ML24158A370
| ML24158A370 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point, Hartsville  |
| Issue date: | 09/04/2024 |
| From: | Michele Sampson NRC/NRR/DNRL |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML24158A370 (22) | |
Text
1 RECORD OF DECISION U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBERS: 50-250 AND 50-251 SUBSEQUENT LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION, AS SUPPLEMENTED, FOR TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 3 AND 4 BACKGROUND By letter dated January 30, 2018, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL, the licensee) submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) an application requesting subsequent license renewal (SLR) of the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4 (Turkey Point, Turkey Point Units 3 and 4) renewed facility operating licenses. FPL subsequently supplemented its SLR application by letters dated February 9, 2018, February 16, 2018, March 1, 2018, and April 10, 2018. The Turkey Point Unit 3 initial renewed facility operating license (DPR-31) was set to expire at midnight on July 19, 2032, and the Turkey Point Unit 4 initial renewed facility operating license (DPR-41) was set to expire at midnight on April 10, 2033. In its SLR application, FPL requested subsequent renewed facility operating licenses for a period of 20 years beyond these expiration datesi.e., July 19, 2052, for Turkey Point Unit 3 and April 10, 2053, for Turkey Point Unit 4.
The NRCs environmental protection regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and require, in part, that the NRC prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) before the issuance or renewal of a license to operate a nuclear power plant. Pursuant to these regulations, the NRC staff performed an environmental review of FPLs SLR application as a supplement to NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Revision 1, Final Report (LR GEIS). Specifically, in March 2019, the staff issued a draft supplement to the LR GEIS, titled 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, Draft Report for Comment. In October 2019, after considering public comments on the draft supplement, the staff issued a final supplement to the LR GEIS, titled 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 (2019 FSEIS). The 2019 FSEIS concluded, in part, that the adverse environmental impacts of Turkey Point SLR are not so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy-planning decision-makers would be unreasonable. Based, in part, on that environmental review, on December 4, 2019, the NRC issued subsequent renewed licenses for Turkey Point, with expiration dates of July 19, 2052, for Turkey Point Unit 3 and April 10, 2053, for Turkey Point Unit 4.
On February 24, 2022, the Commission issued Commission Legal Issuance (CLI)-22-02 and CLI-22-03. In CLI-22-02, the Commission concluded that the LR GEIS, on which the NRC staff had relied, in part, to meet its obligations under 10 CFR Part 51 and NEPA for its environmental review of the SLR application for Turkey Point, did not consider SLR (i.e., it only considered
2 initial license renewal). Therefore, the Commission determined that the staffs environmental review of the Turkey Point SLR application was inadequate. Accordingly, the Commission directed the staff to leave the Turkey Point subsequent renewed facility operating licenses in place but to modify their expiration dates to reflect the expiration dates of the initial renewed facility operating licenses (i.e., July 19, 2032, for Turkey Point Unit 3 and April 10, 2033, for Turkey Point Unit 4) which the staff did by letter dated March 25, 2022 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML22073A122). The Commission affirmed this direction in CLI-22-06.
In CLI-22-03, the Commission directed the NRC staff to update the LR GEIS so that it also covers nuclear power plant operation during the SLR period. The Commission stated that it believed the most efficient way to proceed would be for the staff to update the LR GEIS and then take appropriate action with respect to pending SLR applications to ensure that the environmental impacts for the period of SLR are considered. Alternatively, the Commission allowed SLR applicants to submit a revised environmental report (ER) providing additional information about environmental impacts during the SLR period, in which they evaluate, on a site-specific basis, the environmental impacts that were dispositioned in table B-1 in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 and the LR GEIS as Category 1 issues (i.e., issues generic to all or a distinct subset of nuclear power plants). For SLR applicants that chose to provide such information, the staff was directed to address the environmental impacts of these issues in site-specific EISs.
Consistent with CLI-22-03, by letter dated June 9, 2022 (ML22160A301), FPL submitted ER Supplement 2, which provided a site-specific analysis of the environmental impacts of the continued operation of Turkey Point during the SLR period. That analysis supplemented the ER (including ER Supplement 1) that was included as part of FPLs SLR application and addressed, on a site-specific basis, each environmental issue that was previously dispositioned as a Category 1 issue in the ER.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The NRC staff prepared an EIS to evaluate, on a site-specific basis, the environmental impacts of the operation of Turkey Point during the SLR period for each of the environmental issues that were dispositioned as Category 1 issues in the 2019 FSEIS, in accordance with CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-03. This site-specific EIS considered information contained in the ER Supplement 2; the staffs consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local government agencies; and other information, as appropriate. The site-specific EIS also considered whether there is significant new information that would change the staffs conclusions concerning Category 2 issues (i.e.,
issues specific to individual nuclear power plants) evaluated in the 2019 FSEIS.
In the 2019 FSEIS, the NRC staff relied upon the analyses and conclusions in the LR GEIS for each of the environmental issues that were dispositioned as Category 1 issues. The staff also considered any new and significant information that might change those conclusions, and determined that there would be no impacts related to these issues beyond those already discussed in the LR GEIS; therefore, for each of these issues, the 2019 FSEIS adopted the LR GEISs conclusions of SMALL environmental impacts. However, as explained above, the Commission later determined that the staff cannot rely on the LR GEIS for the environmental
3 reviews of SLR applications. Therefore, in the site-specific EIS, the staff addressed each of these environmental issues on a site-specific basis.
In the 2019 FSEIS, the NRC staff also evaluated an additional set of environmental issues for the Turkey Point SLR application on a site-specific basis. Table B-1 in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 and the LR GEIS disposition these issues as Category 2 issues that are specific to individual nuclear power plants. The 2019 FSEISs analyses of these issues are unaffected by the Commission orders because the staff already performed site-specific analyses of these issues for Turkey Point SLR. Therefore, the site-specific EIS incorporated by reference the 2019 FSEIS conclusions for these issues, as appropriate, and considered whether there was any significant new information that would change the staffs 2019 FSEIS conclusions concerning the issues.
In sum, the site-specific EIS supplemented the 2019 FSEIS evaluation of Category 1 impacts with a site-specific evaluation and updated the 2019 FSEIS evaluation of Category 2 impacts and, together, the site-specific EIS and the 2019 FSEIS evaluate, on a site-specific basis, all of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action of Turkey Point SLR.
