ML19085A163

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
SLR - (External_Sender) FW: TP34SLR Process Comments Needing a Response
ML19085A163
Person / Time
Site: Turkey Point  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 03/25/2019
From:
- No Known Affiliation
To:
Division of Materials and License Renewal
References
Download: ML19085A163 (16)
v • d • e


Text

TurkeyPoint34SLRPEm Resource From: Saulsbury, James W <james.saulsbury@pnnl.gov>

Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 4:09 PM To: TurkeyPoint34SLR Resource Cc: Folk, Kevin; ^PNNL NRC TP3-4 SLR

Subject:

[External_Sender] FW: TP34SLR Process Comments needing a Response Attachments: TP34SLR_LRProcess_Cmts,Resp_20180820.docx From: Prasad, Rajiv Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 1:35 PM To: Kohn, Nancy P Cc: Miley, Terri B ; Saulsbury, James W

Subject:

RE: TP34SLR Process Comments needing a Response Edits attached - please review.

Rajiv Rajiv Prasad, Ph.D.

Scientist, Energy and Environment Directorate Tel: 509-375-2096, Fax: 509-372-6089 From: Kohn, Nancy P Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 2:02 PM To: Prasad, Rajiv <Rajiv.Prasad@pnnl.gov>

Cc: Miley, Terri B <Terri.Miley@pnnl.gov>; Saulsbury, James W <james.saulsbury@pnnl.gov>

Subject:

TP34SLR Process Comments needing a Response Hi Rajiv, There were a few sets of Turkey Point License Renewal Process comments that Bo couldnt get to before he left. They have to do with the hypersaline plume and related remediation actions, so probably need some hydro input anyway.

These are the first group in the attached file -- comments that requested either no renewal until FPL was in compliance w/FDEP+MDC consent orders re hypersaline plume, or license conditioned on compliance. I took a stab at the summary, but that could use review too, to make sure the concerns are captured.

Other Process comments and responses are completed but included for flavor of other comments.

Thanks!!

Nancy Kohn Senior Research Scientist Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Marine Sciences Laboratory 1529 West Sequim Bay Road Sequim, WA 98382 USA 1

Tel: 360-681-3687 Fax: 360-681-4559 nancy.kohn@pnnl.gov www.pnnl.gov 2

Hearing Identifier: TurkeyPoint34_SLR_Public Email Number: 5 Mail Envelope Properties (353470FA51196C41820DF730D7779F7B0B5F300E)

Subject:

[External_Sender] FW: TP34SLR Process Comments needing a Response Sent Date: 3/25/2019 4:09:15 PM Received Date: 3/25/2019 4:09:28 PM From: Saulsbury, James W Created By: james.saulsbury@pnnl.gov Recipients:

"Folk, Kevin" <Kevin.Folk@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None

"^PNNL NRC TP3-4 SLR" <nrc.tp3-4.slr@pnnl.gov>

Tracking Status: None "TurkeyPoint34SLR Resource" <TurkeyPoint34SLR.Resource@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: EX10MBOX05.pnnl.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1731 3/25/2019 4:09:28 PM TP34SLR_LRProcess_Cmts,Resp_20180820.docx 37572 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

TURK-SLR3&4-SC Comments and Responses by

Subject:

Process-ESP-COL Run Date : Aug 20 2018 1:43PM PST TURK-SLR3&4-SC0020R Fix problems/get in compliance before renewal View/Edit Response Comment [summary needs review]: The following comments concern how NRC considers information about the hypersaline plume migrating from the CCS and FPL compliance with the consent agreements Commented [PR1]: FPL and FP&L both are used in with FDEP and MDC relating to its remediation. Commenters expressed concerns about how new summaries/responses - suggest we pick one.

information would be considered in the EIS, uncertainty about impacts of proposed and ongoing mitigation, and communications with the public regarding remediation effectiveness. Several comments stated a need for NRC to consider various scenarios related to the effectiveness of the plume remediation actions. Some comments stated that FPL has not fully complied with required mitigating actions; one comment stated FPL has a record of exceeding allowable radioactive discharge concentrations. Comments regarding compliance with the consent agreements were generally Commented [PR2]: I did not see this in the comments associated with one of two recommendations: that either NRC should not consider license renewal until below.

FPL is in compliance with the consent agreements, or NRC should make compliance with the consent agreements a condition of the subsequent license renewal.

Response: HELP! Excerpt from 43R below has a few sentences we can use, but still need to address

  • Cat 1 vs Cat 2 issues, New and Significant information
  • extent that a range of plume remediation scenarios will be considered?
  • NRC role v/v WQ compliance; ability to impose related license conditions.

