UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: 

Stephen G. Burns, Chairman 

Kristine L. Svinicki 

William C. Ostendorff 

Jeff Baran 

In the Matter of 

NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC 

(Seabrook Station, Unit 1) 

 Docket No. 50-443-LR 

CLI-16-03

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Friends of the Coast and New England Coalition (Friends/NEC) request that we order 

the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS) for the Seabrook Station, 

Unit 1 license renewal application to be withdrawn, re-released as a draft or supplement to the 

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS), and published for public 

comment.1 For the reasons set forth below, we deny the motion. 

I. BACKGROUND 

In May 2010, NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC applied to renew the operating license for 

Seabrook for an additional twenty years.2 The NRC Staff docketed the application shortly 

 

1 Motion to Withhold or Withdraw Final Environmental Impact Statement Pending Renewed 

Opportunity for Comment (July 28, 2015), at 1, 8 (Motion). 

2 Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing 

Regarding Renewal of Facility Operating License No. NPF–86 for an Additional 20-Year Period; 
- 2 -

thereafter and provided an opportunity for interested persons to request an adjudicatory 

hearing.3 Friends/NEC filed a petition to intervene at that time.4 The Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board granted the petition and admitted several of their proposed contentions.5 We 

affirmed in part and reversed in part the Board’s ruling, leaving two admitted contentions 

pending in the proceeding: Friends/NEC’s Contentions 4B and 4D.6

The Staff issued the Draft SEIS in July 2011 and made it available for public comment.7 

The Staff’s review of the Seabrook license renewal application continued, and in April 2013, the 

Staff issued a supplement to the Draft SEIS addressing new information.8 Specifically, the Draft 

 

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC; Seabrook Station, Unit 1, 75 Fed. Reg. 42,462, 42,462 (July 

21, 2010). 

3 Id. at 42,462-63. 

4 Friends of the Coast and New England Coalition Petition for Leave to Intervene, Request for 

Hearing, and Admission of Contentions (Oct. 20, 2010). 

5 LBP-11-2, 73 NRC 28, 79 (2011). 

6 CLI-12-5, 75 NRC 301, 327, 329, 349 (2012). Both contentions challenged NextEra’s severe 

accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) analysis for Seabrook. In Contention 4B, Friends/NEC 

challenged the use in the analysis of certain source terms. In Contention 4D, Friends/NEC 

challenged NextEra’s atmospheric dispersion model. Id. at 324-29. 

7 See “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants 

Regarding Seabrook Station” (Draft Report for Comment), NUREG-1437, Supp. 46 (July 2011) 

(ADAMS accession nos. ML11213A024 and ML11213A203) (Draft SEIS); NextEra Energy 

Seabrook, LLC; Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 46 to the Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License 

Renewal of Seabrook Station, Unit 1, 76 Fed. Reg. 47,612, 47,612 (Aug. 5, 2011). The Staff 

held two public meetings during the comment period to receive additional input. See Summary 

of Public Meetings Conducted to Discuss the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement Related to the Review of the Seabrook Station License Renewal Application (TAC 

No. ME3959) (Oct. 26, 2011), at 1 (ML11277A046). 

8 “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding 

Seabrook Station” (Second Draft Report for Comment), NUREG-1437, Supp. 46 (Apr. 2013), at 

iii, ix (ML13113A174) (Draft SEIS Supplement). 
- 3 -

SEIS Supplement addressed (1) an updated SAMA analysis that NextEra submitted in March 

2012; (2) the June 2012 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

vacating the NRC’s “Waste Confidence” Rule;9 and (3) new issues arising from the NRC’s 

rulemaking to revise the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal 

of Nuclear Plants.10 The Draft SEIS Supplement was also made available for public comment.11

In May 2013, NextEra sought summary disposition of Contentions 4B and 4D.12 

Friends/NEC offered no opposition with respect to Contention 4B and the Board dismissed the 

contention.13 With respect to Contention 4D, Friends/NEC, NextEra, and the Staff jointly 

requested that the Board issue two orders: the first to approve settlement of the contention; the 

second to dismiss the contention seven days after the Staff had notified the Board of publication 

 

9 See generally New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 

10 Draft SEIS Supplement at iii, ix. 

11 Draft Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants; NextEra Energy Seabrook; Seabrook Station, Unit 1, 78 Fed. Reg. 26,662, 

26,662 (May 7, 2013) (Notice of Draft SEIS Supplement). 