On July 26, 2022, the NRC staff noticed its receipt of ER Supplement 2 (Volume 87 of the Federal Register [FR], page 44430 [87 FR 44430]). On October 7, 2022, the staff noticed its intent to prepare a site-specific EIS and to conduct scoping (87 FR 61104). To independently verify the information that FPL provided in ER Supplement 2, the staff conducted a virtual audit in December 2022 and January 2023. By letter dated February 1, 2023, the staff summarized the audit and listed the attendees. During the audit, the staff held meetings with Turkey Point plant personnel and reviewed site-specific documentation.
Upon completion of the scoping and audit and its review of FPLs ER Supplement 2 and related documents, the NRC staff compiled its findings in a draft site-specific EIS issued on August 31, 2023, and noticed in the FR on September 8, 2023 (88 FR 62110). The staff made the draft site-specific EIS available for public comment through November 7, 2023. Based on the information gathered during the public comment period and any other new information received, the staff amended the draft site-specific EIS, as necessary, and developed a final site-specific EIS.
The site-specific EIS supplemented the 2019 FSEIS in order to fully evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action of SLR for Turkey Point. The NRC designates these environmental impacts as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE.
SMALL: Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
MODERATE: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource.
LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
The NRC staffs recommendation in the site-specific EIS is that the adverse environmental impacts of SLR for Turkey Point (i.e., the continued operation of Turkey Point for a period of 20 years beyond the expiration dates of the initial renewed licenses) are not so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy-planning decision-makers would be unreasonable. The
4 staff based this recommendation on FPLs environmental report, as supplemented, the staffs consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local government agencies, the staffs independent environmental review, which is documented in the 2019 FSEIS and the site-specific EIS, and the staffs consideration of public comments.
DECISION For the 2019 FSEIS, the proposed action was to determine whether to issue subsequent renewed licenses for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 for an additional 20 years of operation (i.e.,
from July 19, 2032, to July 19, 2052, and from April 10, 2033, to April 10, 2053, respectively).
After issuing the 2019 FSEIS, the NRC issued subsequent renewed licenses for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 with the expiration dates of July 19, 2052, and April 10, 2053, respectively. In 2022, at the direction of the Commission, the NRC staff returned those expiration dates to July 19, 2032, and April 10, 2033, pending either the completion of a site-specific review of the environmental impacts of SLR for Turkey Point or the revision of the LR GEIS and the supplementation of the 2019 FSEIS to reflect the revised LR GEIS. Thereafter, FPL submitted ER Supplement 2, providing a site-specific analysis of the environmental impacts of the continued operation of Turkey Point during the SLR period, and, in response, the staff developed a site-specific EIS, for which the proposed action was to determine whether the site-specific evaluation of SLR for Turkey Point warrants any modification to the 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 decision-makers would be unreasonable.
Ultimately, the 2019 FSEIS, as supplemented by the site-specific EIS, evaluated all of the environmental impacts of SLR for Turkey Point on a site-specific basis. The environmental impacts of SLR, including new information and impacts that were previously dispositioned as Category 1 issues, were found to not warrant any modification to the staffs previous determination in the 2019 FSEIS. This supported the conclusion that the adverse environmental impacts of SLR for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 for an additional 20 years beyond the expiration dates of the initial renewed licenses (i.e., the restoration of the expiration dates in the subsequent renewed licenses to July 19, 2052, and to April 10, 2053, respectively) are not so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy-planning decision-makers would be unreasonable. Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.29, a renewed license may be issued by the Commission if the Commission finds, in part, that any applicable requirements of subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have been satisfied, including the completion of a Record of Decision (ROD).
The NRC staff documented the results of its safety review of the Turkey Point SLR application in Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Subsequent License Renewal of Turkey Point Generating Units 3 and 4, dated July 2019 (ML19191A057). Further, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards completed its review in accordance with 10 CFR 54.25, Report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, during its 666th meeting, held September 4-7, 2019, and documented its findings recommending subsequent renewal in a letter to the Commission dated October 7, 2019 (ML19275E747).
This ROD and the final site-specific EIS, which is incorporated by reference herein and which supplements the 2019 FSEIS and its ROD (ML19309F859), document the NRCs final decision for the environmental review of the Turkey Point SLR application, as supplemented, that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision-makers would be unreasonable, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.103(a)(5).
5 PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose and need for the proposed action are to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of the current nuclear power plant operating licenses to meet future system generating needs. Such needs may be determined by energy-planning decision-makers, such as State regulators, utility owners, and Federal agencies other than the NRC. This definition of purpose and need reflects the NRCs recognition that, unless there are findings in the NRCs safety review (required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) or findings in the NRCs environmental analysis (required by NEPA) that would lead the NRC to reject an SLR application, the NRC does not have a role in energy-planning decisions as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. Ultimately, the appropriate energy-planning decision-makers and FPL will decide whether the plant will continue to operate based on the need for power or other factors within the states jurisdiction or the purview of the owners.
NRC EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES In license renewal environmental reviews, the NRC considers the environmental consequences of the proposed action, the environmental consequences of the no-action alternative, and the environmental consequences of various alternatives to the proposed action, including for replacing the nuclear power plants generating capacity. Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA and the NRCs regulations require the consideration of alternatives to the proposed action. In this case, the proposed action would authorize FPL to operate the plant for an additional period beyond the expiration dates of the current licenses. Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions, of the 2019 FSEIS presents the NRC staffs evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed action, which is updated by the site-specific EIS, as discussed below, and of alternatives to the proposed action, for which the staff did not identify in the site-specific EIS any significant new information that would change the impacts discussed in the 2019 FSEIS. The evaluation considered the environmental impacts of the proposed action and each alternative across the following impact areas: land use and visual resources, air quality and noise, geologic environment, water resources, terrestrial resources, aquatic resources, special status species and habitats, historic and cultural resources, socioeconomics, human health, environmental justice, and waste management. In addition to replacement power alternatives, the 2019 FSEIS presents the staffs evaluation of a cooling water system alternative to mitigate potential environmental impacts associated with the continued use of the existing cooling canal system.
