ML23198A271

Subsequent License Renewal Site-Specific Scoping Summary Report

ML23198A271
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	08/31/2023
From:	Tanya Smith NRC/NMSS/DREFS/ELRB
To:	Strand D Florida Power & Light Co
References
Download: ML23198A271 (27)

Text

Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process Summary Report Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4 Miami-Dade County, FL August 2023 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland Introduction By letter dated January 30, 2018 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Package ML18037A824), Florida Power & Light Company (FPL, the licensee) submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) an application for subsequent license renewal (SLR) of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41 for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4 (Turkey Point) pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 54, Requirements for renewal of operating licenses for nuclear power plants. As part of its SLR application, FPL submitted an environmental report (ER),

which it later supplemented by letter dated April 10, 2018 (ER Supplement 1).

On December 10, 2019, the NRC provided notice in the Federal Register (FR) that it had issued Subsequent Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41 to FPL (84 FR 67482). The licenses authorized operation of Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 through July 19, 2052, and April 10, 2053, respectively. The NRC also issued a final supplemental environmental impact statement for Turkey Point subsequent license renewal, i.e., Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 5, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Final Report (ML19290H346) (FSEIS), and a Record of Decision (ROD), which supported the NRCs decision to issue the subsequent renewed licenses.

As discussed in the FSEIS and the ROD, in evaluating the impacts of SLR for Turkey Point, the NRC staff (a) relied upon NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Revision 1, Final Report, dated June 2013 (the LR GEIS) and 10 CFR part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, subpart A, appendix B, table B-1, to evaluate the environmental impacts of generic (Category 1) issues, and (b) evaluated the environmental impacts of site-specific (Category 2) issues. The FSEIS documented the staffs environmental evaluation, including the determination that the adverse environmental impacts of SLR for Turkey Point are not so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.

In the Commissions Memorandum and Order, CLI-22-02, dated February 24, 2022, the Commission held that the NRC staff may not rely on the LR GEIS and 10 CFR part 51, subpart A, appendix B, table B-1, to evaluate the environmental impacts of generic Category 1 issues when considering the environmental impacts of SLR. As a result, the Commission determined, among other things, that the NRC staffs environmental review of the SLR application for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 was incomplete. The Commission afforded SLR applicants an opportunity to request site-specific consideration of those Category 1 environmental impacts, or to await the agencys issuance of a revised LR GEIS that addresses such impacts on a generic basis. In a further Memorandum and Order (CLI-22-06) issued on June 3, 2022, the Commission reaffirmed its determination that the subsequent renewed facility operating licenses for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 be revised to expire on July 19, 2032, and April 10, 2033, respectively, to reflect the end dates of the previous renewed licenses.

Consistent with the Commission direction, on June 9, 2022, FPL submitted a site-specific analysis of the environmental impacts of the continued operation of Turkey Point during the SLR period, in ER, Supplement 2 (ML22160A301) (ER Supplement 2). In ER Supplement 2, FPL addressed, among other things, the Category 1 environmental impacts of SLR for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 on a site-specific basis.

Turkey Point is located in Homestead, Florida, approximately 25 miles south-southwest of Miami. In its application, FPL requests subsequent license renewal for a period of 20 years beyond the dates when the current licenses expire. Specifically, the new expiration dates would be July 19, 2052, for Turkey Point Unit 3, and April 10, 2053, for Turkey Point Unit 4.

The purpose of this report1 is to provide a concise summary of the NRC staffs determination of the scope of the staffs environmental review of this application with respect to ER Supplement 2, incorporating stakeholder inputs. This report will briefly summarize the issues identified by the scoping process.

This report is structured in five sections:

A. The Public Scoping Period B. List of Commenters C. Summary of Comments Provided D. Significant Issues Identified E. Determinations and Conclusions A.

The Public Scoping Period

Background

The FPL application and all other public documents relevant to the Turkey Point SLR are available in the NRCs Web-based ADAMS, which is accessible at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who encounter problems in accessing documents in ADAMS should contact the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by email at PDR.Resource@nrc.gov.

For additional information, the NRC staff has made available a Website with specific information about the Turkey Point SLR application at https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/turkey-point-subsequent.html. This Website includes application information, the licensing review schedule, opportunities for public involvement, project manager information, and other relevant information. In addition, important documents are available at the Federal rulemaking Website, https://www.regulations.gov/, under Docket ID NRC-2022-0172.

As part of its SLR application, FPL submitted an ER to the NRC, available at ADAMS ML18037A836, and, subsequently, ER, Supplement 1 (ML18113A132). FPL prepared the ER and supplement 1 in accordance with 10 CFR part 51, Environmental protection regulations for domestic licensing and related regulatory functions, which contains the NRCs requirements for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA).2 On June 9, 2022, FPL further supplemented its ER by submitting ER Supplement 2 (ML22160A301).

The NRC staff intends to prepare, as a draft for public comment, a Turkey Point site-specific environmental impact statement (EIS) as a supplement to the FSEIS, to supplement the FSEIS 1 The NRCs requirements for conducting the scoping process and for preparing a scoping summary report are found at 10 CFR 51.29, Scoping-environmental impact statement and supplement to environmental impact statement.

2 The NRCs requirements for an environmental report supporting a license renewal application are at 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3).

evaluation of Category 1 impacts and to update the FSEIS evaluation of Category 2 impacts.

Due to this expansion of the scope of the environmental review, the NRC staff conducted an additional limited scoping process to gather information necessary to evaluate the Category 1 impacts of SLR on a site-specific basis and to update the Category 2 impacts of Turkey Point SLR for an additional 20 years beyond the period specified in each of the current licenses.

Scoping Process and Objectives The first step in developing a site-specific EIS is to conduct a public scoping process. The NRC staff published a notice of its intent to conduct an initial scoping process on May 22, 2018, following its receipt of the ER (83 FR 23726). Following the issuance of a draft of the document and the staffs consideration of public comments on that draft, notice of publication of the FSEIS was issued on October 31, 2019 (84 FR 58416).

On July 26, 2022, following the Commissions issuance of CLI-22-02, the NRC issued a notice of its receipt of ER Supplement 2 (87 FR 44430). On October 7, 2022, the NRC issued a notice of its intent to prepare an EIS supplement and to conduct EIS scoping (87 FR 61104). This notice notified stakeholders about the NRC staffs intent to prepare a site-specific supplement to the FSEIS and provided the public with an opportunity to participate in the environmental scoping process. The NRC sought public comment on the proper scope of the environmental review, and invited members of the public to provide scoping comments by November 7, 2022.

The supplemental scoping process, commenced in October 2022, provided an opportunity for members of the public to propose environmental issues to be addressed in the site-specific EIS and to highlight public concerns and issues. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.29(b), this scoping summary report provides a concise summary of the determinations and conclusions reached as a result of the supplemental scoping process. The NRCs objectives of the supplemental scoping process were to:

Define the proposed action, which is to be the subject of the site-specific EIS.

Gather data on the scope of the site-specific EIS and identify the significant issues to be analyzed in depth.

Identify and eliminate from detailed study those issues that are peripheral or are not significant or were covered by prior environmental review.

Identify any environmental assessments and other EISs that are being or will be prepared that are related to, but are not part of, the scope of the site-specific EIS.

Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements related to the proposed action.

Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of the environmental analyses and the Commissions tentative planning and decisionmaking schedule.

Identify any cooperating agencies and, as appropriate, allocate assignments for preparation and schedules for completion of the site-specific EIS to the NRC and any cooperating agencies.

Describe how the site-specific EIS will be prepared, including any contractor assistance to be used.

A concise summary of the NRC staffs determinations and conclusions regarding the above objectives is provided in section D below.

B. List of Commenters The NRC received comment submissions from numerous persons during the supplemental scoping comment period. Table B1 provides a list of commenters who provided comment submissions (i.e., non-form letter submissions) identified by name, affiliation (if stated), the correspondence identification (ID) number, the comment source, and the ADAMS Accession number of the source. The NRC staff reviewed the scoping meeting transcript and all written material received to identify individual comments. Each comment was marked with a correspondence ID number, which is a unique identifier consisting of the comment source and a comment number (specified in table B-1). For example, Comment 3-1 would refer to the first comment from the third comment source. This unique identifier allows each comment to be traced back to the source where the comment was identified. Comments were consolidated and categorized according to a resource area or topic.

