ML25055A147
| ML25055A147 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/2025 |
| From: | Michele Sampson Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML25055A147 (12) | |
Text
1 RECORD OF DECISION U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBERS: 50-269, 50-270, AND 50-287 SUBSEQUENT LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION, AS SUPPLEMENTED, FOR OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 BACKGROUND The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) received an application dated June 7, 2021 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)
Package Accession No. ML21158A193), from Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy, the licensee) filed pursuant to Section 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC 2011 et seq.) (AEA); Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, and 10 CFR 54, Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants, for subsequent renewal of the renewed operating license for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee Station, Oconee Station Units 1, 2, and 3). The application was supplemented by a \
Subsequent License Renewal Application Supplement 2|letter dated November 11, 2021]] (ML21328A163) as well as an additional supplement as noted below.
Oconee Station is comprised of three Babcock & Wilcox pressurized water reactors located approximately 30 miles west of Greenville, SC. The reactors are designed to produce a nominal core power rating of 2,568 megawatts thermal (with previously approved power uprate). On July 28, 2021, the NRC staff published in the Federal Register (FR) a notice of receipt and availability of the subsequent license renewal (SLR) application (86 FR 40662), including the environmental report (ER).
The AEA specifies that licenses for commercial power reactors can be granted for an initial period of up to 40 years. The NRC regulations permit these licenses to be renewed beyond the initial 40-year term for an additional period, limited to 20-year increments per renewal, based on the results of an assessment to determine whether the nuclear facility can continue to operate safely during the proposed period of extended operation. There are no limitations in the AEA or NRC regulations restricting the number of times a license may be renewed.
The Oconee Station Unit 1 renewed facility operating license (DPR-38) expires at midnight on February 6, 2033; the renewed facility operating license for Unit 2 (DPR-47) expires at midnight on October 6, 2033; and the renewed facility operating license for Unit 3 (DPR-55) expires at midnight on July 19, 2034. In its SLR application, Duke Energy requested renewed facility operating licenses for a period of 20 years beyond these expiration dates (i.e., to February 6, 2053, for Oconee Station Unit 1, to October 6, 2053, for Oconee Station Unit 2, and to July 19, 2054, for Oconee Station Unit 3).
2 Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), directs that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared for any major Federal action that has the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the NRC prepares an EIS for the issuance of a renewed reactor operating license, regardless of the actions environmental impact significance. The NRCs Federal action is to decide whether to issue subsequently renewed operating licenses until February 6, 2053, for Oconee Station Unit 1, October 6, 2053, for Oconee Station Unit 2, and July 19, 2054, for Oconee Station Unit 3, as requested in the application.
On July 28, 2021, the NRC staff published a notice of opportunity to request a hearing (86 FR 40662). On August 10, 2021, the NRC published a notice of the staffs intent to conduct an environmental scoping process and to prepare an EIS (86 FR 43684), which began a 30-day scoping comment period. The NRC staff held a virtual public scoping meeting on August 25, 2021. In January 2022, the NRC issued a scoping summary report for the Oconee Station SLR application (ML21357A040), which included the comments received during the 2021 scoping process.
On February 24, 2022, the Commission issued memoranda and orders that addressed the NRC staffs environmental reviews in SLR proceedings: Commission Legal Issuance (CLI)-22-02 and CLI-22-03. In CLI-22-02, the Commission concluded that the 2013 license renewal (LR) Generic Environmental Impact Statement (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 Oconee Station, did not address SLR (i.e., it only addressed initial LR). 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 provided an option for SLR applicants to submit a revised ER providing additional information about environmental impacts during the SLR period, in which they must 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 November 7, 2022 (ML22311A036), Duke Energy submitted ER Supplement 2, which provided a site-specific analysis of the environmental impacts of the continued operation of Oconee Station during the SLR period. That analysis supplemented the ER (including ER Supplement 1) that was included as part of Duke Energys SLR application and addressed, on a site-specific basis, each environmental issue that was previously dispositioned as a Category 1 issue in the ER. The NRC staff performed a site-specific review of the Oconee Station SLR application for those environmental issues dispositioned in the LR GEIS and table B-1 in appendix B to subpart A of 10 CFR 51 as generic (Category 1) issues. As part of this review, the NRC staff issued a notice of intent to prepare a site-specific EIS and to conduct a limited second period of EIS scoping in the FR (87 FR 77643) on December 19, 2022. An additional FR notice extending the limited scoping period to February 2, 2023 (88 FR 2645), was published on January 17, 2023. In February 2024, the NRC issued a scoping summary report (ML23304A138), which included comments received during the 2022-2023 limited second scoping period.