As explained in the purpose and need for the proposed action, outside of its safety and environmental reviews, the NRC does not have a role in the energy-planning decisions as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. Should the expiration dates of the Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 subsequent renewed operating licenses not be returned from July 19, 2032, to July 19, 2052, and from April 10, 2033, to April 10, 2053, respectively, and the plant shuts down at the expiration of its licenses, the appropriate energy-planning decision-makers will decide how best to replace the nuclear power plants generating capacity.
In evaluating alternatives to license renewal, the NRC staff considered energy technologies or options currently in commercial operation, as well as technologies not currently in commercial operation but likely to be commercially available by the time that the Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 licenses would expire.
For a replacement power alternative to be considered reasonable, it must be or be expected to become both (1) commercially viable on a utility scale and (2) operational before the Turkey
6 Point Units 3 and 4 licenses expire. The current licenses for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 expire on July 19, 2032, and April 10, 2033, respectively. Therefore, to be considered in the alternatives evaluation, replacement power alternatives had to be available (i.e., constructed, permitted, and connected to the grid) by those dates. To determine whether replacement power alternatives were reasonable, or likely to be commercially suitable to replace Turkey Point, the NRC staff reviewed energy-relevant statutes, regulations, and policies; the state of technologies; and information on energy outlook from sources such as the Energy Information Administration, other organizations within the U.S. Department of Energy, industry sources and publications, and information submitted by FPL in its environmental report, as supplemented.
Evaluation of Alternatives
- i. No-Action Alternative At some point, all operating nuclear power plants will permanently cease operations and undergo decommissioning. The no-action alternative represents a decision by the NRC to not issue renewed operating licenses to a nuclear power plant beyond the current operating license term. Under the no-action alternative, the NRC does not extend the expiration dates of the subsequent renewed operating licenses for Turkey Point, such that the units would shut down at or before the expiration dates of July 19, 2032 (Unit 3) and April 10, 2033 (Unit 4). The LR GEIS describes the environmental impacts that arise directly from permanent plant shutdown. The NRC expects shutdown impacts to be relatively similar whether they occur after 60 years of operation or after 80 years of operation.
After permanent shutdown, plant operators will initiate decommissioning in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82, Termination of license. The decommissioning GEIS (ML023470327, ML023500228, and ML023500295) describes the environmental impacts from decommissioning a nuclear power plant and related activities. The analysis in the decommissioning GEIS bounds the environmental impacts of decommissioning at such time as FPL terminates reactor operations at Turkey Point. Chapter 4 of the LR GEIS and Section 4.15.2 of the 2019 FSEIS describe the incremental environmental impacts of subsequent license renewal on decommissioning activities.
Termination of operations at Turkey Point would result in the total cessation of electrical power production by Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. The no-action alternative does not expressly meet the purpose and need of the proposed action because the no-action alternative does not provide a means of delivering baseload power to meet future electric system needs. Assuming that a need exists for the power generated by Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 at the time of their shutdown, the no-action alternative would likely create a need for a replacement power alternative. The NRC staffs environmental review includes a comparison of the environmental impacts of the proposed action of SLR for Turkey Point with the environmental impacts of a range of energy sources that might reasonably be chosen in the event that the Turkey Point licenses expiration dates are not extended.
ii. Replacement Power Alternatives In evaluating alternatives to subsequent license renewal, the NRC considered energy technologies or options currently in commercial operation, as well as technologies not currently in commercial operation, but likely to be commercially available by the time the current Turkey Point licenses expire. Because alternative energy technologies are continually evolving in capability and cost and because regulatory structures may change to either promote or impede
7 the development of particular technologies, the NRC staffs analyses rely on a variety of sources of information to determine which alternatives would be available and commercially viable when the Turkey Point licenses expire. FPLs environmental report, as supplemented, provides a discussion of replacement power alternatives. In addition to the information FPL provided, the staffs analyses relied on appropriate Federal, State, and industry information sources. In total, the staff considered 16 replacement power alternatives to the proposed action and eliminated 13 of these from detailed study because of existing technical, resource availability, or commercial limitations. These limitations are likely to continue when the current Turkey Point licenses expire, rendering these alternatives not feasible or commercially viable. The no-action alternative was also considered. Alternatives considered, but eliminated from detailed study were as follows:
solar power wind power biomass power demand-side management hydroelectric power geothermal power wave and ocean energy municipal solid waste petroleum-fired power coal-fired power fuel cells purchased power delayed retirement of other generating facilities The basis for the elimination from detailed study of each of these alternatives is explained in Section 2.3 of the 2019 FSEIS.
Three reasonable replacement power alternatives remained for detailed study, which are:
new nuclear natural gas combined-cycle combination of natural gas combined-cycle and solar photovoltaic generation These three alternatives are described in Sections 2.2.2.1 through 2.2.2.3 of the 2019 FSEIS, and the NRC staffs in-depth evaluation of these alternatives is presented in Chapter 4 of the 2019 FSEIS. The alternatives are briefly described below.
New Nuclear Alternative The NRC staff considers the construction of a new nuclear plant to be a reasonable alternative to the proposed action of SLR for Turkey Point. The staff determined that there may be sufficient time for FPL to prepare and submit an application, build, and operate two new nuclear units using a certified design before the Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 licenses expire in 2032 and 2033, respectively.
In 2018, as part of a separate licensing action, the NRC issued combined licenses to FPL for the construction and operation of two new Westinghouse AP1000 reactor units at the Turkey Point site. For the purpose of this subsequent license renewal analysis, the NRC staff assumed two separate Westinghouse AP1000 reactors would replace Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. For the
8 new nuclear alternative, the replacement power facility would be located within the Turkey Point property, but outside the current footprints of Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. Accordingly, the heat rejection demands of these new nuclear reactors would also be similar to those of Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. As provided by FPL, the new nuclear alternative would use a mechanical draft cooling tower system instead of the existing cooling canal system. This closed-cycle cooling system would primarily use reclaimed wastewater from the Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Department, with saltwater produced from radial collection wells under Biscayne Bay used as a temporary backup source.
The NRC staff also considered the installation of multiple small modular reactors as a new nuclear alternative to the proposed action of SLR for Turkey Point. Small modular reactors generate approximately 300 megawatts or less, so they have lower initial capacity than that of traditional large-scale units. However, they have greater siting flexibility because they can fit in locations not large enough to accommodate traditional nuclear reactors. The staff assumes that the resource requirements and key characteristics associated with constructing and operating small modular reactors would be bounded by the larger nuclear units evaluated in the 2019 FSEIS.
Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative The NRC staff considers the construction of a natural gas combined-cycle power plant to be a reasonable alternative to the proposed action of SLR for Turkey Point because natural gas is a feasible, commercially available option for providing baseload electrical generating capacity beyond the expiration of Turkey Points current licenses.
Baseload natural gas combined-cycle power plants have proven their reliability and can have capacity factors as high as 87 percent. For this alternative, the NRC staff assumes that three natural gas units would be constructed and operated to replace Turkey Points generating capacity. Together, the three units would collectively replace Turkey Points approximate net generating capacity of 1500 megawatts electric (MWe).
The NRC staff assumes that the natural gas combined-cycle plant would use a closed-cycle cooling system with mechanical draft cooling towers instead of the existing cooling canal system. Because of the high overall thermal efficiency of this type of plant, the natural gas combined-cycle alternative would require less cooling water than SLR for Turkey Point. Onsite visible structures could include the cooling towers, exhaust stacks, intake and discharge structures, transmission lines, natural gas pipelines, and an electrical switchyard.
Combination Alternative The NRC staff considers the construction of an alternative that combines construction of new natural gas combined-cycle and new solar power generating facilities to be a reasonable alternative to the proposed action of SLR for Turkey Point because these sources, when combined, provide a feasible, commercially available option for providing baseload electrical generating capacity beyond the expiration of Turkey Points current licenses. The staff assumes that the natural gas combined-cycle facility and one of the four solar facilities would be located within the Turkey Point property and would use existing available site infrastructure to the extent practicable. The other three solar facilities would be located at offsite locations within the region of influence, specifically within Miami-Dade and Broward counties.
9 The natural gas portion of the combination alternative would be generated using a natural gas combined-cycle plant. Although similar in function and appearance to the natural gas plant described above, the natural gas plant considered under the combination alternative would have slightly less generating capacity. Specifically, this slightly smaller plant would collectively replace 1,420 MWe of Turkey Points approximate net generating capacity. The staff assumes that the natural gas plant would similarly use a closed-cycle cooling system with mechanical draft cooling towers.
The NRC staff considers the construction of solar photovoltaic facilities to be a reasonable alternative to the proposed action of SLR for Turkey Point when combined with natural gas combined-cycle facilities. The solar portion of the combination alternative would be generated using a utility-scale solar photovoltaic facility comprised of four units. Operating at a 26 percent capacity factor, the solar units collectively would have an approximate net generating capacity of 80 MWe. When combined with the natural gas portion of this alternative, the total power produced would be sufficient to replace Turkey Points approximate net generating capacity of 1500 MWe.
iii. Cooling Water System Alternative The NRC staff also evaluated a cooling water system alternative with respect to the proposed action of SLR for Turkey Point that might be used to mitigate the potential impacts associated with continued use of the existing cooling canal system. The purpose of this analysis was to compare an alternative closed-cycle cooling system approach with the proposed action to inform the NRCs licensing decision, decisions by other decision-makers, and the public, as applicable, under NEPA. However, the NRC has neither the statutory nor the regulatory authority to determine which cooling water system should be used, or to decide other permitting issues, for which the State of Florida has been delegated regulatory authority.
The NRC staffs evaluation of the cooling water system alternative draws upon an application, which FPL submitted to the NRC in 2009, to build and operate two new nuclear reactors (Turkey Point Units 6 and 7) on the Turkey Point site. The staff conducted an environmental review of that application and published it as NUREG-2176, Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 6 and 7 (ML16335A219).
Section 3.2.2.2 of that EIS describes a cooling water system alternative to Turkey Points existing cooling canal system that consists of onsite mechanical draft cooling towers. Under the cooling water system alternative to the proposed action of SLR for Turkey Point, Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 would each use three similar closed-cycle wet-cooling towers (six cooling towers in total) to dissipate heat from the reactor cooling water systems. As in the new nuclear alternative, the primary source of cooling water is assumed to be reclaimed wastewater.
The NRC staff noted that the cooling canal system would continue to operate regardless of the proposed action of SLR for Turkey Point because it also supports retired fossil fuel Units 1 and
- 2. FPL plans to continue to use water from the cooling canal system to support these units operation in synchronous condenser mode over the course of the subsequent license renewal period. Additionally, fossil fuel Unit 5 would remain in operation and would continue to discharge blowdown to the cooling canal system. Furthermore, requirements related to the cooling canal system of the October 7, 2015, Consent Agreement between FPL and the Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) and the June 20, 2016, Consent Order between FPL and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) would continue to apply.
10 iv. Summary For the proposed action of SLR for Turkey Point, the NRC staff considered the environmental impacts associated with SLR and with alternatives to SLR, specifically, the no-action alternative, replacement power alternatives, and a cooling water system alternative. The staff concluded, as explained below, that the environmental impacts of the proposed action of SLR for Turkey Point would be SMALL for all impact categories except for groundwater resources and aquatic resources. As summarized in table 2-1, each of the three reasonable replacement power alternatives have environmental impacts in at least two resource areas that are greater than the environmental impacts of the proposed action. In addition, the replacement power alternatives also involve the environmental impacts inherent to new construction projects. If the NRC adopts the no-action alternative and does not extend the expiration dates of the Turkey Point licenses, energy-planning decision-makers would likely implement one of the three replacement power alternatives. Based on the staffs review of these alternatives, the staff concludes that the environmentally preferred alternative is the proposed action.