[from 43R] Regarding the potential for new environmental conditions at the PTN site in the future, the NRC staff will base its analyses of impacts in the SEIS on the existing environmental baseline, but will consider past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions under the cumulative impact analysis in Chapter 4. Regarding the need to use accurate and updated information in decision-making, the NRC staff will conduct an independent analysis in preparing the SEIS, and will use information from a variety of sources in addition to FP&L's Environmental Report. The NRC staff will verify the accuracy of the information used in the SEIS.

RP suggestion for response: In preparation of the SEIS, the NRC staff will consider information from a variety of sources in addition to FP&L's Environmental Report to perform an independent assessment of impacts from continued operation of PTN Units 3 and 4. The NRC staff will consider new and significant information in its assessment. The NRC staff will also consider the agreements and obligations that FP&L has with various state agencies. The NRC staff will verify the accuracy of the information used in the SEIS.

The NRC staff will also consider technology alternatives related to the CCS and their associated impacts.

The impact assessment will be described in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. The commenters recommended that NRC ensure that FP&L meets all of its requirements listed in the NPDES permit and consent order, or to make FP&Ls compliance with the permits and orders a condition of NRCs license. The NRC does not have the authority to force compliance under CWA () and therefore cannot make permits, agreements, and orders issued by other agencies a condition of NRCs license.

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00001-1 Miami-Dade County understands the scoping process is, in part, intended to identify what issues should be included in the scope of the plant-specific Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared as a supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), in response to FPL's license renewal application. The GEIS identifies issues that may be applicable or relevant to all operating nuclear power plants and is intended to improve the efficiency of the license renewal process. However, NRC's generic assessment of certain environmental impacts is based the assumptions that the license renewal will involve plants for which 1) ".. . the environmental impacts of operation are well understood as a result of lessons learned and knowledge gained from operating experience and completed license renewals"; 2) "Activities associated with license renewal are expected to be within this range of operating experience; thus, environmental impacts can be reasonably predicted"; and that 3) "Changes in the environment around nuclear power plants are gradual and predictable."

However, review of monitoring data associated with the Turkey Point Cooling Canal System (CCS) and actions undertaken by FPL to address concerns with operation of the CCS as the ultimate heat sink for Units 3 and 4, suggest that the environmental impacts of the operation of the CCS are not yet fully understood or quantified and have become more significant and widespread over time; have fallen outside the range of operating experience for the plant given the decline and continued dysfunction of the CCS and the uncertainty regarding the impact of proposed solutions; and that changes in the environment around the plant have been, in some cases, precipitous and unpredictable.

Miami-Dade County believes the EIS should consider the following overarching issues associated with the operating license renewal application: the impact of continued operation of the CCS on groundwater and surface water resources in the affected environment, the impact sea level rise Commented [PR3]: Will be addressed in Ch 4.

will have on the physical performance of the CCS as the ultimate heat sink for the facility, and Commented [PR4]: Safety-related.

the water quality impacts that may be further exacerbated by the effects of sea level rise considering south Florida's porous limestone geology. The County believes the issues outlined Commented [PR5]: Will be addressed in Ch 4.

herein are new and significant since the publication of the updated GEIS and may not meet all of the Category 1 criteria as required to be excluded from additional review, and should be considered Category 2 issues for the NRC's consideration and further review. Commented [PR6]: Process question.

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00003-19 From EPA's perspective, one of the most important aspects of the proposed action includes effective risk communication with the public and other stakeholders.

There has been substantial media and public interest in the groundwater contamination from the hypersaline plume. The EPA recommends that the NRC provide periodic updates to the public on the effectiveness of ongoing remediation efforts being conducted by FPL with respect to the migration of the hypersaline plume. Commented [PR7]: Process question.

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00003-4 FPL entered into consent agreements with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and Miami-Dade County pertaining to environmental issues at Turkey Point (Miami-Dade County, 10/6/15: FDEP, 6/20/16). The agreements addressed the western migration of hypersaline water emanating from the CCS at the site, and how to go about halting and remediating these impacts. To the extent possible or appropriate, the EPA recommends NRC be aware of these agreements, and to incorporate stipulations or conditional

aspects during licensing to aid in ensuring that FPL remains complaint with the agreement requirements. Commented [PR8]: NRC will consider the current agreements and obligations FPL has in the assessment of

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00004-2-2 There are clear actions which FPL can undertake to address the impacts.

negative impacts of their failing cooling system on the environment, local resources, public health and safety, and plant resilience, as well as put the plant back into compliance with its permitting and licenses. Ultimately, FPL's subsequent license renewal application should not be considered for approval until such time as FPL is in compliance with all permitting, licenses and federal law, including its NPDES permit and the Clean Water Act. Commented [PR9]: Process question - NRC does not have the authority to force compliance under CWA.