Table B-1. Individuals Providing Comments During the Supplemental Scoping Comment Period Commenter Affiliation Correspondence ID Comment Source ADAMS Accession Number Sprinkle, James 1

Email ML23102A008 Hayes, Dr. Rose 2

Email ML23103A031 Soweka, Robin The Muscogee Nation 3

Email ML23103A048 Perez, Gano The Muscogee Nation 4

Email Regulations.gov ML23103A032 ML22294A106 Reiser, Caroline Natural Resources Defense Council 5

Email ML23103A034 Pate, Haigler U.S. National Park Service 6

Email ML23103A035 Dean, William Kenneth U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 7

Email Regulations.gov ML23103A045 ML22312A573 Cypress, Talbert Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida 8

Regulations.gov ML22314A095 Chase, Kelly Florida State Historic Preservation Office 9

Regulations.gov ML23103A047 Ayres, Richard Friends of the Earth 10 Regulations.gov ML22312A574 Bennett, Elise Pautler Center for Biological Diversity 10 Regulations.gov ML22312A574 Reiser, Caroline Natural Resources Defense Council 10 Regulations.gov ML22312A574 Silverstein, Rachel Miami Waterkeeper 10 Regulations.gov ML22312A574 Anonymous 11 Regulations.gov ML22312A576 C. Summary of Comments Provided During the supplemental scoping period, the NRC received comments that provided input for the site-specific EIS. A summary of those comments is provided in this section. Comments were grouped based on being in scope or out of scope, and comments with similar themes were further sub-grouped to capture the resources concerned. Each comment submittal was uniquely identified and when a submittal addressed multiple issues, the submittal was further divided into separate comments with tracking identifiers. Table C-1 identifies the distribution of comments received by resource area or topic.

Table C-1. Distribution of Comments by Resource Area or Topic Resource Area/Topic Number of Comments Received Cumulative Impacts 3

Ecology-Aquatic Resources 1

Ecology-Terrestrial Resources 1

Environmental Justice 1

Federal Protected Ecological Resources 1

General Environmental Concerns 1

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 4

Historic and Cultural Resources 4

Hydrology-Groundwater Resources 5

Hydrology-Surface Water Resources 3

Uranium Fuel Cycle 1

Waste Management-Radioactive Waste 3

Support for the Licensing Action 1

Opposition to the Licensing Action 3

Process-Licensing Action 4

Process-NEPA 3

Outside Scope-Aging Management 2

Outside Scope-Need for Power 1

Outside Scope-Safety 1

Outside Scop-Offsite Fuel Storage 1

C.1 Comments on the Resource Areas The comments included below are reproduced as provided by the commenter. The NRC staff notes that the acronym SEIS was used by various commenters when referring to the site-specific EIS that is currently being prepared by the staff. The commenters use of the term SEIS is therefore recited here, in reproducing those comments.

C.1.1 Comments Concerning Cumulative Impacts Comment Summary:The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expressed concern regarding cumulative impacts including radionuclides from operations at Turkey Point migrating into local water resources. The EPA requested that the site-specific EIS evaluate the historical effects and potential impacts of the proposed action and include a discussion of the cumulative impacts related to the Turkey Point cooling canal system (CCS).The EPA also recommended adding language addressing mitigation measures regarding water quality monitoring, the effectiveness of corrective actives, and a re-evaluation process that would assess alternative corrective measures.

Comments: (7-1) (7-3) (7-6)

Comment:The EPA recommends that the SEIS evaluate the historical effects of the proposed projects and describe efforts to address the following potential impacts of the proposed action in the SEIS.(7-1[Dean, William Kenneth])

Comment: Several potential, cumulative, and indirect project impacts are of particular concern at Turkey Point, including radionuclides and hypersalinity in surface water and groundwater.

Also, there are issues of concern related to nuclear power plants, including: groundwater monitoring for radionuclides, underground injection of effluent, spent nuclear fuel storage, contaminant transport and deposition, Clean Water Act (CWA) issues for surface and groundwater discharges, the impact of severe storm events affected by climate change, and analysis of communities with Environmental Justice concerns. The existing unlined Industrial Waste Facility/Cooling Canal System (CCS) for [Turkey Point] Units 3 and 4 has issues regarding radionuclides and hypersalinity that represent the EPAs primary concerns. Releases from the CCS into the adjacent Biscayne Bay, surrounding terrestrial environments, and inland groundwater could potentially contribute to existing issues, and thereby increase cumulative impacts.

The EPA notes that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) have historically entered into consent agreements with FPL to address issues related to the CCS.

The EPA supports the FDEP and DERMs efforts to work with FPL to remediate impacts of the hypersaline plume on groundwater and impacts of ammonia on surface waters. Past consent agreements have outlined various corrective actions to address issues related to the CCS. The EPA recommends that NRC consider incorporating language into the SEIS or license stating that FPL develop and submit an alternative mitigation plan to address water quality if FPLs monitoring results demonstrate that corrective measures identified in the consent agreements were not effective. As part of this condition, we recommend that the NRC and the licensee provide a detailed discussion on the re-evaluation process that would reassess alternative corrective measures with respect to the CCS. (7-3 [Dean, William Kenneth])

Comment:Existing and historic operations at Turkey Point have resulted in radionuclides (tritium, strontium, cesium) migrating into Biscayne Bay and Biscayne Aquifer. The SEIS should include a discussion regarding potential cumulative impacts and environmental stressors related to additional discharges.(7-6[Dean, William Kenneth])

C.1.2 Comments Concerning Ecology-Aquatic Resources Comment Summary: The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida expressed concern about the environmental impacts of Turkey Point on aquatic resources. Specifically, the comment mentions the effects of increased tritium, salinity, and temperature levels on the American crocodile and other threatened and endangered species and species vital to local fishing economy, especially those traditional and Congressionally protected Miccosukee fishing rights.

Comment: (8-7)

Comment: The harm contemplated in a review of the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station is not limited to speculative concerns. A 2016 study confirmed that the Station had soured Biscayne Bay with more than 200 times the normal levels of tritium, a radioactive isotope linked to nuclear power production. The discharge of coolant water has also elevated seawater temperatures to exceed 100 degrees requiring an NRC waiver. High water temperatures can effectively cook marine and estuarine life, and the saline discharge combined with the impacts of overdrawing water from the canal are causing substantial saline infiltration several miles west of the L-31E canal. This is directly threatening the Biscayne Aquifer and the drinking water supply it provides Miami-Dade County.

Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station is quite literally the only nuclear plant left in the world that still uses this cooling system. The cooling canals span 5,900 acres of otherwise-intact marine and estuarine ecosystem at a critical ecological nexus between the Biscayne Bay, the Everglades National Park, the Southern Glades Wildlife and Environmental Area, the Biscayne National Park, and the third largest coral barrier reef in the world (and the only such reef in the continental United States), the Florida Reef. Barrier reefs are not only critical for protecting the mainland from storm surge, reefs also begin to suffer bleaching and die off at 1 degree Celsius of warming. The waters off of Turkey Point are home to many threatened and endangered species, including the threatened American Crocodile whose habitat has already been compromised by increased heat and salinity, as are the wetlands that surround it on every other side. Many of the species present in the immediate vicinity are vital to the location fishing economy, which includes traditional and congressionally-protected Miccosukee fishing rights in the adjoining conserved lands and waters. There are few worse places to disrupt water temperatures and composition so dramatically (8-7[Cypress, Talbert])

C.1.3 Comments Concerning Ecology-Terrestrial Resources Comment Summary: A commenter stated that the site-specific EIS must consider updated information on how the license renewal and climate change will affect crocodiles and their habitat.

Comment: (10-2-5)

Comment: The health of Turkey Points CCS greatly affects the health and the numbers of crocodiles that use the CCS for nesting and foraging. Poor conditions in the CCS previously caused crocodiles to starve and experience stress, dehydration, and malnutrition, which in turn caused a reduction in numbers of crocodiles, as well as nesting and hatchling abundance.25 Although FPL is currently required to conduct activities aimed at improving water quality within the CCS pursuant to the 2015 CA [consent agreement] with the Miami-Dade County DERM and a 2016 consent order with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,26 the Service recently determined that current conditions within the system are having an adverse impact on crocodiles and their critical habitat.27 25 Letter from Roxanna Hinzman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., to Briana Grange, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commn, regarding formal consultation on subsequent renewed licenses for Units 3 and 4, 31, 32-33 (July 25, 2019) (2019 Biological Opinion) 26 Id. at 5-6, 34.

