ML22154A215
| ML22154A215 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/2022 |
| From: | Russell Chazell NRC/SECY |
| To: | Florida Power & Light Co, Friends of the Earth, Miami Waterkeeper, NRC/OGC, Natural Resources Defense Council |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-250-SLR, 50-251-SLR, ASLBP 18-957-01-SLR-BD01, CLI-22-06, RAS 56405 | |
| Download: ML22154A215 (8) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
Christopher T. Hanson, Chairman Jeff Baran David A. Wright In the Matter of Docket Nos. --SLR FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
--SLR (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units and )
CLI--
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In CLI--, we asked the parties to submit their views on the practical effects of two optionsleaving in place the subsequently renewed licenses for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units and (Turkey Point Units and ) and reinstating the previous licenses.1 The parties provided timely responses and answers.2 1 CLI--, NRC__, __ (Feb. , ) (slip op. at ).
2 Florida Power & Light Companys Views on License Status as Requested in Commission Order CLI-- (Mar. , ) (FPL Views); NRC Staff Views on the Practical Effects of () the Subsequent Renewed Licenses Continuing in Place and () the Previous Licenses Being Reinstated (Mar. , ) (Staff Views); Views in Response to CLI-- of Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources [Defense] Council, and Miami Waterkeeper (Mar. , )
(Environmental Organizations Views); Florida Power & Light Companys Response to Other Parties Views on License Status as Requested in Commission Order CLI-- (Mar. , )
(FPL Response to Other Views); NRC Staffs Response to Views on Practical Effects (Mar. ,
) (Staff Response to Other Views); Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Miami Waterkeeper Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staffs & Florida Power & Light Co.s Views as Requested in Commission Order CLI-- (Mar. , )
(Environmental Organizations Response to Other Views).
BACKGROUND The Staff issued the subsequently renewed licenses for Turkey Point Units and after completion of its safety and environmental reviews, and pursuant to C.F.R. § .(c), the licenses became immediately effective. We found in CLI-- that the environmental review of the subsequent license renewal application in this case was incomplete.3 Since , FPL has been operating under the subsequently renewed licenses, which include safety enhancements compared to the previous licenses. To best reconcile FPLs current licensing bases4 with the recognition that the agencys National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review was incomplete, we directed that the subsequently renewed licenses remain in place but with shortened terms to match the end dates of the previous licenses until completion of the NEPA analysis. After considering the pleadings of the parties, we will maintain this approach.
DISCUSSION A. Confirmation of Direction in CLI--
All parties acknowledge that there are safety benefits associated with the Turkey Point units operating under the subsequently renewed licenses compared to the prior licenses.5 In addition, reconciling the licensing bases under reinstated licenses would be a time-consuming, 3 We reject FPLs suggestions that our concern in CLI-- was with the possibility of an incomplete NEPA review associated with the subsequent license renewal period. FPL Views at
, , . In CLI--, we held that the [Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal (GEIS)] did not address subsequent license renewal. As a result, the environmental review of the subsequent license renewal application at issue in this case is incomplete. CLI--, NRC at __ (slip op. at ); id. at __ (slip op. at ) (We hold that the GEIS does not cover the subsequent license renewal period. . . . Therefore, the Staff may not exclusively rely on the GEIS and Table B- for the evaluation of environmental impacts of Category issues.); id. at __ (slip op. at ) (Neither the original GEIS nor the revised GEIS analyzed the environmental impacts of subsequent license renewal periods.); id.
at __ (slip op. at ) (We conclude that the Staff did not conduct an adequate NEPA analysis before issuing FPL licenses for the subsequent license renewal period.).
4 The current licensing bases include changes from license amendments, exemptions, and changes made under C.F.R. § ..
5 See FPL Views at -; Staff Views at -; Environmental Organizations Views at -.
complex process.6 As the Staff stated, maintaining the subsequently renewed licenses is the simplest, most efficient way to continue requiring those enhanced aging management programs found desirable by Environmental Organizations and FPL.7 With respect to the Environmental Organizations suggestion that we vacate the subsequently renewed licenses and reinstate the previous licenses but with the enhanced aging management program provisions included, we find that they have not provided sufficient legal authority or a safety justification for the Commission to further pursue that option.8 Environmental Organizations correctly identify that it is ordinary practice for courts to vacate agency actions taken in violation of NEPA.9 However, as the Staff points out, a decision by the Commission to reinstate the previous licenses would make the enhanced aging management program provisions no longer required.10 Environmental Organizations do not provide a basis for us to find otherwise.
FPL advocates that we balance the equities in determining the remedy here, as federal courts have done.11 In FPLs view, the result would be that the subsequently renewed licenses with end dates coextensive with the subsequent license renewal period should be in effect while 6 FPL Views at -; Staff Response to Other Views at .
7 Staff Response to Other Views at .
8 See Environmental Organizations Response to Other Views at -; FPL Response to Other Views at ; NRC Staff Response to Other Views at -. A license renewal may be conditioned or vacated after administrative or judicial review, in which case the operating license previously in effect would be reinstated. AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI--, NRC , (); C.F.R. § .(c).
9 Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engrs. F.d , - (D.C. Cir.
) (quoting United Steel v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., F.d , (D.C. Cir.
)).
10 See Staff Views at -. The Staff identifies other problematic outcomes that would result from the reinstatement of the previous licenses, including obsolescence of the updated final safety analysis reports and impacts to the current licensing bases. See id. at -.