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00004-2-6 In closing, we [SACE, TAS, FOE] respectfully request that the NRC independently evaluate the concerns mentioned herein in development of the draft EIS and not rely solely on FPL's information in the SLRA. We urge the NRC not to consider approval of the Commented [PR10]: NRC will evaluate the impacts of secondary license renewal application until such time as Clean Water Act concerns are resolved, continued operation of PTN Units 3 and 4 using available information, including that from the applicant.

the NPDES permit is no longer simply administratively extended, and FPL has restored compliance with local, state, and federal laws. Commented [PR11]: Process question - NRC does not have the authority to force compliance under CWA.

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00005-8 In response to pollution emanating from Turkey Point's CCS, both Miami-Dade County7 and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)8 issued Notices of Violation to FPL for violating applicable County and State water quality standards. FPL entered into separate Consent Orders with both Miami-Dade County9 and FDEP10 aimed at ceasing CCS discharges into the Biscayne Aquifer and surrounding surface waters, retracting the plume to within Turkey Point property boundaries, mitigating for impacts related to CCS operation, and monitoring to detect additional impacts. FPL is still in the initial phases of implementing corrective actions and the efficacy of these actions in addressing the full extent of pollution emanating from the CCS has yet to be determined. Environmental impacts associated with the continued operation of Units 3 & 4 will be heavily reliant on FPL's ability to comply with the requirements of these orders. Therefore, alternatives developed as part of the Subsequent License Renewal NEPA process must include an evaluation of a range of scenarios related to FPL's ability or inability to comply with the aforementioned Consent Orders and address pollution associated with Turkey Point's CCS. We believe that compliance with these Consent Commented [PR12]: NRC will consider technology Orders must be a condition of relicensing. alternatives related to mitigation of impacts from continued operation of PTN Units 3 and 4.

7 Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action, October 2, 2015. Commented [PR13]: Process question - NRC does not have the authority to force compliance under CWA.

8 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action, OGC File No: 16-0241, April 25, 2016.

9 Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, Consent Agreement, October 7, 2015.

10 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Consent Order, OGC File No:16-0241, June 20, 2016.

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00019-2 FPL has brazenly requested a 20 year extension to a current operating license that does not expire until 2032! Can we afford to allow FPL to continue to pollute to 2052? ...to continue the pollution now? Their extension request should be denied by the NRC until they resolve their current crisis. Commented [PR14]: Process question - NRC does not have the authority to force compliance under CWA.
  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00022-2 These developments [CCS operation, hypersaline plume migrating westward jeopardizing drinking water supply of Monroe County, eastward movement of plume] are of grave concern to Monroe County as set forth in Resolutions 87-2016 and 43-2017.Copies of the resolutions are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively.

[Attachments not delineated; view complete pdf, ADAMS Accession No. ML18177A181]

Monroe County requests that any granting of FPL's requested subsequent license renewal for Units 3 & 4 atTurkey Point be conditioned upon the following:

? Demonstrated remediation of the existing hypersaline plume within a reasonable timeframe and with anidentified completion date.

? Decommissioning of the CCS and replacement with new cooling towers to safeguard our water supplyand surrounding natural resources. Commented [PR15]: NRC will consider technology alternatives related to mitigation of impacts from continued

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00025-3 FKAA [Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority] believes that the existing operation of PTN Units 3 and 4.

damage to the local environment must be fully remediated before FPL is granted an extension to operate Units 3 and 4 at its Turkey Point facility. It makes no sense to allow this extension Commented [PR16]: Process question - NRC does not when FPL has such a poor track record operating the existing system. have the authority to force compliance under CWA.

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00028-2-12 The scope of the EIS must include unintended environmental consequences even under conditions of regulatory compliance. The EIS cannot, as FPL suggests, Commented [PR17]: NRC will evaluate the impacts of assume that compliance with regulations, orders, and agreements with regulatory agencies will continued operation of PTN Units 3 and 4.

only result in insignificant impacts. As FPL admits, it can operate the Turkey Point facility "in full compliance with all applicable regulations" and still experience "unintended" environmental consequences requiring corrective action and environmental remediation.28 28 Post-Hearing Brief of Florida Power & Light Company, In reo: Environmental Cost Recovery Clause, Docket No. 20170007-EI, Doc. No. 09748-2017 at 8 (Nov. 13, 2017) (arguing that it should recover costs from ratepayers for actions taken to mitigate releases of hyper saline water from the cooling canal system).

