop biomass 

40 facility), this output is only a fraction of the CR-3 capacity (Progress Energy, 2008). For this 

41 reason, biomass-derived fuel power plants are not considered feasible alternatives to CR-3 

42 license renewal. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-38 

1 8.4.14 Oil-Fired Power 

2 The EIA projects that oil-fired plants will account for no new generation capacity constructed in 

3 the United States during the 2010 to 2030 time period. Further, the EIA does not project that 

4 oil-fired power will account for any significant additions to capacity (EIA, 2010). Florida’s electric 

5 power industry has historically relied on oil-fired plants; however, in recent years the Florida 

6 Public Service Commission (FPSC) has implemented new policies to encourage alternatives 

7 that reduce the State’s dependence on oil for electricity generation (FDEP, 2006). Oil-fired 

8 generation has decreased in Florida from 55 percent of the Statewide electricity production in 

9 1973 to 11.3 percent in 2006 (EIA, 2009a). Florida utilities forecast a further decline to only 7 

10 percent by the year 2014 (FDEP, 2006). 

11 The variable costs of oil-fired generation tend to be greater than those of the nuclear or 

12 coal-fired operations, and oil-fired generation tends to have greater environmental impacts than 

13 natural gas-fired generation. In addition, future increases in oil prices are expected to make 

14 oil-fired generation increasingly more expensive (EIA, 2010). The high cost of oil has prompted 

15 a steady decline in its use for electricity generation. Thus, oil-fired power generation was not 

16 evaluated as an alternative to CR-3 license renewal. 

17 8.4.15 Fuel Cells 

18 Fuel cells oxidize fuels without combustion and its environmental side effects. Power is 

19 produced electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an anode and air (or oxygen) 

20 over a cathode and separating the two by an electrolyte. The only byproducts (depending on 

21 fuel characteristics) are heat, water, and CO2. Hydrogen fuel can come from a variety of 

22 hydrocarbon resources by subjecting them to steam under pressure. Natural gas is typically 

23 used as the source of hydrogen. 

24 At the present time, fuel cells are not economically or technologically competitive with other 

25 alternatives for electricity generation. The EIA projects that fuel cells may cost $5,374 per 

26 installed kW (total overnight costs) (EIA, 2009b), or 3.5 times the construction cost of new 

27 coal-fired capacity and 7.5 times the cost of new, advanced gas-fired, combined-cycle capacity. 

28 In addition, fuel cell units are likely to be small in size (the EIA reference plant is 10 MW(e)). 

29 While it may be possible to use a distributed array of fuel cells to provide an alternative to CR-3, 

30 it would be extremely costly to do so and would require many units. Accordingly, fuel cells were 

31 not evaluated as an alternative to CR-3 license renewal. 

32 8.4.16 Delayed Retirement 

33 The applicant indicated in its ER that the 444-MW(e) Bartow plant in St. Petersburg (which is 

34 slated for retirement) is being uprated by replacing oil-fired boilers with a natural gas-fueled, 

35 combined-cycle power block (Progress Energy, 2008). This uprate will increase the plant’s 

36 output by 800 MW, but the upgrades require major construction in order to meet the current air 

37 contaminant emissions restrictions. Another facility currently scheduled for retirement, the 

38 129 MW(e) Suwannee River plant in Live Oak, is being reviewed for similar upgrades. 

39 Both the Bartow uprate and the potential Suwannee River uprate, however, have already been 

40 considered by the applicant as part of its plan to meet future energy needs. As a result, delayed 

41 retirement is not a feasible alternative to license renewal. Other generation capacity may be 

42 retired prior to the expiration of the CR-3 license, but this capacity is likely to be older, less 

43 efficient, and without modern emissions controls. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-39 

1 8.5 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

2 This section examines environmental effects that would occur if the NRC takes no action. No 

3 action in this case means that the NRC does not issue a renewed operating license for CR-3 

4 and the license expires at the end of the current license term, in December 2016. If the NRC 

5 takes no action, the plant would shutdown at or before the end of the current license. After 

6 shutdown, plant operators would initiate decommissioning according to 10 CFR 50.82. 

7 This section addresses only those impacts that arise directly as a result of plant shutdown. The 

8 environmental impacts from decommissioning and related activities have already been 

9 addressed in several other documents, including NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Generic 

10 Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Supplement 1, 

11 Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors (NRC, 2002); Chapter 7 of the 

12 license renewal GEIS (NRC, 1996); and Chapter 7 of this SEIS. These analyses either directly 

13 address or bound the environmental impacts of decommissioning whenever the applicant 

14 ceases operating CR-3. 

15 Even with a renewed operating license, CR-3 will eventually shut down, and the environmental 

16 effects addressed in this section will occur at that time. Since these effects have not otherwise 

17 been addressed in this SEIS, the impacts will be addressed in this section. As with 

18 decommissioning effects, shutdown effects are expected to be similar whether they occur at the 

19 end of the current license or at the end of a renewed license. 

20 8.5.1 Air Quality 

21 When the plant stops operating, there would be a reduction in emissions from activities related 

22 to plant operation such as use of diesel generators and employee vehicles. As discussed in 

23 Chapter 4, these emissions would have a SMALL impact on air quality during the renewal term. 

24 Therefore, if the emissions decrease, the impact to air quality would also decrease and would 

25 be SMALL. 

26 8.5.2 Groundwater Use and Quality 

27 The use of groundwater would diminish as plant personnel are removed from the site and 

28 operations cease. Some consumption of groundwater may continue as a small staff remains 

29 onsite to maintain facilities prior to decommissioning. Overall impacts would be less than during 

30 operations and would remain SMALL. 

31 8.5.3 Surface Water Use and Quality 

32 The rate of consumptive use of surface water would decrease as the plant is shut down and the 

33 reactor cooling system continues to remove the heat of decay. Wastewater discharges would 

34 also be reduced considerably. Shutdown would reduce the already SMALL impact on surface 

35 water resources and quality. 

36 8.5.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources 

37 8.5.4.1 Aquatic Ecology 

38 If the plant were to cease operating, impacts to aquatic ecology would decrease, as the plant 

39 would withdraw and discharge less water than it does during operations. Shutdown would 

40 reduce the already SMALL impacts to aquatic ecology. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-40 

1 8.5.4.2 Terrestrial Ecology 

2 Terrestrial ecology impacts would be SMALL. No additional land disturbances on or off site 

3 would occur. 

4 8.5.5 Human Health 

5 Human health risks would be smaller following plant shutdown. The plant, which is currently 

6 operating within regulatory limits, would emit less gaseous and liquid radioactive material to the 

7 environment. In addition, following shutdown, the variety of potential accidents at the plant 

8 (radiological or industrial) would be reduced to a limited set associated with shutdown events 

9 and fuel handling and storage. As discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of this SEIS, the impacts of 

10 continued plant operation and accidents during plant operation on human health would be 

11 SMALL. Therefore, as radioactive emissions to the environment decrease, and as the likelihood 

12 and variety of accidents decrease following shutdown, the risks to human health following plant 

13 shutdown would be SMALL. 

14 8.5.6 Socioeconomics 

15 8.5.6.1 Land Use 

16 Plant shutdown would not affect onsite land use. Plant structures and other facilities would 

17 remain in place until decommissioning. Most transmission lines connected to CR-3 would 

18 remain in service after the plant stops operating. Maintenance of most existing transmission 

19 lines would continue as before. Impacts on land use from plant shutdown would be SMALL. 

20 8.5.6.2 Socioeconomics 

21 Plant shutdown would have an impact on socioeconomic conditions in the region around CR-3. 

22 Plant shutdown would eliminate approximately 540 jobs and would reduce tax revenue in the 

23 region. The loss of these contributions, which may not entirely cease until after 

24 decommissioning, would have a MODERATE impact. See Appendix J to NUREG-0586, 

25 Supplement 1 (NRC, 2002), for additional discussion of the potential socioeconomic impacts of 

26 plant decommissioning. 

27 8.5.6.3 Transportation 

28 Traffic volumes on the roads in the vicinity of CR-3 would be reduced after plant shutdown. 

29 Most of the reduction in traffic volume would be associated with the loss of jobs at the plant. 

30 Deliveries to the plant would be reduced until decommissioning. Transportation impacts would 

31 be SMALL as a result of plant shutdown. 

32 8.5.6.4 Aesthetics 

33 Plant structures and other facilities would remain in place until decommissioning. Noise caused 

34 by plant operation would cease. Aesthetic impacts of plant closure would be SMALL. 

35 8.5.6.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources 

36 Impacts from the no-action alternative would be SMALL, since CR-3 would be shut down. A 

37 separate environmental review would be conducted for decommissioning. That assessment will 

38 address the protection of known historic and archaeological resources at CR-3. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-41 

1 8.5.6.6 Environmental Justice 

2 Termination of power plant operations would not disproportionately affect minority and 

3 low-income populations outside of the immediate vicinity of CR-3. Impacts to all other resource 

4 areas would be SMALL to MODERATE. Minority and low-income populations are generally 

5 concentrated in urban areas. Thus, impacts from plant shutdown would be SMALL. See 

6 Appendix J of NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC, 2002), for additional discussion of these 

7 impacts. 

8 8.5.7 Waste Management 

9 If the no-action alternative were implemented, the generation of high-level waste would stop and 

10 generation of low-level and mixed waste would decrease. Waste management impacts from 

11 implementation of the no-action alternative are expected to be SMALL. 

12 Table 8-4. Summary of Environmental Impacts of No Action Compared to Continued 

13 Operation of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

 No Action Continued CR-3 Operation 

Air Quality SMALL SMALL 

Groundwater SMALL SMALL 

Surface Water SMALL SMALL 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources SMALL SMALL to MODERATE 

Human Health SMALL SMALL 

Socioeconomics SMALL to MODERATE SMALL 

Waste Management SMALL SMALL 

14 8.6 ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY 

15 In this chapter, the following alternatives to CR-3 license renewal were considered: supercritical 

16 coal-fired generation, natural gas combined-cycle generation, and a combination alternative. 

17 No action by the NRC and the effects it would have were also considered. The impacts for all 

18 alternatives are summarized in Table 8-5. 

19 The coal-fired alternative is not an environmentally preferable alternative due to impacts to air 

20 quality from NOx, SOx, particulate matter, PAHs, CO, CO2, and mercury (and the corresponding 

21 human health impacts), as well as construction impacts to aquatic, terrestrial, and potential 

22 historic and archaeological resources. 

23 The gas-fired alternative would have slightly lower air emissions, and waste management and 

24 socioeconomic impacts would be lower than the coal-fired alternative. 

25 The combination alternative would have lower air emissions and waste management impacts 

26 than both the gas-fired and coal-fired alternatives. 

27 In conclusion, the environmentally preferred alternative in this case is the license renewal of 

28 CR-3. All other alternatives capable of meeting the needs currently served by CR-3 entail equal 

29 or potentially greater impacts than the proposed action of license renewal of CR-3. Because the 

30 no-action alternative necessitates the implementation of one or a combination of alternatives, all 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

 8-42 

1 of which have greater impacts than the proposed action, the no-action alternative would have 

2 environmental impacts greater than or equal to the proposed license renewal action.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

8-43 

Table 8-5. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives 1 

 Impact Area 

Alternative Air Quality Groundwater Surface Water Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources Human Health Socioeconomics Waste Management License renewal of CR-3 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Supercritical coal-fired generation MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE 

Natural gas combined-cycle generation 

SMALL to 

MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL 

Combination alternative SMALL to MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

No-action alternative 

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

8-44 

1 8.7 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 40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51, 

7 “Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans.” 

8 40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60, 

9 “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.” 

10 40 CFR Part 75. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 75, 

11 “Continuous Emission Monitoring.” 

12 AWEA (American Wind Energy Association). 2009. Annual Wind Industry Report, Year Ending 

13 2008. 

14 AWEA (American Wind Energy Association). 2010. “U.S. Wind Energy Projects,” for Florida. 

15 Available URL: http://www.awea.org/la_usprojects.cfm (accessed January 2010). 

16 Clean Air Act of 1963. § 42 U.S.C. § 7401, et seq. 

17 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2008. Estimating Freshwater Needs to Meet Future 

18 Thermoelectric Generation Requirements – 2008 Update, National Energy Technology 

19 Laboratory, DOE/NETL-400/2008//1339, September 30, 2008. Available URL: 

20 http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/pubs/2008_Water_Needs_Analysis21 Final_10-2-2008.pdf (accessed April 2011) 

22 EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2009a. Annual Energy Outlook 2009 With Projections 

23 to 2030, DOE/EIA 0383(2009), Washington, D.C., March 2009. Available URL: 

24 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2009).pdf (accessed December 2009). 

25 EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2009b. “Table A4. Approximate Heat Content of 

26 Natural Gas, 1949-2009 (Btu per Cubic Foot).” Available URL: http://www.eia.doe.gov/

27 emeu/aer/txt/ptb1304.html (accessed December 2009). 

28 EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2010. “Table ES1. Summary Statistics for the United 

29 States,” Electric Power Annual with data for 2008. Available URL: http://www.eia.doe.gov/

30 cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html (accessed March 2010). 

31 Elliot, R.N., M. Eldridge, A. Shipley, J. Laitner, and S. Nadel. 2007. “Potential for Energy 

32 Efficiency and Renewable Energy to Meet Florida’s Growing Energy Demands.” Available URL: 

33 http://www.aceee.org/pubs/e072.htm (accessed December 2009). 

34 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998a. “Section 1.1: Bituminous and 

35 Subbituminous Coal Combustion: Final Section Supplement E” in Compilation of Air Pollutant 

36 Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources: AP 42, Fifth Edition, 

37 Washington, D.C. 

38 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998b. “Revision of Standards of Performance 

39 for Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generating Units; Revisions to 

40 Reporting Requirements for Standards of Performance for New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam 

41 Generating Units,” Federal Register, Vol. 63, p. 49453, Washington, D.C. 

42 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. “Regional Haze Regulations,” Federal 

43 Register, Vol. 64, p. 35714, Washington, D.C. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

8-45 

1 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000a. “Notice of Regulatory Determination on 

2 Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels,” Federal Register, Vol. 65, pp.32214–32237, 

3 Washington, D.C. 

4 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000b. “Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of 

5 Hazardous Air Pollutants from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units,” Federal Register, 

6 Vol. 65, No. 245, December 20, 2000, pp. 79825–79831, Washington, D.C. 

7 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ). 2008. “Basic Concepts of Environmental 

8 Science. Module 6: Fabric Filters,” Agencywide Documents Access Management System 

9 (ADAMS) Accession No. ML091760654. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/apti/bces/

10 module6/matter/control/control.htm#fabric (accessed June 2009). 

11 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009a. “Emissions Factors & AP 42, 

12 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.” Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/

13 ttn/chief/ap42/index.html (accessed August 2009). 

14 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009b. “Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.” 

15 Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html

16 (accessed August 2009). 

17 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. “Clean Air Interstate Rule: Florida.” 

18 Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/CAIR/fl.html (accessed March 2010). 

19 GE (General Electric). 2007. “Gas Turbine and Combined Cycle Products,” May 2007. 

20 Available URL: http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/gas_turbines_cc/en/downloads/

21 gasturbine_cc_products.pdf (accessed August 2009). 

22 Green, B.D., and R.G. Nix. 2006. “Geothermal—the Energy Under Our Feet: Geothermal 

23 Resource Estimates for the United States.” Available URL: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

24 geothermal/pdfs/40665.pdf (accessed March 2010). 

25 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2006. “Florida’s Energy Plan.” 

26 Available URL: http://www.oe.netl.doe.gov/docs/prepare/florida2006energy_plan.pdf

27 (accessed January 2010). 

28 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2009a. “Detailed Statement of Facts 

29 and Circumstances Justifying Proposed Rule.” Available URL: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/

30 rules/regulatory/bart/62-204_facts_011107.pdf (accessed March 2010). 

31 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2009b. Florida Administrative Code—

32 Chapter 62-213: “Operation Permits for Major Sources of Air Pollution.” Available URL: 

33 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/rules/fac/62-213.pdf (accessed March 2010). 

34 INEEL (Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory). 1997. “U.S. Hydropower 

35 Resource Assessment for Florida,” DOE/ID-10430(NE). Available URL: 

36 http://hydropower.inl.gov/resourceassessment/pdfs/states/fl.pdf (accessed December 2009). 

37 INEEL (Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory). 1998. “U.S. Hydropower 

38 Resource Assessment, Final Report,” DOE-ID/10430.2. Available URL: 

39 http://hydropower.inel.gov/resourceassessment/pdfs/doeid-10430.pdf (accessed 

40 December 2009). 

41 Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA). 2007. “Waste-to-Energy and the Production 

42 Tax Credit.” Available URL: http://www.wte.org/docs/FactSheetPTC.pdf (accessed 

43 December 2010). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

8-46 

1 MMS (Minerals Management Services). 2006. “Technology White Paper on Wave Energy 

2 Potential on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf,” Minerals Management Service, Renewable 

3 Energy and Alternate Use Program, U.S. Department of the Interior, May 2006. Available URL: 

4 http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/documents/docs/OCS_EIS_WhitePaper_Wave.pdf (accessed 

5 December 2010). 

6 MMS (Minerals Management Services). 2007. “Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

7 for Alternative Energy Development and Production and Alternate Use of Facilities on the Outer 

8 Continental Shelf,” Final Environmental Impact Statement OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-046, 

9 October 2007. Available URL: http://www.ocsenergy.anl.gov/eis/guide/index.cfm (accessed 

10 December 2010). 

11 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. § 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq. 

12 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

13 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C., 

14 May 1996, ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738. 

15 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

16 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

17 Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final 

18 Report,” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C., August 1999, ADAMS 

19 Accession No. ML04069720. 

20 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

21 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of 

22 Nuclear Power Reactors, NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C., 

23 November 2002, ADAMS Accession Nos. ML023500295 and ML023500395. 

24 NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2008. “United States Atlas of Renewable 

25 Resources,” Interactive Map. Available URL: http://mapserve2.nrel.gov/website/

26 Resource_Atlas/viewer.htm (accessed August 2009). 

27 NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2010. “Estimates of Windy Land Area and 

28 Wind Energy Potential by State for Areas >= 30% Capacity Factor at 80-m.” Available URL: 

29 http://www.nrel.gov/wind/resource_assessment.html (accessed February 2010). 

30 OMB (U.S. Office of Management and Budget). 2007. “Detailed Information on the Low 

31 Income Home Energy Assistance Program Assessment.” Available URL: 

32 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10001059.2003.html (accessed June 2009). 

33 ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). 2007. “Alternative Feedstocks Program, Technical 

34 and Economic Assessment, Thermal/Chemical and Bioprocessing Components,” Prepared for 

35 the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Industrial Technologies. Available URL: 

36 http://www.p2pays.org/ref/04/03861.htm (accessed December 2010). 

37 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2008. “Crystal River Unit 3 – License 

38 Renewal Application, Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage,” 

39 November 2008, ADAMS Accession No. ML090080731. 

40 Rewey, C., and C. Cromarty. 2006. “Connecting the Grid: A Review of State and Regional 

41 Transmission Practices,” October 2006. Available URL: http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/

42 0610CONNECTINGGRID.PDF (accessed December 2010). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

8-47 

1 Walsh, M.E., R.L. Perlack, A. Turhollow, D. de la Torre Ugarte, D.A. Becker, R.L. Graham, 

2 S.E. Slinsky, and D.E. Ray. 2000. “Biomass Feedstock Availability in the United States: 1999 

3 State Level Analysis,” ADAMS Accession No. ML083050223. Available URL: 

4 http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/resourcedata/index.html (accessed December 2009). 

 9-1 

1 9.0 CONCLUSION 

2 This draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) presents the preliminary results 

3 of the environmental review conducted for a renewed operating license for Crystal River Unit 3 

4 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3), as required by Part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

5 Regulations (10 CFR Part 51), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) regulations 

6 that implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This chapter presents 

7 preliminary conclusions and recommendations from the site-specific environmental review of 

8 CR-3 and summarizes the environmental issues that were identified during the review. 

9 9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF LICENSE RENEWAL 

10 The review of environmental impact issues in this SEIS leads to the preliminary conclusion that 

11 issuing a renewed operating license for CR-3 would have environmental impacts that range 

12 from SMALL to MODERATE. The site-specific review included 12 Category 2 issues and 

13 2 uncategorized issues. Section 1.4 in Chapter 1 explains the criteria for Category 1 and 

14 Category 2 issues and defines the impact designations of SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE. 

15 The direct and indirect environmental impacts from continued operation of CR-3 are SMALL for 

16 all resource areas with the exception of aquatic ecology, which ranges from SMALL to 

17 MODERATE. The basis for this conclusion is discussed in Section 4.5. 

18 The cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless 

19 of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes them, were also considered. 

20 The cumulative impacts of renewing CR-3’s operating license, described in Section 4.11, would 

21 be SMALL to MODERATE depending on the resource. There would be MODERATE 

22 cumulative impacts to water resources, aquatic ecology, terrestrial ecology, socioeconomics, 

23 and air quality. All other resource areas would experience SMALL cumulative impacts. 

24 9.2 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF LICENSE RENEWAL AND 

25 ALTERNATIVES 

26 In the conclusion to Chapter 8, the NRC determined that environmental impacts from license 

27 renewal are generally less than the impacts of alternatives to license renewal. In comparing 

28 possible environmental impacts from supercritical coal-fired generation, natural gas 

29 combined-cycle generation, and a combination alternative (natural gas and conservation) to 

30 environmental impacts from license renewal, the NRC found that renewal of the CR-3 operating 

31 license results in the least environmental impact. Therefore, the environmentally preferred 

32 alternative in this case is the license renewal of CR-3. All other alternatives capable of meeting 

33 the needs currently served by CR-3 entail equal or potentially greater impacts than the 

34 proposed action of license renewal of CR-3. 

35 9.3 RESOURCE COMMITMENTS 

36 9.3.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 

37 Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts are impacts that would occur after implementation 

38 of all workable mitigation measures. Carrying out any of the energy alternatives considered in 
Conclusion 

 9-2 

1 this SEIS, including the proposed action, would result in some unavoidable adverse 

2 environmental impacts. 

3 Minor unavoidable adverse impacts on air quality would occur due to emission and release of 

4 various chemical and radiological materials from power plant operations. Nonradiological 

5 emissions resulting from power plant operations are expected to comply with Environmental 

6 Protection Agency (EPA) emissions standards, though the alternative of operating a 

7 fossil-fueled power plant in some areas may worsen existing attainment issues. Chemical and 

8 radiological emissions would not be expected to exceed the National Emission Standards for 

9 hazardous air pollutants. 

10 During nuclear power plant operations, workers and members of the public would face 

11 unavoidable exposure to radiation and hazardous and toxic chemicals. Workers would be 

12 exposed to radiation and chemicals associated with routine plant operations and the handling of 

13 nuclear fuel and waste material. Workers would have higher levels of exposure than members 

14 of the public, but doses would be administratively controlled and would not exceed standards or 

15 administrative control limits. In comparison, the alternatives involving the construction and 

16 operation of a non-nuclear power generating facility would also result in unavoidable exposure 

17 to hazardous and toxic chemicals to workers and the public. 

18 The generation of spent nuclear fuel and waste material, including low-level radioactive waste, 

19 hazardous waste, and nonhazardous waste, would also be unavoidable. In comparison, 

20 hazardous and nonhazardous wastes would also be generated at non-nuclear power generating 

21 facilities. Wastes generated during plant operations would be collected, stored, and shipped for 

22 suitable treatment, recycling, or disposal in accordance with applicable Federal and State 

23 regulations. Due to the costs of handling these materials, power plant operators would be 

24 expected to carry out all activities and optimize all operations in a way that generates the 

25 smallest amount of waste possible. 

26 9.3.2 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the 

27 Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 

28 The operation of power generating facilities would result in short-term uses of the environment, 

29 as described in Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. “Short-term” is the period of time that continued 

30 power generating activities take place. 

31 Power plant operations require short-term use of the environment and commitment of resources 

32 and, also, commit certain resources (e.g., land and energy) indefinitely or permanently. Certain 

33 short-term resource commitments are substantially greater under most energy alternatives, 

34 including license renewal, than under the no-action alternative because of the continued 

35 generation of electrical power and the continued use of generating sites and associated 

36 infrastructure. During operations, all energy alternatives require similar relationships between 

37 local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

38 productivity. 

39 Air emissions from power plant operations introduce small amounts of radiological and 

40 nonradiological constituents to the region around the plant site. Over time, these emissions 

41 would result in increased concentrations and exposure, but they are not expected to impact air 

42 quality or radiation exposure to the extent that public health and long-term productivity of the 

43 environment would be impaired. 
Conclusion 

 9-3 

1 Continued employment, expenditures, and tax revenues generated during power plant 

2 operations directly benefit local, regional, and State economies over the short term. Local 

3 governments investing project-generated tax revenues into infrastructure and other required 

4 services could enhance economic productivity over the long term. 

5 The management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, low-level radioactive waste, hazardous 

6 waste, and nonhazardous waste requires an increase in energy and consumes space at 

7 treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. Regardless of the location, the use of land to meet 

8 waste disposal needs would reduce the long-term productivity of the land. 

9 Power plant facilities are committed to electricity production over the short term. After 

10 decommissioning these facilities and restoring the area, the land could be available for other 

11 future productive uses. 

12 9.3.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

13 Resources are irreversibly committed when primary or secondary impacts limit the future 

14 options for a resource. An irretrievable commitment refers to the use or consumption of 

15 resources that are neither renewable nor recoverable for future use. An irreversible and 

16 irretrievable commitment of resources for electrical power generation includes the commitment 

17 of land, water, energy, raw materials, and other natural and man-made resources required for 

18 power plant operations. In general, the commitment of capital, energy, labor, and material 

19 resources are also irreversible. 

20 The implementation of any of the energy alternatives considered in this SEIS would entail the 

21 irreversible and irretrievable commitment of energy, water, chemicals, and, in some cases, fossil 

22 fuels. These resources would be committed during the license renewal term and over the entire 

23 lifecycle of the power plant and would be irretrievable. 

24 Energy expended would be in the form of fuel for equipment, vehicles, and power plant 

25 operations and electricity for equipment and facility operations. Electricity and fuel would be 

26 purchased from offsite commercial sources. Water would be obtained from existing water 

27 supply systems. These resources are readily available, and the amounts required are not 

28 expected to deplete available supplies or exceed available system capacities. 

29 9.4 RECOMMENDATIONS 

30 The NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of 

31 license renewal for CR-3 are not great enough to deny the option of license renewal for 

32 energy-planning decisionmakers. This recommendation is based on the following: 

33 ● the analysis and findings in NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Generic 

34 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants

35 ● the environmental report submitted by Florida Power Corporation 

36 ● consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies 

37 ● the NRC’s environmental review 

38 ● consideration of public comments received during the scoping process 

 10-1 

1 10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 

2 Members of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation prepared this draft supplemental 

3 environmental impact statement (SEIS) with assistance from other U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

4 Commission (NRC) organizations and with contract support from Argonne National Laboratory 

5 and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

6 Table 10-1 provides a list of NRC staff that participated in the development of the SEIS. 

7 Argonne National Laboratory provided contract support for terrestrial, socioeconomic, aquatic 

8 ecology, cultural resources, air quality, and hydrology, presented primarily in Chapters 2, 4, and 

9 8. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory provided contract support for the severe accident 

10 mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) analysis which is presented in Chapter 5 and Appendix F. 

11 Table 10-1. List of Preparers 

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise 

NRC 

Bo Pham Nuclear Reactor Regulation Branch Chief 

Andrew Imboden Nuclear Reactor Regulation Branch Chief 

Rob Kuntz Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager 

Elaine Keegan Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager 

Daniel Doyle Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager 

Stephen Klementowicz Nuclear Reactor Regulation Radiation Protection; Human Health 

Allison Travers Nuclear Reactor Regulation Alternatives 

Richard Bulavinetz Nuclear Reactor Regulation Terrestrial Ecology 

Jeffrey Rikhoff Nuclear Reactor Regulation Socioeconomics; Land Use; Environmental 

Justice 

Jennifer Davis Nuclear Reactor Regulation Historic and Archaeological Resources 

Dennis Logan Nuclear Reactor Regulation Aquatic Ecology 

Dennis Beissel Nuclear Reactor Regulation Hydrology 

Ekaterina Lenning Nuclear Reactor Regulation Solid Waste 

Michelle Moser Nuclear Reactor Regulation Cumulative Impacts 

Robert Palla Nuclear Reactor Regulation Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

Tina Ghosh Nuclear Reactor Regulation Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

Lab Contractor(a)

Kirk LaGory Argonne National Laboratory Terrestrial 

William Metz Argonne National Laboratory Socioeconomics, Land Use, and Environmental 

Justice 

Timothy Allison Argonne National Laboratory Socioeconomics, Land Use, and Environmental 

Justice 

William Vinikour Argonne National Laboratory Aquatic Ecology 

Konstance Wescott Argonne National Laboratory Historic and Archaeological Resources 

Ron Kolpa Argonne National Laboratory Air Quality 
List of Preparers 

 10-2 

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise 

Terri Patton Argonne National Laboratory Hydrology 

SAMA Contractor(b)

Steve Short Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

Garill Coles Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

Bruce Schmitt Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

(a) Argonne National Laboratory is operated by UChicago Argonne, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy. 

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

1 
11-1 

1 11.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO 

2 WHOM COPIES OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

3 STATEMENT ARE SENT 

Name and Title Company and Address 

EIS Filing Section U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

Mr. Sam Mueller 

NEPA Coordinator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 4 

61 Forsyth St SW 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Mr. Reid Nelson 

Director, Office of Federal Agency Programs 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

1100 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Ste 803 

Old Post Office Bldg 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

Mr. Frederick P. Gaske 

Director and State Historic Preservation Officer 

Florida Department of State 

Division of Historical Resources 

500 S Bronough St 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 

Mr. Willard S. Steele 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Seminole Indian Tribe 

34725 W Boundary Rd 

Clewiston, FL 33440 

Mr. Billy Cypress 

Chairman 

Miccosukee Tribe of Florida 

PO Box 440021 

Tamiami Station 

Miami, FL 33144 

Mr. Leonard Harjo 

Principal Chief 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 

PO Box 1498 

Wewoka, OK 74884 

Mr. Sam D. Hamilton 

Regional Director 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Southeast Regional Office 

1875 Century Blvd NE, Ste 400 

Atlanta, GA 30345 

Dr. Roy E. Crabtree 

Regional Administrator 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Southeast Region 

263 13th Ave S 

St. Petersburg, FL 33701 

Mr. William A. Passetti 

Chief 

Department of Health 

Bureau of Radiation Control 

2020 Capital Cir, SE, Bin #C21 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1741 

Ms. Deborah Getzoff 

Director 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Southwest District 

13051 N Telecom Parkway 

Temple Terrace, FL 33637 

Mr. Gary Knight 

Director 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory 

1018 Thomasville Rd, Ste 200-C 

Tallahassee, FL 32303 
List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons 

 11-2 

Name and Title Company and Address 

Mr. James Kraus 

Refuge Manager 

Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge 

1502 SE Kings Bay Dr 

Crystal River, FL 34429 

Dr. Robbin Trindell 

Biological Administrator 

Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission 

Habitat & Species Conservation 

Imperiled Species Management 

620 S Meridian St MS-6A 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 

Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs 

The Capitol 

Tallahassee, FL 32304 

Mr. Craig Fugate 

Director 

Division of Emergency Preparedness 

Department of Community Affairs 

2740 Centerview Dr 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 

Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Region II 

Marquis One Tower 

245 Peachtree Center Ave NE 

Ste 1200 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Senior Resident Inspector Crystal River Unit 3 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

6745 N Tallahassee Rd 

Crystal River, FL 34428 

Chairman Board of County Commissioners 

Citrus County 

110 N Apopka Ave 

Inverness, FL 34450-4245 

Mr. James W. Holt 

Plant General Manager 

Crystal River Nuclear Plant (NA2C) 

15760 West Power Line Street 

Crystal River, FL 34428-6708 

Mr. Jon A. Franke 

Vice President 

Crystal River Nuclear Plant (NA1B) 

15760 West Power Line Street 

Crystal River, FL 34428-6708 

Mr. Bill Jefferson 

General Manager, Nuclear Upgrades & Outage Services 

Progress Energy 

PO Box 1981 

Raleigh, NC 27602-1981 

Mr. Daniel R. Westcott 

Superintendent, Licensing & Regulatory Programs 

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 

15760 West Power Line Street 

Crystal River, FL 34428-6708 

Mr. Stephen J. Cahill 

Director, Engineering 

Crystal River Nuclear Plant (NA2C) 

15760 West Power Line Street 

Crystal River, FL 34428-6708 

Mr. Jack E. Huegel 

Manager, Nuclear Oversight 

Crystal River Nuclear Plant (NA2C) 

15760 West Power Line Street 

Crystal River, FL 34428-6708 

Mr. Mark Rigsby 

Manager, Support Services - Nuclear 

Crystal River Nuclear Plant (SA2C) 

15760 West Power Line Street 

Crystal River, FL 34428-6708 
List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons 

11-3 

Name and Title Company and Address 

Mr. Mike Heath 

License Renewal Supervisor 

Brunswick Nuclear Plant 

PO Box 10429 

Southport, NC 28461-0429 

Mr. R. Alexander Glenn 

General Counsel, Progress Energy Florida 

Florida Power Corporation 

PO Box 14042 

St. Petersburg, FL 33733-4042 

Mr. Brian C. McCabe 

Manager, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs 

Progress Energy 

PO Box 1981 

Raleigh, NC 27602-1981 

Mr. David T. Conley 

Senior Council 

Progress Energy Service Company 

PO Box 1551 

Raleigh, NC 27602-1551 

Acquisitions Librarian Central Ridge Library 

425 W Roosevelt Blvd 

Beverly Hills, FL 34465-4281 

Acquisitions Librarian Coastal Region Library 

8619 W Crystal St 

Crystal River, FL 34428-4468 

Mr. Dixie M. Hollins Hollinswood Ranch 

PO Box 277 

Crystal River, FL 34423 

Prof. Paul Friesema Northwestern University 

304 Scott Hall 

Evanston, IL 60208 

1 APPENDIX A. 

2 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 

3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 

Appendix A 

 A-1 

1 A. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 

2 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 

3 A.1. Comments Received During Scoping 

4 The scoping process began on April 6, 2009, with the publication in the Federal Register of the 

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Notice of Intent to conduct scoping 

6 (NRC, 2009a). The scoping process included two public meetings, which were both held at the 

7 Plantation Inn in Crystal River, Florida, on April 16, 2009. Approximately 30 members of the 

8 public attended the meetings. After the NRC staff (Staff) prepared statements pertaining to the 

9 license renewal process, the meetings were open for public comments. Of these attendees, 

10 eight gave oral statements that were recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter. 

11 Transcripts of the entire meetings are publicly available (NRC, 2009b), (NRC, 2009c). In 

12 addition to the comments received during the public meetings, one comment was also received 

13 via e-mail. Following the scoping process, the Staff issued its Scoping Summary Report on 

14 March 21, 2011, to summarize the process and comments received (NRC, 2011). 

15 Each commenter was given a unique identifier so that every comment could be traced back to 

16 its author. Table A-1 lists the individuals who made comments applicable to the environmental 

17 review and the Commenter ID associated with each person’s set of comments. The individuals 

18 are listed in the order in which their comments were received. To maintain consistency with the 

19 Scoping Summary Report, the unique identifier used in that report for each set of comments is 

20 retained in this appendix. 

21 Specific comments were categorized and consolidated by topic. Comments with similar specific 

22 objectives were combined to capture the common essential issues raised by participants. 

23 Comments fall into one of the following general groups: 

24 ● Specific comments that address environmental issues within the purview of the 

25 NRC environmental regulations related to license renewal. These comments 

26 address Category 1 (generic) or Category 2 (site-specific) issues or issues not 

27 addressed in NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Generic Environmental Impact 

28 Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NRC, 1996), (NRC, 

29 1999). They also address alternatives to license renewal and related Federal 

30 actions. 

31 ● General comments in support of, or opposed to, nuclear power or license 

32 renewal or on the renewal process, the NRC’s regulations, and the regulatory 

33 process. These comments may or may not be specifically related to the Crystal 

34 River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3) license renewal application. 

35 ● Comments that do not note new information for the NRC to analyze as part of its 

36 environmental review. 

37 ● Comments that address issues that do not fall within, or are specifically excluded 

38 from, the purview of NRC environmental regulations related to license renewal. 

39 These comments typically address issues such as the need for power, 

40 emergency preparedness, security, current operational safety issues, and safety 

41 issues related to operation during the renewal period. 
Appendix A 

 A-2 

1 Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments During the Scoping Period 

Commenter Affiliation (If Stated) Comment Source Commenter ID ADAMS Accession 

Number 

Paul Roberts E-mail A ML101390392 

Bert Henderson Afternoon Scoping 

Meeting B ML091460259 

Ginger Bryant Citrus County 

School Board 

Afternoon Scoping 

Meeting C ML091460259 

Brent Tolan Progress Energy Afternoon Scoping 

Meeting D ML091460259 

Andy Vukmir Afternoon Scoping 

Meeting E ML091460259 

Emily Casey Evening Scoping 

Meeting F ML091460260 

Gary Maidhof 

Director, Citrus County 

Department of Development 

Services 

Evening Scoping 

Meeting G ML091460260 

Mark Klutho Evening Scoping 

Meeting H ML091460260 

Dixie Hollins Citrus County Chamber of 

Commerce 

Evening Scoping 

Meeting I ML091460260 

2 Comments received during scoping that are applicable to this environmental review are 

3 presented in Section A.1.1 along with the Staff’s response. The comments received during 

4 scoping that are general or outside the scope of the environmental review for CR-3 are not 

5 included here, but can be found in the Scoping Summary Report (NRC, 2011). 

6 The comment below can be tracked to the commenter and the source document through the ID 

7 letter and comment listed in Table A-1. Except where indicated, the comment below is the 

8 Staff’s attempt to provide a direct quotation from the commenter; original formatting was not 

9 necessarily maintained during this process. 

10 A.1.1. Comments Related to Alternatives to License Renewal of Crystal River Unit 3 

11 Nuclear Generating Plant (ALT) 

12 Comment F-2-ALT: However, what I really feel like we should be doing, is decentralizing the 

13 power, such as solar on homes, solar on schools. Then maybe not only would we not need a 

14 nuclear power plant, but another thing that Citrus County has, that I find quite annoying, is if you 

15 look on the [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] website for air quality, we have very poor air 

16 quality. And you go on there, you find out, well, what are they monitoring. There [are] two or 
Appendix A 

 A-3 

1 three small businesses that they are monitoring, but mostly it’s the big conglomerate that’s out 

2 there, four coal plants and one nuclear power plant. Now, they’ve mentioned everything that’s 

3 in the air quality that they monitor, and it just doesn’t really look too good to have this poor of air 

4 quality in Citrus County, and then other counties with larger population have better air quality 

5 than we do. So I would like to not have a nuclear power plant, and for us to be going with 

6 renewables. I think that’s the way to go. We are at a point in time where we need to really 

7 make some tough decisions. Which way is it? Are we going to take the business as usual road, 

8 or are we going to use new technology and go with renewables? No, I’m not against Progress 

9 Energy making money. So if it takes changing the way you make money to be able to do that, 

10 then that’s fine. You know, just not getting it from the ratepayers. But that’s a whole ‘nother 

11 thing. I don’t want that interpreted as not to pay power bills. Now, don’t get me wrong about 

12 that. So what I would really like for you all to be doing is be very progressive and go with the 

13 renewable energies. That’s what I’d like to see. However, if we do have CR-3, then we would 

14 like to see more outside monitoring. And, I think that’s really all I have to say at this time. 

15 Preferably the renewables and solar energy is the way to go here, with, you know, solar on 

16 every rooftop, including the schools. And for any flat top roofs that has businesses -- and it 

17 doesn’t have to be that way anymore. That’s one thing I wanted to say. It doesn’t have to be 

18 those big solar panels anymore. There’s technologies that are out there now, and that’s 

19 changing constantly. So I think that would really be the way to go. And that’s really all I have to 

20 say. Thank you. 

21 Response: This comment addresses alternatives to license renewal of CR-3 and a request for 

22 additional monitoring. 

23 In Chapter 8, the Staff evaluated the following alternatives to CR-3 license renewal: 

24 ● a new supercritical coal-fired plant 

25 ● a new natural gas-fired combined-cycle plant 

26 ● a combination alternative that includes some natural gas-fired capacity and 

27 energy conservation 

28 ● not renewing the CR-3 operating license (the “no-action alternative”) 

29 Solar power was considered as an alternative but dismissed because of its challenges as a 

30 baseload power supply, as discussed in Section 8.4.7. 

31 Air quality issues, including monitoring, are discussed in Chapters 2 and 4. There were no 

32 Category 2 issues associated with air quality. See Section 1.4 in Chapter 1 for a discussion of 

33 Category 1 and Category 2 issues. In Section 4.8.1.1 in Chapter 4, the Staff discusses the 

34 radiological environmental monitoring program at CR-3 that samples and analyzes various 

35 environmental media for radioactivity. In Section 4.11 in Chapter 4, the Staff discusses the 

36 potential cumulative environmental impacts associated with the continued operation of CR-3 

37 when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 
Appendix A 

 A-4 

1 A.2. References 

2 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

3 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C., 

4 May 1996, Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession 

5 Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738. 

6 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

7 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

8 Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final 

9 Report,” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C., August 1999, ADAMS 

10 Accession No. ML040690720. 

11 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009a. “Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating 

12 Plant; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping 

13 Process,” Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 64, April 6, 2009, pp. 15523–15525, Washington, D.C. 

14 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009b. Transcript of April 16, 2009, Scoping 

15 Meeting: Afternoon Session, ADAMS Accession No. ML091460259. 

16 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009c. Transcript of April 16, 2009, Scoping 

17 Meeting: Evening Session, ADAMS Accession No. ML091460260. 

18 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. “Environmental Impact Statement Scoping 

19 Process Summary Report; Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant,” ADAMS Accession 

20 No. ML110490462. 
1 APPENDIX B. 

2 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT ISSUES FOR 

3 LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 

B-1 

Appendix B 

B. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT ISSUES FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR 1 POWER PLANTS 2 

Table B-1. Summary of Issues and Findings. This table is taken from Table B-1 in Appendix B, Subpart A, to 10 CFR Part 51. 3 

Data supporting this table are contained in NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 4 

Plants. Throughout this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), “Generic” issues are also referred to as Category 1 5 

issues, and “Site-specific” issues are also referred to as Category 2 issues. 6 

Issue Type of Issue Finding 

Surface Water Quality, Hydrology, and Use 

Impacts of refurbishment on surface water quality 

Generic SMALL. Impacts are expected to be negligible during refurbishment because best 

management practices are expected to be employed to control soil erosion and spills. 

Impacts of refurbishment on surface water use 

Generic SMALL. Water use during refurbishment will not increase appreciably or will be reduced 

during plant outage. 

Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures 

Generic SMALL. Altered current patterns have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear 

power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Altered salinity gradients Generic SMALL. Salinity gradients have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power 

plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Altered thermal stratification of lakes Generic SMALL. Generally, lake stratification has not been found to be a problem at operating 

nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity 

Generic SMALL. These effects have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power 

plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Scouring caused by discharged cooling water 

Generic SMALL. Scouring has not been found to be a problem at most operating nuclear power 

plants and has caused only localized effects at a few plants. It is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Eutrophication Generic SMALL. Eutrophication has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power 

plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Discharge of chlorine or other biocides 

Generic SMALL. Effects are not a concern among regulatory and resource agencies, and are not 

expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills 

Generic SMALL. Effects are readily controlled through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit and periodic modifications, if needed, and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Discharge of other metals in wastewater 

Generic SMALL. These discharges have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power 

plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have been satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. They are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal 
B-2 

Appendix B Issue Type of Issue Finding term. Water use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems) Generic SMALL. These conflicts have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with once-through heat dissipation systems. Water use conflicts (plants with 

cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a small river with low flow) 

Site-specific SMALL OR MODERATE. The issue has been a concern at nuclear power plants with cooling 

ponds and at plants with cooling towers. Impacts on instream and riparian communities near these plants could be of moderate significance in some situations. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A). 

Aquatic Ecology 

Refurbishment Generic SMALL. During plant shutdown and refurbishment there will be negligible effects on aquatic 

biota because of a reduction of entrainment and impingement of organisms or a reduced release of chemicals. 

Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota 

Generic SMALL. Accumulation of contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear power plants 

but has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy condenser tubes with those of another metal. It is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton 

Generic SMALL. Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton has not been found to be a problem 

at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Cold shock Generic SMALL. Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at operating nuclear plants with 

once-through cooling systems, has not endangered fish populations, or been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds, and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish 

Generic SMALL. Thermal plumes have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power 

plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Distribution of aquatic organisms Generic SMALL. Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not expected to affect the 

larger geographical distribution of aquatic organisms. 

Premature emergence of aquatic insects 

Generic SMALL. Premature emergence has been found to be a localized effect at some operating 

nuclear power plants but has not been a problem and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease) 

Generic SMALL. Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small number of operating nuclear power 

plants with once-through cooling systems but has been satisfactorily mitigated. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge 

Generic SMALL. Low dissolved oxygen has been a concern at one nuclear power plant with a 

once-through cooling system but has been effectively mitigated. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 
B-3 

Appendix B 

Issue Type of Issue Finding Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses 

Generic SMALL. These types of losses have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear 

power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Stimulation of nuisance organisms (e.g., shipworms) 

Generic SMALL. Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been satisfactorily mitigated at the single 

nuclear power plant with a once-through cooling system where previously it was a problem. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Aquatic Ecology (for plants with once-through and cooling pond heat dissipation systems) 

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 

Site-specific SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. The impacts of entrainment are small at many plants but 

may be moderate or even large at a few plants with once-through and cooling-pond cooling systems. Further, ongoing efforts in the vicinity of these plants to restore fish populations may increase the numbers of fish susceptible to intake effects during the license renewal period, such that entrainment studies conducted in support of the original license may no longer be valid. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B). 

Impingement of fish and shellfish Site-specific SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. The impacts of impingement are small at many plants

but may be moderate or even large at a few plants with once-through and cooling-pond cooling systems. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B). 

Heat shock Site-specific SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Because of continuing concerns about heat shock and 

the possible need to modify thermal discharges in response to changing environmental conditions, the impacts may be of moderate or large significance at some plants. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B). 

Aquatic Ecology (for plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems) 

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 

Generic SMALL. Entrainment of fish has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power 

plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Impingement of fish and shellfish Generic SMALL. The impacts of impingement have not been found to be a problem at operating 

nuclear power plants with this type of cooling system and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Heat shock Generic SMALL. Heat shock has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants 

with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Groundwater Use and Quality 

Impacts of refurbishment on groundwater use and quality 

Generic SMALL. Extensive dewatering during the original construction on some sites will not be 

repeated during refurbishment on any sites. Any plant wastes produced during refurbishment will be handled in the same manner as in current operating practices and are not expected to 
B-4 

Appendix B Issue Type of Issue Finding be a problem during the license renewal term. Groundwater use conflicts (potable and service water; plants that use <100 gallons per minute [gpm]) Generic SMALL. Plants using less than 100 gpm are not expected to cause any groundwater use conflicts. 

Groundwater use conflicts (potable and service water, and dewatering plants that use >100 gpm) 

Site-specific SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Plants that use more than 100 gpm may cause 

groundwater use conflicts with nearby groundwater users. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C). 

Groundwater use conflicts (plants using cooling towers withdrawing makeup water from a small river) 

Site-specific SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Water use conflicts may result from surface water 

withdrawals from small water bodies during low flow conditions which may affect aquifer recharge, especially if other groundwater or upstream surface water users come on line before the time of license renewal. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A). 

Groundwater use conflicts (Ranney wells) 

Site-specific SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Ranney wells can result in potential groundwater 

depression beyond the site boundary. Impacts of large groundwater withdrawal for cooling tower makeup at nuclear power plants using Ranney wells must be evaluated at the time of 

application for license renewal. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C). 

Groundwater quality degradation (Ranney wells) 

Generic SMALL. Groundwater quality at river sites may be degraded by induced infiltration of 

poor-quality river water into an aquifer that supplies large quantities of reactor cooling water. 

However, the lower quality infiltrating water would not preclude the current uses of groundwater and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Groundwater quality degradation (saltwater intrusion) 

Generic SMALL. Nuclear power plants do not contribute significantly to saltwater intrusion. 

Groundwater quality degradation (cooling ponds in salt marshes) 

Generic SMALL. Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds may degrade groundwater quality. Because 

water in salt marshes is brackish, this is not a concern for plants located in salt marshes. 

Groundwater quality degradation (cooling ponds at inland sites) 

Site-specific SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds may degrade 

groundwater quality. For plants located inland, the quality of the groundwater in the vicinity of 

the ponds must be shown to be adequate to allow continuation of current uses. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D). 

Terrestrial Ecology 

Refurbishment impacts Site-specific SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Refurbishment impacts are insignificant if no loss of 

important plant and animal habitat occurs. However, it cannot be known whether important plant and animal communities may be affected until the specific proposal is presented with 

the license renewal application. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E). 

Cooling tower impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation 

Generic SMALL. Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity associated with cooling 

tower operation have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Cooling tower impacts on native Generic SMALL. Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity associated with cooling 
B-5 

Appendix B 

Issue Type of Issue Finding plants tower operation have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and 

are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Bird collisions with cooling towers Generic SMALL. These collisions have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power 

plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial resources 

Generic SMALL. Impacts of cooling ponds on terrestrial ecological resources are considered to be of 

small significance at all sites. 

Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide application) 

Generic SMALL. The impacts of right-of-way maintenance on wildlife are expected to be of small 

significance at all sites. 

Bird collisions with power lines Generic SMALL. Impacts are expected to be of small significance at all sites. Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna 

Generic SMALL. No significant impacts of electromagnetic fields on terrestrial flora and fauna have 

been identified. Such effects are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Floodplains and wetland on power line right-of-way 

Generic SMALL. Periodic vegetation control is necessary in forested wetlands underneath power 

lines and can be achieved with minimal damage to the wetland. No significant impact is expected at any nuclear power plant during the license renewal term. 

Threatened or Endangered Species 

Threatened or endangered species Site-specific SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Generally, plant refurbishment and continued operation 

are not expected to adversely affect threatened or endangered species. However, consultation with appropriate agencies would be needed at the time of license renewal to determine whether threatened or endangered species are present and whether they would be adversely affected. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E). 

Air Quality 

Air quality during refurbishment (nonattainment and maintenance areas) 

Site-specific SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Air quality impacts from plant refurbishment associated 

with license renewal are expected to be small. However, vehicle exhaust emissions could be cause for concern at locations in or near nonattainment or maintenance areas. The significance of the potential impact cannot be determined without considering the compliance status of each site and the numbers of workers expected to be employed during the outage. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F). 

Air quality effects of transmission lines 

Generic SMALL. Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is insignificant and does not contribute 

measurably to ambient levels of these gases. 

Land Use 

Onsite land use Generic SMALL. Projected onsite land use changes required during refurbishment and the renewal 

period would be a small fraction of any nuclear power plant site and would involve land that is controlled by the applicant. 
B-6 

Appendix B Issue Type of Issue Finding Power line right-of-way Generic SMALL. Ongoing use of power line rights-of-way would continue with no change in restrictions. The effects of these restrictions are of small significance. Human Health 

Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment 

Generic SMALL. During refurbishment, the gaseous effluents would result in doses that are similar to 

those from current operation. Applicable regulatory dose limits to the public are not expected to be exceeded. 

Occupational radiation exposures during refurbishment 

Generic SMALL. Occupational doses from refurbishment are expected to be within the range of 

annual average collective doses experienced for pressurized-water reactors and boiling-water reactors. Occupational mortality risk from all causes, including radiation, is in the mid-range for industrial settings. 

Microbiological organisms (occupational health) 

Generic SMALL. Occupational health impacts are expected to be controlled by the continued 

application of accepted industrial hygiene practices to minimize worker exposures. 

Microbiological organisms (public health)(plants using lakes or canals, or cooling towers or cooling ponds that discharge to a small river) 

Site-specific SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. These organisms are not expected to be a problem at 

most operating plants, except possibly at plants using cooling ponds, lakes, or canals that discharge to small rivers. Without site-specific data, it is not possible to predict the effects generically. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G). 

Noise Generic SMALL. Noise has not been found to be a problem at operating plants and is not expected to 

be a problem at any plant during the license renewal term. 

Electromagnetic fields – acute effects (electric shock) 

Site-specific SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Electric shock resulting from direct access to energized 

conductors or from induced charges in metallic structures has not been found to be a problem at most operating plants and generally is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. However, site-specific review is required to determine the significance of the electric shock potential at the site. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H). 

Electromagnetic fields – chronic effects 

Uncategorized UNCERTAIN. Biological and physical studies of 60-Hz electromagnetic fields have not found 

consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures. However, research is continuing in this area and a consensus scientific view has not been reached. 

Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term) 

Generic SMALL. Radiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with normal 

operations. 

Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term) 

Generic SMALL. Projected maximum occupational doses during the license renewal term are within 

the range of doses experienced during normal operations and normal maintenance outages, and would be well below regulatory limits. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

Housing impacts Site-specific SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Housing impacts are expected to be of small significance 

at plants located in a medium or high population area and not in an area where growth 
B-7 

Appendix B 

Issue Type of Issue Finding 

control measures, that limit housing development, are in effect. Moderate or large housing impacts of the workforce, associated with refurbishment, may be associated with plants located in sparsely populated areas or in areas with growth control measures that limit housing development. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I). 

Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation 

Generic SMALL. Impacts to public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation are expected to 

be of small significance at all sites. 

Public services: public utilities Site-specific SMALL OR MODERATE. An increased problem with water shortages at some sites may 

lead to impacts of moderate significance on public water supply availability. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I). 

Public services: education (refurbishment) 

Site-specific SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Most sites would experience impacts of small 

significance but larger impacts are possible depending on site- and project-specific factors. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I). 

Public services: education (license renewal term) 

Generic SMALL. Only impacts of small significance are expected 

Offsite land use (refurbishment) 

Site-specific SMALL OR MODERATE. Impacts may be of moderate significance at plants in low 

population areas. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I). 

Offsite land use (license renewal term) 

Site-specific SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Significant changes in land use may be associated with 

population and tax revenue changes resulting from license renewal. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I). 

Public services: transportation 

Site-specific SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Transportation impacts (level of service) of highway 

traffic generated during plant refurbishment and during the term of the renewed license are 

generally expected to be of small significance. However, the increase in traffic associated with the additional workers and the local road and traffic control conditions may lead to impacts of moderate or large significance at some sites. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J). 

Historic and archaeological resources 

Site-specific SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Generally, plant refurbishment and continued operation 

are expected to have no more than small adverse impacts on historic and archaeological 

resources. However, the National Historic Preservation Act requires the Federal agency to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine whether there are properties present that require protection. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K). 

Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment) 

Generic SMALL. No significant impacts are expected during refurbishment. 

Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term) 

Generic SMALL. No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term. 

Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term) 

Generic SMALL. No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term. 
B-8 

Appendix B Issue Type of Issue Finding Postulated Accidents Design-basis accidents Generic SMALL. The NRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts of design-basis accidents are of small significance for all plants. Severe accidents Site-specific SMALL. The probability weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open 

bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives. See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L). 

Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management 

Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste) 

Generic SMALL. Offsite impacts of the uranium fuel cycle have been considered by the Commission 

in Table S-3 of this part. Based on information in the GEIS, impacts on individuals from 

radioactive gaseous and liquid releases, including radon-222 and technetium-99, are small. 

Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects) 

Generic The 100-year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the fuel cycle, 

high-level waste, and spent fuel disposal is calculated to be about 14,800 person rem, or 12 cancer fatalities, for each additional 20-year power reactor operating term. Much of this, especially the contribution of radon releases from mines and tailing piles, consists of tiny doses summed over large populations. This same dose calculation can theoretically be extended to include many tiny doses over additional thousands of years, as well as doses outside the United States. The result of such a calculation would be thousands of cancer fatalities from the fuel cycle, but this result assumes that even tiny doses have some statistical adverse health effects which will not ever be mitigated (for example no cancer cure 

in the next thousand years), and that these doses projected over thousands of years are 

meaningful. However, these assumptions are questionable. In particular, science cannot 

rule out the possibility that there will be no cancer fatalities from these tiny doses. For perspective, the doses are very small fractions of regulatory limits, and even smaller fractions of natural background exposure to the same populations. Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgment as to the regulatory NEPA implications of these matters should be made and it makes no sense to repeat the same 

judgment in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation 

under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the collective effects of the fuel cycle, this issue is considered Category 1 (Generic). 
B-9 

Appendix B 

Issue Type of Issue Finding Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high-level waste disposal) 

Generic For the high-level waste and spent fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle, there are no 

current regulatory limits for offsite releases of radionuclides for the current candidate repository site. However, if it is assumed that limits are developed along the lines of the 1995 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, “Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards,” and that in accordance with the Commission’s Waste Confidence Decision, 10 

CFR 51.23, a repository can and likely will be developed at some site which will comply with such limits, peak doses to virtually all individuals will be 100 milliroentgen equivalent man (millirem) per year or less. However, while the Commission has reasonable confidence that these assumptions will prove correct, there is considerable uncertainty since the limits are yet to be developed, no repository application has been completed or reviewed, and uncertainty 

is inherent in the models used to evaluate possible pathways to the human environment. The NAS report indicated that 100 millirem per year should be considered as a starting point for limits for individual doses, but notes that some measure of consensus exists among national and international bodies that the limits should be a fraction of the 100 millirem per year. The lifetime individual risk from 100 millirem annual dose limit is about 3x10-3. 

Estimating cumulative doses to populations over thousands of years is more problematic. The likelihood and consequences of events that could seriously compromise the integrity of a deep geologic repository were evaluated by the Department of Energy in the “Final Environmental Impact Statement: Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste,” October 1980. The evaluation estimated the 70-year whole-body dose commitment to the maximum individual and to the regional population resulting from several modes of breaching a reference repository in the year of closure, after 1,000 years, after 100,000 years, and after 100,000,000 years. Subsequently, the NRC and other Federal agencies have expended considerable effort to develop models for the design and for the licensing of a high-level waste repository, especially for the candidate repository at Yucca Mountain. More 

meaningful estimates of doses to the population may be possible in the future as more is understood about the performance of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. Such 

estimates would involve great uncertainty, especially with respect to cumulative population doses over thousands of years. The standard proposed by the NAS is a limit on maximum individual dose. The relationship of potential new regulatory requirements, based on the NAS report, and cumulative population impacts has not been determined, although the report articulates the view that protection of individuals will adequately protect the population for a repository at Yucca Mountain. However, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) generic repository standards in 40 CFR Part 191 generally provide an indication of the order of magnitude of cumulative risk to the population that could result from the licensing of a Yucca Mountain repository, assuming the ultimate standards will be within the range of standards now under consideration. The standards in 40 CFR Part 191 protect the population by imposing the amount of radioactive material released over 10,000 years. The cumulative release limits are based on the EPA’s population impact goal of 1,000 premature cancer deaths worldwide for a 100,000 metric ton (MTHM) repository. Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgment as to the regulatory NEPA implications of these matters should be made and it makes no sense to repeat the same judgment in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission 
B-10 

Appendix B Issue Type of Issue Finding concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the impacts of spent fuel and high-level waste disposal, this issue is considered in Category 1 (Generic). 

Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle 

Generic SMALL. The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle resulting from the renewal of 

an operating license for any plant are found to be small. 

Low-level waste storage and disposal 

Generic SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low public doses 

being achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts to the environment will remain small during the term of a renewed license. The maximum additional onsite land that may be required for low-level waste storage during the term of a renewed license and associated 

impacts will be small. Nonradiological impacts on air and water will be negligible. The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of low-level waste from any 

individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition, the Commission concludes that there 

is reasonable assurance that sufficient low-level waste disposal capacity will be made available when needed for facilities to be decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning requirements. 

Mixed waste storage and disposal 

Generic SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and procedures that are in 

place ensure proper handling and storage, as well as negligible doses and exposure to toxic 

materials for the public and the environment at all plants. License renewal will not increase the small, continuing risk to human health and the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition, the Commission concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient mixed waste disposal capacity will be made available when needed for facilities to be decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning requirements. 

Onsite spent fuel Generic SMALL. The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of 

operation can be safely accommodated on site with small environmental effects through dry or pool storage at all plants if a permanent repository or monitored retrievable storage is not available. 

Nonradiological waste Generic SMALL. No changes to generating systems are anticipated for license renewal. Facilities 

and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling and disposal at all plants. 

Transportation Generic SMALL. The impacts of transporting spent fuel enriched up to 5 percent uranium-235 with 

average burnup for the peak rod to current levels approved by the NRC up to 62,000 megawatt days per metric ton uranium (MWd/MTU) and the cumulative impacts of transporting high-level waste to a single repository, such as Yucca Mountain, Nevada are found to be consistent with the impact values contained in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Summary Table S-4, “Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor.” If fuel enrichment or burnup conditions are not 
B-11 

Appendix B 

Issue Type of Issue Finding 

met, the applicant must submit an assessment of the implications for the environmental impact values reported in § 51.52. 

Decommissioning 

Radiation doses Generic SMALL. Doses to the public will be well below applicable regulatory standards regardless of 

which decommissioning method is used. Occupational doses would increase no more than 1 man-rem caused by the buildup of long-lived radionuclides during the license renewal term. 

Waste management Generic SMALL. Decommissioning at the end of a 20-year license renewal period would generate no 

more solid wastes than at the end of the current license term. No increase in the quantities of Class C or greater than Class C wastes would be expected. 

Air quality Generic SMALL. Air quality impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible either at the 

end of the current operating term or at the end of the license renewal term. 

Water quality Generic SMALL. The potential for significant water quality impacts from erosion or spills is no greater 

whether decommissioning occurs after a 20-year license renewal period or after the original 40-year operation period, and measures are readily available to avoid such impacts. 

Ecological resources Generic SMALL. Decommissioning after either the initial operating period or after a 20-year license 

renewal period is not expected to have any direct ecological impacts. 

Socioeconomic impacts Generic SMALL. Decommissioning would have some short-term socioeconomic impacts. The 

impacts would not be increased by delaying decommissioning until the end of a 20-year license renewal period, but they might be decreased by population and economic growth. 

Environmental Justice 

Environmental justice Uncategorized NONE. The need for and the content of an analysis of environmental justice will be 

addressed in plant-specific reviews. 

1 APPENDIX C. 

2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, LAWS, AND AGREEMENTS 

Appendix C 

 C-1 

1 C. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, LAWS, AND AGREEMENTS 

2 The Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. § 2021) authorizes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

3 (NRC) to enter into an agreement with any State to assume regulatory authority for certain 

4 activities. For example, in accordance with Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, 

5 beginning on July 1, 1964, the State of Florida assumed regulatory responsibility over certain 

6 byproduct materials, source materials, and special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient 

7 to form a critical mass. The Florida Agreement State Program is administered by the Bureau of 

8 Radiation Control in the Department of Health. 

9 In addition to carrying out some Federal programs, State legislatures develop their own laws. 

10 State statutes supplement, as well as implement, Federal laws for protection of air, water 

11 quality, and groundwater. State legislation may address solid waste management programs, 

12 locally rare or endangered species, and historic and cultural resources. 

13 The Clean Water Act (CWA) allows for primary enforcement and administration through State 

14 agencies, provided the State program is at least as stringent as the Federal program. The State 

15 program must conform to the CWA and delegation of authority for the Federal National Pollutant 

16 Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program from the U.S. Environmental Protection 

17 Agency (EPA) to the State. The primary mechanism to control water pollution is the 

18 requirement for direct dischargers to obtain an NPDES permit, or in the case of States where 

19 the authority has been delegated from the EPA (which is the case in Florida), a State Pollutant 

20 Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit, under the CWA. 

21 One important difference between Federal regulations and certain State regulations is the 

22 definition of waters regulated by the State. Certain State regulations may include underground 

23 waters, while the CWA only regulates surface waters. 

24 C.1. State Environmental Requirements 

25 Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3) is subject to Federal and State 

26 requirements for its environmental program. Those requirements are briefly discussed below. 

27 Table C-1 lists the principal Federal and State environmental regulations and laws that are 

28 applicable to the review of license renewal applications for nuclear power plants. 
Appendix C 

 C-2 

1 Table C-1. Federal and State Environmental Requirements 

Law/Regulation Requirements 

Current Operating License and License Renewal 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), 

Title 10, Energy, Part 51 

“Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related 

Regulatory Functions.” This part contains environmental protection regulations 

applicable to NRC’s domestic licensing and related regulatory functions. 

10 CFR Part 54 “Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” This 

part focuses on managing adverse effects of aging rather than noting all aging 

mechanisms. The rule is intended to ensure that important systems, structures, and 

components will maintain their intended function during the period of extended 

operation. 

10 CFR Part 50 “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.” Regulations issued by 

the NRC under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 919), and 

Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1242), to provide for the 

licensing of production and utilization facilities. This part also gives notice to all 

persons who knowingly supply—to any licensee, applicant, contractor, or 

subcontractor—components, equipment, materials, or other goods or services, that 

relate to a licensee’s or applicant’s activities subject to this part, that they may be 

individually subject to NRC enforcement action for violation of § 50.5. 

Air Quality Protection 

Clean Air Act (CAA) 

(42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.) 

The CAA is a comprehensive Federal law that regulates air emissions. Under the 

CAA, Federal actions cannot thwart State and local efforts to remedy long-standing 

air quality problems that threaten public health issues associated with the six criteria 

air pollutants (i.e., ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, carbon 

monoxide, and lead). 

Water Resources Protection 

Clean Water Act (CWA) 

(33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.); 

Section 403.0885, State of 

Florida Statutes (FS), Florida 

Administrative Code (FAC) 

62-620 (Wastewater Facility and 

Activities Permitting) 

The NPDES permit is required for plant industrial, sanitary, and stormwater 

discharges to Crystal Bay. The permit requires the compliance of each point 

source with authorized discharge levels, monitoring requirements, and other 

appropriate requirements (e.g., daily flows). The State of Florida permitting 

program was established in accordance with Section 402 of the CWA, as 

amended. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is the 

responsible State agency for NPDES permitting. 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

(PL 93-523); Section 403.861, 

FS; FAC 62-550 (Drinking Water 

Standards, Monitoring and 

Reporting) 

Adopts SDWA Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards for public water 

systems in the State of Florida. 

Section 403.861, FS; 

FAC 62-555 (Permitting, 

Construction, Operation and 

Maintenance of Public Water 

Systems) 

Regulates the location and permitting of public water system wells. 

Section 403.061, FS; 

FAC 62-520 (Groundwater 

Classes, Standards, and 

Exemptions) 

Provides water quality classifications for groundwaters in the State of Florida, 

including the Upper Floridan aquifer, and establishes water quality criteria and 

monitoring requirements and exemptions. 

Section 373.223, FS; 

FAC 40E-20 (General Water 

Use Permit) 

Regulates groundwater pumping rates from select site production wells under 

Water Use Permit No. 2004695.004, issued by the Southwest Florida Water 

Management District (SFWMD). 

Section 403.061, FS; 

FAC 62-302 (Surface Water 

Quality Standards) 

Provides water quality classification for surface waters in the State of Florida, 

including Crystal Bay, and establishes water quality criteria for these 

classifications. Identifies specially protected waters. 
Appendix C 

 C-3 

Law/Regulation Requirements 

Florida Electrical Power Siting 

Act, Section 403.511, FS; 

FAC 62-17 (Electrical Power 

Plant Siting) 

Authorizes Florida Siting Board (part of the FDEP) to issue the Site Certification for 

generating units at the Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC). Site certification 

specifies environmental conditions and requirements (e.g., groundwater pumping 

rates from select site production wells) that must be met by Progress Energy 

Florida, Inc. 

Section 403.0885, FS; 

FAC 62-620 (Wastewater 

Facility and Activities Permitting) 

Regulates industrial wastewater effluent limitations and monitoring requirements 

for the percolation ponds system under Industrial Wastewater Facility Permit 

FLA016960, issued by the FDEP. 

Sections 373 and 403, FS; 

FAC 62-640 (Biosolids) 

Regulates the management, use, and land application of biosolids for the 

Domestic Wastewater Treatment Facility under Domestic Wastewater Facility 

Permit FLA118753, issued by the FDEP. 

Coastal Zone Protection 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

(CZMA) of 1972 

(16 U.S.C. § 1451-1464); 

Section 380, FS Part II 

(Florida Coastal Management 

Act of 1978) 

Authorizes development of the Florida Coastal Management Program and 

designates the FDEP as the lead agency. The program is based on existing 

Florida laws and rules; its objective is to ensure that Federal actions (including 

non-Federal actions requiring Federal permits) are consistent with the Florida laws 

that protect and enhance natural, cultural, and economic resources and sustain 

coastal communities. It authorizes the State to determine the acceptability of 

Federal actions that affect the State’s coastal zone (a process called “Federal 

consistency”). The FDEP reports this finding for the CREC in the Conditions of 

Certification. 

Waste Management and Pollution Prevention 

Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) 

(42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.) 

Before a material can be classified as a hazardous waste, it must first be a solid 

waste as defined under the RCRA. Hazardous waste is classified under Subtitle C 

of the RCRA. Parts 261 and 262 of 40 CFR contain all applicable generators of 

hazardous waste regulations. Part 261.5(a) and (e) contains requirements for 

conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs). Part 262.34(d) contains 

requirements for small quantity generators (SQGs). Parts 262 and 261.5(e) contain 

requirements for large quantity generators (LQGs). 

Pollution Prevention Act 

(42 U.S.C. § 13101 et seq.) 

The Pollution Prevention Act formally established a national policy to prevent or 

reduce pollution at its source whenever possible. The Act supplies funds for State 

and local pollution prevention programs through a grant program to promote the use 

of pollution prevention techniques by business. 

Endangered Species 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

(16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.) 

The ESA forbids any government agency, corporation, or citizen from taking 

(harming or killing) endangered animals without an Endangered Species Permit. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (16 U.S.C. § 661 et seq.) 

To minimize adverse impacts of proposed actions on fish and wildlife resources and 

habitat, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that Federal agencies 

consult with government agencies regarding activities that affect, control, or modify 

waters of any stream or bodies of water. It also requires that justifiable means and 

measures be used in modifying plans to protect fish and wildlife in these waters. 

Historic Preservation 

National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) 

(16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq.) 

The NHPA directs Federal agencies to consider the impact of their actions on 

historic properties. The NHPA also encourages State and local preservation 

societies. 

U.S.C. = United States Code

1 C.2. Operating Permits and Other Requirements 

2 Table C-2 lists the permits and licenses issued by Federal, State, and local authorities for 

3 activities at CR-3. 
C-4 

Appendix C Table C-2. Licenses and Permits. Existing environmental authorizations for CR-3 operations. 1 Agency Authority Requirement Number Issue or Expiration Date Activity Covered U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. § 2011, et seq.), 

10 CFR Part 50 

License to 

Operate 

DPR-72 Issued: 12/03/1976 

Expires: 12/03/2016 

Operation of CR-3 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

49 U.S.C. § 5108, 

49 CFR Part 107, Subpart G 

Registration 060908 551 067Q Issued: 06/09/2010 

Expires: 06/09/2011 

Hazardous materials 

shipments 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Section 10 of River and 

Harbor Act of 1899 

(33 U.S.C. § 403) 

Permit SAJ-2008-02893 Issued: 11/12/2008 

Expires: 11/12/2013 

Maintenance dredging in 

front of the Gulf intake 

structure 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Clean Water Act 

(33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), 

Pollution Prevention Act 

(42 U.S.C. § 13109–13109) 

FL Rule 62-302.520(1), 

FAC 62-620, NPDES 

NPDES Permit FL0000159 Issued: 05/09/2005 

Expires: 05/08/2010 

(See Note 1) 

Industrial wastewater 

discharges to the Gulf of 

Mexico from Units 1, 2, 

and 3 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Clean Water Act 

(33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), 

Pollution Prevention Act 

(42 U.S.C. § 13109-13109), 

FL Rule 62-302.520(1), 

FAC 62-620, NPDES 

Permit FLA0169690 Issued: 01/09/2007 

Expires: 01/08/2012 

Treatment of industrial 

wastewater by land 

application system 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Clean Air Act 

(42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.), 

FS Chapter 403, 

FAC 62-4, 62-213, and 62-214

Title V Permit 0170004-015-AV Issued: 12/28/2009 

Expires: 12/31/2014 

Title V air operation permit 

for the CREC 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

FAC 68B-8 Special Activity 

License 

SAL-10-0107-SCR Issued: 06/25/2010 

Expires: 06/24/2011 

Harvest of broodstock and 

release of broodstock and 

captive-bred marine 

organisms for stock 

enhancement mitigation 

Florida Department of 

Aquaculture and 

Consumer Services 

Florida Aquaculture Policy Act, 

FS Chapter 597 

Certificate AQ0119007 Issued: N/A 

Expires: 06/30/2011 

Aquaculture certification 

for production of marine 

fish 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

FAC 62-761 and 62-762 Registration 9103099 Issued: 06/03/2010 

Expires: 06/30/2011 

Storage tank registration 
C-5 

Appendix C 

Agency Authority Requirement Number Issue or Expiration Date Activity Covered Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

16 U.S.C. § 703–712, 

FAC 68A 

Migratory Bird 

Nest Permit 

LSNR-09-0334 Issued: 08/07/2009 

Expires: 12/31/2012 

Inactive nest removal 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Federal Safe Drinking Water 

Act, FS Chapter 403, Part IV 

Wastewater 

Permit 

FLA118753-003-D

W3P 

Issued: 04/22/2009 

Expires: 04/21/2014 

Operation of Units 1, 2, 

and 3 sewage treatment 

plant 

Southwest Florida Water Management District 

FS Chapter 373, FAC 40D-2 Water Withdrawal 

Permit 

20004695.004 Issued: 11/26/2007 

Expires: 11/26/2017 

Groundwater withdrawal 

for Units 1, 2, and 3 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Federal Safe Drinking Water 

Act, FS Chapter 403, Part IV 

Wastewater 

Permit 

FLA01909-002-D

W4P 

Issued: 10/06/2009 

Expires: 10/05/2014 

Nuclear training center 

domestic wastewater 

system 

State of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation – Division of Radiological Health 

Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation 

Rule 1200-2-10.32 

Tennessee 

Radioactive 

Waste License for 

Delivery 

T-FL001-L11 Issued: 01/01/2011 

Expires: 12/31/2011 

Transportation of 

radioactive waste into the 

State of Tennessee 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality – Division of Radiation Control 

Utah Radiation Control 

Rule R313-26 

Generator Site 

Access Permit 

0109000004 Issued: 07/16/2010 

Expires: 07/16/2011 

Grants access to a land 

disposal facility in the 

State of Utah 

Note 1: Application submitted November 2009. There is an administrative extension of the existing permit until permit negotiations are complete and a final 

permit is issued. Negotiations are underway concerning permit conditions relative to present and planned future status of plants. Sources: Progress Energy, 2010; Progress Energy, 2011 
Appendix C 

 C-6 

1 C.3. References 

2 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2010. E-mail from Louise England 

3 Transmitting List of Expiration Dates for Permits Associated with Crystal River Unit 3, 

4 Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession 

5 No. ML101390134. 

6 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2011. E-mail from Mike Heath Transmitting 

7 List of Expiration Dates for Permits Associated with Crystal River Unit 3, ADAMS Accession 

8 No. ML110620143. 
1 APPENDIX D. 

2 CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE 

Appendix D 

 D-1 

1 D. CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE 

2 The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries 

3 Management Act of 1996, as amended; and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

4 require that Federal agencies consult with applicable State and Federal agencies and groups 

5 prior to taking action that may affect threatened and endangered species, essential fish habitat, 

6 or historic and archaeological resources, respectively. This appendix contains the consultation 

7 documentation. 

8 Table D-1. Consultation Correspondence. This is a list of the consultation documents sent 

9 between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and other agencies and groups as 

10 required by the Acts mentioned above.

Author Recipient Date of Letter/E-mail 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(D. Wrona) 

State Historic Preservation Office 

(F. Gaske) 

April 10, 2009 

(ML090560140) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(D. Wrona) 

Seminole Indian Tribe 

(M. Cypress) 

April 13, 2009 

(ML090490749) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(D. Wrona) 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 

(E. Haney) 

April 13, 2009 

(ML090550244) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(D. Wrona) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Southeast Regional Office 

(S. Hamilton) 

April 13, 2009 

(ML090400392) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(D. Wrona) 

Crystal River Refuge Manager 

(J. Kraus) 

April 13, 2009 

(ML090560584) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(D. Wrona) 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Southeast Region 

(R. Crabtree) 

April 13, 2009 

(ML090360156) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(D. Wrona) 

Miccosukee Tribe of Florida 

(B. Cypress) 

April 13, 2009 

(ML090570401) 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Southeast Region 

(T. Mincey) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(D. Wrona) 

April 20, 2009 

(ML091460262) 

State Historic Preservation Office 

(F. Gaske) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(D. Wrona) 

May 4, 2009 

(ML091460261) 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Southeast Region 

(M. Croom) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(D. Wrona) 

May 4, 2009 

(ML091460257) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(D. Wrona) 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection 

(D. Getzoff) 

June 8, 2009 

(ML091490526) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(D. Wrona) 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory 

(G. Knight) 

June 8, 2009 

(ML091540745) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(D. Wrona) 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission 

(R. Trindell) 

June 8, 2009 

(ML091540774) 
Appendix D 

 D-2 

Author Recipient Date of Letter/E-mail 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(D. Wrona) 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission 

(K. Frohlich) 

June 8, 2009 

(ML091540774) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(D. Wrona) 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(R. Nelson) 

June 10, 2009 

(ML090420362) 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission 

(M. Poole) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(D. Wrona) 

July 22, 2009 

(ML092170380) 

1 D.1. Consultation Correspondence 

2 The following pages contain copies of the letters listed in Table D-1. 
Appendix D 

 D-3 

1 

2 
Appendix D 

 D-4 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-5 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-6 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-7 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-8 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-9 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-10 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-11 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-12 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-13 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-14 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-15 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-16 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-17 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-18 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-19 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-20 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-21 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-22 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-23 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-24 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-25 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-26 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-27 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-28 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-29 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-30 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-31 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-32 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-33 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-34 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-35 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-36 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-37 

1 

2 
Appendix D 

 D-38 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-39 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-40 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-41 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-42 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-43 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-44 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-45 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-46 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-47 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-48 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-49 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-50 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-51 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-52 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-53 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-54 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-55 

1 
Appendix D 

 D-56 

1 

2 
1 APPENDIX D. 1. 

2 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT 

3 FOR THE PROPOSED RENEWAL OF THE 

4 CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT 

5 OPERATING LICENSE 

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

License Renewal 

May 2011 

Docket No. 50-302 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Rockville, Maryland 

Appendix D.1 

 D.1-i 

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 

2 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... D.1-1

3 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................ D.1-2

4 2.1 Site Location and Description ..................................................................................... D.1-3

5 2.2 Cooling Water Description and Operation .................................................................. D.1-8

6 3.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT NEAR THE SITE ............................................................ D.1-12

7 4.0 EFH SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS ....................................... D.1-21

8 4.1 Red Drum (Sciaenops Ocellatus): Eggs, Larvae, Juveniles, and Adults ................. D.1-21

9 4.2 Greater Amberjack (Seriola dumerili): Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles ....................... D.1-22

10 4.3 Hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus): Juveniles .......................................................... D.1-22

11 4.4 Gray Snapper (Lutjanus griseus): Eggs, Larvae, Juveniles, and Adults ................. D.1-22

12 4.5 Lane Snapper (Lutjanus synagris): Larvae and Juveniles ....................................... D.1-23

13 4.6 Schoolmaster (Lutjanus apodus): Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles .............................. D.1-23

14 4.7 Dog Snapper (Lutjanus jocu): Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles .................................... D.1-24

15 4.8 Yellowtail Snapper (Lutjanus chrysurus): Juveniles and Adults .............................. D.1-24

16 4.9 Vermilion Snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens): Juveniles ..................................... D.1-25

17 4.10 Dwarf Sand Perch (Diplectrum bivittatum): Juveniles ........................................... D.1-25

18 4.11 Red Grouper (Epinephelus morio): Juveniles........................................................ D.1-25

19 4.12 Nassau Grouper (Epinephelus striatus): Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles ................. D.1-26

20 4.13 Black Grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci): Juveniles .................................................. D.1-26

21 4.14 Gag (Mycteroperca microlepis): Juveniles ............................................................ D.1-26

22 4.15 Rock Hind (Epinephelus adscensionis): Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles .................. D.1-27

23 4.16 Spanish Mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus): Juveniles and Adults ................ D.1-27

24 4.17 Pink Shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum): Larvae, Juveniles, and Adults ........... D.1-28

25 4.18 White shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus): Larvae and Juveniles ................................ D.1-29

26 4.19 Florida Stone Crab (Menippe mercenaria): Larvae and Juveniles ........................ D.1-30

27 5.0 POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ......................... D.1-31

28 5.1 Impingement ............................................................................................................. D.1-33

29 5.2 Entrainment .............................................................................................................. D.1-36

30 5.3 Thermal Effects ........................................................................................................ D.1-38

31 5.4 Potential Impacts on Identified Federally-Managed Species .................................... D.1-43
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-ii 

1 6.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS ............................ D.1-54

2 6.1 Continued Operation of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant and 

3 Other Crystal River Energy Complex Units ............................................................... D.1-56

4 6.2 Preconstruction, Construction, and Operation of Levy Nuclear Plant ...................... D.1-57

5 6.3 Continued Water Withdrawals .................................................................................. D.1-57

6 6.4 Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development ............................................. D.1-58

7 6.5 Fishing and Boating .................................................................................................. D.1-58

8 6.6 Water Quality Degradation ....................................................................................... D.1-61

9 6.7 Invasive Species ...................................................................................................... D.1-62

10 6.8 Disease .................................................................................................................... D.1-62

11 6.9 Climate Change ........................................................................................................ D.1-63

12 6.10 Total Cumulative Impacts on Federally-Managed Species and Their EFH ............ D.1-64

13 7.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSERVATION MEASURES AND 

14 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... D.1-64

15 7.1 Conservation Measures ........................................................................................... D.1-64

16 7.2 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. D.1-65

17 8.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ D.1-72

18 

19 FIGURES 

20 Figure 1. Location of Crystal River Unit 3 at the Crystal River Energy Complex .................. D.1-2

21 Figure 2. Surface Waters in the Vicinity of the Crystal River Energy Complex ..................... D.1-4

22 

23 TABLES 

24 Table 1. Ecoregion 2 Species Managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

25 Council .................................................................................................................. D.1-14

26 Table 2. Species or Life Stages Excluded from and Retained for the Essential Fish 

27 Habitat Assessment .............................................................................................. D.1-18

28 Table 3. Aquatic Resource Issues Identified in the GEIS ................................................... D.1-32

29 Table 4. Ecoregion 2 Species Listed in the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Plans 

30 Impinged at CREC, December 2006 through November 2007. ............................ D.1-35

31 Table 5. Predicted Acreage of the Crystal River Energy Complex Thermal Plume ............ D.1-40

32 Table 6. Projected Post-Uprate Summer Operational Discharges and Temperatures 

33 for Crystal River Energy Complex ......................................................................... D.1-42
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-iii 

1 Table 7. Stressors to Habitats and Biota in Florida ............................................................. D.1-55

2 Table 8. Commercial Landings of Federally-Managed Species for Citrus County and 

3 the West Coast of Florida for 1986, 2007, and 2010 ............................................ D.1-59

4 Table 9. Impacts of Continued Operation of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating 

5 Plant on Ecoregion 2 Species and Their Essential Fish Habitat ........................... D.1-66 

Appendix D.1 

 D.1-v 

1 ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SYMBOLS 

2 °C degrees Celsius 

3 °F degrees Fahrenheit 

4 < less than 

5 > greater than 

6 ≥ greater than or equal to 

7 ac acre(s) 

8 AEC Atomic Energy Commission 

9 Btu/hr British thermal units per hour 

10 CFR Code of Federal Regulations

11 cfs cubic feet per second 

12 cm centimeter(s) 

13 CR-1 Crystal River Unit 1 

14 CR-2 Crystal River Unit 2 

15 CR-3 Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

16 CR-4 Crystal River Unit 4 

17 CR-5 Crystal River Unit 5 

18 CPUE catch per unit effort 

19 CREC Crystal River Energy Complex 

20 CWA Clean Water Act 

21 EFH essential fish habitat 

22 EIS environmental impact statement 

23 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

24 FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

25 FMP fishery management plan 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-vi 

1 ft foot(feet) 

ft2 2 square foot(feet) 

3 ft/s feet per second 

4 FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

5 FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

6 gpm gallons per minute 

7 GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 

8 Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 

9 GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council 

10 ha hectare(s) 

11 kg kilogram(s) 

12 km kilometer(s) 

13 lb pound(s) 

14 LNP Levy Nuclear Plant 

15 m meter(s) 

m2 16 square meter(s) 

m3 17 cubic meter(s) 

18 m/s meters per second 

m3 19 /s cubic meters per second 

20 mgpd million gallons per day 

21 mg/L milligrams per liter 

22 mi mile(s) 

23 MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation 

24 Management Act 

25 MW megawatt(s) 

26 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

27 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-vii 

1 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

2 NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

3 POD point of discharge 

4 ppt parts per thousand 

5 Progress Energy Progress Energy Florida, Inc. 

6 s second(s) 

7 SAV submerged aquatic vegetation 

8 SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement 

9 STAC Seagrass Technical Advisory Committee 

10 yr year(s) 

Appendix D.1 

 D.1-1 

1 D. 1. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED 

2 RENEWAL OF THE CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING 

3 PLANT OPERATING LICENSE 

4 1.0 INTRODUCTION 

5 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) 

6 (16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.), which was reauthorized and amended by the Sustainable Fisheries 

7 Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-297), sets forth the essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions designed 

8 to protect important habitats of Federally-managed marine and anadromous species. The 

9 definition of EFH is the waters and substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, or 

10 growth to maturity. Identifying EFH is an essential component in the development of fishery 

11 management plans (FMPs) to evaluate the effects of habitat loss or degradation on fishery 

12 stocks and take actions to mitigate such damage. The National Marine Fisheries Service 

13 (NMFS) expanded this responsibility to ensure additional habitat protection (NMFS, 1999). The 

14 consultation requirements of Section 305(b) of the MSFCMA provide that Federal agencies 

15 consult with the Secretary of Commerce on all actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, 

16 or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. The consultation document must 

17 include the following information: 

18 ● a description of the proposed action 

19 ● an analysis of the potential adverse effects of the action on EFH and the 

20 Federally-managed species 

21 ● the Federal agency’s conclusions regarding the effects of the action on EFH 

22 ● proposed mitigation, if applicable 

23 Florida Power Corporation applied to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) for licenses to build 

24 and operate a nuclear power plant at the Crystal River site in 1967. (The nuclear power plant is 

25 Unit 3 of the Crystal River Energy Complex [CREC], which consists of four fossil fuel units and 

26 one nuclear unit. Throughout this EFH assessment, CR-3 is the designation for the nuclear unit 

27 while CR-1 and CR-2 are the designations for the two fossil units that withdraw water from and 

28 discharge water to the same intake and discharge canals as CR-3.) The AEC issued a 

29 construction permit on September 25, 1968, and an operating license on December 3, 1976. 

30 Commercial operation began on March 13, 1977. The operating license for CR-3 will expire 

31 December 3, 2016. Florida Power Corporation (FPC), doing business as Progress Energy 

32 Florida, Inc., (Progress Energy) submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

33 Commission (NRC) on December 16, 2008, to renew the CR-3 operating license. The renewed 

34 operating license, if granted, would allow an additional 20 years of plant operation until 

35 December 3, 2036. 

36 On April 6, 2009, the NRC staff (Staff) published a Notice of Intent to prepare a plant-specific 

37 supplement to NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-2 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS)1 1 (NRC, 1996), (NRC, 1999). During the 

2 development of the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) and this EFH 

3 assessment, the Staff visited the site, met and corresponded with members of Federal and 

4 State regulatory agencies, and reviewed a variety of technical reports, journal articles, and other 

5 relevant information to determine whether renewal would result in adverse environmental 

6 impacts to managed species, their EFH, or their forage species. This EFH assessment fulfills 

7 the NRC requirements under the MSFCMA for the CR-3 license renewal review. 

8 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

9 The proposed Federal action is renewal of the operating license for CR-3, one of five power 

10 plant units at the CREC (Figure 1). Crystal Bay, located within the Gulf of Mexico, is the source 

11 for cooling water for the main condensers at CR-3 and the other units at the CREC. 

12 

13 Figure 1. Location of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant at the Crystal River 

14 Energy Complex 

 

1

 The GEIS was issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all references 

to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and its Addendum 1. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-3 

1 2.1 Site Location and Description 

2 The CREC is located in western Florida adjacent to Crystal Bay, a shallow embayment of the 

3 Gulf of Mexico. It is located 4.5 miles (mi) (7.2 kilometers [km]) south of the Withlacoochee 

4 River and 2.5 mi (4 km) north of the Crystal River. CR-3 is located within the 4,738 acre (ac) 

5 (1,513-hectare [ha]) CREC (Figure 1). A substantial part of the CREC site is undeveloped, 

6 providing a buffer zone containing 3,676 ac (1,488 ha) of hardwood hammock forest and 

7 pineland, salt marches, small tidal creeks, and freshwater swamps, protected against 

8 encroachment from any other coastal development (AEC, 1973). The west-central coast of 

9 Florida is an area of low relief, ranging in elevation from mean sea level to about 5 feet (ft) 

10 (1.5 meters [m]). It is a low-wave energy coast dominated by salt marshes and swamps 

11 dissected by branching tidal channels. These features occur in a 1-mi (1.6-km) wide band along 

12 the coast near the CREC, separating the uplands to the east from the Gulf of Mexico. 

13 Nearshore areas off the coast are shallow (with an average depth of less than 20 ft [6.1 m]), 

14 broad, and gently sloping (Progress Energy, 2008). 

15 There are no natural surface water bodies on or immediately adjacent to CR-3. Crystal Bay is a 

16 shallow estuarine embayment of the Gulf of Mexico largely located between the Cross Florida 

17 Barge Canal (Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway) and Crystal River, and extends 

18 offshore for about 10 mi (16 km) (SWEC, 1985). It has an estimated surface area of over 

19 100,000 ac (40,470 ha). Figure 2 shows the surface waters in the vicinity of the CREC. Crystal 

20 Bay is shallow with depths less than 10 ft (3 m) out to 3 mi (5 km) from shore. It has relatively 

21 low-wave energy with many rocky reef areas, oyster reefs, and seagrass beds. Salt marshes 

22 are extensive in undeveloped areas of the coast (SWEC, 1985). Most oyster reefs are 

23 underwater at high tide with portions exposed at low tide (SWEC, 1985). Numerous small 

24 basins created by the oyster reefs run in a north-south orientation in the area of the CREC 

25 intake and discharge canals (Progress Energy, 2008). During the tidal cycle, water levels 

26 fluctuate from 2 to 4 ft (0.6 to 1.2 m) (ReMetrix, 2007). Because of high rainfall and large 

27 volumes of freshwater that discharge from rivers and springs along the coast, nearshore waters 

28 in the Gulf of Mexico are generally low in salinity. Salinities tend to be higher offshore and near 

29 the CREC point of discharge (POD), while areas near the rivers and the Cross Florida Barge 

30 Canal have reduced salinities (SWEC, 1985). Nearshore waters of Crystal Bay have a salinity 

31 of 22 to 29 parts per thousand (ppt) (AEC, 1973); while salinities about 8 to 10 mi (13 to 16 km) 

32 offshore are about 35 ppt, a value typical of open ocean waters (National Ocean Service, 2008). 

33 Shallow estuaries are less able to store heat compared to deeper waters, and water 

34 temperatures fluctuate from 39 °F to 90 °F (4 °C to 32 °C) annually (EPA, 1999). Annual water 

35 temperatures near the CREC intake average 71.2 °F (21.8 °C), ranging from 43 °F (6.1 °C) to 

36 94.6 °F (34.8 °C) (Golder Associates, 2007a). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-4 

1 

2 Figure 2. Surface Waters in the Vicinity of the Crystal River Energy Complex 

3 

4 Crystal Bay is located within Florida’s Big Bend, which includes the coastlines between Franklin 

5 County and Pinellas County (i.e., the coastlines of Wakulla, Jefferson, Taylor, Dixie, Levy, 

6 Citrus, Hernando, and Pasco Counties). The estuary areas of Big Bend total over 250,000 ac 

7 (101,000 ha) (Kilgen and Dugas, 1989). Very gentle slopes characterize the Big Bend 

8 bathymetry, increasing about 3 ft (1 m) in depth per 3-mi (5-km) distance from shore (Hale et al., 

9 2004). Overall, the shallow waters of Florida’s Big Bend have exceptional water quality and 

10 clarity (Handley et al., 2007). Nevertheless, land use practices such as agriculture, 

11 urbanization, and industrial development affect water quality; resulting in hydrologic alterations 

12 to watersheds that flow into Big Bend and result in nutrient enrichment of the estuarine and 

13 coastal waters (GMP, 2004), (Handley et al., 2007). Water quality within the estuarine areas of 

14 Citrus County are affected by increased urban stormwater runoff, seepage from onsite sanitary 

15 sewage disposal, sewage treatment plant effluent, residential use of pesticides, herbicide and 

16 fertilizers, and activities associated with commercial and leisure boating (CCBCC, 2009). 

17 A variety of habitats, discussed below, support an abundance of aquatic resources in Crystal 

18 Bay. Open water habitats include saltwater, tidally influenced water of variable salinities, and 

19 tidal freshwater areas. The bottom of Crystal Bay provides a number of different benthic 

20 habitats, with their characteristics dictated by salinity, tides, and substrate type. Unless cited 

21 otherwise, the habitat descriptions are from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

22 Commission (FWC) (2005). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-5 

1 2.1.1 Artificial Structures 

2 Artificial structures include artificial reefs and hardened shorelines. The construction of artificial 

3 reefs can enhance recreational fishing and diving opportunities; while hardened shorelines 

4 (e.g., rip-rap, other types of coastal armoring, breakwaters, piers, and docks) enhance coastal 

5 development. While hardened shorelines provide some habitat for bivalves, shellfish, and some 

6 fishes, they alter natural marine and estuarine shoreline processes and alter or replace 

7 naturally-occurring coastal habitats. The dikes that parallel the CREC intake and discharge 

8 canals are artificial structures. Other artificial structures in the area are the spoils islands 

9 located along the South Florida Barge Canal. These structures and the oyster reefs (discussed 

10 later in this section) affect tidal flux and current patterns in the area of the CREC (Steidinger and 

11 Van Breedveld, 1971). 

12 2.1.2 Coastal Tidal Rivers and Streams 

13 Coastal tidal rivers and streams are the segments of rivers and streams that experience a tidal 

14 influence that affects water levels, flow rates, and salinity concentrations. Water flow in tidal 

15 rivers and streams is bidirectional, and salinity can range from freshwater to brackish. Many 

16 tidal rivers and streams occur within the Big Bend region of Florida. Tidal rivers and streams 

17 near the CREC include the Withlacoochee River, Cross Florida Barge Canal, Crystal River, 

18 Cutoff Creek, and Salt Creek. 

19 2.1.3 Oyster Reefs 

20 Dense concentrations of Eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica) attach to hard substrates and 

21 to each other to create oyster reefs. The Eastern oyster occurs within estuarine areas with 

22 salinities of 15 to 30 ppt. Oyster reefs generally consist of an upper layer of live oysters over a 

23 core of buried shell and mud. The reefs can range from small mounds or patches to long ridges 

24 extending several miles. Large reefs have a significant role in the energy flow dynamics of 

25 estuaries by dividing bays, changing circulation patterns (GMFMC, 2004), and causing flow 

26 restrictions during portions of the tidal cycle (Galya and McDougall, 1985). Oyster reefs also 

27 absorb wave energy, which helps to minimize shore erosion, and help to maintain water quality 

28 through live oyster filtering capacities (GMFMC, 2004). Oyster reef habitats provide nursery 

29 grounds, refugia, and foraging areas for over 300 species of macroinvertebrates and fishes 

(Stanley and Sellers, 1986). Peterson et al. (2003) determined that 108 square feet (ft2 30 ) 

(10 square meters [m2 31 ]) of restored oyster reef can yield an additional 5.5 pounds per year 

32 (lb/yr) (2.5 kilograms per year [kg/yr]) of production of fish and large mobile crustaceans. A 

33 number of oyster reefs parallel the shoreline near the CREC (Progress Energy, 2008). 

34 The Eastern oyster tolerates widely fluctuating temperatures, salinities, and suspended solids 

35 concentrations (Stanley and Sellers, 1986). Optimal temperatures for growth, reproduction, and 

36 survival are 68 °F to 86 °F (20 °C to 30 °C) (Stanley and Sellers, 1986); while optimal salinities 

37 are 12 to 25 ppt (GMFMC, 2004). Exposure of Eastern oysters to 95 °F (35 °C) rarely caused 

38 death, but did inhibit effective reproduction by causing premature spawning, spawning out of 

39 season, and deterioration of oyster condition (Quick, 1971). Mortality can occur from extended 

40 exposure to salinities less than 2 ppt (GMFMC, 2004). 

41 Most commercial landings of Eastern oyster in Florida occur along the panhandle and Big Bend 

42 area. The FWC (2011) reported 2010 annual commercial landings of oysters to be 1,694,664 lb 

43 (768,687 kg) for the west coast of Florida with no commercial landings reported for Citrus 

44 County. In Citrus County, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2011) 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-6 

1 allows oyster harvesting south of the Crystal River intake (normally opened to harvesting, but 

2 may be temporarily closed during periods of red tide, hurricanes, and sewage spills) during 

3 spring and fall months; and conditionally approved (periodically closed to shellfish harvesting 

4 during predictable pollution events) during winter months. 

5 2.1.4 Salt Marshes 

6 Salt marshes occur where wave energies are low and mangroves are absent. About 

7 442,600 ac (179,100 ha) of salt marshes occur in Florida. Tidal rivers and streams often dissect 

8 larger stretches of salt marsh. The herbaceous plants of salt marshes include grasses, sedges, 

9 and rushes. Salt marshes provide nursery areas for many larval and juvenile invertebrate and 

10 fish species; provide a major source of organic matter to sustain estuarine detrital food webs; 

11 and reduce erosion, buffer inland areas from storm damage, recycle inorganic nutrients, and 

12 remove contaminants (GMFMC, 2004). The salinity of salt marsh waters ranges from 0.5 to 

13 34 ppt (Ward, 1999). Soil salinity and tidal frequency affect primary production in salt marshes. 

14 When the density, growth, and survival of juvenile fishes and decapod crustaceans are 

15 considered, the relative nursery value of salt marsh habitats for nekton appear higher than open 

16 water habitats but lower than seagrass habitats (Minello et al., 2003). 

17 A 0.5- to 1-mi (0.8- to 1.6-km) band of salt marshes drained by numerous small creeks occurs in 

18 the CREC area (SWEC, 1985). The salt marshes near the CREC are typical of northwest Gulf 

19 shoreline areas. Sediments in the salt marsh area are primarily muds with small areas of 

20 exposed limestone and oyster shell banks. Rushes and cordgrass (e.g., Juncus roemerianus

21 and Spartina patens, respectively) and other salt-tolerant plants border shallow creeks and 

22 bayous. Smaller areas of mangroves and glasswort (Salicornia spp.) are scattered throughout 

23 the salt marshes. Spartina-dominated areas also occur along the intake and discharge spoil 

24 banks for the CREC (Progress Energy, 2008). 

25 2.1.5 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

26 Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) habitats include any combination of seagrasses, attached 

27 macroalgae, and drift algae that cover 10 to 100 percent of the substrate (GMP, 2004). 

28 Seagrasses are marine flowering plants adapted for underwater growth and reproduction. 

29 Seagrass beds occur in areas of low-wave energy and often occur next to tidal flat, salt marsh, 

30 and mangrove communities. Salt marshes and adjacent seagrass beds share a diverse fauna 

31 (Dawes et al., 2004). Seagrasses help maintain water clarity, stabilize substrates, provide 

32 habitat for fish and shellfish, provide food for some marine animals, and provide nursery areas 

33 for recreationally and commercially important fish and shellfish (Sargent et al., 1995), (FDEP, 

34 2008a), (Handley et al., 2007). Nearly all of the commercially and recreationally valuable 

35 estuarine and marine animals depend on seagrass beds as refuge or habitat for parts or all of 

36 their lifecycles (Dawes et al. 2004). 

37 Over 2.4 million ac (1 million ha) of seagrass beds occur in Florida (FWC, 2005). The Big Bend 

38 area of Florida has the highest acreage of seagrass along the northern Gulf of Mexico. Over 

39 3,486,500 ac (1,415,000 ha) of potential seagrass habitat occurs in Big Bend out to a depth of 

40 60 ft (18 m). This includes deepwater Halophila beds (Handley et al., 2007). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-7 

1 Handley et al. (2007) reported the following known areal coverage of seagrasses in Big Bend 

2 over a 20-year period: 

3 ● In 1984 – 197,880 ac (80,891 ha) of continuous seagrass and 619,648 ac 

4 (250,768 ha) of patchy seagrass 

5 ● In 1992 – 67,110 ac (27,159 ha) of continuous seagrass and 200,529 ac 

6 (81,153 ha) of patchy seagrass 

7 ● In 2003 – 70,443 ac (28,508 ha) of continuous seagrass and 541,372 ac 

8 (219,090 ha) of patchy seagrass 

9 Seagrass habitats occur within the shallows of Crystal Bay and extend westward about 7 to 

10 12 mi (11 to 19 km) into the Gulf (CCBCC, 2009). 

11 Seven seagrass species occur in Florida (FDEP, 2008a). The four most widespread species 

12 are shoal grass (Halodule beaudettei, formerly known as Halodule wrightii), ditch grass or 

13 widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima), turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum), and manatee grass 

14 (Syringodium filiforme). The other three species are star grass (Halophila engelmannii), paddle 

15 grass (Halophila decipiens), and Johnson’s seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) (FDEP, 2008a). 

16 Turtle grass, manatee grass, and shoal grass are the major species of seagrass present in the 

17 Big Bend area (GMP, 2004). Shoal grass, widgeon grass, star grass, and attached macrolagae 

18 are pioneer species that rapidly colonize bare areas. Manatee grass then occurs, usually 

19 intermixed with shoal grass in early stages of seagrass bed development and turtle grass in 

20 later stages. Turtle grass is the climax species in seagrass succession (GMFMC, 2004). 

21 Shoal grass, ditch grass, turtle grass, manatee grass, and star grass occur near the CREC 

22 (AEC, 1973), (SWEC, 1985), (Progress Energy, 2008). However, during the 

23 316 Demonstration, only shoal grass occurred at sampling stations most affected by the 

24 CREC’s heated discharge; whereas the biomass of shoal grass, ditch grass, and turtle grass 

25 were lower in areas less affected by thermal discharges compared to areas unaffected by 

26 thermal discharges (SWEC, 1985). Section 5.3 provides further information on the effect of 

27 CREC thermal discharges on seagrasses. 

28 SAV habitats, including those dominated by seagrasses, can also contain rooted green algae, 

29 particularly Caulerpa and Sargassum spp., and epiphytic algae. Algae can contribute over 

30 50 percent of primary production in seagrass habitats (GMFMC, 2004). Epiphytic algae growth 

31 may affect seagrass photosynthesis by intercepting incident light (Hale et al., 2004). Some 

32 macroalgae found in SAV habitats include attached macroalgae that broke loose from other 

33 locations as occurs as drift algae, which can comprise an important component of SAV habitat 

34 (Dawes et al., 2004), (GMFMC, 2004). Crabs, isopods, and sea urchins are direct grazers on 

35 seagrasses; while other invertebrates may feed on the epiphytes that occur on the seagrasses 

36 (Dawes et al., 2004). Total fish density in Tampa Bay was similar at sites dominated by either 

37 drift algae or seagrasses but was significantly reduced at sites with little cover by either 

38 vegetation type. Thus, both drift algae and seagrasses are essential habitats for juvenile and 

39 small adult fishes (Rydene and Matheson, 2003). Drift algae functions as both a dispersal 

40 mechanism and an alternative habitat for seagrass-associated fish and macroinvertebrates 

41 (Rydene and Matheson, 2003). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-8 

1 Both natural perturbations (e.g., storms, floods, droughts, hurricanes, and overgrazing by 

2 manatees and sea turtles) and anthropogenic perturbations (e.g., nutrient loading) can affect 

3 SAV (Dawes et al., 2004), (GMP, 2004), (Handley et al., 2007). Since the 1950s, over 2 million 

4 ac (800,000 ha) of seagrasses were eliminated in Florida due to nutrient loading, salinity 

5 changes caused by water control projects, boat propeller and trawl net damage, dredging, and 

6 other human-related causes (Sargent et al., 1995). Eutrophication from nutrient loading is the 

7 major cause of seagrass habitat degradation (GMP, 2004), (Hale et al., 2004). Increased 

8 nutrient loading in the Big Bend region has increased phytoplankton abundance and possibly 

9 periphyton abundance on seagrass blades. This has altered the light regime available to 

10 seagrasses, reducing the maximum depth of occurrence since the late 1970s (Hale et al., 

11 2004). Similar effects on seagrasses can occur when nutrients increase macroalgae growth 

12 (Dawes et al., 2004). 

13 2.1.6 Subtidal Unconsolidated Marine/Estuary Sediments 

14 Subtidal unconsolidated marine/estuary sediment habitats consist of open areas of mineral 

15 substrates within tidal zones (i.e., less than 10 percent of the habitat is comprised of SAV or 

16 corals). Substrates consisting of unconsolidated sediments (e.g., mud, mud/sand, sand, or 

17 shell) occur throughout the coastal areas of Florida. These habitats can support large 

18 populations of infaunal organisms such as tube worms, sand dollars, mollusks, isopods, 

19 amphipods, burrowing shrimp, and crabs and are important feeding grounds for bottom-feeding 

20 fish and invertebrate species. Microscopic photosynthetic eukaryotic algae and cyanobacteria, 

21 anaerobic photosynthetic bacteria, and chemosynthetic bacteria occur in unconsolidated 

22 sediments (MacIntyre et al., 1996). 

23 2.2 Cooling Water Description and Operation 

24 CR-3 has a once-through heat dissipation system that withdraws water from, and discharges it 

25 to, Crystal Bay in the Gulf of Mexico. Cooling water circulates through CR-3 in one of two 

26 modes of operation: open cycle (once-through cooling, with no cooling towers in operation) and 

27 helper cycle (once-through cooling, with mechanical draft cooling towers in operation). The 

28 applicant selects the mode of operation so that thermal discharges at the POD to Crystal Bay 

29 are in compliance with the thermal limits of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

30 (NPDES) Permit No. FL0000159 (FDEP, 2005). Unless otherwise cited, the applicant’s 

31 environmental report (Progress Energy, 2008) is the source of the following information on the 

32 CR-3 cooling and auxiliary water systems. 

33 The CR-3 cooling water system consists of the intake canal, intake structure and pumps, 

34 circulating water intake piping, condensers, circulating water discharge piping, outfall structure, 

35 discharge canal, and cooling towers. The intake canal, discharge canal, and cooling towers are 

36 shared systems with CR-1 and CR-2. Crystal River Unit 4 (CR-4) and Crystal River Unit 5 

37 (CR-5) withdraw makeup water from, and discharge cooling tower blowdown to, the discharge 

38 canal. The cooling towers, described later in this section, were not a component of the cooling 

39 water system as described in the original environmental impact statement (EIS) for CR-3 

40 (AEC, 1973). 

41 The intake canal, which extends into the Gulf, is 14 mi (22.5 km) long. It has a minimum depth 

42 of 20 ft (6 m) to accommodate barge traffic used to deliver coal for the fossil fuel units. A 

43 southern and northern dike parallel the intake canal for about 3.4 mi (5.4 km) offshore. The 

44 southern dike terminates at this point, while the northern dike extends an additional 5.3 mi 

45 (8.5 km) into the Gulf. Starting at Fisherman’s Pass, irregularly-spaced openings occur in the 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-9 

1 northern dike to allow boat traffic to pass in a north-south direction without having to completely 

2 circumnavigate the dike. The dikes are about 50- to 100-ft (15- to 30-m) wide on top and are 

3 elevated about 10 ft (3 m) above the water surface at mean low tide (FPC, 2002). The dikes are 

4 comprised of intake canal construction spoils (SWEC, 1985). Starting at the east end, the 

5 intake canal is 150-ft (45.6-m) wide for 2.8 mi (4.5 km); 225-ft (69.5-m) wide for the next 6.3 mi 

6 (10 km); and 300-ft (91-m) wide for the last 4.9 mi (7.8 km) (FPC, 2002). Current velocities at 

7 the mouth of the intake canal range from 0.6 to 2.6 feet per second (ft/s) (0.2 to 0.8 meters per 

8 second [m/s]) (SWEC, 1985). Dredging occurs in the intake canal every 5 to 7 years. 

9 The cooling water intake structure for CR-3 is located near the eastern end of the intake canal 

10 and about 400 ft (122 m) east of the intake structures for CR-1 and CR-2. The intake structures 

11 for all three units are located on the north side of the intake canal. A security boom, to intercept 

12 floating and partially submerged debris and restrict access to CR-3, extends across the intake 

13 canal downstream of the intake structures for CR-1 and CR-2 and about 200 ft (61 m) from the 

14 face of the CR-3 intake structure. The CR-3 intake structure is 118-ft (36-m) wide. It is fitted 

15 with eight external trash racks with 0.38- by 4-inch (1- by 10- centimeter [cm]) steel bars on 

16 4-inch (10-cm) centers, resulting in a 3.63-inch (9.2-cm) distance between adjacent bars. The 

17 bars extend from above the water line to the concrete slab on the bottom of the intake structure. 

18 The bar racks are aligned 10° from vertical with the bottoms of the bar racks extending about 

19 5 ft (1.5 m) into the intake canal (FPC, 2002). Seven of the bar racks are in front of the traveling 

20 screens for the circulating water condenser system. They are each 33 ft (10 m) high and 15.6 ft 

21 (4.75 m) wide. The eighth bar rack is in front of the traveling screen that serves the nuclear 

22 services and decay heat water system. It is 33-ft (10-m) high and 9.3-ft (2.8-m) wide (FPC, 

23 2002). A catwalk extends across the front of the bar racks in order to allow the racks to be 

24 inspected for debris. An overhead rail mounted trash rake removes collected debris. About four 

25 times per year, removal of the bar racks occur so that they can be pressure washed to remove 

26 barnacles or other marine growth and are then coated with a biofouling material (FPC, 2002). 

27 Under normal water elevation and full-flow conditions, the velocity approaching the bar racks is 

28 0.9 ft/s (0.27 m/s) and increases to 1 ft/s (0.30 m/s) at the traveling screens. 

29 The CR-3 intake structure has four pump bays and eight traveling screens. The seven traveling 

30 screens for the circulating water system are 10 ft (3 m) wide by 35 ft (11 m) high with 0.38-inch 

31 (1-cm) mesh. The eighth traveling screen, used for the nuclear services and decay heat cooling 

32 water system, is of similar design, but is only 6 ft (2 m) wide (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007a). 

33 Rotation and washing of the intake screens occurs every 8 hours or when there is a greater 

34 than or equal to 6-inch (15-cm) pressure differential across the screens. Debris washed from 

35 the screens goes into a common trough and then into to a sump adjacent to the intake structure. 