11 FPL Views at -.
the NRC completes its NEPA review. Even if the NRC has the authority to craft a remedy using an equitable analysis,12 we decline to pursue such a remedy before we have fulfilled our NEPA duty to fully evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed action. Through NEPA, Congress tasked the NRC with evaluating the environmental impacts of a proposed major federal action before taking that action.13 Here, that means we must evaluate the environmental impacts of subsequent license renewal before approving issuance of a license that covers the period of subsequent license renewal.14 As FPLs licenses were still subject to modification due to pending agency litigation, it is within the NRCs authority to maintain the shortened end dates of the subsequently renewed licenses.15 We find that this remedy is the best way to fulfill our statutory duty while maintaining the enhanced aging management programs and safety enhancements of the subsequently renewed licenses favored by all parties to the proceeding.
12 While federal courts have discretion to leave an agency action in place while the decision is on remand, the court in Oglala Sioux Tribe noted that the NRC did not identify any statute that authorizes it not to comply with NEPA on equitable grounds. Oglala Sioux Tribe v. NRC, F.d , (D.C. Cir. ). The court did not resolve whether the absence of statutory authority is sufficient to reject the analogy to judicial remand-without-vacatur. Id. And in our decision on remand, we did not address the question, left expressly open by the court, of whether, or under what circumstances, an NRC presiding officer should perform an Allied-Signal-style equitable analysis in the first instance upon finding a significant NEPA deficiency. Powertech (USA), Inc. (Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility),
CLI--, NRC , (); see Allied-Signal, Inc. v. NRC, F.d (D.C. Cir. ).
Similarly, we find it unnecessary to do so in this case.
13 With respect to FPLs argument that the new and significant information review undertaken for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Turkey Point Units and cured the deficiency in the GEIS, we find that such an analysis did not adequately address environmental impacts during the subsequent license renewal period. See FPL Views at -.
The new and significant analysis used the GEIS as its baseline and assumed that analysis covered the subsequent license renewal period. See Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. and (Final Report), NUREG-, Supplement
, Second Renewal (Oct. ), at - (MLH).
14 See Oglala Sioux Tribe, F.d at ([NEPAs] requirement that a detailed environmental impact statement be made for a proposed action makes clear that agencies must take the required hard look before taking that action.).
15 See CLI--, NRC at __ (slip op. at ) (citing Oyster Creek, CLI--, NRC at ).
As stated in CLI--, we separately directed the Staff to update the GEIS, and we recently directed the Staff to complete that effort in twenty-four months while seeking opportunities to accelerate the schedule.16 B. Applicability of C.F.R. § .(b)
One additional matter merits attention. The Staff raised an issue related to the applicability of C.F.R. § .(b). That regulation requires license renewal applicants to periodically update their applications. The Staff questioned whether FPL is an applicant under this regulation because the Staffs review of the environmental impacts related to subsequent license renewal is still active.17 We hold that FPL does not need to update its application pursuant to C.F.R. § .(b) while the Staff completes the environmental review. Because Turkey Point is already operating under the subsequently renewed licenses, it would not serve any useful purpose to require FPL to update its application to identify changes to the current licensing bases. Our ruling in CLI-- did not disturb the safety review.
16 See id. at __ (slip op. at & n.); Staff RequirementsSECY--Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating LicensesEnvironmental Review (RIN -
AK; NRC--) (Apr. , ) (MLA).
17 NRC Staff Views at ; see also FPL Response to Other Views at -.
CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we affirm our direction in CLI-- regarding the status of the Turkey Point subsequently renewed licenses without further modification and terminate this proceeding.
For the Commission Digitally signed by Russell E.
Russell E. Chazell Chazell Date: 2022.06.03 10:00:44 -04'00' Russell E. Chazell Assistant for Rulemaking and Adjudications Office of the Secretary Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this rd day of June .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-250-SLR
) 50-251-SLR (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating )
Units 3 & 4) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI-22-06) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: O-16B33 Mail Stop - O-14A44 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail.resource@nrc.gov Anita G. Naber, Esq.
Brian Harris, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission David E. Roth, Esq.
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Mail Stop: O-16B33 Jeremy L. Wachutka, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mary F. Woods, Esq.
E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov Susan H. Vrahoretis, Esq.
E-mail: Anita.Ghoshnaber@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Brian.Harris@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission David.Roth@nrc.gov Washington, DC 20555-0001 Sherwin.Turk@nrc.gov E. Roy Hawkens, Chairman Jeremy.Wachutka@nrc.gov Sue Abreu, Administrative Judge Mary.Woods@nrc.gov Michael Kennedy, Administrative Judge Susan.Vrahoretis@nrc.gov E-mail: Roy.Hawkens@nrc.gov Sue.Abreu@nrc.gov Florida Power & Light Company Michael.Kennedy@nrc.gov 801 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 220 Washington, DC 20004 Steven C. Hamrick, Esq.
E-mail: steven.hamrick@fpl.com
Turkey Point, Units 3 & 4, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251-SLR Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI-22-06)
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Monroe County, Florida 1111 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Derek Howard, Esq.*
Washington, DC 20004 Assistant Monroe County Attorney Paul M. Bessette, Esq. 1111 12th Street, Suite 408 Ryan K. Lighty, Esq. Key West, FL 33040 E-mail: Paul.Bessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: howard-derek@monroecounty-fl.gov Ryan.Lighty@morganlewis.com *Served via e-mail Natural Resources Defense Council 1152 15th Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 Geoffrey H. Fettus Caroline Reiser E-mail: gfettus@nrdc.org creiser@nrdc.org Counsel for Miami Waterkeeper, Inc.
The Super Law Group 180 Maiden Lane, Suite 601 New York, NY 10038 Edan Rotenberg, Esq.
Email: edan@superlawgroup.com Digitally signed by Clara I.
Clara I. Sola Sola Date: 2022.06.03 10:22:29
-04'00' Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of June 2022.
2