TURK-SLR3&4-SC0021R Cooperating Agency View/Edit Response Comment: This comment concerns the National Park Service (NPS) request to be a cooperating agency in the development of the PTN Units 3 & 4 subsequent license renewal SEIS.

Response: The NRC responded to the NPS on July 20, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18197A204),

indicating that NPS would be able to provide valuable information as a cooperating agency and that NRC and NPS would work together to develop a memorandum of understanding for cooperating on the environmental review.

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00002-1 The NPS respectfully requests to be a cooperating agency in the development of the NRC's EIS to evaluate the environmental impacts for the subsequent operating license renewal for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4. Due to its location adjacent to Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4 and for being the only NPS site

located adjacent to a nuclear power plant, the NPS has special expertise regarding the environment in and around Biscayne NP and can provide data and information to the NRC that will assist in the development of the EIS. Becoming a cooperating agency would not preclude independent review and comment responsibilities under Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, or our responsibilities for any other environmental consultations required by law.

TURK-SLR3&4-SC0022R Public Involvement View/Edit Response Comment: The following comments express dissatisfaction with the length of the comment period and request an extension to the scoping comment period.

Response: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission established the time period for comments on the scope of the environmental review for license renewal to balance the Commission's goal of ensuring openness in the regulatory processes, with its goal of ensuring that the NRC's actions are effective, efficient, realistic, and timely.

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00003-18 Public Outreach and Risk Communication: The EPA notes that the NRC published the NOI requesting public scoping comments on May 22, 2018, and announced public scoping comment meetings for May 31, 2018. This provided the public and other stakeholders only 7 business days' notification of the public scoping comment meetings. To ensure better participation from the public, the environmental community and other stakeholders as well as state, local and Federal agencies, the EPA recommends that the NRC give more notification prior to public meetings.
  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00027-2 Participate in open and public proceedings with the petitioners; the licensee, Florida Power & Light; and other external stakeholders in the vicinity of the TPNPP during lease extension deliberations on the petition.
  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00046-13-5 We will be providing written comments by the 21st. But because this is such a complex issue, I do ask you to consider an extension of time on those written comments. You know, it's important that everybody be able to supply you with all the information.
  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00047-1 Your staff were very accomodating. They lost my speaker card which I filled out upon my arrival at 1 PM. However, despite the meeting going over time to 3:30, the facilitator allowed me to fill out another card and I spoke last.

I was pleased that the knowledgeable, informed speaker who provided facts about FPL Turkey Point pollution of the Bay and our fresh water well fields were allowed to speak to their conclusions. The staff were polite and professional.

TURK-SLR3&4-SC0037R Accuracy of Information in the Environmental Report View/Edit Response

Comment: These comments express concern about the accuracy of information provided in the Environmental Report submitted by FP&L as part of its application for subsequent license renewal at PTN Units 3 and 4.

Response: The NRC staff will conduct an independent analysis in preparing the SEIS, and will use information from a variety of sources in addition to FP&L's Environmental Report. The NRC staff will verify the accuracy of the information used in the SEIS.

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00045-13-5 And my concern is no of this was in their environmental report.

They omitted it. And so, at the very least, please make them supply all of the facts in this case.

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00046-13-3 The other thing again, and I focused on it earlier, is that there's misstatements and misinformation or not all of the information that was provided in the environmental report. For example, we know the cooling canal system is built into limestone.

The oolitic limestone in Dade County is like a sponge. It's very transmissive. That's a fact. So for FPL, 20 separate times, in their environmental report to say this is a closed loop system and then a dozen separate times to say there's no discharge anywhere, is not true. So you need to make sure you get all the information on how that report updated. I will be submitting a number of comments on their environmental report. I do think it's woefully inadequate. I think that, again, there are -- there's information out there that isn't being supplied.

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00053-15 In closing, we respectfully request that the NRC independently evaluate our significant concerns outlined herein as the draft EIS is developed and not rely solely on FPL's information in the SLRA.

TURK-SLR3&4-SC0038R General Environmental Concerns Commented [KNP18]: Now that I look at these, seems View/Edit Response like this and next could be in same category w/merged response Comment: The commenters express general concerns about safety and the environment. Commented [PR19R18]: Agreed - I provided some additional, hopefully clarifying text in the following Response: The NRC staff will address the environmental impacts of license renewal in the draft SEIS. The comments response - please review.

staff will describe the affected environment in Chapter 3 of the draft SEIS and will address the environmental consequences of license renewal in Chapter 4. However, the NRC staff will address safety issues in the parallel safety review rather than in the SEIS.

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00045-11-2 There are some things I do want to review with you, that affect our safety and our environment. And I know that you want to make sure that we are safe and that our environment is not destroyed. And I also want to thank the FPL employees that came out, we appreciate what you do, we appreciate the fact that you're willing to work in the nuclear power industry. And we want you to know that what we're suggesting doesn't take any of your jobs.

TURK-SLR3&4-SC0039R Separate env & safety View/Edit Response

Comment: These comments express concern about the NRC staff doing separate environmental and safety reviews.

Response: The NRC's environmental review is confined to environmental matters inasmuch as they are relevant to the effects of operating PTN Units 3 and 4 on the environment during the extended period of operation requested by the applicant. To the extent that the comments pertain to safety of PTN Units 3 and 4 equipment and aging (i.e., the effects of the environment on the plant) within the scope of license renewal, these issues will be addressed during the parallel safety analysis review performed under 10 CFR Part 54. Operational safety issues are outside the scope of 10 CFR Part 51 and will not be evaluated in the SEIS.

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00045-17-2 And it is odd, I find, that the safety review happens separately, and even after, time wise, from the environmental review. Because it's the environmental impact, consequences to the environment and human health that the safety review is trying to prevent harm, right. That was a really bad sentence.

TURK-SLR3&4-SC0040R Documents Submitted to NRC Staff View/Edit Response Comment: These comments refer to documents submitted during the scoping period for NRC staff review.

Response: The NRC staff has received these documents and they will become part of the record in this license renewal proceeding.

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00054-1 Attached for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff review and consideration are 4 PDFs comprising factual articles published since 2016 by respected South Florida and national news agencies chronicling the operating and water pollution issues at the FPL TPP plant site and 46 year old open canal cooling water system for existing reactors #3 and
  1. 4. These attached newspaper articles demonstrate (1) a 40+year pattern by FPL of negligent, unreliable and unsafe operation and maintenance of the 6000 acre open canal system for cooling the water from the nuclear reactors and non-compliance with local, state and national environmental regulations, and (2) contain information pertinent to Docket # NRC-2018-01 Scoping Comments Phase of the Florida Power & Light's Subsequent License Renewal Application for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station's Reactor Units 3 & 4.

[Attachments not delineated; view attachments in pdf at ADAMS Accession No. ML18180A054]

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00055-1 Attached for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff review and consideration are 2 PDFs comprising factual articles published since 2016 by respected South Florida and national news agencies chronicling the operating and water pollution issues at the FPL TPP plant site and 46 year old open canal cooling water system for existing reactors #3 and
  1. 4.

These attached newspaper articles demonstrate (1) a 40+year pattern by FPL of negligent, unreliable and unsafe operation and maintenance of the 6000 acre open canal system for cooling the water from the nuclear reactors and non-compliance with local, state and national environmental regulations, and (2) contain information pertinent to Docket # NRC-2018-01

Scoping Comments Phase of the Florida Power & Light's Subsequent License Renewal Application for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station's Reactor Units 3 & 4.

[Attachments not delineated; view attachments at ADAMS Accession No. ML18180A055]

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00058-1 Attached for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff review and consideration are (4) PDFs comprising technical papers and reports prepared by nuclear energy industry and South Florida environment experts that support the technical paper dated August 2016 that I prepared and have previously submitted to you. These attached documents also contain additional and current information pertinent to Docket # NRC-2018-0101 Scoping Phase of the Florida Power & Light's Subsequent License Renewal Application for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station's Reactor Units 3 & 4.

[Attachments prepared by others were not delineated; view complete pdf at ADAMS Accession No. ML18183A021]

TURK-SLR3&4-SC0042R Contentions--Public Involv, length of comment period View/Edit Response Comment: The following comments are from contentions made in petitions to intervene in the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 & 4 subsequent license renewal proceeding per 83 FR 19304. The comments express dissatisfaction with the length of the comment period and request an extension to the scoping comment period.

Response: Requests for hearing and petitions to intervene are part of an adjudicatory process that is independent of the license renewal application environmental and safety review process. Safety and environmental contentions raised by intervenors will be adjudicated by an Atomic and Safety Licensing Board (ASLB); the ASLB would decide on the admissibility of the contentions and set a hearing schedule. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission established the time period for comments on the scope of the environmental review for license renewal to balance the Commission's goal of ensuring openness in the regulatory processes, with its goal of ensuring that the NRC's actions are effective, efficient, realistic, and timely. The Commission will not make a final decision on the PTN subsequent license renewal until both the application review and adjudicatory process are complete.

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00029-1 Within the attached file, there are 10 contentions detailed with related requests that explain why the current Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 Initial License Renewal Application should be withheld, withdrawn and rejected by the NRC.....
  • Concerns listed on attached PDF. I will include my ending statement here.

In closing, if the above stated comments to reach to the measure of withholding, withdrawing, rejecting or contestation of the current Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 License Renewal Application, please consider extension of the current public comments period for further illumination by the public and municipal authorities related to FPLs continued operation and relicensing of Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of time to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes while protecting people and the environment.

  • Supplemental-page included below -It is an excerpt of the NRC approval notice for Turkey Point Reactor, unit 6 & unit 7 COLA, in support of clarifying FPLs current stance on sea level rise

projection related to Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant operations. These assumptions were also included in the current Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 License Renewal Application.

[Supplemental page not delineated; view in pdf at ADAMS Accession No. ML18177A193]

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00029-2 [Petitioner's Concern] 1-The application in question has only been available to the public since March 21st, 2018. Closing the public comments period within 93 days of the first public posting does not reasonably accommodate the public with adequate review of the license renewal application and accompanying EIS & SEIS.
a. Based on Petitioners concernsSection IV. No. 1, The Petitioner request that an extension to public comments be allowed in order to reasonably accommodate public comment.
  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00029-3 [Petitioner's Concern] 2-The application in question has only been available to the public since March 21st, 2018. There are current municipal board & committee motions in process within City of Miami in support of an extension to the public comment period and to enable a formal response by the City of Miami. These motions are scheduled to be docketed into City of Miami Commission agenda after the public comment period closes. The compressed and shortened public comment period does not reasonably accommodate the City of Miami with a formal response to the Turkey Point Nuclear Reactor Power Plant Unit 3, and Unit 4 Initial License Renewal Application.

2a-Based on Petitioners concernsSection IV. No. 2, The Petitioner request that an extension to public comments be allowed in order to reasonably accommodate the City of Miami Commission with an opportunity to review the active motion related to Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 -Initial License Renewal Application, and comment if its rules in favor of entering said comment.

TURK-SLR3&4-SC0043R The NRC should delay the environmental review/issuance of license renewal View/Edit Response Comment: The following comments express disagreement with the timing of the license renewal process. The comments state the opinion that FP&L should not be able to submit a license renewal application so far in advance of the expiration dates of its current licenses (i.e., 2032 for Unit 3 and 2033 for Unit 4), and that the NRC should delay its environmental review until closer to those dates. The comments also express the opinion that the NRC should not continue its review of FP&Ls application with so many unresolved issues, with comments specifically mentioning uncertainty surrounding the potential for new environmental conditions at the PTN site in the future, the potential advances in alternative energy sources in the future, and the need for models and predictions to be checked, confirmed, or modified to avoid using inaccurate or outdated information in decision-making. Finally, the comments urge the NRC staff to take a hard look at all the existing information as it is developed, and not just rely on outdated, original information from previous NEPA assessments at the PTN site.

Response: Section 54.17(c) of 10 CFR Part 54 allows licensees to submit license renewal applications up to 20 years before the expiration of the current license. The Commission established the earliest date for submission of license renewal applications after soliciting and considering comments (56 FR 64943). In the 1991 statements of consideration for section 54.17(c), the Commission rejected the suggestion that

20 years of operational and regulatory experience with a particular plant was an insufficient period in which to accumulate information on plant performance. Further, the Commission also rejected suggestions that a 5-year or even a 15-year time limit for filing renewal applications would be adequate.

The Commission stated that, in establishing the earliest date for license renewal applications, it considered the time necessary for utilities to plan for replacement of retired nuclear plants. The Commission found that the lead time for building new electric generation facilities is 10-14 years depending on the technology. When the license renewal rule was revised in 1995, the Commission again solicited comments on the earliest date for filing license renewal applications. After considering the comments, the Commission concluded that there was no new information warranting a change in the earliest date for license renewal applications, either to make it earlier or later (60 FR 22461). Regarding the potential for new environmental conditions at the PTN site in the future, the NRC staff will base its analyses of impacts in the SEIS on the existing environmental baseline, but will consider past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions under the cumulative impact analysis in Chapter 4. Regarding potential advances in alternative energy sources in the future, the NRC staff will identify alternative energy technologies in SEIS Chapter 2, and assess the impacts of those alternative technologies in Chapter 4. Regarding the need to use accurate and updated information in decision-making, the NRC staff will conduct an independent analysis in preparing the SEIS, and will use information from a variety of sources in addition to FP&L's Environmental Report. The NRC staff will verify the accuracy of the information used in the SEIS.

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00028-2-25 As a part of the scoping under the NRC regulations, scoping should indicate the timing of environmental analysis and decision-making schedule. The Commissioner should delay the preparation of the EIS and decision:-making until 2028, or in any case, much closer to the date of the current license expiration. The 'delay should happen for three reasons. First, there has never been another SLRA for the operational period between 60-80 years. For this reason, the NRC should be hesitant about making a final decision without a full understanding of the future environment and alternative energies that are becoming more efficient and commercially viable.

By not waiting or delaying, the NRC sends a dangerous signal to other nuclear operators that if those operators can submit their SLRA incredibly early, they do not have to consider certain alternatives or impacts.

Secondly, the NRC should delay because alternative energies are getting more efficient and commercially viable, and this is happening at an accelerated rate. The rate of progress shows this to be true, as well as the vast amount of money that is being invested into smart, green technologies in the U.S. and around the globe. Correspondingly, huge investments are being made into energy storage, which has been the limiting factor for distributed energy generation.

By waiting, the NRC could have a better and more complete list of reasonable alternatives that could help inform any decision maker.

Lastly, the NRC should consider delaying the preparation of the EIS because the models and predictions for the future can be checked, confirmed, or modified to match the manifested results. Then, the resulting and current data will provide better information for decision making. Using stale data to make the EIS now hampers the decision making of Miami-Dade County in the future simply because they are relying on old information. Time only helps the decisionmaking process as alternative energies and the effects of climate change become more well known. ....It is important for the NRC address the above issues within the environmental

impact statement for the potential subsequent relicensing of FPL's Turkey Point facility. Without addressing these issues, the NRC cannot comply with NEPA's mandate to take a hard look at the environmental impacts of its decision.

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00045-12-2 I would ask the NRC Staff not to rush the license renewal process.

I know it looks like if it's an 18 month process, I think sometimes that normally takes 24 months or longer when a real thorough review is performed. There is more than 14 years on the current licenses. So please slow down and perform a complete review of all current information about the Turkey Point Plant cooling canal system and the impacts on the environment. It's been 16 years since the NRC last performed a full NEPA EIS for this facility, as part of a first 20 year license renewal. So I'd ask again for the NRC to take a hard look at all the current information and opinions by recognized nuclear and water environmental experts and local government authorities, not just what FP&L has provided in their application and in their environmental report. I urge them not to rely on the outdated original, information in the outdated original NEPA EIS that was performed for the 2012 license renewal.

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00066-4 Before considering a new license for continued operations until 2053 this nuclear facility must come into compliance with all administrative orders and permits that govern this facility. The pollution that has been identified must be immediately corrected and a better operations procedure must be established and required as a condition to certification.

Accordingly, we strongly urge you to include an in-depth analysis of the environmental impacts of the continued operation of Units 3 & 4 and the CCS in the NEPA review process.

TURK-SLR3&4-SC0055R Contentions--Intros View/Edit Response Comment: The following comments are from contentions made in petitions to intervene in the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 & 4 subsequent license renewal proceeding per 83 FR 19304. The comments challenge the sufficiency of FP&L's application under NRC regulations, as well as its compliance with NEPA. The comments state that some environmental issues that might otherwise be germane in a license renewal proceeding have been resolved generically in the GEIS for License Renewal for all plants and are normally, therefore, beyond the scope of a license renewal hearing. The comments note that these Category 1 issues are classified in 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, and may be raised when a petitioner (1) demonstrates that there is new and significant information subsequent to the preparation of the GEIS regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal; (2) files a petition for a rulemaking with the NRC; or (3) seeks a waiver pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.335.66.

Response: Requests for hearing and petitions to intervene are part of an adjudicatory process that is independent of the license renewal application environmental and safety review process. Safety and environmental contentions raised by intervenors will be adjudicated by an Atomic and Safety Licensing Board (ASLB); the ASLB would decide on the admissibility of the contentions and set a hearing schedule.

The NRC developed the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG- 1437 (May 1996) (GEIS) to establish an effective licensing process. It contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the environmental consequences of renewing an operating license and operating a nuclear power facility for an additional 20 years. Those environmental issues that could

be resolved generically were analyzed in detail and were resolved in the GEIS. Those issues that were unique because of a site-specific attribute, a particular site setting or unique facility interface with the environment, or variability from site to site, were deferred and would be resolved at the time that an applicant sought license renewal. In the license renewal process, these issues are addressed by a site-specific SEIS, such as the one being prepared for PTN Units 3&4. The GEIS is used to avoid duplication and allow the staff to focus specifically on those issues that are important for a particular plant (i.e.,

issues that are not generic). This is an appropriate and effective use of the concept of tiering that was promulgated by the Presidents Council on Environmental Quality in its 1978 regulations that implemented the requirements of NEPA. The Commission will not make a final decision on the PTN subsequent license renewal until both the application review and adjudicatory process are complete.

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067-1 Friends of the Earth, Inc. (FOE), Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC), and Miami Waterkeeper, Inc. (Miami Waterkeeper) (collectively, Petitioners) hereby submit this hearing request and petition to intervene in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) subsequent relicensing proceeding that will determine whether Turkey Point Nuclear Generation Station, Unit Nos. 3 and 4 (Turkey Point), will be licensed to operate until 2052 and 2053, respectively. Florida Power & Light Company (Applicant or FPL) owns and operates Turkey Point. These units have operated since the early 1970s adjacent to the Florida Everglades, Biscayne Bay, and several population centers on South Floridas Atlantic coast......

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309, Petitioners set forth below the specific contentions they seek to litigate. Each contention challenges the sufficiency of the application under NRC regulations, as specified therein, as well as its compliance with NEPA. Petitioners acknowledge that, as a private entity, FPL is not directly bound by NEPA. However, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2),

Petitioners have styled their NEPA contentions as against the ER.62 Because an applicants ER generally serves as the basis for the Commissions eventual Draft SEIS, Petitioners raise these NEPA concerns at this time in order to preserve any objections they may have if the flaws that appear in the ER also appear in the Draft SEIS. In addition, if the Draft SEIS deviates from FPLs ER in a manner to which Petitioners object, they plan to submit amended or new contentions addressing these deviations pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2).

Each of Petitioners contentions is within the scope of this license renewal proceeding, which is described in Parts 51 and 54.63 A license renewal application review typically implicates issues that fall into one of two broad areas: safety/aging management issues, and public health/environmental impacts. Petitioners contentions are focused on environmental and public health impacts.

The scope of the environmental review is defined by 10 C.F.R. Part 51, the NRCs Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG- 1437 (May 1996) (the GEIS), and the initial hearing notice and order.64 Some environmental issues that might otherwise be germane in a license renewal proceeding have been resolved generically for all plants and are normally, therefore, beyond the scope of a license renewal hearing.65 These Category 1 issues are classified in 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. Category 1 issues may be raised when a petitioner (1) demonstrates that there is new and significant information subsequent to the preparation of the GEIS regarding the environmental impacts of license

renewal; (2) files a petition for a rulemaking with the NRC; or (3) seeks a waiver pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.335.66 62 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2) (On issues arising under the National Environmental Policy Act, the petitioner shall file contentions based on the applicants environmental report.).

63 See Florida Power & Light Co., CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3, 6-13 (Jul. 19, 2001); Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal, 60 Fed. Reg. 22,461 (May 8, 1995).

64 See, e.g., Vermont Yankee, 64 N.R.C. at 148-49.

65 Turkey Point, 54 NRC at 15; see 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(i).

  • TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00068-1 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309, the hearing notice published by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) at 83 Fed. Reg. 19,304 (May 2, 2018), and the Secretarys Order of June 13, 2018, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) hereby requests a hearing on Florida Power & Light Companys (FPLs) application for subsequent license renewal (SLR) for the Turkey Point nuclear power plant, Units 3 and 4. In Section II, SACE describes the organization and its standing to request a hearing.Section III sets forth SACEs contentions, which addresses the inadequacy of FPLs Environmental Report (Attachment 3 to FPLs SLR application of February 2018) to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

In brief, SACEs Contention 1 challenges FPLs failure to grapple with the serious environmental damage caused by the cooling canal system (CCS), relied on by FPL for the past four decades to cool the Units 3 and 4 reactors, to the fragile Biscayne Bay ecosystem, the regional drinking water supply, and wildlife habitat in the CCS itself. FPL should not be allowed another twenty years of operation before analyzing the reasons for the failures of its efforts over the past decades to stem those impacts. Nor should FPL be allowed to go forward with a second license renewal term before reckoning with the fact that new measures it proposes for mitigation of the CCS impacts in the future are mutually inconsistent and counter-productive. Finally, FPL should be required to address an alternative cooling system, already approved and used by FPL for other plants on the Turkey Point site, which would eliminate the need for the CCS and thereby avoid its adverse environmental impacts: mechanical draft cooling towers. SACE provides extensive and detailed support for the concerns raised in its contentions in technical reports prepared by experts whom SACE has retained for a federal district court lawsuit challenging the CCS noncompliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA). Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Tropical Audubon Society, Inc., and Friends of the Everglades, Inc. v. Florida Power

& Light Co., No. 1:16-cv-23017-DPG (filed Oct. 11, 2016) (CWA lawsuit).

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19085A163&oldid=2395334"