36 Solid material (including impinged organisms) in the screen wash is collected in a screened 

37 basket. The solid material collected from the bar racks and intake screens are placed into the 

38 trash for ultimate disposal in the Citrus County landfill. The screen wash water, which is 

39 seawater pumped from the intake canal, is discharged back into the intake canal (Golder 

40 Associates, Inc., 2007b). Refurbishment of the traveling screens occurs every 7 years. 

41 CR-3 has two circulating water pumps rated at 167,000 gallons per minute (gpm) (372 cubic 

feet per second [cfs] or 10.5 cubic meters per second [m3 42 /s]) and two rated at 179,000 gpm 

(399 cfs or 11.3 m3 43 /s). The design intake volume for CR-3 is 680,000 gpm (1,515 cfs or 

42.9 m3 44 /s). The combined condenser flow limit for the three units is 1,897.9 million gallons per 

day (gpd) (2,936 cfs or 83.2 m3 45 /s) from May 1 through October 31 and 1,120,000 gpm (2,495 

cfs or 70.7 m3 46 /s) from November 1 through April 30 (FDEP, 2005). Throttling back on CR-1 and 

47 CR-2 accomplishes the flow reduction from November 1 through April 30 (Progress Energy, 

48 2010a). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-10 

1 The four circulating water pumps send water through four 90-inch (229-cm) internal diameter 

2 reinforced concrete pipes to four 6.5- by 7.5-ft (2- by 2.3-m) rectangular reinforced concrete 

3 flumes that are connected to the four condenser tube banks. A separate flow path exists for the 

4 nuclear services and decay heat cooling water heat exchangers. Each condenser tube bank 

5 discharges separately into a 6.5- by 7.5-ft (2- by 2.3-m) reinforced concrete flume connected to 

6 a 90-inch (229-cm) diameter reinforced concrete pipe. The four concrete pipes terminate in a 

7 common outfall structure provided with a weir. Water flows over the weir and into the discharge 

8 canal (Wahanik, 1969). At operating design capacity, the rises in discharge temperature from 

9 condenser passage from CR-1 through CR-3 are 14.9 °F (8.3 °C), 16.9 °F (9.4 °C), and 17.5 °F 

10 (9.7 °C), respectively (Mattson et al., 1988). The corresponding condenser cooling system heat 

11 rejection rates for each unit are approximately 2.28, 2.74, and 5.88 billion British thermal units 

12 per hour (Btu/hr), respectively. For all three units, the total heat rejection rate is 10.91 billion 

13 Btu/hr (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007a). 

14 The nuclear services and decay heat cooling water system for CR-3 withdraws 10,000 gpm 

(22.3 cfs or 0.6 m3

/s) under normal conditions and up to 20,000 gpm (44.6 cfs or 1.3 m3 15 /s) 

16 under emergency conditions in order to provide sufficient capacity to remove heat generated by 

17 system operations. The nuclear services water system uses most of this flow. The decay heat 

18 cooling water system only operates for short time periods during unit shutdown, which occurs 

19 predominately during refueling outages once every 2 years (Progress Energy, 2010a). 

20 Periodic addition of chlorine prevents the growth of biofouling organisms. The maximum total 

21 residual oxidant (as chlorine) concentration at the unit outfall cannot exceed 0.01 milligrams per 

22 liter (mg/L) (FDEP, 2005). Cleaning balls, recirculated through the condensers, provides 

23 mechanical cleaning of the CR-3 condenser tubes (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007a). The 

24 applicant periodically injects the biocide Spectrus CT1300 into the nuclear services and decay 

25 heat cooling water system (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007a). The NPDES permit limits the rate 

26 of CT1300 application to no more than 4.5 mg/L for a period not to exceed 18 hours and at an 

27 interval of at least 21 days between applications (written approval is required to extend the 

28 length of applications or decrease the interval between applications) (FDEP, 2005). 

29 CR-3 cooling water discharges into a 125-ft (38-m) wide discharge canal just north of the unit. 

30 Cooling water from CR-1 and CR-2 also discharge into the canal. The discharge canal extends 

31 west about 1.6 mi (2.6 km) to the POD to Crystal Bay. The discharge canal, and an associated 

32 south dike, extends an additional 1.2 mi (1.9 km) from the POD. The dike is comprised of 

33 discharge canal construction spoils (SWEC, 1985). The discharge canal is the source of 

34 cooling system makeup for CR-4 and CR-5. The intake pumps for those units are located on 

35 the north side of the discharge canal and over 900 ft (274 m) west of the discharge for CR-1. 

36 The combined blowdown canal for CR-4 and CR-5 is also on the north side of the discharge 

37 canal and is located over 1,400 ft (427 m) east of the two units’ intake pumps. The blowdown 

38 canal is located about 1,700 ft (518 m) upstream of the bank of helper cooling towers used for 

39 CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3. The bank of helper cooling towers consists of 4 permanent cooling 

40 towers installed in 1993 and 67 modular cooling towers installed in 2006. When CR-1, CR-2, 

41 and CR-3 are operating at maximum pumping capacity, the velocity in the discharge canal is 

42 about 2.4 ft/s (0.7 m/s) at low tide (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007a). Dredging maintains the 

43 discharge canal at a depth of about 10 ft (3 m). 

44 Through NPDES Permit No. FL0000159, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

45 (FDEP) (2005) regulates the thermal limits of the combined discharge of CR-1 through CR-3 at 

46 the POD to Crystal Bay. The discharge temperature at the POD cannot exceed 96.5 °F 

47 (35.8 °C) as a 3-hour rolling average. The helper cooling towers usually allow CR-1, CR-2, and 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-11 

1 CR-3 to meet this requirement without the need to reduce power generation for CR-1 and CR-2. 

2 The modular cooling towers are normally used after all of the permanent cooling towers have 

3 been placed in service and when the POD temperature limits may otherwise be exceeded 

4 without load reduction on the CREC generating units. The modular cooling towers are also the 

5 first turned off. Generally, the permanent and modular cooling towers operate between May 1 

6 through October 31 (Progress Energy, 2007). 

7 The applicant plans to add 180 megawatts (MW) of electrical generation to CR-3 (Golder 

8 Associates, Inc., 2007a). Two phases are required for the extended power uprate (EPU). 

9 Phase I, which is completed, added 40 MW of power and included a retrofit of the low pressure 

10 turbines and electrical generator, replacement of the main steam reheaters, and replacement of 

11 the steam generator (FDEP, 2008b). Phase II, which will add the remaining 140 MW, will occur 

12 before the current CR-3 operating license expires (December 3, 2016). This phase will retrofit 

13 the high-pressure turbine and turbine/generator coolers and replace the circulating water 

14 pumps, condensate and feedwater booster pumps, and motors (FDEP, 2008b). This will 

15 include alterations that will elevate temperatures within the reactor and the use of enriched 

16 uranium fuel. The four new circulating water pumps will each deliver as much as 207,778 gpm 

(463 cfs or 13.1 m3 17 /s) each. As a result, through-screen velocity will increase from 1.45 ft/s 

18 (0.44 m/s) (maximum at mean low water level) to as high as 2.02 ft/s (0.62 m/s) (maximum at 

19 mean low water level) (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007a). 

20 The net increase in heat rejection for the CR-3 EPU would be 0.768 billion Btu/hr, which is 

21 about a 13.1 percent increase over CR-3’s current heat rejection (Golder Associates, Inc., 

22 2007a). Unless mitigated in some manner, the increased heat rejection will result in an elevated 

23 thermal discharge temperature at the POD. Thus, plans for Phase II of the EPU called for the 

24 installation of a new south cooling tower. The south cooling tower would assist in offsetting the 

25 increased circulating water rejected heat, avoid potential increase in flow into the intake canal 

26 from Crystal Bay, and allow removal of the existing 67 modular cooling towers. One option for 

27 the operation of the south cooling tower is to recirculate some of the flow from the cooling tower 

28 discharge back into the intake canal, thus avoiding any increase in flow into the intake canal 

29 from Crystal Bay (FDEP, 2008b). Under this option, flow through the south cooling tower would 

be as high as 534,000 gpm (1,190 cfs or 33.7 m3 30 /s), which would include a maximum discharge 

of 320,000 gpm (713 cfs or 20.2 m3 31 /s) to the discharge canal and 214,000 gpm (477 cfs or 

13.5 m3 32 /s) to the intake canal (Progress Energy, 2010a). This option will most likely occur if the 

intake for CR-3 increases from the current 680,000 gpm (1,515 cfs or 42.9 m3 33 /s) to 

830,000 gpm (1,849 cfs or 52.4 m3 34 /s) (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007a), (Golder Associates, Inc., 

35 2007b). 

36 The more likely option is no change in the existing CR-3 flow of 680,000 gpm (1,515 cfs or 

42.9 m3 37 /s) as a result of the EPU, but rather an increase in thermal load (increased 

38 temperature) to the discharge canal (Progress Energy, 2009a). Under this option, the south 

cooling tower will only discharge a maximum of 320,000 gpm (713 cfs or 20.2 m3 39 /s) to the 

40 discharge canal. The total heat rejection to Crystal Bay due to the EPU for either option will not 

41 exceed the currently permitted maximum rate of 10.91 billion Btu/hr (FDEP, 2008b). 

42 The applicant planned to complete Phase II of the EPU in 2011. Due to the containment issues 

43 at CR-3, Phase II of the EPU is delayed and so will not be part of the renewed NPDES permit 

44 (i.e., aspects of the NPDES application related to the south cooling tower will be withdrawn). A 

45 renewed NPDES permit, expected in July 2011, will essentially involve the renewal of existing 

46 operating permit limits. Should Phase II of the EPU occur before the end of the next NPDES 

47 permit period, the applicant will be required to conduct a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(a) 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-12 

1 Demonstration study, likely involving a 2-year study period initiated after completion of EPU 

2 Phase II. The need for the study is to demonstrate compliance with CWA Section 316(a) in 

3 order to renew any applicable Section 316(a) variance (i.e., a variance from applicable thermal 

4 limitations to surface waters is allowed if the permittee demonstrates that the balanced 

5 indigenous community of aquatic organisms is protected and maintained). 

6 Expediting Phase II of the EPU will occur by issuing an FDEP Administrative Order with the new 

7 NPDES permit. The Administrative Order would require the applicant to demonstrate 

8 reasonable assurance that it could meet the current POD thermal limit by derating the fossil fuel 

9 units in place of building the south cooling tower. Tentatively, issuance of both the new NPDES 

10 permit and the Administrative Order will occur by midsummer of 2011 (NRC, 2011). Should the 

11 applicant decide to add the south cooling tower at a later date, an NPDES permit modification 

12 pertaining to the cooling tower will be required. 

13 3.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT NEAR THE SITE 

14 The Gulf of Mexico provides EFH for a number of marine and estuarine fish species, several 

15 shellfish species, and corals that are Federally-managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries 

16 Management Council (GMFMC) under seven fishery management plans. EFH in the Gulf of 

17 Mexico typically includes some palustrine wetlands; estuarine wetlands; SAV; and marine, 

18 estuarine, and tidally-influenced water columns and sediment. EFH that occurs within estuarine 

19 areas includes estuarine emergent wetlands; mangrove wetlands; SAV; algal flats; mud, sand, 

20 shell, and rock substrates; and estuarine water column (GMFMC, 2004), (GMFMC, 2005). 

21 Continued operations of CR-3 could potentially affect Federally-managed species, their EFH, 

22 and their forage species. The following is a description of the EFH for those species listed in 

23 the Gulf of Mexico fishery management plans that encompass the area within which the CREC 

24 is located: 

25 ● Red Drum – All Gulf of Mexico estuaries, waters, and substrates extending from 

26 Vermilion Bay, Louisiana, to the eastern edge of Mobile Bay, Alabama, out to 

27 depths of 25 fathoms (45.8 m); waters and substrates extending from Crystal 

28 River, Florida, to Naples, Florida, between depths of 5 to 10 fathoms (9.1 to 

29 18.3 m); waters and substrates extending from Cape Sable, Florida, to the 

30 boundary between areas covered by the GMFMC and the South Atlantic Fishery 

31 Management Council between depths of 5 to 10 fathoms (9.1 to 18.3 m) 

32 ● Reef Fish – Gulf of Mexico waters and substrates extending from the 

33 U.S.-Mexico border to the boundary between the area covered by the GMFMC 

34 and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council from estuarine waters out to 

35 depths of 100 fathoms (182.9 m) 

36 ● Coastal Migratory Pelagics – Gulf of Mexico waters and substrates extending 

37 from the U.S.-Mexico border to the boundary between the area covered by the 

38 GMFMC and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council from estuarine 

39 waters out to depths of 100 fathoms (182.9 m) 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-13 

1 ● Shrimp – Gulf of Mexico waters and substrates extending from the U.S.-Mexico 

2 border to Fort Walton Beach, Florida, from estuarine waters out to depths of 

3 100 fathoms; waters and substrates extending from Grand Isle, Louisiana, to 

4 Pensacola Bay, Florida, between depths of 100 to 325 fathoms (182.9 to 

5 594.4 m); waters and substrates extending from Pensacola Bay, Florida, to the 

6 boundary between the area covered by the GMFMC and the South Atlantic 

7 Fishery Management Council out to depths of 35 fathoms (64 m), with the 

8 exception of waters extending from Crystal River, Florida, to Naples, Florida, 

9 between depths of 10 to 25 fathoms (18.3 to 33.5 m) and in Florida bay between 

10 depths of 5 to 10 fathoms (9.1 to 18.3 m) 

11 ● Stone Crab – Gulf of Mexico waters and substrates extending from the 

12 U.S.-Mexico border to Sanibel, Florida, from estuarine waters out to depths of 

13 10 fathoms (18.3 m); waters and substrates extending from Sanibel, Florida, to 

14 the boundary between the areas covered by the GMFMC and the South Atlantic 

15 Fishery Management Council from estuarine waters out to depths of 15 fathoms 

16 (27.4 m) (GMFMC, 2004), (GMFMC, 2005) 

17 EFH for species listed in the Gulf of Mexico fishery spiny lobster and coral and coral reef fishery 

18 management plans do not encompass the area affected by CREC operations. 

19 The NMFS (2009) provided a list of species managed by the GMFMC for Ecoregion 2 (Table 1). 

20 The Staff eliminated some of these species or their life stages from further consideration based 

21 on its review of habitat and life history information that suggests that the presence of some 

22 species or life stage is unlikely to occur near areas affected by CREC operations. Table 2 is an 

23 amended list of species and life history stages excluded and included in this EFH assessment. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-14 

1 Table 1. Ecoregion 2 Species Managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

2 Council 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) Life Stage System(a) Essential Fish Habitat(b)

Red drum 

Red drum 

(Sciaenops ocellatus) 

Eggs M Planktonic 

Larvae/ 

post-larvae 

E Planktonic, SAV, sand/shell/soft bottoms, 

emergent marshes 

Juveniles M/E <5 m; SAV, sand/shell/soft/hard bottoms, 

emergent marshes 

Adults M/E 1–46 m; SAV, pelagic, sand/shell/soft/hard 

bottoms, emergent marshes 

Reef fish – triggerfishes (Balistidae) 

Gray triggerfish 

(Balistes capriscus) 

Eggs M 10–100 m; reefs 

Larvae M Drift algae (Sargassum) 

Post-larvae/ 

juveniles 

M 10–100 m; drift algae (Sargassum), 

mangroves, reefs 

Reef fish – jacks (Carangidae) 

Greater amberjack 

(Seriola dumerili) 

Eggs M 1–183 m; planktonic 

Larvae M 1–183 m; pelagic 

Juveniles M 1–183 m; drift algae (Sargassum) 

Lesser amberjack 

(Seriola fasciata) 

Eggs M Planktonic 

Larvae M Pelagic 

Juveniles M 55–130 m; drift algae (Sargassum) 

Almaco jack 

(Seriola rivoliana) 

Eggs M 15–160 m; planktonic 

Juveniles M 15–160 m; drift algae (Sargassum) 

Banded rudderfish 

(Seriola zonata) 

Larvae M 10–130 m; planktonic 

Juveniles M 10–130 m; drift algae (Sargassum) 

Reef fishes – wrasses (Labridae)

Hogfish 

(Lachnolaimus maximus) 

Juveniles E/M 3–30 m; SAV 

Reef fish – snappers (Lutjanidae) 

Schoolmaster 

(Lutjanus apodus) 

Eggs M <90 m; planktonic 

Larvae M <90 m; planktonic 

Juveniles E/M <90 m; SAV, mangroves, emergent marshes, 

reefs, hard substrates 

Blackfin snapper 

(Lutjanus buccanella) 

Eggs M 40–183 m; planktonic 

Juveniles M 12–40 m; hard bottoms 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-15 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) Life Stage System(a) Essential Fish Habitat(b)

Red snapper 

(Lutjanus campechanus) 

Eggs M 18–37 m; planktonic 

Larvae M 18–37 m; planktonic 

Juveniles M 17–183 m; hard/soft/sand/shell bottoms 

Adults M 7–146 m; reefs, hard/sand/shell bottoms 

Gray snapper 

(Lutjanus griseus) 

Eggs M <180 m; planktonic reefs 

Larvae M/E <180 m; planktonic, reefs 

Post-larvae/ 

juveniles 

M/E <180 m; SAV, mangroves, emergent marshes 

Adults E/M <180 m; emergent marshes, reefs, 

sand/shell/soft/hard bottoms 

Dog snapper 

(Lutjanus jocu) 

Eggs M Planktonic 

Larvae M Planktonic 

Juveniles E/M SAV, mangroves, emergent marshes 

Lane snapper 

(Lutjanus synagris) 

Eggs M 4–132 m; planktonic 

Larvae E/M 4–132 m; reefs, SAV 

Juveniles E/M <20 m; SAV, mangroves, reefs, sand/shell/soft 

bottoms 

Yellowtail snapper 

(Ocyurus chrysurus) 

Eggs M 1–183 m; planktonic 

Juveniles M/E 1–183 m; SAV, mangroves, soft bottoms 

Adults M 1–183 m; reefs, hard bottoms, shoals/banks 

Vermilion snapper 

(Rhomboplites aurorubens) 

Eggs M >180 m; planktonic 

Juveniles M 1–25 m; reefs, hard bottoms 

Adults M >180 m; reefs, hard bottoms 

Reef fish – tilefishes (Malacanthidae) 

Goldface tilefish 

(Caulolatilus chrysops) 

Eggs M 60–183 m; planktonic 

Larvae M 60–183 m; planktonic 

Blueline tilefish 

(Caulolatilus microps) 

Eggs M 60–183 m; planktonic 

Larvae M 60–183 m; planktonic 

Golden tilefish 

(Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) 

Eggs M 80–183 m; planktonic 

Larvae M 80–183 m; planktonic 

Juveniles M 80–183 m; hard/soft bottoms, shelf edge/slope 

Reef fish – groupers (Serranidae) 

Dwarf sand perch 

(Diplectrum bivittatum) 

Juveniles M Hard bottoms 

Rock hind 

(Epinephelus adscensionis) 

Eggs M 2–100 m; planktonic 

Larvae M 2–100 m; planktonic 

Juveniles M 2–100 m; reefs 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-16 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) Life Stage System(a) Essential Fish Habitat(b)

Speckled hind 

(Epinephelus drummondhayi) 

Eggs M 146–183 m; planktonic 

Larvae M 146–183 m; planktonic 

Yellowedge grouper 

(Epinephelus flavolimbatus) 

Eggs M 35–183 m; planktonic 

Larvae M 35–183 m; planktonic 

Post-larvae/ 

juveniles 

M 35–183 m; hard bottoms 

Adults M 35–183 m; reefs, hard bottoms 

Red hind 

(Epinephelus guttatus) 

Eggs M 18–110 m; planktonic 

Larvae M 18–110 m; planktonic 

Juveniles M 2–110 m; reefs 

Red grouper 

(Epinephelus morio) 

Eggs M 20–100 m; planktonic 

Larvae M 20–100 m; planktonic 

Juveniles M/E <50 m; hard bottoms, SAV, reefs 

Adults M 3–183 m; reefs, hard bottoms 

Warsaw grouper 

(Epinephelus nigritus) 

Eggs M 40–183 m; planktonic 

Larvae M 40–183 m; planktonic 

Juveniles M 20–30 m; reefs 

Nassau grouper 

(Epinephelus striatus) 

Eggs M Planktonic 

Larvae M 2–50 m; planktonic 

Juveniles M SAV, reefs 

Adults M 0–100 m; reefs and crevice caves 

Black grouper 

(Mycteroperca bonaci) 

Eggs M 18–28 m; planktonic 

Larvae M 10–150 m; planktonic 

Juveniles M/E SAV, hard bottoms, reefs 

Adults M 10–150 m; hard bottoms, mangroves, reefs 

Gag 

(Mycteroperca microlepis) 

Eggs M 50–120 m; planktonic 

Larvae M 50–120 m; planktonic 

Juveniles M/E <50 m; SAV, reefs, hard bottoms 

Adults M 20–120 m; hard bottoms, reefs 

Scamp 

(Mycteroperca phenax) 

Eggs M 60–189 m; planktonic 

Larvae M 6–189 m; planktonic 

Juveniles M 12–33 m; hard bottoms, reefs, mangroves 

Coastal migratory pelagics 

Spanish mackerel 

(Scomberomorus maculatus) 

Eggs M <50 m; planktonic 

Larvae M 9–84 m; planktonic 

Juveniles M <50 m; pelagic 

Adults E/M <75 m; pelagic 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-17 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) Life Stage System(a) Essential Fish Habitat(b)

Shrimp 

White shrimp 

(Litopenaeus setiferus) 

Eggs M 9–34 m; sand/shell/soft bottoms 

Larvae E/M <64 m; plankton, soft bottoms, estuarine 

marshes 

Juveniles E Soft bottoms, estuarine marshes 

Pink shrimp 

(Farfantepenaeus duorarum) 

Eggs M <50 m; sand/shell bottoms 

Larvae M <50 m; planktonic, sand/shell bottoms, SAV 

Juveniles E <64 m; sand/shell bottoms, SAV 

Adults M <64 m; sand/shell bottoms 

Stone crabs 

Florida stone crab 

(Menippe mercenaria) 

Eggs E/M <62 m; sand/shell/ hard bottoms, SAV, reefs 

Larvae E/M <62 m; planktonic 

Juveniles E/M <62 m; sand/shell/hard bottoms, SAV 

Gulf stone crab 

(Menippe adina) 

Eggs E/M <18 m; sand/shell/soft bottoms 

Larvae/ 

post-larvae 

E/M <18 m; planktonic, oyster reefs, soft bottoms 

Juveniles E <18 m; sand/shell/soft bottoms, oyster reefs 

Corals 

Coral All stages M planktonic, Florida middle grounds, reefs 

(a) M = marine; E = estuarine 

(b) SAV = submerged aquatic vegetation. To convert meters to feet, multiply by 3.28. 

Source: NMFS, 2009 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-18 

1 Table 2. Species or Life Stages Excluded from and Retained for the Essential Fish 

2 Habitat Assessment 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Life Stages Excluded(a) 

(Rationale for Exclusion) 

Life Stages Retained(a)

Red drum

Red drum 

(Sciaenops ocellatus) None Eggs, larvae/post-larvae, 

juveniles, adults 

Reef fish – triggerfishes (Balistidae) 

Gray triggerfish 

(Balistes capriscus) 

All life stages 

(Depth requirements and drift algae not 

present in the affected area.)(b)

None 

Reef fish – jacks (Carangidae) 

Greater amberjack 

(Seriola dumerili) None Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Lesser amberjack 

(Seriola fasciata) 

All life stages 

(Depth requirements not present in the 

affected area.) 

None 

Almaco jack 

(Seriola rivoliana) 

All life stages 

(Depth requirements not present in the 

affected area.) 

None 

Banded rudderfish 

(Seriola zonata) 

All life stages 

(Depth requirements not present in the 

affected area.) 

None 

Reef fish – wrasses (Labridae) 

Hogfish 

(Lachnolaimus maximus) None Juveniles 

Reef fish – snappers (Lutjanidae) 

Schoolmaster 

(Lutjanus apodus) None Eggs, larvae, juveniles 

Blackfin snapper 

(Lutjanus buccanella) 

All life stages 

(Depth requirements not present in the 

affected area.) 

None 

Red snapper 

(Lutjanus campechanus) 

All life stages 

(Depth requirements not present in the 

affected area.) 

None 

Gray snapper 

(Lutjanus griseus) None Eggs, larvae, post-larvae/juveniles, adults 

Dog snapper 

(Lutjanus jocu) None Eggs, larvae, juveniles 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-19 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Life Stages Excluded(a) 

(Rationale for Exclusion) 

Life Stages Retained(a)

Lane snapper 

(Lutjanus synagris) 

Eggs 

(Depth requirements not present in the 

affected area.) 

Larvae, juveniles 

Yellowtail snapper 

(Ocyurus chrysurus) 

Eggs 

(Depth requirements not present in the 

affected area.) 

Juveniles, adults 

Vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites 

aurorubens) 

Eggs, adults 

(Depth and substrate requirements not 

present in the affected area.) 

Juveniles 

Reef fish – tilefishes (Malacanthidae) 

Goldface tilefish 

(Caulolatilus chrysops) 

All life stages 

(Depth requirements not present in the 

affected area.) 

None 

Blueline tilefish 

(Caulolatilus microps) 

All life stages 

(Depth requirements not present in the 

affected area.) 

None 

Golden tilefish 

(Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) 

All life stages 

(Depth requirements not present in the 

affected area.) 

None 

Reef fish – groupers (Serranidae) 

Dwarf sand perch 

(Diplectrum bivittatum) None Juveniles 

Rock hind 

(Epinephelus adscensionis) 

Eggs, larvae 

(Depth requirements not present in the 

affected area.) 

Juveniles 

Speckled hind 

(Epinephelus drummondhayi) 

All life stages 

(Depth requirements not present in the 

affected area.) 

None 

Yellowedge grouper 

(Epinephelus flavolimbatus) 

All life stages 

(Depth and substrate requirements not 

present in the affected area.) 

None 

Red hind 

(Epinephelus guttatus) 

All life stages 

(Depth requirements not present in the 

affected area.) 

None 

Red grouper 

(Epinephelus morio) 

Eggs, larvae, adults 

(Depth requirements not present in the 

affected area.) 

Juveniles 

Warsaw grouper 

(Epinephelus nigritus) 

All life stages 

(Depth and substrate requirements not 

present in the affected area.) 

None 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-20 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Life Stages Excluded(a) 

(Rationale for Exclusion) 

Life Stages Retained(a)

Nassau grouper 

(Epinephelus striatus) None Eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults 

Black grouper 

(Mycteroperca bonaci) 

Eggs, larvae, adults 

(Depth requirements not present in the 

affected area.) 

Juveniles 

Gag 

(Mycteroperca microlepis) 

Eggs, larvae, adults 

(Depth requirements not present in the 

affected area.) 

Juveniles 

Scamp 

(Mycteroperca phenax) 

All life stages 

(Depth and substrate requirements not 

present in the affected area.) 

None 

Coastal migratory pelagics 

Spanish mackerel 

(Scomberomorus maculatus) 

Eggs, larvae 

(Depth requirements not present in the 

affected area.) 

Juveniles, adults 

Shrimp 

White shrimp 

(Litopenaeus setiferus) 

Eggs 

(Depth requirements not present in the 

affected area.) 

Larvae, juveniles 

Pink shrimp 

(Farfantepenaeus duorarum) 

Eggs 

(Depth requirements not present in the 

affected area.) 

Larvae, juveniles, adults 

Stone crabs 

Florida stone crab 

(Menippe mercenaria) 

Eggs 

(Remain attached to the female until 

hatching, and EFH for adult life stage not 

identified as of concern in Ecoregion 2) 

Larvae, juveniles 

Gulf stone crab 

(Menippe adina) 

All life stages 

(Species not present in geographical area.) 

None 

Corals 

Coral All life stages 

(Depth and substrate requirements not 

present in the affected area.) 

None 

(a) Only life stages listed in NMFS, 2009 considered. 

(b) The affected area is that portion of Crystal Bay area bordered on the north by the Withlacoochee River and on 

the south by the Crystal River. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-21 

1 4.0 EFH SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS 

2 This section discusses the retained species and life stages listed in Table 2. Species 

3 descriptions include information on species depth distributions, relevant migratory and spawning 

4 habits, tolerance and preference ranges for temperature and salinity, habitat needs, and 

5 information on food preferences. 

6 4.1 Red Drum (Sciaenops Ocellatus): Eggs, Larvae, Juveniles, and Adults 

7 The red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), a member of the drum family (Sciaenidae), occurs from the 

8 Gulf of Maine to Tuxpan, Mexico (Reagan, 1985). Schools of red drum are common at depths 

9 less than 230 ft (70 m) (GMFMC, 2004). In the Gulf of Mexico, red drum can live up to 

10 40 years; males mature when 1 to 3 years old and females when 3 to 6 years old (FWC, 2009). 

11 Spawning occurs in inlets, estuaries, or nearshore shelf waters (FWC, 2009). Most spawning in 

12 the Gulf of Mexico occurs from mid-August to December, with spawning along the west coast of 

13 Florida beginning in September and peaking in October (Reagan, 1985). A female red drum 

14 can produce 20,000 to 2 million eggs per spawn (Reagan, 1985). Levin and Stunz (2005) 

15 reported the following number of eggs produced per female: 10.9 for sub-adults (1 to 2 years 

16 old); 3,422,000 for adults 3 to 9 years old; and 15,207,000 for adults 10+ years old. 

17 Eggs. Spawning occurs at depths of 131 to 230 ft (40 to 70 m). The pelagic eggs drift into 

18 estuaries on tides and currents. Spawning occurs at a temperature range of 68 °F to 86 °F 

19 (20 °C to 30 °C) with an optimal temperature of 77 °F (25 °C) and at salinities of 24 to 34 ppt 

20 (GMFMC, 2004). Eggs hatch in 24 to 30 hours at water temperatures of 70 °F to 74 °F (21.1 °C 

21 to 23.3 °C) (Davis, 1990). 

22 Larvae. Newly hatched larvae spend about 20 days in the water column before becoming 

23 demersal (FWC, 2009). The planktonic larvae passively drift into estuaries (GMFMC, 2004). 

24 Demersal larvae occur in vegetated or unvegetated soft substrates in estuaries, tidal flats, and 

25 open bays from mid-August through late November. Preference is for vegetated muddy 

26 bottoms if available; otherwise the larvae inhabit soft or hard bottom unvegetated areas with 

27 little or no current. Juveniles occur at a temperature range of 64.9 °F to 87.8 °F (18.3 °C to 

28 31 °C) with an optimal temperature of 77 °F (25 °C) and at salinities of 16 to 36 ppt with an 

29 optimal salinity of 30 ppt. Copepods are the primary prey of larval red drum (GMFMC, 2004). 

30 Juveniles. Within estuaries, small juveniles inhabit rivers, bays, canals, tidal creeks, boat 

31 basins, and passes. Sub-adults also occur in these habitats. Additionally, large aggregations of 

32 sub-adults occur on seagrass beds, oyster reefs, mud flats, and sand bottoms. Early juveniles 

33 are most abundant during early winter in backwater protected areas, tidal flats, and open waters 

34 of bays at depths up to 9.8 ft (3 m). Late juveniles occur in depths up to 16.4 ft (5 m). Habitat 

35 preference is for grassy clumps or muddy bottoms, avoiding currents or shallow unvegetated 

36 bays. Juvenile red drums occur at temperatures of 54.5 °F to 90 °F (12.5 °C to 32.2 °C) and 

37 salinities of 0 to 45 ppt (with 20 to 40 ppt preferred). Juveniles feed on copepods, mysids, and 

38 amphipods (FWC, 2009). Larger juveniles feed on fish and shellfish, with crabs becoming more 

39 important in the diet as they grow (GMFMC, 2004). 

40 Adults. Adult red drum inhabit continental shelf and inshore waters. Adults regularly occur at 

41 depths of 131 to 230 ft (40 to 70 m), but also inhabit littoral and shallow nearshore waters 

42 including bayous, bays near barrier islands, and inshore marsh habitats. Red drum adults occur 

43 at a temperature range of 35.6 °F to 95 °F (2 °C to 35 °C), moving into deeper waters when 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-22 

1 extreme temperatures occur. Salinity range is 0 to 45 ppt with a preference of 20 to 40 ppt. 

2 Adult red drums prey on crabs, shrimp, and fishes (GMFMC, 2004). 

3 4.2 Greater Amberjack (Seriola dumerili): Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles 

4 The greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili), a member of the jack family (Carangidae), occurs 

5 throughout the Gulf of Mexico primarily in offshore habitats to depths of 1,300 ft (400 m). 

6 Spawning occurs in offshore areas. The pelagic eggs and larvae are associated with offshore 

7 areas; while juveniles are associated with drift algae in both offshore and nearshore areas. 

8 However, eggs, larvae, and juveniles may drift into shallower marine habitats (GMFMC, 2004). 

9 Eggs. Eggs occur in the open Gulf at salinities of 30 to 35 ppt. Hatching occurs in 2 days 

10 (GMFMC, 2004). 

11 Larvae. Larvae are present year-round in offshore open waters at salinities of 30 to 35 ppt 

12 (GMFMC, 2004). 

13 Juveniles. Juveniles are often associated with rip lines and floating Sargassum. They are 

14 present year-round in offshore open waters at salinities of 30 to 35 ppt. They prey on 

15 invertebrates (GMFMC, 2004). 

16 4.3 Hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus): Juveniles 

17 Hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus), a member of the wrasse family (Labridae), range from North 

18 Carolina, through the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, to the northern coast of South 

19 America (FWC, 2009). The species is primarily associated with hard sand and rock bottoms 

20 near shallow patch reefs near main reef structures at depths of 10 to 100 ft (3 to 30 m) (Bester, 

21 2010a). Spawning occurs from September to April, peaking in February and March (Ault et al., 

22 2003). 

23 Juveniles. Juvenile hogfish occur in shallow estuarine and marine areas near SAV habitats; 

24 where they forage on benthic crustaceans, mollusks, and echinoderms (FWC, 2009), (GMFMC, 

25 2004). 

26 4.4 Gray Snapper (Lutjanus griseus): Eggs, Larvae, Juveniles, and Adults 

27 The gray snapper (Lutjanus griseus), a member of the snapper family (Lutjanidae), ranges from 

28 Massachusetts to Brazil, being especially abundant along the coastline of Florida (Bester, 

29 2010b). It is typically found at depths of 98 to 590 ft (30 to 180 m), but can occur at depths up 

30 to 585 ft (180 m) (Bester, 2010b), (Hill, 2005a). The gray snapper often aggregates at coral 

31 reefs, rocky areas, estuaries, and mangrove habitats (Bester, 2010b), (Benson, 1982). 

32 Spawning occurs offshore in aggregations over rock or sand substrates from April to November, 

33 peaking in summer months. Spawning may occur multiple times during the season. The gray 

34 snapper is a broadcast spawner of demersal eggs (Bester, 2010b), (Benson, 1982). Fecundity 

35 can be as high as 5.9 million eggs (Bortone and Williams, 1986). 

36 Eggs. Gray snappers spawn in offshore reefs and nearshore reefs and shoals from June to 

37 August. The eggs are present from June through September in offshore shelf waters and 

38 offshore and nearshore reefs (GMFMC, 1998). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-23 

1 Larvae. Larvae are present in offshore shelf waters and near coral reefs from April through 

2 November with abundance peaking in June through August (GMFMC, 2004). Larvae are 

3 planktonic at lengths under 0.4 inch (1 cm) (Bester, 2010b). Larvae occur at a temperature 

4 range of 61 °F to 81 °F (16 °C to 27 °C) (Benson, 1982). Post-larvae move into estuarine 

5 habitats, especially over dense seagrass beds and within mangroves (Bester, 2010b), 

6 (GMFMC, 2004). Larvae prey on zooplankton and amphipods (GMFMC, 2004). 

7 Juveniles. Juveniles occur in marine, estuarine, and riverine areas in seagrass beds, marl 

8 bottom, mangrove, and emergent marsh habitats (GMFMC, 2004). Juveniles use estuarine 

9 bays as nursery grounds from May through September, migrating to deeper offshore waters in 

10 fall (Benson, 1982). Juveniles occur at a temperature range of 55 °F to 96.8 °F (12.8 °C to 

11 36 °C) and salinities of 0 to nearly 67 ppt. Juveniles prey on amphipods, shrimp, crabs, 

12 mollusks, polychaetes, and fish (GMFMC, 2004). 

13 Adults. Adult gray snappers occur in marine, estuarine, and riverine areas (GMFMC, 1998). 

14 Within estuaries, adults feed in soft bottom, sand/shell, and SAV habitats; while in nearshore 

15 and offshore areas, adults feed in soft bottom, sand/shell, hard bottom, and reef habitats 

16 (GMFMC, 2004). Adult gray snappers occur at a temperature range of 51.8 °F to 90.5 °F (11 °C 

17 to 32.5 °C) and salinities of 0 to nearly 48 ppt (Benson, 1982), (GMFMC, 2004). Spawning 

18 occurs in offshore waters around reefs and shoals (GMFMC, 2004). Adults prey upon small 

19 fishes, shrimp, crabs, gastropods, and cephalopods (Bester, 2010b). 

20 4.5 Lane Snapper (Lutjanus synagris): Larvae and Juveniles 

21 The lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris), a member of the snapper family (Lutjanidae), ranges 

22 from North Carolina to southern Brazil; being most abundant in the Antilles, off Panama, and the 

23 northern coast of South America (Murray and Bester, 2010). Adults regularly inhabit high 

24 salinity offshore habitats at depths of 13 to 433 ft (4 to 132 m) (Benson, 1982) but occur to 

25 depths of 1,300 ft (400 m) (Murray and Bester, 2010). Group spawning occurs offshore. 

26 Fecundity can be nearly 1 million eggs per female (Bortone and Williams, 1986). Eggs are 

27 pelagic and hatch after about 23 hours (Hill, 2005b). Lane snappers occur at a temperature 

28 range of 59 °F to 81.5 °F (15 °C to 27.5 °C) (Bortone and Williams, 1986). The lane snapper 

29 preys on fish and invertebrates (Hill, 2005b). 

30 Larvae. Larvae are planktonic at lengths under 0.4 inch (1 cm) (Murray and Bester, 2010). 

31 Post-larvae occur in nearshore areas in reef and SAV habitats and in estuarine areas in SAV 

32 habitats (GMFMC, 2004). 

33 Juveniles. Juveniles are present in late summer to early fall in nearshore and estuarine areas at 

34 depths up to 66 ft (20 m). Habitats selected include SAV, mangroves, sand/shell, soft bottoms, 

35 and reefs. Juveniles normally occur at salinities ranging from 19.1 to 35 ppt, varying with the 

36 tidal cycle (Hill, 2005b), but often occur at salinities less than 15 ppt (GMFMC, 2004). Juveniles 

37 migrate to offshore waters in the winter (Benson, 1982). Prey items include copepods, 

38 amphipods, decapods, and fishes (FWC, 2009). 

39 4.6 Schoolmaster (Lutjanus apodus): Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles 

40 The schoolmaster (Lutjanus apodus), a member of the snapper family (Lutjanidae), occurs 

41 throughout the Gulf of Mexico where it is most common along western Florida. Spawning 

42 occurs in offshore areas. The planktonic eggs and larvae occur in offshore and nearshore 

43 areas. Early juveniles inhabit SAV and mangroves in nearshore and estuarine areas. Late 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-24 

1 juveniles occur in reefs and hard bottom habitats in offshore areas; reefs, hard bottom, SAV, 

2 and mangrove habitats in nearshore areas; and SAV and mangroves in estuarine areas 

3 (GMFMC, 2004). 

4 Eggs. Schoolmaster eggs are planktonic (GMFMC, 2004) and are associated with water depths 

5 up to 295 ft (90 m) (NMFS, 2009). 

6 Larvae. Schoolmaster juveniles are planktonic (GMFMC, 2004) and are associated with water 

7 depths up to 295 ft (90 m) (NMFS, 2009). 

8 Juveniles. Early juvenile schoolmasters occur in shallow habitats such as seagrass beds and 

9 mangrove habitats and around jetties. As juveniles grow, they tend to move to deeper waters 

10 such as offshore rocky and coral reefs. Early juveniles prey on crustaceans. Late juveniles also 

11 prey on crustaceans but primarily feed on fishes (GMFMC, 2004). 

12 4.7 Dog Snapper (Lutjanus jocu): Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles 

13 The dog snapper (Lutjanus jocu), a member of the snapper family (Lutjanidae), ranges from 

14 Massachusetts to Brazil, but is rare north of Florida. Spawning typically occurs near Jamaica 

15 and the northeastern Caribbean although a lesser degree of spawning does occur throughout 

16 the range of the species (Murray, 2010). Juveniles and adults are commonly found around 

17 coral reefs and rocky bottoms at depths of 16 to 100 ft (5 to 30 m), although young occur in 

18 estuaries and will swim into rivers (Murray, 2010). The dog snapper preys on smaller fish and 

19 invertebrates (e.g., shrimp, crabs, gastropods, and squid) (Murray, 2010). Adult dog snappers 

20 occur throughout coastal waters ranging from estuarine and nearshore SAV habitats to 

21 nearshore and offshore reefs. Spawning occurs on nearshore reefs at depths of 49 to 98 ft 

22 (15 to 30 m). Adults mostly prey on fishes as well as on crustaceans and other invertebrates 

23 (GMFMC, 2004). 

24 Eggs. Dog snapper eggs are pelagic, occurring in nearshore areas (GMFMC, 2004). 

25 Larvae. Dog snapper larvae are pelagic, occurring in nearshore areas (GMFMC, 2004). 

26 Juveniles. Dog snapper juveniles occur in nearshore and estuarine areas and early juveniles 

27 may enter rivers. Nursery habitats include SAV, emergent marshes, and mangrove roots. 

28 Juveniles may also forage in sand, shell, or soft bottom estuarine habitats. Late juveniles move 

29 to deeper waters as they grow (GMFMC, 2004). 

30 4.8 Yellowtail Snapper (Lutjanus chrysurus): Juveniles and Adults 

31 The yellowtail snapper (Lutjanus chrysurus), a member of the snapper family (Lutjanidae), 

32 ranges from Massachusetts to southeastern Brazil; being most common in the Bahamas, off 

33 south Florida, and in the Caribbean Sea (Bester, 2010c). Adults generally occur over sandy 

34 areas or hard bottom habitats at depths of 32 to 230 ft (10 to 70 m) (Bester, 2010c). Spawning 

35 occurs year-long in offshore aggregations although spawning activity declines in winter months 

36 (Bester, 2010c). Fecundity can be as high as 1.5 million eggs per female (Hill, 2005c). Eggs 

37 are planktonic and primarily occur in offshore marine waters (GMFMC, 2004). Larvae are also 

38 planktonic at lengths less than 0.4 inch (10 cm) (Bester, 2010c), (Hill, 2005c). The yellowtail 

39 snapper may live 6 to 14 years (Bester, 2010c). The preferred upper temperature range for the 

40 yellowtail snapper is 75 °F to 86 °F (24 °C to 30 °C) (Bortone and Williams, 1986); while the 

41 upper lethal temperature is 92.3 °F to 93.2 °F (33.5 °C to 34 °C) (Hill, 2005c). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-25 

1 Juveniles. Early juvenile yellowtails occur in nearshore and estuarine areas in SAV, mangrove 

2 roots, and soft bottom habitats. Late juveniles inhabit reefs in nearshore areas. Juveniles 

3 primarily prey on zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, and detritus (FWC, 2009), (GMFMC, 

4 2004). 

5 Adults. Adult yellowtail snappers occur from very shallow waters to depths of almost 600 ft 

6 (183 m). Adults primarily occur in nearshore and offshore areas in reef, hard bottom, and 

7 shoal/bank habitats. Being semi-pelagic, yellowtail adults prefer deeper reefs. Adults mostly 

8 feed on crabs, jellyfish, mollusks, and fishes (FWC, 2009), (GMFMC, 2004). 

9 4.9 Vermilion Snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens): Juveniles 

10 The vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens), a member of the snapper family 

11 (Lutjanidae), ranges from North Carolina, throughout the Gulf of Mexico, to Brazil. Adults occur 

12 at depths of 66 to 656 ft (20 to 200 m) over reefs and rocky bottoms (GMFMC, 1998). Offshore 

13 spawning occurs from April to September. An individual may spawn several times during this 

14 period (GMFMC, 1998). 

15 Juveniles. Juvenile vermillion snappers are typically found over shelf areas of the Gulf of 

16 Mexico and occupy hard structure bottom substrates, such as reefs in marine waters (GMFMC, 

17 2004). 

18 4.10 Dwarf Sand Perch (Diplectrum bivittatum): Juveniles 

19 The dwarf sand perch (Diplectrum bivittatum), a member of the grouper family (Serranidae), 

20 occurs in the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic coast of Florida, the Caribbean Sea, and Brazil 

21 (FishBase, 2010a). 

22 Juveniles. Juveniles inhabit nearshore hard bottom marine areas and move to offshore areas 

23 during winter (GMFMC, 2004). 

24 4.11 Red Grouper (Epinephelus morio): Juveniles 

25 The red grouper (Epinephelus morio), a member of the grouper family (Serranidae), primarily 

26 ranges from Massachusetts to Brazil (FWC, 2009). Adults occur in reefs at depths of 16 to 

27 984 ft (5 to 300 m) (Hill, 2005d), preferring depths of 98 to 394 ft (30 to 120 m) (GMFMC, 1998). 

28 Spawning occurs at depths of 82 to 295 ft (25 to 90 m) (GMFMC, 1998). Eggs and larvae are 

29 pelagic. After about 1 month, the planktonic larvae metamorphose to benthic juveniles after 

30 they attain a standard length of 0.8 to 1 inch (2 to 2.5 cm) (Hill, 2005d). 

31 Juveniles. Early juveniles occur in inshore waters at depths ranging from very shallow to 49 ft 

32 (15 m). Favored nursery areas are seagrass beds, rock formations, and shallow reefs. Late 

33 juveniles move into deeper waters to about 164 ft (50 m) and inhabit hard bottom areas with 

34 crevices and other types of hiding places. Juveniles occur at a temperature range of 61 °F to 

35 88.2 °F (16.1 °C to 31.2 °C) and a salinity range of 20.7 to 35.5 ppt. Early juveniles prey on 

36 demersal crustaceans, while late juveniles will also consume fish (GMFMC, 2004). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-26 

1 4.12 Nassau Grouper (Epinephelus striatus): Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles 

2 The Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus), a member of the grouper family (Serranidae), 

3 ranges from New England to southeastern Brazil, throughout the Bahamas, Caribbean, and Gulf 

4 of Mexico (Dineen, 2004). It is common on offshore rocky habitats and coral reefs throughout 

5 the Caribbean (Bester, 2010d). Adult Nassau groupers normally occur in rocky reefs at depths 

6 up to 328 ft (100 m) (Dineen, 2004). Spawning aggregations of up to 100,000 individuals form 

7 at depths of 59 to 130 ft (18 to 40 m) (Bester, 2010d), (GMFMC, 2004). A female can produce 

8 over 785,000 planktonic eggs. The fertilized eggs can hatch in less than 29 hours (Dineen, 

9 2004). The planktonic larvae start their transformation to juveniles about 42 days following 

10 hatching and complete the process by 46 to 70 days following hatching (Dineen, 2004). 

11 Eggs. Spawning occurs at depths of 59 to 131 ft (18 to 40 m). Eggs occur in December and 

12 January with hatching occurring 23 to 40 hours after fertilization (GMFMC, 2004). 

13 Larvae. Larvae are present from January through February with post-larvae extending into 

14 March. Larvae occur at depths of 6.6 to 164 ft (2 to 50 m) (GMFMC, 2004). Larvae drift with 

15 the currents for about a month before becoming juveniles (Bester, 2010d). They feed on 

16 copepods and decapod larvae (GMFMC, 2004). 

17 Juveniles. Early juveniles occur from February through August in shallow waters where they 

18 inhabit seagrass beds, macroalgal mats, tilefish mounds, and small coral clumps. Late juveniles 

19 occur in August and move to offshore reefs. Juveniles occur at a temperature range of 71.6 °F 

20 to 91.4 °F (22 °C to 33 °C) and at salinities of 34 to 40 ppt. Early juveniles consume 

21 dinoflagellates, fish larvae, and small crustaceans. Late juveniles are piscivorous 

22 (GMFMC, 2004). 

23 4.13 Black Grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci): Juveniles 

24 The black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci), a member of the grouper family (Serranidae), ranges 

25 from Massachusetts to southern Brazil. It is abundant in south Florida, the Florida Keys, Cuba, 

26 and the Bahamas but less common in the eastern Gulf of Mexico (Hill, 2005e). The black 

27 grouper mainly occurs at depths of 19 to 108 ft (6 to 33 m) on rocky bottoms and coral reefs 

28 (Ford, 2010). 

29 Juveniles. Juveniles occasionally enter estuaries (GMFMC, 1998). Early juveniles occur in 

30 SAV habitats, moving to deeper waters as they grow. Late juveniles inhabit shallow water reefs 

31 and rocky bottoms, patch reefs, and muddy bottoms of mangrove lagoons. Juveniles mainly 

32 consume crustaceans (GMFMC, 2004). 

33 4.14 Gag (Mycteroperca microlepis): Juveniles 

34 The gag (Mycteroperca microlepis), a member of the grouper family (Serranidae), normally 

35 ranges from North Carolina to the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico; although juveniles have been 

36 reported as far north as Massachusetts and adults off the coasts of Bermuda, Cuba, and Brazil 

37 (Bester, 2010e). Adults occur at depths of 33 to 328 ft (10 to 100 m) in hard bottoms, reefs and 

38 wrecks, coral, and live bottoms. Spawning occurs from December through April in spawning 

39 aggregations at depths of 164 to 328 ft (50 to 100 m). Pelagic larvae are present mostly in early 

40 spring (GMFMC, 1998). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-27 

1 Juveniles. Early juveniles are present from late spring to early fall, spending 3 to 5 months in 

2 nearshore and estuarine areas inhabiting seagrass beds, grass flats, mangroves, rock piles, 

3 and oyster beds. In the fall, late juveniles move to deeper hard bottom habitats (e.g., offshore 

4 reefs) (GMFMC, 2004), (Hill, 2004). Juveniles occur from very shallow waters to depths of 39 ft 

5 (12 m) but are most common at depths less than 16 ft (5 m). Juveniles have been collected at a 

6 temperature range of 71.6 °F to 89.6 °F (22 °C to 32 °C) and at salinities of 25.9 to 37.6 ppt. 

7 Juveniles less than 8 inches (20 cm) in length feed mostly on crustaceans (Bester, 2010e). 

8 Larger juveniles also feed on fishes (including being cannibalistic on other gags) (GMFMC, 

9 2004). 

10 4.15 Rock Hind (Epinephelus adscensionis): Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles 

11 The rock hind (Epinephelus adscensionis), a member of the grouper family (Serranidae), occurs 

12 from North Carolina to Brazil (FishBase, 2010b). Adults occur at depths of 6.6 to 328 ft (2 to 

13 100 m) with large adults usually captured at depths greater than 98 ft (30 m). Habitats include 

14 shallow rocky reefs, rock piles, and oil well rigs. 

15 Eggs. The planktonic rock hind eggs occur in waters 6.6 to 328 ft (2 to 100 m) deep 

16 (NMFS, 2009). 

17 Larvae. The planktonic rock hind larvae occur in waters 6.6 to 328 ft (2 to 100 m) deep 

18 (NMFS, 2009). 

19 Juveniles. Early juveniles inhabit reefs in nearshore waters 6.6 to 328 ft (2 to 100 m) deep 

20 (GMFMC, 2004), (NMFS, 2009). 

21 4.16 Spanish Mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus): Juveniles and Adults 

22 The Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus), a member of the mackerel family 

23 (Scombridae), ranges from Nova Scotia to the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. Large schools 

24 commonly occur in south Florida (Godcharles and Murphy, 1986). From spring through fall, the 

25 Spanish mackerel is most abundant in the northern Gulf or Mexico and along the east coast of 

26 the United States as far north as Virginia; in winter it primarily occurs off south Florida and the 

27 east coast of Mexico (Godcharles and Murphy, 1986). The Spanish mackerel normally resides 

28 at depths ranging from 33 to 115 ft (10 to 35 m), occurring in large schools near the surface. 

29 Adults frequent barrier islands and their passes, but during migration they cover long distances 

30 close to shore. Larvae primarily occur offshore while juveniles occur both offshore and inshore 

31 (Press, 2010). In Florida, spawning occurs from August through September (Press, 2010). A 

32 female may produce between 194,000 to 1.5 million eggs (Hill, 2005f). Spanish mackerel larvae 

33 usually occur in inner continental shelf areas with salinities of 28 to 37 ppt and at depths greater 

34 than 164 ft (50 m) (Hill, 2005f). The Spanish mackerel normally occurs in waters with 

35 temperatures ranging from 70 °F to 88 °F (21 °C to 31 °C) and salinities of 32 to 36 ppt (Hill, 

36 2005f). 

37 Juveniles. Spanish mackerel juveniles are pelagic in estuarine and nearshore waters (GMFMC, 

38 2004). Juveniles use seagrasses as nursery areas (Hill, 2005f); but most juveniles stay 

39 nearshore in open beach waters (Godcharles and Murphy, 1986). Preferred substrate is clean 

40 sand (GMFMC, 1998). Most juveniles occur at temperatures greater than 77 °F (25 °C) and 

41 tolerate a wide range of salinities greater than 10 ppt. Juveniles prey mostly on fish and also on 

42 crustaceans, gastropods, and squid (GMFMC, 2004). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-28 

1 Adults. Spanish mackerel adults occur in the northern portion of the Gulf, from spring through 

2 fall, in estuarine and nearshore waters at depths up to 246 ft (75 m) (GMFMC, 2004). Adults 

3 typically occur at depths of 33 to 115 ft (10 to 35 m) (Hill, 2005f). While not estuarine dependent 

4 (Benson, 1982), adults may enter estuaries in pursuit of prey. Adults occur at temperatures 

5 greater than 68 °F (20 °C) and are usually collected at a temperature range of 69.8 °F to 80.6 °F 

6 (21 °C to 27 °C). Spawning occurs on the inner continental shelf. Adults prey on fishes such as 

7 clupeids, engraulids, and carangids; as well as on crustaceans and squid (GMFMC, 2004). 

8 4.17 Pink Shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum): Larvae, Juveniles, and Adults 

9 The pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum), a member of the penaeid shrimp family 

10 (Penaeidae), occurs from the lower Chesapeake Bay to south Florida, into the Gulf of Mexico, 

11 and to Isla Mujeres, Mexico (Bielsa et al., 1983). It inhabits coastal waters and estuaries (Hill, 

12 2002a). Most pink shrimp occur in waters less than 164 ft (50 m) deep (GMFMC, 2004). Pink 

13 shrimp may live a year or more (Hill, 2002a). Large males reach a total length of 6.7 inches 

14 (17 cm) and obtain sexual maturity at 2.9 inches (7.4 cm); while large females are 8.3 inches 

15 (21 cm) long and reach sexual maturity at 3.3 inches (8.5 cm) (Bielsa et al., 1983). 

16 The pink shrimp spawns offshore at depths usually between 13 to 171 ft (4 to 52 m) 

17 (Benson, 1982). It can spawn multiple times, with peak spawning occurring from April through 

18 July. Spawning occurs at temperatures between 66 °F and 86 °F (19 °C and 30 °C) (Hill, 

19 2002a). Fecundity ranges from 44,000 to 534,000 eggs (Hill, 2002a). Hatching takes only 2 to 

20 3 minutes. There are five naupliar, three protozoeal, three mysid, and several post-larval stages 

21 (Hill, 2002a). Post-larvae migrate into estuaries and become benthic once reaching their 

22 nursery grounds. Pink shrimp then metamorphose to the juvenile stage (GMFMC, 2004). 

23 Post-larval and juvenile pink shrimp commonly occur in seagrass habitats. Sub-adults and 

24 adults burrow into the substrate during the day and feed at night (Hill, 2002a). Preferred 

25 substrates are calcareous-type sediments and sand/shell/mud mixtures (GMFMC, 2004). 

26 Larvae. Pink shrimp larvae and presettlement post-larvae occur year-round in west Florida and 

27 are most abundant in spring and summer. They occur from inshore to 25 mi (40 km) offshore at 

28 depths of 3 to 164 ft (1 to 50 m), although larvae are most abundant at depths less than 92 ft 

29 (28 m). Pink shrimp larvae are pelagic in nearshore areas (GMFMC, 2004). The larval stage 

30 lasts about 2 weeks (Benson, 1982). Tidal currents carry post-larvae through deep passes into 

31 the estuarine nursery grounds (Benson, 1982). Post-larvae occur in nearshore waters occurring 

32 in SAV and sand/shell habitats. Pink shrimp larvae generally occur at a temperature range of 

33 59 °F to 95 °F (15 °C to 35°C) and a salinity range of 0 to 43 ppt (optimal is 10 to 22 ppt) 

34 (GMFMC, 2004). Larvae can occur at temperatures as high as 99 °F (37 °C) (Benson, 1982). 

35 Pink shrimp larvae prey on phytoplankton and zooplankton (GMFMC, 2004). 

36 Juveniles. Juvenile pink shrimp occur year-long in west Florida and are most abundant from 

37 summer through fall. They occur in nearshore waters at depths less than 3.3 to 9.8 ft (1 to 3 m) 

38 and are most abundant at depths less than 6.6 ft (2 m). Juveniles occur in SAV and sand/shell 

39 habitats (GMFMC, 2004). After several months in estuaries, mature juveniles migrate offshore 

40 from April through September near the surface during ebb tides (Benson, 1982). Pink shrimp 

41 juveniles occur at a temperature range of 39 °F to 100 °F (4 °C to 38 °C) (optimum is greater 

42 than 82 °F [28 °C]) and a salinity range of 0 to 70 ppt (optimum is greater than 30 ppt) 

43 (Benson, 1982), (GMFMC, 2004). Juvenile pink shrimp are opportunistic feeders on detritus, 

44 small invertebrates and fishes, and plants (FWC, 2009). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-29 

1 Adults. Non-spawning pink shrimp adults are present year-long and are most abundant from fall 

2 through spring. They occur in nearshore sand/shell substrates at depths of 3 to 361 ft (1 to 

3 110 m) and are most abundant at depths of 42 to 164 ft (16 to 50 m). Spawning occurs over 

4 shelf waters at depths of 13 to 171 ft (4 to 52 m) (Benson, 1982), (GMFMC, 2004). Adult pink 

5 shrimp occur at a temperature range of 50 °F to 97 °F (10 °C to 36 °C) and are most abundant 

6 above 77 °F (25 °C) (Benson, 1982), (GMFMC, 2004). They occur at a salinity range of 0 to 

7 70 ppt (Benson, 1982). Adult pink shrimp are opportunistic feeders on detritus, small 

8 invertebrates and fishes, and plants (FWC, 2009). 

9 4.18 White shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus): Larvae and Juveniles 

10 The white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus), a member of the penaeid shrimp family (Penaeidae), 

11 ranges along the Atlantic coast from New York to Florida and along the Gulf of Mexico from the 

12 Florida Peninsula to Campeche, Mexico. The Crystal Bay area is not one of the centers of 

13 abundance for the species (Hill, 2002b), (Muncy, 1984). Most white shrimp do not live as long 

14 as a year but some live 2 to 4 years (Hill, 2002b). The white shrimp normally inhabits estuaries 

15 and the inner littoral zone along the coast to depths of about 98 ft (30 m). In the Gulf of Mexico, 

16 the white shrimp can occur as deep as 262 ft (80 m) but is most abundant in brackish wetlands 

17 with connections to shallow, coastal areas (Hill, 2002b). Non-spawning adults are most 

18 abundant in late summer and fall in nearshore waters less than 89 ft (27 m) deep. An increase 

19 in offshore bottom temperatures initiates spawning behavior (Hill, 2002b). Spawning, which 

20 peaks in June or July, generally occurs at depths of 26 to 112 ft (8 to 34 m) and a salinity of at 

21 least 27 ppt (Benson, 1982), (Muncy, 1984). A female may release 500,000 to 1 million eggs 

22 per spawn and may spawn up to four times during its life (Hill, 2002b), (Muncy, 1984). Eggs 

23 sink to the bottom of the water column and hatch after 10 to 12 hours into planktonic nauplii 

24 larvae (Hill, 2002b). The larval period lasts 10 or more days that include five naupliar stages, 

25 three protozoeal stages, three mysis stages, and two post-larval stages. Two to three weeks 

26 after hatching, the planktonic post-larval white shrimp travel to estuaries and tidally-influenced 

27 wetlands that serve as nursery areas (GMFMC, 2004), (Hill, 2002b). Preferred nursery areas 

28 contain muddy substrates in waters with low to moderate salinity (Hill, 2002b). Estuarine 

29 marshes and seagrass beds provide both food and protection (Turner and Brody, 1983). 

30 Larvae. White shrimp larvae occur at all levels of the water column (Benson, 1982). Larvae 

31 primarily occur over nearshore shelf waters and in passes to estuaries. From May through 

32 November (with peak in June and September), presettlement post-larvae migrate through 

33 passes in the upper 6.6 ft (2 m) of the water column at night and at mid-depths during the day 

34 into estuaries. Post-larvae occur in emergent marshes and soft bottom habitats in estuaries. 

35 Post-larval white shrimp occur at temperatures ranging from 54 °F to 90 °F (12 °C to 32 °C) and 

36 salinities of 0.4 to 37 ppt (Benson, 1982), (GMFMC, 2004). They feed on phytoplankton and 

37 zooplankton (GMFMC, 2004). 

38 Juveniles. Late post-larvae and juveniles are present from late spring through fall, being most 

39 abundant in late summer and early fall. They generally occur in shallow waters less than 3.3 ft 

40 (1 m) deep. Juvenile densities are highest in marsh edges and SAV, followed by marsh ponds 

41 and channels, inner marsh, subtidal, and oyster reefs on non-vegetated substrates with high 

42 organic content (GMFMC, 2004). After several months in shallow nursery areas, mature larvae 

43 move to deeper waters (Benson, 1982). Juveniles occur at a temperature range of 48.2 °F to 

44 96.8 °F (9 °C to 36 °C) and a salinity range of less than 1 to greater than 40 ppt (being most 

45 abundant at salinities less than 10 ppt) (Benson, 1982), (GMFMC, 2004). Juvenile pink shrimp 

46 prey on polychaetes, crustaceans, and diatoms (GMFMC, 2004). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-30 

1 4.19 Florida Stone Crab (Menippe mercenaria): Larvae and Juveniles 

2 Stone crabs, members of the mud crab family (Xanthidae), range from North Carolina to the 

3 Yucatan Peninsula and Belize and throughout the Bahamas and Greater Antilles (FWC, 2009). 

4 Two species of stone crabs occur along the Gulf coast of Florida: the Florida stone crab 

5 (Menippe mercenaria) and the Gulf stone crab (M. adina). The Gulf stone crab generally 

6 replaces the Florida stone crab in the northern and western portions of the Gulf of Mexico. 

7 Some hybridization between the species occurs between Cedar Key, Levy County, Florida, and 

8 Cape San Blas, Gulf County, Florida (GMFMC, 2004). Most stone crabs in the Crystal Bay area 

9 are the Florida stone crab. 

10 Generally, the Florida stone crab occurs in subtidal areas but can occur to depths of 197 ft 

11 (60 m) (Puglisi, 2008). Adult Florida stone crabs, which are present year-round, inhabit burrows 

12 under rock ledges, coral heads, dead shells, and seagrass patches; they also occur on oyster 

13 bars, rock jetties, and artificial reefs that have adequate refugia (GMFMC, 2004). Females 

14 generally spawn when they reach 2 years of age (Puglisi, 2008). The lower limit for spawning is 

15 68 °F to 71.6°F (20 °C to 22 °C) with optimal ovarian development at 82.4 °F (28 °C). Spawning 

16 occurs year-round, but most often from April through September (GMFMC, 2004); an individual 

17 female may produce 4 to 6 egg masses during a single mating season, with each egg mass 

18 containing 160,000 to 1 million eggs (Lindberg and Marshall, 1984). The female carries the 

19 fertilized eggs under her abdomen until they hatch (Puglisi, 2008). Females with eggs occur at 

20 salinities of 28 to 36 ppt (GMFMC, 2004). The Florida stone crab has five zoeal stages and one 

21 megalopal stage (Puglisi, 2008). Adult stone crabs occur at temperatures ranging from 46.4 °F 

22 to 89.6 °F (8 °C to 32 °C) (Lindberg and Marshall, 1984). 

23 Larvae. Pelagic Florida stone crab larvae occur from spring through fall in nearshore marine 

24 environments. The most rapid larval growth occurs in warm water of about 86 °F (30 °C) and 

25 salinities of 30 to 35 ppt; with larval survival and growth declining rapidly below temperatures of 

26 77 °F (25 °C) and a salinity of 25 ppt (GMFMC, 2004). At temperatures of 68 °F (20 °C) or less, 

27 larval crabs do not survive past the megalopal stage; while temperatures of 41 °F to 59 °F (5 °C 

28 to 15 °C) inhibit molting of post-settlement juveniles (Puglisi, 2008). The upper temperature limit 

29 for survival is between 95 °F and 104 °F (35 °C and 40 °C) (Brown and Bert, 1993). Larvae 

30 consume zooplankton and phytoplankton (GMFMC, 2004). 

31 Juveniles. Juvenile Florida stone crabs are present year-round. They occur in nearshore and 

32 estuarine areas in SAV, hard bottom, emergent live rock, sponges, oyster beds, and sand/shell 

33 habitats (GMFMC, 1998), (GMFMC, 2004). The temperature tolerance range is from 46.4 °F to 

34 100.4 °F (8 °C to 38 °C); while the salinity tolerance range is from 5 to 40 ppt. Juveniles are 

35 opportunistic carnivores although some herbivory is noted (GMFMC, 2004). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-31 

1 5.0 POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT 

2 The provisions of the MSFCMA define an “adverse effect” to EFH as the following 

3 (50 CFR 600.810): 

4 

5 For purposes of conducting National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) reviews, the 

6 Staff published the GEIS (NRC, 1996), which identifies 13 impacts to aquatic resources as 

7 either Category 1 or Category 2. Category 1 issues are generic in that they are similar at all 

8 nuclear plants and have one impact level (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) for all nuclear 

9 plants, and mitigation measures for Category 1 issues are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial 

10 to warrant implementation. Category 2 issues vary from site to site and require a site-specific 

11 evaluation. Table 3 lists the resource issues as identified in the GEIS. 

Adverse Effect to EFH 

An adverse impact is any impact that reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse 

effects may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the 

waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their 

habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality and/or 

quantity of EFH. Adverse effects to EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or 

outside EFH and may include site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, 

cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions (50 CFR 600.810(a)). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-32 

1 Table 3. Aquatic Resource Issues Identified in the GEIS

Issues Category Impact Level 

For All Plants(a)

Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota 1 SMALL 

Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton 1 SMALL 

Cold shock 1 SMALL 

Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish 1 SMALL 

Distribution of aquatic organisms 1 SMALL 

Premature emergence of aquatic insects 1 SMALL 

Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease) 1 SMALL 

Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge 1 SMALL 

Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms 

exposed to sublethal stresses 

1 SMALL 

Stimulation of nuisance organisms 1 SMALL 

For Plants with Cooling-Tower-Based Heat Dissipation Systems(b)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 1 SMALL 

Impingement of fish and shellfish 1 SMALL 

Heat shock 1 SMALL 

For Plants with Once-Through and Cooling Pond Heat Dissipation Systems(a)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 2 SMALL, MODERATE, 

or LARGE 

Impingement of fish and shellfish 2 SMALL, MODERATE, 

or LARGE 

Heat shock 2 SMALL, MODERATE, 

or LARGE 

(a) Applicable to CR-3 

(b) Not applicable to CR-3 because CR-3 only has helper cooling towers as part of an open-cycle system 

Source: NRC, 1996 

2 The GEIS classifies all impact levels for aquatic resources as “SMALL” except impingement, 

3 entrainment, and heat shock, which are classified as “SMALL,” “MODERATE,” or “LARGE.” 

4 “SMALL” is defined as, “environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 

5 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource”; “MODERATE” is 

6 defined as, “environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, 

7 important attributes of the resource”; and “LARGE” is defined as, “environmental effects are 

8 clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource” 

9 (10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B, Table B-1). The Staff believes that impacts concluded to be 

10 “SMALL” will also be small for EFH. Therefore, this EFH assessment will focus on the potential 

11 adverse effects of impingement, entrainment, and heat shock on EFH. Impingement occurs 

12 when aquatic organisms are pinned against intake screens or other parts of the cooling water 

13 system intake structure. Entrainment occurs when aquatic organisms (usually eggs, larvae, and 

14 other small organisms) enter the cooling water system and experience thermal, physical, and 

15 chemical stress. Heat shock is acute thermal stress caused by exposure to a sudden elevation 

16 of water temperature that adversely affects the metabolism and behavior of fish and other 

17 aquatic organisms. In addition to heat shock, increased water temperatures in the thermal 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-33 

1 plume can cause chronic thermal effects by reducing the available habitat for aquatic organisms 

2 (e.g., causing loss of SAV) if thermal plume temperatures are higher than the environmental 

3 preferences of a particular species (e.g., resulting in displacement of managed species or their 

4 forage species). 

5 In addition to impingement, entrainment, and heat shock to Federally-managed species, the 

6 Staff assessed the impacts to EFH species’ food (forage species) in the form of displacement or 

7 loss of forage species and loss of forage species habitat, as well as cumulative impacts to EFH 

8 species or their habitat resulting from the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

9 projects in the vicinity of CR-3. 

10 In summary, the Staff has identified the following potential adverse effects to managed species, 

11 their EFH, and their forage species as a result of the proposed license renewal of CR-3: 

12 ● impingement 

13 ● entrainment 

14 ● thermal effects (heat shock and loss of habitat) 

15 The following sections provide a generalized overview of impingement, entrainment, and 

16 thermal effects from continued operation of CR-3, followed by specific analyses of the managed 

17 species and their life stages identified in Section 4.0. 

18 5.1 Impingement 

19 Three impingement studies have occurred at the CREC since CR-3 became operational (NUS 

20 Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008). The following focuses on those species 

21 identified in the Gulf of Mexico fishery management plans for Ecoregion 2 (NMFS, 2009) and 

22 collected in impingement samples at the CREC. There is no fish return system at the CREC so 

23 all organisms impinged on the intake screens are considered losses from the Crystal Bay 

24 ecosystem. 

25 To meet the requirements of NRC Environmental Technical Specifications, NUS Corporation 

26 (1978) collected impingement samples during one 24-hour period each week for 51 weeks, 

27 between March 13, 1977, and March 13, 1978. Estimated yearly impingement totaled 

28 2,642,402 fishes and 271,672 invertebrates for CR-1 through CR-3. Estimated annual numbers 

29 impinged at each unit were as follows: 

30 ● CR-1 – 245,535 (9.3 percent of fish) and 46,952 invertebrates (17.4 percent of 

31 invertebrates) 

32 ● CR-2 – 323,471 fish (12.2 percent of fish) and 92,005 invertebrates (33.9 percent 

33 of invertebrates) 

34 ● CR-3 – 2,073,396 fish (78.5 percent of fish) and 132,715 invertebrates 

35 (48.9 percent of invertebrates) 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-34 

1 The only EFH fish species impinged were the gray snapper and Spanish mackerel (NUS 

2 Corporation, 1978). Impingement of gray snappers occurred in January, February, July, 

3 October, November, and December; while the Spanish mackerel occurred only in October. As 

4 neither species was among the dominant fish species impinged, numbers and biomass of these 

5 species were not reported (NUS Corporation, 1978). Pink shrimp and stone crabs occurred in 

6 all months; while the white shrimp occurred in January, October, November, and December 

7 (NUS Corporation, 1978). The pink shrimp was the numerically dominant invertebrate impinged 

8 with about 287,700 individuals impinged over the study period (39.9 percent of invertebrates 

9 impinged). As neither the white shrimp nor stone crabs were among the most numerically 

10 dominant invertebrates impinged, numbers of these species impinged were not reported (NUS 

11 Corporation, 1978). Based on estimated biomass of invertebrates impinged (18,168.7 lb 

12 [8,241.2 kg]), the pink shrimp ranked second (23.9 percent - 4,342.2 lb [1,969.6 kg]), the stone 

13 crab fifth (1.2 percent - 210.8 lb [95.6 kg]), and the white shrimp tenth (0.2 percent - 38.1 lb 

14 [17.3 kg]). Impingement of pink shrimp represented only 1 percent of the total commercial catch 

15 for the Citrus-Pasco County area (NUS Corporation, 1978). 

16 Impingement studies were included as part of the 316 Demonstration study for assessing 

17 impacts as required under NPDES Permit No. FL0000159 for the CREC (SWEC, 1985). 

18 Impingement sampling occurred over a 24-hour period once every week for a 1-year period 

19 between June 1983 and June 1984. Estimated yearly impingement totaled 647,435 fish and 

20 1,319,341 invertebrates for CR-1 through CR-3. Estimated annual numbers impinged at each 

21 unit were as follows: 

22 ● CR-1 – 64,987 (10 percent of fish) and 196,985 invertebrates (14.9 percent of 

23 invertebrates) 

24 ● CR-2 – 280,012 fish (43.2 percent of fish) and 282,302 invertebrates 

25 (21.4 percent of invertebrates) 

26 ● CR-3 – 302,436 fish (46.7 percent of fish) and 840,054 invertebrates 

27 (63.7 percent of invertebrates) 

28 The estimated number of EFH species impinged for all CREC units were: dwarf sand perch - 

29 628, gray snapper - 96, Spanish mackerel - 21, gag - 11, red drum - 11, pink shrimp - 640,887, 

30 white shrimp - 8, and Florida stone crab - 1,535. Impingement at the CREC during the 

31 316 Demonstration study represented 0.6 percent of the annual pink shrimp, 0.03 percent of the 

32 annual red drum, and 0.01 percent of the annual stone crab commercial catch for Citrus County 

33 in 1982 (SWEC, 1985). 

34 The Ager et al. (2008) study provided a baseline assessment of fish and invertebrate 

35 impingement upon which to compare impingement following the EPU of CR-3. Bi-weekly 

36 24-hour impingement sampling occurred from December 2006 through November 2007 (Ager et 

37 al., 2008). Ager et al. (2008) estimated annual impingement numbers totaled 945,631 fish and 

38 341,780 invertebrates. Estimated annual impingement numbers at each unit were as follows: 

39 ● CR-1 – 40,930 fish (4.3 percent of fish) and 35,165 invertebrates (10.3 percent of 

40 invertebrates) 

41 ● CR-2 – 83,566 fish (8.8 percent of fish) and 50,178 invertebrates (14.7 percent of 

42 invertebrates) 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-35 

1 ● CR-3 – 821,423 fish (86.9 percent of fish) and 256,468 invertebrates (75 percent 

2 of invertebrates) 

3 The only EFH species impinged were the gray snapper (February, March, and October), lane 

4 snapper (November through May), vermilion snapper (January), Spanish mackerel (March and 

5 May), pink shrimp (all months), and Florida stone crab (all months) (Ager et al., 2008). Table 4 

6 presents the number and percentage of EFH species impinged at CR-3 and for CR-1, CR-2, 

7 and CR-3 combined. 

8 Table 4. Ecoregion 2 Species Listed in the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Plans 

9 Impinged at the Crystal River Energy Complex, December 2006 through November 2007 

Species CR-3 All Units(a)

Scientific Name Common Name Number 

(Percent) 

Biomass(b) 

(Percent) 

Number 

(Percent) 

Biomass 

(Percent) 

Fishes

Lutjanus griseus Gray snapper 292 

(0.04) 

3.719 

(0.02) 

331 

(0.03) 

3.921 

(0.02) 

Lutjanus synagris Lane snapper 1,300 

(0.16) 

10.702 

(0.07) 

1,715 

(0.18) 

12.941 

(0.07) 

Rhomboplites aurorubens Vermilion snapper 155 

(0.02) 

1.380 

(0.01) 

155 

(0.02) 

1.380 

(0.01) 

Scomberomorus maculatus Spanish mackerel 62 

(0.01) 

39.705 

(0.27) 

166 

(0.02) 

51.070 

(0.27) 

Invertebrates 

Farfantepenaeus duorarum Pink shrimp 114,442 

(44.61) 

922.646 

(35.04) 

149,710 

(43.80) 

1145.711 

(29.95) 

Menippe mercenaria(c) Florida stone crab 4,950 

(1.93) 

44.966 

(1.70) 

7,950 

(3.33) 

88.237 

(2.31) 

(a) Includes CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3. 

(b) Biomass in kg (to convert to lb, multiply by 2.2). 

(c) Includes individuals only identified as “stone crabs.” 

Source: Ager et al., 2008 

10 The NPDES permit contains no requirements for the applicant to conduct impingement 

11 monitoring at CR-3 (FDEP, 2005). As discussed in Section 2.2, Phase II of the planned CR-3 

12 EPU should not alter the volume of water withdrawn at the entrance of the intake canal. 

13 Therefore, an increase in the number of organisms impinged at CR-3 due to the EPU is not 

14 expected. Studies conducted near the CREC since the late 1960s indicate that Crystal Bay 

15 near the CREC has maintained a diverse assemblage of fish and shellfish species. 

16 Impingement losses will continue at CR-3 during the license renewal term with numbers of fish 

17 and shellfish impinged expected to be in the annual range of the 1.1 to 1.2 million organisms 

18 reported by NUS Corporation (1978), SWEC (1985), and Ager et al. (2008). CR-3 has an intake 

19 flow rate greater than that recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

20 and its annual impingement numbers are much higher than the 250,000 estimated by the AEC 

21 (1973). Based on the preceding information, the Staff has determined that the potential impacts 

22 of impingement of fish and shellfish by CR-3 on the Crystal Bay aquatic community during the 

23 20-year renewal period would be SMALL to MODERATE for the purposes of NEPA. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-36 

1 Under the provisions of the CWA 316(b), the FDEP may impose further restrictions or require 

2 modifications to the cooling system to reduce the impact of impingement under the NPDES 

3 permitting process. The Site Certification Application for Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) was 

4 approved by the Governor’s Siting Board on August 11, 2009, and includes a requirement that 

5 the applicant shut down CR-1 and CR-2 by the end of 2020 (or by the end of the year when 

6 LNP begins operation) (Progress Energy, 2009b). This will lessen impingement impacts to 

7 Crystal Bay due to CREC operations 

8 5.2 Entrainment 

9 Only one entrainment study, conducted as part of the 316 Demonstration for the CREC (SWEC, 

10 1985), has occurred since CR-3 became operational. Plankton sampling occurred in the vicinity 

11 of the CREC every 2 weeks for 15 months between 1983 and 1984. SWEC (1985) used the 

12 highest densities of plankton among three sampling sites near the CREC intakes or near the 

13 CREC discharge to estimate entrainment at the CREC. SWEC (1985) observed the highest 

14 densities of fish eggs in April and May and the highest invertebrate meroplankton densities in 

15 July and August. The following discusses those species identified in the Gulf of Mexico fishery 

16 management plans for Ecoregion 2 (NMFS, 2009) that occurred in the entrainment samples at 

17 the CREC. 

18 Estimated annual entrainment totaled 300,000 red drum post-larvae at the CREC. This loss 

19 represented an equivalent of 18 adults (SWEC, 1985). Annual entrainment of shrimp totaled 

20 220,000 mysis, 18.83 million post-larvae, and 1.023 million juveniles. Assuming these to all be 

21 pink shrimp resulted in an equivalent loss of 29,802 adult pink shrimp, about 0.02 percent of the 

22 pink shrimp commercially caught in Citrus-Pasco and Levy Counties in 1982 (SWEC, 1985). 

23 Florida stone crab zoeal through megalop stage entrainment represented the equivalent loss of 

24 3,652 adults (SWEC, 1985). Over 950,000 lb (430,900 kg) of claws were harvested in 

25 Citrus-Pasco and Levy Counties in 1982 and, assuming that claws make up half the crab’s 

26 weight (Lindberg and Marshall, 1984), entrainment of Florida stone crabs was less than 

27 0.01 percent of the commercial harvest. The 316 Demonstration study provided no information 

28 on entrainment of other Federally-managed species (SWEC, 1985). 

29 Adults and other stages of small planktonic invertebrates (e.g., copepods) and phytoplankton 

30 (e.g., diatoms), which provide potential forage for Federally-managed species, are generally not 

31 sampled in entrainment studies due to their small size and the assumption that their large 

32 population sizes and rapid growth and reproduction make ecologically important impacts 

33 (e.g., population loss or alteration of community structure) unlikely (York et al., 2005). 

34 Nevertheless, prior to CR-3 becoming operational, Fox and Moyer (1973) and Alden (1976) 

35 determined entrainment survival of phytoplankton and zooplankton at the CREC. 

36 Fox and Moyer (1973) observed that phytoplankton were either killed or at least hindered in 

37 their ability to assimilate carbon due to passage through the CREC; whereas bacteria survive 

38 the passage and even increased in numbers due to prolonged exposure to increased heat. 

39 Primary production decreased 13.8 to 48.1 percent from passage through the CREC when the 

40 intake temperature was 80.6 °F (27 °C) or higher. In summary, if the intake temperature is 

41 80.6 °F (27 °C) or more, there is a loss of primary production by a temperature increase of 

42 (9 °F) (5 °C). Fox and Moyer (1973) concluded that as long as the temperature remains above 

43 89.6 °F (32 °C), primary production will continue to drop. However, Fox and Moyer (1973) 

44 noted that phytoplankton recovery was rapid; primary production values reached or exceeded 

45 those recorded at the intake water within 1 mile from the plant discharge (i.e., recovery would 

46 occur within the discharge canal). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-37 

1 Alden (1976) analyzed the growth, reproduction, and survival of copepods subject to 

2 entrainment at the CREC and the associated thermal stress on copepods of the Crystal River 

3 estuary. Mortality was generally low for temperatures below 86 °F (30 °C), moderate at 87.8 °F 

4 to 95 °F (31 °C to 35 °C), and increased exponentially between 95 °F and 98.6 °F (35 °C and 

5 37 °C). Alden (1976) noted that entrained juvenile copepods and juveniles collected from the 

6 discharge canal showed depressed growth and reproduction rates compared to copepods 

7 collected from the intake canal. Alden (1976) concluded that mechanical damage from 

8 condenser passage accounted for only a small percentage of the mortality, but may be the 

9 major lethal factor during colder months. Alden (1976) observed that the long-term survival of 

10 copepods that did survive entrainment was not significantly different from control populations. 

11 SWEC (1985) concluded that entrainment only had a localized effect on fish and invertebrates 

12 of Crystal Bay, with populations concentrated offshore and in the northwest section of the 

13 Crystal Bay study area less affected by entrainment. An EPA fact sheet on the CREC NPDES 

14 permit prepared in 1993 (as cited in Golder Associates, Inc., 2006) stated that the results of the 

15 316 Demonstration study (SWEC, 1985) showed that entrainment at the CREC has an adverse 

16 impact to the aquatic resources of Crystal Bay. The applicant and the EPA determined that a 

17 combination of seasonal flow reduction and stock enhancement through rearing and stocking of 

18 commercially and recreationally important species would be the most prudent methods to 

19 mitigate entrainment losses (Progress Energy, 2008). Flow reductions at the CREC began in 

20 1992; the NPDES permit for the CREC (CR-1 through CR-3) stipulated that cooling water 

withdrawals would be limited to 1,318,000 gpm (2,937 cfs or 83.2 m3 21 /s) over the period May 1 

through October 31 and 1,132,792 gpm (2,524 cfs or 71.5 m3 22 /s) from November 1 through April 

23 30 (Progress Energy, 2008). The 15 percent withdrawal reduction from November 1 through 

24 April 30 minimizes impacts to fall, winter, and early spring spawners including pinfish (Lagodon 

25 rhomboides), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulates), Gulf flounder (Paralichthys albigutta), 

26 Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia patronus), striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), and spot (Leiostomus 

27 xanthurus) (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007a). 

28 Golder Associates, Inc. (2006) determined that the hydraulic zone of influence (that portion of 

29 Crystal Bay hydraulically influenced by the intake within which very weakly motile or planktonic 

30 organisms are possibly influenced by the induced flow and, therefore, most likely to be 

31 entrained) is up to 197 ac (79.7 ha) from May 1 through October 31 and up to 142 ac (57.5 ha) 

32 from November 1 through April 30 (Golder Associates, Inc., 2006). The acreages assume an 

33 ambient mean velocity in the bay of 0.1 ft/s (0.03 m/s); as ambient velocities increase, the 

34 hydraulic zone of influence would decrease (Golder Associates, Inc., 2006). 

35 The logic behind fish stocking is that releasing a 

36 large number of larvae, juvenile, or adult fish or 

37 shellfish into a water body may directly 

38 compensate for the mortality associated with 

39 impingement and entrainment (EPRI, 2003). As 

40 part of the negotiated settlement with the EPA to 

41 mitigate impacts of the CREC once-through 

42 cooling system, Florida Power Corporation 

43 opened the Crystal River Mariculture Center in 

44 1991 (FWC, undated). Initial cultures included red drum, spotted seatrout (Cynoscion 

45 nebulosus), striped mullet, and pink shrimp. Subsequent species cultured at the Mariculture 

46 Center included pigfish (Orthopristis chrysoptera), silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura), blue crab 

47 (Callinectes sapidus), and Florida stone crab. To date, Mariculture Center releases of pigfish to 

Mariculture 

Mariculture is the farming and husbandry 

of marine plants and animals to replenish 

natural populations of marine biota 

depleted by natural or man-made effects 

(FWC, 2010). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-38 

1 Crystal Bay have not occurred. Total releases made from 1992 through 2009 for the other 

2 seven species are as follows (Progress Energy, 2010b): 

3 ● Red drum – 947,394 fingerlings and 1,375,500 larvae 

4 ● Silver perch – 39,942 first feeding larvae 

5 ● Spotted seatrout - 1,131,813 fingerlings and 715,000 larvae 

6 ● Striped mullet – 525,000 first feeding larvae 

7 ● Blue crab – 93,746,281 zoeal stage I 

8 ● Pink shrimp – 415,102 (life stage not provided) 

9 ● Stone crab – 32,347,962 zoeal stage I 

10 Releases of fish and shellfish produced at the Mariculture Center occur in areas of the Gulf for 

11 which they are best suited, based on time of year and water quality conditions (Progress 

12 Energy, 2008). 

13 As discussed in Section 2.2, Phase II of the planned CR-3 EPU should not alter the volume of 

14 water withdrawn at the entrance of the intake canal. Therefore, an increase in the number of 

15 organisms entrained at CR-3 due to the EPU is not expected. Annual entrainment losses will 

16 continue at CR-3 during the license renewal term; with numbers of fish and shellfish entrained 

17 expected to be in the billions of organisms with equivalent adult losses in the millions, as 

18 observed by SWEC (1985). Nevertheless, studies conducted near the CREC since the late 

19 1960s (Grimes and Mountain, 1971), (Mountain, 1972), (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 

20 1985), (Ager et al., 2008), (CH2M Hill, 2009) indicate that Crystal Bay near the CREC has 

21 maintained a diverse assemblage of fish and shellfish species. 

22 Based on the review of the information presented above, coupled with the paucity of 

23 entrainment studies at the CREC, the Staff has determined that the potential impacts of 

24 entrainment of fish and shellfish by CR-3 on the Crystal Bay aquatic community during the 

25 20-year renewal period would be SMALL to MODERATE. Under the provisions of the CWA 

26 316(b), the FDEP may impose further restrictions or require modifications to the cooling system 

27 to reduce the impact of entrainment under the NPDES permitting process. The Site Certification 

28 Application for the LNP was approved by the Governor’s Siting Board on August 11, 2009, and 

29 includes a requirement that the applicant shut down CR-1 and CR-2 by the end of 2020 (or by 

30 the end of the year when LNP begins operation) (Progress Energy, 2009a). This will lessen 

31 entrainment impacts to Crystal Bay due to CREC operations. 

32 5.3 Thermal Effects 

33 The discharge of heated water from the CREC creates elevated temperatures in Crystal Bay 

34 and produces a thermal plume that varies in extent and magnitude based on operational 

35 characteristics of the facility, ambient air and water temperatures, and hydrodynamic 

36 characteristics of Crystal Bay (e.g., tidal cycle and wave action). The discharge of heated water 

37 into Crystal Bay can cause lethal or sublethal effects on resident fish and shellfish, influence 

38 food web characteristics and structure, and create barriers to nearshore/offshore or along shore 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-39 

1 movements of fish and shellfish. However, there are no reports of fish mortality incidents due to 

2 heat shock at the CREC. The maximum permitted discharge temperature at the POD for the 

3 CREC is 96.5 °F (35.8 °C) as a 3-hour rolling average (FDEP, 2005). 

4 At the CREC, CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 have once-through cooling systems that withdraw water 

5 from and discharge water to the Gulf of Mexico; while CR-4 and CR-5 have closed-cycle 

6 systems that withdraw water from the CREC discharge canal and discharge their blowdown 

7 back to the discharge canal (Section 2.1.6). At operating design capacity, the rises in discharge 

8 temperature from condenser passage from CR-1 through CR-3 are 14.9 °F (8.3 °C), 16.9 °F 

9 (9.4 °C), and 17.5 °F (9.7 °C), respectively (Mattson et al., 1988). Combined blowdown 

10 temperature from CR-4 and CR-5 is less than their combined intake flow. For example, at a 

11 combined intake temperature of 107.3 °F (41.8 °C), the combined blowdown temperature is 

12 94.7 °F (34.8 °C) (Progress Energy, 2009a). Average intake temperature at the CREC is 

13 85.6 °F (29.8 °C) in summer and 63.5 °F (17.5 °C) in winter; while the average discharge 

14 temperature at the POD is 93.4 °F (34.1 °C) in summer and 78.1 °F (25.6 °C) in winter 

15 (Progress Energy, 2010c). Through NPDES Permit No. FL0000159, the FDEP (2005) regulates 

16 the thermal limits of the combined discharge of CR-1 through CR-3 at the POD to Crystal Bay. 

17 The discharge temperature at the POD cannot exceed 96.5 °F (35.8 °C) as a 3-hour rolling 

18 average. 

19 Prior to CR-3 operations, the thermal discharge from CR-1 and CR-2 had a localized effect on 

20 Crystal Bay fishes—attracting them during late fall and early winter and repulsing them during 

21 summer (Grimes and Mountain, 1971). Grimes and Mountain (1971) found no statistically 

22 significant differences in the occurrence of the four most abundant fish species near the CREC 

23 (none of these were Federally-managed species) in thermally affected versus non-affected 

24 areas. 

25 When operating at design capacity, thermal discharge from CR-3 is 17.1 °F (9.5 °C) above inlet 

26 temperature. The combined discharge for CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 is 14.5 °F (8.1 °C) (AEC, 

27 1973). The north spoil bank of the intake prevents recycling of heated effluent into the intake 

28 canal (AEC, 1973). Tide-induced flow and water influx from the Withlacoochee River-Cross 

29 Florida Barge Canal area govern water flow patterns within the thermal mixing zone for the 

30 CREC (AEC, 1973). Table 5 tabulates the predicted area of the thermal plume due to the 

31 addition of CR-3. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-40 

1 Table 5. Predicted Acreage of the Crystal River Energy Complex Thermal Plume 

Temperature Increase 

above Ambient 

Acres(a)

Flood Tide Ebb Tide Complete Tidal Cycle(b)

1 °F (0.6 °C) 2,860 (1,230) 3,770 (1,620) 4,600 (2,350) 

2 °F (1.1 °C) 2,100 (870) 2,760 (1,140) 3,500 (1,700) 

4 °F (2.2 °C) 1,350 (420) 1,750 (650) 2,300 (1,050) 

6 °F (3.3 °C) 730 (200) 1,130 360) 1,500 (510) 

8 °F (4.4 °C) 400 (90) 740 (160) 950 (220) 

10 °F (5.5 °C) 220 (-)(c) 430 (-) 500 (-) 

(a) To convert to hectares, multiply by 0.4047. 

(b) Numbers in parentheses are thermal sizes for CR-1 and CR-2 only. 

(c) - = not provided. 

Source: AEC, 1973 

2 The AEC (1973) concluded that a localized impact could occur for sessile marine invertebrates, 

3 attached algae and plants, some planktonic organisms, and possibly some fishes in the 

4 discharge area due to increase of temperature in the discharge effluent from 11.5 °F (6.4 °C) to 

5 about 14.5 °F (8.1 °C) and more notably to a more than doubling in the size of the thermal 

6 mixing zone. Most ecological impacts would occur when temperatures exceed 95 °F (35 °C), a 

7 condition that would occur about 53 percent of the time annually. Most biological and ecological 

8 effects would be within the 6 °F (3.3 °C) isotherm, an area that would cover about 1,500 ac 

9 (607 ha) over a complete tidal cycle with all three units operating (AEC, 1973). 

10 During the 316 Demonstration study (SWEC, 1985), the mean weekly POD temperatures 

11 ranged from 63.2 °F (17.3 °C) (for the period January 1, 1984, through January 7, 1984) to 

12 100.1 °F (37.8 °C) (for the period August 21, 1983, through August 27, 1983). For 9 weeks 

13 during the summers of 1983 and 1984, weekly temperatures at the POD ranged between 

14 96.9 °F and 100.1 °F (36.1 °C and 37.8 °C) (SWEC, 1985). These summer discharge 

15 temperatures are above the temperature preference, and in some cases tolerance, of a number 

16 of aquatic organisms that occur in the area. The lowest densities of fish and invertebrates 

17 occurred in the sample transects most affected by thermal discharges (SWEC, 1985). While no 

18 clear patterns in benthic infauna density related to thermal areas were evident; a number of 

19 mollusk and crustacean species tended to be lower in the thermal areas (SWEC, 1985). 

20 Mattson et al. (1988) found that the standing crop, productivity, and growth rates of seagrasses 

21 were lower in the thermally-impacted area near the POD at the CREC. Adverse effects also 

22 occurred to macroalgal communities. 

23 SWEC (1985) concluded that the thermal discharges from the CREC had an adverse impact on 

24 the benthic infaunal community within an area less than 400 ac (162 ha) and minimal benthic 

25 infaunal community alterations within an area less than 2,400 ac (971 ha). In general, the 

26 thermal effects were limited to an area within about 2.2 mi (3.5 km) from the POD, which 

27 encompasses less than 2,400 ac (971 ha) (SWEC, 1985). 

28 Following completion of the 316 Demonstration (SWEC, 1985), the EPA and FDEP issued a 

29 public notice of determination that substantial damage had occurred to about 1,100 ac (445 ha) 

30 of Crystal Bay, primarily due to thermal discharges (FPC, 2010). Operational constraints placed 

31 on CREC operations required a 15 percent flow reduction from November 1 through April 30 

32 and a limitation on plant operations to maintain a 3-hour average temperature not to exceed 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-41 

1 96.5 °F (35.8 °C) at the POD. Additional requirements included a seagrass monitoring and 

2 planting program, the construction and operation of a mariculture center, and the construction 

3 and operation of helper cooling towers. The mariculture center became operational in 1991, 

4 seasonal flow reductions started in 1992, and cooling towers became operational in 1993. The 

5 cooling tower requirement was primarily to mitigate thermal impacts to water quality and 

6 macrophytes (particularly seagrasses) (FPC, 2010). 

7 From May 1 through October 31, a portion of the heated discharge from the CREC flows 

8 through the helper cooling towers to meet the NPDES permitted 3-hour rolling average of 

9 96.5 °F (35.8 °C) (FDEP, 2005). During hot summers, the applicant occasionally reduces power 

10 at the coal-fired units (CR-1 and CR-2) to stay within NPDES permit thermal limits. In April 

11 2006, the applicant received approval from the FDEP to install additional modular cooling 

12 towers. The 67 modular cooling towers allow CR-1 and CR-2 to operate most of the time during 

13 the warmest periods of the year without reducing power (Progress Energy, 2008). 

14 The Mote Marine Laboratory surveyed SAV from 1993 through 1995 to determine the potential 

15 beneficial effect of the CREC helper cooling towers on the distribution of SAV in the thermal 

16 discharge area (FPC, 2010). Results indicated that several new SAV beds occurred in areas 

17 that were completely barren of vegetation in 1993, although recruitment of seagrasses into 

18 barren areas was not extensive. Additionally, 8 of 15 surveyed seagrass beds showed some 

19 expansion beyond their original boundaries, but the percent coverage of SAV declined at 10 of 

20 15 sites surveyed (FPC, 2010), (Marshall, 2002). 

21 In 2001, the Coastal Seas Consortium, Inc. resurveyed the same area surveyed by the Mote 

22 Marine Laboratory to determine what changes in SAV beds occurred since 1995 (Marshall, 

23 2002). Seagrass beds first began at a point 245 ft (74.6 m) from the POD, and shoal grass had 

24 spread throughout the area most affected by thermal discharges. The occurrence of shoal 

25 grass seemed to be only constrained by rocky bars, shelly substrates inappropriate for seagrass 

26 growth, and water depths too shallow or too deep for seagrass (Marshall, 2002). Marshall 

27 (2002) concluded that the helper cooling towers have altered the thermal regime to the degree 

28 that suitable conditions for seagrass survival, bed expansion, and reproduction exist. However, 

29 seagrass recolonization has not been dramatic since the helper cooling towers have become 

30 operational. The Seagrass Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) suggested that light 

31 intensity, salinity variation, and suspended solids load could be more influential than 

32 temperature in affecting seagrass colonization; had temperature been the primary factor, a more 

33 dramatic recolonization of seagrass should have occurred after the cooling towers became 

34 operational (FPC, 2010). 

35 Marshall (2002) reported that the helper cooling towers have apparently altered the thermal 

36 regime to achieve suitable conditions for seagrass survival, bed expansion, and reproduction. 

37 However, seagrass recolonization has not been dramatic since the helper cooling towers have 

38 become operational. The STAC suggested that light intensity, salinity variation, and suspended 

39 load could be more critical than temperature regarding seagrass colonization (FPC, 2010). 

40 As discussed in Section 2.2, the scheduled completion of the CR-3 EPU has changed from 

41 2011 to, supposedly, prior to the expiration of the next NPDES permit period. The EPU will 

42 increase heat rejection to the CREC discharge canal from CR-3, but will not change existing 

CR-3 intake flow of about 680,000 gpm (1,515 cfs or 42.9 m3 43 /s) (Progress Energy, 2009a). To 

44 mitigate the increased thermal load, a new south cooling tower will be constructed and operated 

45 as part of the EPU project. The use of the south cooling tower will ensure that the heat rejection 

46 rate from the three units will be limited so as not to exceed the present maximum rate of 10.91 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-42 

1 billion Btu/hr at the POD. Therefore, the CR-3 EPU will not change the shape and extent of the 

2 thermal plume (Golder Associates, Inc., 2007b). Table 6 lists the projected summer operational 

3 discharges and temperatures for the CREC based on the CR-3 EPU. 

4 Table 6. Projected Post-Uprate Summer Operational Discharges and Temperatures for 

5 the Crystal River Energy Complex 

CREC Unit Discharge Flow 

(gpm) 

Intake Temperature 

(°F)(a) Discharge Temperature(°F)(a)

CR-1 310,001 91.0 101.7 

CR-2 328,001 91.0 105.1 

CR-3 (uprated) 680,001 91.0 110.9 

CR-4 and CR-5 

(combined)(b) 7,000 107.3 94.7 

Harmon Cooling Towers 

(existing) 673,944 107.2 92.0 

South Cooling Tower 

(new) 314,018 107.2 91.0 

Point of Discharge 1,291,212 NA(c) 95.4 

(a) High summer design values in August. To convert to °C: (°F-32) x 0.556. 

(b) Net internal discharge to the CREC discharge canal from CR-4 and CR-5 cooling towers. 

(c) NA = not applicable. 

Source: Progress Energy, 2009a 

6 Flows and temperatures at the POD will not noticeably change as a result of the CR-3 EPU. 

7 The POD temperature during summer will be 95.4 °F (35.2 °C). Therefore, the EPU will have 

8 no effect on the effluent plume (Progress Energy, 2009a). Under average monthly conditions, 

9 the POD temperature will be less after the EPU than that which currently exists (Golder 

10 Associates, Inc., 2007b). 

11 As discussed in Section 2.2, the CR-3 EPU may be completed without, or prior to, the south 

12 cooling tower. In this case, derating of CR-1 and CR-2 may be required to meet the NPDES 

13 permit temperature requirement at the POD. Should the EPU occur before the end of the next 

14 NPDES permit period, the applicant will be required to conduct a CWA Section 316(a) 

15 Demonstration study, likely involving a 2-year study period initiated after completion of the EPU. 

16 The need for the study is to demonstrate compliance with CWA Section 316(a) in order to renew 

17 any applicable Section 316(a) variance (i.e., a variance from applicable thermal limitations to 

18 surface waters is allowed if the permittee demonstrates that the balanced indigenous 

19 community of aquatic organisms is protected and maintained). The applicant has proposed a 

20 plan of study (not yet approved by the FDEP) to assess the potential impacts of the thermal 

21 plume from current operation of the CREC on seagrasses, benthic macroinvertebrates, and 

22 other aquatic species, as appropriate (Progress Energy, 2007). 

23 The Staff has determined that the potential for acute heat shock during the license renewal term 

24 is unlikely because of the design, location, and operation of CR-3 (and the other units at the 

25 CREC). The plant discharges via a discharge canal to the Gulf of Mexico, a large body of 

26 water. In high-temperature plumes, mobile organisms are generally able to detect the limits to 

27 their survival and escape dangerous situations. For this reason, direct kills from heat shock are 

28 rare (Hall et al., 1978). Chronic thermal effects occur within less than 2,400 ac (971 ha) 

29 affected by the thermal discharges from the CREC. Most notable are impacts to seagrasses, 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-43 

1 although light intensity, salinity variation, and suspended solids load also influence seagrass 

2 habitats in the area of the thermal plume. The Staff concludes that thermal impacts could range 

3 from SMALL to MODERATE depending on the extent and magnitude of the thermal plume, the 

4 sensitivity of various aquatic species and the life stages likely to encounter the thermal plume, 

5 and the probability of an encounter occurring that could result in lethal or sublethal effects. The 

6 range of the impact level expresses the uncertainty resulting from the current lack of studies and 

7 data. Additional thermal studies or modeling and verification of the applicant’s past thermal 

8 studies might generate data to refine or modify this impact level. 

9 For the purpose of the SEIS, the Staff’s conclusion that the thermal impact level could range 

10 from SMALL to MODERATE satisfies the NRC’s NEPA obligations and does not prejudice any 

11 determinations the FDEP may reach in response to new studies and information submitted to it 

12 by the applicant. The Site Certification Application for LNP was approved by the Governor’s 

13 Siting Board on August 11, 2009, and includes a requirement that the applicant shut down CR-1 

14 and CR-2 by the end of 2020 (or by the end of the year when LNP begins operation) (Progress 

15 Energy, 2009a). This will lessen thermal impacts to Crystal Bay due to CREC operations. 

16 5.4 Potential Impacts on Identified Federally-Managed Species 

17 The following sections address potential adverse effects to the Federally-managed species 

18 identified for in-depth analysis in Section 4.0. For each species and life stage, evaluations were 

19 made to determine whether continued operation of CR-3 will result in: (1) no adverse impact, 

20 (2) minimal adverse impact, or (3) substantial adverse impact on the species, its EFH, or its 

21 forage species. Reviews of scientific journal articles, NMFS publications, CREC data, technical 

22 reports, and other relevant information formed the basis for the impact determinations. 

23 Section 6.0 addresses cumulative impacts. 

24 5.4.1 Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellatus): Eggs, Larvae, Juveniles, and Adults 

25 As discussed in Section 4.1, EFH for red drum eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults occurs within 

26 the vicinity of the CREC. In ecological surveys conducted from 1969 through 1971 near the 

27 CREC (prior to operation of CR-3), three red drum were collected in trawl samples within the 

28 discharge plume area and four specimens were collected in screen wash (impingement) 

29 samples from CR-1 and CR-2 (Mountain, 1972). No red drum occurred in monthly trawl 

30 collections made at three locations near the offshore areas of the intake canal from December 

31 2006 through November 2007 (Ager et al., 2008). In the aquatic samples collected for the 

proposed LNP2 32 , red drum comprised 0.4 and 0.7 percent of the fish catch per unit effort (CPUE) 

33 in the CREC thermal plume area in gill nets and cast nets, respectively; and 0.1 and 0.2 percent 

34 of the fish CPUE in the area of the Cross Florida Barge Canal in seine nets and cast nets, 

35 respectively. Trawls or minnow traps collected no red drums at the CREC; trawls, gill nets, or 

36 minnow traps collected no red drum at the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CH2M Hill, 2009). 

37 Annual impingement at the CREC during the 316 Demonstration study totaled about 11 red 

38 drum (SWEC, 1985). An estimated 300,000 post-larval red drum were entrained which equated 

 

2

 CH2M Hill (2009) conducted an aquatic sampling program to describe the physical, chemical, and 

biological characteristics of waters potentially influenced by the proposed LNP. The study area 

included the nearshore Gulf of Mexico waters near the CREC discharge canal with biological samples 

collected from April 2008 to November 2008. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-44 

1 to a loss of 18 adult red drum (SWEC, 1985). As spawning occurs at depths of 131 to 230 ft (40 

2 to 70 m) (GMFMC, 2004), the potential entrainment of the pelagic eggs at the CREC is 

3 negligible. Although impingement and entrainment of red drum prey items occur at the CREC, 

4 there is no indication that prey populations have been measurably affected based on the high 

5 diversity and similarity of species in Crystal Bay reported since the late 1960s (Grimes and 

6 Mountain, 1971), (Mountain, 1972), (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 

7 2008), (CH2M Hill, 2009). The thermal plume from the CREC may affect up to 2,400 ac 

8 (971 ha) of Crystal Bay which contains EFH for larval, juvenile, and adult red drum. Continued 

9 operation of CR-3 would likely have no adverse effect on red drum eggs and minimal adverse 

10 effect on larval, juvenile, and adult red drum and their EFH. 

11 5.4.2 Greater Amberjack (Seriola dumerili): Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles 

12 As discussed in Section 4.2, EFH for greater amberjack eggs, larvae, and juveniles occurs 

13 within the vicinity of the CREC. In ecological surveys conducted from 1969 through 1971 (prior 

14 to operation of CR-3), trawl samples collected no greater amberjacks within the area of the 

15 CREC and no specimens were collected in screen wash (impingement) samples for CR-1 and 

16 CR-2 (Mountain, 1972). No greater amberjacks occurred in monthly trawl collections made at 

17 three locations near the offshore areas of the intake canal from December 2006 through 

18 November 2007 (Ager et al., 2008). Fish collections in the areas of the CREC thermal plume 

19 and the Cross Florida Barge Canal conducted during the recent studies for the proposed LNP 

20 contained no greater amberjacks (CH2M Hill, 2009). 

21 The greater amberjack was not a component of impingement samples collected at the CREC 

22 (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008). The 316 Demonstration study 

23 provided no information on entrainment of greater amberjacks (SWEC, 1985). As eggs and 

24 larvae are primarily associated with offshore open waters, their potential entrainment at the 

25 CREC would be negligible. Although impingement and entrainment of greater amberjack prey 

26 items occur at the CREC, there is no indication that prey populations have been measurably 

27 affected based on the high diversity and similarity of species in Crystal Bay reported since the 

28 late 1960s (Grimes and Mountain, 1971), (Mountain, 1972), (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 

29 1985), (Ager et al., 2008), (CH2M Hill, 2009). The thermal plume from the CREC may affect up 

30 to 2,400 ac (971 ha) of Crystal Bay which contains EFH for eggs, larval, and juvenile greater 

31 amberjacks. However, these life stages are more likely to occur in offshore areas (GMFMC, 

32 2004). Continued operation of CR-3 would likely have no adverse effect on eggs, larvae, and 

33 juvenile greater amberjacks and their EFH. 

34 5.4.3 Hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus): Juveniles 

35 As discussed in Section 4.3, EFH for hogfish juveniles occurs within the vicinity of the CREC. In 

36 ecological surveys conducted from 1969 through 1971 (prior to operation of CR-3), 18 hogfish 

37 were collected in trawl samples throughout the CREC area (Mountain, 1972). No hogfish 

38 occurred in monthly trawl collections made at three locations near the offshore areas of the 

39 intake canal from December 2006 through November 2007 (Ager et al., 2008). Fish collections 

40 in the areas of the CREC thermal plume and the Cross Florida Barge Canal conducted during 

41 the recent studies for the proposed LNP contained no hogfish (CH2M Hill, 2009). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-45 

1 The hogfish was not a component of impingement samples collected at the CREC (NUS 

2 Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008). Although impingement and entrainment 

3 of hogfish prey items occur at the CREC, there is no indication that prey populations have been 

4 measurably affected based on the high diversity and similarity of species in Crystal Bay reported 

5 since the late 1960s (Grimes and Mountain, 1971), (Mountain, 1972), (NUS Corporation, 1978), 

6 (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008), (CH2M Hill, 2009). The thermal plume from the CREC may 

7 affect up to 2,400 ac (971 ha) of Crystal Bay which contains EFH for juvenile hogfish. 

8 Continued operation of CR-3 would likely have a minimal adverse effect on juvenile hogfish and 

9 their EFH. 

10 5.4.4 Gray Snapper (Lutjanus griseus): Eggs, Larvae, Juveniles, and Adults 

11 As discussed in Section 4.4, EFH for gray snapper eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults occurs 

12 within the vicinity of the CREC. In ecological surveys conducted from 1969 through 1971 at the 

13 CREC (prior to operation of CR-3), 11 gray snappers were collected in screen wash 

14 (impingement) samples for CR-1 and CR-2 and one by hook and line near the screen wash 

15 sluiceway (Mountain, 1972). Only one gray snapper occurred in monthly trawl collections made 

16 at three locations near the offshore areas of the intake canal from December 2006 through 

17 November 2007 (Ager et al., 2008). In the aquatic samples collected for the proposed LNP, 

18 gray snappers comprised 0.4 and 3.6 percent of the fish CPUE in the CREC thermal plume area 

19 in trawls and cast nets, respectively. In the area of the Cross Florida Barge Canal, CPUE of 

20 gray snappers were 0.6 percent of seine net, 0.2 percent of trawl, 0.3 percent of gill net, and 

21 2.7 percent of cast net collections. No gray snappers were collected in minnow traps at either 

22 the CREC or the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CH2M Hill, 2009). 

23 All three impingement studies at the CREC reported gray snappers (NUS Corporation, 1978), 

24 (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008). NUS Corporation (1978) did not provide the number of gray 

25 snappers impinged; however, impingement occurred in January, February, July, October, 

26 November, and December. In the 316 Demonstration study (SWEC, 1985), annual 

27 impingement totaled about 100 gray snappers (SWEC, 1985). Ager et al. (1978) reported a 

28 yearly impingement total of 292 gray snappers for CR-3 (0.04 percent of all fish impinged) and 

29 331 for CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 (0.03 percent of all fish impinged). The weight of gray snappers 

30 impinged totaled 8.2 lb (3.7 kg) for CR-3 and 8.6 lb (3.9 kg) for all three units (Ager et al., 2008). 

31 The 2007 annual commercial landings of gray snapper totaled 1,010 lb (458 kg) for Citrus 

32 County and 183,581 lb (83,271 kg) for the west coast of Florida (FWC, 2011). 

33 There was no entrainment information provided on the gray snapper in the 316 Demonstration 

34 study (SWEC, 1985). However, as the demersal eggs and planktonic larvae are primarily 

35 associated with offshore open waters, their potential entrainment at the CREC would be 

36 negligible. Although impingement and entrainment of gray snapper prey items occur at the 

37 CREC, there is no indication that prey populations have been measurably affected based on the 

38 high diversity and similarity of species in Crystal Bay reported since the late 1960s (Grimes and 

39 Mountain, 1971), (Mountain, 1972), (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 

40 2008), (CH2M Hill, 2009). The thermal plume from the CREC may affect up to 2,400 ac 

41 (971 ha) of Crystal Bay which contains EFH for juvenile gray snapper. Continued operation of 

42 CR-3 would likely have no adverse effect on gray snapper eggs and minimal adverse effects on 

43 larvae, juvenile, and adult gray snappers and their EFH. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-46 

1 5.4.5 Lane Snapper (Lutjanus synagris): Larvae and Juveniles 

2 As discussed in Section 4.5, EFH for lane snapper larvae and juveniles occurs within the vicinity 

3 of the CREC. In ecological surveys conducted from 1969 through 1971 (prior to operation of 

4 CR-3), no lane snappers were collected in trawl samples within the CREC area and no 

5 specimens were collected in screen wash (impingement) samples for CR-1 and CR-2 

6 (Mountain, 1972). Only 12 lane snappers occurred in monthly trawl collections made at three 

7 locations near the offshore areas of the intake canal from December 2006 through November 

8 2007 (Ager et al., 2008). In the aquatic samples collected for the proposed LNP, lane snappers 

9 comprised 1 percent of the fish CPUE in the CREC thermal plume area in trawls and 

10 0.03 percent of the fish CPUE in the area of the Cross Florida Barge Canal in trawls. No lane 

11 snappers were collected in seines, gill nets, cast nets, or minnow traps at either the CREC or 

12 Cross Florida Barge Canal (CH2M Hill, 2009). 

13 Neither NUS Corporation (1978) nor SWEC (1985) collected lane snappers in impingement 

14 samples. Ager et al., (2008) estimated that 1,300 lane snappers were impinged over the 

15 sampling year at CR-3 (0.16 percent of all fish impinged) and that 1,725 lane snappers were 

16 impinged at CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 (0.18 percent of all fish impinged). The weight of lane 

17 snappers impinged totaled 23.6 lb (10.7 kg) for CR-3 and 27.3 lb (12.4 kg) for all three units 

18 (Ager et al., 2008). The 2007 annual commercial landings of lane snapper totaled 131 lb 

19 (59.4 kg) for Citrus County and 14,608 lb (6,626 kg) for the west coast of Florida (FWC, 2011). 