27 Id. at 31, 33, 34, 40.

The NRC must also consider updated information on how the subsequent license renewal will affect crocodiles and their critical habitat as climate change causes atmospheric and oceanic temperatures to rise, presenting added stressors on the species. The most recent reports project that global surface temperature will continue to increase until at least the mid-century under all emissions scenarios considered, and global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century unless deep reductions in CO2 [carbon dioxide] and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades.28 According to the IPCCs Climate Change 2021 report, even under a very low greenhouse-gas emissions scenario, it is likely that global sea level rise by 2100 will be about one to two feet (0.28-0.55 m) compared to 1995-2014. Under an intermediate scenario, sea level rise is likely to be as high as 2.5 feet (0.44-0.76 m), and under a very high greenhouse gas emissions scenario it is likely to be close to three feet (0.37-0.86 m). Sea level rise above the likely range, approaching seven feet (2 m) by 2100 under a very high GHG emissions scenario cannot be ruled out due to uncertainty around the melting of ice sheets. Regardless, the impacts of sea level rise will be long-lived: under all emissions scenarios, sea levels will continue to rise for many centuries.29 28 IPCC, 2022: Summary for Policymakers [H.-O. Prtner, D.C. Roberts, E.S. Poloczanska, K.

Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Lschke, V. Mller, A. Okem (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Prtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Lschke, V. Mller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3-33, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.001.

29 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021),

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/ at SPM-28; See also Seet et al. 2022 (providing Atlantic-specific sea level rise projections).

When considered along with an environmental baseline that will be significantly affected by climate change, the effects of Turkey Points subsequent renewed license will likely have increasingly significant impacts to the American crocodile over the coming decades. Although sea-level rise occurs gradually, it intensifies the effects of other weather events such as spring tides and storm surges, causing habitat damage, migration, elimination, and conversion into other habitat types. Increasingly intense storms and higher storm surge will pose additional threats to the crocodiles coastal habitat. For example, eutrophication and sea grass loss in the CCS is likely to become more frequent or intense as temperatures rise and more intense storms increase turbidity. Sea level rise may further compromise Turkey Points open CCS or necessitate resiliency responses such as coastal hardening that adversely modify the crocodiles critical habitat or subject it to coastal squeeze. In general, climate change will make the crocodile more vulnerable to existing negative effects, including those originating from Turkey Points operations under the subsequent renewed license. The NRC must consider these environmental impacts. (10-2-5 [Ayres, Richard E.] [Bennett, Elise] [Reiser, Caroline]

[Silverstein, Rachel])

C.1.4 Comments Concerning Environmental Justice Comment Summary:The EPA recommended that the NRC use the preferred screening and mapping tool (EJScreen) and follow the directives and intent of Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 for environmental justice throughout the licensing action for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.

Comment: (7-14)

Comment:Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 directs federal agencies to identify and address any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority, low-income, tribal, and indigenous populations. The SEIS should include an analysis that is consistent with E.O. 12898. The analysis should indicate whether minority, low income, tribal, and indigenous populations reside within the vicinity of the proposed project area. It would also be helpful to include a current map depicting the population demographics near the facility.

Assessing data using EJScreen (https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen), the EPA's nationally consistent environmental justice (EJ) screening and mapping tool, is a useful first step in understanding or highlighting geographic locations that may need further review or outreach. The tool provides information on environmental and socioeconomic indicators as well as pollution sources, health disparities, critical service gaps, and climate change data. The tool can help identify potential community vulnerabilities by calculating EJ Indexes and displaying other environmental and socioeconomic information in color-coded maps and standard data reports.

If communities with EJ concerns are located within the vicinity of the proposed project area or potentially affected by the proposed project, the EPA recommends the NRC meaningfully involve these communities throughout the decision-making process to help identify potential benefits and burdens associated with relicensing and permitting decisions. Adaptive and innovative approaches to both public outreach and community involvement regarding project issues should take place during the project planning.(7-14[Dean, William Kenneth])

C.1.5 Comments Concerning Federal Protected Ecological Resources Comment Summary:A commenter requested that the site-specific EIS consider new information regarding facility operating impacts to protected species and their critical habitat.

Comment: (10-2-4)

Comment:The NRC must also consider new information regarding environmental impacts to endangered and threatened species within the action area, including the Turkey Point site, the CCS, adjacent wetlands, and areas in Biscayne Bay where barges may travel. While the NRC already considered these impacts in the 2019 FSEIS, as a Category 2 (site-specific) issue, the NRC must consider updated information available since 2019. For example, in considering how the relicensing will affect listed species, the NRC must consider the new information regarding FPLs groundwater remediation, discussed above, and how a failure to remediate the hypersaline plume could affect species. The NRC also must take into account the updated projected effects of climate change during the subsequent license renewal period, including rising air and water temperatures, sea level rise, intensifying storms, and increased storm surge.19 19See, e.g., IPCC, 2022:Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.

Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Prtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K.

Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Lschke, V. Mller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 3056 pp., doi:10.1017/9781009325844 (IPCC 2022).

Sweet, W.V., B.D. Hamlington, R.E. Kopp, C.P. Weaver, P.L. Barnard, D. Bekaert, W. Brooks, M. Craghan, G. Dusek, T. Frederikse, G. Garner, A.S. Genz, J.P. Krasting, E. Larour, D. Marcy, J.J. Marra, J. Obeysekera, M. Osler, M. Pendleton, D. Roman, L. Schmied, W. Veatch, K.D.

White, and C. Zuzak, 2022: Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States: Updated Mean Projections and Extreme Water Level Probabilities Along U.S.

Coastlines. NOAA Technical Report NOS 01. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD, 111 pp.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/noaa-nos-techrpt01-lobalregional-SLR-scenarios-US.pdf (Sweet et al. 2022).

The NRC should reconsider all effects of the license renewal on state and federally protected species, including but not limited to the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi), red knot (Caladris rufa), West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), and wood stork (Mycteria americana). Many of these species rely on coastal and freshwater systems that, as explained above and more next, will be significantly affected by the cumulative subsequent license renewal, failed attempt at groundwater remediation, and changing climatic conditions over the coming decades.

Vitally, the NRC must reconsider direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). While Florida crocodile populations have grown and were downlisted to threatened status in 2007,20the most recent information shows the species is still vulnerable to extinction.21In 2019, in an updated recovery plan for the crocodile published after the 2019 FSEIS, the Service described specific threats to the species, including stochastic natural disasters such as hurricanes and cold weather, human-crocodile conflict, invasive species of plants and animals, continued habitat degradation, and sea level rise.22In this report, the Service also described reduction in nesting due to poor water quality at FPLs Turkey Point Power Plant alongside new potential threats to the species.23Additionally, operations at TurkeyPoint have also directly taken crocodiles via car crashes, requiring several reinitiated ESA consultations, including new consultations since the 2019 FSEIS.24 20Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification of the American Crocodile Distinct Population Segment in Florida From Endangered to Threatened, 53 Fed. Reg. 13,027 (March 20, 2007).

21ICUN Redlist, Crocodylus Acutus, at http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/full/5659/0 (last updated 2020).

22Id. at 4-509, 4-520-4-521; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., Recovery Plan for the Distinct Population Segment of the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) in Florida, Amendment 1, 3 (Nov. 7, 2019), available at https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/American%20crocodile%20Recovery%20Plan%20Ame ndment.pdf (Recovery Plan Amendment) (noting that the threats outlined in the Multi-Species Recovery Plan remain the same, but also listing new threats).

23Recovery Plan Amendment at 3-4. Notably, one of the delisting criteria for the crocodile is the existence of stable or increasing trends in nesting and natural recruitment at three of five nesting areas, one of which is FPLs Turkey Point Power Plant Site.