3 In February 2024, the NRC staff issued a draft site-specific EIS (NUREG-1437, Supplement 2, Second Renewal) for public comment, providing the preliminary results of the NRC staffs environmental evaluation of the Oconee Station SLR application review (ML24033A298). A notice of availability of the draft site-specific EIS was published in the FR on February 13, 2024 (89 FR 10107). A public comment period began on February 16, 2024, when the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice of availability (89 FR 12335) of the draft site-specific EIS to allow members of the public and agencies an opportunity to comment on the results of the environmental review. On February 21, 2024, the NRC staff held an in-person public meeting and on February 27, 2024, the staff held a public webinar to present the preliminary results of the environmental review, respond to questions, and accept public comments. On March 15, 2024, the NRC staff published a summary of both meetings (ML24071A166). The comment period ended on April 1, 2024.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT In accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), the NRC staff documents its environmental review of each SLR application and publishes it as a plant-specific supplement to NUREG1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (License Renewal GEIS, or LR GEIS), as revised. (In the case of an application affected by the Commissions decision in CLI-22-03, as discussed below, the NRC staff documents its findings in a site-specific EIS.) The LR GEIS documents the results of the NRC staffs systematic approach to evaluating the incremental environmental effects (impacts) of renewing the operating licenses of commercial nuclear power plants. The LR GEIS1 provides the technical bases for the NRC staffs environmental impact findings on generic (Category 1) issues for initial and subsequent LR contained in table B-1,Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, in appendix B, Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant, to subpart A, National Environmental Policy ActRegulations Implementing Section 102(2), of 10 CFR 51. Category 2 issues are to be evaluated by LR and SLR applicants, and by the NRC staff, on a plant-specific basis.
Consistent with CLI-22-03, on November 7, 2022, Duke Energy submitted its ER Supplement 2, providing a site-specific analysis of the environmental impacts of the continued operation of Oconee Station during the SLR period, for all Category 1 (generic) and Category 2 (site-specific) issues.
As stated above, on February 8, 2024, the NRC staff issued a draft site-specific EIS (ML24033A298), which was published in the FR for public comment on February 13, 2024 (89 FR 10107). In the draft site-specific EIS, the NRC staff evaluated the environmental impacts, including Category 1 (generic) and Category 2 (site-specific) issues, applicable to the Duke Energy SLR application on a site-specific basis. In January 2022, the NRC staff issued a Scoping Summary Report (ML21357A040), also cited in appendix A of the draft site-specific EIS. As discussed previously, the NRC staff held two public meetings to present the preliminary results of the environmental review, respond to questions, and accept public comments. The comment period ended on April 1, 2024.
1 The most recent revision of the LR GEIS was issued in August 2024, as NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Revision 2, Volumes 1-3 (Aug.
2024) (ML24086A526, ML24086A527, and ML24086A528).
4 On August 6, 2024, 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 LR 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 LR 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 became effective on September 5, 2024. Compliance by LR and SLR applicants is not required until 1 year from the date of publication (i.e., August 6, 2025). The NRC staff has verified that the final site-specific EIS is consistent with the findings in the revised LR GEIS and the final rule. See Appendix G, Environmental Issues and Impact Findings Contained in the Final Rule, 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions for additional information.