20 There was no entrainment information provided on the lane snapper in the 316 Demonstration 

21 study (SWEC, 1985). As larvae are primarily associated with water depths of 13 to 433 ft (4 to 

22 132 m) (NMFS, 2009), their potential entrainment at the CREC would be negligible. Although 

23 impingement and entrainment of lane snapper prey items occur at the CREC, there is no 

24 indication that prey populations have been measurably affected based on the high diversity and 

25 similarity of species in Crystal Bay reported since the late 1960s (Grimes and Mountain, 1971), 

26 (Mountain, 1972), (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008), (CH2M Hill, 

27 2009). The thermal plume from the CREC may affect a small portion of the Crystal Bay SAV 

28 that provides EFH for larvae and juvenile lane snapper. However, defined EFH for lane snapper 

29 larvae includes a depth range of 13 to 433 ft (4 to 132 m) (NMFS, 2009), which does not occur 

30 in the discharge plume region. The thermal plume from the CREC may affect up to 2,400 ac 

31 (971 ha) of Crystal Bay which contains EFH for larval and juvenile lane snappers. Continued 

32 operation of CR-3 would likely have a minimal adverse effect on larval and juvenile lane 

33 snappers and their EFH. 

34 5.4.6 Schoolmaster (Lutjanus apodus): Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles 

35 As discussed in Section 4.6, EFH for schoolmaster eggs, larvae, and juveniles occurs within the 

36 vicinity of the CREC. In ecological surveys conducted from 1969 through 1971 (prior to 

37 operation of CR-3), no schoolmasters were collected in trawl samples within the area of the 

38 CREC and no specimens were collected in screen wash (impingement) samples for CR-1 and 

39 CR-2 (Mountain, 1972). No schoolmasters occurred in monthly trawl collections made at three 

40 locations near the offshore areas of the intake canal from December 2006 through November 

41 2007 (Ager et al., 2008). Fish collections in the areas of the CREC thermal plume and the 

42 Cross Florida Barge Canal conducted during the recent studies for the proposed LNP contained 

43 no schoolmasters (CH2M Hill, 2009). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-47 

1 Impingement samples at the CREC contained no schoolmasters (NUS Corporation, 1978), 

2 (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008). There was no entrainment information provided on the 

3 schoolmaster in the 316 Demonstration study (SWEC, 1985). As spawning occurs offshore, 

4 and eggs and larvae are associated with water depths up to 295 ft (90 m) (NMFS, 2009), their 

5 potential entrainment at the CREC would be negligible. Although impingement and entrainment 

6 of schoolmaster prey items occur at the CREC, there is no indication that prey populations have 

7 been measurably affected based on the high diversity and similarity of species in Crystal Bay 

8 reported since the late 1960s (Grimes and Mountain, 1971), (Mountain, 1972), (NUS 

9 Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008), (CH2M Hill, 2009). The thermal plume 

10 from the CREC may affect up to 2,400 ac (971 ha) of Crystal Bay which contains EFH for eggs, 

11 larval, and juvenile schoolmasters. Continued operation of CR-3 would likely have no adverse 

12 effect on schoolmaster eggs or larvae and a minimal adverse effect on juveniles and their EFH. 

13 5.4.7 Dog Snapper (Lutjanus jocu): Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles 

14 As discussed in Section 4.7, EFH for dog snapper eggs, larvae, and juveniles occurs within the 

15 vicinity of the CREC. In ecological surveys conducted from 1969 through 1971 (prior to 

16 operation of CR-3), no dog snappers were collected in trawl samples in the area of the CREC 

17 and no specimens were collected in screen wash (impingement) samples for CR-1 and CR-2 

18 (Mountain, 1972). No dog snappers occurred in monthly trawl collections made at three 

19 locations near the offshore areas of the intake canal from December 2006 through November 

20 2007 (Ager et al., 2008). Fish collections in the areas of the CREC thermal plume and the 

21 Cross Florida Barge Canal conducted during the recent studies for the proposed LNP contained 

22 no dog snappers (CH2M Hill, 2009). 

23 Impingement samples at the CREC contained no dog snappers (NUS Corporation, 1978), 

24 (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008). There was no entrainment information provided on the dog 

25 snapper in the 316 Demonstration study (SWEC, 1985). As spawning occurs over reefs at 

26 depths of 49 to 98 ft (15 to 30 m), the expected amount of eggs and larvae entrained at the 

27 CREC would be negligible. Although impingement and entrainment of dog snapper prey items 

28 occur at the CREC, there is no indication that prey populations have been measurably affected 

29 based on the high diversity and similarity of species in Crystal Bay reported since the late 1960s 

30 (Grimes and Mountain, 1971), (Mountain, 1972), (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985), 

31 (Ager et al., 2008), (CH2M Hill, 2009). The thermal plume from the CREC may affect up to 

32 2,400 ac (971 ha) of Crystal Bay which contains EFH for eggs, larval, and juvenile dog 

33 snappers. Continued operation of CR-3 would likely have a minimal adverse effect on eggs, 

34 larvae, and juvenile dog snappers and their EFH. 

35 5.4.8 Yellowtail Snapper (Lutjanus chrysurus): Juveniles and Adults 

36 As discussed in Section 4.8, EFH for yellowtail snapper juveniles and adults occurs within the 

37 vicinity of the CREC. In ecological surveys conducted from 1969 through 1971 (prior to 

38 operation of CR-3), no yellowtail snappers were collected in trawl samples in the area of the 

39 CREC and no specimens were collected in screen wash (impingement) samples for CR-1 and 

40 CR-2 (Mountain, 1972). No yellowtail snappers occurred in monthly trawl collections made at 

41 three locations near the offshore areas of the intake canal from December 2006 through 

42 November 2007 (Ager et al., 2008). Fish collections in the areas of the CREC thermal plume 

43 and the Cross Florida Barge Canal conducted during the recent studies for the proposed LNP 

44 contained no yellowtail snappers (CH2M Hill, 2009). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-48 

1 No yellowtail snapper occurred in impingement samples at the CREC (NUS Corporation, 1978), 

2 (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008). Preferred habitat for juvenile and adult yellowtail snapper 

3 does not occur within the intake canal at the CREC; therefore, impingement of juveniles and 

4 adults would not routinely occur. Although impingement and entrainment of yellowtail snapper 

5 prey items occur at the CREC, there is no indication that prey populations have been 

6 measurably affected based on the high diversity and similarity of species in Crystal Bay reported 

7 since the late 1960s (Grimes and Mountain, 1971), (Mountain, 1972), (NUS Corporation, 1978), 

8 (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008), (CH2M Hill, 2009). The thermal plume from the CREC may 

9 affect up to 2,400 ac (971 ha) of Crystal Bay which contains EFH for juvenile and adult yellowtail 

10 snappers. Continued operation of CR-3 would likely have a minimal adverse effect on juvenile 

11 and adult yellowtail snappers and their EFH. 

12 5.4.9 Vermilion Snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens): Juveniles 

13 As discussed in Section 4.9, EFH for vermilion snapper juveniles occurs within the vicinity of the 

14 CREC. In ecological surveys conducted from 1969 through 1971 (prior to operation of CR-3), 

15 no vermilion snappers were collected in trawl samples in the area of the CREC and no 

16 specimens were collected in screen wash (impingement) samples for CR-1 and CR-2 

17 (Mountain, 1972). No vermilion snappers occurred in monthly trawl collections made at three 

18 locations near the offshore areas of the intake canal from December 2006 through November 

19 2007 (Ager et al., 2008). Fish collections in the areas of the CREC thermal plume and the 

20 Cross Florida Barge Canal conducted during the recent studies for the proposed LNP contained 

21 no vermilion snappers (CH2M Hill, 2009). 

22 Impinged vermilion snapper were only collected in the Ager et al. (2008) impingement study. 

23 Yearly impingement totaled 155 vermilion snappers at CR-3 (about 0.02 percent of all fish 

24 impinged) (Ager et al., 2008). The weight of vermilion snappers impinged totaled 3.1 lb (1.4 kg) 

25 (Ager et al., 2008). The 2007 annual commercial landings of vermilion snapper totaled 196 lb 

26 (89 kg) for Citrus County and 1,066,201 lb (483,621 kg) for the west coast of Florida (FWC, 

27 2011). Although impingement and entrainment of vermilion snapper prey items occur at the 

28 CREC, there is no indication that prey populations have been measurably affected based on the 

29 high diversity and similarity of species in Crystal Bay reported since the late 1960s (Grimes and 

30 Mountain, 1971), (Mountain, 1972), (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 

31 2008), (CH2M Hill, 2009). The thermal plume from the CREC may affect up to 2,400 ac 

32 (971 ha) of Crystal Bay which contains EFH for juvenile vermilion snappers. Because preferred 

33 habitats do not occur near the CREC area, continued operations of CR-3 would likely have a 

34 minimal adverse effect on juvenile vermilion snappers and their EFH. 

35 5.4.10 Dwarf Sand Perch (Diplectrum bivittatum): Juveniles 

36 As discussed in Section 4.10, EFH for dwarf sand perch juveniles occurs within the vicinity of 

37 the CREC. In ecological surveys conducted from 1969 through 1971 (prior to operation of 

38 CR-3), no dwarf sand perch were collected in trawl samples within the area of the CREC and no 

39 specimens were collected in screen wash (impingement) samples at CR-1 and CR-2 (Mountain, 

40 1972). No dwarf sand perch occurred in monthly trawl collections made at three locations near 

41 the offshore areas of the intake canal from December 2006 through November 2007 (Ager et 

42 al., 2008). Fish collections in the areas of the CREC thermal plume and the Cross Florida 

43 Barge Canal conducted during the recent studies for the proposed LNP contained no dwarf 

44 sand perch (CH2M Hill, 2009). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-49 

1 Annual dwarf sand perch impingement was about 630 individuals during the 316 Demonstration 

2 study (SWEC, 1985). No dwarf sand perches were reported from impingement samples 

3 collected by NUS Corporation (1978) or Ager et al. (2008); although both studies reported 

4 impingement of the sand perch (Diplectrum formosum) which is not a Federally-managed 

5 species for Ecoregion 2 (NMFS, 2009). Although impingement and entrainment of dwarf sand 

6 perch prey items occur at the CREC, there is no indication that prey populations have been 

7 measurably affected based on the high diversity and similarity of species in Crystal Bay reported 

8 since the late 1960s (Grimes and Mountain, 1971), (Mountain, 1972), (NUS Corporation, 1978), 

9 (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008), (CH2M Hill, 2009). The thermal plume from the CREC may 

10 affect up to 2,400 ac (971 ha) of Crystal Bay which contains EFH for juvenile dwarf sand perch. 

11 Continued operation of CR-3 would likely have a minimal adverse effect on juvenile dwarf sand 

12 perch and their EFH. 

13 5.4.11 Red Grouper (Epinephelus morio): Juveniles 

14 As discussed in Section 4.11, EFH for red grouper juveniles occurs within the vicinity of the 

15 CREC. In ecological surveys conducted from 1969 through 1971 (prior to operation of CR-3), 

16 no red groupers occurred in trawl samples in the area of the CREC and no specimens were 

17 collected in screen wash (impingement) samples at CR-1 and CR-2 (Mountain, 1972). No red 

18 groupers occurred in monthly trawl collections made at three locations near the offshore areas 

19 of the intake canal from December 2006 through November 2007 (Ager et al., 2008). Fish 

20 collections in the areas of the CREC thermal plume and the Cross Florida Barge Canal 

21 conducted during the recent studies for the proposed LNP contained no red groupers (CH2M 

22 Hill, 2009). 

23 No red groupers occurred in impingement samples at the CREC (NUS Corporation, 1978), 

24 (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008). As preferred habitat for juvenile red grouper does not occur 

25 within the intake canal, impingement of juveniles would not routinely occur at the CREC. 

26 Although impingement and entrainment of red grouper prey items occur at the CREC, there is 

27 no indication that prey populations have been measurably affected based on the high diversity 

28 and similarity of species in Crystal Bay reported since the late 1960s (Grimes and Mountain, 

29 1971), (Mountain, 1972), (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008), (CH2M 

30 Hill, 2009). The thermal plume from the CREC may affect up to 2,400 ac (971 ha) of Crystal 

31 Bay which contains EFH for juvenile red groupers. Continued operation of CR-3 would likely 

32 have a minimal adverse effect on juvenile red grouper and their EFH. 

33 5.4.12 Nassau Grouper (Epinephelus striatus): Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles 

34 As discussed in Section 4.12, EFH for Nassau grouper eggs, larvae, and juveniles occurs within 

35 the vicinity of the CREC. In ecological surveys conducted from 1969 through 1971 (prior to 

36 operation of CR-3), no Nassau groupers were collected in trawl samples within the area of the 

37 CREC and no specimens were collected in screen wash (impingement) samples at CR-1 and 

38 CR-2 (Mountain, 1972). No Nassau groupers occurred in monthly trawl collections made at 

39 three locations near the offshore areas of the intake canal from December 2006 through 

40 November 2007 (Ager et al., 2008). Fish collections in the areas of the CREC thermal plume 

41 and the Cross Florida Barge Canal conducted during the recent studies for the proposed LNP 

42 contained no Nassau groupers (CH2M Hill, 2009). 

43 No Nassau grouper occurred in impingement samples at the CREC (NUS Corporation, 1978), 

44 (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008). There was no entrainment information provided on the 

45 Nassau grouper in the 316 Demonstration study (SWEC, 1985). Spawning occurs in waters 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-50 

1 59 to 131 ft (18 to 40 m) deep and eggs hatch within 40 hours; therefore, entrainment of Nassau 

2 grouper eggs at the CREC is unlikely. Larvae generally occur at depths of 6.6 to 164 ft (2 to 

3 50 m); therefore, the potential entrainment of larvae at the CREC would be negligible. Preferred 

4 habitat for juvenile Nassau grouper does not occur within the intake canal at the CREC; 

5 therefore, potential impingement of juveniles at the CREC would be negligible. Although 

6 impingement and entrainment of Nassau grouper prey items occur at the CREC, there is no 

7 indication that prey populations have been measurably affected based on the high diversity and 

8 similarity of species in Crystal Bay reported since the late 1960s (Grimes and Mountain, 1971), 

9 (Mountain, 1972), (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008), (CH2M Hill, 

10 2009). The thermal plume from the CREC may affect up to 2,400 ac (971 ha) of Crystal Bay 

11 which contains EFH for eggs, larval, and juvenile Nassau groupers. Continued operation of 

12 CR-3 would likely have no adverse effects on Nassau grouper eggs and larvae and a minimal 

13 adverse effect on juvenile Nassau grouper and their EFH. 

14 5.4.13 Black Grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci): Juveniles 

15 As discussed in Section 4.13, EFH for black grouper juveniles occurs within the vicinity of the 

16 CREC. In ecological surveys conducted from 1969 through 1971 (prior to operation of CR-3), 

17 no black groupers occurred in trawl samples in the area of the CREC and no specimens were 

18 collected in screen wash (impingement) samples at CR-1 and CR-2 (Mountain, 1972). No black 

19 groupers occurred in monthly trawl collections made at three locations near the offshore areas 

20 of the intake canal from December 2006 through November 2007 (Ager et al., 2008). Fish 

21 collections in the areas of the CREC thermal plume and the Cross Florida Barge Canal 

22 conducted during the recent studies for the proposed LNP contained no black groupers (CH2M 

23 Hill, 2009). 

24 Impingement samples at the CREC contained no black groupers (NUS Corporation, 1978), 

25 (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008). Preferred habitat for juvenile black grouper does not occur 

26 within the intake canal at the CREC; therefore, potential impingement of juveniles at the CREC 

27 would be negligible. Although impingement and entrainment of black grouper prey items occur 

28 at the CREC, there is no indication that prey populations have been measurably affected based 

29 on the high diversity and similarity of species in Crystal Bay reported since the late 1960s 

30 (Grimes and Mountain, 1971), (Mountain, 1972), (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985), 

31 (Ager et al., 2008), (CH2M Hill, 2009). The thermal plume from the CREC may affect up to 

32 2,400 ac (971 ha) of Crystal Bay which contains EFH juvenile black groupers. Continued 

33 operation of CR-3 would likely have a minimal adverse effect on juvenile black grouper and their 

34 EFH. 

35 5.4.14 Gag (Mycteroperca microlepis): Juveniles 

36 As discussed in Section 4.14, EFH for gag juveniles occurs within the vicinity of the CREC. In 

37 ecological surveys conducted from 1969 through 1971 at the CREC (prior to operation of CR-3), 

38 four gags were collected in trawl samples near the intake canal area and one specimen was 

39 collected in screen wash (impingement) samples at CR-1 and CR-2 (Mountain, 1972). No gags 

40 occurred in monthly trawl collections made at three locations near the offshore areas of the 

41 intake canal from December 2006 through November 2007 (Ager et al., 2008). Fish collections 

42 in the areas of the CREC thermal plume and the Cross Florida Barge Canal conducted during 

43 the recent studies for the proposed LNP contained no gags (CH2M Hill, 2009). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-51 

1 Annual impingement totaled about 11 gags in the 316 Demonstration study (SWEC, 1985). No 

2 gags occurred in impingement samples collected by NUS Corporation (1978) or Ager et al. 

3 (2008). Although impingement and entrainment of gag prey items occur at the CREC, there is 

4 no indication that prey populations are measurably affected based on the high diversity and 

5 similarity of species in Crystal Bay reported since the late 1960s (Grimes and Mountain, 1971), 

6 (Mountain, 1972), (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008), (CH2M Hill, 

7 2009). The thermal plume from the CREC may affect up to 2,400 ac (971 ha) of Crystal Bay 

8 which contains EFH for juvenile gags. Continued operation of CR-3 would likely have a minimal 

9 adverse effect on juvenile gags and their EFH. 

10 5.4.15 Rock Hind (Epinephelus adscensionis): Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles 

11 As discussed in Section 4.15, EFH for rock hind eggs, larvae, and juveniles occurs within the 

12 vicinity of the CREC. In ecological surveys conducted from 1969 through 1971 (prior to 

13 operation of CR-3), no rock hinds were collected in trawl samples in the area of the CREC and 

14 no specimens were collected in screen wash (impingement) samples at CR-1 and CR-2 

15 (Mountain, 1972). No rock hinds occurred in monthly trawl collections made at three locations 

16 near the offshore areas of the intake canal from December 2006 through November 2007 (Ager 

17 et al., 2008). Fish collections in the areas of the CREC thermal plume and the Cross Florida 

18 Barge Canal conducted during the recent studies for the proposed LNP contained no rock hinds 

19 (CH2M Hill, 2009). 

20 Impingement samples at the CREC contained no red hinds (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 

21 1985), (Ager et al., 2008). There was no entrainment information provided on the rock hind in 

22 the 316 Demonstration study (SWEC, 1985). As rock hind eggs, larvae, and juveniles occur in 

23 waters from 6.6 to 328 ft (2 to 100 m) deep (NMFS, 2009), potential impingement and 

24 entrainment at the CREC would be negligible. Although impingement and entrainment of rock 

25 hind prey items occur at the CREC, there is no indication that prey populations are measurably 

26 affected based on the high diversity and similarity of species in Crystal Bay reported since the 

27 late 1960s (Grimes and Mountain, 1971), (Mountain, 1972), (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 

28 1985), (Ager et al., 2008), (CH2M Hill, 2009). The thermal plume from the CREC may affect up 

29 to 2,400 ac (971 ha) of Crystal Bay. However, this area contains minimal EFH for eggs, larvae, 

30 and juvenile rock hinds. Continued operation of CR-3 would likely have no adverse effect on 

31 rock hind eggs, larvae, and juveniles and their EFH. 

32 5.4.16 Spanish Mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus): Juveniles and Adults 

33 As discussed in Section 4.16, EFH for Spanish mackerel juveniles and adults occurs within the 

34 vicinity of the CREC. In ecological surveys conducted from 1969 through 1971 (prior to 

35 operation of CR-3), no Spanish mackerels occurred in trawl collections near the CREC and five 

36 Spanish mackerel were collected in screen wash (impingement) samples at CR-1 and CR-2 

37 (Mountain, 1972). No Spanish mackerel occurred in monthly trawl collections made at three 

38 locations near the offshore areas of the intake canal from December 2006 through November 

39 2007 (Ager et al., 2008). In the aquatic samples collected for the proposed LNP, Spanish 

40 mackerel comprised 3.7 and 1.2 percent of the fish CPUE in the CREC thermal plume area in 

41 gill nets and cast nets, respectively; and 0.03 and 2.5 percent of the fish CPUE in the area of 

42 the Cross Florida Barge Canal in trawls and gill nets, respectively. No Spanish mackerel were 

43 collected in trawls or minnow traps at the CREC; while none were collected in seines, cast nets, 

44 or minnow traps at the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CH2M Hill, 2009). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-52 

1 Spanish mackerel occurred in all three impingement studies conducted at the CREC (NUS 

2 Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008). NUS Corporation (1978) did not report 

3 the number of Spanish mackerel impinged; however, it occurred only in October samples. In 

4 the 316 Demonstration study (SWEC, 1985), annual impingement at the CREC totaled about 

5 20 Spanish mackerels (SWEC, 1985). In the Ager et al. (2008) study, yearly impingement 

6 totaled 62 Spanish mackerels at CR-3 (0.01 percent of all fish impinged at the unit) and 166 for 

7 CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 (0.02 percent of all fish impinged at the CREC). The weight of Spanish 

8 mackerels impinged totaled 87.5 lb (39.7 kg) for CR-3 and 112.7 lb (51.1 kg) for all three units 

9 (Ager et al., 2008). The 2007 annual commercial landings of Spanish mackerel totaled 429 lb 

10 (195 kg) for Citrus County and 369,274 lb (167,500 kg) for the west coast of Florida (FWC, 

11 2011). 

12 Although impingement and entrainment of Spanish mackerel prey items occur at the CREC, 

13 there is no indication that prey populations have been measurably affected based on the high 

14 diversity and similarity of species in Crystal Bay reported since the late 1960s (Grimes and 

15 Mountain, 1971), (Mountain, 1972), (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 

16 2008), (CH2M Hill, 2009). The thermal plume from the CREC may affect up to 2,400 ac 

17 (971 ha) of Crystal Bay which contains EFH for juvenile and adult Spanish mackerels. 

18 Continued operation of CR-3 would likely have a minimal adverse effect on juvenile and adult 

19 Spanish mackerels and their EFH. 

20 5.4.17 Pink Shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum): Larvae, Juveniles, and Adults 

21 As discussed in Section 4.17, EFH for pink shrimp larvae, juveniles, and adults occurs within the 

22 vicinity of the CREC. In ecological surveys conducted from 1969 through 1971 (prior to 

23 operation of CR-3), pink shrimp were collected in seine and trawl samples throughout the CREC 

24 area and were collected in screen wash (impingement) samples at CR-1 and CR-2 (Mountain, 

25 1972). Ninety-five pink shrimp occurred in monthly trawl collections made at three locations 

26 near the offshore areas of the intake canal from December 2006 through November 2007 (Ager 

27 et al., 2008). In the aquatic samples collected for the LNP, pink shrimp comprised 14.9 percent 

28 of the invertebrate CPUE in the CREC thermal plume area and 16.7 percent of the invertebrate 

29 CPUE in the area of the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CH2M Hill, 2009). 

30 Impinged pink shrimp occurred in all three impingement studies at the CREC (NUS Corporation, 

31 1978), (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008). In the NUS Corporation (1978) study, pink shrimp 

32 occurred in impingement samples every month with the yearly impingement totaling 

33 132,716 pink shrimp weighing about 11,230 lb (5,094 kg). In the 316 Demonstration study 

34 (SWEC, 1985), annual impingement totaled over 590,000 pink shrimp. In the Ager et al. (2008) 

35 study, yearly impingement totaled about 114,440 pink shrimp for CR-3 (44.6 percent of all 

36 invertebrates impinged at the unit) and about 149,710 for CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 (43.8 percent 

37 of all invertebrates impinged at the CREC) (Ager et al., 2008). The weight of pink shrimp 

38 impinged totaled 2,034 lb (922.6 kg) for CR-3 and 2,776 lb (1,259 kg) for all three units (Ager et 

39 al., 2008). The 2007 annual commercial landings of pink shrimp totaled 1,361 lb (617 kg) for 

40 Citrus County and 4,981,837 lb (2,259,723 kg) for the west coast of Florida (FWC, 2011). 

41 Yearly estimated entrainment of pink shrimp totaled 220,000 mysis, 18,830,000 post-larvae, and 

42 1,023,000 juveniles (SWEC, 1985). The entrainment losses equated to the loss of over 

43 29,000 adult pink shrimp (SWEC, 1985). Although impingement and, more likely, entrainment 

44 of pink shrimp prey items occur at the CREC, there is no indication that prey populations have 

45 been measurably affected based on the high diversity and similarity of species in Crystal Bay 

46 reported since the late 1960s (Grimes and Mountain, 1971), (Mountain, 1972), (NUS 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-53 

1 Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008), (CH2M Hill, 2009). The thermal plume 

2 from the CREC may affect up to 2,400 ac (971 ha) of Crystal Bay which contains EFH for larval, 

3 juvenile, and adult pink shrimp. Continued operation of CR-3 would likely have a minimal 

4 adverse effect on larvae, juvenile, and adult pink shrimp and their EFH. 

5 5.4.18 White Shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus): Larvae and Juveniles 

6 As discussed in Section 4.18, EFH for white shrimp larvae and juveniles occurs within the 

7 vicinity of the CREC. In ecological surveys conducted from 1969 through 1971 (prior to 

8 operation of CR-3), no white shrimp were collected in seine and trawl samples within the area of 

9 the CREC and no specimens were collected in screen wash (impingement) samples at CR-1 

10 and CR-2 (Mountain, 1972). No white shrimp occurred in monthly trawl collections made at 

11 three locations near the offshore areas of the intake canal from December 2006 through 

12 November 2007 (Ager et al., 2008). Invertebrate collections in the areas of the CREC thermal 

13 plume and the Cross Florida Barge Canal conducted during the recent studies for the proposed 

14 LNP also contained no white shrimp (CH2M Hill, 2009). 

15 Impinged white shrimp were identified in the NUS Corporation (1978) and SWEC (1985) 

16 impingement studies. NUS Corporation (1978) did not report numbers of impinged white 

17 shrimp; however, impingement of white shrimp occurred in October through January and totaled 

18 about 90 lb (41 kg). In the 316 Demonstration study (SWEC, 1985), annual impingement 

19 totaled only about eight white shrimp (SWEC, 1985). SWEC (1985) assumed that all entrained 

20 immature shrimp were pink shrimp; although a small percentage was probably white shrimp. 

21 Although entrainment of white shrimp prey items occurs at the CREC, there is no indication that 

22 prey populations have been measurably affected based on the high diversity and similarity of 

23 species in Crystal Bay reported since the late 1960s (Grimes and Mountain, 1971), (Mountain, 

24 1972), (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008), (CH2M Hill, 2009). The 

25 thermal plume from the CREC may affect up to 2,400 ac (971 ha) of Crystal Bay which contains 

26 EFH for larval and juvenile white shrimp. Continued operation of CR-3 would likely have a 

27 minimal adverse effect on larvae and juvenile white shrimp and their EFH. 

28 5.4.19 Florida Stone Crab (Menippe mercenaria): Larvae and Juveniles 

29 As discussed in Section 4.19, EFH for Florida stone crab larvae and juveniles occurs within the 

30 vicinity of the CREC. In ecological surveys conducted from 1969 through 1971 (prior to 

31 operation of CR-3), several Florida stone crabs were collected in trawl samples within offshore 

32 areas near the CREC (Mountain, 1972). One Florida stone crab occurred in monthly trawl 

33 collections made at three locations near the offshore areas of the intake canal from December 

34 2006 through November 2007 (Ager et al., 2008). In the aquatic samples collected for the LNP, 

35 Florida stone crabs comprised 14.9 percent of the motile invertebrate CPUE in the CREC 

36 thermal plume area. No Florida stone crabs were collected in the area of the Cross Florida 

37 Barge Canal (CH2M Hill, 2009). 

38 Samples from all three impingement studies contained Florida stone crabs (NUS Corporation, 

39 1978), (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008). In the NUS Corporation (1978) study, Florida stone 

40 crabs occurred every month. Annual impingement totaled 545 lb (247 kg). In the 316 

41 Demonstration study (SWEC, 1985), annual impingement totaled about 1,535 Florida stone 

42 crabs (SWEC, 1985). In the Ager et al. (2008) study, yearly impingement totaled about 

43 4,950 Florida stone crabs for CR-3 (about 1.9 percent of all invertebrates impinged) and about 

44 7,950 for CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 (about 2.3 percent of all invertebrates impinged). The weight 

45 of Florida stone crabs impinged totaled 99.2 lb (45 kg) for CR-3 and 194.4 lb (88.2 kg) for all 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-54 

1 three units (Ager et al., 2008). The 2007 annual commercial landings of stone crabs totaled 

2 350,646 lb (159,050 kg) for Citrus County and 2,921,931 lb (2,259,723 kg) for the west coast of 

Florida (FWC, 2011).3 3 

4 Yearly estimated entrainment of stone crabs totaled: (1) over 3 billion zoeal stage 1, (2) over 

5 254 million zoeal stage 2, (3) over 52 million zoeal stage 3, (4) over 14.8 million zoeal stage 4, 

6 (5) 380,000 zoeal stage 5, and (6) 2.35 million megalops. SWEC (1985) equated the 

7 entrainment losses to the loss of 3,642 adult stone crabs, although a very high degree of 

8 uncertainty accompanies such estimates. Although entrainment of Florida stone crab prey 

9 items occur at the CREC, there is no indication that prey populations have been measurably 

10 affected based on the high diversity and similarity of species in Crystal Bay reported since the 

11 late 1960s (Grimes and Mountain, 1971), (Mountain, 1972), (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 

12 1985), (Ager et al., 2008), (CH2M Hill, 2009). The thermal plume from the CREC may affect up 

13 to 2,400 ac (971 ha) of Crystal Bay which contains EFH for larval and juvenile Florida stone 

14 crabs. Continued operation of CR-3 would likely have a minimal adverse effect on larvae and 

15 juvenile Florida stone crabs and their EFH. 

16 6.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS 

17 This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of CR-3 license renewal on 

18 Federally-managed species and their EFH when added to the aggregate effects of past, 

19 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The primary effects on Federally-managed 

20 species and their EFH and forage species from an additional 20 years of CR-3 operation will 

21 primarily occur from impingement, entrainment, and thermal effects. 

22 When considering power plant operations, three suites of cumulative impacts are identifiable: 

23 (1) those from the power plant (e.g., interaction of entrainment, impingement, and thermal 

24 discharges); (2) those due to effects of closely located power plants; and (3) those due to 

25 multiple activities in the area (York et al., 2005). The CREC is the only electrical generating 

26 facility in Citrus County (CCBCC, 2009); however, it is comprised of five generating units. Two 

27 generating units will be located at the proposed LNP in Levy County. Operation of the LNP will 

28 begin in 2020 or later (Progress Energy, 2009a). 

29 The geographic boundaries for assessing cumulative aquatic impacts are somewhat variable 

30 and depend on the specific aquatic resource. The estuary area of Crystal Bay between 

31 Withlacoochee River and Crystal River and the offshore areas of the Gulf of Mexico within the 

32 Citrus and Levy Counties generally bound the potentially affected area. However, for some 

33 resources and stressors, a much larger area is considered. This area may include much of the 

34 Gulf of Mexico (e.g., due to the recent Deepwater Horizon oil spill) to North America and beyond 

35 (in the case of global warming). In large part, stressors outside the area influenced by operation 

36 of the CREC affect Federally-managed species that migrate throughout the Gulf of Mexico and 

37 the Atlantic Ocean (NMFS, 2002). Additionally, the EFH for those species listed in the Gulf of 

38 Mexico fishery management plans that encompass the area within which the CREC is located 

39 occurs throughout the Gulf States (Section 3.0). 

 

3

 The commercial catch includes only the claws. Some of the commercial catch, particularly along the 

entire west coast of Florida, would include the Gulf stone crab in addition to the Florida stone crab. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-55 

1 The FWC (2005) detailed 32 stressors that could affect habitats and biota in Florida (Table 7). 

2 The majority of these could adversely affect Federally-managed species and their EFH and 

3 forage species within Crystal Bay. 

4 Table 7. Stressors to Habitats and Biota in Florida 

Channel modification/shipping lanes Incompatible industrial operations 

Chemicals and toxins Incompatible recreational activities 

Climate variability Incompatible resource extraction 

Conversion to agriculture Incompatible wildlife and fisheries management strategies 

Conversion to housing and urban development Industrial spills 

Coastal development Invasive animals 

Conversion to recreation areas Invasive plants 

Dam operations Key predator/prey loss 

Disruption of longshore transport of sediments Management of nature (e.g., beaches) 

Fishing gear impacts Nutrient loads - agriculture 

Groundwater withdrawal Nutrient loads - urban 

Harmful algal blooms Roads, bridges, and causeways 

Inadequate stormwater management Shoreline hardening 

Incompatible fire Surface water diversion 

Incompatible fishing pressure Surface and groundwater withdrawal 

Incompatible forestry practices Vessel impacts 

Source: FWC, 2005 

5 The main stressors that can cause cumulative impacts on Federally-managed species and their 

6 EFH and forage species within Crystal Bay include: 

7 ● the continued operation of the CREC, as modified by the CR-3 EPU, discharge of 

8 LNP blowdown into the CREC discharge canal, and potential decommissioning 

9 of CR-1 and CR-2 

10 ● preconstruction, construction, and operation of LNP 

11 ● continued withdrawal of water for various human uses 

12 ● residential, commercial, and industrial development 

13 ● fishing (commercial and recreational) and boating 

14 ● water quality degradation 

15 ● invasive species 

16 ● disease 

17 ● climate change 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-56 

1 Each of these may influence the structure and function of Crystal Bay in a way that could result 

2 in observable changes to Federally-managed species and their EFH and forage species. The 

3 following is a brief discussion of how the stressors listed above could contribute to cumulative 

4 impacts on Federally-managed species and their EFH and forage species in Crystal Bay. 

5 6.1 Continued Operation of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant and 

6 Other Crystal River Energy Complex Units 

7 Changes in the operation of the CREC since the late 1980s have had a potential influence on 

8 aquatic resources in Crystal Bay. The first is the alteration in discharge temperatures to meet 

9 the NPDES permit limit of 96.5 °F (35.8 °C) (as a 3-hour rolling limit) at the POD from the 

10 CREC. This has lessened the maximum discharge temperature at the POD during a portion of 

11 the summer and, thus, the potential size of the thermal plume. For example, the POD 

12 temperature averaged 100.1 °F (37.8 °C) the week of August 21, 1983; while most other weeks 

13 of August 1983 and 1984, and the week of September 4, 1983, averaged above 96.5 °F 

14 (35.8 °C) (SWEC, 1985). The second operational change has been in water withdrawals for 

15 operation of the CREC. The NPDES permit limits the combined flow through CR-1 through 

CR-3 to 1,318,000 gpm (2,836.5 cfs or 83.2 m3 16 /s) from May 1 through October 31 and 

1,132,792 gpm (2,524 cfs or 71.5 m3 17 /s) from November 1 through April 30 (FDEP, 2005). The 

18 FDEP established these limitations to decrease entrainment and, to a lesser extent, 

19 impingement at the CREC. 

20 The CR-3 EPU, scheduled for completion by December 2011, will increase the thermal and 

21 electrical output of the plant (Progress Energy, 2008). The EPU could require an increase in 

circulating water flow of up to 150,000 gpm (334.2 cfs or 9.46 m3 22 /s) (Golder Associates, 

23 Inc., 2007a). However, the new south cooling tower, a component of the EPU, may discharge 

24 an equivalent amount of water flow back into the intake canal resulting in no net increase in 

25 water withdrawn from the intake canal. Alternatively, there may be no increase above the 

26 current circulating water flow, but there will be an increase in the thermal load (Progress Energy, 

27 2009a). Under either operating scenario, the Staff does not expect increases in entrainment 

28 and impingement due to the EPU. The applicant reported that, following the EPU, the maximum 

29 summer temperature at the CREC POD to Crystal Bay would be 95.4 °F (35.2 °C) at an ambient 

30 Crystal Bay temperature of 91 °F (32.8 °C) (Progress Energy, 2009a). This would be within the 

31 3-hour rolling limit of 96.5 °F (35.8 °C) allowed in the NPDES permit (FDEP, 2005). 

32 Impacts to aquatic resources from the operation of the other units at the CREC should be 

33 similar to those over the past several decades. The Governor’s Siting Board approved the Site 

34 Certification Application for LNP on August 11, 2009. It includes a requirement that CR-1 and 

35 CR-2 cease operation by the end of 2020 (assuming timely licensing and construction of the 

36 LNP) (Progress Energy, 2009b). When CR-1 and CR-2 cease operations, they would no longer 

37 contribute to entrainment, impingement, or thermal impacts that affect Federally-managed 

38 species and their EFH habitats and forage species. 

39 The Staff concludes that CREC operation will continue to be a contributor to cumulative impacts 

40 on Federally-managed species and their EFH and forage species. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-57 

1 6.2 Preconstruction, Construction, and Operation of Levy Nuclear Plant 

2 Preconstruction and construction of LNP and its associated transmission lines and other offsite 

3 facilities would result in the permanent and temporary loss of about 773 ac (313 ha) of wetlands. 

4 Some of these wetlands would provide spawning, nursery, and feeding habitats for some 

5 Federally-managed species and their forage species within Crystal Bay. The applicant has 

6 committed to mitigate the loss or impairment of functions in all wetlands affected by the LNP 

7 project. 

8 Operational impacts from LNP would include impingement and entrainment of aquatic 

9 organisms. LNP will have closed-cycle cooling, requiring a net intake of 85,278 gpm (190 cfs or 

5.38 m3 10 /s). Discernable impacts on aquatic organisms from entrainment and impingement will 

11 be minor (NRC, 2010). Combined blowdown from the LNP units will increase the discharge to 

the CREC discharge canal by about 61,000 gpm (135.9 cfs or 3.85 m3 12 /s). With the addition of 

13 the LNP blowdown, the maximum summer temperature at the POD will be 95.6 °F (35.3 °C) 

14 (Progress Energy, 2009a). This will be within the 3-hour rolling limit of 96.5 °F (35.8 °C) allowed 

15 in the NPDES permit (FDEP, 2005). 

16 Chemical contaminants in the LNP blowdown will mix with those from the CREC discharges 

17 (Progress Energy, 2010a). The combined discharges to Crystal Bay from the CREC and LNP 

18 will be subject to review and approval of the FDEP and would have to meet NPDES 

19 requirements (Progress Energy, 2010a). 

20 The Staff concluded that both the NRC-authorized construction activities and the impacts of 

21 operation of LNP on aquatic resources would be SMALL (NRC, 2010). Nevertheless, 

22 construction and operation of LNP would contribute to cumulative impacts on 

23 Federally-managed species and their EFH and forage species. 

24 6.3 Continued Water Withdrawals 

25 Surface and groundwater withdrawals can have a greater impact on individual springs, streams, 

26 rivers, and wetlands associated with Crystal Bay than to the bay itself. Water withdrawals can 

27 reduce stream flow, increase salinity, alter temperature regimes, and reduce wetted areas. 

28 These changes can have adverse impacts to areas used for spawning or nursery habitats by 

29 aquatic organisms. Groundwater withdrawals for human use threaten natural springs that 

30 provide warm water refuges for Florida manatees (Laist and Reynolds, 2005). Total projected 

31 average daily water use for Citrus County in 2020 is 47.5 million gallons per day (mgpd) 

(180,000 m3

/day); a 6.1-mgpd (23,100-m3 32 /day) increase over that projected for 2010. This use 

includes public supply (21.2 mgpd [80,250 m3

/day]), rural (11.4 mgpd [43,200 m3 33 /day]), 

agriculture (4.2 mgpd [15,900 m3 34 /day]), industrial (chemical manufacturing, food processing, 

power generation, and miscellaneous) (2.6 mgpd [9,800 m3 35 /day]), mining (2 mgpd [7,600 

m3 36 /day]), and recreation (mostly golf course and large-scale landscaped areas) (6.1 mgpd 

[2,300 m3 37 /day]) (CCBCC, 2009). Water withdrawals to support human needs will continue and 

38 will likely increase during the license renewal term. 

39 The Staff concludes that water withdrawals will continue to be a contributor to cumulative 

40 impacts on Federally-managed species and their EFH and forage species. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-58 

1 6.4 Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development 

2 In addition to the CREC and LNP, other existing or proposed residential, commercial, or 

3 industrial developments could impact the aquatic resources of Crystal Bay. The NRC (2010b) 

4 identified a number of existing and proposed projects in the Citrus-Levy County area including 

5 the proposed Inglis Lock bypass channel spillway hydropower project, existing limestone mines, 

6 and the proposed Tarmac King Road Limestone Mine, commercial forestry operations, and 

7 future urbanization. The proposed Port District is a planned waterfront development that could 

8 include residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Stressors to aquatic biota that can occur 

9 from these projects and actions include habitat loss and alteration, erosion and sedimentation, 

10 shoreline hardening, chemical contamination, and incompatible recreational activities. 

11 The Staff concludes that residential, commercial, and industrial development will continue to be 

12 a contributor to cumulative impacts on aquatic resources. 

13 6.5 Fishing and Boating 

14 Many fish and shellfish species in Crystal Bay, including Federally-managed species, are 

15 subject to the effects of fishing pressure. In many cases, Federal or State agencies regulate 

16 commercial or recreational catches, but losses of some species (including Federally-managed 

17 species) continue to occur as the result of bycatch or illegal capture. Also, overharvesting of 

18 prey species may degrade the habitat value of EFH for higher trophic level fish by depleting the 

19 food resources. The extent and magnitude of fishing pressure and its relationship to overall 

20 cumulative impacts to Federally-managed species is difficult to determine. Normal use of 

21 fishing gear and discarded or lost fishing gear poses a threat to Federally-managed species 

22 (FWC, 2005). 

23 The 2010 commercial finfish and shellfish landings for Citrus and Levy Counties were 

24 491,471 lb (222,928 kg) of finfish; 1,113,817 lb (505,219 kg) of invertebrates (excluding shrimp); 

25 and 431,641 lb (195,789 kg) of shrimp (FWC, 2011). Table 8 presents the 1986, 2007, and 

26 2010 commercial landings for Citrus County and the west coast of Florida for those 

27 Federally-managed species addressed in Section 5. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-59 

1 Table 8. Commercial Landings of Federally-Managed Species for Citrus County and the 

2 West Coast of Florida for 1986, 2007, and 2010 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Commercial Landings (lb)(a)

1986(b)

Citrus County 

(West Coast Florida) 

2007(c)

Citrus County 

(West Coast Florida) 

2010(d)

Citrus County 

(West Coast Florida) 

Red drum 

Red drum 

(Sciaenops ocellatus) 

14,062 

(882,863) 

--(e)

(--) 

--(e)

(--) 

Reef fish – jacks (Carangidae) 

Amberjacks(f) 2,147 

(889,691) 

103 

(640,470) 

171 

(701,372) 

Reef fish – wrasses (Labridae) 

Hogfish 

(Lachnolaimus maximus) 

162 

(38,093) 

60 

(26,202) 

2646 

(38,444) 

Reef fish – snappers (Lutjanidae) 

Gray snapper 

(Lutjanus griseus) 

17,189 

(625,620) 

1,010 

(183,581) 

1,746 

(203,864) 

Lane snapper 

(Lutjanus synagris) 

5,445 

(67,741) 

131 

(14,608) 

51 

(15,230) 

Yellowtail snapper 

(Ocyurus chrysurus) 

21 

(1,026,904) 

1 

(881,060) 

0 

(1,322,854) 

Vermillion snapper 

(Rhomboplites aurorubens) 

329 

(876,396) 

196 

(1,066,201) 

326 

(1,110,931) 

Other snappers(g) 1,440 

(144,963) 

95 

(40,516) 

0 

(19,041) 

Reef fish – groupers (Serranidae) 

Red grouper 

(Epinephelus morio) 

28,923 

(7,474,704) 

69,295 

(4,351,846) 

99,908 

(2,863,450) 

Nassau grouper 

(Epinephelus striatus) 

0 

(5,801) NL(h) NL(h)

Black grouper 

(Mycteroperca bonaci) 

14,651 

(1,327,450) 

252 

(220,161) 

0 

(48,197) 

Gag grouper 

(Mycteroperca microlepis) 

15,394 

(842,988) 

9,983 

(1,333,990) 

14,237 

(482,264) 

Other groupers(i) 503 

(127,602) 

30 

(93,899) 

5 

(19,028) 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-60 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Commercial Landings (lb)(a)

1986(b)

Citrus County 

(West Coast Florida) 

2007(c)

Citrus County 

(West Coast Florida) 

2010(d)

Citrus County 

(West Coast Florida) 

Coastal migratory pelagic 

Spanish mackerel 

(Scomberomorus maculatus) 

135 

(3,071,862) 

429 

(369,274) 

103 

(444,660) 

Shrimp 

White shrimp 

(Litopenaeus setiferus) 

22,539 

(1,153,687) 

0 

(87,097) 

0 

(299,068) 

Pink shrimp 

(Farfantepenaeus duorarum) 

11,599 

(14,000,890) 

1,361 

(4,981,837) 

1,180 

(6,839,868) 

Stone Crab 

Stone crabs(j) 332,372 

(1,942,995) 

350,646 

(2,921,931) 

188,443 

(1,806,341) 

(a) To convert to kilograms, multiply by 0.4536. 

(b) 1986 is the first year of commercial landing information available and also coincides to the period when the 

CREC did not have cooling towers along the discharge canal for CR-1 through CR-3. 

(c) 2007 corresponds to the most recent impingement study at the CREC. 

(d) 2009 is the most recent finalized landings list. 

(e) No commercial catch of red drum occurs. 

(f) Includes the greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili), which is retained as a Federally-managed species of 

concern, and the lesser amberjack (S. fasciata), which is not retained as a Federally-managed species of 

concern (see Section 4.0). 

(g) The “other snappers” may include schoolmasters (Lutjanus apodus) and dog snappers (L. synagris), which 

are retained as Federally-managed species of concern. 

(h) NL = not listed. The Nassau grouper may be included among the “other groupers” category. 

(i) The “other groupers” may include the dwarf sand perch (Diplectrum bivittatum), rock hind (Epinephelus 

adscensionis), and Nassau grouper. 

(j) Stone crabs include the Florida stone crab (Menippe mercenaria), which is retained as a Federally-managed 

species of concern, and the Gulf stone crab (M. adina), which is not maintained as a Federally-managed 

species of concern (see Section 4.0). The commercial landings only include stone crab claws. 

Source: FWC, 2011 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-61 

1 Boating has adversely affected aquatic resources along the Gulf coast, including Crystal Bay. 

2 Impacts from boating include wave and surge effects that adversely affect wetland habitats and 

3 increase water turbidity. Vessel propellers or their wash can scar seagrass bed and disturb 

4 sediments (Hanson et al., 2004). Marina and docking facilities can introduce petroleum 

5 products, human waste, and hull anti-fouling paints to the water column and sediments that can 

6 be detrimental to aquatic resources (CCBCC, 2009). Barge traffic within the CREC intake canal 

7 can result in short-term increases in impingement (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985). 

8 Dredging navigable waters (including infrequent dredging of the CREC intake and discharge 

9 canals) can adversely affect EFH species, their prey, and their habitats by direct removal or 

10 burial of organisms, turbidity and sedimentation effects, contaminant release and uptake, 

11 release of oxygen consuming substances, entrainment, and alteration to hydrodynamic regimes 

12 and physical habitat (Hanson et al., 2004). After LNP becomes operational, CR-1 and CR-2 will 

13 cease operations and the number of barge shipments to the CREC will decrease. 

14 Because fishing and boating remain a concern, the Staff concludes that these stressors will 

15 continue to be an important contributor to cumulative impacts on Federally-managed species 

16 and their EFH and forage species within the Crystal Bay area. 

17 6.6 Water Quality Degradation 

18 Point-source chemical and thermal discharges can adversely affect EFH by reducing habitat 

19 functions, modifying community structure, causing bioaccumulation, and modifying habitat 

20 (Hanson et al., 2004). The Staff considered the potential cumulative impacts from thermal and 

21 chemical releases, including increases in total dissolved solids in the combined CREC and LNP 

22 discharge. Thermal and chemical releases from the CREC comply with NPDES permit 

23 requirements (FDEP, 2005). The FDEP will take cumulative thermal and chemical releases 

24 from the CREC and the proposed LNP, as well as from other industrial sites discharging to the 

25 Crystal Bay, into consideration before approving an NPDES permit for LNP. The FDEP 

26 periodically reviews and renews NPDES permits, thus regulating the flow of industrial effluents 

27 to Crystal Bay and its associated streams and rivers in a manner that preserves water quality 

28 and protects aquatic resources through implementation of best technologies available and other 

29 mitigation measures. Given the lack of other discharges into the immediate area of the CREC 

30 discharge, it is likely that the cumulative impacts from the combined discharge would be 

31 minimal. Thus, thermal and chemical releases from these facilities would only have a localized, 

32 minimal adverse impact on some Federally-managed species and their EFH and forage 

33 species. 

34 Cumulative effects of non-point sources (e.g., urban and stormwater runoff, boating activities, 

35 sewage disposal facilities, and agricultural runoff) may be the largest detriment to estuaries and 

36 spring-fed river systems in Citrus County (CCBCC, 2009). Pesticides used to control aquatic 

37 plants and mosquitoes may be contributing directly or indirectly to degrading water quality 

38 (FWC, 2005), (CCBCC, 2009). Fertilizers, wastewater, nutrient loads, and road and parking lot 

39 pollutants have affected aquifers and springs in the county (CCBCC, 2009). These sources of 

40 non-point pollution can adversely affect a number of aquatic habitats such as coastal tidal rivers 

41 or streams, springs, tidal marshes, bivalve reefs, subtidal unconsolidated marine and estuarine 

42 sediment, and SAV (FWC, 2005) that provide EFH for Federally-managed species. 

43 Industrial spills can cause habitat disturbance, altered water quality, altered species 

44 composition, and sediment contamination (FWC, 2005). Some industrial spills may have little 

45 residual effects and the affected resource may recover quickly. However, some spills, 

46 particularly petroleum hydrocarbon spills, can have disastrous, widespread effects that can last 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-62 

1 decades (FWC, 2005). Petroleum spills have proven to be disastrous to marine organisms 

2 either due to direct toxicity or indirectly through habitat destruction and contamination 

3 (e.g., seagrass beds). The review team is aware of recent events in the Gulf of Mexico 

4 associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. To date, information associated with 

5 Federally-managed species and their EFH are preliminary and inconclusive. Although not 

6 included in this EFH, the review team will consider information associated with the oil spill as it 

7 becomes available. 

8 The Staff concludes that water quality degradation in Crystal Bay and its wetlands and 

9 tributaries will continue in the future and will be a potential contributor to cumulative impacts on 

10 Federally-managed species and their EFH and forage species. 

11 6.7 Invasive Species 

12 The introduction of invasive species is often a source of critical stress to endemic species or 

13 their habitats. Estuaries and sheltered coastal areas are among the most susceptible to 

14 invasive species, especially those that have suffered prior disturbance by navigation, industrial 

15 development, and urbanization (Ray, 2005). Most invasive species in estuarine and marine 

16 systems result from shipping. These include species capable of attaching to hard surfaces 

17 (e.g., ship hulls) or those found in ballast water. Species introduced from the aquarium trade 

18 are also a concern (Ray, 2005). Ray (2005) reported that 74 non-indigenous estuarine and 

19 marine species occur in the Gulf of Mexico. 

20 A number of species may pose serious threats to marine and freshwater habitats in Florida. 

21 Some of these are parasites and/or pathogens of native species (FWC, 2005). Ray (2005) 

22 considered the Australian spotted jellyfish (Phylloriza punctata), green mussel (Perna viridis), 

23 green porcelain crab (Petrolisthes armatus), and lionfish (Pterios volitan) to be the invasive 

24 species of most concern in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The green mussel can clog intake pipes, 

25 interfere with shellfish culture, displace local fauna, and possibly harbor algal species that cause 

26 toxic shellfish poisoning (Ray, 2005). The University of Florida (2007) expects the green mussel 

27 to spread throughout Florida. The green porcelain crab has the potential to directly and 

28 indirectly affect oyster beds (Ray, 2005), (Masterson, 2007b). The Australian spotted jellyfish is 

29 a threat to fisheries and fisheries restoration operations as it feeds on zooplankton and fish 

30 larvae and can foul fishing nets (Ray, 2005), (Masterson, 2007a). The lionfish can negatively 

31 affect coral reef fishes through consuming or competing with various species. If lionfish 

32 decrease population densities of important herbivorous species such as parrotfish, seaweeds 

33 and macroalgae could overgrow corals. Currently, observations of lionfish from the Gulf of 

34 Mexico are limited (Schofield et al., 2010). 

35 The Staff concludes that invasive and nuisance species will continue to be a concern and a 

36 potential contributor to cumulative impacts on Federally-managed species and their EFH and 

37 forage species. 

38 6.8 Disease 

39 Aquatic biota are subjected to a number of diseases. Among the most prevalent is red tide. 

40 Red tide, the common name for the harmful bloom of the marine algae Karenia brevis, produces 

41 a brevetoxin that can cause mortality to hundreds of fish species (including Federally-managed 

42 species) (FWS and NMFS, 2009). The trigger for red tide could include excess nutrients and 

43 other pollutants (FWC, 2005). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-63 

1 The Staff concludes that disease will continue to be a concern and a potential contributor to 

2 cumulative impacts on Federally-managed species and their forage species. 

3 6.9 Climate Change 

4 The potential cumulative effects of climate change on Crystal Bay, whether from natural cycles 

5 or related anthropogenic activities, could result in a variety of changes that would affect aquatic 

6 resources. The environmental factors of significance that could affect estuary systems include 

7 sea level rise, temperature increases, salinity changes, wind and water circulation changes, and 

8 ocean acidification (Kennedy, 1990), (Doney et al., 2009), (Raven et al., 2005). Changes in sea 

9 level could result in effects to nearshore communities, including the reduction or redistribution of 

10 SAV, changes in marsh communities, and influences to other wetland areas adjacent to 

11 nearshore systems. Water temperature changes could affect spawning patterns or success, or 

12 influence the distribution of important species (e.g., cold water species may move northward 

13 while the ranges of warm water species expand) (Kennedy, 1990). Changes in salinity could 

14 influence the spawning and distribution of important species and the range of invasive species. 

15 Fundamental changes in precipitation could influence water circulation and change the nature of 

16 sediment and nutrient inputs to the system. This could result in changes to primary production 

17 and influence the estuarine food web. Some fisheries and aquaculture enterprises might benefit 

18 from climate change, while others might suffer (Kennedy, 1990). However, climate change 

19 could increase the frequency of red tide blooms, with adverse impacts to many fish species 

20 (FWS and NMFS, 2009). 

21 Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can reduce ocean pH and carbonate ion 

22 concentrations. This will cause organisms such as corals, benthic mollusks, echinoderms, and 

23 some plankton difficulty in maintaining their external calcium carbonate skeletons (Doney et al., 

24 2009). Other influences caused by ocean acidification could include decreased reproductive 

25 potential, slower growth, and increased susceptibility to disease. The cascading effects through 

26 food webs caused by ocean acidification could be adverse effects to ecosystem structure and 

27 elemental cycling (Raven et al., 2005). 

28 The Florida Oceans and Coastal Council (2009) concluded that the predicted effects of climate 

29 change would not benefit oceanic and estuarine aquatic resources. Climate change effects to 

30 aquatic resources could include: 

31 ● adverse impacts to corals, clams, shrimp, and other organisms with calcium 

32 carbonate shells or skeletons due to increased acidity 

33 ● more frequent die-offs of sponges, seagrasses, and other organisms could occur 

34 as sea surface temperatures increase 

35 ● increased exceedance of thermal tolerance and increases in the rate of disease 

36 in corals 

37 ● geographic range of marine species will shift northward and may drastically alter 

38 marine and estuarine community composition 

39 ● Florida coastal waters may become more favorable for invasive species 

40 ● increase in the incidence of harmful algal blooms 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-64 

1 ● increased stormwater runoff and transport of nutrients could contribute to hypoxia 

2 (low oxygen) 

3 ● sea level rises could alter the integrity of natural communities in estuaries, tidal 

4 wetlands, and tidal rivers 

5 The Staff concludes that climate change impacts to Federally-managed species and their EFH 

6 could be an important contributor to cumulative impacts in Crystal Bay. 