24See Letter from Paul Souza, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., to Frank Gillespie, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commn, transmitting biological opinion on renewal of licenses for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, 2 (May 5, 2006); Letter from Paul Souza, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., to Frank Gillespie, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commn, regarding reinitiated formal consultation on renewed licenses for Units 3 and 4, 1-2 (Aug. 1, 2006); Letter from John Moses, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to Elise Pautler Bennett, Center for Biological Diversity responding to the Center for Biological Diversitys June 16, 2022 Letter Concerning Endangered Species Act Compliance for Operations of Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4, 2 (July 18, 2022)

(reporting two vehicular collision-related American crocodile mortalities in calendar year 2021 that were associated with Turkey Point operations).(10-2-4[Ayres, Richard E.] [Bennett, Elise]

[Reiser, Caroline] [Silverstein, Rachel])

C.1.6 Comments Concerning General Environmental Concerns Comment Summary: A commenter requested that the NRC assess new information regarding projections for climate science and groundwater contamination caused by the Turkey Point Unit 3 and 4 CCS.

Comment: (10-1-5)

Comment:When defining the baseline environment of southeastern Florida in the 2030s through 2050s, the NRC must at least take into account projections of both climate science and the groundwater contamination caused by FPLs unique cooling canal system. The 2019 FSEIS assumed that the mitigation program for the hypersaline plume being undertaken by FPL as a result of a litigation settlement would assure restoration of the polluted groundwater. New evidence, as discussed below and which the new [site-specific] EIS must now take into account, suggests the NRC was far too optimistic in the 2019 FSEIS.(10-1-5[Ayres, Richard E.]

[Bennett, Elise] [Reiser, Caroline] [Silverstein, Rachel])

C.1.7 Comments Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Comment Summary:Several commenters expressed concern regarding climate change impacts. The EPA recommended that the site-specific EIS include an evaluation of climate-related impacts and efforts taken to address and adapt to them and that the site-specific EIS include discussion of storm surge protections.The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and another commenter requested that the site-specific EIS consider the most current research on potential climate-related impacts.

Comments: (7-12) (7-13) (8-3) (10-1-6)

Comment:Climate change may impact the proposed project, posing threats to aging infrastructure, worker health and safety and the environment. We recommend that the SEIS include an evaluation of climate-related impacts including discussions of frequency and severity of major storm events, wildfires, or drought that could lead to power disruptions or increased cooling demands in summer months. Efforts that FPL is taking at FPL to address and adapt to potential climate impacts should also be discussed in the SEIS.(7-12[Dean, William Kenneth])

Comment:The EPA acknowledges past environmental assessments have been updated to better explain the hurricane surge description differences between the licensing of Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 and the relicensing of Units 3 and 4. The NRC SEIS should explain the differences that result from using different storm prediction models as well as the validations of these models. Sea level rise should be incorporated into a discussion with a Sea, Lakes, Overland and Surge from Hurricane (SLOSH) model, which is also used by the National Weather Service and federal agencies when determining storm surge predictions. The EPA recommends that the SEIS provide a detailed description of any other model used for determining storm surge and flooding, and the rationale for using another model over the SLOSH model.(7-13[Dean, William Kenneth])

Comment: Climate Change will only worsen these impacts. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (in its Sixth Assessment Report) is also predicting another foot of sea-level rise by 2050, shifting the baseline of storm surge threats up another foot, and the same Intergovernmental body predicts that the severity of 1 in 20-year storms will be seen at a frequency closer to 1 in 5 years by the end of the century (in its SREX Report). Increases of rain fall are expected to exceed 7% for every degree Celsius of warming and wind speeds in hurricanes are expected to increase by 5% for every two degrees Celsius of warming. Two degrees Celsius of warming is anticipated by 2050 or not long after. A coastal nuclear generating station like Turkey Point must take these variables into account when planning for the future, and all of these variables weigh against continued operations.(8-3[Cypress, Talbert])

Comment: The NRC must include the most up to date research on the rapidly changing climate. In the three years since the previous NRC analysis, local, state, federal, and international authorities have published significant information on projected climate changes such as sea level rise, subsidence, rising temperatures, storm intensity and duration, and drought. The NRC must use this updated climate research, information, and projections to define the baseline environment for the subsequent license renewal period, which starts in 2032. Further, the NRC must use this updated climate information for conducting both a new review for previously labeled Category 1 (generic) issues and for updating the stale analysis of previously labeled Category 2 (site-specific) issues. The NRC must include climate impacts not simply in a siloed section but rather must consider how climate change will play a role in every aspect of how Turkey Point will interact with the environment during the subsequent license renewal period of 2032 to 2053, as well as a reasonable time beyond 2053 during which Turkey Point will be decommissioned.(10-1-6[Ayres, Richard E.] [Bennett, Elise] [Reiser, Caroline]

[Silverstein, Rachel])

C.1.8 Comments Concerning Historic and Cultural Resources Comment Summary:The Muscogee Nation stated that Turkey Point is outside of its historic area of interest and deferred to other Tribes with the caveat that if inadvertent discovery is encountered, notifications to the Muscogee Nation and other Tribes be made.The Florida State Historic Preservation Office stated that the licensing action will not require ground disturbing activities, but if conditions change, it requested to be notified in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Comments: (3-1) (4-1) (4-2) (9-1)

Comment:Miami-Dade County is located outside of the Muscogee (Creek) Nations historic area of interest so we would like to respectfully Defer to the other Tribes that have been contacted.(3-1[Soweka, Robin])

Comment:The proposed Site Boundary and Area of Potential Effect is currently outside of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation area of interest (AOI).(4-1[Perez, Gano])

Comment:We do concur with this undertaking project as No Effect on any known cultural properties and defer to the other Federally Recognized Tribes and state historic preservation officer pertaining any historic structures for this project. Thank you for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)-Section 106 Laws, we do ask to cease operations if any inadvertent discovery is made, and to notify our THPO [Tribal Historic Preservation Officer]

and the other Tribes that may have been contacted.(4-2[Perez, Gano])

Comment:Thank you for notifying our office of the application to renew the operating license for the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4. It is our understanding that the license renewal will not require any ground disturbing activities and is, therefore, unlikely to affect historic properties. If plans change and ground disturbing activities become necessary, please notify our office for further consultation. We look forward to consulting with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.(9-1[Chase, Kelly])

C.1.9 Comments Concerning Hydrology-Groundwater Resources Comment Summary: The EPA expressed concern that discharge effluents from Turkey Point may impact the hypersalination of the Biscayne aquifer and the Boulder Zone aquifer system. The EPA stated that the site-specific EIS should address the Biscayne aquifer and vertical migration of effluent. Another commenter stated that new information regarding the CCS at Turkey Point and the related hypersaline plume should be considered.

Comments: (7-4) (7-5) (10-2-1) (10-2-2) (10-2-3)

Comment:The Biscayne aquifer, an EPA-designated sole source aquifer serving as a drinking water resource in the south Florida area, has unacceptable hypersalinity impacts, and the EPA is concerned that the proposed project may result in further migration of a hypersaline lens towards public water supply wells. We are concerned about the potential for additional and cumulative impacts to this aquifer, and the risks to public drinking water supply. The SEIS should address the condition of the Biscayne aquifer.(7-4[Dean, William Kenneth])

Comment: The EPA has a concern regarding the underground injection of effluent into the Boulder Zone, a cavernous, high-permeability South Florida geologic horizon within the Lower Floridan aquifer system. The SEIS should address the blowdown from the cooling towers, and other plant discharge effluents from proposed [Turkey Point] Units 6 and 7, if these discharges are to be injected into the Boulder Zone. The SEIS should address issues regarding vertical migration of injectate.(7-5[Dean, William Kenneth])

Comment: The NRC must consider the new information regarding FPLs cooling canal system (CCS) and related hypersaline plume that has come to light since the 2019 FSEIS.

As background, in 1973, FPL constructed Turkey Point's radiator-like CCS to serve as heat exchange for the power plants reactors. The CCS consists of a network of 5,900 acres of canals carved into South Floridas porous limestone geology. The system is intended to be closed-loop in that the canal surface waters are not meant to interact with surface water bodies, including the adjacent Biscayne Bay to the east and Card Sound to the south. To the west of the CCS, an 18-foot-deep interceptor ditch was dug to serve as a hydraulic barrier; this is intended to prevent water from the CCS migrating towards adjacent lands. However, due to long-term evaporation of hot water in the CCS, a hypersaline plume formed and spread through the Biscayne Aquifers porous limestone geology. The Biscayne Aquifer supplies the main source of drinking water for Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties; pollution of it represents a cause for alarm.