12 See NextEra’s Motion for Summary Disposition of Friends of the Coast/New England 

Coalition Contention 4B (SAMA Analysis Source Terms) (May 10, 2013); NextEra’s Motion for 

Summary Disposition of Friends of the Coast/New England Coalition Contention 4D (SAMA 

Analysis Atmospheric Modeling) (May 10, 2013). 

13 See Friends of the Coast and New England Coalition’s Answer to NextEra’s Motion for 

Summary Disposition of Contentions 4B (SAMA Source Terms) and 4D (SAMA Atmospheric 

Modeling) (July 15, 2013), at 1; Order (Granting Summary Disposition of Contention 4B) (Aug. 

12, 2013) (unpublished). 
- 4 -

of a Final SEIS providing additional analysis that the parties agreed would resolve the 

contention.14 The Board approved settlement of Contention 4D in August 2013.15

On July 28, 2015, Friends/NEC filed the instant motion.16 The Staff issued the Final 

SEIS on July 29, 2015.17 Among other things, the Final SEIS included (1) the updated SAMA 

analysis performed pursuant to the Board-approved settlement agreement;18 (2) a discussion of 

the impacts from the NRC’s Continued Storage Rule and associated GEIS for Continued 

Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel;19 and (3) an updated analysis related to the revision to the 

License Renewal GEIS, which was finalized after the issuance of the Draft SEIS Supplement.20 

Shortly thereafter, and consistent with the parties’ earlier request, the Board dismissed 

Contention 4D and terminated the proceeding.21

 

14 Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement and Dismissal of FOTC/NEC Contention 4D (Aug. 8, 

2013), at 1, 3; id., Ex. B, Proposed Initial Consent Order, at 2. The additional information 

involved a sensitivity analysis and related work performed in connection with the atmospheric 

dispersion model used in NextEra’s SAMA analysis. Id. at 1-3. 

15 Order (Approving Settlement of Contention 4D) (Aug. 12, 2013) (unpublished). 

16 The Staff and NextEra oppose Friends/NEC’s motion. See NRC Staff’s Answer to Motion to 

Withhold or Withdraw Final Environmental Impact Statement Pending Renewed Opportunity for 

Comment (Aug. 7, 2015) (Staff Answer); NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC’s Answer Opposing 

Friends of the Coast and New England Coalition’s Motion to Withhold or Withdraw Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (Aug. 7, 2015). 

17 “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding 

Seabrook Station” (Final Report), NUREG-1437, Supp. 46, Vols. 1-2 (July 2015) (ML15209A575 

and ML15209A870) (Final SEIS). 

18 See id., Vol. 1, ch. 5; id., Vol. 2, app. F. 

19 See id., Vol. 1, at 1-4, § 6.1. 

20 See id., Vol. 1, at 1-3 to -4, ch. 4. 

21 LBP-15-22, 82 NRC 49 (2015); see letter from Anita Ghosh, counsel for the Staff, to the 

Administrative Judges (July 29, 2015), at 1-2 (advising the Board of the Final SEIS’s issuance). 
- 5 -

II. DISCUSSION 

Friends/NEC request that if the SEIS has not been finalized, then we direct that the 

document be withheld and issued as a draft or supplement for public comment. Alternatively, 

were we to consider their motion following issuance of the Final SEIS, then Friends/NEC 

request that we direct that the document be withdrawn and re-issued as a draft or supplement 

for public comment.22 Because the Final SEIS has been issued and Friends/NEC request, in 

that circumstance, that we direct that the Final SEIS be withdrawn and re-released as a draft or 

supplement, our regulation at 10 C.F.R. § 51.92 governs here.23

Section 51.92 specifies the circumstances under which the Staff is required to prepare a 

supplement to a final environmental impact statement if (as is the case here) the proposed 

action has not yet been taken. More specifically, section 51.92(a) requires the Staff to prepare 

such a supplement if there are (1) “substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant 

to environmental concerns” or (2) “new and significant circumstances or information relevant to 

environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.” The relevant 

question is whether substantial changes in the proposed action or new and significant 

information “presents ‘a seriously different picture’ of the environmental impacts that have been 

 

22 Motion at 1, 10.

23 Had we considered Friends/NEC’s request in the context of the Draft SEIS, and thereby 

applied 10 C.F.R. § 51.72, which governs supplementation of a draft environmental impact 

statement, our analysis would have yielded the same result; sections 51.72(a) and (b) are 

substantively identical to sections 51.92(a) and (c). See Union Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, 