7 6.10 Total Cumulative Impacts on Federally-Managed Species and Their EFH 

8 Based on the Staff’s review, multiple stressors affect the aquatic resources of Crystal Bay. 

9 Management actions may address the impacts of some of the stressors (e.g., cooling system 

10 operations, fishing pressure, and water quality). Although the impacts associated with 

11 cumulative impacts cannot be quantified, cumulative impacts on aquatic resources have had or 

12 potentially will have destabilizing and adverse effects on at least some aquatic resources, 

13 including Federally-managed species and their EFH and forage species. 

14 7.0 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSERVATION MEASURES AND 

15 CONCLUSIONS 

16 7.1 Conservation Measures 

17 Three categories of impacts related to CR-3 operation could influence Federally-managed 

18 species, their EFH, or their prey species: (1) impingement, (2) entrainment, and (3) thermal 

19 discharges. The applicant’s NPDES permit (FDEP, 2005) contains operational and temperature 

20 and chemical discharge limits to protect water quality and minimize impacts to aquatic biota. 

21 These limits and operating conditions would continue during the license renewal period for 

22 CR-3. 

23 Based on the results of the 316 Demonstration study (SWEC, 1985), the EPA and FDEP issued 

24 a public notice of determination that the thermal discharges from the CREC had substantially 

25 damaged 1,100 ac (445 ha) of Crystal Bay. After several years of testimony, engineering 

26 studies, and negotiations, the CREC operations required: 

27 ● a 15 percent reduction in flow through the plant from November 1 through 

28 April 30 to reduce entrainment and, to some extent, impingement 

29 ● construction and operation of a multi-species mariculture center to mitigate intake 

30 impacts on fish and shellfish 

31 ● a maximum discharge temperature limitation of 96.5 °F (35.8 °C) as a 3-hour 

32 rolling average at the POD and construction and operation of helper cooling 

33 towers to mitigate thermal impacts to water quality and SAV (FPC, 2010) 

34 The addition of the cooling towers to meet the NPDES permit limit of 96.5 °F (35.8 °C) (as a 

35 3-hour rolling limit) at the POD lessened the size of the thermal plume and the maximum 

36 discharge temperature. However, during hot summers, the applicant occasionally chooses to 

37 reduce power at the coal-fired units (CR-1 and CR-2) to stay within NPDES permit thermal 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-65 

1 limits. In April 2006, the applicant received approval from the State of Florida to install 

2 additional modular cooling towers to allow CR-1 and CR-2 to operate during the warmest times 

3 of the year without reducing power (Progress Energy, 2008). 

4 Once the helper cooling towers began operation in 1993, seagrass monitoring occurred for 

5 3 years to quantify seagrass presence and recovery within a 2-mi (3.2-km) radius from the POD. 

6 Operation of the cooling towers did not have a dramatic impact on seagrass re-colonization. 

7 Changes in the area of the thermal plume only reflected changes also observed in the 

8 unaffected portions of Crystal Bay (FPC, 2010). Thus, thermal impacts do not have a 

9 substantial adverse impact on seagrass, which provides EFH for several of the 

10 Federally-managed species that occur within the nearshore areas of Crystal Bay. This is 

11 evident by the fact that sprig and seagrass plantings and seagrass monitoring are no longer 

12 requirements in the NPDES permit. The STAC reviewed the results and made 

13 recommendations regarding future activities at the CREC. The STAC suggested that light 

14 intensity, turbidity, salinity variation, and suspended solids have a significant influence on 

15 seagrass colonization and could be more critical than temperature (FPC, 2010). This may 

16 account for the lack of dramatic re-colonization in the discharge area since the operation of the 

17 helper cooling towers at the CREC (FPC, 2010). 

18 Federally-managed species cultured and released from the Crystal River Mariculture Center 

19 include red drum, pink shrimp, and stone crab. From 1992 through 2009, releases of 

20 Federally-managed species have included the following: (1) red drums – 947,394 fingerlings 

21 and 1,375,500 larvae; (2) pink shrimp – 415,102 (life stage not provided), and (3) stone crabs – 

22 32,347,962 zoea stage 1 (Progress Energy, 2010b). 

23 7.2 Conclusions 

24 The potential impacts of the continued operation of CR-3 on Federally-managed species and 

25 their EFH near the site have been evaluated. The known distributions and records of the 

26 Federally-managed species and the potential ecological impacts of operation on them, their 

habitat, and their prey base have been considered in this EFH assessment4 27 . The continued 

28 operation of CR-3 was evaluated to determine whether it resulted in: (1) no adverse effect, 

29 (2) minimal adverse effect, or (3) substantial adverse effect on Federally-managed species and 

30 their EFH. The expected impacts of continued operation of CR-3 on the Federally-managed 

31 species and their EFH are summarized in Table 9. Few of the Federally-managed species for 

32 Ecoregion 2 have been collected in Crystal Bay near the CREC, and even fewer 

33 Federally-managed species have been collected in impingement or entrainment samples at 

34 CREC (Mountain, 1972), (NUS Corporation, 1978), (SWEC, 1985), (Ager et al., 2008), (CH2M 

35 Hill, 2009). When coupled with the current mitigation measures in place at the CREC, potential 

36 adverse effects on the various life stages of the Federally-managed species and their EFHs are 

37 reduced. The Staff concludes that license renewal of CR-3 for an additional 20 years of 

38 operation would result in no to minimal adverse effects on Federally-managed species and their 

39 EFH in Ecoregion 2 of the Gulf of Mexico. 

 

4

 Impingement and/or entrainment of Federally-managed species prey items would occur, but substantial 

adverse effects on prey populations would not occur. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-66 

1 Table 9. Impacts of Continued Operation of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

2 on Ecoregion 2 Species and Their Essential Fish Habitat 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Life Stage EFH Description(a) Expected Effect of Continued 

operation of CR-3 on EFH 

Red drum 

Red drum 

(Sciaenops ocellatus) 

Eggs M, planktonic No Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

entrainment samples. 

Larvae E, planktonic, SAV, 

sand/shell/soft bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Thermal plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay SAV. 

Juveniles M/E, less than 5 m, SAV, 

sand/shell/soft/hard bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Not commonly impinged. 

Thermal plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay SAV. 

Adults M/E, between 1–46 m, SAV, 

pelagic, sand/shell/soft/hard 

bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Not commonly impinged. 

Thermal plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay SAV. 

Reef fish – jacks (Carangidae) 

Greater amberjack 

(Seriola dumerili) 

Eggs M, 1–183 m, planktonic No Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

entrainment samples. 

Larvae M, 1–183 m, pelagic No Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

entrainment samples. 

Juveniles M, 1–183 m, drift algae No Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

impingement samples. 

Reef fish – wrasses (Labridae) 

Hogfish 

(Lachnolaimus maximus) 

Juveniles E/M, between 3–30 m, SAV Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

impingement samples. Thermal 

plume may affect small portion 

of Crystal Bay SAV. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-67 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Life Stage EFH Description(a) Expected Effect of Continued 

operation of CR-3 on EFH 

Reef fish – snappers (Lutjanidae) 

Schoolmaster 

(Lutjanus apodus) 

Eggs M, less than 90 m, 

planktonic 

No Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

entrainment samples. 

Larvae M, less than 90 m, 

planktonic 

No Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

entrainment samples. 

Juveniles E/M, less than 90 m, hard 

bottoms, SAV, and 

mangroves 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

impingement samples. Thermal 

plume may affect small portion 

of Crystal Bay SAV. 

Gray snapper 

(Lutjanus griseus) 

Eggs M, less than 180 m, 

planktonic 

No Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

entrainment samples. 

Larvae M/E, less than 180 m, 

planktonic 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Operation of intake may entrain 

small percentage of population. 

Juveniles M/E, less than 180 m, SAV Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Operation of intake may 

impinge small percentage of 

population. Thermal plume may 

affect small portion of Crystal 

Bay SAV. 

Adults E/M, less than 180 m, 

sand/shell/soft/hard bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Operation of intake may 

impinge small percentage of 

population. 

Dog snapper 

(Lutjanus jocu) 

Eggs M, planktonic No Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

entrainment samples. 

Larvae M, planktonic No Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

entrainment samples. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-68 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Life Stage EFH Description(a) Expected Effect of Continued 

operation of CR-3 on EFH 

Juveniles E/M, SAV Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

impingement samples. Thermal 

plume may affect small portion 

of Crystal Bay SAV. 

Lane snapper 

(Lutjanus synagris) 

Larvae E/M, between 4–132 m, 

SAV 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

entrainment samples. Thermal 

plume may affect small portion 

of Crystal Bay SAV. 

Juveniles E/M, less than 20 m, SAV, 

sand/shell/soft bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Not commonly impinged. 

Thermal plume may affect small 

portion of Crystal Bay SAV. 

Yellowtail snapper 

(Ocyurus chrysurus) 

Juveniles M/E, between 1–183 m, 

SAV, soft bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

impingement samples. Thermal 

plume may affect small portion 

of Crystal Bay SAV. 

Adults M, between 1–183 m, hard 

bottom, shoals/banks 

No Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

impingement samples. 

Vermillion snapper 

(Rhomboplites aurorubens) 

Juveniles M, between 1–25 m, hard 

bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Operation of intake 

may impinge small percentage 

of population. 

Reef fish – groupers (Serranidae) 

Dwarf sand perch 

(Diplectrum bivittatum) 

Juveniles M, hard bottom Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not commonly 

impinged. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-69 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Life Stage EFH Description(a) Expected Effect of Continued 

operation of CR-3 on EFH 

Rock hind 

(Epinephelus adscensionis) 

Eggs M, 2–100 m, planktonic No Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

entrainment samples. 

Larvae M, 2–100 m, planktonic No Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

entrainment samples. 

Juveniles M, 2–110 m, reefs No Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

impingement samples. 

Red grouper 

(Epinephelus morio) 

Juveniles M/E, less than 50 m, hard 

bottom, SAV 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

impingement samples. Thermal 

plume may affect small portion 

of Crystal Bay SAV. 

Nassau grouper 

(Epinephelus striatus) 

Eggs M, planktonic No Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

entrainment samples. 

Larvae M, between 2–50 m, 

planktonic 

No Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

entrainment samples. 

Juveniles M, SAV Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

impingement samples. Thermal 

plume may affect small portion 

of Crystal Bay SAV. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-70 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Life Stage EFH Description(a) Expected Effect of Continued 

operation of CR-3 on EFH 

Black grouper 

(Mycteroperca bonaci) 

Juveniles E/M, SAV, hard bottom Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

impingement samples. Thermal 

plume may affect small portion 

of Crystal Bay SAV. 

Adults M/E, hard bottom No Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not reported from 

impingement samples. 

Gag grouper 

(Mycteroperca microlepis) 

Juveniles M/E, less than 50 m, SAV, 

hard bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Not commonly 

impinged. Thermal plume may 

affect small portion of Crystal 

Bay SAV. 

Coastal migratory pelagic 

Spanish mackerel 

(Scomberomorus maculatus) 

Juveniles M, less than 50 m, pelagic Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Operation of intake may 

impinge small percentage of 

population. 

Adults E/M, less than 75 m, pelagic Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Operation of intake may 

impinge small percentage of 

population. 

Shrimp 

White shrimp 

(Litopenaeus setiferus) 

Larvae E/M, less than 64 m, 

plankton, soft bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Operation of intake 

may entrain small percentage of 

population. 

Juveniles E, soft bottom Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Not common or limited 

distribution in Crystal Bay near 

the CREC. Operation of intake 

may impinge small percentage 

of population. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-71 

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Life Stage EFH Description(a) Expected Effect of Continued 

operation of CR-3 on EFH 

Pink shrimp 

(Farfantepenaeus duorarum) 

Eggs M, less than 50 m, 

sand/shell bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Operation of intake may entrain 

small percentage of population. 

Larvae M, less than 50 m, 

planktonic, sand/shell 

bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Operation of intake may entrain 

small percentage of population. 

Juveniles E, less than 64 m, 

sand/shell bottom, SAV 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Operation of intake may 

impinge small percentage of 

population. 

Adults M, less than 64 m, 

sand/shell bottom 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Operation of intake may 

impinge small percentage of 

population. 

Stone Crab 

Florida stone crab 

(Menippe mercenaria) 

Larvae E/M, less than 62 m, 

planktonic 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Operation of intake may entrain 

small percentage of population. 

Juveniles E/M, less than 62 m, 

sand/shell/hard bottom, 

SAV 

Minimal Adverse Effect. 

Operation of intake may 

impinge small percentage of 

population. Thermal plume may 

affect small portion of Crystal 

Bay SAV. 

(a) M = marine; E = estuarine; SAV = submerged aquatic vegetation 

Source of EFH descriptions: NMFS, 2009 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-72 

1 8.0 REFERENCES 

2 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

3 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

4 16 U.S.C. § 1801. United States Code. Title 10, Conservation, Chapter 38, Fishery 

5 Conservation and Management, Section 1802, “Definitions.” 

6 50 CFR Part 600. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 60, 

7 “Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions.” 

8 AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). 1973. “Final Environmental Statement Related to the 

9 Proposed Crystal River Unit 3 Florida Power Corporation,” Docket No. 50-302, U.S. Atomic 

10 Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing, Washington, D.C., May 1973, Agencywide 

11 Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML091520178. 

12 Ager, D.D., S. Rkman-Filipovic, and S. Mac. 2008. “Crystal River Power Plant Fish 

13 Impingement Study Report,” Kinectrics Report: 012974-001-RA-0001-R00, Kinectrics North 

14 America Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada, March 3, 2008. 

15 Alden, R.W., III. 1976. “Growth, Reproduction and Survival of Some Marine Copepods 

16 Subjected to Thermal and Mechanical Stress,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, 

17 Gainesville, Florida. 

18 Ault, J.S., S.G. Smith, G.A. Diaz, and E. Franklin. 2003. “Florida Hogfish Fishery Stock 

19 Assessment,” SEDAR6-RW-4, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida 

20 Marine Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Florida, April 2003. Available URL: 

21 http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR6_RW4.pdf?id=DOCUMENT

22 (accessed March 10, 2011). 

23 Benson, N.G. (ed.). 1982. “Life History Requirements of Selected Finfish and Shellfish in 

24 Mississippi Sound and Adjacent Areas,” FWS/OBS-81/51, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office 

25 of Biological Services, Washington, D.C., March 1982. Available URL: 

26 http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3936.pdf (accessed April 7, 2010). 

27 Bester, C. 2010a. “Biological Profiles: Hogfish,” Florida Museum of Natural History, 

28 Gainesville, Florida. Available URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/Hogfish/

29 Hogfish.html (accessed August 13, 2010). 

30 Bester, C. 2010b. “Biological Profiles: Gray Snapper,” Florida Museum of Natural History, 

31 Gainesville, Florida. Available URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/

32 GraySnapper/Graysnapper.html (accessed April 29, 2010). 

33 Bester, C. 2010c. “Biological Profiles: Yellowtail Snapper,” Florida Museum of Natural History, 

34 Gainesville, Florida. Available URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/

35 YellowtailSnapper/Yellowtailsnapper.html (accessed April 29, 2010). 

36 Bester, C. 2010d. “Biological Profiles: Nassau Grouper,” Florida Museum of Natural History, 

37 Gainesville, Florida. Available URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/

38 NassauGrouper/NassauGrouper.html (accessed April 29, 2010). 

39 Bester, C. 2010e. “Biological Profiles: Gag Grouper,” Florida Museum of Natural History, 

40 Gainesville, Florida. Available URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/GagGrouper/

41 GagGrouper.html (accessed April 29, 2010). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-73 

1 Bielsa, L.M., W.H. Murdich, and R.F. Labisky. 1983. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and 

2 Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Florida) – Pink 

3 Shrimp,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/11.17, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

4 TR EL-82-4, 21 pp. Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-

5 017.pdf (accessed March 3, 2010). 

6 Bortone, S.A. and J.L. Williams. 1986. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental 

7 Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Florida) – Gray, Lane, Mutton, and 

8 Yellowtail Snappers,” Biological Report 82(11.52), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

9 TR EL-82-4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, June 1986. Available URL: 

10 http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-052.pdf (accessed April 7, 2010). 

11 Brown, S.D. and T.M. Bert. 1993. “The Effects of Temperature and Salinity on Molting and 

12 Survival of Menippe adina and M. mercenaria (Crustacea, Decapoda) Postsettlement 

13 Juveniles,” Marine Ecology Press Series, 99:41–49. 

14 CCBCC (Citrus County Board of County Commissioners). 2009. “Citrus County Florida 

15 Comprehensive Plan,” Citrus County Board of County Commissioners, Inverness, Florida. 

16 Available URL: http://www.bocc.citrus.fl.us/devservices/planning/comp_plan/comp_plan.htm

17 (accessed March 3, 2010). 

18 CH2M Hill. 2009. “Aquatic Sampling Report Levy Nuclear Plant,” 33884-TMEM-087, 

19 Revision 1, Janurary 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML091260539. 

20 Clean Water Act of 1977. § 33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq. 

21 Davis, J.T. 1990. “Red Drum Brood Stock and Hatchery Production,” SEAC Publication 

22 No. 323, Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, Mississippi, June 1990. 

23 Available URL: https://srac.tamu.edu/index.cfm/event/getFactSheet/whichfactsheet/62

24 (accessed August 23, 2010). 

25 Dawes, C.J., R.C. Phillips, and G. Morrison. 2004. “Seagrass Communities of the Gulf Coast 

26 of Florida: Status and Ecology,” Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and 

27 Wildlife Research Institute and Tampa Bay Estuary Program, St. Petersburg, Florida, 

28 August 2004. 

29 Dineen, J. 2004. “Epinephelus striatus (Nassau Grouper),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort 

30 Pierce, Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Epinep_striat.htm (accessed 

31 April 7, 2010). 

32 Doney, S.C., V.J. Fabry, R.A. Feely, and J.A. Kleypas. 2009. “Ocean Acidification: The Other 

33 CO2 Problem,” Annual Review of Marine Science, 1:169–192. 

34 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. “The Ecological Condition of Estuaries in 

35 the Gulf of Mexico,” EPA 620-R-98-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

36 Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, 

37 Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, Florida, July 1999. 

38 EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2003. “Enhancement Strategies for Mitigating 

39 Potential Operational Impacts of Cooling Water Intake Structures: Approaches for Enhancing 

40 Environmental Resources,” Technical Report 1007454, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo 

41 Alto, California, June 2003. 

42 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2005. State of Florida Industrial 

43 Wastewater Facility Permit FL0000159 for Crystal River Units 1, 2, and 3, Progress Energy 

44 Florida, St. Petersburg, Florida, issued May 9, 2005. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-74 

1 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2008a. “Seagrasses,” Florida 

2 Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida. Available URL: 

3 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/habitats/seagrass (accessed December 14, 2009). 

4 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2008b. “Progress Energy Florida, 

5 Crystal River Energy Complex, Unit CR3 Nuclear Uprate Project,” Electric Power Plant Site 

6 Certification Staff Analysis Report, PA 77-09A2, State of Florida Department of Environmental 

7 Protection, Tallahassee, Florida, February 1, 2008. 

8 FishBase. 2010a. “Diplectrum bivittatum (Valenciennes, 1828) Dwarf Sand Perch.” 

9 Available URL: http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?

10 ID=3318&AT=dwarf+sand+perch (accessed March 11, 2011). 

11 FishBase. 2010b. “Epinephelus adscensionis (Osbeck, 1765) Rock Hind.” Available URL: 

12 http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=14&genusname=Epinephelus&spe

13 ciesname=adscensionis (accessed March 11, 2011). 

14 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2011. “Shellfish Harvesting.” 

15 Available URL: http://www.floridaaquaculture.com/seas/seas_intro.htm (accessed February 11, 

16 2011). 

17 Florida Oceans and Coastal Council. 2009. “The Effects of Climate Change on Florida’s Ocean 

18 & Coastal Resources,” Florida Oceans and Coastal Council, Tallahassee, Florida, 34 pp. 

19 Available URL: http://www.floridaoceanscouncil.org/reports/Climate_Change_Report.pdf

20 (accessed February 3, 2011). 

21 Ford, T. 2010. “Biological Profiles: Black Grouper,” Florida Museum of Natural History, 

22 Gainesville, Florida. Available URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/

23 BlackGrouper/BlackGrouper.html (accessed April 29, 2010). 

24 Fox, J.L. and M.S. Moyer. 1973. “Some Effects of a Power Plant on Marine Microbiota,” 

25 Chesapeake Science, 14(1):1–10. 

26 FPC (Florida Power Corporation). 2002. “Biological Assessment of Impact to Sea Turtles at 

27 Florida Power Corporation’s Crystal River Energy Complex, Revision 2,” Florida Power 

28 Corporation, St. Petersburg, Florida, ADAMS Accession No. ML030070232. 

29 FPC (Florida Power Corporation). 2010. “Final Report of Seagrass Technical Advisory 

30 Committee,” Submitted by Florida Power Corporation Crystal River Units 1, 2, 3, NPDES Permit 

31 No. FL0000159, ADAMS Accession No. ML090750941. 

32 FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2005. “Florida’s Wildlife Legacy 

33 Initiative, Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy,” Florida Fish and Wildlife 

34 Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. Available URL: 

35 http://www.masgc.org/gmrp/plans/FL%20FWCII.pdf (accessed June 3, 2010). 

36 FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2009. “Florida’s Inshore and 

37 Nearshore Species: 2008 Status and Trends Report,” Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

38 Commission, St. Petersburg, Florida, July 10, 2009. Available URL: http://research.myfwc.com/

39 features/category_sub.asp?id=2972 (accessed April 1, 2010). 

40 FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2011. “Commercial Fisheries 

41 Landings in Florida.” Available URL: http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/fishstats/commercial42 fisheries/landings-in-florida/ (accessed February 8, 2011). 

43 FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). Undated. “Crystal River 

44 Mariculture Center.” Available URL: http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/stock45 enhancement/partners/crystal-river-mariculture-center (accessed November 7, 2008). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-75 

1 FWS and NMFS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. 

2 “Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 5-year Review: Summary and Evaluation, 

3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Panama City, Florida, and National Marine 

4 Fisheries Service, Southeast Region, St. Petersburg, Florida. Available URL: 

5 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/gulfsturgeon_5yearreview.pdf (accessed 

6 January 10, 2010). 

7 Galya, D.P. and D.W. McDougall. 1985. “Finite Element Modeling of an Offshore Region with 

8 Restricted Flow,” Oceans, 17:913–918. 

9 GMFMC (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council). 1998. “Generic Amendment for 

10 Addressing Essential Fish Habitat Requirements in the Following Fishery Management Plans of 

11 the Gulf of Mexico: Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States Waters, Red Drum 

12 Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Coastal Migratory Pelagic 

13 Resources (Mackerels) in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf 

14 of Mexico, Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, and Coral and Coral Reefs of 

15 the Gulf of Mexico (Includes Environmental Assessment),” Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

16 Council, Tampa, Florida, October 1998. Available URL: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/

17 GMFMCWeb/downloads/FINALEFH-%20Amendment%201-%20no%20appendices.pdf

18 (accessed March 10, 2010). 

19 GMFMC (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council). 2004. “Final Environmental Impact 

20 Statement for the Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment to the Following Fishery 

21 Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM): Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Red 

22 Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Stone Crab Fishery 

23 of the Gulf of Mexico, Coral and Coral Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Spiny Lobster Fishery of 

24 the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, and Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of 

25 Mexico and South Atlantic. Appendix C Information on Species Distribution and Habitat 

26 Associations,” Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, Florida, March 2004. 

27 Available URL: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/

28 Final%20EFH%20EIS.pdf (accessed March 10, 2010). 

29 GMFMC (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council). 2005. “Final Generic Amendment 

30 Number 3 for Addressing Essential Fish Habitat Requirements, Habitat Areas of Particular 

31 Concern, and Adverse Effects of Fishing in the Following Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf 

32 of Mexico: Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Unites States Waters, Red Drum Fishery of 

33 the Gulf of Mexico, , Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, Coastal Migratory Pelagic 

34 Resources (Mackerels) in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf 

35 of Mexico, Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, and Coral and Coral Reefs of 

36 the Gulf of Mexico,” Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, Florida, March 2005. 

37 Available URL: http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/

38 final3_efh_amendment.pdf (accessed March 10, 2010). 

39 GMP (Gulf of Mexico Program). 2004. “Seagrass Habitat in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: 

40 Degradation, Conservation and Restoration of a Valuable Resource,” 855-R-04-001, 

41 U.S. Geological Survey, Florida Integrated Science Center, St. Petersburg, Florida. Available 

42 URL: http://gulfsci.usgs.gov/gom_ims/pdf/pubs_gom.pdf (accessed February 17, 2010). 

43 Godcharles, M.F. and M.D. Murphy. 1986. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental 

44 Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Florida) – King Mackerel and Spanish 

45 Mackerel,” Biological Report 82(11.58), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and TR EL-82-4, 

46 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, June 1986. Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/

47 wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-058.pdf (accessed April 7, 2010). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-76 

1 Golder Associates, Inc. 2006. “Crystal River Energy Complex Proposal for Information 

2 Collection NPDES Permit No. FL0000159,” Golder Associates, Inc., Tampa, Florida, 

3 January 2006. 

4 Golder Associates, Inc. 2007a. “Site Certification Application Crystal River Unit 3 Power Uprate 

5 Project Crystal River, Florida,” Progress Energy Florida, Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida, 

6 June 2007, ADAMS Accession No. ML093170487. 

7 Golder Associates, Inc. 2007b. “Response to Comments on Crystal River Unit 3 Uprate Project 

8 Site Certification Application,” Progress Energy Florida, Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida, 

9 August 2007. 

10 Grimes, C.B. and J.A. Mountain. 1971. “Effects of Thermal Effluent upon Marine Fishes near 

11 the Crystal River Steam Electric Station,” Professional Papers Series, Number Seventeen, 

12 Florida Department of Natural Resources, Marine Research Laboratory, St. Petersburg, Florida, 

13 October 1971. 

14 Hale, J.A., T.K. Frazer, D.A. Tomasko, and M.O. Hall. 2004. “Changes in the Distribution of 

15 Seagrass Species along Florida’s Central Gulf Coast: Iverson and Bittaker Revisited,” 

16 Estuaries, 27(1):36–43. 

17 Hall, C.A.S., R. Howarth, B. Moore, III, and C.J. Vorosmarty. 1978. “Environmental Impacts of 

18 Industrial Energy Systems in the Coastal Zone,” Annual Review of Energy, 3:395–475. 

19 Handley, L., D. Altsman, and R. DeMay (eds.). 2007. “Seagrass Status and Trends in the 

20 Northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940–2002,” U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

21 2006–5287 and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 855-R-04-003. Available URL: 

22 http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287 (accessed December 11, 2009). 

23 Hanson, J., M. Helvey, and R. Strach (eds.). 2004. “Non-Fishing Impacts to Essential Fish 

24 Habitat and Recommended Conservation Measures,” Version 1.0, National Marine Fisheries 

25 Service, Southwest Region, Long Beach, California, July 2004. Available URL: 

26 http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/EFH-NonGear-Master.PDF (accesses February 10, 2005). 

27 Hill, K. 2002a. “Penaeus duorarum (Pink Shrimp),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort Pierce, 

28 Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Penaeu_duorar.htm (accessed April 7, 

29 2010). 

30 Hill, K. 2002b. “Penaeus setiferus (White Shrimp),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort Pierce, 

31 Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Penaeu_setife.htm (accessed April 7, 

32 2010). 

33 Hill, K. 2004. “Mycteroperca microlepis (Gag Grouper),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort 

34 Pierce, Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Mycter_microl.htm (accessed 

35 April 7, 2010). 

36 Hill, K. 2005a. “Lutjanus griseus (Mangrove Snapper),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort 

37 Pierce, Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Lutjan_griseu.htm (accessed 

38 April 7, 2010). 

39 Hill, K. 2005b. “Lutjanus synagris (Lane Snapper),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort Pierce, 

40 Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Lutjan_synagr.htm (accessed April 7, 

41 2010). 

42 Hill, K. 2005c. “Ocyurus chrysurus (Yellowtail Snapper),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort 

43 Pierce, Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Ocyurus_chrysu.htm (accessed 

44 April 7, 2010). 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-77 

1 Hill, K. 2005d. “Epinephelus morio (Red Grouper),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort Pierce, 

2 Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Epinep_morio.htm (accessed April 7, 

3 2010). 

4 Hill, K. 2005e. “Mycteroperca bonaci (Black Grouper),” Smithsonian Marine Station, Fort 

5 Pierce, Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Mycter_bonaci.htm (accessed 

6 April 7, 2010). 

7 Hill, K. 2005f. “Scomberomorus maculatus (Spanish Mackerel),” Smithsonian Marine Station, 

8 Fort Pierce, Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Scombe_macula.htm

9 (accessed April 7, 2010). 

10 Kennedy, V.S. 1990. “Anticipated Effects of Climate Change on Estuarine and Coastal Fishes,” 

11 Fisheries, 15:16–24. 

12 Kilgen, R.H. and R.J. Dugas. 1989. “The Ecology of Oyster Reefs of the Northern Gulf of 

13 Mexico: An Open File Report,” NWRC Open File Report 89-03. Available URL: 

14 http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3757.pdf (accessed January 1, 2011). 

15 Laist, D.W. and J.E. Reynolds, III. 2005. “Florida Manatees, Warm-Water Refuges, and an 

16 Uncertain Future,” Coastal Management, 33:279–295. 

17 Levin, P.S. and G.W. Stunz. 2005. “Habitat Triage for Exploited Fishes: Can We Identify 

18 Essential ‘Essential Fish Habitat?’” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 64:70–78. 

19 Lindberg, W.J. and M.J. Marshall. 1984. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental 

20 Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Florida) – Stone Crab,” U.S. Fish and 

21 Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/11.21, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, 17 pp. 

22 Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-021.pdf (accessed 

23 March 3, 2010). 

24 MacIntyre, H.L., R.J. Geider, and D.C. Miller. 1996. “Microphytobenthos: The Ecological Role 

25 of the ‘Secret Garden’ of Unvegetated, Shallow-Water Marine Habitats. I. Distribution, 

26 Abundance and Primary Production,” Estuaries, 19(2A):186–201. 

27 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the 

28 Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, Public Law 104–297. 

29 Marshall, M.J. 2002. “Seagrass Survey: November 2001 Resurvey at the Florida Power 

30 Crystal River Generating Facility. Revisit to Area Last Surveyed in 1995 by MML,” Coastal 

31 Seas Consortium, Inc., Bradenton, Florida, March 7, 2002. 

32 Masterson, J. 2007a. “Phyllorhiza punctata (Australian Spotted Jellyfish),” Smithsonian Marine 

33 Station, Fort Pierce, Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/

34 Phyllorhiza_punctata.htm (accessed June 11, 2010). 

35 Masterson, J. 2007b. “Petrolisthes armatus (Green Porcelain Crab),” Smithsonian Marine 

36 Station, Fort Pierce, Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/

37 Petrolisthes_armatus.htm (accessed June 11, 2010). 

38 Mattson, R.A., J.A. Derrenbacker, Jr., and R.R. Lewis, III. 1988. “Effects of Thermal Addition 

39 from the Crystal River Generating Complex on the Submergent Macrophyte Communities in 

40 Crystal Bay, Florida,” in Mahadevan, K., R.K. Evans, P. Behrens, T. Biffar, and L. Olsen (eds.), 

41 Proceedings Southeastern Workshop on Aquatic Ecological Effects of Power Generation, 

42 December 1986, Report Number 124, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida, May 1988. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-78 

1 Minello, T.J., K.W. Able, M.P. Weinstein, and C.G. Hays. 2003. “Salt Marshes as Nurseries for 

2 Nekton: Testing Hypotheses on Density, Growth and Survival through Meta-Analysis,” Marine 

3 Ecology Progress Series, 246:39–59. 

4 Mountain, J.A. 1972. “Further Thermal Addition Studies at Crystal River, Florida with an 

5 Annotated Checklist of Marine Fishes Collected 1969–1971,” Professional Papers Series 

6 Number Twenty, Florida Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida, 

7 December 1972. 

8 Muncy, R.J. 1984. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of 

9 Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) – White Shrimp,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

10 Service FWS/OBS-82/11.20, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, June 1984. 

11 Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-027.pdf (accessed 

12 April 7, 2010). 

13 Murray, R. 2010. “Biological Profiles: Dog Snapper,” Florida Museum of Natural History, 

14 Gainesville, Florida. Available URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/

15 DogSnapper/Dogsnapper.html (accessed April 29, 2010). 

16 Murray, R. and C. Bester. 2010. “Biological Profiles: Lane Snapper,” Florida Museum of 

17 Natural History, Gainesville, Florida. Available URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/

18 Descript/LaneSnapper/Lanesnapper.html (accessed April 29, 2010). 

19 National Ocean Service. 2008. “Salinity,” NOAA’s National Ocean Service Education. 

20 Available URL: http://www.oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/estuaries/media/

21 supp_estuar10c_salinity.html (accessed March 2, 2010). 

22 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. § 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq. 

23 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. “Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine Fish 

24 Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies,” National Marine Fisheries Service, 

25 Habitat Conservation Division, Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, Florida. 

26 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2002. Letter from J.E. Powers, Acting Regional 

27 Administrator, to H.N. Berkow, Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, NRC. 

28 Subject: “Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion Cooling Water 

29 Intake System at the Crystal River Energy Complex (F/SER/2001/01080),” August 8, 2002. 

30 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009. Letter from W.M. Thompson for M.M. 

31 Croom, NMFS, to D.J. Wrona, NRC. Subject: “Presence of Protected Species and Essential 

32 Fish Habitat in the CR-3 Project Area,” May 4, 2009. 

33 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

34 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C., 

35 May 1996, ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738. 

36 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

37 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report, “Section 6.3 – Transportation, Table 9.1, 

38 Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final 

39 Report,” NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C., August 1999, ADAMS 

40 Accession No. ML040690720. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-79 

1 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 

2 Combined Licenses (COLs) for Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, NUREG-1941, U.S. Nuclear 

3 Regulatory Commission, Division of Site and Environmental Review, Office of New Reactors, 

4 Washington, D.C. and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, 

5 Florida, August 2010. 

6 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. E-mail from D. Doyle, NRC, to W.S. 

7 Vinikour, Argonne National Laboratory. Subject: “RE: Outstanding Information Items for Crystal 

8 River,” February 15, 2011. 

9 NUS Corporation. 1978. “Crystal River Unit 3 Environmental Technical Specifications 

10 Impingement Report March 13, 1977 to March 13, 1978,” Prepared for Florida Power 

11 Corporation, St. Petersburg, Florida, by NUS Corporation, August 21, 1978. 

12 Peterson, C.H., J.H. Grabowski, and S.P. Powers. 2003. “Estimated Enhancement of Fish 

13 Production Resulting from Restoring Oyster Reef Habitat: Quantitative Valuation,” Marine 

14 Ecology Progress Series, 264:249–264. 

15 Press, M. 2010. “Biological Profiles: Spanish Mackerel,” Florida Museum of Natural History, 

16 Gainesville, Florida. Available URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/

17 SpanishMackerel/SpanishMackerel.html (accessed April 29, 2010). 

18 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2007. Letter from D.A. Bruzek, Lead 

19 Environmental Scientist, Progress Energy, to B. Nori, FDEP. Subject: “Progress Energy Florida, 

20 Inc. – Crystal River, Units 1, 2, and 3 NPDES Permit No. FL0000159 Thermal Plume 

21 Assessment Plan of Study,” September 17, 2007. 

22 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2008. “Crystal River Unit 3 – License 

23 Renewal Application, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating License Renewal Stage,” 

24 November 2008, ADAMS Accession No. ML090080731. 

25 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009a. Letter from G.D. Miller, General 

26 Manager, Nuclear Plant Development, to NRC. Subject: “Letter from Douglas Bruner (NRC) to 

27 James Scarola (Progress Energy), Dated June 23, 2009, ‘Supplemental Request for Additional 

28 Information Regarding the Environmental Review of the Combined License Application for the 

29 Levy Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2,’” July 29, 2009, ADAMS Accession 

30 No. ML092160830. 

31 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009b. Letter from J.A. Franke, Vice 

32 President, Crystal River Unit 3, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River Unit 3 

33 – Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Review of the License 

34 Renewal Application for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (TAC No. ME0278) – 

35 Environmental Review,” November 5, 2009. 

36 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2010a. Letter from J.A. Franke, Vice 

37 President, Crystal River Unit 3, to NRC. Subject: “Crystal River Unit 3 – Response to Request 

38 for Additional Information for the Review of the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, 

39 License Renewal Application (TAC No. ME0278) – Environmental Review,” June 28, 2010, 

40 ADAMS Accession No. ML101810176. 

41 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2010b. “Crystal River Mariculture Center 

42 Fingerling/Juvenile Release Summary 1992–2009.” 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-80 

1 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2010c. Letter from J. Elnitsky, Vice 

2 President, New Generation Programs & Projects, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: 

3 “Levy Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 52-029 and 52-030, Supplemental Response to 

4 Supplemental Request for Additional Information Regarding the Environmental Review – 

5 Hydrology 5.3.2.1-2,” May 11, 2010. 

6 Puglisi, M.P. 2008. “Menippe mercenaria (Florida Stone Crab),” Smithsonian Marine Station, 

7 Fort Pierce, Florida. Available URL: http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Menippe_mercenaria.htm

8 (accessed April 7, 2010). 

9 Quick, J.A., Jr. (ed.). 1971. “A Preliminary Investigation: The Effect of Elevated Temperature 

10 on the American Oyster Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin). A Symposium,” Professional Papers 

11 Series Number Fifteen, Florida Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Florida, 

12 June 1971. 

13 Raven, J., K. Caldeira, H. Elderfield, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, P. Liss, U. Riebesell, J. Shepherd, 

14 C. Turley, and A. Watson. 2005. “Ocean Acidification Due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon 

15 Dioxide,” Document 12/05, The Royal Society, London, June 2005. Available URL: 

16 http://eprints.ifm-geomar.de/7878/1/965_Raven_2005_OceanAcidificationDueToIncreasing_Mo

17 nogr_pubid13120.pdf (accessed March 8, 2011). 

18 Ray, G.L. 2005. “Invasive Marine and Estuarine Animals of the Gulf of Mexico,” ERDC/TN 

19 ANSRP-05-4, Aquatic Nuisance Species Research Program, September 2005. Available URL: 

20 http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/ansrp05-4.pdf (accessed March 3, 2010). 

21 Reagan, R.E. 1985. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of 

22 Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) – Red Drum,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

23 FWS/OBS-82(11.36), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4, 16 pp. Available URL: 

24 http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-036.pdf (accessed March 3, 2010). 

25 ReMetrix. 2007. “Seagrass Quantification Plan for Progress Energy Florida, Inc. Hydroacoustic 

26 Sampling with Species Point Sampling,” Revised Proposal Submitted to Progress Energy 

27 Florida, Inc., July 5, 2007, ADAMS Accession No. ML100210790. 

28 Rydene, D.A. and R.E. Matheson, Jr. 2003. “Diurnal Fish Density in Relation to Seagrass and 

29 Drift Algae Cover in Tampa Bay, Florida,” Gulf of Mexico Science, 2003(1):35–58. 

30 Sargent, F.J., T.J. Leary, D.W. Crewz, and C.R. Kruer. 1995. “Scarring of Florida’s 

31 Seagrasses: Assessment and Management Options,” FMRI Technical Report TR-1, Florida 

32 Department of Environmental Protection, St. Petersburg, Florida. Available URL: 

33 http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=tr%2D1report%5F39

34 18%2Epdf&objid=35289&dltype=publication (accessed September 9, 2009). 

35 Schofield, P.J., J.A. Morris, Jr., J.N. Langston, and P.L. Fuller. 2010. “Pterois volitans/miles

36 (Lionfish),” USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, Florida. Available 

37 URL: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=963 (accessed June 11, 2010). 

38 Stanley, J.G. and M.A. Sellers. 1986. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental 

39 Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico) – American Oyster,” 

40 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82(11.64), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

41 TR EL-82-4, 25 pp. Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-

42 064.pdf (accessed March 3, 2010). 

43 Steidinger, K.A. and J.F. Van Breedveld. 1971. “Benthic Marine Algae from Waters Adjacent to 

44 the Crystal River Electric Power Plant (1969 and 1970),” Professional papers Series Number 

45 Sixteen, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Marine Research Laboratory, 

46 St. Petersburg, Florida, June 1971. 
Appendix D.1 

 D.1-81 

1 SWEC (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation). 1985. “Final Report: Crystal River 316 

2 Studies,” Prepared for Florida Power Corporation, January 15, 1985. 

3 Turner, R.E. and M.S. Brody. 1983. “Habitat Suitability Index Models: Northern Gulf of Mexico 

4 Brown Shrimp and White Shrimp,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/10.54, 

5 U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Available URL: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/

6 wdb/pub/hsi/hsi-054.pdf (accessed April 7, 2010). 

7 University of Florida. 2007. “Green Mussels in Florida,” University of Florida Fisheries and 

8 Aquatic Sciences, Gainesville, Florida. Available URL: http://fishweb.ifas.ufl.edu/

9 greenmussel/Distribution.shtml (accessed June 11, 2010). 

10 Wahanik, R.J. 1969. “Circulating Water System Study,” GAI Report No. 1702, Prepared by 

11 Gilbert Associates, for Florida Power Corporation, June 9, 1969. 

12 Ward, A.E. 1999. “Maine’s Coastal Wetlands: I. Types, Distribution, Rankings, Functions and 

13 Values,” DEPLW1999 – 13, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Land & 

14 Water Quality, Division of Environmental Assessment, Augusta, Maine, September 1999. 

15 York, R., M. Foster, N. Davis, J. Schoonmaker, R. Unsworth, C. Holmes, J. O’Hagan, and 

16 J. McKinney. 2005. “Issues and Environmental Impacts Associated with Once-Through 

17 Cooling at California’s Coastal Power Plants: In Support of the 2005 Environmental 

18 Performance Report and 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report (Docket 04-lep-1),” 

19 CEC-700-2005-013, California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California, June 2005. 

20 Available URL: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-700-2005-013/CEC-700-2005-

21 013.PDF (accessed June 15, 2010).
 
1 APPENDIX E. 

2 CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 

3 CORRESPONDENCE 

4 

Appendix E 

 E-1 

1 E. CHRONOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 

2 CORRESPONDENCE 

3 This appendix contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the U.S. Nuclear 

4 Regulatory Commission (NRC) and external parties as part of its environmental review for 

5 Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3). All documents, with the exception of 

6 those containing proprietary information, are available electronically from the NRC’s Public 

7 Electronic Reading Room found on the Internet at the following Web address: 

8 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. From this site, the public can gain access to the NRC’s 

9 Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 

10 image files of NRC’s public documents in ADAMS. The ADAMS accession number for each 

11 document is included in the following list. 

12 E.1. Environmental Review Correspondence 

13 December 16, 2008 Letter from Florida Power Corporation (FPC) forwarding the application 

14 for renewal of the operating license for CR-3 to request an extension of 

15 the operating license for an additional 20 years (ADAMS Accession 

16 No. ML090080053) 

17 January 16, 2009 NRC press release announcing the availability of license renewal 

18 application for CR-3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090160331) 

19 January 29, 2009 Letter to FPC, “Receipt and Availability of the License Renewal 

20 Application for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant” 

21 (ADAMS Accession No. ML083470614) 

22 February 4, 2009 Federal Register Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for 

23 Renewal of Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Facility 

24 Operating License No. DPR-72 for an Additional 20-Year Period 

25 (74 FR 6060) (ADAMS Accession No. ML090290253) 

26 February 27, 2009 Letter to FPC, “Determination of Acceptability and Sufficiency for 

27 Docketing and Opportunity for a Hearing Regarding the Application From 

28 Florida Power Corporation for Renewal of the Operating License for the 

29 Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant” (ADAMS Accession 

30 No. ML090090233) 

31 March 9, 2009 NRC press release announcing opportunity for hearing on license 

32 renewal application for CR-3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090680492) 

33 March 9, 2009 Federal Register Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application 

34 and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding Renewal of Facility 

35 Operating License No. DPR-72 for an Additional 20-Year Period; Florida 

36 Power Corporation; Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

37 (74 FR 10099) (ADAMS Accession No. ML090210171) 

38 March 31, 2009 Letter to FPC transmitting notice of intent to prepare an environmental 

39 impact statement and conduct the scoping process for license renewal for 

40 CR-3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090350657) 
Appendix E 

 E-2 

1 April 2, 2009 Memo to David Wrona, NRC, “Forthcoming Meeting to Discuss the 

2 License Renewal Process and Environmental Scoping for Crystal River 

3 Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, License Renewal Application Review” 

4 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090860401) 

5 April 6, 2009 Federal Register Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

6 Statement and Conduct the Scoping Process for CR-3 (74 FR 15523) 

7 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090780840) 

8 April 7, 2009 NRC press release announcing the CR-3 license renewal environmental 

9 scoping meeting (ADAMS Accession No. ML090970844) 

10 April 10, 2009 Letter to Mr. Frederick Gaske, State Historic Preservation Officer, Division 

11 of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, “Crystal River Unit 3 

12 Nuclear Generating Plant License Renewal Application Review (SHPO 

13 No. LRP08-0040)” (ADAMS Accession No. ML090560140) 

14 April 13, 2009 Letter to Mr. Mitchell Cypress, Chairman, Seminole Indian Tribe, 

15 “Request for Comments Concerning the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

16 Generating Plant License Renewal Application Review” (ADAMS 

17 Accession No. ML090490749) 

18 April 13, 2009 Letter to Mr. Enoch Kelly Haney, Principal Chief, Seminole Nation of 

19 Oklahoma, “Request for Comments Concerning the Crystal River Unit 3 

20 Nuclear Generating Plant License Renewal Application Review” (ADAMS 

21 Accession No. ML090550244) 

22 April 13, 2009 Letter to Mr. Sam Hamilton, Regional Director, Southeast Regional Office, 

23 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Request for List of Protected Species 

24 within the Area under Evaluation for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

25 Generating Plant License Renewal Application Review” (ADAMS 

26 Accession No. ML090400392) 

27 April 13, 2009 Letter to Mr. James Kraus, Manager, Crystal River National Wildlife 

28 Refuge, “Request for List of Protected Species within the Area under 

29 Evaluation for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant License 

30 Renewal Application Review” (ADAMS Accession No. ML090560584) 

31 April 13, 2009 Letter to Mr. Roy Crabtree, Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, 

32 National Marine Fisheries Service, “Request for List of Protected Species 

33 and Essential Fish Habitat within the Area under Evaluation for the 

34 Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant License Renewal 

35 Application Review” (ADAMS Accession No. ML090360156) 

36 April 13, 2009 Letter to Mr. Billy Cypress, Chairman, Miccosukee Tribe of Florida, 

37 “Request for Comments Concerning the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

38 Generating Plant License Renewal Application Review” (ADAMS 

39 Accession No. ML090570401) 

40 April 16, 2009 Transcript of the CR-3 license renewal public meeting—afternoon 

41 session, April 16, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML091460259) 

42 April 16, 2009 Transcript of the CR-3 license renewal public meeting—evening session, 

43 April 16, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML091460260) 
Appendix E 

 E-3 

1 April 20, 2009 Letter from Ms. Teletha Mincey, Program Analyst, Protected Resources 

2 Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, providing a list of species 

3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML091460262) 

4 May 4, 2009 Letter from Mr. Frederick Gaske, State Historic Preservation Officer, 

5 regarding the license renewal of CR-3 (ADAMS Accession 

6 No. ML091460261) 

7 May 4, 2009 Letter from Mr. Miles Croom, Assistant Regional Administrator, Habitat 

8 Conservation Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, addressing 

9 essential fish habitat (ADAMS Accession No. ML091460257) 

10 May 11, 2009 E-mail from Mr. Paul Roberts, “Crystal River 3 Plant Life Extension” 

11 (ADAMS Accession No. ML101390392) 

12 May 13, 2009 E-mail from Mr. Kent Wood to Mr. Paul Roberts, “Kopp Letter from 1998” 

13 (ADAMS Accession No. ML101390391) 

14 May 22, 2009 Letter to FPC, “Proposed Review Schedule Regarding the Application 

15 from Florida Power Corporation for Renewal of the Operating License for 

16 Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (TAC Nos. ME0274 and 

17 ME0278)” (ADAMS Accession No. ML091200415) 

18 June 8, 2009 Letter to Ms. Deborah Getzoff, Director, Southwest District, Florida 

19 Department of Environmental Protection, “Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

20 Generating Plant License Renewal Application Review” (ADAMS 

21 Accession No. ML091490526) 

22 June 8, 2009 Letter to Mr. Gary Knight, Director, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, 

23 “Request for List of Protected Species Within the Area Under Evaluation 

24 for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant License Renewal 

25 Application Review” (ADAMS Accession No. ML091540745) 

26 June 8, 2009 Letter to Dr. Robbin Trindell, Biological Administrator, Florida Fish and 

27 Wildlife Conservation Commission, “Request for List of Protected Species 

28 Within the Area Under Evaluation for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

29 Generating Plant License Renewal Application Review” (ADAMS 

30 Accession No. ML091540774) 

31 June 8, 2009 Letter to Mr. Kipp Frohlich, Section Leader, Imperiled Species 

32 Management Section, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

33 Commission, “Request for List of Protected Species Within the Area 

34 Under Evaluation for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

35 License Renewal Application Review” (ADAMS Accession 

36 No. ML091540774) 

37 June 10, 2009 Letter to Mr. Reid Nelson, Director, Office of Federal Agency Programs, 

38 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, “Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

39 Generating Plant License Renewal Review (TAC No. ME0278)” (ADAMS 

40 Accession No. ML090420362) 
Appendix E 

 E-4 

1 July 22, 2009 Letter from Ms. Mary Ann Poole, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

2 Commission, response to a request for a list of protected species within 

3 the area under evaluation for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating 

4 Plant License Renewal Application Review (ADAMS Accession 

5 No. ML092170380) 

6 August 10, 2009 Letter to FPC, “Request for Additional Information Regarding Severe 

7 Accident Mitigation Alternatives for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

8 Generating Plant License Renewal Application (TAC No. ME0278)” 

9 (ADAMS Accession No. ML091970068) 

10 October 6, 2009 Letter to FPC, “Request for Additional Information Regarding the Review 

11 of the License Renewal Application for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

12 Generating Plant (TAC No. ME0278)” (ADAMS Accession 

13 No. ML092670523) 

14 October 9, 2009 Letter from FPC, “Crystal River Unit 3 – Response to Request for 

15 Additional Information Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

16 for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant License Renewal 

17 Application (TAC No. ME0278)” (ADAMS Accession No. ML092860615) 

18 November 5, 2009 Letter from FPC, “Crystal River Unit 3 – Response to Request for 

19 Additional Information Regarding the Review of the License Renewal 

20 Application for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (TAC 

21 No. ME0278) – Revised Environmental Site Audit Needs List” (ADAMS 

22 Accession No. ML100980588) 

23 December 18, 2009 Letter from FPC, “Crystal River Unit 3 – Response to Follow-up to 

24 Progress Energy RAI Responses on CR-3 SAMA [Severe Accident 

25 Mitigation Alternative] Evaluation (TAC No. ME0278)” (ADAMS Accession 

26 No. ML093580090) 

27 January 25, 2010 Schedule revision for the review of the CR-3 license renewal application 

28 (ADAMS Accession No. ML100050166) 

29 February 8, 2010 Letter from FPC, “Crystal River Unit 3 – Revised Environmental Site Audit 

30 Needs List (TAC No. ME0278) – Supplemental Documents” (ADAMS 

31 Accession No. ML100480234) 

32 March 5, 2010 Letter to FPC, “Request for Additional Information for the Review of the 

33 Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, License Renewal 

34 Application (TAC No. ME0278)” (ADAMS Accession No. ML100570208) 

35 April 1, 2010 Letter from FPC, “Crystal River Unit 3 – Response to Request for 

36 Additional Information for the Review of the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

37 Generating Plant, License Renewal Application (TAC No. ME0278) – 

38 Environmental Document Request” (ADAMS Accession 

39 No. ML101320427) 

40 April 1, 2010 Letter from FPC, “Crystal River Unit 3 – Response to Request for 

41 Additional Information for the Review of the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 

42 Generating Plant, License Renewal Application (TAC No. ME0278) – 

43 Environmental Review” (ADAMS Accession No. ML100970076) 
Appendix E 

 E-5 

1 May 11, 2010 E-mail from FPC, “Table Clarification” (ADAMS Accession 

2 No. ML101340277) 

3 May 17, 2010 E-mail from FPC, “Permits with expiration dates.doc” (ADAMS Accession 

4 No. ML101390134) 

5 June 3, 2010 Letter to FPC, “Request for Additional Information for the Review of the 

6 Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, License Renewal 

7 Application (TAC No. ME0278)” (ADAMS Accession No. ML101380408) 

8 August 12, 2010 Schedule revision for the review of the CR-3 license renewal application 

9 (ADAMS Accession No. ML101460577) 

10 November 5, 2010 Schedule revision for the review of the CR-3 license renewal application 

11 (ADAMS Accession No. ML103070380) 

12 February 15, 2011 E-mail from FPC, “CR-3 License Renewal NPDES and South Cooling 

13 Tower Update” (ADAMS Accession No. ML110460629) 

14 February 17, 2011 Schedule revision for the review of the CR-3 license renewal application 

15 (ADAMS Accession No. ML110320090) 

16 March 2, 2011 E-mail from FPC, “Regulatory/environmental authorizations for current 

17 CR-3 operations” (ADAMS Accession No. ML110620143) 

18 March 21, 2011 Letter to FPC, “Issuance of Environmental Scoping Summary Report 

19 associated with the Staff’s Review of the Application by Florida Power 

20 Corporation for Renewal of the Operating License for Crystal River Unit 3 

21 Nuclear Generating Plant (TAC No. ME0278)” (ADAMS Accession 

22 No. ML110490462) 

23 March 23, 2011 E-mail from Mr. Daniel Doyle to Mr. Bo Pham, “CR-3 Scoping Summary 

24 Report Distribution” (ADAMS Accession No. ML110820185) 

25 March 24, 2011 Letter from FPC, “Crystal River Unit 3 – Review of the Crystal River Unit 3 

26 Nuclear Generating Plant, License Renewal Application (TAC 

27 No. ME0278) – Request for Florida Department Protection Document” 

28 (ADAMS Accession No. ML110880294) 

1 APPENDIX F. 

2 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF 

3 EVALUATION OF SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION 

4 ALTERNATIVES FOR CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR 

5 GENERATING PLANT IN SUPPORT OF LICENSE RENEWAL 

6 APPLICATION REVIEW 

Appendix F 

 F-1 

1 F. SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS 

2 F.1. Introduction 

3 Florida Power Corporation (FPC), doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc., submitted 

4 an assessment of severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) for the Crystal River Unit 3 

5 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3) as part of the environmental report (ER) (Progress Energy, 

6 2008). This assessment was based on the most recent CR-3 probabilistic safety assessment 

7 (PSA) available at that time, a plant-specific offsite consequence analysis performed using the 

8 MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2 (MACCS2) computer code (NRC, 1998a), 

9 and insights from the CR-3 individual plant examination (IPE) (FPC, 1993) and individual plant 

10 examination of external events (IPEEE) (FPC, 1997). In identifying and evaluating potential 

11 SAMAs, FPC considered SAMA candidates that addressed the major contributors to core 

12 damage frequency (CDF) and large early release frequency (LERF) at CR-3, as well as SAMA 

13 candidates for other operating plants which have submitted license renewal applications. FPC 

14 identified 25 potential SAMA candidates. This list was reduced to 15 SAMA candidates by 

15 eliminating SAMAs that are not applicable at CR-3 due to design differences or were judged to 

16 have a low benefit relative to the cost of implementation. FPC assessed the costs and benefits 

17 associated with each of these 15 potential SAMAs, and concluded in the ER that several of the 

18 candidate SAMAs evaluated are potentially cost-beneficial. 

19 Based on a review of the SAMA assessment, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

20 staff (Staff) issued a request for additional information (RAI) to FPC by letter dated August 10, 

21 2009, (NRC, 2009). Key questions concerned: (1) additional details regarding the plant-specific 

22 PSA model and changes to CDF and LERF since the IPE, (2) the process used to map Level 1 

23 PSA results into the Level 2 analysis and group containment event tree (CET) end states into 

24 release categories, (3) justification for the multiplier used for external events, (4) the impact on 

25 the SAMA analysis of the planned extended power uprate (EPU), (5) the rationale for not 

26 identifying SAMAs for many basic events included in the risk importance list and for certain fire 

27 compartments, and (6) further information on the cost-benefit analysis of several specific 

28 candidate SAMAs and low cost alternatives. FPC submitted additional information to the Staff 

29 by letters dated October 9, 2009 (Progress Energy, 2009a), and December 18, 2009 (Progress 

30 Energy, 2009b). In response to the RAIs, FPC provided: (1) the CDF and LERF values for, and 

31 major changes to, each version of the CR-3 PSA model; (2) a description of the process for 

32 mapping Level 1 results into the Level 2 analysis, and for assigning CET sequences to release 

33 categories; (3) a revised SAMA analysis reflecting a higher external events multiplier; (4) an 

34 assessment of the impact on the SAMA analysis of the planned EPU; (5) additional rationale for 

35 not identifying SAMAs for many of the basic events on the risk importance list; (6) an 

36 assessment of plant improvements for certain fire areas; and (7) additional information 

37 regarding several specific SAMAs. FPC’s responses addressed the Staff’s concerns and 

38 resulted in the identification of additional, potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. 

39 An assessment of SAMAs for CR-3 is presented below. 
Appendix F 

 F-2 

1 F.2. Estimate of Risk for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant 

2 FPC’s estimates of offsite risk at the CR-3 are summarized in Section F.2.1. The summary is 

3 followed by the Staff’s review of FPC’s risk estimates in Section F.2.2. 

4 F.2.1 Florida Power Corporation’s Risk Estimates 

5 Two distinct analyses are combined to form the basis for the risk estimates used in the SAMA 

6 analysis: (1) the CR-3 Level 1 and Level 2 PSA model, which is an updated version of the IPE 

7 (FPC, 1993); and (2) a supplemental analysis of offsite consequences and economic impacts 

8 (essentially a Level 3 PSA model) developed specifically for the SAMA analysis. The SAMA 

9 analysis is based on the most recent CR-3 Level 1 and Level 2 PSA model available at the time 

10 of the ER, referred to as the 2006 Model of Record (MOR). The scope of this CR-3 PSA does 

11 not include external events. 

The CR-3 CDF is approximately 4.99x10-6 per year using a truncation value of 1x10-12 12 per year, 

and 4.95 × 10-6 per year using a truncation value of 1x10-11 13 per year. The latter value was used 

14 as the baseline CDF in the SAMA evaluations. The CDF is based on the risk assessment for 

15 internally-initiated events, which includes internal flooding. FPC did not include the contribution 

16 from external events in the CR-3 PSA risk estimates; however, it did account for the potential 

17 risk reduction benefits associated with external events by multiplying the estimated benefits for 

18 internal events by a factor of 2. For fire-related SAMAs, FPC separately estimated the risk 

19 reduction benefits using the fire risk model. This is discussed further in Sections F.2.2 and 

20 F.6.2. 

21 Table F-1. Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Core Damage Frequency for 

Internal Events(a) 22 

Initiating Event CDF (per year) Percent Contribution to CDF 

Small Break loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) 1.5x10–6 30 

Transients 9.9x10–7 20 

Reactor vessel rupture 5.0x10–7 10 

Internal flooding 4.0x10–7 8 

Steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) 3.5x10–7 7 

Loss of alternating current (AC) buses 3.3x10–7 7 

Loss of offsite power (LOOP) 3.0x10–7 6 

Large break LOCA 1.7x10–7 3 

Loss of direct current (DC) power 1.5x10–7 3 

Loss of main feedwater 1.2x10–7 2 

Medium break LOCA 1.1x10–7 2 

Interfacing system LOCA (ISLOCA) 5.1x10–8 1 

Total CDF (internal events)(b) 4.99x10–6 100 

(a) Based on model quantification using 1x10-12 per year truncation 

(b) Column totals may be different due to round off 
Appendix F 

 F-3 

1 The breakdown of CDF by initiating event is provided in Table F-1. This information was 

2 summarized from that provided in response to a Staff RAI (Progress Energy, 2009a). As shown 

3 in this table, small LOCAs and transients (reactor trips, loss of intake, and loss of makeup) are 

4 the dominant contributors to the CDF. 

5 In response to a Staff RAI, FPC stated that the Level 2 PSA model that forms the basis for the 

6 SAMA evaluation represents a complete revision of the original IPE Level 2 model (Progress 

7 Energy, 2009a). The current Level 2 model uses a single CET containing both 

8 phenomenological and systemic events. The Level 1 core damage sequences are binned into 

9 one of 26 plant damage state (PDS) bins which provide the interface between the Level 1 

10 analysis and Level 2 CET analysis (Progress Energy, 2009b). The CET probabilistically 

11 evaluates the progression of the damaged core with respect to release to the environment. 

12 CET nodes are evaluated using supporting fault trees and logic rules. The CET end states are 

13 then examined for considerations of timing and magnitude of release, and assigned to release 

14 categories. 

15 The result of the Level 2 PSA is a set of 11 release categories, also referred to as source term 

16 categories, with their respective frequency and release characteristics. The results of this 

17 analysis for CR-3 are provided in Table E.3-6 of Appendix E to the ER (Progress Energy, 2008). 

18 The frequency of each release category was obtained by summing the frequency of the 

19 individual accident progression CET endpoints assigned to each release category. Source 

20 terms were developed for each of the 11 release categories using the results of modular 

21 accident analysis program (MAAP) computer code calculations. In response to a Staff RAI, 

22 FPC stated that MAAP Version 4.0.6 was used in the CR-3 analysis (Progress Energy, 2009a). 

23 The offsite consequences and economic impact analyses use the MACCS2 code to determine 

24 the offsite risk impacts on the surrounding environment and public. Inputs for these analyses 

25 include: (1) plant-specific and site-specific input values for core radionuclide inventory, 

26 (2) source term and release characteristics, (3) site meteorological data, (4) projected 

27 population distribution within a 50-mile (mi) (80-kilometer [km]) radius for the year 2036, 

28 (5) emergency response evacuation planning, and (6) economic parameters. The core 

29 radionuclide inventory corresponds to the end-of-cycle values for CR-3 operating at 

30 2,568 megawatts-thermal (MWt) (the currently approved power level). The magnitude of the 

31 onsite impacts (in terms of clean-up and decontamination costs and occupational dose) is 

32 based on information provided in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC, 1997a). 

33 In the ER, FPC estimated the dose to the population within 50 mi (80 km) of the CR-3 site to be 

approximately 0.040 person-Sievert (Sv) (4 person-roentgen equivalent man (rem)) per year1 34 . 

35 The breakdown of the total population dose by containment release mode is summarized in 

36 Table F-2. Containment bypass events (such as SGTR-initiated accidents or ISLOCA 

37 accidents) and small early containment failures dominate the population dose risk at CR-3. 

 

1

 The CR-3 total population dose is approximately 3.98 person-rem/year using a truncation value of 

1x10-12 per year and 3.79 person-rem/year using a truncation value of 1x10-11 per year. The latter value 

was used as the baseline population dose in the SAMA evaluations. 
Appendix F 

 F-4 

Table F-2. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode(a) 1 

Containment Release Mode Population Dose (Person-Rem(b)

Per Year) Percent Contribution 

Containment intact 0.04 1 

Late containment failure 0.04 1 

Large early containment failure 0.02 <1 

Small early containment failure 0.37 9 

Containment bypass accident, small leakage rate 2.68 67 

Containment bypass accident, large leakage rate 0.83 21 

Total(c) 3.98 100 

(a) Based on model quantification using 1x10-12 per year truncation 

(b) One person-rem = 0.01 person-Sv 

(c) Column totals may be different due to round off 

2 F.2.2 Review of Florida Power Corporation’s Risk Estimates 

3 FPC’s determination of offsite risk at CR-3 is based on the following three major elements of 

4 analysis: 

5 ● the Level 1 and 2 risk models that form the bases for the 1993 IPE submittal 

6 (FPC, 1993) and the external event analyses of the 1997 IPEEE submittal (FPC, 

7 1997) 

8 ● the major modifications to the IPE model that have been incorporated in the 

9 CR-3 PSA, including a complete revision of the Level 2 risk model 

10 ● the MACCS2 analyses performed to translate fission product source terms and 

11 release frequencies from the Level 2 PSA model into offsite consequence 

12 measures 

13 Each of these analyses was reviewed to determine the acceptability of the CR-3 risk estimates 

14 for the SAMA analysis, as summarized below. 

15 The Staff’s review of the CR-3 IPE is described in NRC reports dated April 28, 1997 (NRC, 

16 1997b) and June 30, 1998 (NRC, 1998b). Based on a review of the original IPE submittal, 

17 responses to RAIs, and supplemental responses to the NRC’s April 28, 1997, report, the Staff 

18 concluded that the IPE submittal met the intent of Generic Letter (GL) 88-20 (NRC, 1988); that 

19 is, the licensee’s IPE process is capable of identifying the most likely severe accidents and 

20 severe accident vulnerabilities. Although no vulnerabilities were identified in the IPE, 

21 improvements to the plant or procedures were identified and implemented. These 

22 improvements are discussed in Section F.3.2. 

23 There have been seven revisions to the IPE model between the 1993 IPE submittal and the 

24 model used for the SAMA analysis. A listing of the major changes in each revision of the PSA 

25 was provided by FPC in Section E.2-1 of the ER (Progress Energy, 2008) and in response to a 

26 Staff RAI (Progress Energy, 2009a), and is summarized in Table F-3. A comparison of the 
Appendix F 

 F-5 

1 internal events CDF between the 1993 IPE and the MOR 2006 PSA model used for the SAMA 

evaluation indicates a decrease of approximately 67 percent (from 1.4x10-5 per year to 5.0x10-6 2 

3 per year). 

4 Table F-3. Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Probabilistic Safety Assessment 

5 Historical Summary 

PSA Version Summary of Changes from Prior Model CDF 

(per year) 

1993 IPE Submittal 1.4x10-5

2000 - Added backup engineered safeguards transformer (BEST) 

- Added feedwater pump 7 (FWP-7) powered by alternate emergency diesel 

generator (EDG), MTDG-1 

- Added installed Appendix R chiller 

- Added installed alternate AC diesel generator 

- Added installed backup water supply for raw water pump flushing water 

3.4x10-6

2001 - Updated timing for post initiator events and dependencies 

- Updated internal plant flooding model 

- Updated component reliability database 

- Updated common cause data 

- Revised human reliability analysis (HRA) to include more detailed 

dependency 

5.1x10-6

2002 - Added pipe rupture event on elevation 95 of the auxiliary building based 

upon internal flooding analysis revision 

- Updated post-initiator events and dependency analysis in the HRA 

- Revised the SGTR binning per revised event tree and updated the 

sequences for the Level 2 analysis 

6.8x10-6

2003 - Added new initiating event fault trees for loss of service water and loss of 

makeup 

- Updated mutually exclusive combinations of several events 

7.5x10-6

2003a - Revised Level 2 model core damage binning and LERF split fractions 7.5x10-6

2003b - Updated fault tree to reflect power-operated relief valve (PORV) block valve 

alignment 

- Added two HRA events to address high-pressure injection (HPI) flow control 

issues 

5.4x10-6

2006 - Updated fault tree to reflect installation of a third diesel generator, removal 

of the FWP-7 alternate EDG, and ability to align unit buses from the 

auxiliary transformer 

5.0x10-6

The CDF value from the 1993 CR-3 IPE (1.4x10-5 6 per year) is near the lower end of the range of 

7 the CDF values reported in the IPEs for Babcock & Wilcox plants. Figure 11.6 of NUREG-1560 

shows that the IPE-based internal events CDF for these plants range from about 1x10-5 8 per year 

to 7x10-5 per year, with an average CDF for the group of 3x10-5 9 per year (NRC, 1997c). It is 

10 recognized that other plants have updated the values for CDF subsequent to the IPE submittals 

11 to reflect modeling and hardware changes. The internal events CDF result for CR-3 used for 

the SAMA analysis (4.95x10-6 12 per year, including internal flooding) is comparable to that for 

13 other plants of similar vintage and characteristics. 

14 The Staff considered the peer reviews performed for the CR-3 PSA and the potential impact of 

15 the review findings on the SAMA evaluation. In the ER (Progress Energy, 2008), FPC 
Appendix F 

 F-6 

1 described the peer review and PSA certification by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) conducted 

2 on the MOR 2000 PSA model. The peer review identified 11 Level A and 27 Level B facts and 

3 observations (F&Os). FPC stated in the ER that all Level A and Level B F&Os have been 

4 subsequently addressed and are considered closed, with all final disposition of comments 

5 incorporated in the MOR 2003 PSA model. FPC further stated that all Level C and Level D 

6 F&Os have also been addressed and closed. In light of the amount of time that has passed 

7 since the NEI peer review, the Staff asked FPC if any other internal or external reviews have 

8 been conducted on the CR-3 internal events PSA (NRC, 2009). In response to the RAI, FPC 

9 identified that a full scope PSA self assessment was performed in 2007 to the guidance in NRC 

10 Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.200 (NRC, 2007), and that a limited scope peer review was performed 

11 in 2009 covering the following technical elements: initiating events (IE) analysis, quantification 

12 (QU) – partial, and LERF analysis (Progress Energy, 2009a). In response to a followup RAI, 

13 FPC provided additional information on three F&Os from the 2007 self assessment that resulted 

14 in a change to the PSA model or results and provided an assessment of the impact of the F&Os 

15 on the SAMA analysis (Progress Energy, 2009b). The three F&Os are as follows: 

16 ● F&O AS-B6 pertains to the installation of a nonsafety EDG since the MOR 2006 

17 PSA model used in the SAMA evaluation. The CR-3 PSA model has been 

18 updated to credit the nonsafety EDG. FPC concluded that the impact of this F&O 

19 on the SAMA evaluation is insignificant since the result is a decrease in CDF due 

20 to credit being taken for the enhanced capability to recover from loss of offsite 

21 power events. 

22 ● F&O HR-G4-2 pertains to suspect human error probabilities and accident 

23 progression timing due to out-of-date or inadequate documentation. Human 

24 reliability analysis timelines have been updated in the CR-3 draft 2009 PSA 

25 model reflecting the latest MAAP analysis. Based on this update, FPC 

26 concluded that the impact of this F&O on the SAMA evaluation is insignificant 

27 since operator actions account for a large portion of the overall CDF in both the 

28 MOR 2006 model and the updated draft 2009 model. The Staff notes that FPC 

29 identified and evaluated potential SAMA candidates for numerous operator 

30 actions as a result of FPC’s importance analyses. 

31 ● F&O DA-C1 pertains to the lack of justification for the LOOP frequency. The 

32 LOOP methodology and data have been updated in the CR-3 PSA model to use 

33 NUREG/CR-6890 data that has been Bayesian updated against experience at 

34 CR-3. FPC concluded that the impact of this F&O on the SAMA evaluation is 

35 insignificant since the result is a decrease in the contribution to CDF from LOOP 

36 events. 

37 In response to the same followup RAI, FPC noted that there were no F&Os from the 2009 

38 limited scope peer review that required changes to the PSA model or its results. FPC further 

39 concluded that resolution of the above described F&Os would not have significantly changed 

40 the basic event importance listing used in the SAMA evaluation, as discussed in Section F.3.2, 

41 and that the uncertainty analysis discussed in Section F.6.2 adequately accounts for any 

42 uncertainty in the overall PSA model results due to resolution of the F&Os. Based on FPC’s 

43 rationale for concluding that resolution of the F&Os will not significantly impact the results of the 

44 SAMA evaluation, and considering that the internal events CDF has significantly decreased 

45 subsequent to the MOR 2006 model used in the SAMA evaluation (see discussion below), the 
Appendix F 

 F-7 

1 Staff finds that resolution of the review findings is not likely to impact the results of the SAMA 

2 analysis. 

3 In response to a Staff RAI (NRC, 2009), FPC described the quality control process in use at 

4 CR-3 as applied to development of the PSA (Progress Energy, 2009a). An administrative 

5 procedure prescribes the quality control process for updates to the CR-3 PSA and ensures that 

6 the PSA model is maintained current with the changes to the plant. The procedure covers 

7 model update administration, implementation, and tracking of error and improvement 

8 opportunities. The Staff considers FPC’s quality control process to be reasonable. 

9 The Staff asked FPC to identify any changes to the plant, including physical and procedural 

10 modifications, since the MOR 2006 PSA model, which could have a significant impact on the 

11 results of the SAMA analysis (NRC, 2009). In response to the RAI, FPC stated that there have 

12 been no major plant changes, since the MOR 2006 PSA model, which would have a significant 

13 impact on the SAMA analysis. FPC further stated that the major changes to the PSA model, 

14 since the MOR 2006 PSA model, are to bring the model into compliance with the guidance in 

15 NRC RG 1.200 (NRC, 2007), and to include the addition of potential multiple spurious operation 

16 (MSO) events; none of these changes are expected to have a significant impact on the results 

17 of the SAMA evaluation. In response to a followup RAI, FPC further clarified that the CDF has 

decreased to 3.4x10-6 18 per year in the CR-3 2009a draft PSA model, which is a decrease from 

the CDF of 4.95x10-6 19 per year used in the SAMA analysis. In response to this same RAI, FPC 

noted that the CDF is expected to increase to about 3.6x10-6 20 per year after plant changes are 

21 made to implement an EPU of approximately 20 percent (Progress Energy, 2009b). Given that 

22 the CDF is expected to decrease by about 27 percent compared to the MOR 2006 PSA model 

23 used for the SAMA analysis, after accounting for plant changes that are expected to be made to 

24 implement the EPU and model updates, the Staff concurs with FPC’s conclusion that changes 

25 to the CR-3 PSA model, since the MOR 2006 PSA model, are not likely to impact the results of 

26 the SAMA analysis. 

27 Given that the CR-3 internal events PSA model has been peer-reviewed and the peer review 

28 findings were all addressed, and that FPC has satisfactorily addressed Staff questions 

29 regarding the PSA, the Staff concludes that the internal events Level 1 PSA model is of 

30 sufficient quality to support the SAMA evaluation. 

31 As indicated above, the current CR-3 PSA does not include external events. In the absence of 

32 such an analysis, CR-3 used the CR-3 IPEEE to identify the highest risk accident sequences 

33 and the potential means of reducing the risk posed by those sequences, as discussed below 

34 and in Section F.3.2. 

35 FPC submitted revision 0 of the CR-3 IPEEE in June 1996 (FPC, 1996) and revision 1 in March 

36 1997 (FPC, 1997) in response to Supplement 4 of GL 88-20 (NRC, 1991). These submittals 

37 included an internal fire PSA and an evaluation of high winds, external flooding, and other 

38 hazards. In response to Staff RAIs on the IPEEE, FPC submitted a report titled “IPEEE Seismic 

39 Summary Report” in June 1998 (FPC, 1998), which included a seismic margins analysis. While 

40 no fundamental weaknesses or vulnerabilities to severe accident risk in regard to the external 

41 events were identified, a number of opportunities for risk reduction were identified as discussed 

42 below. In a letter dated January 11, 2001, the Staff concluded that the submittal met the intent 

43 of Supplement 4 to GL 88-20, and that the licensee’s IPEEE process is capable of identifying 

44 the most likely severe accidents and severe accident vulnerabilities (NRC, 2001). 
Appendix F 

 F-8 

1 The seismic portion of the IPEEE consisted of a reduced-scope seismic evaluation using the 

2 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) methodology for Seismic Margins Assessment (SMA), 

3 and the Seismic Qualification User’s Group (SQUG) Generic Implementation Procedure 

4 (SQUG, 1992). This method is qualitative and does not provide numerical estimates of the CDF 

5 contributions from seismic initiators (EPRI, 1991). For this assessment, the review level 

6 earthquake (RLE) value for CR-3 was one-tenth the acceleration of gravity (0.1g), plant 

7 walkdowns were performed in which components and structures were screened for the RLE 

8 based on the EPRI guidelines, and specific high confidence in low probability of failure (HCLPF) 

9 capacities were calculated for six components to demonstrate the rugged design of the plant. 

10 The CR-3 IPEEE seismic evaluation identified no additional outliers other than the unresolved 

11 outliers remaining from implementation of the Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-46 program. 

12 The USI A-46 safety evaluation report (SER) for CR-3 identified three unresolved issues (NRC, 

13 2000). In response to a Staff RAI, FPC clarified that all unresolved USI A-46 outliers have been 

14 resolved (Progress Energy, 2009a). 

15 To provide additional insight into the appropriate seismic CDF to use for the SAMA evaluation, 

16 the Staff developed an independent estimate of the seismic CDF for CR-3 using the 

17 simplified-hybrid approximation method described in a paper by Robert P. Kennedy, entitled 

18 “Overview of Methods for Seismic PRA and Margin Analysis Including Recent Innovations” 

19 (Kennedy, 1999) and using updated 2008 seismic hazard curve data from the U.S. Geologic 

20 Survey (USGS, 2008). The Staff’s independent calculations indicate the seismic CDF for CR-3 

to be approximately 1.2x10-5 21 per year depending on the seismic hazard curve and plant fragility 

22 assumptions. Since FPC did not provide a seismic CDF contribution in the ER, the Staff used 

23 this result to assess the appropriateness of the external event multiplier used in the SAMA 

24 evaluation. 

25 The CR-3 IPEEE fire analysis employed a combination of PSA with the EPRI’s fire-induced 

26 vulnerability evaluation (FIVE) methodology (EPRI, 1993). Quantitative screening of fire zones 

27 was performed using fire frequencies based on the FIVE methodology and the conservative 

28 assumption that all equipment in a fire zone would fail if there was a fire. Fire sequences were 

then quantified using the internal events PSA model. If the CDF was greater than 1x10-6 29 per 

30 year, the compartment was subjected to more detailed analysis. In this analysis, the FIVE fire 

31 screening methodology was used in the fire modeling with the exception that the generic EPRI 

32 fire frequencies were modified by applying a fire severity factor to certain types of ignition 

33 sources. The Staff asked FPC to provide the fire CDF by fire zone (NRC, 2009). In response to 

34 the RAI, FPC provided the requested information for all fire zones having a fire CDF greater 

than 1x10-6 35 per year and for the control room and cable spreading room (Progress Energy, 

36 2009a). FPC further stated that the fire PSA has not been updated since the IPEEE. The fire 

37 zone CDFs are, therefore, the same as provided in the IPEEE, and are listed in Table F-4. The 

total fire CDF, found by summing the values for all zones in Table F-4, is 4.2x10-5 38 per year. 
Appendix F 

 F-9 

1 Table F-4. Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Fire Zones and Their 

2 Contribution to Fire Core Damage Frequency 

Fire Zone Fire Zone Description CDF (per year) 

CC-108-106 Battery Charger Room 3A 1.5x10-5

CC-108-108 4160V ES Switchgear Bus Room 3A 7.3x10-6

CC-108-107 4160V ES Switchgear Bus Room 3B 6.8x10-6

CC-124-117 480V ES Switchgear Bus Room 3A 3.8x10-6

CC-108-105 Battery Charger Room 3B 2.7x10-6

CC-108-102 Hallway and Remote Shutdown Room 2.7x10-6

CC-124-111 Control Rod Drive (CRD) & Communication Equipment 

Room 

1.6x10-6

CC-108-109 Inverter Room 3B 1.5x10-6

CC-145-118B Control Room 5.7x10-7

CC-134-118A Cable Spreading Room 9.9x10-8

Total Fire CDF (all fire zones) 4.2x10-5

3 The Staff inquired about additional measures that FPC had already taken to reduce fire risk 

4 since the IPEEE (NRC, 2009). FPC provided a description of the specific fire protection related 

5 modifications that have been implemented since the Staff review of the IPEEE, which includes 

6 installation of emergency lighting, improved separation of electrical cables, improved 

7 administrative control of transient combustibles, fire detector upgrades, suppression system 

8 upgrades, and upgrades of programmatic controls for penetration seals. In response to a 

9 followup RAI, FPC provided a table that identified the specific fire protection related 

10 modifications that have been implemented for each of the dominant fires zones identified in 

11 Table F-4 (Progress Energy, 2009b). Fire protection modifications that have been implemented 

12 include some electrical cable re-routing, upgraded fire detectors in every dominant fire zone, 

13 and enhanced emergency lighting in most dominant fire zones. 

14 Considering the above discussion, and the actions taken by FPC to reduce fire risk since the 

IPEEE, the Staff concludes that the fire CDF of 4.2x10-5 15 per year is reasonable for the SAMA 

16 analysis. 

17 The CR-3 IPEEE analysis of high winds, tornadoes, external floods, and other external events 

18 followed the screening and evaluation approaches specified in Supplement 4 to GL 88-20 

(NRC, 1991) and did not identify any sequences or vulnerabilities that exceeded the 1.0x10-6 19 

20 per year criterion (FPC, 1997). Based on this result, the licensee concluded that these other 

21 external hazards would be negligible contributors to overall core damage and did not consider 

22 any plant-specific SAMAs for these events. 

23 Based on the aforementioned results, including the Staff assessment of the CR-3 seismic CDF, 

24 the external events CDF is approximately 11 times the internal events CDF (based on a seismic 

CDF of 1.2x10-5 per year, a fire CDF of 4.2x10-5 25 per year, and an internal events CDF of 

4.95x10-6 26 per year). The Staff requested FPC provide additional justification for increasing the 

27 internal events benefits by only a factor of 2 to account for external events in light of this result 

28 (NRC, 2009). In response to the RAI, FPC chose to provide a revised SAMA evaluation using a 
Appendix F 

 F-10 

multiplier of 12 [(4.2x10-5 + 1.2x10-5) / (4.95x10-6 1 ) + 1)] to account for external events (Progress 

2 Energy, 2009a). This is discussed further in Section F.6.2. 

3 The Staff reviewed the general process used by FPC to translate the results of the Level 1 PSA 

4 into containment releases, as well as the results of the Level 2 analysis, as described in the ER 

5 and in response to Staff RAIs (Progress Energy, 2008), (Progress Energy, 2009a). The Level 2 

6 model is completely revised from the model used in the IPE and reflects the CR-3 plant as 

7 designed and operated as of April 2006. Major revisions and updates to the Level 2 model 

8 include use of updated thermal hydraulics and containment analysis tools and methods, a single 

9 top fault tree solution, revised SGTR and core damage binning and LERF split fractions, 

10 updated sequences, and updated fault exposure time for steam generator instrumentation. The 

11 Level 1 core damage sequences are binned into one of 26 PDS bins which provide the interface 

12 between the Level 1 and Level 2 analyses. The PDS bins, which are described in the response 

13 to a Staff follow-up RAI, are defined by a set of core damage states and containment system 

14 status parameters (Progress Energy, 2009b). 

15 Each PDS is analyzed through the Level 2 CET to evaluate the phenomenological progression 

16 of the sequence. The current Level 2 model uses a single CET, containing both 

17 phenomenological and systemic events. In response to a Staff RAI, FPC clarified that the CET 

18 end states are then assigned to one of 11 release categories based on characteristics that 

19 determine the timing and magnitude of the release, whether or not the containment remains 

20 intact, and isotopic composition of the release material (Progress Energy, 2009a). The 

21 frequency of each release category was obtained by summing the frequency of the individual 

22 accident progression CET endpoints binned into the release category. 

23 Source term release fractions were developed for each of the 11 release categories based on 

24 the results of plant-specific calculations using the MAAP Version 4.0.6 (Progress Energy, 

25 2009a). In response to a Staff RAI, FPC clarified that a single MAAP calculation was performed 

26 for each of the 11 release categories (i.e., 11 MAAP calculations) and that no weighting of 

27 multiple MAAP cases was required (Progress Energy, 2009a). The release categories, their 

28 frequencies, and release characteristics are presented in Tables E.2-3 and E.3-5 of Appendix E 

29 to the ER (Progress Energy, 2008). 

30 The Staff’s review of the Level 2 IPE concluded that it addressed the most important severe 

31 accident phenomena normally associated with large, dry containments, and identified no 

32 significant problems or errors (NRC, 1998b). The revisions to the Level 2 model, since the IPE 

33 to update the methodology and to address peer review recommendations, are described in 

34 Section E.2.1 of the ER. The Level 2 PSA model was included in the NEI peer review 

35 mentioned previously. All peer review findings have been addressed and are considered 

36 closed. In response to a Staff RAI, FPC identified that the Level 2 PSA model was included in 

37 the 2007 full scope PSA self assessment and the LERF analysis was included in the 2009 

38 limited scope peer review (Progress Energy, 2009a). In response to a follow-up RAI, FPC 

39 identified no significant F&Os, defined as a change to the PSA model or results, from these 

40 reviews related to the Level 2 PSA model (Progress Energy, 2009b). 

41 Based on its review of the Level 2 methodology, the Staff determined that: (1) FPC has 

42 adequately addressed the Staff RAIs, (2) the Level 2 PSA model was reviewed in more detail as 

43 part of the NEI peer review and the peer review findings have been addressed in the model 

44 used for the SAMA analysis, and (3) the Level 2 PSA model was reviewed as part of the more 

45 recent full scope PSA self assessment and limited scope peer review of the LERF analysis. 
Appendix F 

 F-11 

1 Therefore, the Staff concludes that the Level 2 PSA provides an acceptable basis for evaluating 

2 the benefits associated with various SAMAs. 

3 As indicated in the ER, the reactor core radionuclide inventory used in the consequence 

4 analysis corresponds to the end-of-cycle values for CR-3 operating at 2,568 MWt. The core 

5 radionuclide inventory is provided in Table E.3-3 of Appendix E of the ER (Progress Energy, 

6 2008). The ER noted that this did not account for an NRC-approved thermal power uprate of 

7 1.6 percent to 2,609 MWt in 2007 as a result of feedwater flow measurement uncertainty 

8 recapture. FPC performed a sensitivity analysis and determined that results of the SAMA 

9 evaluation are not impacted by the measurement uncertainty power uprate. The ER also stated 

10 that FPC plans to increase the licensed power level of CR-3 by approximately 20 percent in an 

11 EPU to be implemented before the renewal period. The Staff noted that operation at this higher 

12 power level could impact the results of the SAMA evaluation due to the higher fission product 

13 inventory and replacement power costs associated with the EPU, and requested that FPC 

14 provide an analysis of the impacts of the EPU on the SAMA analysis (NRC, 2009). FPC 

15 responded by providing a sensitivity analysis of the SAMA results assuming population dose 

16 and economic consequences increased by 20 percent, as the result of the 20 percent increase 

17 in power level (Progress Energy, 2009b). This resulted in an increase in the population dose 

18 risk from 3.98 person-rem per year, reported in Table F-2, to 4.77 person-rem per year. The 

19 analysis showed that the EPU would not impact the results (i.e., no additional candidate SAMAs 

20 would become cost beneficial). Considering that the SAMA evaluation results are not impacted 

21 by the higher fission product inventory corresponding to the EPU, the Staff concludes that the 

22 reactor core radionuclide inventory assumptions for estimating consequences are reasonable 

23 and acceptable for purposes of the SAMA evaluation. 

24 The Staff reviewed the process used by FPC to extend the containment performance (Level 2) 

25 portion of the PSA to an assessment of offsite consequences (Level 3). This included 

26 consideration of the source terms used to characterize fission product releases for the 

27 applicable containment release categories and the major input assumptions used in the offsite 

28 consequence analyses. Version 2 of the MACCS2 code was used to estimate offsite 

29 consequences. Plant-specific input to the code includes the source terms for each release 

30 category and the reactor core radionuclide inventory (both discussed above), site-specific 

31 meteorological data, projected population distribution within a 50-mi (80-km) radius for the year 

32 2036, emergency evacuation planning, and economic parameters including agricultural 

33 production. This information is provided in Section 3.0 of Attachment E to the ER (Progress 

34 Energy, 2008). 

35 Releases were modeled as occurring at ground level, except that the SGTR event was modeled 

36 as a release from the 39.5-foot high building vents. The results of a sensitivity study, assuming 

37 releases occurred at the top of the containment building, indicated a negligible impact (1 percent 

38 increase) on both population dose and offsite economic cost risk. The thermal content of each 

39 of the releases was assumed to be the same as ambient (that is a non-buoyant plume). Wake 

40 effects for the 53-meter high and 44-meter diameter containment building were included in the 

41 model. Sensitivity studies were performed on these assumptions and indicated a maximum of 

42 2 percent increase in population dose risk and a high of 4 percent increase in offsite economic 

43 cost risk. Based on the information provided, the Staff concludes that the release parameters 

44 used are acceptable for the purposes of the SAMA evaluation. 

45 FPC used site-specific meteorological data for the year 2004 as input to the MACCS2 code. 

46 The development of the meteorological data is discussed in Section E.3.6 of the ER (Progress 

47 Energy, 2008). Data from 2003 through 2006 were also considered, but the 2004 data was 
Appendix F 

 F-12 

1 chosen because it was the most complete data set and because results of an MACCS2 

2 sensitivity case indicated that the 2004 data produced more conservative results (i.e., the 2004 

3 data set was found to result in the largest offsite economic cost risk and was within 0.3 percent 

4 of the maximum population dose risk) (Progress Energy, 2008). Less than 2 percent of the data 

5 were missing for the years 2003 through 2006. Missing data were estimated using data 

6 substitution methods. These methods include substitution of missing data with corresponding 

7 data from another level on the meteorological tower, interpolation between data from the same 

8 level, or data from the same hour and a nearby day of a previous year. Hourly stability was 

9 classified according to the system used by the NRC (NRC, 1983), and atmospheric mixing 

10 heights were specified for AM and PM hours for each season of the year using data from the 

11 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1992). The baseline analysis assumes perpetual 

12 rainfall in the 40- to 50-mi segment surrounding the site. Another sensitivity study was also 

13 performed assuming measured rainfall rather than perpetual rainfall in the 40- to 50-mi spatial 

14 segment. This resulted in a decrease in population dose risk of 41 percent and a decrease in 

15 offsite economic cost of 50 percent. The Staff concludes that the use of the 2004 

16 meteorological data in the SAMA analysis is reasonable. 

17 The population distribution that the licensee used as input to the MACCS2 analysis was 

18 estimated for the year 2036, using year 2000 census data as accessed by SECPOP2000 (NRC, 

19 2003). The baseline population was determined for each of 160 sectors, consisting of the 

20 16 directions for each of 10 concentric distance rings with outer radii at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20, 30, 

21 40, and 50 mi surrounding the site. County population growth estimates were applied to year 

22 2000 census data to develop year 2036 population distribution. The distribution of the 

23 population is given for the 10-mi (16-km) radius from CR-3 and for the 50-mi (80-km) radius 

24 from CR-3 in the ER (Progress Energy, 2008). The Staff considers the methods and 

25 assumptions for estimating population reasonable and acceptable for purposes of the SAMA 

26 evaluation. 

27 The emergency evacuation model was modeled as a single evacuation zone extending out 

28 10 mi (16 km) from the plant. FPC assumed that 95 percent of the population would evacuate. 

29 This assumption is conservative relative to the NUREG-1150 study (NRC, 1990), which 

30 assumed evacuation of 99.5 percent of the population within the emergency planning zone 

31 (EPZ). The evacuated population was assumed to move at an average speed of approximately 

32 1.1 miles per hour (0.48 meters per second) with a delayed start time of 30 minutes after 

33 declaration of a general emergency. The evacuation speed was derived from the projected time 

34 to evacuate the entire EPZ under adverse weather conditions for 1990 (Progress Energy, 2006), 

35 and then adjusted by the ratio of the year 1990 EPZ population to the projected year 2036 EPZ 

36 population. FPC performed a sensitivity study in which the evacuation speed was decreased by 

37 50 percent. This resulted in a 2 percent increase in the total offsite population dose risk and no 

38 change in the offsite economic cost risk. In response to the Staff’s inquiry concerning the 

39 transient population (NRC, 2009), FPC provided the results of a sensitivity study in which the 

40 EPZ population was increased to account for the transient population (Progress Energy, 2009a). 

41 The most conservative scenario in this study assumed the residential population within the EPZ 

42 for the year 2036 was increased by 10 percent and the evacuation speed was decreased by 

43 19.4 percent. This resulted in a 2 percent increase in population dose risk and a 0.7 percent 

44 increase in offsite economic cost risk. A second scenario assumed the increase in EPZ 

45 population and corresponding decrease in evacuation speed were adjusted to only reflect the 

46 maximum documented monthly park visitations between July 2007 and June 2009. Using the 

47 maximum visitation month during those years, and adjusting the number of visitors to an 

48 equivalent year 2036, using the same growth rate as the residential population near the parks, 

49 resulted in a 1.1 percent increase in population dose risk and a 0.1 percent increase in offsite 
Appendix F 

 F-13 

1 economic cost risk. The Staff concludes that the evacuation assumptions and analysis are 

2 reasonable and acceptable for the purposes of the SAMA evaluation. 

3 Site-specific agriculture and economic data were provided from 2002 National Census of 

4 Agriculture (USDA, 2002) data for each of the 10 counties surrounding CR-3 to a distance of 

5 50 mi (80 km). This included the fraction of land devoted to farming, annual farm sales, the 

6 fraction of farm sales resulting from dairy production, and the value of non-farm land. Non-farm 

7 land property values were taken from 2005 property valuations (FDR, 2006). 

8 Area wide farm wealth was determined from 2002 National Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2002) 

9 county statistics for farmland, buildings, and machinery, with only the fraction of each county 

10 within 50 mi (80 km) of CR-3 considered. Non-farm wealth was derived from 2005 property tax 

11 valuations (FDR, 2006). In addition, generic economic data that applied to the region as a 

12 whole were revised from the MACCS2 sample problem input in order to account for cost 

13 escalation since 1986 (the year the input was first specified). This included parameters 

14 describing cost of evacuating and relocating people, land decontamination, and property 

15 condemnation. An escalation factor of 1.85 was applied to these parameters to account for cost 

16 escalation from 1986 to February 2007 (USDL, 2007). 

17 The Staff requested FPC provide an explanation of the reasons for the difference in the total 

18 population dose risk reported in Table 3-7 of the ER (3.98 person-rem per year) and Section 

19 E.4.6 of the ER (3.79 person-rem per year) used in the SAMA evaluations. FPC responded that 

the MOR 2006 CDF of 4.99x10-6 20 per year, corresponding to 3.98 person-rem per year, was 

derived using a truncation of 1x10-12 21 per year. The model quantification used for the SAMA 

evaluations was derived with a higher truncation limit of 1x10-11 22 per year to support a more 

efficient re-quantification of the PSA model. This resulted in a CDF of 4.95x10-6 23 per year and a 

24 population dose of 3.79 person-rem per year (Progress Energy, 2009a). FPC also stated that 

25 the two CDFs were quantified from the MOR 2006 PSA model using different methods or 

26 software, each of which is considered a valid methodology. FPC noted that all of the SAMA 

27 calculations used the same method of quantification. Since the SAMA benefits are based on 

28 the difference between severe accident costs with and without the SAMA implemented, and 

29 because the same method of quantification (and truncation level) is used in all SAMA 

30 calculations, the truncation level has no real impact on estimated benefits. The Staff notes that 

31 the difference in CDF and total population dose values using the two truncation values is small, 

32 and considers the approach, as clarified, to be reasonable and acceptable for purposes of the 

33 SAMA evaluation. 

34 The Staff concludes that the methodology used by FPC to estimate the offsite consequences for 

35 CR-3, provides an acceptable basis from which to proceed with an assessment of risk reduction 

36 potential for candidate SAMAs. Accordingly, the Staff based its assessment of offsite risk on 

37 the CDF and offsite doses reported by FPC. 
Appendix F 

 F-14 

1 F.3. Potential Plant Improvements 

2 The process for identifying potential plant improvements, an evaluation of that process, and the 

3 improvements evaluated in detail by FPC are discussed in this section. 

4 F.3.1 Process for Identifying Potential Plant Improvements 

5 FPC’s process for identifying potential plant improvements (SAMAs) consisted of the following 

6 elements: 

7 ● review of the most significant basic events from the current, plant-specific PSA 

8 and insights from the CR-3 PRA Group 

9 ● review of potential plant improvements identified in the CR-3 IPE and IPEEE 

10 ● review of SAMA candidates identified for license renewal applications for 

11 selected nuclear power plants 

12 ● review of other industry documentation discussing potential plant improvements 

13 Based on this process, an initial set of 25 candidate SAMAs, referred to as Phase I SAMAs, was 

14 identified. In Phase I of the evaluation, FPC performed a qualitative screening of the initial list of 

15 SAMAs and eliminated SAMAs from further consideration using the following criteria: 

16 ● The SAMA modified features not applicable to CR-3 due to design differences. 

17 ● The SAMA was qualitatively judged to have a low benefit relative to the cost of 

18 implementation. 

19 Based on this screening, 10 SAMAs were eliminated, leaving 15 for further evaluation. The 

20 remaining SAMAs, referred to as Phase II SAMAs, are listed in Table E.6-1 of the ER (Progress 

21 Energy, 2008). In Phase II, a detailed evaluation was performed for each of the 15 remaining 

22 SAMA candidates, as discussed in Sections F.4 and F.6 below. To account for the potential 

23 impact of external events, the estimated benefits based on internal events were multiplied by a 

24 factor of 2, as previously discussed. 

25 In response to a Staff RAI, FPC reevaluated the 10 SAMAs screened in Phase I, using a 

26 multiplier of 12 to account for the impact of external events (Progress Energy, 2009a). Based 

27 on this reevaluation, all 10 of the original SAMAs screened in Phase I were retained for a 

28 detailed Phase II evaluation. These additional SAMAs are included in Table F-5. 

29 F.3.2 Review of Florida Power Corporation’s Process 

30 FPC’s efforts to identify potential SAMAs focused primarily on areas associated with internal 

31 initiating events, but also included explicit consideration of potential SAMAs for fire events. The 

32 initial list of SAMAs generally addressed the accident sequences considered to be important to 

33 CDF from functional, initiating event, and risk reduction worth (RRW) perspectives at CR-3, and 

34 included selected SAMAs from prior SAMA analyses for other plants. 
Appendix F 

 F-15 

1 FPC provided a tabular listing of the Level 1 PSA basic events sorted according to their RRW 

2 (Progress Energy, 2008). SAMAs impacting these basic events would have the greatest 

3 potential for reducing risk. FPC used an RRW cutoff of 1.02, which corresponds to about a 

4 2 percent change in CDF, given 100-percent reliability of the SAMA. This equates to a benefit 

5 of approximately $13,000 (after the benefits have been multiplied by a factor of 2 to account for 

6 external events). All 70 basic events in the listing were reviewed to identify potential SAMAs. 

7 Based on this review, 22 SAMAs were identified and included in the Phase I list of Table E.5-3 

8 of the ER, which were shown to specifically impact about 40 of the basic events. The remaining 

9 basic events were found to be events that had no physical meaning (such as tag or flag events 

10 and split fractions) or were initiating events described as being addressed by one or more of the 

11 22 SAMAs already identified to mitigate associated basic events. For a few basic events, no 

12 feasible SAMAs were identified. One additional SAMA was identified based on a review of PSA 

13 insights from the CR-3 PRA Group, which addressed one basic event on the Level 1 basic 

14 events importance list. 

15 The Staff requested that FPC identify the basic events related to certain of the initiating events 

16 described as being addressed by SAMAs already identified to mitigate associated basic events 

17 (NRC, 2009). In response to the RAI, FPC provided a table that presented the requested 

18 information, using the RRW cutoff of 1.02 (Progress Energy, 2009a). For each initiating event, 

19 the associated basic events identified were already included in Table E.5-1 of the ER. As a 

20 result, FPC identified no new SAMAs from this review. 

21 The Staff noted that no SAMA was identified to address basic event HHUMPSBY, “operators fail 

22 to start standby makeup pump,” even though it has an exceptionally high failure probability (1.0) 

23 for an operator action. The Staff questioned FPC as to why a SAMA to improve procedures and 

24 training, or provide a hardware modification, is not applicable for this basic event (NRC, 2009). 

25 In response to the RAI, FPC clarified that the failure probability of 1.0 was assigned after its 

26 dependency with other operator actions was evaluated and that the actual failure probability is 

0.5 for non-transient scenarios and 8.6x10-3 27 for transient scenarios (Progress Energy, 2009a). 

28 In addressing the relatively high failure probability for non-transient scenario, FPC further 

29 clarified that the 0.5 failure probability for non-transient scenarios is based on the limited time to 

30 perform the pump start action. Thus, enhancing existing training and procedures is unlikely to 

31 improve the failure probability. 

32 FPC also provided and reviewed the LERF-based RRW events down to an RRW of 1.02 

33 (Progress Energy, 2008). FPC correlated these basic events with the SAMAs already identified 

34 from the Level 1 basic event review and did not identify any additional SAMAs. In addition, FPC 

35 reviewed the basic events, down to an RRW of 1.02, associated with Release Categories 3B 

36 and 4C, the dominant non-LERF related contributors to population dose. Any events not 

37 identified in the list of Level 1 basic events was added to that list and included in the Level 1 

38 basic event review. This resulted in the identification of one additional SAMA. The Staff noted 

39 that by not counting basic events that are flags, split fractions, and initiating events, only five 

40 LERF-based basic events are identified. The Staff requested that FPC clarify why there are so 

41 few basic events having an RRW greater than 1.02 for LERF sequences, including explaining 

42 why there are no LOOP related events, and to provide the RRW for each basic event (NRC, 

43 2009). The Staff also requested, in a separate RAI, that FPC provide a list of the basic events 

44 considered in the Release Categories 3B and 4C review. In response to the RAIs, FPC clarified 

45 that the LERF-based basic events identified were only those events unique to both LERF and to 

46 Release Categories 3B and 4C, and provided a table identifying all basic events associated with 

47 LERF and Release Categories 3B and 4C down to an RRW of 1.02 (Progress Energy, 2009a). 

48 FPC correlated these basic events with the SAMAs already identified from the Level 1 basic 
Appendix F 

 F-16 

1 event review and did not identify any additional SAMAs. FPC also clarified that LERF for CR-3 

2 is mainly dominated by SGTR and ISLOCA events, and that LOOP events are not significant 

3 contributors to either LERF or Release Categories 3B and 4C. 

4 In response to a Staff RAI on the impact of the planned 20 percent EPU on the results of the 

5 SAMA evaluation, FPC provided a sensitivity analysis of the SAMA results, assuming population 

6 dose and economic consequences increased by 20 percent (as discussed in Section F.2.2). 

7 While FPC did not provide an updated assessment of basic events having an RRW greater than 

8 1.02 for the draft CR-3 PSA model incorporating the EPU-necessitated changes, the Staff 

9 concludes that, based on the significant decrease in CDF (discussed above) since the MOR 

10 2006 PSA model used for the SAMA evaluation, it is unlikely that additional cost-beneficial 

11 SAMAs would be found in a revised assessment. 

12 The Staff also requested clarification on the screening process used for the Phase I SAMAs 

13 because: (1) the ER description of this process was unclear and appeared to include 

14 quantitative, not just qualitative, screening; and (2) the results of the Phase I screening process 

15 were not described consistently in the ER, which reported both 9 and 10 SAMAs as being 

16 screened (NRC, 2009). FPC responded that the process for screening Phase I SAMAs involved 

17 the use of engineering judgment to compare estimated implementation costs to the perceived 

18 risk reduction benefit, and that those that were not deemed to be cost-beneficial were screened 

19 from further analysis (Progress Energy, 2009a). FPC also clarified that 10 SAMAs had, in fact, 

20 been screened during the Phase I screening process, and that the 9 SAMAs reported elsewhere 

21 in the ER were not correct, and the error was likely due to failure to update the information from 

22 an earlier version of the report. 

23 The ER did not identify the selected nuclear power plants that FPC reviewed to identify potential 

24 plant improvements. The Staff requested that FPC identify these plants and the Phase I 

25 SAMAs that resulted from this review (NRC, 2009). In its response, FPC clarified that the 

26 SAMA analyses in the license renewal applications for three nuclear power plants were 

27 reviewed to determine if any insights might be gained from what these analyses had concluded 

28 to be potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. The three plants were identified as Calvert Cliffs 

29 Nuclear Power Plant; H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2; and Brunswick Steam 

30 Electric Plant. FPC further clarified that no Phase I SAMAs resulted from this review since the 

31 CR-3 plant-specific importance lists provided greater insight with regards to identifying SAMAs 

32 that might potentially be cost-beneficial for CR-3. 

33 For a number of the Phase II SAMAs listed in the ER, the information provided did not 

34 sufficiently describe the proposed modification. Therefore, the Staff asked the applicant to 

35 provide more detailed descriptions of the modifications for several of the Phase II SAMA 

36 candidates (NRC, 2009). In response to the RAI, FPC provided the requested information on 

37 the modifications for SAMAs 4, 5, 15, 35, and 49 (Progress Energy, 2009a). 

38 FPC considered the potential plant improvements described in the IPE and IPEEE in the 

39 identification of plant-specific candidate SAMAs for internal and external events. Although the 

40 IPE did not identify any vulnerabilities, a loss of flush water supply to the raw water pumps 

41 (RWPs) was found during the evaluation to potentially result in the loss of all five RWPs. As a 

42 result, the flush water supply system was modified prior to completion of the IPE to include a 

43 flush water supply for each pump, thereby significantly reducing the likelihood of a loss of all 

44 flush water supply. Other improvements prompted by the IPE included several additions to the 

45 emergency operating procedures (EOPs) regarding recovery actions (e.g., the addition of a 
Appendix F 

 F-17 

1 recovery action to the STGR procedure to refill the borated water storage tank (BWST) if HPI is 

2 active). All of the EOP improvements were implemented prior to the completion of the IPE. 

3 The Staff questioned FPC about lower cost alternatives to some of the SAMAs evaluated (NRC, 

4 2009), including: 

5 ● enhancing procedures and training in lieu of SAMA 18, “add another EDG” 

6 ● enhancing local manual swap-over procedures and training in lieu of SAMA 15, 

7 “provide control room ability to realign power to MUP-1B,” where MUP refers to 

8 the makeup and purification (MUP) system 

9 In response to the RAIs, FPC addressed the suggested lower cost alternatives, and indicated 

10 that neither would provide a measureable benefit (Progress Energy, 2009a). This is discussed 

11 further in Section F.6.2. 

12 Based on this information, the Staff concludes that the set of SAMAs evaluated in the ER, 

13 together with those identified in response to Staff RAIs, addresses the major contributors to 

14 internal event CDF. 

15 FPC did not identify CR-3-specific candidate SAMAs for seismic events. The CR-3 IPEEE 

16 seismic evaluation identified no additional outliers, other than the unresolved outliers remaining 

17 from implementation of the USI A-46 program. The USI A-46 SER for CR-3 identified three 

18 unresolved issues (NRC, 2000). In response to a Staff RAI, FPC clarified that all unresolved 

19 USI A-46 outliers have been resolved (Progress Energy, 2009a). The Staff concludes that the 

20 opportunity for seismic-related SAMAs has been adequately explored, and that it is unlikely that 

21 there are any cost-beneficial, seismic-related SAMA candidates. 

22 The IPEEE did not identify opportunities for improvements related to fire events (FPC, 1997). 

23 Nevertheless, FPC further reviewed the top contributors to fire risk in order to identify areas for 

24 potential plant improvement, and identified one opportunity for additional reduction of the fire 

25 risk, specifically, SAMA 49, “upgrade fire compartment barriers,” in battery charger room 3A. In 

26 response to a Staff RAI, FPC additionally identified upgrades to the fire compartment barriers in 

27 the 4.16 kilovolt (kV) switchgear bus rooms 3A and 3B, as potential plant improvements for 

28 further evaluation. The Staff concludes that the opportunity for fire-related SAMAs has been 

29 adequately explored and that it is unlikely there are additional potentially cost-beneficial, 

30 fire-related SAMA candidates. 

31 As stated earlier, the CR-3 IPEEE analysis of other external hazards (high winds, tornadoes, 

32 external floods, and other external events) did not identify opportunities for improvement for 

33 these events. Based on this result, the licensee concluded that these other external hazards 

34 would be negligible contributors to overall core damage and did not consider any plant-specific 

35 SAMAs for these events. 

36 The Staff noted that the 25 Phase I SAMA numbers were not consecutive from 1 to 25, but 

37 rather were intermittently numbered between 1 and 52 and requested clarification on the 

38 process used to develop the Phase I SAMA list (NRC, 2009). In response to the RAI, FPC 

39 clarified that a consecutive numbering scheme had been the intent when the SAMA 

40 identification process was initiated and that this numbering scheme was related to the basic 

41 event importance lists (Progress Energy, 2009a). However, as a result of the review of the 
Appendix F 

 F-18 

1 importance lists, some SAMAs were subsumed into other identified SAMAs, and it was 

2 determined that a SAMA was not necessary for some basic events, such as flag events. FPC 

3 further clarified that the resulting set of Phase I SAMAs was not renumbered to be consecutive, 

4 so as to avoid configuration management errors that could occur when working with personnel 

5 from different organizations. 

6 The Staff notes that the set of SAMAs submitted is not all-inclusive, since additional, possibly 

7 even less expensive, design alternatives can always be postulated. However, the Staff 

8 concludes that the benefits of any additional modifications are unlikely to exceed the benefits of 

9 the modifications evaluated, and that the alternative improvements would not likely cost less 

10 than the least expensive alternatives evaluated, when the subsidiary costs associated with 

11 maintenance, procedures, and training are considered. 

12 The Staff concludes that FPC used a systematic and comprehensive process for identifying 

13 potential plant improvements for CR-3, and that the set of SAMAs evaluated in the ER, together 

14 with those evaluated in response to Staff inquiries, is reasonably comprehensive and, therefore, 

15 acceptable. This search included reviewing insights from the plant-specific risk studies, and 

16 reviewing plant improvements considered in previous SAMA analyses. While explicit treatment 

17 of external events in the SAMA identification process was limited, it is recognized that the prior 

18 implementation of plant modifications for fire risks and the absence of external event 

19 vulnerabilities reasonably justifies examining, primarily, the internal events risk results for this 

20 purpose. 

21 F.4. Risk Reduction Potential of Plant Improvements 

22 FPC evaluated the risk-reduction potential of the 15 SAMAs retained for the Phase II evaluation 

23 in the ER. In response to a Staff RAI, FPC also evaluated the risk-reduction potential of the 10 

24 SAMAs eliminated in the Phase I screening (Progress Energy, 2009a). The SAMA evaluations 

25 were performed using realistic assumptions with some conservatism. On balance, such 

26 calculations overestimate the benefit and are conservative. 

27 FPC used model re-quantification to determine the potential benefits. The CDF, population 

28 dose, and offsite economic cost reductions were estimated using the CR-3 MOR 2006 model 

with a truncation level of 1 x 10-11 29 per year. The changes made to the model to quantify the 

30 impact of SAMAs are detailed in Section E.6 of Attachment E to the ER (Progress Energy, 

31 2008). Table F-5 lists the assumptions considered to estimate the risk reduction for each of the 

32 evaluated SAMAs, the estimated risk reduction in terms of percent reduction in CDF and 

33 population dose, and the estimated total benefit (present value) of the averted risk. The 

34 estimated benefits reported in Table F-5 reflect the combined benefit in both internal and 

35 external events. The determination of the benefits for the various SAMAs is further discussed in 

36 Section F.6. 

37 It is noted in Table F-5 that implementation of SAMA 52, “install a parallel flow path for the 

38 decay heat removal drop line,” results in an increase, rather than a decrease, in population dose 

39 from the baseline evaluation. In response to a Staff RAI, FPC clarified that this increase is due 

40 to the introduction of an additional high/low pressure interface that provides for an additional 

41 pathway for release of radioactivity outside of containment, during SGTR or ISLOCA events 

42 (Progress Energy, 2009a). 

43 The Staff questioned the assumptions used in evaluating the benefits or risk reduction estimates 

44 of certain SAMAs provided in the ER (NRC, 2009). For example, SAMA 5, “improve FPW-7 
Appendix F 

 F-19 

1 availability,” is identified as a mitigation strategy for basic event QHUFWP7Y, “operators fail to 

2 start FWP-7,” in ER Table E.5-1 which is inconsistent with the modeling assumption for SAMA 5 

3 in ER Section E.6.8. Furthermore, SAMA 4, “automate FWP-7 start,” is also identified as the 

4 mitigation strategy for basic event QHUFWP7Y in ER Table E.5-2 which is also inconsistent 

5 with the modeling assumption for SAMA 4 in ER Section E.6.12. The Staff requested 

6 clarification on which of SAMAs 4 and 5 is considered to address basic event QHUFWP7Y, and 

7 on the corresponding modeling assumption used in the SAMA evaluation (NRC, 2009). In 

8 response to the RAIs, FPC clarified that SAMA 4 is the appropriate SAMA for addressing basic 

9 event QHUFWP7Y (Progress Energy, 2009a). FPC further clarified that the modeling 

assumption for SAMA 4, which reduced the failure probability from 1.0 to 1.0 x 10-5 10 for basic 

11 event QHUFW7EY, “operators fail to start FWP-7 before PORV lifts,” bounds the risk reduction 

12 from basic event QHUFWP7Y, since the RRW for QHUFW7EY is 1.115 while that for 

13 QHUFWP7Y is 1.063. The Staff considers the assumptions, as clarified, to be reasonable and 

14 acceptable for purposes of the SAMA evaluation. 