On October 6, 2015, a Consent Agreement (CA) regarding the hypersaline plume was executed between FPL and Miami-Dade County. The CA documents the following:

- In a letter dated April 16, 2013, the South Florida Water Management District notified FPL that saline water from the CCS had moved westward of a canal it operates, the L-31E Canal.

- On October 2, 2015, Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental ResourcesManagement (DERM) issued a Notice of Violation to FPL alleging that Miami-Dade County water quality standards and criteria forgroundwater were being violated, attributable to FPLs actions, and specifically for groundwaters outside the boundaries of FPLs CCS and beyond the boundaries of the Turkey Point property.

The CA requires FPL to demonstrate a statistically valid reduction in the salt mass and volumetric extent of hypersaline water (as represented by chloride concentrations above 19,000 mg/l) in groundwater west and north of Turkey Point without creating adverse environmental impacts. A further objective of the CA is to reduce the rate of, and as an ultimate goal, arrest migration of hypersaline groundwater. According to the CA (17.b): FPL shall develop and implement actions to intercept, capture, contain and retract hypersaline groundwater (groundwater with a chloride concentration of greater than 19,000 mg/l) to Property boundary to achieve the objectives of this Consent Agreement. FPL was required to construct an aquifer recovery well system (RWS) and demonstrate that it will not create adverse impacts to groundwater, wetland, or other environmental resources. At year ten of RWS implementation, FPL is required to review the results of the activities and progress to achieve the objectives of the CA. Annual status reports are also required. The CA also compelled FPL to acknowledge the benefit of hydrologic restoration projects contemplated by the comprehensive EvergladesRestoration Projects in controlling the movement of hypersaline and saline water in Biscayne Bay.

In November of 2019, FPL submitted its first remedial action annual status report (RAASR).

The 2019 RAASR stated that FPL believed that results indicate that operations of the RWS are on track to meet the hypersaline groundwater plume remediation objectives of the MDC CA and FDEP CO. Based on CSEM data, there was a 22 +/- 2% reduction in aquifer volume occupied by the hypersaline plume. Year 1 results indicate that the system is functioning as designed; therefore, no refinements to the remediation system design or monitoring are recommended at this time.7 7FPL,Remedial Action Annual Status Report(Nov. 15, 2019).(10-2-1[Ayres, Richard E.]

[Bennett, Elise] [Reiser, Caroline] [Silverstein, Rachel])

Comment: However, new information published since the 2019 FSEIS suggests that FPL is incorrect; the hypersaline groundwater plume remediation in fact is not working and is unlikely to work. Peer reviewers have expressed serious concerns about the operation of the recovery well system failing to meet the objectives of the consent agreement.

An external peer reviewer, Groundwater Tek Inc. (GTI), reviewed FPLs Groundwater Flow and Salt Transport Models and Assessment of the first year operation of the recovery well system.8 GTI rebutted a number of FPLs major assertions, most drastically finding that both groundwater modeling and survey data indicate the RWS has little remedial effect to the hypersaline plume currently in the deep portion of the Biscayne aquifer west and north of the CCS.9 GTI also concluded that, [b]ased on the information reviewed and analyzed, the current recovery well system does not appear to be capable of meeting the remediation objectives of retracting the hypersaline plume to the FPLs property from either west or north of the CCS10 Once the recovery well system ceases to operate, GTI believes that the hypersaline plume in the lower layers will likely remain a source of pollution and the salt will likely diffuse back to the layers above due to the concentration gradient.11 8 Groundwater Tek, Inc., Review of FPL's Groundwater Flow and Salt Transport Models and Assessment of the First Year Operation of the RWS (July 2020).

9 Id., at 3 (emphasis added).

10 Id. (emphasis added).

11 Id., at 34.

DERM also contracted the services of another peer reviewer, Arcadis, to perform an independent review of geophysics and statistics contained in FPLs airborne electromagnetics survey (AEM) mapping reports. In a September 2020 report, Arcadis recommended a more robust and technically defensible assessment of the mathematical relationships between variables and the magnitude of uncertainty (particularly in absolute plume volume).12 They also found that, [b]ased on the hypersaline plume distribution evaluation presented in this Review, it appears that there may be a risk that the hypersaline plume is not being fully captured by remediation system at the depth interval of Layers 9 and 10, as the area greater than 19,000 mg/L appears to have increased between 2018 and 2019.13 12 Arcadis, Review of Aerial Electromagnetic Surveys at Turkey Point Power Plant, Southern Florida, at 2 (Sept. 30, 2020).

13 Id., at 52 (emphasis added).

In a comment letter dated October 22, 2021, Arcadis notes that evidence suggests that the westward migration of the plume has not entirely been halted.14 They recommend generation of layer-by-layer figures for each year that clearly show areas of expansion and areas of contraction relative to the 2018 baseline.15 Arcadis also declared that the areas of plume expansion or potentially no net change have been underemphasized by FPL.16 14 Letter from Arcadis to Ms. Lorna Bucknor, DERM, RE: Part 1 Review Comment Letter on Statistics for the Annual Florida Power and Light Turkey Point Remedial Action Annual Status Reports, at 2-3 (Oct. 22, 2021).

15 Id., at 3.

16 Id., at 3.

FPLs 2021 Year 3 RAASR represents the latest CA-required monitoring report we could find in the Countys public portal. This report states that recalibrated model forecast simulations for Years 5 and 10 show continuous improvement in hypersaline retraction, with complete retraction achieved in the upper two-thirds of the aquifer by Year 10. However, complete retraction in the southern portion of layer 9 and all of layers 10 and 11 are not achieved by Year 10 of the simulation.17 In this report, FPL does include a layer-by-layer summary as Arcadis had recommended. Indeed, Figures 4.3-2 and 4.3-3, depicting the 19,000 mg/L chloride concentration contour for layers 9 and 10 of the aquifer between years 2018 and 2021, show that the hypersaline plume is not fully retracting, and in some places, is actually expanding since the RWS was installed. Figure 5.3-1C is a depiction of Model Layer 11, which shows that in this layer, the plume is predicted to expand by year 10.

17 FPL, Remedial Action Annual Status Report, Turkey Point Clean Energy Center, Year 3, at ES-2 (Nov. 15, 2021) (emphasis added). (10-2-2 [Ayres, Richard E.] [Bennett, Elise] [Reiser, Caroline] [Silverstein, Rachel])

Comment: The NRC must take this updated information into account. In setting the environmental baseline and in analyzing groundwater impacts, the NRC must consider the impacts of operating Turkey Point and the CCS through 2053 if the hypersaline plume is not fully retracted. Further, if FPL is unable to remediate the hypersaline plume, the subsequent license renewal period is likely to have major impacts, specifically impacts on efforts to restore the Everglades, coastal wetlands, and the nearshore estuary system.

The Biscayne Bay and Southeastern Everglades Ecosystem Restoration (BBSEER) project is a component of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project meant to achieve restoration of the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystems. The goals18 of BBSEER are to:

- Improve quantity, timing, and distribution of freshwater to estuarine and nearshore subtidal areas, including mangrove and seagrass areas, of Biscayne National Park, Card Sound, and Barnes Sound to improve salinity regimes and reduce damaging pulse releases;

- Improve freshwater wetland water depth, ponding duration, and flow timing within the Model Lands, Southern Glades, and eastern panhandle of Everglades National Park to maintain and improve habitat value;

- Improve ecological and hydrological connectivity between Biscayne Bay coastal wetlands, the Model Lands, and Southern Glades; and

- Increase resiliency of coastal habitats in southeastern Miami-Dade County to sea level change (SLC).

It is crucial for the NRC to analyze whether a persistent hypersaline plume and the continued existence of the CCS would blunt the goals of Everglades restoration.

18 See, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Biscayne Bay and South Eastern Everglades Restoration Project BBSEER, Fact & Information (Jan. 2021) https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll11/id/4899. (10-2-3 [Ayres, Richard E.] [Bennett, Elise] [Reiser, Caroline] [Silverstein, Rachel])

C.1.10 Comments Concerning Hydrology-Surface Water Resources Comment Summary:The EPA stated that the site-specific EIS should include discussions on potential resource impacts and information on the Clean Water Act and associated requirements. The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida expressed concerns for critical marine habitat at Turkey Point and the risk associated with low-lying coastal areas.

Comments: (7-9) (8-5)

Comment:To support wetland and stream mitigation decisions and to help FDEP evaluate potential stream impact requirements for the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Certification, information regarding CWA Section 404(b)(1) should be included in the SEIS.

Providing adequate wetland and stream information within the NEPA process can help to streamline the final environmental review and permitting processes for these resources.

The SEIS should provide a detailed discussion regarding the potential significant impacts to state and federal resources, such as the Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, and Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve that comply with the most current Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.(7-9[Dean, William Kenneth])

Comment: The risks that are otherwise evident for nuclear power plants are made all the more substantial when a generating station is located on a low-lying coastal floodplain or wetland, like the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station. The Station is located on traditional Miccosukee land at the nexus of critical conserved estuarine and marine habitat with free-flowing and intermingling waters. There are truly few places less suited for an enterprise with such risks.(8-5[Cypress, Talbert])

C.1.11 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle Comment Summary: The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida stated that the impacts from nuclear energy begin with uranium mining, which affects southwestern tribal communities, including the Navajo Nation.

Comment: (8-4)

Comment: Evaluation of nuclear energys environmental impacts cannot be limited to its point of fission. These impacts begin at extraction. Beyond the waste produced, the mining of uranium and other nuclear fuels has had particularly devastating impacts on our fellow Indigenous peoples living in the Southwest. Our Southwestern relatives were particularly devastated by COVID-19, when preexisting idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, silicosis, tuberculosis, pneumonia, emphysema, and the tragically-named Navajo neuropathy caused by uranium mining dust left community members vulnerable to the virus. Our Navajo relatives in particular remain unable to access clean drinking water throughout much of their reservation after 94,000,000 gallons of uranium wastewater spilled and infiltrated into their aquifer.(8-4[Cypress, Talbert])

C.1.12 Comments Concerning Waste Management-Radioactive Waste Comment Summary: The EPA stated that the site-specific EIS should evaluate plans for onsite storage capabilities and should include information regarding the types of waste generated over the life of the plant. Another commenter requested that the site-specific EIS include plans to remove spent nuclear fuel.

Comments: (2-1) (7-7) (7-10)

Comment:The scope of the Turkey Point EIS, and all nuclear plant studies, should include the plan for removing spent nuclear fuel to a permanent and safe storage site.(2-1[Hayes, Rose])

Comment:Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems would collect and treat the radioactive byproducts of operating the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, and these byproducts would be handled separately from existing Units 3 and 4. Spent nuclear fuel will require continued on-site storage. Due to the uncertainty regarding the future availability of a geologic repository or other away-from-reactor storage facility, on-site storage may be required for many decades, until a permanent repository is established. The SEIS should evaluate safety concerns for potential flooding and should evaluate storage plans of spent nuclear fuel that will be handled to prevent contamination in the event of flooding at the site.(7-7[Dean, William Kenneth])

Comment: The SEIS should indicate if there will be any changes in the generation of waste including low-level radioactive waste, mixed low-level radioactive waste, transuranic waste, and hazardous and Toxic Substance Control Act wastes over the life of the program. (7-10 [Dean, William Kenneth])

C.2 Non-Technical Comments and Comments Outside the Scope of the Environmental Review C.2.1 Comments Concerning Support for the Licensing Action Comment Summary:A commenter expressed general support for Turkey Point SLR as previous reviews were more than adequate.

Comment: (1-1)

Comment:I think the previous reviews were more than adequate. Please approve the renewal extension.(1-1[Sprinkle, Jim])

C.2.2 Comments Concerning Opposition to the Licensing Action Comment Summary: The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and another commenter stated that they do not support SLR for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 because the facility is old and outdated, is in an ecologically sensitive location, and is subject to frequent hurricanes.

Comments: (8-1) (8-8) (11-1)

Comment:As the traditional stewards of the land and waters that the Station is located within, the federally recognized Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida cannot support the reauthorization of the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission works hard to ensure the safety of the nuclear generating stations in the United States. Without exacting regulation, nuclear power generation is a uniquely and inherently dangerous process. Reauthorizing a Station as old and outdated as the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, in a location as ecologically-sensitive and critical to commerce and drinking water supplies in South Florida, in the context of increasing frequency, intensity, and impact of tropical weather systems in the Caribbean, is irresponsible and threatens to irreparably damage public trust in the Commission.(8-1[Cypress, Talbert])

Comment:The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida is a federally recognized Native American Tribe that has made Florida its home since time immemorial. We grieve for the destruction of Turkey Points coastline and the marine and estuarine communities that inhabit it.

We worry for the future of our people, our land, and our water if this Station is reauthorized.

While we value the generating capacity the Station provides to South Florida, it comes at an unacceptable cost. Held together, the increasing age of the generating station, its precarious location on a low-lying coastal floodplain, and the increasing intensity and unpredictability of major Caribbean hurricanes creates a context in which continued operation of this power plant cannot be justified by a risk/benefit analysis. The Turkey Point Nuclear Generating point has outlived its useful life, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should deny its reauthorization.(8-8[Cypress, Talbert])

Comment:I recommend not permitting this process using nuclear generation. Florida is an example of a failed state. No further development should be permitted in Florida, and instead a contraction and retreat must happen immediately. The Federal taxpayer is tired of the build back better in hurricane alley and other locales where natural disasters are a common occurrence.

Science in no uncertain terms advises that more frequent and more powerful hurricanes are expected, with greater storm surges, yet politicians are saying they want to rebuild after hurricane Ian, refusing to acknowledge the pending disaster. Allowing nuclear generators in a state with proven and demonstrated incompetent leadership would be stupid.

Lets wait until we can use nuclear fusion safely, before handing a potentially dangerous energy development to corrupt politicians.(11-1[Anonymous, Anonymous])

C.2.3 Comments Concerning Process-Licensing Action Comment Summary:A commenter stated that the NRC should conduct a full EIS and analyses of Category 1 and Category 2 issues and establish a more current environmental baseline to meet NEPA requirements for the Turkey Point SLR.

Comments: (10-1-1) (10-1-2) (10-1-3) (10-1-4)

Comment:The environmental analysis the NRC completes here thereforeis not a supplement to the 2013 GEIS, nor can it simply tier off the 2013 GEIS. Rather, the NRC must analyze the impacts of Turkey Pointoperating between 2032 and 2053seriously and in a full-blown environmental impact statement.(10-1-1[Ayres, Richard E.] [Bennett, Elise] [Reiser, Caroline]

[Silverstein, Rachel])

Comment:Thus, for issues previously labeled Category 1 (generic) and for which the NRC relied exclusively on the 1996 GEIS and 2013 GEIS in the 2019 FSEIS, the NRC must conduct a new site-specific review. And because the Commission has held that the 2013 GEIS does not cover the subsequent license renewal period, the NRC cannot simply point to the 2013 GEIS analysis for this review. Rather, the NRC must conduct anewanalysis of the issues previously labeled Category 1 (generic) for the Turkey Point during the relevant time period, 2032-2053, and for a reasonable period beyond 2053 during which Turkey Point will be decommissioned.

(10-1-2[Ayres, Richard E.] [Bennett, Elise] [Reiser, Caroline] [Silverstein, Rachel])

Comment:Additionally, three years have passed since the NRC issued the 2019 FSEIS and significant new developments have occurred. The NRC must reanalyze based on new and significant information all issues previously labeled Category 2 (site-specific) and already analyzed at a site-specific level in the 2019 FSEIS.

(10-1-3[Ayres, Richard E.] [Bennett, Elise] [Reiser, Caroline] [Silverstein, Rachel])

Comment: To satisfy NEPAs hard look requirement and complete an adequate environmental analysis, the NRC must establish the proper environmental baseline. That is, the NRC must address the state of the environment that islikely to exist during the proposed subsequent license renewal period and decommissioning. The Commission has stated that the NRC has already conducted an adequate environmental analysis of the impacts of operation of Turkey Point until 2032 and 2033. CLI-22-02, 14. The scope of what the NRC must analyze now is the impact of operations of the units from 2032 to 2052 and 2033 to 2053, plus at least 10 additional years to address theminimumtime it will take to decommission the units.(10 4[Ayres, Richard E.] [Bennett, Elise] [Reiser, Caroline] [Silverstein, Rachel])

C.2.4 Comments Concerning Process-NEPA Comment Summary:The U.S. National Park Service (NPS) requested cooperating agency status for the Turkey Point SLR NEPA process.Commenters requested an extension of the public comment period and stated that the site-specific EIS must consider multiple technical issues that they have submitted in order to comply with Commission Orders and the NEPA hard look requirement.

Comments: (5-1) (6-1) (10-2-6)

Comment:Miami Waterkeeper, Friends of the Earth (FOE), and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) write today to respectfully request that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) extend the deadline for public comment on theNotice of Intent To Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement Florida Power & Light Company Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, 87 Fed. Reg. 61,104 (Oct. 7, 2022), for an additional forty-five (45) days. Each of our three organizations represent members in South Florida, intervened in the 2018 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and Commission proceedings, and plan to intervene again. An extension of time is necessary for the following reasons.

On September 28, 2022, just over a week before the NRC Notice regarding the Turkey Point scoping, hurricane Ian made landfall in Florida. As a Category 4 storm, just shy of Category 5, Ian was the fifth-strongest hurricane on record to strike the United States. Ian hit Florida with intense wind, heavy rainfall, and unprecedented storm surge. The storm knocked out power for more than four million customers in Florida.1While the epicenter of the hurricanes destruction was not in the same region as the Turkey Point nuclear plant, the region was not left untouched.2It will take Florida a long time to recover from hurricane Ian,3and currently significant attention, energy, and concern is focused on the recovery effort. As such, requiring this community to comment on the Turkey Point scoping process within a short 30 days is unreasonable.

1https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/news/hurricane-ians-path-of-destruction.

2https://wsvn.com/news/local/miami-dade/outer-bands-of-hurricane-ian-leave-hefty-clean-up-for-miami-dade-residents/.

3https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/09/30/hurricane-ian-damage-photos-videos/;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/10/04/inland-flooding-damage-hurricane-ianflorida/

The Turkey Point licenses will not expire for ten years, after which the licenses can continue during the subsequent renewed license process pursuant to the timely renewal doctrine. Thus, extending the comment deadline here would not cause significant harm.

Further, our organizations small staff and relatively minor resources are stretched thin. Our attorneys are preparing for active litigation in federal courts, and there are multiple additional comment deadlines at the beginning of November 2022. A mere 45-day extension to the Turkey Point scoping comment period will provide the time necessary for our organizations to provide constructive comments.

We urge the NRC to extend the comment period.(5-1[Reiser, Caroline])

Comment:As with the previous SEIS, Biscayne National Park and other NPS staff can provide the NRC with environmental data and information regarding the potential impacts of the proposed relicensing of Turkey Point. This data and information will assist in the development of the Turkey Point SEIS. Expertise will include the following areas, but may also include other resources:

a. Surface Water Resources in and affecting the Biscayne National Park

b. Groundwater Resources in and affecting the Biscayne National Park

c. Terrestrial Resources in and affecting the Biscayne National Park

d. Aquatic Resources in and affecting the Biscayne National Park Therefore, NPS requests cooperating agency status for NRCs current SEIS as well.

Cooperating agency status would not preclude NPS independent review and comment responsibilities or preclude our responsibilities for any other environmental consultations required by law. Similarly, our cooperation would not imply that the NPS would necessarily concur with all aspects of NRCs findings.(6-1[Pate, Haigler])

Comment:It is important for the NRC to address the above issues within the environmental impact statement for the potential subsequent license renewal of FPLs Turkey Point. Without addressing these issues, the NRC cannot comply with the Commissions Orders and NEPAs mandate to take a hard look at the environmental impacts of its decision.(10-2-6[Ayres, Richard E.] [Bennett, Elise] [Reiser, Caroline] [Silverstein, Rachel])

C.2.5 Comments Concerning Outside Scoping-Aging Management Comment Summary:The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and another commenter expressed concern for the risks related to operating Turkey Point due to its extended lifespan and outdated design.These commenters requested that the site-specific EIS include mitigation measures for using outdated equipment.

Comments: (8-2) (10-1-7)

Comment: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the NRC) has acknowledged that operating a reactor beyond a 60-year lifespan poses unique risks related to the degradation of safety equipment and infrastructure. With reauthorization, the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station will run for 80 years after its original construction, with almost 100-year-old designs. Over time, the high-intensity radiation may degrade the reactor cores shroud, and mechanical and other radiation damage can occur throughout the system, increasing the likelihood of reactor meltdown or catastrophic failure. While non-nuclear infrastructure like an old bridge might break and hurt those on or below it, a reactor meltdown could devastate the entire region. Besides the impacts of age on the built infrastructure, as detailed elsewhere in this letter Turkey Points original infrastructure (including its seawall and cooling system) is simply outdated and ill-equipped to respond to the challenges of this century.(8-2[Cypress, Talbert])

Comment: The NRC must discuss the cumulative effects of extended operation using aging safety equipment. The problems experienced by sixty-to-eighty-year-old equipment are distinct from, more severe, and less understood than the problems experienced by forty-to-sixty-year-old equipment. Aging problems include reactor pressure vessel embrittlement, irradiation-assisted stress corrosion cracking of reactor internals, concrete structures and containment degradation, and electrical cable qualification and condition assessment, as identified in SECY-14-0016, Memorandum from Mark A. Satorius, NRC Executive Director of Operations, to NRC Commissioners, re: Ongoing Staff Activities to Assess Regulatory Considerations for Power Reactor Subsequent License Renewal at 1 (Jan. 31, 2014) (ML14050A306) and the NRCs five-volume Expanded Materials Degradation Assessment (EMDA), NUREG/CR-153 (Oct. 2014)

(EMDA Report).4 4The five volumes of the EMDA Report are as follows: Volume 1, Core Internals and Piping (ML14279A321); Volume 2, Core Internals and Piping (ML14279A331); Volume 3, Reactor Vessel Aging (ML14279A349); Volume 4, Concrete Aging (ML14279A430); and Volume 5, Cable Aging (ML14279A461).

The scope of the environmental analysis should also include mitigation measures designed to close the technical knowledge gaps and resolve the significant uncertainties that exist regarding the performance and reliability of equipment that has aged past sixty years, including the harvesting of components from decommissioned nuclear reactors. As NRC has recognized, harvested reactor components [m]ay be the only practical source of representative aged materials; and could be used to validate larger aging data set[s].5Furthermore, [e]x-plant materials offer unique environmental exposure that cannot be entirely replicated by laboratory testing with fresh materials.6 5M. Hiser, P. Purtscher, A. B. Hull and R. Tregoning,Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants, at 5 (Oct. 12, 2017) (ML17285A484).

6M. Hiser and A. Hull,Strategic Approach for Obtaining Material and Component Aging Information, at 3 (June 2-4, 2015) (ML20332A097).(10-1-7[Ayres, Richard E.] [Bennett, Elise]

[Reiser, Caroline] [Silverstein, Rachel])

C.2.6 Comments Concerning Outside Scope-Need for Power Comment Summary:The EPA stated that if a cost-benefit analysis is being considered, a discussion about how the cost-benefit analysis could affect the alternatives should be included in the site-specific EIS, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.22.

Comments: (7-2)

Comment:The [regulation in] 40 CFR §1502.22 states, If the agency is considering a cost-benefit analysis for the proposed action relevant to the choice among alternatives with different environmental effects, the agency shall incorporate the cost-benefit analysis by reference or append it to the statement as an aid in evaluating the environmental consequences. In such cases, to assess the adequacy of compliance with section 102(2)(B) of NEPA (ensuring appropriate consideration of unquantified environmental amenities and values in decision making, along with economical and technical considerations), the statement shall discuss the relationship between that analysis and any analyses of unquantified environmental impacts, values, and amenities.

If a cost-benefit analysis is being considered, then the SEIS should include a discussion about how the cost-benefit analysis could affect the alternatives.(7-2[Dean, William Kenneth])

C.2.7 Comments Concerning Outside Scope-Safety Comment Summary:The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and the EPA expressed safety concerns for Turkey Point resulting from storm surges and elevated water levels. The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida cited the accident that took place at the nuclear power plant in Fukushima and noted the concern that the seawall at Turkey Point provides little added security to withstand local hurricanes.

Comments: (8-6) (7-8)

Comment:When the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was hit by a nearly 50-foot-tall storm surge, the plants 18-foot sea wall allowed in sufficient seawater to cause a three-reactor meltdown. Over 500 people were killed, and the impacts of the radioactive discharges remain a concern across the Pacific Ocean. Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Stations 20-foot seawall provides little added security, especially when Hurricane Katrina caused a 27.8-foot storm surge, and Hurricane Michael exceeded a 20-foot storm surge less than 5 years ago. Even without direct damage from a storm surge, elevated water levels around the sea wall may isolate the Station as if it were a tidal island and compromise the Stations access to external electricity to operate its cooling pumps, which could have grave consequences similar to direct flooding.(8-6[Cypress, Talbert])

Comment:The EPA acknowledges that the NRC conducted a water balance analysis and provided additional information from past studies. In addition to the water balance calculation of the CCS, the EPA also recommended the NRC address the structural integrity of the CCS.

While the current NPDES permit requires monitoring of the berms for structural issues, to ensure that there are no point source discharges from the cooling ponds to the adjacent surface waters, it is important for the facility to use relevant techniques to verify that all CCS barriers are intact and able to retain nutrient-rich wastewater. The EPA recommends NRC consider this issue as part of the Aging Management Program or other relevant mechanism and include the potential discharges of increased peak storm events such as tropic storms and hurricanes.(7-8[Dean, William Kenneth])

C.2.8 Comments Concerning Outside Scope-Offsite Fuel Storage Comment Summary: A commenter stated that the site-specific EIS should detail long-term offsite spent nuclear fuel storage plans.

Comments: (7-11)

Comment: The SEIS should indicate where FPL will send the spent nuclear fuel and spent fuel debris for storage pending long-term disposal options. (7-11 [Dean, William Kenneth])

D. Significant Issues Identified After the NRC staff delineated and grouped comments according to resource area/topic, the staff determined which of the issues identified during the scoping period that bear on the proposed action or its impacts, are significant, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.29(b). A summary of these significant issues, including each commenter unique identifier, is provided below.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change

A commenter requested that the site-specific EIS include the recent and most up-to-date research on climate change (Comment 10-1-6).

The EPA requested that the site-specific EIS consider storm surge and flooding and specifically use the Sea, Lakes, Overland and Surge from Hurricane (SLOSH) model. If a different model is used, the EPA requested that the rationale for not using the SLOSH model be provided. (Comment 7-13)

Commenters requested that the site-specific EIS address climate change with an emphasis on sea level rise, storm frequency, and hurricanes. (Comments 7-12 and 8-3)

A commenter requested that climate changes impacts be considered for both generic and site-specific issues. (Comment 10-1-6)

Environmental Justice

The EPA requested that the site-specific EIS include an environmental justice analysis consistent with E.O. 12898, that identifies minority and/or low-income populations in the vicinity of Turkey Point. The EPA recommended that the NRC use EJScreen when developing this analysis. (Comment 7-14).

E. Determinations and Conclusions Issues to be Analyzed in the Site-Specific EIS The significant issues identified in Section D of this report will be considered in the development of the site-specific EIS. Climate change impacts and environmental justice were considered on a site-specific basis in the FSEIS. The environmental justice analysis was conducted in accordance with the NRCs Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040) and was considered on a site-specific basis, as documented in Sections 3.12 and 4.12 of the FSEIS. The NRC staff also considered the effects of climate change and associated impacts on the environment on a site-specific basis in the FSEIS. Specifically, Section 4.15.3.1 of the FSEIS presents the NRC staffs evaluation of the proposed actions contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, Section 4.15.3.2 of the FSEIS discusses the observed changes in climate, including hurricanes, and potential future climate change during the SLR term based on climate model simulations under future global greenhouse gas emission scenarios. In Section 4.16 of the FSEIS, the NRC staff considered on a site-specific basis the potential cumulative, or overlapping, impacts from climate change on environmental resources where there are incremental impacts from the proposed action. As discussed in the NRCs notice of intent to prepare an EIS and to conduct scoping, in the site-specific EIS, the NRC will consider whether there is significant new information that would change the site-specific conclusions reached in the FSEIS concerning climate change impacts and environmental justice.

The effects of climate change on Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 structures, systems, and components are outside the scope of the NRC staffs license renewal environmental review. As stated in the FSEIS (at 4-124), the NRC does not consider or evaluate the impacts of climate change on Turkey Point operations or its structures, systems, and components during its SLR environmental reviews, as these issues are outside the scope of the SLR environmental review.

Rather, the NRC evaluates nuclear power plant operating conditions and physical infrastructure to ensure ongoing safe operations under the plants initial and renewed operating licenses, through the NRCs reactor oversight program. If new information becomes available about changing environmental conditions (such as rising sea levels) that threaten safe operating conditions or challenge compliance with the plants technical specifications, the NRC will evaluate the new information to determine if any safety-related changes are needed at licensed nuclear power plants. Plant-specific design bases are not re-evaluated as part of license renewal.

In addition, the NRC received a number of comments that were either general in nature or otherwise beyond the scope of the SLR environmental review. These included comments from organizations and individuals in support of or in opposition to Turkey Point subsequent license renewal. However, the NRC will not consider or evaluate any issues in the site-specific EIS that do not pertain to the staffs environmental evaluation or are beyond the scope of the SLR review.

Define the Proposed Action The proposed Federal action in this instance is to determine whether the site-specific information considered in the site-specific EIS warrants any modification to the NRC staffs previous determination that the adverse environmental impacts of SLR for Turkey Point are not so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.

Identification of Related Environmental Assessments and Other Environmental Impact Statements The NRC staff did not identify any environmental assessments or other EISs under preparation or soon to be prepared that are related to, but are not within the scope of, the site-specific EIS.

Previously completed EISs will be used in the preparation of the site-specific EIS, as appropriate, including the EIS for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 (ML16306A364), the EIS for the initial license renewal of Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 (ML020280236), and the FSEIS (ML19290H346).

Other Environmental Review and Consultation Requirements Concurrent with its NEPA review, the NRC staff is consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, to evaluate the potential impacts of the operation of Turkey Point for an additional 20 years on endangered and threatened species and their critical habitat. Consistent with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the staff is also consulting with five Federally recognized American Indian Tribes, the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Miami-Dade County Office of Historic Preservation to fulfill its Section 106 obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act.

Timing of Agency Action and How the Site-Specific EIS Will Be Prepared Upon completion of the scoping process and site audits, its review of the ER Supplement 2 and related documents, and its independent evaluations, the NRC staff will compile its findings in a draft site-specific EIS. The staff will make the draft site-specific EIS available for public comment. Based on the information gathered during that public comment period, the staff will amend the draft site-specific EIS, as necessary, and will then publish the final site-specific EIS.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.102 and 10 CFR 51.103, the NRC will prepare and provide a ROD. The findings in the site-specific EIS will supplement the FSEIS and will be used to determine whether the adverse environmental impacts of SLR for Turkey Point are so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.

The NRC staff is currently scheduled to issue the final site-specific EIS by April 2024. The draft and final site-specific EIS will be prepared by the NRC staff with contractor support for document editing and for managing the processing of public comments.

Identification of Cooperating Agencies The U.S. National Park Service, Southeast Region (NPS), is participating in the environmental review as a cooperating agency. The NPS does not have any specific regulatory actions related to Turkey Point subsequent license renewal at this time; however, the NPS is providing special expertise for the areas in and around Biscayne National Park which is located next to the Turkey Point site.

Future Opportunities for Public Participation The NRC staff plans to issue a draft of the site-specific EIS for public comment in August 2023.

The comment period will offer an opportunity for participants, such as the applicant; interested Federal, State, and local government agencies; Tribal governments; local organizations; and members of the public to provide further input to the agencys environmental review process.

Comments on the draft site-specific EIS will be considered in the preparation of the final site-specific EIS. A new notice of opportunity to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervenelimited to contentions based on new information in the draft site-specific EISwill also be issued.