NRC Issues Order Involving Florida Power and Light

NRC Issues Order Involving Florida Power and Light

WASHINGTON, April 24 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following order (Docket No. 50-250-SLR; 50-251-SLR) involving Florida Power and Light:

In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Today we address the referred ruling that interpreted 10 C.F.R. Sec. 51.53(c)(3) as applying to a subsequent license renewal applicant's preparation of an environmental report. We accept the referral from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, uphold the ruling, and hold that the NRC Staff may rely on the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) and 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 (Table B-1) to evaluate environmental impacts of Category 1 issues.

I. BACKGROUND

The Board ruled on multiple petitions to intervene and requests for hearing in LBP-19-3 related to the application from Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) to permit an additional twenty years of operation for two nuclear power reactors, Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4./1 The Board granted the petition to intervene of Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, and Miami Waterkeeper (collectively, Petitioners), which challenged the environmental report that FPL submitted as part of its subsequent license renewal application. Petitioners submitted five contentions challenging the environmental report, and the Board admitted two in part./2 Contention 1-E, as admitted, claims that FPL should have considered mechanical draft cooling towers as a reasonable alternative to the cooling canal system in light of the adverse impact of the system on the threatened American crocodile and its critical seagrass habitat./3 Contention 5-E, as admitted, relates to the impact of ammonia releases on endangered and threatened species and their critical habitat during the renewal period./4 As relevant here, the Board did not admit the other contentions, or any portions thereof, because of its interpretation that section 51.53(c)(3) applies to subsequent license renewal./5 The Board also referred its ruling on the scope of 10 C.F.R. Sec. 51.53(c)(3) pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Sec. 2.323(f)(1)./6 The Board found that Contentions 1-E and 5-E migrated to become challenges to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) after its publication./7 But it also dismissed these contentions because they were admitted as contentions of omission, and the Draft SEIS addressed the omissions./8 Petitioners moved to submit amended and new contentions based on the Draft SEIS, in which they sought to either migrate or amend Contentions 1-E and 5-E and admit four new contentions challenging the adequacy of the Draft SEIS./9 The Board found these contentions inadmissible and terminated the proceeding./10 FPL appealed the decision/11 and later notified us that its appeal was moot./12 As discussed below, we dismiss the appeal as moot, and we accept the Board's referral and uphold the Board's ruling on the interpretation of 10 C.F.R. Sec. 51.53.

II. DISCUSSION

A. FPL's Appeal

In its appeal, FPL argued that the Board should not have admitted Contention 1-E and Contention 5-E./13 Following the Staff's issuance of the Draft SEIS, FPL asked the Board to dismiss those contentions as moot based on new information in the Draft SEIS./14 The Board concluded that the new information in the Draft SEIS cured the omissions identified in the contentions and granted FPL's motion to dismiss./15 FPL then notified us that its appeal of LBP-19-3 was moot./16 We agree and therefore dismiss FPL's appeal.

B. Interpretation of Section 51.53

1. Background

This proceeding presents our first review of a subsequent license renewal application, but our safety regulations in Part 54 have long contemplated the possibility./17 Our license renewal regulations recognize that after accounting for the effects of aging, our existing "regulatory process [in Part 50] is adequate to ensure that the licensing bases of all currently operating plants provides and maintains an acceptable level of safety so that operation will not be inimical to [the] public health and safety or [the] common defense and security."/18 Apart from aging management issues, plant operation under a renewed license is sufficiently similar to operation during the previous term such that our existing oversight processes are adequate to ensure safety./19 In addition to a safety review, the renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)./20 The EIS includes the Staff's analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action. To support the preparation of EISs for license renewal, the NRC Staff issued the GEIS in 1996./21 The 1996 GEIS for license renewal assessed the environmental impacts associated with the continued operation of nuclear power plants during the license renewal term. The NRC also promulgated a rule that codified the findings of the 1996 GEIS into its regulations in Table B-1./22 The intent of the GEIS was to improve the efficiency of license renewal by determining which environmental impacts would result in essentially the same impact at all nuclear power plants (i.e., generic or Category 1 issues) and which ones could result in different levels of impacts at different plants and would require a plant-specific analysis to determine the impacts./23 In developing the GEIS, we relied on the following factors: (1) License renewal will involve nuclear power plants for which 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.(3) Changes in the environment around nuclear power plants are gradual and predictable./24 For the issues that could not be generically addressed, also known as Category 2 issues, the Staff prepares plant-specific supplements to the GEIS (i.e., a plant-specific supplemental EIS (SEIS))./25

The complete text of the order is available at: ( https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2011/ML20114E147.pdf )

1/ LBP-19-3, 89 NRC 245 (2019); see Letter from William D. Maher, FPL, to NRC Document Control Desk (Apr. 10, 2018) (ADAMS accession no. ML18113A132 (package) and ML18102A521) (transmitting a revised subsequent license renewal application).

2/ LBP-19-3, 89 NRC at 285-95. The Board also admitted similar contentions filed by Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE), but SACE withdrew from the proceeding. Id. at 301; Southern Alliance for Clean Energy's Notice of Withdrawal (Apr. 9, 2019). We therefore only address the contentions submitted by the Petitioners in this decision.

3/ LBP-19-3, 89 NRC at 287.

4/ Id. at 293-94.

5/ The Board based its determination on the admissibility of the contentions proffered on our contention admissibility standards set forth in 10 C.F.R. Sec. 2.309(f)(i)-(vi). LBP-19-3, 89 NRC at 286-95.

6/ Id. at 273 n.46. Judge Abreu filed a separate opinion, in which she outlined her bases for disagreeing with the majority's conclusion that section 51.53(c)(3) applies to subsequent license renewal.

7/ LBP-19-6, 90 NRC 17, 20 (2019).

8/ Id. at 21, 23-24.

9/ Natural Resources Defense Council's, Friends of the Earth's, and Miami Waterkeeper's Amended Motion to Migrate Contentions & Admit New Contentions in Response to NRC Staff's Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (revised June 28, 2019), at 1-2 (Motion to Migrate and Admit Amended and New Contentions).

10/ LBP-19-8, 90 NRC 139 (2019).

11/ Florida Power & Light Company's Notice of Appeal of LBP-19-3 (Apr. 1, 2019). Petitioners and the Staff opposed the appeal. Opposition of Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, and Miami Waterkeeper to Florida Power & Light Company's Appeal of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Ruling in LBP-19-3 (Apr. 26, 2019); NRC Staff's Brief in Response to Florida Power & Light Company's Appeal of LBP-19-3 (Apr. 26, 2019).

12/ Notice Regarding Dismissal of Contentions (July 15, 2019) (FPL Notice).

13/ Brief in Support of Florida Power & Light Company's Appeal of LBP-19-3 (Apr. 1, 2019), at 3.

14/ FPL's Motion to Dismiss Joint Petitioners' Contention 1-E As Moot (May 20, 2019); FPL's Motion to Dismiss Joint Petitioners' Contention 5-E As Moot (May 20, 2019).

15/ LBP-19-6, 90 NRC at 19.

16/ FPL Notice at 1-2.

17/ Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal, Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. 22,461, 22,494 (May 8, 1995) (License Renewal Revisions); 10 C.F.R. Sec. 54.31(d).

18/ License Renewal Revisions, 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,464.

19/ See, e.g., Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-10-27, 72 NRC 481, 491 (2010).

20/ See, e.g., 10 C.F.R. Sec. 51.20(b)(2).

21/ "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants" (Final Report), NUREG-1437, vols. 1-2 (May 1996) (ML040690705, ML040690738) (1996 GEIS).

22/ See Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses; Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 28,467 (June 5, 1996) (1996 Final Rule).

23/ See "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants" (Final Report), NUREG-1437, rev. 1, vols. 1-3 (June 2013), at S-1 (ML13106A241, ML13106A242, ML13106A244) (2013 GEIS).

24/ Id. at 1-2.

25/ Id.