The NRC staff issued the final site-specific EIS, providing its evaluation of the environmental impacts of Oconee Station SLR; the notice of issuance was published on February 7, 2025 (ML25031A307; 90 FR 9171). On the same day, the EPA published a notice of availability of the final site-specific EIS (90 FR 9156).2 Appendix A to the final site-specific EIS discusses the comments received during the draft site-specific EIS comment period. After consideration of those comments and its independent review, the NRC staff concluded that the adverse environmental impacts of SLR for Oconee Station are not so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This recommendation is based on (1) information provided in the ER, as supplemented, and other documents submitted by Duke Energy, (2) the NRC staffs consultations with Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies, (3) the NRC staffs independent environmental review, and (4) the NRC staffs consideration of public comments received during the scoping process and on the draft site-specific EIS.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.102(b) and 51.103(a)(1) - (5), the NRC staff has prepared this record of decision (ROD) to accompany its Federal action on the Oconee Station SLR application. This ROD incorporates by reference materials contained in the final site-specific EIS, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.103(c).
The EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Federal action. 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 final site-specific EIS is that the adverse environmental 2 The EPA notice of availability established a 30-day cooling off period which expired on March 10, 2025.
5 impacts of SLR for Oconee Station (i.e., the continued operation of Oconee Station for a period of 20 years beyond the expiration dates of the initial renewed license) are not so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy planning decision-makers would be unreasonable.
DECISION Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.29, Standards for issuance of a renewed license, a renewed license may be issued if the Commission finds, in part, that the LR application satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR 54, and any applicable requirements of subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have been satisfied; pursuant to 10 CFR 51.102, this includes the completion of the ROD.
The final site-specific EIS, which is incorporated by reference herein, documents the NRC staffs recommendation that the adverse environmental impacts of SLR for Oconee Station are not so great that preserving the option of LR for energy planning decision-makers would be unreasonable, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.103(a)(5). In the 1996 final rule amending 10 CFR Part 51 (61 FR 28467), the Commission explained the following:
Given the uncertainties involved and the lack of control that the NRC has in the choice of energy alternatives in the future, the Commission believes that it is reasonable to exercise its NEPA authority to reject license renewal applications only when it has determined that the impacts of license renewal sufficiently exceed the impacts of all or almost all of the alternatives that preserving the option of license renewal for future decision-makers would be unreasonable.
In making its licensing decision on the proposed Federal action to authorize the continued operation of Oconee Station for an additional 20 years, the NRC must make a favorable safety finding. The purpose of the NRCs safety review is to determine whether the applicant has adequately demonstrated that the effects of aging will not adversely affect the intended functions of any systems, structures, and components specified in 10 CFR 54.4, Scope, and 10 CFR 54.21, Contents of applicationtechnical information. The applicant must demonstrate that the effects of aging will be adequately managed so that the intended functions will be maintained during the SLR period. The staff documented the results of its safety review in Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Subsequent License Renewal of Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, dated December 19, 2022 (ML22349A117). The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards provided its independent review and report (ML23046A172) to the Commission in accordance with 10 CFR 54.25, Report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, regarding the application for subsequent renewal of the operating licenses for Oconee Station.
PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose and need for the proposed Federal action (i.e., issuance of subsequent renewed licenses for Oconee Station Units 1, 2, and 3) is 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
6 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 Duke Energy will decide whether the plants will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or other matters within the States jurisdiction or the purview of the owners.
NRC EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES In LR environmental reviews, the NRC considers the environmental consequences of the proposed action, the environmental consequences of the no-action alternative (i.e., not renewing the operating licenses), and the environmental consequences of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action 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 the site-specific EIS. In this case, the proposed action would authorize Duke Energy to operate Oconee Station for an additional period of 20 years beyond the expiration dates of the current licenses. Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action, of the final site-specific EIS presents the NRC staffs evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and of alternatives to the proposed action. 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, transportation, human health, environmental justice, and waste management.
As explained in the purpose and need for the proposed Federal 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 operating licenses of the Oconee Station not be renewed 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 LR in the site-specific EIS, the NRC staff considered energy technologies or options in commercial operation, as well as technologies not currently in commercial operation but likely to be commercially available by the time that the Oconee Station renewed operating licenses 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 Oconee Station licenses expire. The current licenses for the Oconee Station expire on February 6, 2033, for Unit 1 (DPR-38); October 6, 2033, for Unit 2 (DPR-47); and July 19, 2034, for Unit 3.
Therefore, to be considered in this evaluation, reasonable 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 Oconee Station, 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 Duke Energy in its environmental report, as supplemented.
Table 1 provides a summary (comparison) of environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. As summarized in table 1, each of the reasonable replacement power alternatives have environmental impacts in at least five resource areas that are greater than the
7 environmental impacts of the proposed action of SLR. Based on the NRC staffs review, the staff concludes that the environmentally preferred alternative is the proposed action of SLR.
8 Table 1: Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives Impact Area (Resource)
Oconee Station License Renewal (Proposed Action)
No-Action Alternative New Nuclear Alternative (Advanced Light-Water Reactor, Small Modular Reactor)
Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative Combination Alternative (Small Modular Reactor, Solar, Offshore Wind, Demand-Side Management)
Land Use SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE Visual Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE Air Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL Noise SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE Geologic Environment SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL SMALL to MODERATE Surface Water Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE Groundwater Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Terrestrial Resources SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE Aquatic Resources SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL MODERATE to LARGE Special Status Species and Habitats SEE NOTE(a)
SEE NOTE(b)
SEE NOTE(c)
SEE NOTE(c)
SEE NOTE(c)
Historic and Cultural Resources SEE NOTE(d)
SEE NOTE(e)
SEE NOTE(f)
SEE NOTE(f)
SEE NOTE(f)
Socioeconomics SMALL MODERATE to LARGE LARGE SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE Transportation SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE Human Health SMALL(g)
SMALL(g)
SMALL SMALL(g)
SMALL(g)
Environmental Justice SEE NOTE(h)
SEE NOTE(i)
SEE NOTE(j)
SEE NOTE(j)
SEE NOTE(j)
Waste Management and Pollution Prevention SMALL(k)
SMALL(k)
SMALL SMALL SMALL (a) May affect but is not likely to adversely affect tricolored bat and monarch butterfly. No essential fish habitat (EFH) or National Marine Sanctuaries occur in the affected area.
(b) Overall, the effects on federally listed species and critical habitats and EFH would likely be smaller under the no-action alternative than the effects under continued operation, but would depend on the specific shutdown activities as well as the listed species, critical habitats, and designated EFH present when the no-action alternative is implemented.
9 (c) The effects on federally listed species and critical habitats and EFH would depend on the proposed alternative site, nuclear power plant design and operation, as well as listed species and habitats present when the alternative is implemented. Therefore, the NRC staff cannot forecast a level of impact for this alternative.
(d) Given (1) the location of known historic properties within and near the area of potential effect, (2) no new ground disturbance or modifications are anticipated during the SLR period, and (3) Duke Energy has procedures in place to manage and protect cultural resources, the NRC staff concludes that SLR for Oconee Station would not adversely affect any known historic properties or historic and cultural resources.
(e) As a result of facility shutdown, land-disturbing activities or dismantlement are not anticipated as these would be conducted during decommissioning.
However, effects on historic properties or historic and cultural resources would depend on the specific shutdown activities when the no-action alternative is implemented.
(f) The impact determination of this alternative would depend on the specific location of the new facility(ies).
(g) The chronic effects of electromagnetic fields on human health associated with operating nuclear power and other electricity generating plants are uncertain.
(h) Disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects to minority and low-income populations are not expected.
(i)
Not renewing the operating licenses and terminating reactor operations could have a noticeable impact on socioeconomic conditions in communities near Oconee Station, and a reduction in tax revenue resulting from nuclear power plant shutdown could decrease the availability of public services. Minority and low-income populations dependent on these services could be disproportionately affected.
(j)
The NRC staff identified common impacts from the construction and operation of replacement power facilities that could disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Construction and operations of replacement power alternatives would not likely have disproportionately high or adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. However, this determination would depend on site location, nuclear power plant design, operational characteristics of the new facility, unique consumption practices and interactions with the environment of nearby populations, and the location of predominantly minority and low-income populations.
(k) NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, (NRC 2014-TN4117) discusses the environmental impact of spent fuel storage for the time frame beyond the licensed life for reactor operations.