15 For the SAMA that specifically addressed fire events (i.e., SAMA 49, “upgrade fire compartment 

16 barriers”), the reduction in fire CDF and population dose was not directly calculated (in Table 

17 F-5, this is noted as “Not Estimated”). For this SAMA, a realistic estimate of the impact was 

18 made based on general assumptions regarding: (1) the approximate contribution to total risk 

19 from external events relative to that from internal events, (2) the fraction of the external event 

20 risk attributable to fire events, (3) the fraction of the fire risk affected by the SAMA (based on 

21 information from the IPEEE), and (4) the assumption that this SAMA would reduce the 

22 contribution to fire CDF from fires in the dominant fire zone, “Battery Charger Room 3B,” by a 

23 factor of 10. Specifically, it is assumed that the contribution to risk from external events is 

24 approximately equal to that from internal events, and that internal fires contribute 82 percent of 

25 this external events risk. The benefit or averted cost risk from reducing the risk in the dominant 

26 fire zone is then calculated, by multiplying the ratio of 90 percent of the fire zone CDF to the 

27 internal events CDF by the total present dollar value equivalent associated with completely 

28 eliminating severe accidents from internal events at CR-3. This SAMA was assumed to have no 

29 additional benefits in internal events. 

30 As indicated in Table F-4, the fire CDF for fire zone CC-108-106, “Battery Charger Room 3B,” is 

1.5 x 10-5 31 per year, which is a factor of 3 greater than the internal events CDF. Based on this 

32 information, the Staff asked FPC to justify the assumptions used to estimate the benefit of 

33 SAMA 49 (NRC, 2009). FPC responded with a revised bounding evaluation of SAMA 49 that 

34 assumed that the fire CDF for this zone was a factor of 3 greater than the internal events CDF, 

35 and that all of the fire risk for fire zone CC-108-106 was eliminated (Progress Energy, 2009a). 

36 The benefit, or averted cost risk from reducing the risk in fire zone CC-108-106, is then 

37 calculated by multiplying the ratio of the fire zone CDF to the internal events CDF by the total 

38 present dollar value equivalent associated with completely eliminating severe accidents from 

39 internal events at CR-3. The Staff considers the assumptions, as revised, to be conservative 

40 and acceptable for purposes of the evaluation of this SAMA. 

41 The Staff has reviewed FPC’s bases for calculating the risk reduction for the various plant 

42 improvements and concludes that the rationale and assumptions for estimating risk reduction 

43 are reasonable and generally conservative (i.e., the estimated risk reduction is higher than what 

44 would actually be realized). Accordingly, the Staff based its estimates of averted risk for the 

45 various SAMAs on FPC’s risk reduction estimates. 
F-20 

Appendix F Table F-5. Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear 1 Generating Plant (a) 2 

SAMA Modeling Assumptions 

 % Risk Reduction Total Benefit ($)(c)

Cost ($) 

CDF Population Dose Baseline (Internal + External) Baseline With Uncertainty

1(b) – Automate Emergency 

Feedwater Initiation and Control (EFIC)/Inverter Backup Cooling 

Reduce the probability of failure of operators to use the dedicated chilled water system from 1.0 to 1.0x10-4. 

12 6 340K 740K 1.0M 

3 – Automate Switchover to Reactor Building Sump Recirculation 

Reduce the probability of failure to transfer suction of the decay heat (DH) system pumps 

from the BWST to the reactor building (RB) sump by a factor of 100. 

9 <1 140K 310K 350K 

4 – Automate Start of Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) Pump (FWP-7) When Required 

Reduce failure of operator action to manually start FWP-7 from 2.6 x 10-2 to 1.0 

x 10-5. 

9 2 180K 390K 250K 

5 – Improve Availability of AFW Pump FWP-7 

Reduce the maintenance unavailability for AFW pump FWP-7 to 0.0. 

11 3 230K 510K 500K 

6 – Provide Ability to Rapidly Identify and Isolate Seawater Floods in Auxiliary Building 

Eliminate all risk from internal flooding due to a pipe rupture on elevation 95 of the auxiliary building. 

8 <1 120K 260K 400K 

7(b) – Install a Separate and 

independent AFW Suction Source and Pump 

Modify fault tree to include a new event, having a failure probability of 1.0 x 10-3, 

representing the unavailability of the independent AFW backup system. 

38 11 870K 1.9M 5.0M 

8(b) – Provide a Temporary Pump to Replace RWP 

Modify fault tree to include new human-error probability (HEP) and system basic events to model the backup RWP pump as described in response to RAI 3.d (Progress Energy, 2009a). 

22 1 360K 780K 500K 

9 – Proceduralize Additional Responses to Decay Heat Removal (DHR) System Valves (DHV) DHV-11 and DHV-12 Failures 

Modify fault tree to include a new HEP event, having a failure probability of 2.5 x 10-2, to manually open valves DHV-11 and DHV-12 in the event remote operation fails. 

6 <1 97K 210K 50K 
F-21 

Appendix F 

SAMA Modeling Assumptions 

 % Risk Reduction Total Benefit ($)(c)

Cost ($) CDF Population Dose Baseline (Internal + External) Baseline With Uncertainty

10 – Proceduralize Additional Responses to Makeup Valve (MUV) MUV-23, MUV-24, MUV-25, and MUV-26 Failures 

Modify fault tree to include a new HEP event, having a failure probability of 1.1 x 10-2, to manually open valves MUV-23, MUV-24, MUV-25, and MUV-26 in the event remote operation fails. 

2 5 180K 390K 50K 

11 – Provide an Automated Crosstie/Makeup Supply for Emergency Feedwater (EFW) 

Reduce the probability of failure to cross-tie the three EFW pumps to a viable suction source by a factor of 100. 

2 1 53K 120K 250K 

13(b) – Add Additional Train of DH 

Removal of Diverse Design 

Modify fault tree to include a new basic event, having a failure probability of 1.0 x 10-3, 

representing the unavailability of the backup DH removal train. 

32 5 600K 1.3M 10M 

14(b) – Automate Steam Generator 

(SG) Level Control Requirements for Small LOCA 

Reduce the probability of failure of operator action to raise the water level of the once-through steam generators (OSTGs) from 2.7 x 10-3 to 2.7 x 10-6. 

3 <1 55K 120K 900K 

15 – Provide Control Room Capability to Realign Power to Makeup Pump 1B 

Reduce failure of operator action to manually realign power to makeup pump 1B from 0.28 to 1.0 x 10-3. 

3 4 150K 320K 300K 

16(b) - Enhance Procedures and 

Make Design Changes as Required to Facilitate Crosstying Trains of DH and Decay Heat Closed Cooling (DHCC) Systems. 

Modify fault tree to combine existing DH and DHCC events under new logical AND gates. 

16 1 260K 570K 5.0M 

17 – Improve SG Level Control Modify fault tree to include a new basic event, 

having a failure probability of 1.0 x 10-4, 

representing the unavailability of an independent and redundant backup level control system for both OTSGs. 

5 4 160K 360K 500K 

18(b) – Add Another EDG Modify fault tree to include a new basic event, 

having a failure probability of 1.0 x 10-3, 

representing the unavailability of an independent and redundant backup EDG. 

7 5 230K 490K 8.0M 
F-22 

Appendix F SAMA Modeling Assumptions % Risk Reduction Total Benefit ($)(c) Cost ($) CDF Population Dose Baseline (Internal + External) Baseline With Uncertainty

26(b) – Install Separate and 

Independent EFIC Cooling System 

Modify fault tree to include two new basic events, having a failure probability of 1.0 x 

10-2, representing the unavailability of each 

backup heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system. 

25 7 560K 1.2M 2.0M 

33 – Proceduralize Manual Operation of DHR System Valves DHV-42 and DHV-43 

Modify fault tree to include a new HEP event, having a failure probability of 2.5 x 10-2, to manually operate valves DHV-42 and DHV-43 in the event remote operation fails. 

6 <1 92K 200K 50K 

34 – Improve Procedures for Manual Operation of EFW Valves 

Reduce failure of operator action to manually control OTSG water level using the EFW discharge valves from 0.3 to 1.7 x 10-2. 

25 8 570K 1.2M 50K 

35 – Update PORV Controls to Open Automatically When Operator Action Was Previously Required 

Reduce failure of operator action to manually open the PORV from 0.5 to 1.0 x 10-5. 

8 54 1.6M 3.4M 700K 

37(b) – DH Heat Exchanger (HX) Strainers 

Reduce the probability off failure of the DH system strainers due to common cause plugging from 2.39 x 10-4 to 2.39 x 10-6. 

3 0 54K 120K 600K 

38 – Additional Condensate Storage Tank (CST) Replacement Water Sources 

Modify fault tree to include a new HEP event, having a failure probability of 1.0 x 10-3, to align an alternate water source for the CST. Assign an unavailability probability of 1.0 x 10-4 for the alternative 

water source, which is assumed to be the fire water system. 

3 1 72K 160K 50K 

49 – Upgrade Fire Barriers in Battery Charger Room 3A 

Reduce the fire CDF contribution from 

battery charger room 3A by a factor of 10. 

Not Estimated 1.0M 2.2M 150K 

51 – Upgrade or Improve Engineering Analysis to Qualify the EFIC Cabinets to a Higher Temperature 

Reduce the probability of loss of all EFW from 0.5 to 0.1 due to a loss of HVAC that results in the EFW valves failing closed. 

20 6 460K 1.0M 100K 
F-23 

Appendix F 

SAMA Modeling Assumptions 

 % Risk Reduction Total Benefit ($)(c)

Cost ($) CDF Population Dose Baseline (Internal + External) Baseline With Uncertainty

52(b) – Install Parallel Flowpath for 

DHR Drop Line 

Modify fault tree to include a new basic event, having a failure probability of 1.0 x 10-3, 

representing the unavailability of the backup DHR system. 

<1 -1 -5.5K -12K 5.0M 

(a) SAMAs in bold are potentially cost-beneficial (b) Retained as a Phase II SAMA in response to RAI 3.d (Progress Energy, 2009a) (c) Estimated benefits reflect revised values provided in response to RAI 3.d (Progress Energy, 2009a) and a 3 percent discount rate 

1 
 F-24 

1 F.5. Cost Impacts of Candidate Plant Improvements 

2 FPC developed plant-specific costs of implementing the 25 Phase I candidate SAMAs. The 

3 cost estimates conservatively did not include the cost of replacement power, during extended 

4 outages, required to implement the modifications (Progress Energy, 2008). The Staff requested 

5 that FPC provide additional explanation of the process for developing the implementation costs 

6 (NRC, 2009). In response to the RAI, FPC clarified that CR-3 engineering personnel reviewed 

7 each SAMA to assess the work scope associated with implementing each SAMA, and then the 

8 implementation cost was estimated by benchmarking the SAMA work scope to other projects of 

9 similar scope. 

10 The Staff reviewed the bases for the applicant’s cost estimates (presented in Section E.6 of 

11 Attachment E to the ER). For certain improvements, the Staff also compared the cost estimates 

12 to estimates developed elsewhere for similar improvements, including estimates developed as 

13 part of other licensees’ analyses of SAMAs for operating reactors and advanced light-water 

14 reactors. In response to an RAI requesting a more detailed description of the changes 

15 associated with SAMAs 4, 5, 15, 35, and 49, FPC provided additional information detailing the 

16 analysis and plant modifications included in the cost estimate of each improvement (Progress 

17 Energy, 2009a). The Staff reviewed the costs and found them to be reasonable, and generally 

18 consistent with estimates provided in support of other plants’ analyses. 

19 The Staff requested additional clarification on the estimated cost of $5 million for implementation 

20 of SAMA 16, “enhance procedures and make design changes as required to facilitate crosstying 

21 DH and DHCC,” which is high for what is described as a procedure modification (NRC, 2009). 

22 In response to the RAI, FPC further described this SAMA as involving modifications to plant 

23 safety systems to cross-connect the DH and DHCC systems, in addition to the procedure 

24 changes (Progress Energy, 2009a). Based on this additional information, the Staff considers 

25 this estimated cost to be reasonable and acceptable for purposes of the SAMA evaluation. 

26 The Staff concludes that the cost estimates provided by FPC are sufficient and appropriate for 

27 use in the SAMA evaluation. 

28 F.6. Cost-Benefit Comparison 

29 FPC’s cost-benefit analysis and the Staff’s review are described in the following sections. 

30 F.6.1 Florida Power Corporation’s Evaluation 

31 The methodology used by FPC was based primarily on NRC’s guidance for performing 

32 cost-benefit analysis (i.e., NUREG/BR-0184, Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation 

33 Handbook) (NRC, 1997a). The guidance involves determining the net value for each SAMA 

34 according to the following formula: 

35 Net Value = (APE + AOC + AOE + AOSC) - COE where, 

36 APE = present value of averted public exposure ($) 

37 AOC = present value of averted offsite property damage costs ($) 

38 AOE = present value of averted occupational exposure costs ($) 

39 AOSC = present value of averted onsite costs ($) 

40 COE = cost of enhancement ($) 
Appendix F 

 F-25 

1 If the net value of a SAMA is negative, the cost of implementing the SAMA is larger than the 

2 benefit associated with the SAMA, which is not considered cost-beneficial. FPC’s derivation of 

3 each of the associated costs is summarized below. 

4 NUREG/BR-0058 has recently been revised to reflect the agency’s policy on discount rates. 

5 Revision 4 of NUREG/BR-0058 states that two sets of estimates should be developed, one at 

6 3 percent and one at 7 percent (NRC, 2004). FPC provided a base set of results using the 

7 3 percent discount rate and a sensitivity study using the 7 percent discount rate (Progress 

8 Energy, 2008). 

9 Averted Public Exposure (APE) Cost

10 The APE costs were calculated using the following formula: 

11 APE = Annual reduction in public exposure (Δperson-rem/year) 

12 x monetary equivalent of unit dose ($2,000 per person-rem) 

13 x present value conversion factor (15.04 based on a 20-year period with a 

14 3-percent discount rate) 

15 As stated in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC, 1997a), the monetary value of the public health risk after 

16 discounting does not represent the expected reduction in public health risk due to a single 

17 accident. Rather, it is the present value of a stream of potential losses extending over the 

18 remaining lifetime (in this case, the renewal period) of the facility. Thus, it reflects the expected 

19 annual loss due to a single accident, the possibility that such an accident could occur at any 

20 time over the renewal period, and the effect of discounting these potential future losses to 

21 present value. For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes elimination of all severe 

22 accidents caused by internal events, FPC calculated an APE of approximately $114,000 for the 

23 20-year license renewal period (Progress Energy, 2008). 

24 Averted Offsite Property Damage Cost (AOC)

25 The AOCs were calculated using the following formula: 

26 AOC = Annual CDF reduction 

27 x offsite economic costs associated with a severe accident (on a 

28 per-event basis) 

29 x present value conversion factor 

30 This term represents the sum of the frequency-weighted offsite economic costs for each release 

31 category, as obtained for the Level 3 risk analysis. For the purposes of initial screening, which 

32 assumes elimination of all severe accidents caused by internal events, FPC calculated an 

33 annual offsite economic cost of about $6,600 based on the Level 3 risk analysis. This results in 

34 a discounted value of approximately $100,000 for the 20-year license renewal period. 
Appendix F 

 F-26 

1 Averted Occupational Exposure (AOE) Cost 

2 The AOE costs were calculated using the following formula: 

3 AOE = Annual CDF reduction 

4 x occupational exposure per core damage event 

5 x monetary equivalent of unit dose 

6 x present value conversion factor 

7 FPC derived the values for averted occupational exposure from information provided in Section 

8 5.7.3 of NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC, 1997a). Best estimate values provided for immediate 

9 occupational dose (3,300 person-rem) and long-term occupational dose (20,000 person-rem 

10 over a 10-year cleanup period) were used. The present value of these doses was calculated 

11 using the equations provided in the handbook in conjunction with a monetary equivalent of unit 

12 dose of $2,000 per person-rem, a real discount rate of 3 percent, and a time period of 20 years 

13 to represent the license renewal period. For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes 

14 elimination of all severe accidents caused by internal events, FPC calculated an AOE of 

15 approximately $3,100 for the 20-year license renewal period (Progress Energy, 2008). 

16 Averted Onsite Cost (AOSC)

17 AOSCs include averted cleanup and decontamination costs and averted power replacement 

18 costs. Repair and refurbishment costs are considered for recoverable accidents only and not 

19 for severe accidents. FPC derived the values for AOSC based on information provided in 

20 Section 5.7.6 of NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC, 1997a). 

21 FPC divided this cost element into two parts – the onsite cleanup and decontamination cost, 

22 also commonly referred to as averted cleanup and decontamination costs, and the replacement 

23 power cost. 

24 Averted cleanup and decontamination costs (ACCs) were calculated using the following 

25 formula: 

26 ACC = Annual CDF reduction 

27 x present value of cleanup costs per core damage event 

28 x present value conversion factor 

29 The total cost of cleanup and decontamination subsequent to a severe accident is estimated in 

NUREG/BR-0184 to be $1.5x109 30 (undiscounted). This value was converted to present costs 

31 over a 10-year cleanup period and integrated over the term of the proposed license extension. 

32 For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes elimination of all severe accidents caused 

33 by internal events, FPC calculated an ACC of approximately $96,000 for the 20-year license 

34 renewal period. 

35 Long-term replacement power costs (RPC) were calculated using the following formula: 

36 RPC = Annual CDF reduction 

37 x present value of replacement power for a single event 

38 x factor to account for remaining service years for which 

39 replacement power is required 

40 x reactor power scaling factor 

41 FPC based its calculations on the rated CR-3 net electric output of 903 megawatt-electric 

42 (MWe) and scaled down from the 910 MWe reference plant in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC, 1997a). 
Appendix F 

 F-27 

1 Therefore, FPC applied a power scaling factor of 903/910 to determine the replacement power 

2 costs. For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes elimination of all severe accidents 

3 caused by internal events, FPC calculated an RPC of approximately $27,000 and an AOSC of 

4 approximately $124,000 for the 20-year license renewal period. 

5 Using the above equations, FPC estimated the total present dollar value equivalent associated 

6 with completely eliminating severe accidents from internal events at CR-3 to be about $341,000. 

7 Use of a multiplier of 2 to account for external events increases the value to $682,000 and 

8 represents the dollar value associated with completely eliminating all internal and external event 

9 severe accident risk at CR-3, also referred to as the modified maximum averted cost risk 

10 (MMACR). 

11 Florida Power Corporation’s Results

12 If the implementation costs for a candidate SAMA exceeded the calculated benefit, the SAMA 

13 was considered not to be cost-beneficial. In the baseline analysis contained in the ER (using a 

14 3 percent discount rate), FPC identified one potentially cost-beneficial SAMA. Based on the 

15 consideration of analysis uncertainties, FPC identified three additional potentially cost-beneficial 

16 SAMAs. In response to Staff RAIs, FPC provided the results of a revised baseline analysis 

17 multiplying the internal events benefits by 12 to account for the additional external events 

18 benefits. The revised baseline analysis resulted in the identification of four additional potentially 

19 cost-beneficial SAMAs. FPC also provided a revised uncertainty analysis using the multiplier of 

20 12 to account for external events benefits, which resulted in the identification of four additional 

21 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. 

22 The potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs for CR-3 are the following: 

23 ● SAMA 4 – Automate start of auxiliary feedwater pump FWP-7 when required to 

24 supply feedwater to the OTSGs in the event the automated EFW system is 

25 unavailable (cost-beneficial in revised analysis, with uncertainties). 

26 ● SAMA 5 – Improve availability of auxiliary feedwater pump FWP-7 to supply 

27 feedwater to the OTSGs in the event that other EFW pumps are unavailable 

28 (cost-beneficial in revised analysis, with uncertainties). 

29 ● SAMA 8 – Provide a temporary pump to provide a backup supply of cooling 

30 water in lieu of RWP in the event it is unavailable (cost-beneficial in revised 

31 analysis, with uncertainties). 

32 ● SAMA 9 – Proceduralize additional responses to DHV-11 and DHV-12 in the 

33 event remote opening of these valves fails (cost-beneficial in revised analysis). 

34 ● SAMA 10 – Proceduralize additional responses to MUV-23, MUV-24, MUV-25, 

35 and MUV-26 failures in the event of a common mode failure of all four of these 

36 motor-operated valves (MOVs) (cost-beneficial with uncertainties). 

37 ● SAMA 15 – Provide control room capability to realign power to makeup pump 1B 

38 remotely, in lieu of local manual operation (cost-beneficial in revised analysis, 

39 with uncertainties). 
Appendix F 

 F-28 

1 ● SAMA 33 – Proceduralize manual operation of DHV-42 and DHV-43 in the event 

2 remote operation of these MOVs fails (cost-beneficial in revised analysis). 

3 ● SAMA 34 – Improve procedures for manual operation of EFW valves in order to 

4 maintain acceptable steam generator water levels in the event the automatic 

5 level control system fails. 

6 ● SAMA 35 – Update PORV controls to open automatically when operator action 

7 was previously required to open the PORV (cost-beneficial in revised analysis). 

8 ● SAMA 38 – Additional condensate storage tank replacement water sources are 

9 aligned through operator actions to provide backup for the EFW system when the 

10 CST is rendered unavailable (cost-beneficial in revised analysis). 

11 ● SAMA 49 – Upgrade fire barriers in battery charger room 3A (cost-beneficial with 

12 uncertainties). 

13 ● SAMA 51 – Upgrade or improve engineering analysis to qualify the EFIC 

14 cabinets to a higher temperature, thereby increasing the reliability of the EFIC 

15 system (cost-beneficial with uncertainties). 

16 In response to a Staff RAI, FPC identified two additional cost-beneficial SAMAs related to 

17 improvements to upgrade the fire compartment barriers in 4.16 kV switchgear bus rooms 3A 

18 and 3B (Progress Energy, 2009b). The potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs, and FPC’s plans for 

19 further evaluation of these SAMAs, are discussed in more detail in Section F.6.2. 

20 F.6.2 Review of Florida Power Corporation’s Cost-Benefit Evaluation 

21 The cost-benefit analysis performed by FPC was based primarily on NUREG/BR-0184 

22 (NRC, 1997a) and discount rate guidelines in NUREG/BR-0058 (NRC, 2004), and was 

23 executed consistent with this guidance. 

24 FPC considered the impact that possible increases in benefits from analysis uncertainties would 

25 have on the results of the SAMA assessment. In the ER, FPC presents the results of an 

uncertainty analysis of the internal events CDF for CR-3, which indicates that the 95th 26 percentile 

27 value is a factor of 2.18 greater than the point estimate CDF for CR-3. FPC reexamined both 

28 the Phase I and Phase II SAMAs to determine if any would be potentially cost-beneficial if the 

29 baseline benefits were increased by an additional factor of 2.18 (in addition to the multiplier of 2 

30 for external events). 

31 In the analysis reported in the ER and summarized above, FPC multiplied the internal event 

32 benefits by a factor of 2 for each SAMA (except for one SAMA that specifically addressed fire 

33 risk) to account for the additional benefits in external events. In the RAIs, the Staff pointed out 

that the external events multiplier should be 12 rather than 2 (based on the fire CDF of 4.2 x 10-5 34 

per year, a seismic CDF of 1.2 x 10-5 35 per year as estimated by the Staff, a negligible high winds, 

floods, and other (HFO) contribution, and an internal events CDF of 5.0 x 10-6 36 per year), and 

37 requested FPC to provide an assessment of the impact on the SAMA evaluation of using the 

38 multiplier of 12 or a smaller multiplier for which adequate justification is provided (NRC, 2009). 

39 In response to the RAIs, FPC revised the baseline benefit values by applying a multiplier of 12 

40 to the estimated SAMA benefits in internal events to account for potential SAMA benefits in both 

41 internal and external events (Progress Energy, 2009a). FPC further reexamined the initial set of 
Appendix F 

 F-29 

1 SAMAs to determine if any additional Phase I SAMAs would be retained for further analysis if 

2 the benefits (or MMACR) were increased by a factor of 12. None of the Phase I SAMAs were 

3 found to be potentially cost-beneficial. As a result of the revised baseline analysis of the Phase 

4 II SAMAs (using a multiplier of 12 and a 3 percent real discount rate), FPC found four additional 

5 SAMAs (SAMAs 9, 33, 35, and 38) to be potentially cost-beneficial. In response to these same 

6 RAIs, FPC reexamined the Phase I and Phase II SAMAs to determine if any would be 

7 potentially cost-beneficial, if the revised baseline benefits were increased by an additional factor 

8 of 2.18 (in addition to the multiplier of 12 for external events) to account for uncertainties. As a 

9 result, four additional SAMAs became potentially cost-beneficial in FPC’s analysis (SAMAs 4, 5, 

10 8, and 15). 

11 FPC provided the results of additional sensitivity analyses in the ER, including use of a 

12 7 percent discount rate, variations in MACCS2 input parameters (as discussed in Section F.2.2), 

13 and an NRC-approved 1.6 percent thermal power uprate. These analyses did not identify any 

14 additional potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. In response to a followup RAI, FPC provided the 

15 results of a sensitivity analysis of a planned increase in the licensed power level of CR-3 by 

16 approximately 20 percent, in an EPU to be implemented before the renewal period (Progress 

17 Energy, 2009b), as discussed in Section F.2.2. FPC reevaluated each Phase II SAMA using 

18 the increased dose and economic consequences and determined that the results of the SAMA 

19 evaluation are not impacted by the EPU (i.e., no additional candidate SAMAs would become 

20 cost beneficial). 

21 The Staff noted that SAMA 15, “provide control room ability to realign power to MUP-1B,” 

22 involves a hardware modification estimated to cost $400,000 and that this SAMA addresses 

23 basic event HHUMBACY, “operator fails to switch MUP-1B power source,” which has an 

24 exceptionally high failure probability (1.0) for an operator action. The Staff asked FPC to 

25 provide an assessment of a lower cost alternative to improve training and procedures in lieu of 

26 SAMA 15 (NRC, 2009). In response to the RAI, FPC clarified that the failure probability of 1.0 

27 was assigned after its dependency with other operator actions was evaluated and that the 

28 actual failure probability is 0.28. FPC further clarified that this high failure probability is based 

29 on the long manipulation time to perform the action relative to the time available to perform the 

30 action and that any procedure and training enhancements would have a negligible impact on the 

31 failure probability. 

32 The Staff also noted that SAMA 18, “add another EDG,” involves a hardware modification 

33 estimated to cost $5,000 and that this SAMA addresses basic event APWNR01R, “both EDGs 

34 FTS [failure to start], both EFPs [emergency feedwater pumps] FTS,” which has a high failure 

35 probability of 0.64 reflecting the likelihood that AC power will not be recovered in time to prevent 

36 FTS of the EDGs and EFPs. The Staff asked FPC to provide justification for why a lower cost 

37 SAMA to improve procedures and training was not considered in lieu of SAMA 18 (NRC, 2009). 

38 In response to the RAI, FPC further clarified that this basic event is not a human performance 

39 error probability but a non-recovery factor for LOOP, based on plant experience (Progress 

40 Energy, 2009b). The Staff agrees that a SAMA to improve procedures and training would not 

41 provide a measureable benefit for basic event APWNR01R. 

42 In the same RAI, the Staff also asked FPC to provide an assessment of providing AC power 

43 from one of the other Crystal River Power Plants in lieu of SAMA 18. FPC responded that 

44 Units 1, 2, 4, and 5 already provide power to the CR-3 switchyard and, instead, provided an 

45 assessment for installing a dedicated line from these other units to CR-3. The cost of this 

46 alternative was estimated to be $25 million, which included installation of a dedicated buried 

47 line, to ensure availability during weather-related events, an additional transformer, and 
Appendix F 

 F-30 

1 additional steps required to ensure that the dedicated line is available when needed since none 

2 of the Crystal River power plants are black start units. Since the estimated cost is greater than 

3 the estimated benefit (using a multiplier of 12, a 3 percent real discount rate, and an uncertainty 

4 factor of 2.18), FPC concluded that this alternative would not be cost-beneficial (Progress 

5 Energy, 2009a). 

6 In response to a Staff RAI, FPC provided an evaluation of improvements to upgrade the fire 

7 compartment barriers in 4.16 kV switchgear bus rooms 3A and 3B (Progress Energy, 2009b). 

8 FPC’s analysis estimated the cost of implementation of each of these improvements to be about 

9 $150,000. Using the same evaluation methodology for these improvements that was used to 

10 evaluate SAMA 49, FPC estimated the total baseline benefit (using a multiplier of 12 and a 3 

11 percent real discount rate) to be $500,000 for 4.16 kV switchgear bus room 3A and $470,000 for 

12 4.16 kV switchgear bus room 3A. FPC further estimated the benefit to be $1.1 million and $1 

13 million for switchgear bus rooms 3A and 3B, respectively, after accounting for uncertainties. 

14 Since the estimated benefit is greater than the estimated implementation cost for both 

15 improvements, FPC determined these improvements to be potentially cost-beneficial. 

16 FPC stated in Section 4.20 of the ER that the four SAMAs (SAMAs 10, 34, 49, and 51) 

17 determined to be potentially cost-beneficial in either the baseline analysis or uncertainty 

18 analysis, will be considered for further evaluation using the appropriate CR-3 design process. In 

19 response to a Staff RAI, FPC clarified that the CR-3 design process involves tracking evaluation 

20 of each SAMA within the CR-3 corrective action program wherein a more detailed evaluation of 

21 the implementation cost and benefits of each SAMA is performed, and those SAMAs found to 

22 merit further study or implementation are entered into the CR-3 long range plan and tracked as 

23 a project. FPC further clarified that SAMAs found to be potentially cost-beneficial, as a result of 

24 responses to the Staff’s RAIs, (SAMAs 4, 5, 8, 9, 15, 33, 35, 38, and improvements to fire 

25 barriers in 4.16 kV switchgear bus rooms 3A and 3B discussed above) will also be evaluated 

26 within the CR-3 corrective action program (Progress Energy, 2009a), (Progress Energy, 2010). 

27 The Staff concludes that, with the exception of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs discussed 

28 above, the costs of the other SAMAs evaluated would be higher than the associated benefits. 

29 F.7. Conclusions 

30 FPC compiled a list of 25 SAMAs based on a review of the most significant basic events from 

31 the plant-specific PSA, insights from the plant-specific IPE and IPEEE, Phase II SAMAs from 

32 license renewal applications for other plants, and review of other industry documentation. A 

33 qualitative screening removed SAMA candidates that: (1) modified features not applicable to 

34 CR-3 due to design differences or (2) were judged to have a low benefit relative to the cost of 

35 implementation. Based on this screening, 10 SAMAs were eliminated, leaving 15 candidate 

36 SAMAs for evaluation. 

37 For the remaining SAMA candidates, a more detailed design and cost estimate was developed 

38 as shown in Table F-5. The cost-benefit analyses showed that one of the SAMA candidates 

39 was potentially cost-beneficial in the baseline analysis (SAMA 34). FPC performed additional 

40 analyses to evaluate the impact of parameter choices and uncertainties on the results of the 

41 SAMA assessment. As a result, three additional SAMAs were identified as potentially 

42 cost-beneficial in the ER (SAMAs 10, 49, and 51). In response to the Staff’s RAIs, FPC further 

43 identified 8 additional SAMAs (SAMAs 4, 5, 8, 9, 15, 33, 35, and 38), and fire-related 

44 enhancements to switchgear bus rooms 3A and 3B discussed in Section F.6.2, as being 

45 potentially cost-beneficial. FPC has indicated that all 12 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs, as 
Appendix F 

 F-31 

1 well as the fire-related enhancements to switchgear bus rooms 3A and 3B, will be further 

2 evaluated using the appropriate CR-3 design process. 

3 The Staff reviewed the FPC analysis and concludes that the methods used and the 

4 implementation of those methods were sound. The treatment of SAMA benefits and costs 

5 support the general conclusion that the SAMA evaluations performed by FPC are reasonable 

6 and sufficient for the license renewal submittal. Although the treatment of SAMAs for external 

7 events was somewhat limited, the likelihood of there being cost-beneficial enhancements in this 

8 area was minimized by improvements that have been realized as a result of the IPEEE process, 

9 and inclusion of a multiplier to account for external events. 

10 The Staff concurs with FPC’s identification of areas in which risk can be further reduced in a 

11 cost-beneficial manner through the implementation of the identified, potentially cost-beneficial 

12 SAMAs. Given the potential for cost-beneficial risk reduction, the Staff agrees that further 

13 evaluation of these SAMAs by FPC is warranted. However, these SAMAs do not relate to 

14 adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. Therefore, 

15 they need not be implemented as part of license renewal pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of 

16 Federal Regulations, Part 54. 

17 F.8. References 

18 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1972. Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and 

19 Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States, AP-101, Washington 

20 D.C., January 1972. 

21 EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 1991. “A Methodology for Assessment of Nuclear 

22 Power Plant Seismic Margin,” EPRI NP-6041-SL, Revision 1, Palo Alto, California, August 1991. 

23 EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 1993. “Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation (FIVE),” 

24 EPRI TR-100370, Revision 1, Palo Alto, California, September 1993. 

25 FPC (Florida Power Corporation). 1993. “Individual Plant Examination for Internal Events,” 

26 March 9, 1993, Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession 

27 No. ML073551186. 

28 FPC (Florida Power Corporation). 1996. “Individual Plant Examination for External Events,” 

29 June 28, 1996, ADAMS Accession No. ML073551183. 

30 FPC (Florida Power Corporation). 1997. “Individual Plant Examination for External Events, 

31 Revision 1,” March 24, 1997, ADAMS Accession No. ML073550630. 

32 FPC (Florida Power Corporation). 1998. Letter from J.S. Baumstark, FPC, to NRC Document 

33 Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River Unit 3 Individual Plant Examination of External Events 

34 Seismic Summary Report (TAC No. M83612),” June 30, 1998, ADAMS Accession 

35 No. ML073550618. 

36 FDR (Florida Department of Revenue). 2006. 2005 Florida Property Valuations & Tax Data, 

37 May 2006. 

38 Kennedy, R.P. 1999. “Overview of Methods for Seismic PRA and Margin Analysis Including 

39 Recent Innovations,” Proceedings of the OECD-NEA Workshop of Seismic Risk, Tokyo, Japan, 

40 10–12 August 1999. 

41 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1983. Radiological Assessment, A Textbook on 

42 Environmental Dose Analysis, NUREG/CR-3332, Washington, D.C., September 1983. 
Appendix F 

 F-32 

1 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1988. Generic Letter 88-20, “Individual Plant 

2 Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities,” November 23, 1988. 

3 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1990. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment 

4 for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-1150, Washington, D.C., December 1990. 

5 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1991. Generic Letter No. 88-20, Supplement 4, 

6 Individual Plant Examination of External Events for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities,

7 NUREG-1407, Washington, D.C., June 28, 1991. 

8 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1997a. Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation 

9 Handbook, NUREG/BR-0184, Washington, D.C., January 1997. 

10 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1997b. Letter from F. Hebdon, NRC, to 

11 R. Anderson, FPC. Subject: “Crystal River Unit 3 – Review of Individual Plant Examination 

12 (TAC No. M74401),” Washington, D.C., April 28, 1997. 

13 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1997c. Individual Plant Examination Program: 

14 Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant Performance, NUREG-1560, Washington, D.C., 

15 December 1997. 

16 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1998a. Code Manual for MACCS2: Volume 1, 

17 User’s Guide, NUREG/CR-6613, Washington, D.C., May 1998. 

18 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1998b. Letter from L. Wiens, NRC, to J. Cowan, 

19 FPC. Subject: “Crystal River Unit 3 – Supplemental Staff Evaluation Report Regarding 

20 Individual Plant Examination Report – Internal Events (TAC No. M74401),” Washington, D.C., 

21 June 30, 1998. 

22 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2000. “Safety Evaluation Report for Unresolved 

23 Safety Issue (USI) A-46 Program Implementation at Crystal River Unit 3 (TAC No. M69440),” 

24 Washington, D.C., August 1, 2000, ADAMS Accession No. ML003736929. 

25 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2001. “Review of Crystal River Unit 3 Individual 

26 Plant Examination of External Events (IPEE) Submittal (TAC No. 83612),” Washington, D.C., 

27 April 27, 2001, ADAMS Accession No. ML010170138. 

28 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2003. Sector Population, Land Fraction, and 

29 Economic Estimation Program, SECPOP: NUREG/CR-6525, Washington, D.C., April 2003. 

30 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2004. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. 

31 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 4, Washington, D.C., September 

32 2004. 

33 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007. “An Approach for Determining the 

34 Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities,” 

35 Regulatory Guide 1.200, Revision 1, Washington, D.C., January 2007. 

36 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009. Letter from E.M. Keegan, NRC, to 

37 J.A. Franke, Progress Energy. Subject: “Request for Additional Information to Support the 

38 Staff’s Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Review for Crystal River 3 Power Station (TAC 

39 No. ME0248),” Washington, D.C., August 10, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML091970068. 

40 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2006. “Radiological Emergency Response 

41 Plan,” Revision 25, January 2006. 

42 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2008. “Crystal River Unit 3 – License 

43 Renewal Application, Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage,” 

44 November 2008, ADAMS Accession No. ML090080731. 
Appendix F 

 F-33 

1 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009a. Letter from J.A. Franke, Progress 

2 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River Unit 3 – Response to 

3 Request for Additional Information Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for Crystal 

4 River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant License Renewal Application (TAC No. ME0278),” 

5 October 9, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML092860615. 

6 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2009b. Letter from J.A. Franke, Progress 

7 Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: “Crystal River Unit 3 – Response to 

8 Follow-up to Progress Energy RAI Responses on CR-3 SAMA Evaluation (TAC No. ME0278),” 

9 December 18, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML093580090. 

10 Progress Energy (Progress Energy Florida, Inc.). 2010. E-mail from Mike Heath, Progress 

11 Energy, to Elaine Keegan, NRC. Subject: “RE: Question on SAMA response,” January 11, 

12 2010. 

13 SQUG (Seismic Qualification Users Group). 1992. “Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP) 

14 for Seismic Verification of Nuclear Plant Equipment,” Revision 2, Corrected, February 14, 1992. 

15 USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2002. “2002 Census of Agriculture – Volume 1, 

16 Geographic Area Series, Census, State-County Data,” National Agriculture Statistics Service, 

17 2002. Available URL: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census/Create_Census_US_CNTY.jsp

18 (accessed June 2004). 

19 USDL (U.S. Department of Labor). 2007. “Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index 

20 Inflation Calculator,” Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available URL: http://www.bls.gov/data/

21 inflation_calculator.htm (accessed February 26, 2007). 

22 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2008. “2008 NSHM Gridded Data, Peak Ground 

23 Acceleration.” Available URL: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous/

24 2008/data/

I-1 

INDEX 

accidents .............................................................................. xxv; 4-60; 5-1 to 5-3, 5-5; 6-2, 6-4; 

8-40; B-8; F-3 to F-4; F-7, F-19, F-26 

to F-28 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) .............. 1-6 to 1-7; 4-54 

aesthetic ............................................................................... xxiv; 2-87, 2-91; 3-1; 4-49, 4-55; 

8-11, 8-21, 8-23, 8-28, 8-31, 8-41; 

B-8 

alternatives ........................................................................... v, xxv to xxvi; 1-5; 4-85; 5-3 to 5-4; 

8-1 to 8-3, 8-8, 8-23, 8-26 to 8-27, 

8-31 to 8-32, 8-34, 8-36 to 8-39, 

8-42; 9-2 to 9-3; A-1 to A-3; B-8; F-1, 

F-17 to F-18 

archaeological resources ..................................................... 1-6; 2-98, 2-100; 3-2; 4-49, 4-53 to 

4-54, 4-83, 4-88; 8-12, 8-21, 8-29, 

8-41 to 8-42; B-8; D-1 

Barnwell ............................................................................... 2-8 

biocide .................................................................................. 2-15, 2-27, 2-30; 4-8 to 4-9; 8-4; B-1; 

D.1-10 

Biological Assessment ......................................................... 2-111; 4-93; D.1-74 

biota ..................................................................................... 2-46; 4-10, 4-23, 4-69, 4-73 to 4-74, 

4-76; B-2; D.1-32, D.1-55, D.1-58, 

D.1-62, D.1-64 

boiling-water reactors ........................................................... B-6 

burnup .................................................................................. B-10 

chronic effects ...................................................................... xxiv; 1-3; 4-44, 4-48, 4-81; B-7 

Clean Air Act ........................................................................ 2-35 to 2-37; 8-4 to 8-7, 8-15 to 

8-16, 8-24 to 8-25; C-2, C-5 

closed-cycle cooling ............................................................. 4-29, 4-72, 4-82; 8-3 to 8-4; B-4; 

D.1-57 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) .............................. 2-103 to 2-104; C-3 

cold shock ............................................................................ 4-10; B-2; D.1-32 

cooling system ..................................................................... xxii; 1-4; 2-14 to 2-15, 2-18, 2-41; 

4-10, 4-15 to 4-16, 4-22 to 4-23, 

4-29, 4-63, 4-77, 4-87; 8-26, 8-40; 

B-3 to B-4; D.1-10, D.1-36, D.1-38, 

D.1-64; F-23 

core damage frequency ....................................................... 5-4; F-1 to F-3, F-5 to F-9, F-13 to 

F-19, F-21, F-23, F-26 to F-27, F-29 

to F-30 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) ............................. 1-4; 4-55 

cultural resources ................................................................. 4-83, 4-88; 8-12, 8-21, 8-29; C-1 
I-2 

decommissioning ................................................................. 4-63, 4-70; 6-3 to 6-4, 6-8; 7-1 to 

7-2; 8-39 to 8-41; 9-3; B-11 to B-12; 

D.1-55 

design-basis accidents ......................................................... 2-5; 4-60; 5-1 to 5-2; B-8 

discharges ............................................................................ xxv; 2-13 to 2-15, 2-19 to 2-24, 2-27 

to 2-32, 2-39, 2-41, 2-45, 2-50, 2-71; 

4-4, 4-9, 4-23 to 4-29, 4-31, 4-46 to 

4-47, 4-68 to 4-69, 4-72, 4-74, 4-87; 

8-8, 8-18, 8-40; B-1 to B-3, B-6; C-2, 

C-5; D.1-7 to D.1-8, D.1-10, D.1-40 

to D.1-43, D.1-54, D.1-57, D.1-61, 

D.1-64 

dose ..................................................................................... 2-6; 4-45, 4-46, 4-60, 4-80, 4-84; 

5-5; 7-1 to 7-2; 9-2; B-6 to B-12; F-3 

to F-4, F-11 to F-13, F-15 to F-16, 

F-18 to F-19, F-21, F-26 to F-27, 

F-30 

education ............................................................................. 2-88 to 2-89; 3-2; 4-49; B-7 

electromagnetic fields .......................................................... xxiv; 1-3; 4-32, 4-44, 4-47 to 4-49, 

4-81; B-5, B-7 

endangered species ............................................................. xxiii; 1-6; 2-64, 2-79; 4-32 to 4-33, 

4-39 to 4-41, 4-44, 4-69, 4-72, 4-76 

to 4-77, 4-79, 4-87; 8-18; B-2, B-5; 

C-1, C-3; D-1 

entrainment .......................................................................... xxiii; 4-10 to 4-15, 4-20, 4-29 to 

4-32, 4-34, 4-69, 4-71 to 4-72; 8-8, 

8-18, 8-26; 9-1; B-2 to B-3; D.1-32 to 

D.1-33, D.1-36 to D.1-38, D.1-44 to 

D.1-54, D.1-56 to D.1-57, D.1-61, 

D.1-64 to D.1-70 

environmental justice ........................................................... 1-3; 3-2; 4-49, 4-50, 4-54 to 4-55, 

4-59 to 4-60, 4-83, 4-87; 8-12 to 

8-13, 8-22 to 8-23, 8-29, 8-41; B-12 

essential fish habitat (EFH) .................................................. D-1; D.1-1 to D.1-2, D.1-12 to 

D.1-13, D.1-20 to D.1-21, D.1-31 to 

D.1-35, D.1-43 to D.1-58, D.1-61 to 

D.1-62, D.1-64 to D.1-66 

extended power uprate (EPU) ............................................. 2-31; 4-5, 4-11, 4-15 to 4-17, 4-22 to 

4-23, 4-27 to 4-28, 4-38, 4-63, 4-67 

to 4-68, 4-70 to 4-71, 4-80 to 4-85, 

4-87 to 4-88; D.1-11 to D.1-12, 

D.1-34 to D.1-35, D.1-38 , D.1-41 to 

D.1-42, D.1-55 to D.1-56; F-1, F-7, 

F-11, F-16, F-29 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ................ 4-63 
I-3 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) .... 1-6 to 1-7; 2-15, 2-17 to 2-19, 2-21, 

2-23 to 2-24, 2-30 to 2-32, 2-35, 

2-37, 2-63, 2-105; 4-1 to 4-6, 4-15, 

4-22 to 4-23, 4-27 to 4-29, 4-34, 

4-38 to 4-39, 4-65, 4-71 to 4-74, 

4-78; 8-5, 8-8, 8-15 to 8-16, 8-18, 

8-24 to 8-26; C-2 to C-3, C-5 to C-6; 

D.1-11 to D.1-12, D.1-36, D.1-38 to 

D.1-43, D.1-56 to D.1-57, D.1-61, 

D.1-64 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) 1-6 to 1-7; 2-42, 2-44, 2-52 to 2-60, 

2-62 to 2-64, 2-92; 4-21, 4-33, 4-38, 

4-39 to 4-40, 4-42, 4-44, 4-70, 4-73; 

C-5 to C-6; D.1-4 to D.1-5, D.1-55 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) ................................ 1-6 to 1-7; 2-61 to 2-64, 2-74 to 

2-75, 2-78; 4-39 to 4-41 

GEIS .................................................................................... xxi to xxiv, xxvi; 2-92; 3-1 to 3-2; 4-1, 

4-6 to 4-10, 4-32 to 4-33, 4-44 to 

4-45, 4-47, 4-49, 4-51, 4-61 to 4-62, 

4-81; 5-1 to 5-3; 6-1 to 6-2; 7-1 to 

7-2; 8-1 to 8-3, 8-7, 8-9 to 8-11, 

8-15, 8-19 to 8-20, 8-23, 8-27 to 

8-28, 8-32 to 8-33, 8-35, 8-37 to 

8-39; A-1; B-8; D.1-2, D.1-31 to 

D.1-32 

groundwater ......................................................................... xxiii, xxvi; 2-17, 2-19 to 2-24, 2-39 to 

2-40, 2-88; 3-1; 4-6 to 4-8, 4-31, 

4-45, 4-51, 4-61, 4-65 to 4-68, 4-70, 

4-72, 4-77, 4-79, 4-87; 8-2, 8-8, 8-13 

to 8-14, 8-17, 8-23, 8-25, 8-30, 8-40, 

8-42 to 8-43; 9-1; B-4, B-8; C-1 to 

C-3, C-6 

hazardous waste .................................................................. 2-8 to 2-9; 9-2 to 9-3 

heat shock ............................................................................ xxiii; 4-10, 4-23, 4-28 to 4-29, 4-69; 

9-1; B-3 to B-4; D.1-32 to D.1-33, 

D.1-39, D.1-42 

high-level waste ................................................................... 1-4; 6-1 to 6-2; 8-41 to 8-42; B-8, 

B-10 to B-12 

impingement ........................................................................ xxiii; 2-51, 2-69; 4-10, 4-14 to 4-15, 

4-17 to 4-20, 4-22, 4-29, 4-31 to 

4-35, 4-37 to 4-38, 4-69, 4-71 to 

4-73; 8-8 to 8-9, 8-18, 8-26; 9-1; B-2 

to B-3; D.1-32 to D.1-37, D.1-43 to 

D.1-54, D.1-56 to D.1-57, D.1-60 to 

D.1-61, D.1-64 to D.1-70 

independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) ............. 2-6, 2-33; 4-64, 4-80, 4-82, 4-84, 

4-87 

Indian tribes ......................................................................... 4-55 
I-4 

Levy Nuclear Plant (LNP) .................................................... 4-15, 4-22 to 4-23, 4-29, 4-63, 4-67 

to 4-71, 4-73, 4-79 to 4-87; 9-1; 

D.1-36, D.1-38, D.1-43 to D.1-58, 

D.1-61 

low-level waste ..................................................................... 2-8; 6-1; 8-41; B-11 

mitigation .............................................................................. xxii; 1-3 to 1-5; 4-8, 4-11, 4-16, 4-30 

to 4-32, 4-44, 4-48, 4-66 to 4-68; 

5-3; 7-1; 8-12, 8-21; 9-2; C-5; D.1-1, 

D.1-31, D.1-61, D.1-65; F-19 

mixed waste ......................................................................... 2-8; 6-1; 8-41; B-11 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) ............. xxii; 1-1; 2-104; 3-2; 4-29, 4-54 to 

4-55, 4-61; 5-1; 8-1; 9-1; B-1, B-9, 

B-11; D.1-31, D.1-36, D.1-43 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) .......................... 1-6; 4-53, 4-83; B-8; C-4; D-1 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) .......................... 2-64, 2-68, 2-71; 4-33 to 4-37; D.1-1, 

D.1-13, D.1-43 

no-action alternative ............................................................. v, xxv to xxvi; 8-39, 8-41 to 8-43; 

9-3; A-3 

nonattainment ...................................................................... 2-38; 3-2; 4-86; 8-4, 8-9, 8-15, B-6 

NPDES ................................................................................. 2-13, 2-15 to 2-17, 2-19 to 2-21, 

2-23 to 2-25, 2-28 to 2-32; 4-3, 4-9, 

4-11, 4-14 to 4-16, 4-19, 4-22 to 

4-23, 4-27 to 4-30, 4-67 to 4-69, 

4-71 to 4-72, 4-74, 4-87; 8-8, 8-18, 

8-26; B-1; C-1 to C-2, C-5; D.1-8, 

D.1-10, D.1-11 to D.1-12, D.1-34 to 

D.1-39, D.1-41 to D.1-42, D.1-56 to 

D.1-57, D.1-61, D.1-64 to D.1-65 

once-through cooling ........................................................... 2-13, 2-18, 2-25; 4-8 to 4-11, 4-14 to 

4-15, 4-20, 4-23, 4-31, 4-35; 8-4; B-2 

to B-3; D.1-8, D.1-38 to D.1-39 

postulated accidents ............................................................ 4-60; 5-1, 5-3; B-8 

pressurized water reactor .................................................... 2-5; 4-63, 4-82; B-6 

radon-222 ............................................................................. B-8 

reactor .................................................................................. xxi; 1-1; 2-5 to 2-9, 2-16, 2-37, 2-91; 

4-1, 4-3, 4-5, 4-47, 4-80, 4-83, 4-85 

to 4-86, 4-88; 5-1 to 5-2, 5-6; 6-3; 

7-1; 8-11, 8-21, 8-28, 8-32; B-4, B-9, 

B-11; D.1-11; F-25 

refurbishment ....................................................................... 1-3; 2-14; 3-1 to 3-2; 4-4, 4-6 to 4-8; 

B-1 to B-2, B-4 to B-8; D.1-9 

replacement power .............................................................. v; 5-6; F-11, F-25, F-27 to F-28 

scoping ................................................................................. v, xxi to xxii, xxvi; 1-2, 1-6; 4-1, 4-6 

to 4-7, 4-9, 4-32, 4-45, 4-49, 4-62; 

5-2 to 5-3; 6-2; 7-2; 9-4; A-1 to A-2 
I-5 

severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) ................. xxv; 5-3, 5-5 to 5-8; F-1 to F-19, 

F-21, F-24 to F-26, F-28 to F-32 

solid waste ........................................................................... 2-6 to 2-9; 4-7, 4-9; 7-2; 8-31, 8-37 

to 8-38; B-12; C-1, C-3 

spent fuel ............................................................................. xxii; 1-4; 2-6, 2-9, 2-33; 4-64, 4-82;

6-1 to 6-2; 8-42; B-8, B-10 to B-12 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) .......................... 4-53 to 4-54, 4-83 

stormwater ........................................................................... 2-20 to 2-21, 2-23 to 2-24, 2-27 to 

2-32, 2-42; 4-67 to 4-68, 4-70, 4-74, 

4-77; 8-8, 8-18; C-2; D.1-4, D.1-55, 

D.1-61, D.1-64 

surface water ....................................................................... xxiii, xxvi; 2-17 to 2-18, 2-21, 2-24, 

2-30 to 2-32, 2-40, 2-54, 2-61, 2-98; 

3-1; 4-8 to 4-10, 4-28, 4-30, 4-60 to 

4-61, 4-65 to 4-70, 4-77 to 4-78, 

4-87; 8-2, 8-8, 8-14, 8-17 to 8-18, 

8-23, 8-26, 8-30, 8-40, 8-42, 8-43; 

9-1; B-1, B-4; C-1, C-3; D.1-3 to 

D.1-4, D.1-12, D.1-42, D.1-55 

taxes .................................................................................... 2-90, 2-96 to 2-98; 4-52 

threatened species ............................................................... 2-67 to 2-68, 2-70; 3-2; 4-33, 4-44; 

B-2, B-5; D-1 

transmission lines ................................................................ 2-9, 2-10, 2-12 to 2-13, 2-60, 2-62 to 

2-65, 2-74, 2-79, 2-101 to 2-102; 

4-6, 4-33, 4-37, 4-39 to 4-44, 4-47, 

4-49, 4-53 to 4-54, 4-71, 4-78 to 

4-79, 4-81, 4-83, 4-85, 4-87; 8-4, 

8-15, 8-26, 8-31, 8-33, 8-41; B-6, 

B-8; D.1-57 

tritium ................................................................................... 2-21 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) ....................................... 4-48; 8-2, 8-33, 8-35 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ..................... 1-7; 2-11, 2-24, 2-35, 2-38, 2-40, 

2-93; 4-5, 4-11, 4-14, 4-16, 4-19 to 

4-20, 4-22, 4-27, 4-29, 4-80, 4-86; 

8-2, 8-4 to 8-7, 8-9, 8-13, 8-15 to 

8-17, 8-24 to 8-25; A-2; B-10; C-1; 

D.1-35, D.1-37 to D.1-38, D.1-40, 

D.1-64; F-12 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) .................................. 1-7; 2-10, 2-37, 2-62, 2-64, 2-68, 

2-72, 2-75 to 2-76; 4-33, 4-38 to 

4-39, 4-42 to 4-44 

uranium ................................................................................ 2-5 to 2-6, 2-16; 4-80; 6-1 to 6-8; 8-9 

to 8-10, 8-19; B-8, B-11 to B-12; 

D.1-11 
I-6 

wastewater ........................................................................... 2-19 to 2-21, 2-24, 2-27 to 2-28, 

2-32; 4-7, 4-9, 4-64, 4-67 to 4-68, 

4-74; 8-8, 8-18, 8-38, 8-40; B-2; C-2 

to C-3, C-5 to C-6; D.1-61 

Yucca Mountain ................................................................... B-10, B-12 
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse)

NRC FORM 335

(12-2010)

NRCMD 3.7

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

 (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 44

3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH

May

YEAR

2011

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS)

Supplement 44

Regarding Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant

Draft Report for Comment

5. AUTHOR(S)

See Chapter 10 of the report

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 License Renewal

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 Number 50-302

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

This draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to an application submitted by

Florida Power Corporation, doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc., to renew the operating license for Crystal River Unit

3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3) for an additional 20 years.

The draft SEIS includes the preliminary analysis that evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed action and

alternatives to the proposed action. Alternatives considered include replacement power from a new supercritical coal-fired plant,

a new natural gas-fired combined-cycle plant, a combination of alternatives that includes some natural gas-fired capacity and

energy conservation, and not renewing the license (the no-action alternative).

The NRC's preliminary recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for CR-3 are not great

enough to deny the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers. This recommendation is based on: (1) the

analysis and findings in NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants"; (2) the environmental report submitted by Florida Power Corporation; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and

local agencies; (4) the NRC's environmental review; and (5) consideration of public comments received during the scoping

process.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.)

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant

CR-3

Florida Power Corporation

Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement

SEIS

DSEIS

GEIS

National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA

NUREG-1437, Supplement 44

License Renewal

14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

unlimited

(This Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (12-2010)

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001


UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

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

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
NUREG-1437, Supplement 44

Draft

 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants:

Regarding Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant