704 F.3d 12
1st Cir.2013Background
- NextEra Energy Seabrook sought license renewal for Seabrook Unit 1, expiring 2030, with an environmental report evaluating alternatives.
- BN challenged NRC's denial of admission for a contention that offshore wind could be a baseload alternative to relicensing.
- NRC relied on its admissibility standard requiring a contention to show a genuine dispute on a material issue of law or fact, under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).
- ASLB admitted BN’s wind contention; NRC reversed, concluding BN failed to show a viable, baseload wind alternative for the renewal period.
- BN argued NRC misapplied NEPA case law and that the decision was arbitrary or capricious; the court denied BN’s petition for review.
- The court held NRC’s standard and its application were reasonable and consistent with NEPA and NRC regulations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did NRC misapply NEPA in its admissibility standard? | BN contends NRC misinterpreted NEPA case law and misdefined feasibility. | NRC argues NEPA is procedural and does not dictate hearing procedures or results, only a hard look at alternatives. | No error; NEPA is procedural and does not require different hearing standards. |
| Was NRC's application of the admissibility standard to the facts arbitrary or capricious? | BN claims the standard was applied to merits and that wind could meet baseload feasibility by 2030. | NRC reasonably applied § 2.309(f)(1)(vi), requiring a genuine dispute supported by record evidence on feasibility. | No; NRC's decision was a reasoned determination supported by the record. |
| Did BN's exhibits establish a genuine dispute about offshore wind viability for baseload power? | BN offered studies suggesting offshore wind could provide baseload energy and interconnection could enable it. | Exhibits did not show current or near-term viability or baseload capability; some exhibits undercut BN's position. | No; exhibits failed to raise a genuine dispute on feasibility within the near-term renewal horizon. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 435 U.S. 519 (1978) (NEPA procedural limits and scope of agency considerations)
- Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (1983) (NEPA's hard look requirement and public consideration)
- Roosevelt Campobello Int'l Park Comm'n v. EPA, 684 F.2d 1041 (1st Cir. 1982) (FEASIBILITY and forecasting in environmental reviews)
- United States v. Coalition for Buzzards Bay, 644 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2011) (NEPA procedural constraints and hard look at alternatives)
- Town of Winthrop v. FAA, 535 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (environmental impact statements not research documents)
- Envtl. Law & Policy Ctr. v. NRC, 470 F.3d 676 (7th Cir. 2006) (baseload concept and NRC's framing of alternatives)
- Massachusetts v. NRC, 522 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2008) (statutory framework for licensing and NEPA integration)
- Massachusetts v. NRC, 878 F.2d 1516 (1st Cir. 1989) (agency discretion in licensing matters)