ML25223A031
| ML25223A031 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 09/29/2025 |
| From: | Michele Sampson NRC/NRR/DNRL/NLRP |
| To: | Coffey R Florida Power & Light Co |
| Shared Package | |
| ML25223A030 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML25223A031 (8) | |
Text
1 RECORD OF DECISION U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBERS: 50-266 AND 50-301 SUBSEQUENT LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION, AS SUPPLEMENTED, FOR POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 BACKGROUND By letter dated November 16, 2020, NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC (NextEra, the applicant) submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) an application requesting subsequent license renewal (SLR) of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Point Beach, Point Beach Units 1 and 2) renewed facility operating licenses (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML20329A292). The Point Beach Unit 1 renewed facility operating license (DPR-24) was set to expire at midnight on October 5, 2030, and the Point Beach Unit 2 renewed facility operating license (DPR-27) was set to expire at midnight on March 8, 2033. In its SLR application, NextEra requested subsequent renewed facility operating licenses for a period of 20 years beyond these expiration dates (i.e., October 5, 2050, and March 8, 2053, for Point Beach Units 1 and 2, respectively).
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 initially performed an environmental review of the Point Beach SLR application as a supplement to NUREG-1437, Revision 1, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Final Report, dated June 2013 (ML13107A023) (the 2013 LR GEIS). Specifically, in November 2021, the staff issued a draft supplemental environmental impact statement, titled Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 23, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Draft Report for Comment (ML21306A226) (the 2021 DSEIS).
On February 24, 2022, the Commission issued Commission Legal Issuance (CLI)-22-02 and CLI-22-03 that addressed the NRC staffs environmental reviews in SLR proceedings for five nuclear power plants, including Point Beach. In CLI-22-02, the Commission concluded that the 2013 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 Point Beach, did not consider SLR (i.e., it only considered initial license renewal). Therefore, in CLI-22-03, the Commission determined that the staffs environmental review of the Point Beach SLR application was incomplete.
In CLI-22-03, the Commission further directed the NRC staff to update the 2013 LR GEIS so that it also covers the environmental impacts of 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 2013 LR GEIS and then take appropriate action with respect to pending
2 SLR applications, including the Point Beach SLR application, to ensure that the environmental impacts for the period of SLR are considered.
On August 6, 2024, the NRC published a final rule (89 FR 64166) revising its license renewal environmental review requirements at 10 CFR Part 51. The final rule was updated with a correction to Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 on August 21, 2024 (89 FR 67522).
The final rule updated the potential environmental impacts associated with the renewal of an operating license for a nuclear power plant for up to an additional 20 years, which could either be an initial license renewal or one term of SLR. As part of this update, the NRC updated the 2013 LR GEIS with NUREG-1437, Revision 2, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Final Report (ML24087A133) (the 2024 LR GEIS), to account for new information and to address the impacts of initial license renewal as well as one term of SLR. The 2024 LR GEIS provides the technical basis for the final rule.
The license renewal environmental review final rule became effective for the NRC staff on September 5, 2024. Thereafter, consistent with the Commissions direction in CLI-22-03 to complete the Point Beach SLR environmental review, the staff initiated the preparation of a supplement to the 2021 DSEIS to consider the new and modified environmental issues in the final rule, as applicable, as well as any new and significant information since the 2021 DSEIS.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT On October 2, 2024, the NRC staff issued a notice of intent to prepare a supplement (second DSEIS) to the 2021 DSEIS in order to complete its evaluation of the environmental impacts of the SLR of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27 for Point Beach Units 1 and 2, respectively (89 FR 80269). The staff initiated the preparation of this document in accordance with 10 CFR 51.72(a)(2) and (b), which address the preparation of a supplement to a draft environmental impact statement for proposed actions that have not been taken, under the following conditions:
There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.
When, in the opinion of the NRC staff, preparation of a supplement will further the purposes of NEPA.
The NRC staff assessed whether any significant new information since the 2021 DSEIS, including the 2024 final rule and the 2024 LR GEIS, warranted any modification to the NRC staff's previous recommendation that the adverse environmental impacts of Point Beach SLR are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. In support of the development of the second DSEIS, NextEra submitted additional environmental information to the NRC by Subsequent License Renewal Application Environmental Review Supplemental Environmental Audit December 2, 2024 L-2024-182 10 CFR 54 Response to Requests for Confirmation of Information and Requests for Additional Information|letter dated December 2, 2024]] (ML24337A109). Together, the second DSEIS and the 2021 DSEIS evaluate all of the environmental impacts of continued operation during the SLR term for Point Beach Unit 1 from October 5, 2030, to October 5, 2050, and for Point Beach Unit 2 from March 8, 2033, to March 8, 2053.
Upon completion of a supplemental environmental audit and review of NextEras 2024 additional information, the NRC staff compiled its findings in the second DSEIS, titled Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 23,
3 Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Second Draft Report for Comment (ML25069A710). The second DSEIS was issued on April 11, 2025, and noticed in the Federal Register (FR) on April 16, 2025 (90 FR 16008). The staff made the second DSEIS available for public comment through June 2, 2025. As directed by the Commission, the staff also provided an opportunity to request a hearing specifically with respect to new information in the second DSEIS. No hearing requests were received. Based on the information gathered during the public comment period and any other new information received, the staff developed a final SEIS (FSEIS) by incorporating both the 2021 DSEIS and the second DSEIS, along with any necessary changes made in response to comments and other information.
On August 8, 2025, the NRC staff issued the FSEIS, titled Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 23, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Final Report (ML25191A238), which incorporated both the 2021 DSEIS and the second DSEIS to provide a final evaluation of the environmental impacts of Point Beach SLR. The notice of issuance was published in the FR on August 15, 2025 (ML25203A136; 90 FR 39431). On August 15, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice of availability of the FSEIS (90 FR 39392).1 Appendix A.2 of the FSEIS discusses the comments received during the 2021 DSEIS comment period, and Appendix A.3 of the FSEIS discusses the comments received during the second DSEIS comment period. After consideration of those comments and its independent review, the staff recommended that the adverse environmental impacts of Point Beach SLR are not so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This recommendation is based on (1) the LR GEIS; (2) information in the applicants environmental report, as supplemented, and other documents submitted by the applicant; (3) the staffs consultation with Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies; (4) the staffs independent environmental review; and (5) the staffs consideration of public comments received during the scoping process and on the 2021 DSEIS and the second DSEIS.
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 Point Beach SLR application. This ROD incorporates by reference materials contained in the FSEIS, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.103(c).
The FSEIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action of SLR for Point Beach. 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. For the purpose of assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts 1The EPA notice of availability established a 30-day review period (90 FR 39392), which expired on September 15, 2025.
4 that do not exceed permissible levels in the Commissions regulations are considered SMALL.
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 is that the adverse environmental impacts of Point Beach SLR (i.e., the continued operation of Point Beach 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 decisionmakers would be unreasonable. The staff based this recommendation on the LR GEIS, the applicants 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 FSEIS, and the staffs consideration of public comments.
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 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 a ROD.
The NRC staff documented the results of its safety review of the Point Beach SLR application in Safety Evaluation Related to the Subsequent License Renewal of Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, dated February 2022 (ML22054A108), as corrected in May 2022 (ML22140A127). A supplement to this safety evaluation was issued on August 27, 2025 (ML25239A019). The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards provided its independent review in accordance with 10 CFR 54.25, Report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and documented its findings recommending subsequent license renewal in a letter to the Commission dated May 18, 2022 (ML22130A521).
This ROD and the FSEIS, which is incorporated herein by reference, document the NRCs final decision for the environmental review of the Point Beach SLR application, as supplemented, that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Point Beach Units 1 and 2 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.103(a)(5).
PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose and need for the proposed action is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of the current nuclear power plant renewed facility operating licenses to meet future system generating needs. Such needs may be determined by energy-planning decisionmakers, such as the licensee, 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
5 operate. Ultimately, the appropriate energy-planning decisionmakers and NextEra will decide whether Point Beach 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, as amended, specifies in part the consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed agency action. In this case, the proposed action would authorize NextEra to operate the plant for an additional period beyond the expiration dates of the current licenses. Chapters 2 and 3 of the FSEIS present 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, Federally protected ecological resources, historic and cultural resources, socioeconomics, human health, and waste management.
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 Point Beach Units 1 and 2 renewed facility operating licenses not be extended from October 5, 2030, to October 5, 2050, and from March 8, 2033, to March 8, 2053, respectively, and the plant shuts down at the expiration of the current licenses, the appropriate energy-planning decisionmakers 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 Point Beach Units 1 and 2 licenses would expire.
For a replacement power alternative to be considered reasonable, it must be both commercially viable on a utility scale and operational before the reactors operating license expires or expected to become commercially viable on a utility scale and operational before the expiration of the reactors operating license. The current renewed facility operating licenses for Point Beach Units 1 and 2 expire on October 5, 2030, and March 8, 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 Point Beach, 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 NextEra in its environmental report, as supplemented.
Table 1 provides a summary (comparison) of environmental impacts of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives. As summarized in Table 1, each of the three reasonable replacement power alternatives have identified environmental impacts in at least four areas that are greater than the impacts from the proposed action of SLR. Based on its review, the NRC staff concludes that the environmentally preferred alternative is the proposed action of SLR.
6 Table 1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Reasonable Alternatives to the Proposed Action Impact Area (Resource)
Point Beach Subsequent License Renewal (Proposed Action)
No-Action Alternative New Nuclear Alternative (Small Modular Reactor)
Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Alternative Combination Alternative (Small Modular Reactor, Solar, Onshore Wind)
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 SMALL to MODERATE SMALL Noise SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE Geologic Environment SMALL SMALL SMALL 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 SMALL SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE Aquatic Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE Federally Protected Ecological Resources 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 SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE Transportation SMALL SMALL MODERATE to LARGE SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE Human Health SMALL(g)
SMALL(g)
SMALL(g)
SMALL(g)
SMALL(g)
Waste Management and Pollution Prevention SMALL(h)
SMALL(h)
SMALL(h)
SMALL(h)
SMALL(h)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions SMALL SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL (a) Point Beach SLR may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis),
tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), and monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with these determinations by correspondence dated February 9, 2021, November 10, 2021, December 3, 2024, and April 29, 2025. No effect on essential fish habitat (EFH). For national marine sanctuaries, not likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any sanctuary resources.
7 (b) Overall, the effects on federally listed species, 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.
(c) The effects on federally listed species, critical habitats, and EFH would depend on the proposed alternative site and 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 that no new ground disturbance or modifications and no periodic maintenance dredging or shoreline stabilization are anticipated during the subsequent license renewal term, and that NextEra has procedures in place to manage and protect cultural resources, the NRC staff concludes that Point Beach SLR would not adversely affect any known historic properties or historic and cultural resources.
(e) Land-disturbing activities or dismantlement as a result of facility shutdown 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.
(g) The effects of electromagnetic fields on human health associated with operating nuclear power and other electricity generating plants are uncertain.
(h) NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (ML14198A440), discusses the environmental impact of spent fuel storage for the timeframe beyond the licensed life for reactor operations.
8 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 Point Beach SLR. The FSEIS concludes that the continued operation of Point Beach Units 1 and 2 would have SMALL impacts for all resource categories.
The NRC is not imposing any license conditions in connection with mitigation measures for the continued operation of Point Beach. However, Point Beach 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 system. For example, the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit issued to NextEra 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 WPDES 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 FSEIS Environmental Protection Agency Comments on the FSEIS By letter dated August 25, 2025 (ML25239A035), EPA responded to the NRC on the Point Beach FSEIS. EPA Region 5 acknowledged that the NRC staff had addressed their comments on the second DSEIS and had no additional comments.
DETERMINATION Based on the LR GEIS, NextEras environmental report, as supplemented, and other documents submitted by NextEra, the NRC staffs consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local government agencies, the NRC staffs independent environmental review, which is documented in the FSEIS, 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 Point Beach SLR are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
Dated at Rockville, MD, this 29th day of September 2025.
APPROVED BY:
/RA/
Michele Sampson, Director Division of New and Renewed Licenses Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation