ML22055A521
| ML22055A521 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/2022 |
| From: | Annette Vietti-Cook NRC/SECY |
| To: | Duke Energy Carolinas, NRC/OGC |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-269-SLR, 50-270-SLR, 50-287-SLR, ASLBP 22-973-01-SLR-BD01, CLI-22-03, RAS 56347 | |
| Download: ML22055A521 (7) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
Christopher T. Hanson, Chairman Jeff Baran David A. Wright In the Matter of DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units,, and )
Docket Nos.
-SLR
-SLR
-SLR EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units and )
Docket Nos.
-SLR
-SLR FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
(Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units and )
Docket Nos.
-SLR
-SLR NEXTERA ENERGY POINT BEACH, LLC (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units and )
Docket Nos.
-SLR
-SLR VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY (North Anna Power Station, Units and )
Docket Nos.
-SLR
-SLR CLI-22-03 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER We issued CLI-22-2 today,1 which set forth the rationale for our conclusion that 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3) only applies to an initial license renewal applicant¶s preparation of an environmental report and that the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS)2 did not address subsequent license renewal. In this order, we provide direction for open subsequent license renewal proceedings.
In recognition of the need to correct this National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) deficiency, we will not issue any further licenses for subsequent renewal terms until the NRC staff (Staff) has completed an adequate NEPA review for each application. Licensing reviews should continue to move forward, and in adjudicatory matters, any contentions that do not challenge the contents of the GEIS or site-specific environmental impact statement should proceed.3 With respect to Turkey Point and Peach Bottom, where the Staff has already issued subsequently renewed licenses, we issued orders today to address the status of the licenses.
Separately, we are directing the Staff to review and update the 2013 GEIS so that it covers operation during the subsequent license renewal period.4 We believe the most efficient 1 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4), CLI-22-2, 95 NRC
__ (Feb. 24, 2022) (slip op.).
2 ³Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants' (Final Report), NUREG-1437, rev. 1, vols. 1-3 (June 2013) (ADAMS accession nos. ML13106A241, ML13106A242, ML13106A244) (2013 GEIS).
3 We will issue a separate order ruling on two of the three contentions on appeal in the Point Beach proceeding. We will address Contention 2, which asserts a violation of a safety regulation. We will also address Contention 1, which is a NEPA-based contention but raises a legal issue separate from the adequacy of the contents of the GEIS or site-specific environmental impact statement.
4 Staff Requirements²SECY-21-0066²Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses +/- Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296)' (Feb. 24, 2022) (ML22053A308).
way to proceed is to direct the Staff to review and update the 2013 GEIS, then take appropriate action with respect to the pending subsequent license renewal applications to ensure that the environmental impacts for the period of subsequent license renewal are considered.
Nevertheless, we understand that an applicant may not wish to wait for the completion of the generic analysis and associated rulemaking. In that case, the applicant may submit a revised environmental report providing information on environmental impacts during the subsequent license renewal period. In such a case, petitioners or intervenors will be given an opportunity to submit new or amended contentions based on new information in the revised site-specific environmental impact statement.
As a general matter, in CLI-22-2 the Commission found that the 2013 GEIS did not consider the impacts from operations during the subsequent license renewal period and applicants for subsequent license renewal must evaluate Category 1 impacts in their environmental reports. Accordingly, these impacts must be addressed on a site-specific basis in the Staff¶s site-specific environmental impact statements. Because the applicants in the above-captioned proceedings have all submitted environmental reports, and the Staff can request additional information if needed during the environmental review process, we do not find it necessary for these applicants to submit revised environmental reports.
We dismiss the environmental contentions and motions pending in the above-captioned proceedings and take sua sponte review under 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(a)(2) of the Board¶s decision, LBP-22-1,5 in Oconee and dismiss all three proposed environmental contentions. We will provide an opportunity to file contentions after the NRC (1) updates the GEIS to address environmental impacts during the subsequent license renewal term and (2) completes the site-5 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), LBP-22-1, 95 NRC
__ (Feb. 11, 2022) (slip op.).
specific environmental impact statements.6 All of the pending matters include a challenge to the sufficiency of the Staff¶s environmental review. Through the orders we issue today, we acknowledge that the environmental review is incomplete in these cases and are separately directing the Staff to cure the NEPA deficiencies. The public, including the intervenors and petitioners in the above-captioned proceedings, and applicants will be afforded an opportunity to comment on the upcoming revision to the GEIS and the associated rulemaking through the normal agency processes.7 The public will also have an opportunity to comment during the development of the site-specific environmental impact statements. After each site-specific review is complete, a new notice of opportunity for hearing²limited to contentions based on new information in the site-specific environmental impact statement²will be issued. This approach will not require intervenors to meet heightened pleading standards in 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.309(c) for newly filed or refiled contentions.8 Accordingly, we dismiss without prejudice the motions, petitions, and appeals pending before us in the Peach Bottom, Turkey Point, and North Anna proceedings. We take sua sponte review of the Board¶s decision, LBP-22-1, in Oconee and dismiss without prejudice the three environmental proposed contentions. We terminate the North Anna and Oconee proceedings and leave open the Peach Bottom and Turkey Point proceedings so that we may determine the status of the licenses. We dismiss Contention 3 in Point Beach without prejudice and will issue a separate order ruling on the appeal of Contentions 1 and 2 in that proceeding.
6 While not all of the pending contentions directly challenge the scope of the 2013 GEIS, because the NRC will be updating the GEIS and site-specific environmental analyses, it would be inefficient to continue litigating any of the pending environmental contentions based on environmental information that may change.
7 See generally 10 C.F.R. § 51.73 (requiring a comment period for draft EISs and supplemental EISs).
8 Petitioners will be subject to the general requirements set out in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a) for intervention. We expect that petitioners would update references, as appropriate, in any refiled contentions.
For the Commission Annette L. Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of February 2022.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC,
)
Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 & 50-287-SLR DUKE ENERY
)
)
(Oconee Nuclear Station
)
Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI-22-03) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop: O-16B33 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman Administrative Judge Nicholas G. Trikouros Administrative Judge Dr. Gary S. Arnold Administrative Judge Brooke Taylor, Law Clerk Allison Wood, Law Clerk E-mail: paul.bollwerk@nrc.gov nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov gary.arnold@nrc.gov brooke.taylor@nrc.gov allison.wood@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16B33 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-14A44 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Susan Vrahoretis, Esq.
David E. Roth, Esq.
Megan A. Wright, Esq.
Mary F. Woods, Esq.
Joseph M. Azeizat, Esq.
Brian Newell, Senior Paralegal Georgiann E. Hampton, Paralegal Amanda Black, Paralegal E-mail: susan.vrahoretis@nrc.gov david.roth@nrc.gov megan.wright@nrc.gov mary.woods@nrc.gov joseph.azeizat@nrc.gov brian.newell@nrc.gov georgiann.hampton@nrc.gov amanda.black@nrc.gov
Oconee Power Station (Units 1, 2 and 3)
Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287-SLR Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI-22-03) 2 Duke Energy Tracey LeRoy, Esq.
550 South Tryon Street, 45A Charlotte, NC 28202 tracey.leroy@duke-energy.com Counsel for Duke Energy Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Paul Bessette, Esq.
Ryan Lighty, Esq.
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 E-mail: paul.bessette@morganlewis.com ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com Beyond Nuclear Paul Vernon Gunter, Esq.
7304 Carroll Avenue #182 Takoma Park, MD 20912 paul@beyondnuclear.org Counsel for Beyond Nuclear Diane Curran, Esq.
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg and Eisenberg 1725 DeSales Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 dcurran@harmoncurran.com Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, This 24th day of February 2022.
Krupskaya T.
Castellon Digitally signed by Krupskaya T.
Castellon Date: 2022.02.24 10:44:59 -05'00'