Unit 2), CLI-11-5, 74 NRC 141, 167 n.103 (2011). 
- 6 -

assessed in the relevant licensing action, and of our analysis of those impacts, when compared 

to the previously issued final environmental impact statement.”24

Friends/NEC express concern that “the DEIS is a departure from what the public was 

given the opportunity to review back in 2011” and that the NRC was “deprived of the benefit of 

public comment (input) on significant portions of the DEIS now containing new information.”25 

Friends/NEC also assert that the “material substance” of the Draft SEIS has been “altered” due 

to the nearly four years between the end of the public comment period for the Draft SEIS and 

the issuance of the Final SEIS.26 Friends/NEC have not, however, identified any changes in the 

proposed license renewal action. Friends/NEC also have not pointed to new and significant 

information relevant to the Seabrook environmental review. 

Moreover, the Staff’s approach to the environmental review for Seabrook satisfied the 

purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The requirement under 

NEPA to prepare an environmental impact statement serves two purposes.27 First, it “ensures 

that decisionmakers ‘will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information 

concerning significant environmental impacts.’”28 Second, it “‘guarantees that the relevant 

 

24 DTE Electric Co. (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), CLI-15-10, 81 NRC 535, 543 (2015) 

(quoting Hydro Resources, Inc. (P.O. Box 15910, Rio Rancho, NM 87174), CLI-04-39, 60 NRC 

657, 659 (2004)). 

25 Motion at 6. 

26 Id. at 1-2. 

27 Fermi, CLI-15-10, 81 NRC at 540 (citing Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 

U.S. 332, 349 (1989)). 

28 Id. (quoting Robertson, 490 U.S. at 349). 
- 7 -

information will be made available to the larger audience . . . that may also play a role in the 

decisionmaking process.’”29 The Staff’s approach has fulfilled both of these purposes. 

First, the Staff’s efforts have ensured that the NRC has available for its consideration 

detailed information regarding the environmental impacts of the Seabrook Unit 1 license 

renewal application. Prior to issuance of the Final SEIS, the Staff identified new information 

meriting preparation of a supplement to the Draft SEIS.30 The Staff issued the Draft SEIS 

Supplement analyzing that information in April 2013.31 The Final SEIS incorporates both the 

Draft SEIS and the Draft SEIS Supplement.32 The Final SEIS also considers the public 

comments submitted on the Draft SEIS as well as those submitted on the Draft SEIS 

Supplement.33 As the Staff acknowledges, the NRC’s environmental review in this matter 

required additional time to complete, in large part because—as relevant here—the Staff 

identified new information that merited preparation of a supplement to the Draft SEIS.34 

Friends/NEC have not identified additional information that was not considered before issuance 

of the Final SEIS. 

Second, the Staff’s efforts have ensured that relevant information was made available to 

the public and other stakeholders. The record reflects that the Staff afforded Friends/NEC and 

 

29 Id. at 540-41 (quoting Robertson, 490 U.S. at 349). 

30 License Renewal Application for Seabrook Station, Unit 1; NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, 

77 Fed. Reg. 35,079, 35,080 (June 12, 2012) (informing the public of the Staff’s intent to 

prepare a supplement to the Draft SEIS to address new information related to SAMA analysis). 

31 Draft SEIS Supplement at iii, ix. 

32 Final SEIS, Vol. 1, at 1-3. 

33 Id.

34 See Staff Answer at 8-9. 
- 8 -

the public sufficient opportunity to provide input to both the Draft SEIS and the Draft SEIS 

Supplement.35 Further, the public had an opportunity to provide comments on issues addressed 

in the Final SEIS through the Continued Storage rulemaking and the revision process for the 

License Renewal GEIS.36

In summary, Friends/NEC have not shown that supplementation, or an accompanying 

new opportunity for public comment, is required under our regulations because they have not 

identified substantial changes in the proposed action or significant new information. The Staff’s 

approach to considering new and significant information, providing opportunities for public input 

thereon, and issuing a Final SEIS after completing these efforts was reasonable and consistent 

with the dual objectives of NEPA’s environmental-impact-statement requirement.37

 

 

35 See Notice of Draft SEIS Supplement, 78 Fed. Reg. at 26,662; NextEra Energy Seabrook, 

LLC; Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 46 to the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License Renewal 

of Seabrook Station, Unit 1, 76 Fed. Reg. 47,612, 47,612 (Aug. 5, 2011); Summary of Public 

Meetings Conducted to Discuss the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

Related to the Review of the Seabrook Station License Renewal Application (TAC No. ME3959) 

(Oct. 26, 2011), at 1 (ML11277A046). 

36 See Waste Confidence—Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, 78 Fed. Reg. 56,776, 

56,776 (Sept. 13, 2013) (soliciting public comments on the proposed rule for continued storage 

of spent nuclear fuel); Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant 

Operating Licenses, 74 Fed. Reg. 38,117, 38,117 (July 31, 2009) (soliciting public comments on 

the revised GEIS for License Renewal). 

37 For the same reasons, Friends/NEC have not identified a circumstance in which a 

supplement should be prepared as a matter of discretion. See 10 C.F.R. § 51.92(c) (providing 

that the Staff may prepare a supplement to a final environmental impact statement when, in its 

opinion, doing so will further the purposes of NEPA). 
- 9 -

III. CONCLUSION 

As discussed above, Friends/NEC have not demonstrated that withdrawal of the Final 

SEIS in this matter is warranted. We therefore deny Friends/NEC’s motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 For the Commission 

NRC Seal 

 /RA/ 

 ________________________ 

 Annette L. Vietti-Cook 

 Secretary of the Commission 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, 

this 25th day of February, 2016. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC ) Docket No. 50-443-LR 

 (Seabrook Station, Unit 1) ) 

 ) 

 (License Renewal) ) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

(CLI-16-03) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 

Mail Stop: O-7H4 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

ocaamail@nrc.gov

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 

Mail Stop: T-3F23 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Paul S. Ryerson, Chair 

Administrative Judge 

paul.ryerson@nrc.gov 

Michael F. Kennedy 

Administrative Judge 

michael.kennedy@nrc.gov 

Richard E. Wardwell 

Administrative Judge 

richard.wardwell@nrc.gov 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of the Secretary of the Commission 

Mail Stop: O-16C1 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Hearing Docket 

hearingdocket@nrc.gov

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of the General Counsel 

Mail Stop: O-15D21 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Lloyd Clark, Esq. 

lloyd.clark@nrc.gov

Anita Ghosh, Esq. 

anita.ghosh@nrc.gov

Brian Harris, Esq. 

brian.harris@nrc.gov

David Roth, Esq. 

david.roth@nrc.gov

Mary Spencer, Esq. 

mary.spencer@nrc.gov

Jeremy Wachutka, Esq. 

jeremy.wachutka@nrc.gov

Edward Williamson, Esq. 

edward.williamson@nrc.gov

John Tibbetts, Paralegal 

john.tibbetts@nrc.gov

OGC Mail Center: Members of this office have 

received a copy of this filing by EIE service. 

 
NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC (Seabrook Station Unit 1) – Docket No. 50-443-LR 

COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-16-03) 

2

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC 

801 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., #220 

Washington, DC 20004 

Steven C. Hamrick, Esq. 

steven.hamrick@fpl.com

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC 

700 Universe Boulevard 

Juno Beach, FL 33408 

William Blair, Esq. 

william.blair@fpl.com 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 

1200 Seventeenth Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20036-3006 

David R. Lewis, Esq. 

david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com 

Friends of the Coast and 

New England Coalition (NEC) 

Post Office Box 98 

Edgecomb, ME 04556 

Raymond Shadis 

Debbie Grinnell 

debbie@c-10.org

shadis@prexar.com

Beyond Nuclear 

6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400 

Takoma Park, MD 20912 

Paul Gunter, Director, Reactor 

 Oversight Project 

paul@beyondnuclear.org

New Hampshire Sierra Club 

40 N. Main Street 

Concord, NH 03870 

Kurt Ehrenberg, Field Organizer 

kurtehrenberg@gmail.com 

Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 

P.O. Box 1136 

Portsmouth, NH 03802 

Doug Bogen, Executive Director 

dbogen@metrocast.net

State of New Hampshire 

Office of the Attorney General 

33 Capitol Street 

Concord, NH 03301 

K. Allen Brooks, Assistant Attorney General 

k.allen.brooks@doj.nh.gov

Michael A. Delaney, Attorney General 

michael.a.delaney@doj.nh.gov

Peter Roth, Assistant Attorney General 

peter.roth@doj.nh.gov

State of Massachusetts 

Office of the Attorney General 

Environmental Protection Division 

One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor 

Boston, MA 02108 

John Beling, Assistant Attorney General 

john.beling@state.ma.us

Jillian Riley, Legal Analyst 

jillian.riley@state.ma.us

[Original signed by Clara Sola ] 

Office of the Secretary of the Commission 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland 

this 25th day of February, 2016