ML24312A007
| ML24312A007 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach, Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 11/06/2024 |
| From: | Leidich A, Walsh T Florida Power & Light Co, Point Beach, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP |
| To: | NRC/OGC, US Federal Judiciary, District Court for the District of Columbia |
| References | |
| 24-1318, 2083788 | |
| Download: ML24312A007 (1) | |
Text
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
)
BEYOND NUCLEAR, INC. and
)
the SIERRA CLUB, INC.
)
)
Petitioners,
)
Case No. 24-1318
)
- v.
)
)
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR
)
REGULATORY COMMISSION and
)
the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Respondents.
)
)
JOINT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE BY FLORIDA POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY AND NEXTERA ENERGY POINT BEACH, LLC IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS In accordance with Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Circuit Rule 15(b), and the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2348 and 42 U.S.C. § 2239(b), Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) and NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC (NextEra) jointly move this Court for leave to intervene in the above-captioned proceeding.
FPL operates, and holds the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) operating licenses for, the St. Lucie Plant Units 1 and 2 (St.
Lucie) located in Jensen Beach, Florida. FPL owns 100% of St. Lucie Unit 1 and USCA Case #24-1318 Document #2083788 Filed: 11/06/2024 Page 1 of 13
2 approximately 85% of Unit 2. NextEra owns and operates, and holds the NRC operating licenses for, the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 (Point Beach) located in Two Rivers, Wisconsin. Movants seek to intervene in support of Respondents in this proceeding and offer the following grounds in support of this motion.
In November 2020, NextEra submitted to the NRC an application for the subsequent license renewal of the operating licenses for Point Beach. See NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Subsequent license renewal application; receipt, 85 Fed. Reg. 85,685 (Dec. 29, 2020). The Point Beach subsequent license renewal application remains pending before the NRC, and the NRC has not yet issued a supplemental environmental impact statement for the licensing action.
In August 2021, FPL submitted to the NRC an application for the subsequent license renewal of the St. Lucie operating licenses. See Florida Power and Light Company; NextEra Energy; St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2; Subsequent license renewal application; receipt, 86 Fed. Reg. 45,768 (Aug. 16, 2021). That application remains pending before the NRC, and the NRC has not yet published a draft supplemental environmental impact statement for the licensing action.
USCA Case #24-1318 Document #2083788 Filed: 11/06/2024 Page 2 of 13
3 NRC reactor operating licenses are for an initial term not to exceed 40 years.
10 C.F.R. § 50.51(a). Operating licenses can be renewed for a first additional term not to exceed 20 years beyond the expiration of the initial term, and a renewed license can be subsequently renewed. 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.31(b), (d). The term subsequent license renewal or SLR refers to a 20-year renewal term occurring after the first renewal term.
For decades, the Commission has streamline[d] its evaluation of environmental issues during license renewal by resolving many issues generically, through the use of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (GEIS). See NRDC v. US NRC, 823 F. 3d 641, 644 (D.C. Cir. 2016). The GEIS defines which environmental impacts from license renewal are generic and would essentially be the same at all nuclear power plants (Category 1 impacts), and which impacts could be different among the plants and thus would require a plant-specific analysis of the impacts (Category 2 impacts). See 61 Fed. Reg. 28,467 (June 5, 1996) (issuing Initial GEIS); 78 Fed. Reg. 37,325 (June 20, 2013) (issuing 2013 amended GEIS); 89 Fed. Reg. 64,166 (Aug. 6, 2024) (issuing 2024 amended GEIS). The NRC codifies those impact determinations in its regulations at 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, and updates the GEIS every 10 years to USCA Case #24-1318 Document #2083788 Filed: 11/06/2024 Page 3 of 13
4 determine what, if anything, in the rule requires revision. NRDC, 823 F. 3d at 645.
In 2022, the Commission concluded that the NRC staff had not conducted an adequate environmental impact analysis for the subsequent license renewal period in the then-current 2013 GEIS, and thus the staff could not rely on the previous generic determinations of environmental impacts for the initial license renewal term when evaluating the environmental impacts for a subsequent license renewal term. See 89 Fed. Reg at 64,170.
In August 2024, the Commission amend[ed] its environmental protection regulations by updating [its] 2013 findings on the environmental effect of renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant, and issued the 2024 GEIS.
Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review; Final rule and guidance; issuance, 89 Fed. Reg. 64,166 (Aug. 6, 2024) (issuing Revision 2 to NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants). The 2024 final rule and 2024 GEIS addressed the Commissions 2022 orders and directives by thoroughly evaluating [subsequent license renewal] in this review and update. 89 Fed. Reg at 64,167.
FPL, on behalf of itself and of its affiliates, NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC and NextEra, participated in this rulemaking by submitting comments. See USCA Case #24-1318 Document #2083788 Filed: 11/06/2024 Page 4 of 13
5 Comment (0013) from Dianne Strand on behalf of FPL and NextEra on PR Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review (May 2, 2023), https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/main.jsp?AccessionNum ber=ML23122A312.
By petition to this Court dated October 7, 2024, Beyond Nuclear, Inc. and the Sierra Club, Inc. initiated the above-captioned proceeding seeking review, reversal, and vacating of the above-summarized 2024 final rule and the 2024 GEIS.
As owners and operators of, and holders of the NRC operating licenses for St. Lucie and Point Beach, FPL and NextEra will be directly impacted by this Courts review of this final rule. Both nuclear power plants have already suffered delays in their respective subsequent license renewal efforts due to the Commissions decision to issue a revised GEIS for the second extended period of operation.
If Petitioners requests for relief were granted, and if the Commission was ordered to suspend, modify, or revoke the 2024 final rule or the 2024 GEIS, then rights of FPL and NextEra with respect to the subsequent license renewals of their respective nuclear plants could be substantially and adversely affected. The use of the 2024 GEIS and the final 2024 rule to address the environmental impacts of USCA Case #24-1318 Document #2083788 Filed: 11/06/2024 Page 5 of 13
6 subsequent license renewal is efficient and provides regulatory certainty for nuclear applicants and licensees. FPL and NextEra relied on the 2013 GEIS in their subsequent license renewal applications and are relying on the 2024 GEIS to further supplement their applications to account for this final rule. Both would be harmed by having to conduct inefficient, site-specific environmental reviews for all environmental issues in their respective proceedings, resulting in increased costs and delayed regulatory approvals. Invalidation of the 2024 final rule and the 2024 GEIS would damage the efficiency and timing of the ongoing licensing proceedings for both St. Lucie and Point Beach, which are now adapting to the 2024 GEIS. FPL and NextEra have a unique, material stake in the outcome of the matter not shared by Petitioners or Respondents.
This Court has routinely granted intervention and party status to affected NRC licensees or applicants in lawsuits challenging NRC rulemakings, including challenges to generic environmental determinations. For example, in 2011 this Court granted intervenor status to a nuclear utility in a case challenging the NRCs rulemaking on the consideration of the environmental impacts of the temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites. See Order Granting Motions for Leave to Intervene, New York v. NRC, No. 11-1045 (D.C. Cir. May 9, 2011), ECF No. 1306901 (granting intervenor status to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.); New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (merits decision). See also Toledo USCA Case #24-1318 Document #2083788 Filed: 11/06/2024 Page 6 of 13
7 Coal. for Safe Energy v. Nuclear Regulatory Commn, No.95-161, 1995 U.S. App.
LEXIS 38540, at *1 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (granting request of nuclear utilities to intervene in a challenge to an NRC rule and issuance of a certificate of compliance); Natural Res. Def. Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Commn, 685 F.2d 459, 459 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (identifying nuclear utilities as respondent intervenors in a challenge to NRC rules regarding the generic environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle), revd on other grounds 462 U.S. 87 (1983).
In the present case, FPL and NextEra are situated in the same manner as the nuclear utilities in the above-cited cases: their interests in their ongoing licensing proceedings will be adversely impacted should Petitioners prevail.
This motion is timely filed because it was filed within 30 days of the petition for reviews filing. Fed. R. App. P. 15(d).
Prior to filing this motion, counsel for Movants consulted with counsel for Petitioners, Respondents, and pending intervenor Nuclear Energy Institute as to whether they would oppose the motion. Petitioners do not take a position on the motion and intend to respond when it is filed. Respondent NRC does not oppose the motion. Respondent United States of America did not respond prior to the filing of this motion. Pending intervenor NEI does not oppose the motion.
USCA Case #24-1318 Document #2083788 Filed: 11/06/2024 Page 7 of 13
8 WHEREFORE, FPL and NextEra respectfully request that their joint motion to intervene in the above-captioned proceeding be granted for the reasons stated above.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Anne Leidich Anne Leidich Timothy J. V. Walsh Jay E. Silberg PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 1200 Seventeenth St., NW Washington, DC 20036 202-663-8707 anne.leidich@pillsburylaw.com timothy.walsh@pillsburylaw.com jay.silberg@pillsburylaw.com COUNSEL FOR FLORIDA POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY AND NEXTERA ENERGY POINT BEACH, LLC Dated: November 6, 2024 USCA Case #24-1318 Document #2083788 Filed: 11/06/2024 Page 8 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32(g), I certify the following:
- 1. This motion complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App.
P. 27(d)(2)(A) because this motion contains 1,437 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f).
- 2. This motion complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App.
P. 32(a)(5) and the typestyle requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in a 14-point Times New Roman font.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Anne Leidich Dated:
November 6, 2024 USCA Case #24-1318 Document #2083788 Filed: 11/06/2024 Page 9 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF PARTIES AND AMICI CURIAE In accordance with Circuit Rules 27(a)(4) and 28(a)(1)(A), movants Florida Power & Light Company and NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC certify that, except for movants Florida Power & Light Company and NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, and pending intervenor Nuclear Energy Institute, all parties, intervenors, and amici appearing in this court are listed in Petitioners Certificate as to Parties, Rulings, and Related Cases.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Anne Leidich Dated:
November 6, 2024 USCA Case #24-1318 Document #2083788 Filed: 11/06/2024 Page 10 of 13
JOINT CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT In accordance with Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Circuit Rule 26.1, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) and NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC respectfully submit this Joint Corporate Disclosure Statement identifying: (1) the parent corporation for each entity and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of each entitys stock or other ownership shares; and (2) the general nature and purpose for each entity, insofar as is relevant to this litigation:
- 1.
NextEra Energy, Inc., a publicly held company, is the parent company and owns all the stock of FPL. FPL owns 100 percent of and is the licensed operator of St. Lucie Plant Unit 1 and owns approximately 85 percent of and is the licensed operator of St. Lucie Plant Unit 2. The St. Lucie Plant is a dual unit nuclear reactor located in Jensen Beach, Florida. FPL also owns 100 percent of and is the licensed operator of Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4, a dual-unit nuclear reactor located near Homestead, Florida.
- 2.
FPL is a rate-regulated electric utility engaged primarily in the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electric energy in Florida. FPL provides service to its electric customers through an integrated transmission and USCA Case #24-1318 Document #2083788 Filed: 11/06/2024 Page 11 of 13
2 distribution system that links its generation facilities to its customers. The St.
Lucie and Turkey Point nuclear plants are FPL electric generation facilities.
- 3.
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC is a wholly owned direct subsidiary of ESI Energy, LLC, which in turn is a wholly owned direct subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources, LLC. NextEra Energy Resources, LLC is a wholly owned direct subsidiary of NextEra Energy Capital Holdings, Inc., which in turn is a wholly owned direct subsidiary of NextEra Energy, Inc. NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC owns 100 percent of and is the licensed operator of Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, a dual unit reactor located in Two Rivers, Wisconsin.
- 4.
No publicly held company owns 10% or more of the stock of NextEra Energy, Inc.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Anne Leidich Dated:
November 6, 2024 USCA Case #24-1318 Document #2083788 Filed: 11/06/2024 Page 12 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 6, 2024, the foregoing document was served on the on all counsel of record via the Courts e-filing system.
I further certify that courtesy copies of the foregoing document have also been sent by email to counsel of record for Petitioners, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the United States of America, and pending intervenor Nuclear Energy Institute.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Anne Leidich Date: November 6, 2024 USCA Case #24-1318 Document #2083788 Filed: 11/06/2024 Page 13 of 13