11 Table 2-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives Impact Area (Resource)
Turkey Point Subsequent License Renewal (Proposed Action)
No-Action Alternative New Nuclear Alternative Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative Combination Alternative (Natural Gas Combined-Cycle and Solar Photovoltaic)
Cooling Water System Alternative Land Use SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to LARGE SMALL Visual Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to LARGE SMALL to MODERATE Air Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Noise SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE Geologic Environment SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL Surface Water Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Groundwater Resources SMALL to MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Terrestrial Resources SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE Aquatic Resources SMALL to MODERATE SMALL MODERATE to LARGE MODERATE to LARGE MODERATE to LARGE MODERATE Special Status Species and Habitats See Note(a)
See Note(b)
See Note(b)
See Note(b)
See Note(b)
See Note(b)
Historic and Cultural Resources See Note(c)
See Note(d)
See Note(e)
See Note(e)
See Note(f)
See Note(e)
Socioeconomics SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL Transportation SMALL SMALL SMALL to LARGE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE Human Health SMALL(g)
SMALL(g)
SMALL(g)
SMALL(g)
SMALL(g)
SMALL(g)
Environmental Justice See Note(h)
See Note(i)
See Note(j)
See Note(j)
See Note(k)
See Note(j)
Waste Management and Pollution Prevention SMALL(l)
SMALL(l)
SMALL (l)
SMALL SMALL SMALL
12 Impact Area (Resource)
Turkey Point Subsequent License Renewal (Proposed Action)
No-Action Alternative New Nuclear Alternative Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative Combination Alternative (Natural Gas Combined-Cycle and Solar Photovoltaic)
Cooling Water System Alternative (a) Discussed in Table 2-3.
(b) The types and magnitudes of adverse impacts to species listed pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), designated critical habitat, and Essential Fish Habitat would depend on Turkey Point shutdown activities, the proposed alternative site, plant design, and operation, as applicable, and on the listed species and designated critical habitats present when the alternative is implemented. Therefore, the NRC staff cannot forecast a particular level of impact for this alternative.
(c) Based on (1) the location of National Register of Historic Places-eligible historic properties within the area of potential effect, (2) tribal input, (3) FPLs cultural resource protection plans, (4) the fact that no license renewal-related physical changes or ground-disturbing activities would occur, (5) Florida State Historic Preservation Office input, and (6) cultural resource assessment, the proposed action would not adversely affect any known historic properties (Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations 800.4(d)(1), No Historic Properties Affected).
(d) As a result of facility shutdown, land-disturbing activities or dismantlement are not anticipated as these would be conducted during decommissioning. Therefore, facility shutdown would have no immediate effect on historic properties or historic and cultural resources.
(e) Since the alternative would be located at the Turkey Point site, which has a low archeological potential, and avoidance of significant resources would be possible, this alternative would not adversely affect known historic properties.
(f) The impacts from the construction and operation of the solar component would depend on where solar facilities are constructed. The historic and cultural resource impact could range from no adverse effect to adverse effect.
(g) The chronic effects of electromagnetic fields on human health associated with operating nuclear power and other electricity generating plants are uncertain.
(h) There would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations.
(i) A reduction in tax revenue resulting from the shutdown of Turkey Point could decrease the availability of public services in the Turkey Point area. However, the effects to minority and low-income populations would not be disproportionately high and adverse.
(j) Based on the NRC staffs analysis of human health and environmental impacts, the location of the alternative, and the assumed alternative design and characteristics, this alternative would not likely have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.
(k) This alternative would not likely have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. However, this determination would depend on the location of the solar facilities. Therefore, the NRC staff cannot determine whether the solar portion of the combination alternative would result in disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.
(l) NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, discusses the environmental impact of spent fuel storage for the timeframe beyond the licensed life for reactor operations.
13 Evaluation of the Proposed Action With respect to the environmental impacts of the proposed action, in the 2019 FSEIS, the NRC staff evaluated the environmental issues that are applicable to Turkey Point SLR. For some of these issues (site-specific or Category 2 issues), the staff performed site-specific analyses and reached conclusions specific to the Turkey Point site. For the remaining environmental issues (generic or Category 1 issues), the staff relied upon the analyses and conclusions in the LR GEIS and considered any new and significant information that might change those conclusions.
In the site-specific EIS, the staff evaluated, on a site-specific basis, the environmental impacts of the operation of Turkey Point during the SLR period for each of the environmental issues that were dispositioned as Category 1 issues in the 2019 FSEIS. Table 2-2 lists these issues and the staffs findings related to the issues specific to SLR for Turkey Point.
The site-specific EIS also considered whether there is significant new information that would change the NRC staffs conclusions concerning Category 2 issues evaluated in the 2019 FSEIS.
For example, in 2021, the staff reinitiated consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) because FPL exceeded the allowable take of American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus).
As a result of the reinitiated consultation, the FWS revised the amount of allowable take of the American crocodile. Appendix B, Section B.1 of the site-specific EIS describes this consultation.
Although this information is new because it became available after the issuance of the 2019 FSEIS, the staff determined that it does not affect the conclusions reached in the 2019 FSEIS concerning federally protected ecological resources. Additionally, in September 2023, following the issuance of the draft of the site-specific EIS, the FWS published a proposed rule to list the Miami cave crayfish (Procambarus milleri) as a federally threatened species with an Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) Section 4(d) rule (88 FR 64856), and the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a final rule designating critical habitat for the Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) (89 FR 126). These actions constituted new information relevant to the issue of federally protected ecological resources. The staff addressed the potential impacts of Turkey Point SLR on those resources in Section 2.11 of the site-specific EIS. Also, since the issuance of the 2019 FSEIS, the U.S. Census Bureau published 2020 Census data. Although this information is new because it became available after the issuance of the 2019 FSEIS, the staff determined that it does not affect the conclusions reached in the 2019 FSEIS concerning Environmental Justice, or any other conclusion reached in the 2019 FSEIS. For all other Category 2 issues, the staff did not identify any significant new information that would change the conclusions reached in the 2019 FSEIS. Therefore, the staff concluded that the analyses and conclusions in the 2019 FSEIS remain valid for these issues, and that information was incorporated in the site-specific EIS by reference. Table 2-3 lists these issues, the relevant sections of the 2019 FSEIS in which a discussion of the issues can be found, and the 2019 FSEISs conclusions.
Finally, the NRC staff considered in the site-specific EIS whether any additional environmental issues exist for Turkey Point SLR that were not addressed previously. The staff did not identify any such issues. Thus, the site-specific EIS supplemented the 2019 FSEIS evaluation of Category 1 impacts and updated the 2019 FSEIS evaluation of Category 2 impacts. Together, the site-specific EIS and the 2019 FSEIS evaluated all of the environmental impacts of continued operation during the SLR term for Turkey Point Unit 3 from July 19, 2032, to July 19, 2052, and for Turkey Point Unit 4 from April 10, 2033, to April 10, 2053.
14 Table 2-2 Site-Specific Conclusions Regarding Turkey Point Subsequent License Renewal Made in the Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement Resource Area Environmental Issue Impacts Land Use Onsite land use SMALL Land Use Offsite land use SMALL Land Use Offsite land use in transmission line rights-of-way (ROWs)
SMALL Visual Resources Aesthetic impacts SMALL Air Quality Air quality impacts SMALL Air Quality Air quality effects of transmission lines SMALL Noise Noise impacts SMALL Geologic Environment Geology and soils SMALL Surface Water Resources Surface water use and quality (non-cooling system impacts)
SMALL Surface Water Resources Discharge of metals in cooling system effluent SMALL Surface Water Resources Discharge of biocides, sanitary wastes, and minor chemical spills SMALL Surface Water Resources Effects of dredging on surface water quality SMALL Groundwater Resources Groundwater contamination and use (non-cooling system impacts)
SMALL Groundwater Resources Groundwater quality degradation resulting from water withdrawals SMALL Groundwater Resources Groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds in salt marshes)
SMALL to MODERATE Groundwater Resources Groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw more than 100 gallons per minute)
SMALL to MODERATE Terrestrial Resources Exposure of terrestrial organisms to radionuclides SMALL Terrestrial Resources Cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds)
SMALL Terrestrial Resources Bird collisions with plant structures and transmission lines SMALL Terrestrial Resources Transmission line right-of-way management impacts on terrestrial resources(c)
SMALL Terrestrial Resources Electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, honeybees, wildlife, livestock)
SMALL Aquatic Resources Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton SMALL Aquatic Resources Infrequently reported thermal impacts SMALL Aquatic Resources Effects of cooling water discharge on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and eutrophication SMALL Aquatic Resources Effects of nonradiological contaminants on aquatic organisms SMALL Aquatic Resources Exposure of aquatic organisms to radionuclides SMALL Aquatic Resources Effects of dredging on aquatic organisms SMALL Aquatic Resources Effects on aquatic resources (non-cooling system impacts)
SMALL Aquatic Resources Impacts of transmission line right-of-way management on aquatic resources(c)
SMALL
15 Aquatic Resources Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses SMALL Socioeconomics Employment and income, recreation and tourism SMALL Socioeconomics Tax revenues SMALL Socioeconomics Community services and education SMALL Socioeconomics Population and housing SMALL Socioeconomics Transportation SMALL Human Health Radiation exposures to the public SMALL Human Health Radiation exposures to plant workers SMALL Human Health Human health impact from chemicals SMALL Human Health Microbiological hazards to plant workers SMALL Human Health Physical occupational hazards SMALL Postulated Accidents Design basis accidents SMALL Postulated Accidents Severe accidents Probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are SMALL Waste Management Low-level waste storage and disposal SMALL Waste Management Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel SMALL Waste Management Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal (a)
Waste Management Mixed-waste storage and disposal SMALL Waste Management Nonradioactive waste storage and disposal SMALL Uranium Fuel Cycle Offsite radiological impactsindividual impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste SMALL Uranium Fuel Cycle Offsite radiological impactscollective impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste (b)
Uranium Fuel Cycle Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle SMALL Uranium Fuel Cycle Transportation SMALL Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning Termination of plant operations and decommissioning SMALL (a) The ultimate disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste in a potential future geologic repository is a separate and independent licensing action that is outside the regulatory scope of this site-specific review. The environmental impact of this issue for the time frame beyond the licensed life for reactor operations is contained in NUREG-2157, the NRCs Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel. Per 10 CFR Part 51 subpart A, the Commission determined that the impacts presented in NUREG-2157 would not be sufficiently large to require the conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal, this issue is considered generic to all nuclear power plants and does not warrant a site-specific analysis.
(b) There are no regulatory limits applicable to collective doses to the general public from fuel-cycle facilities. The practice of estimating health effects on the basis of collective doses may not be meaningful. All fuel-cycle facilities are designed and operated to meet the applicable regulatory
16 limits and standards. As stated in table B-1 in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 and the LR GEIS, The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated (10 CFR Part 51). Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the collective impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, this issue is considered generic to all nuclear power plants and does not warrant a site-specific analysis.
(c) This issue applies only to the in-scope portion of electric power transmission lines, which are defined as transmission lines that connect the nuclear power plant to the substation where electricity is fed into the regional power distribution system and transmission lines that supply power to the nuclear power plant from the grid.
Table 2-3 Site-Specific Conclusions Regarding Turkey Point Subsequent License Renewal Made in the 2019 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Resource Area Environmental Issue 2019 FSEIS Section Impacts(a)
Groundwater Resources Groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw more than 100 gallons per minute [gpm])
4.5.1 SMALL to MODERATE Groundwater Resources Radionuclides released to groundwater 4.5.1 SMALL Terrestrial Resources Effects on terrestrial resources (non-cooling system impacts) 4.6.1 SMALL Aquatic Resources Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds) 4.7.1 SMALL to MODERATE(b)
Aquatic Resources Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds)
SMALL to MODERATE(b)
Special Status Species and Habitats Threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential fish habitat 4.8.1 Impact determinations vary by species and habitat(c)
Historic and Cultural Resources Historic and cultural resources 4.9.1 Would not adversely affect known historic properties or historic and cultural resources(d)
Human Health Chronic effects of electromagnetic fields 4.11.1 Uncertain Impact Human Health Electric shock hazards(e) 4.11.1 SMALL Environmental Justice Minority and low-income populations 4.12.1 No disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts 4.16 See 2019 FSEIS Section 4.16
17 (a) In reciting the 2019 FSEIS conclusions here, the NRC staff notes that the impact determinations for these issues were described in Chapter 4 of the 2019 FSEIS. These impact findings are incorporated herein by reference.
(b) The NRC staff notes that the 2019 FSEIS conclusion of SMALL to MODERATE applies to aquatic resources in the cooling canal system. Aquatic organisms inhabiting Biscayne Bay and connected water bodies (e.g., Card Sound, the Atlantic Ocean) are not subject to impingement and entrainment because they do not interact with the Turkey Point intake structure, and there are no thermal effects outside the cooling canal system because there are no surface water connections that allow flow between the waters of Biscayne Bay and the cooling canal system.
(c) In the 2019 FSEIS, the NRC staff concluded that Turkey Point SLR is likely to adversely affect the American crocodile and the eastern indigo snake and may result in adverse modification of the designated critical habitat of the American crocodile. The 2019 FSEIS also concluded that the proposed action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the Florida panther, West Indian manatee, red knot, wood stork, loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, Kemps ridley sea turtle, and smalltooth sawfish. The 2019 FSEIS further concluded that the proposed action would result in no adverse modification of designated critical habitat of the West Indian manatee. The staffs evaluation of impacts on federally listed species and critical habitats under the FWSs jurisdiction appears in the NRCs Biological Assessment.
The FWSs separate evaluation and conclusions appear in a July 25, 2019, biological opinion, which is described in Section 4.8.1.1 of the 2019 FSEIS. The FWS later amended its biological opinion on March 21, 2022. Following the issuance of the draft site-specific EIS, the FWS proposed the Miami cave crayfish (Procambarus milleri) and designated Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) critical habitat for protection under the ESA. The staffs evaluation of these resources appears in Section 2.11 of the site-specific EIS. The staff concluded that SLR may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Miami cave crayfish and would have no effect on Nassau grouper critical habitat. The staffs evaluation of impacts on federally listed species and critical habitats under the National Marine Fisheries Services jurisdiction appears in Section 4.8.1.1 of the 2019 FSEIS. The 2019 FSEIS concluded that the proposed action would have no adverse effects on essential fish habitat. The staffs evaluation of impacts on essential fish habitat appears in Section 4.8.1.2 of the 2019 FSEIS. The staff also concluded in the 2019 FSEIS that the proposed action would not affect the sanctuary resources of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The staffs evaluation of sanctuary resources appears in Section 4.8.1.3 of the 2019 FSEIS.
(d) The NRC staff notes that based on (1) the location of National Register of Historic Places-eligible historic properties within the area of potential effect, (2) tribal input, (3) FPLs cultural resource protection plans, (4) the fact that no license renewal-related physical changes or ground-disturbing activities would occur, (5) Florida State Historic Preservation Office input, and (6) cultural resource assessment, the 2019 FSEIS concluded that Turkey Point SLR would not adversely affect any known historic properties. See 2019 FSEIS table 2-2.
(e) The NRC staff notes that this issue applies only to the in-scope portion of electric power transmission lines, which are defined as transmission lines that connect the nuclear power plant to the substation where electricity is fed into the regional power distribution system and transmission lines that supply power to the nuclear power plant from the grid.
MITIGATION MEASURES The NRC has taken all practicable measures within its jurisdiction to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected, which is the proposed action of Turkey Point SLR. The 2019 FSEIS, as supplemented by the site-specific EIS, concludes that Turkey Point SLR would have SMALL environmental impacts, with the following exceptions: (1) for groundwater quality degradation, the impact would be SMALL to MODERATE; (2) for groundwater use conflicts, the impact would be SMALL to MODERATE; and (3) for aquatic resources (impingement and entrainment and thermal impacts), the impact would be SMALL to MODERATE. The NRC is not imposing any license conditions in connection with mitigation
18 measures for the continued operation of Turkey Point. However, Turkey Point is subject to requirements including permits, authorizations, and regulatory orders imposed by other Federal, State, and local agencies governing facility operation including the operation of the cooling canal system. For example, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued to FPL imposes effluent limitations and monitoring requirements as well as best management practices to ensure that impacts to water quality and aquatic life are minimized.
The NRC is not requiring any new environmental monitoring programs outside of what is required for the NPDES permit or otherwise required of the licensee under the NRCs regulations or by other Federal, State, or local agencies.
CONSIDERATION OF EMERGING INFORMATION AND COMMENTS ON THE FINAL SITE-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification As summarized in Section 3.5.1.3 of the 2019 FSEIS, FPL is subject to various provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (i.e., the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (CWA; 33 USC 1251 et seq.)), including the provisions of CWA Section 401. CWA Section 401 requires that an applicant for a Federal license to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge of regulated pollutants into navigable waters provide the licensing agency a certification from the State or appropriate water pollution control agency in which the discharge originates or will originate that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of the CWA, including that the discharge will not cause or contribute to a violation of applicable water quality standards. If the applicant has not obtained CWA Section 401 certification, the licensing agency cannot grant a license unless the certifying authority has waived the requirement.
In July 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule revising the procedural requirements for CWA Section 401 certifications at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 121, State Certification of Activities Requiring a Federal License or Permit (85 FR 42210). The final rule became effective on September 11, 2020. In 2021, the EPA initiated a process to reconsider and revise that 2020 rule (86 FR 29541). The EPA issued a final rule, the 2023 CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification Improvement Rule, in September 2023, with an effective date of November 27, 2023 (88 FR 66558).
As discussed in FPLs response to NRC staff requests for additional information (ML18247A509), the 2012 operating agreement between the FDEP, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the relevant Florida water management districts specifically provides, in section A.1.:
Each of the following will constitute the granting of water quality certification by the Department or Districts, unless a State permit is issued pursuant to the net improvement provisions for water quality provided by Section 373.414(1)(b), F.S., or unless otherwise specifically stated in the State permit or authorization (f) A written final order granting certification under one of the following siting acts by the Governor and Cabinet as the Siting Board, the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, or by the Department of Environmental Protection, as appropriate: (1) The Florida Electric Power Plant Siting Act, Sections 403.501-.519(2011), as amended.
The Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) certification is a non-expiring permit for the life of the facility.
Under the PPSA, FPL is not required to obtain a new certification for the federal subsequent license renewal, and the certification will remain effective, as will any legal effects of the
19 certification, including the certification compliance with state water quality standards. Therefore, there is no requirement to obtain a new determination of compliance with state water quality standards.
NRCs Update to the Commissions 2013 Findings on the Environmental Effects of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant On August 6, 2024 (89 FR 64166), the NRC amended its environmental protection regulations by updating the Commissions 2013 findings on the environmental effects of renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant. This final rule redefines the number and scope of the environmental issues that must be addressed during the review of each application for license renewal, and specifically considers the environmental effects of SLR. As part of this update, the NRC issued Revision 2 to the LR GEIS to account for new information and to address the impacts of initial license renewal as well as one 20-year period of SLR. The LR GEIS, Revision 2, provides the technical basis for the final rule. The final rule will become effective 30 days following publication in the FR (i.e., September 5, 2024). Compliance with the final rule by license renewal and SLR applicants is not required until 1 year following publication in the FR (i.e., August 6, 2025).
As discussed above, in 2022, FPL submitted its ER Supplement 2, providing a site-specific analysis of the environmental impacts of the continued operation of Turkey Point during the SLR period. That analysis supplemented the ER and ER Supplement 1 that were included as part of FPLs SLR application and addressed, on a site-specific basis, each environmental issue that was previously dispositioned as a Category 1 issue in the ER and ER Supplement 1. The NRC staff reviewed this information and prepared the site-specific EIS. The site-specific EIS included appendix E, Environmental Issues and Impact Findings Contained in the Proposed Rule, 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions. Appendix E provides the staffs consideration of the then proposed 10 CFR Part 51 rulemaking effort to ensure that the proposed rule was given appropriate consideration in the site-specific EIS. Specifically, appendix E discusses how the staff addressed all of the issues from the 2023 draft LR GEIS and proposed rule in the site-specific EIS.
Upon the publication of the final LR GEIS and final rule in 2024, which was after the issuance of the final draft of the site-specific EIS, the NRC staff reviewed its finding in appendix E of the site-specific EIS that all of the issues from the updated LR GEIS and rule are addressed in the site-specific EIS. The staff verified that the site-specific analyses and findings are consistent with and bound the scope and associated impact findings for the new and modified Category 1 and Category 2 environmental issues specified in the 2024 LR GEIS and final rule. Therefore, the staff concludes that no further evaluation of the 2024 LR GEIS and final rule is needed and that no changes to the conclusions in the site-specific EIS are warranted.
Environmental Protection Agency Comments on the Final Site-Specific EIS On April 5, 2024, the EPA issued the Notice of Availability for the final site-specific EIS (89 FR 24000). On May 6, 2024, EPA Region 4 provided comments on the final site-specific EIS (ML24127A205). Specifically, the EPA provided groundwater and Environmental Justice comments. The NRC considered EPAs comments on the final site-specific EIS as a part of this ROD, which documents the completion of the NRCs environmental review and specifies the NRCs decision with respect to the proposed action. It is beyond the scope of the NRCs
20 environmental review of the application to consider reevaluating environmental conditions at Turkey Point after the NRC has issued its decision.
Regarding groundwater, the EPA recommended that the NRC and FPL continue to work with the FDEP and the DERM to reassess the alternative corrective measures for the hypersaline groundwater plume in the Biscayne Aquifer outlined in the 2016 Consent Order between FPL and the FDEP and the 2015 Consent Agreement between FPL and the DERM. As part of the 2016 Consent Order, FPL agreed to conduct specific actions, including the remediation of hypersaline groundwater adjacent to Turkey Point and the freshening of the cooling canal system. Additionally, the 2009 FPL Turkey Point Power Plant Groundwater, Surface Water, and Ecological Monitoring Plan consists of surface water, groundwater, and ecologic sampling in order to provide information to determine the vertical and horizontal effects of the cooling canal system. In the 2019 FSEIS, the NRC staff considered and discussed various regulatory and enforcement activities pursued by local and State governmental authorities, including in the cumulative impacts analysis. As discussed in Section 2.8.3 of the site-specific EIS, FPL continues to adhere to applicable State and local governmental requirements. In Section 2.8.3.2 of the site-specific EIS, the staff considered all of the available new information and concluded that impacts on groundwater quality from the proposed action would be SMALL to MODERATE.
Among other things, the staff determined that with continued freshening of the cooling canal system to achieve an average annual cooling canal system salinity of 34 practical salinity unit or less and continued operation of the recovery well system to overall halt and retract the westward migration of the hypersaline groundwater plume, as required by the 2015 Consent Agreement, the 2016 FDEP Consent Order, and the NPDES permit and enforced by local and State regulators, the operation of Turkey Point during the SLR term would not worsen the hypersaline groundwater plume outside of the plant boundary, destabilize the groundwater resource, or adversely affect the beneficial uses of groundwater offsite by existing users.
Regarding Environmental Justice, the EPA recommended that the NRCs Environmental Justice analysis be consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14096, Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All. By the terms of that E.O., independent regulatory agencies, such as the NRC, are excluded from its provisions, although they are strongly encouraged to comply with them. The NRCs decision regarding its voluntary compliance with E.O. 14096 is pending before the Commission and the NRC staff is awaiting Commission direction on the treatment of Environmental Justice matters with respect to E.O. 14096. The staff conducted the Environmental Justice analysis in the 2019 FSEIS in accordance with the Commissions Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040), which states that [t]he Commission is committed to the general goals set forth in E.O. 12898 [59 FR 7629], and strives to meet those goals as part of the NEPA review process. Since the issuance of the 2019 FSEIS, the U.S.
Census Bureau published 2020 Census data. Although this information is new because it became available after the issuance of the 2019 FSEIS, the staff determined in the site-specific EIS that it does not affect the conclusions reached in the 2019 FSEIS concerning Environmental Justice.
Because EPAs comments do not identify any new and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed action, the NRC staff concludes that no further evaluation of EPAs comments is needed and that no changes to the conclusions in the final site-specific EIS are warranted.
21 DETERMINATION Based on FPLs environmental report, as supplemented, the NRC staffs consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local government agencies, the NRC staffs independent environmental review, which is documented in the 2019 FSEIS and the site-specific EIS, and the NRC staffs consideration of public comments, the NRC has determined that the standard for issuance of renewed licenses in 10 CFR 54.29(b) that any applicable requirements of subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have been satisfied is met as are the requirements of Section 102 of NEPA. The NRC has determined that the adverse environmental impacts of Turkey Point SLR are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision-makers would be unreasonable.
Dated at Rockville, MD, this 4th day of September 2024.
APPROVED BY:
/RA/
Michele Sampson, Director Division of New and Renewed Licenses Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
ML24158A370 OFFICE PM:REFS:EPMB1 LA:REFS BC:REFS:EPMB1 BC:NLRP:DNRL NAME LRakovan AWalker-Smith SKoenick LGibson DATE 08/28/2024 08/28/2024 08/29/2024 09/03/2024 OFFICE OGC (NLO)
D:DNRL NAME JWachutka MSampson DATE 08/30/2024 09/04/2024