10 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 final site-specific EIS, Duke Energy, as the LR applicant, 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)), including the provisions of CWA section 401. CWA section 401 requires that an applicant for a Federal license or permit whose activities may cause a discharge of regulated pollutants into navigable waters, provide the Federal licensing or permitting agency with a certification from the State or appropriate water pollution control agency in which the discharge originates or will originate, including that the discharge will not cause or contribute to a violation of applicable water quality standards. If the applicant has not received Section 401 certification, the NRC cannot issue a license or permit (including a renewed operating license) unless the certifying authority has waived the requirement.
In July 2020, the EPA published a final rule revising the procedural requirements for CWA Section 401 certifications at 40 CFR 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, 2023 Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Improvement Rule, in September 2023, with an effective date of November 27, 2023 (88 FR 66558).
In a \
letter dated August 19, 2020, Duke Energy submitted a request to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) to confirm that the Section 401 Water Quality Certification issued on August 2, 1976, for Oconee Station remains in effect for the requested LR term. DHEC responded to Duke Energys request by \
letter dated September 29, 2020. This correspondence is included in attachment E of Duke Energys 2021 ER (ML21158A193), submitted with Duke Energys application to the NRC for the renewal of the Oconee Station operating licenses. Specifically, DHECs September 29, 2020 response to Duke, stated the following:
As noted in your [Duke Energys] letter, our [DHECs] records indicate that DHEC's most recent 401 Water Quality Certification was issued on August 2, 1976. Thus, unless there is a new federal permit or license associated with the ONS [Oconee Station] second renewal that may result in a discharge to navigable waters, our [DHECs] position is that the most recent certification remains valid and no additional 401 Water Quality Certification will be required.
The DHECs action in response to Duke Energys request occurred while the 2020 CWA Section 401 Certification Rule (85 FR 42210) was in effect. The revised provisions in 40 CFR 121, which became effective on November 27, 2023, do not apply retroactively to certification decisions made under the 2020 rule (88 FR 66558, page 66655). For this reason, the NRC was not required to and did not notify the EPA Regional Administrator of the application for renewal of the licenses for Oconee Station, in accordance with the neighboring jurisdiction process set forth in recent revisions to 40 CFR 121.12, Notification to the Regional Administrator. Based on the staffs review of this correspondence and applicable regulatory requirements in in effect at the time the DHEC rendered its CWA section 401 determination, the NRC considers the
11 DHECs action and response as affirmation that the existing 1976 water quality certification remains valid for continued plant operation.
Under the NRCs regulations at 10 CFR 50.54(aa), the renewed operating licenses for Oconee Station remain subject to all conditions deemed imposed as a matter of law by CWA sections 401(a)(2) and 401(d). Therefore, Duke Energy, as the licensee for Oconee Station, remains responsible for complying with all terms and conditions associated with the 1976 Section 401 Water Quality Certification. For these reasons, the staff has determined that no further action is required by the NRC as the responsible Federal licensing or permitting agency as related to the CWA section 401 certification process.
MITIGATION MEASURES The NRC has taken all practicable measures within its jurisdiction to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected. The site-specific EIS concludes that continued operation of Oconee Station would have SMALL environmental impacts in all resource areas. The NRC is not imposing any license conditions in connection with mitigation measures for the continued operation of Oconee Station. However, Oconee Station 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 Duke Energy 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 mandated under NRCs regulations or required by other Federal, State, or local agencies.
DETERMINATION The NRC has determined that the standard for issuance of a subsequently renewed operating license with respect to the environmental matters as described in 10 CFR 54.29(b) have been met and that the requirements of Section 102 of NEPA, as prescribed in 10 CFR 51.103, Record of decisiongeneral, have been satisfied. This conclusion is based on (1) Duke Energys ER, as supplemented, (2) the NRC staffs consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local government agencies, (3) the NRC staffs independent environmental review, which is documented in the final site-specific EIS, and (4) the NRC staffs consideration of public comments, as well as consideration of mitigation measures. The NRC has determined that the adverse environmental impacts of issuing subsequent renewed operating licenses for Oconee Station are not so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy-planning decision-makers would be unreasonable.
12 Dated at Rockville, MD, this 31st day of March 2025.
APPROVED BY:
/RA/
Michele Sampson, Director Division of New and Renewed Licenses Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation