ML19309D323

Public Watchdogs 10 CFR 2.206 Petition - SONGS September 24, 2019

ML19309D323
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	09/24/2019
From:	La Bella C Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, Public Watchdogs
To:	NRC/EDO, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
A CRUZ DUWP
References
2.206
Download: ML19309D323 (25)

Text

1 CHARLES G. LA BELLA (SBN 183448) charles.labella@btlaw.com 2 ERIC BESTE (SBN 226089) 3 eric.beste@btlaw.com ZACHARY P. HELLER (CA Admission pending) 4 zachary.heller@btlaw.com BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 5 655 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, California 92101 6

Telephone: 619.321.5000 7 Facsimile: 619.284.3894 8 RANDY GORDON randy.gordon@btlaw.com 9 LUCAS C. WOHLFORD lwohlford@btlaw.com 10 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 2121 N. Pearl Street, Suite 700 11 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: 214.258.4148 12 Facsimile: 214.258.4199 13 Attorneys for Petitioner, 14 Public Watchdogs UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 15 Before the Executive Director for Operations 16 17 PUBLIC WATCHDOGS, a California 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 PETITION TO 501(c)(3) corporation, IMMEDIATELY SUSPEND 18 DECOMMISSIONING OPERATIONS 19 AT SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR Petitioner, GENERATING STATION UNITS 2 AND 20 3

v.

21 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22 COMPANY AND SAN DIEGO GAS 23 & ELECTRIC COMPANY, 24 Licensees.

25 26 27 28 1

10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.206, Petitioner Public Watchdogs (Petitioner) hereby 2 submits its Petition to Immediately Suspend Decommissioning Operations at San Onofre 3 Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Units 2 and 3:

4 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 5 1. As part of the ongoing decommissioning of SONGS Units 2 and 3, Licensees 6 Southern California Edison Company (Edison) and San Diego Gas & Electric Company 7 (collectively, Licensees) are in the process of burying hundreds of tons of deadly spent 8 nuclear fuel a mere 108 feet from one of Californias most populated public beaches, 9 within a tsunami zone surrounded by active fault lines, in canisters that are damaged, 10 defective, and not properly designed to serve their intended purpose. Throughout the 11 decommissioning process, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has effectively 12 turned a blind eye to multiple alarming safety hazards created by Licensees burial of spent 13 nuclear fuel at SONGS, including evidence that the canisters being used by Licensees are 14 damaged and defective, and that Licensees do not have adequate safety procedures or 15 competent staff to complete the transfer of the spent nuclear fuel from wet to dry storage.

16 2. Whats more, the NRCs various actions permitting the implementation of 17 Licensees decommissioning plan and authorizing Licensees dangerous burial of spent 18 nuclear fuel at SONGS are based on unreasonable and fundamentally flawed assumptions 19 that: (1) the United States Department of Energy (DOE) will begin accepting spent 20 nuclear fuel from nuclear generating stations like SONGS in 2024 or 2028; (2) all of the 21 spent nuclear fuel currently being buried at SONGS will be permanently removed from 22 the site by 2049; and (3) the SONGS site will be restored to a condition that is acceptable 23 for unrestricted use by 2051. In fact, no central repository for permanent storage of spent 24 nuclear fuel exists in the United States, there is no viable plan to open such a permanent 25 repository, and the DOE undoubtedly will not begin accepting spent nuclear fuel for 26 permanent storage from SONGS or any other nuclear generating station in 2024, 2028, or 27 any other time in the foreseeable future. As the United States Court of Appeals for the 28 District of Columbia Circuit has observed: At this time, there is not even a prospective 2

10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 site for a repository, let alone progress toward the actual construction of one. New York 2 v. Nuclear Regulatory Comn, 681 F.3d 471, 474 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

3 3. By ignoring the manifold safety hazards posed by Licensees 4 decommissioning operations and permitting Licensees to implement their 5 decommissioning plan based on the unreasonable assumption that spent nuclear fuel will 6 be stored at SONGS only temporarily, the NRC has abdicated its paramount responsibility 7 to protect public health and safety and it has failed to ensure Licensees will have adequate 8 funds to pay for the full cost of decommissioning and restoring the SONGS site through 9 the termination of their license. Accordingly, Petitioners respectfully request that the 10 NRC issue an order immediately suspending all decommissioning operations at SONGS, 11 including the burial of spent nuclear fuel at the SONGS site, and requiring Licensees to 12 submit an amended decommissioning plan that properly accounts for the reality that the 13 spent nuclear fuel being buried at SONGS will remain there indefinitely.

14 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 15 I. LICENSEES NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF SONGS 16 4. In August 1963, Congress enacted Public Law 88-82 authorizing the 17 construct[ion], operate[ion], maintain[enance], and use of a nuclear power plant on 18 approximately 90 acres of land located at the Camp Pendleton military base. In May 1964, 19 the United States of America granted Licensees an easement for the sole purpose of 20 construction, operation, maintenance and use of a nuclear electric generating station at 21 the Camp Pendleton site.

22 5. Licensees operated three nuclear electric generating units at SONGS.

23 Licensees operated Unit 1 from approximately 1968 until 1992, when they began the 24 decommissioning process for that unit. Licensees operated Units 2 and 3 from 25 approximately 1983 and 1984 (respectively) until June 12, 2013, when they submitted 26 written certification to the NRC that they were permanently ceasing operation of those 27 units.

28 3

10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 6. Throughout its time as an operational nuclear power plant, SONGS was 2 marred by numerous instances of poor safety and regulatory compliance, which ultimately 3 contributed to the cessation of operations at the site. These compliance debacles included 4 the backward installation of a 420-ton nuclear reactor vessel and the installation of 5 replacement steam generators, without obtaining the requisite approval from the NRC, 6 which ultimately malfunctioned and leaked deadly radioactive steam at the site.

7 II. LICENSEES FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 8 7. On September 23, 2014, Licensees submitted their decommissioning plan to 9 the NRC, including a Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR), an 10 Irradiated Fuel Management Plan (IFMP), and a Site Specific Decommissioning Cost 11 Estimate (DCE). See Exhibits 1, 2, and 3.

12 8. Licensees PSDAR provided a general overview and timetable for the 13 decommissioning, decontamination, restoration, and license termination activities at the 14 SONGS site. The PSDAR specified that Licensees would begin transferring spent nuclear 15 fuel to dry storage in the SONGS Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) 16 in 2014, and complete the transfer by June 2019. See Exhibit 1. Thereafter, Licensees 17 proposed to store the spent nuclear fuel in the ISFSI during decommissioning from June 18 2019 to December 2031. Id. Finally, Licensees proposed to store spent nuclear fuel in the 19 ISFSI during a post-decommissioning period from December 2031 to December 2049. Id.

20 This timeline was based on the assumption that the DOE will begin accepting spent 21 nuclear fuel from the industry in 2024, that all spent nuclear fuel will be permanently 22 removed from the SONGS ISFSI and transferred to an off-site permanent repository by 23 2049, and that the SONGS site will be restored to a condition acceptable for unrestricted 24 use and returned to the U.S. Navy by 2051. Id. Licensees expressly based this assumption 25 on some unspecified previously documented positions of the DOE, which indicates that 26 shipments from the industry could begin as early as 2024 and SONGS place in the current 27 queue. Id. Notably, however, Licensees acknowledged that both the date on which the 28 4

10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 DOE would begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from the industry and SONGS place in the 2 queue are subject to change. Id.

3 9. Licensees IFMP provides additional details regarding their strategy for 4 storing, monitoring, and managing spent nuclear fuel at the SONGS ISFSI during and 5 after the decommissioning period and through ultimate termination of the SONGS 6 licenses. See Exhibit 2. Like the PSDAR, Licensees IFMP is expressly based on the 7 assumptions that the DOE would begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from the industry in 8 2024 and that all spent nuclear fuel would be permanently removed from the SONGS 9 ISFSI by 2049. Id. Again, however, Licensees provided no objective evidentiary support 10 for these critical assumptions.

11 10. Finally, Licensees DCE provided a detailed estimate of the anticipated costs 12 of the decommissioning and spent fuel management activities at SONGS. See Exhibit 3.

13 Licensees projected that the total cost of decommissioning and restoring the SONGS site 14 would exceed $4 billion, of which approximately $1.3 billion was allocated for spent fuel 15 management through 2049. Id. Once again, Licensees based their DCE on the 16 assumptions that the DOE will begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from the industry in 17 2024 and that all spent nuclear fuel will be removed from the SONGS ISFSI by 2049. Id.

18 Significantly, however, Licensees DCE expressly acknowledged that DOE has not 19 committed to accept [Edisons] canistered spent fuel. Id. Despite this acknowledgment, 20 the DCE also confusingly stated: But for purposes of this estimate, it is assumed that an 21 [Edison-funded] dry storage facility will not be necessary. Id.

22 11. At the time Licensees submitted their PSDAR, IFMP, and DCE, there was, 23 in fact, no viable plan or intention for the DOE to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel in 24 2024 or any other time. Indeed, Licensees submitted their PSDAR, IFMP, and DCE 25 approximately 4 years after the DOE withdrew its application for a license to construct a 26 permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada and 27 approximately 3 years after the NRC suspended its adjudicatory proceeding regarding the 28 withdrawal of the DOEs license application. See Exhibit 4. In other words, the 5

10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 fundamental predicate for Licensees decommissioning plan was, and remains today, a 2 pure fiction that is completely untethered to objective reality.

3 III. LICENSEES SELECTION OF HOLTECS HI-STORM UMAX STORAGE SYSTEM AND DEFECTIVE THIN-WALL CANISTERS 4

12. At the time Licensees submitted their decommissioning plan, they had not 5

yet identified a location for the expanded SONGS ISFSI, nor had they selected storage 6

equipment or vendors for the build out of the ISFSI. See Exhibit 2.

7

13. In December 2014, Licensees selected a location for the expanded SONGS 8

ISFSI and selected Holtec Internationals (Holtec) HI-STORM UMAX storage system 9

for the temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel. See Exhibit 5. The location selected 10 for the ISFSI is a mere 108 feet from the Pacific Ocean, within a tsunami zone surrounded 11 by active fault lines, and little more than a foot above the mean high tide level, making it 12 especially susceptible to flooding as sea levels rise. See Exhibit 6. Notably, although 13 Licensees decommissioning plan contemplated, albeit fancifully, that spent nuclear fuel 14 would be stored at the SONGS ISFSI for at least 30 years, Holtec only warranted its 15 storage system for 10 years. See Exhibit 7.

16

14. Moreover, the Holtec dry storage canisters in which the spent nuclear fuel is 17 being stored at the SONGS ISFSI are defective and unfit for the indefinite storage of spent 18 nuclear fuel. Each and every one of the 73 individual canisters will contain more deadly 19 radioactive Cesium-137 than was released globally during the Chernobyl disaster, as well 20 as dozens of other radioactive and toxic fission byproducts. The failure of even one of 21 these canisters will have calamitous consequences. Severe problems with Licensees 22 decommissioning plan make this nightmare scenario a real possibility.

23

15. First, although the radioisotopes in each canister remain radioactive, toxic, 24 and deadly for hundreds of years (and one, Plutonium-239, remains deadly for over 24,000 25 years), Holtec warrants the canisters for only 25 years. See Exhibit 7. Thus, the warranty 26 on the canisters will expire long before 2049, when Licensees unreasonably assume that 27 all spent fuel will be transferred to permanent storage, and there is no objective basis for 28 6

10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 determining that the canisters will remain viable beyond 2049, even though they will 2 likely remain in the SONGS ISFSI indefinitely.

3 16. Second, the design of the Holtec canisters the Licensees are using to store the 4 spent nuclear fuel deviates from the acceptable minimum safety thresholds required for 5 the design and manufacture of nuclear waste storage containers. Indeed, the Holtec 6 canisters are so-called thin-wall canisters with only a 5/8-inch thick stainless-steel wall 7 with an aluminum egg-crate structure designed to hold up to 37 spent fuel assemblies.

8 Holtec designs, manufactures, and supplies the canisters under strict guidelines 9 promulgated by the NRC and, more important, under the conditions of applicable 10 certificates of compliance (CoCs). See Exhibit 8. The NRC issues a CoC conditioned 11 on the holder strictly hewing to specific technical specifications and approved contents 12 and design features. But after receiving CoCs for the thin-wall canisters being used at 13 SONGS, Holtec secretly modified the design and manufacture of the canisters, apparently 14 to reduce manufacturing costs and/or to correct a flaw in the original design. By making 15 the change surreptitiously, Holtec avoided a costly and time-consuming NRC design 16 review and attendant risk analysis. In any case, the design change introduced a critical 17 flaw into the casks that is discussed in further detail below.

18 17. Third, due to the design of the canisters, the narrow slots in which they are 19 loaded into the storage system, and the equipment used to load the canisters into the 20 storage system, extensive gouging of the canisters occurs during routine loading into the 21 storage system. Over time, the gouges in the canisters can grow into deeper cracks that 22 make the canisters susceptible to leaking and make it impossible for the canisters to be 23 safely removed from the ISFSI in the future. However, there is no way to adequately 24 monitor or inspect the canisters once they are in the ground, and no way to fix them even 25 if critical damage to them could be identified.

26 27 28 7

10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 IV. NRC GRANTS A LICENSE AMENDMENT THAT PERMITS 2 DECOMMISSIONING OF SONGS ACCORDING TO LICENSEES FLAWED DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 3

18. Because the original license granted to the Licensees was narrow in scope 4

in that it only permitted them to operate the plant and temporarily store spent nuclear fuel 5

and wastea license amendment would be necessary to decommission the plant.

6 However, when Licensees decided to permanently cease nuclear operations, they sought 7

to utilize the nuclear power plant for an entirely different purposethat is, the long-term 8

storage of spent nuclear fuel. Thus, the grant or denial of the Licensees request for a 9

license amendment was a matter of significant public concern, requiring an opportunity 10 for meaningful public participation.

11

19. Without meaningful public participation or an independent assessment, on 12 July 17, 2015, the NRC granted Licensees request for a license amendment that permitted 13 them to begin decommissioning the SONGS facility. See Exhibit 9. Specifically, the NRC 14 authorized Licensees to Take actions necessary to decommission the plant and continue 15 to maintain the facility, including, where applicable, the storage, control and maintenance 16 of the spent fuel, in a safe condition. Id. In so doing, the NRC found that there was 17 reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be 18 conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such 19 activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations. Id. In 20 fact, the NRC simply relied on Licensees own flawed analysis instead of objective criteria 21 or independent analysis, enabling Licensees to present their internal, untested, and 22 unchecked conclusions, without even a suggestion of an objective analysis or oversight.

23

20. In addition, the NRC repeatedly granted Licensees numerous subsequent 24 license amendments and exemptions, regardless of the scope and magnitude of the 25 proposed changes. See Exhibit 10. Among these exemptions was a staggering reduction 26 in the amount of onsite liability insurance required to be maintained by Licensees from 27 the $1.06 billion required by NRC regulations to a paltry $50 million. See Exhibit 11.

28 8

10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 V. LICENSEES MULTIPLE DECOMMISSIONING DISASTERS 2 21. From the outset, Licensees decommissioning operations have been marred 3 by a series of miscues, lackadaisical managerial oversight, and attempts to conceal the 4 same. Unsurprisingly, this behavior has caused Licensees to repeatedly fall short of the 5 NRCs identified standards and promulgated regulations. Among the many failures of the 6 Licensees decommissioning efforts are the following:

7 A. Licensees compromised the structural integrity of twenty-nine canisters they buried at SONGS.

8

22. Licensees have consistently used fewer personnel than necessary to ensure 9

that the Holtec canisters are safely and effectively loaded into the ISFSI. For example, 10 Licensees have employed an inadequate number of spotters at different vantage points, 11 resulting in limited visibility of the canister as it is being loaded into its enclosure. This 12 negligent deviation from safe fuel-handling procedures has already caused substantial 13 harm to the millions of people around the SONGS facility. See Exhibit 12.

14

23. On information and belief, and as revealed in NRC documents and noted at 15 public hearings, the Licensees negligently gouged and then buried twenty-nine (29) fully 16 loaded canisters at SONGS. Experts believe this gouging may lead to deeper, through-the-17 wall cracks, which will make the future safe movement of these canisters impossible 18 (despite the fact that the safety of the canisters storage location is only warranted for 10 19 years). Experts also point out that damage to the canisters will be exacerbated, inter alia, 20 by the presence of salt air, fog, rain, and salt waterthe precise weather conditions that 21 the canisters will be exposed to at the current location just steps from the Pacific Ocean.

22 See Exhibit 6.

23

24. Upon information and belief, many (if not all) of the canisters were 24 negligently scratched during transportation to the ISFSI. According to an NRC inspection 25 report, and as admitted at a Community Engagement Panel Meeting by NRC spokesperson 26 Scott Morris, every single canister was damaged during the downloading process: The 27 canister involved in the near-drop event [and] all the other canisters . . . experienced a little 28 9

10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 bit of scuffing, and a little bit of contact going into the ISFSI. See Exhibit 13. As 2 discussed below, one NRC inspector concluded that the damage to the canisters during 3 loading into the SONGS ISFSI caused them to fall out of compliance with requirements 4 of the applicable CoC. See Exhibits 27 and 29. The NRC, however, simply ignored this 5 assessment and cleared the way for even more defective and non-compliant canisters to 6 be buried at SONGS.1 7 B. Licensees nearly dropped two 49-ton canisters full of deadly radioactive nuclear waste and attempted to cover it up.

8

25. On July 22, 2018, Licensees nearly dropped a 49-ton canister full of deadly 9

radioactive nuclear waste more than 18 feet into the ISFSI when it was caught on a quarter 10 inch thick steel guide ring. Licensees referred to this event as an unsecured load event.

11 In actuality, this event could have turned San Onofre State Beach Park into a permanently 12 uninhabitable nuclear wasteland.

13

26. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 72.75, any incident involving nuclear waste must be 14 reported to the NRC within twenty-four hours, yet the July 22 failure was not formally 15 reported on the NRCs Event Notifications Report. The sole purpose of 10 C.F.R. § 72.75 16 is to insure that potentially hazardous events are promptly reported and investigated and 17 to allow for public disclosure of potential safety risks.

18

27. Despite the regulations clear obligation to provide a formal written report 19 for events of this nature, Licensees never provided a formal report for the July 22 20 unsecured load event. As a result, the public was kept in the dark about the potentially 21 disastrous incident in July.

22

28. Ten days later, on August 3, 2018, the Licensees once again lost control of a 23 49-ton canister full of deadly radioactive nuclear waste while it was being lowered into a 24 25 1

Despite the Licensees efforts to downplay the significance of the gouging found on 26 Holtec canisters, the potential consequences are staggering. Holtecs CEO admitted as much during a public meeting, acknowledging that even a microscopic crack in a canister 27 is enough to cause a release of millions of curies of radioactivity. Dr. Kris Singh, CEO, Holtec International, on Dry Canister Nuclear Waste Storage, YouTube (Oct. 14, 2014),

28 at 31:04-34:30(at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5LAQgTcvAU). See Exhibit 14.

10 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 below-ground storage silo. While moving the canister, Licensees employees snagged the 2 49-ton canister on the same quarter-inch wide steel flange that captured the canister during 3 the July 22 event. Licensees personnel did not realize that the equipment holding the 4 canister had been caught on the flange.

5 29. A whistleblower, David Fritch, came forward and publicly reported the event 6 six days later during the August 9 Community Engagement Panel Meeting. Prior to the 7 whistleblowers disclosure, Licensees representative did not disclose the August 3 near-8 miss disaster when discussing the work stoppage put in place after the event. In fact, 9 Edisons then Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer, Tom Palmisano, affirmatively 10 misled the public and misrepresented that the work stoppage was a planned stop so that 11 they could perform necessary maintenance, provide employees with time off, and analyze 12 the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the decommissioning process at that point.

13 30. However, during the public comment portion of the event, Fritch (a Safety 14 Professional employed as a contractor at the SONGS facility) disclosed the misconduct as 15 the actual cause for the work stoppage. Fritch informed the public about the near-miss 16 event of August 3rd, and directly contradicted Licensees public statements that the work 17 stoppage was a planned event.

18 31. Fritchs whistle-blowing sparked widespread media attention on the safety 19 hazards posed by the Defendants negligence at the facility. This alone should have 20 prompted the NRC to perform a professional and independent risk assessment to 21 determine the actual risks at the site, and take appropriate remedial steps to avoid or 22 minimize future risks. Again, however, the NRC abdicated its responsibilities and 23 continued to do nothing to protect the public or adequately monitor the situation.

24 32. As before, the Licensees failed to issue an NRC Event Notification Report 25 within twenty-four hours of the Friday, August 3 event as required the NRCs regulations.

26 Instead, they waited more than six weeks to report the incident. Moreover, rather than 27 submitting the legally required written report, Licensees waited until Monday, August 6, 28 to informally call the NRC. Licensees private phone call deprived the public not only of 11 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 a written contemporaneous report of the near fatal disaster but prevented transparency of 2 their actions at SONGS. This oral notification both failed to comply with the NRCs own 3 Event Reporting Requirements under 10 CFR § 72.75, and failed to notify the public of 4 the significant public safety hazards being posed by Licensees decommissioning 5 operations. In this way, Licensees attempted to keep the August 3 near-catastrophic-miss 6 a secret.

7 33. This concealment was not accidental. In fact, the July 22 and August 3 near-8 miss events occurred during a required public comment period for the California State 9 Lands Commissions Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) directly related to the 10 SONGS decommissioning project. That period ran from June 28 until August 30. By 11 delaying formal written notice of the events, Licensees were able to avoid meaningful 12 public participation in connection with the interrelated EIR.

13 34. Rather than taking precautionary steps to protect the public in light of the 14 Licensees demonstrated negligence, upon information and belief, the NRC completely 15 deferred to Licensees and blindly relied upon their assurances that everything was under 16 control. Indeed, the NRC went so far as to summarily reject a written request by 17 Congressman Mike Levin for the installation of permanent NRC inspectors at the facility.

18 See Exhibit 15.

19 35. On August 17, 2018, in response to the August 3 near-miss, the NRC issued 20 an Inspection Charter for SONGS, which found five violations that were ultimately 21 penalized by the imposition of a wrist-slapping fee of $116,000 on Edison. See Exhibits 22 16 and 17. Perhaps more troubling, the NRC has not required Licensees to file an Event 23 Notification Report for the July 22 event, and has ignored their flagrant violation of federal 24 law for not filing an Event Notification Report for 47 days after the August 3 event.

25 36. Instead of ordering the Licensees to cease operations at SONGS, the NRC 26 seemingly accepted the Licensees verbal commitment to discontinue loading until the 27 NRC issued its final Inspection Report.

28 12 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 VI. HOLTECS SURREPTITIOUS REDESIGN OF THE DRY STORAGE 2 CANISTERS 3 37. In February 2018, while preparing to load one of the thin-wall canisters with 4 spent nuclear fuel, Licensees discovered a loose bolt inside. After reporting the issue to 5 Holtec, Holtec revealed that it had redesigned the already defective canisters to include a 6 different stand-off shim. The purpose of these shims is to enhance convection cooling 7 of the hot fuel assemblies by creating additional space to allow cooling helium gas to flow 8 throughout the canister so that the spent nuclear fuel does not overheat. The newly 9 designed shims included bolts that were not part of the original design. As Licensees 10 discovered, the newly introduced bolts are susceptible to breaking loose inside the 11 canister, which could ultimately cause a restriction of airflow within the canister and a 12 failure of the canisters cooling mechanism. Left uncooled, spent nuclear fuel will heat 13 up to the point of a criticaland deadlynuclear reaction. Thus, a failure of the canisters 14 cooling mechanism would be disastrous.

15 38. Under NRC regulations, Holtec was required to obtain a CoC amendment 16 prior to implementing any proposed change to the design of its canisters if the change 17 would result in more than a minimal increase in the frequency or likelihood of an accident, 18 malfunction, or the consequences of such accident or malfunction. Despite the serious 19 risks posed by Holtecs design changes, however, Holtec failed to even notify the NRC, 20 much less obtain a CoC amendment, before changing the design of the canisters.

21 39. On March 22, 2018, Licensees admitted during a Community Engagement 22 Panel Meeting that four canisters with the defective shim design had already been filled 23 with spent nuclear fuel and buried at SONGS. To make matters worse, Mr. Palmisano 24 made a stunning admission that there is no existing method for safely opening defectively 25 designed canisters to see if the stand-off shims were broken in the four buried canisters.

26 Thus, the SONGS Defendants have no way of ensuring that the fuel assemblies and/or 27 cooling mechanisms have not been critically compromised. Mr. Palmisano admitted that 28 13 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 it would be at least three years before the techniques necessary to unload and inspect a 2 canister could possibly be developed:

3 So nobody has unloaded a commercial canister, either a bolted cask or a welded cask or canister. . . . What you would do is basically have a 4 mechanism, either to do it in a fuel pool or do it in a dry transfer facility. .

. . The real challenge as we would understand it today, and nobody has had 5 to do it yet, is the reflood. Certainly, technically possible. What I would tell you is just I was back in Washington with the NRC last week, if you 6 were just to brainstorm, this would probably be a two- to three-year project to develop the techniques, pile up the techniques. The NRC would want to 7 have explicit approval on this because of the radiological hazards.

8 See Exhibit 18 (emphasis added).

9

40. Although the NRC found that Holtec failed to establish adequate design 10 control measures of components important to safety, and failed to perform evaluations 11 before making the design changes, it failed to impose any fine or other penalty on Holtec 12 for these violations.

13

41. Notably, this was not the first time Holtec flouted its obligations to disclose 14 critical information to a regulator. In October 2010, Holtec was debarred as a contractor 15 by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in connection with improper and undisclosed 16 payments made to a federal official to secure a contract to design and construct a dry cask 17 storage system for spent nuclear fuel rods at the Brown Ferry Nuclear Plant. See Exhibit 18

25. Following that debarment, Holtec sought a $260 million tax break related to a nuclear 19 plant project in Camden New Jersey. As part of that process, Holtecs CEO Kris Singh 20 submitted certified forms where he answered no to the question of whether Holtec had 21 ever been barred from doing business with a state or federal agency. In June 2019, New 22 Jersey regulators froze Holtecs $260 million tax-incentive award pending further 23 investigation. See Exhibit 26. Despite Holtecs history of misconduct and deceit, the 24 NRC has continued to blindly accept its representations regarding its defective and 25 dangerous canisters and has approved multiple amendments to the applicable CoCs to 26 permit the continued use of Holtecs defective and dangerous canisters at SONGS and 27 elsewhere.

28 14 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 VII. LICENSEES UPDATED, BUT NO LESS FLAWED, DCE, AND 2 DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING STATUS REPORTS 3 42. As required by the California Nuclear Facilities Decommissioning Act of 4 1985, Licensees updated their DCE for SONGS Units 2 & 3 in 2017. See Exhibit 19.

5 Although Licensees updated DCE continued to estimate that all spent nuclear fuel will 6 be removed from the SONGS ISFSI by 2049, and that the site will be acceptable for 7 unrestricted use by the end of 2051, Licensees changed their assumptions regarding the 8 date the DOE will commence accepting spent nuclear fuel from the industry. Specifically, 9 Licensees 2017 DCE assumed the DOE will begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from the 10 industry in 2028, rather than 2024, because of the DOEs continued failure to perform its 11 contractual obligation to remove spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors in the past 12 four years. Licensees 2017 DCE does not explain, however, why pushing back the 13 estimated date on which the DOE will begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from the industry 14 by four years would not also necessitate pushing back the estimated date for removal of 15 all spent nuclear from the SONGS ISFSI by four years and concomitantly increasing the 16 estimated cost of storing that fuel for an extra four years. Nor does Licensees 2017 DCE 17 provide any objective evidence supporting its updated assumption that the DOE will, in 18 fact, begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from the industry in 2028.

19 43. In subsequent decommissioning funding status reports submitted to the NRC, 20 Licensees repeated this updated assumption regarding the date on which the DOE will 21 begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from the industry. See Exhibits 20 and 21.

22 Specifically, Licensees status reports expressly acknowledge that the current site-23 specific decommissioning cost estimates for San Onofre Unit 1 and San Onofre Units 2 24 and 3 assume that the DOE will commence transporting fuel in 2028. As in the 2017 25 DCE, however, Licensees status reports do not provide any basis for the 2028 assumption, 26 nor do they explain how pushing back the estimated date on which the DOE will begin 27 accepting spent nuclear fuel from the industry would not also necessitate pushing back the 28 date for removal of all spent nuclear fuel from SONGS and concomitantly increasing the 15 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 estimated cost of storing that fuel for an extra four years. Notably, however, Licensees 2 status reports do effectively acknowledge that their fundamental assumptions regarding 3 the DOEs acceptance of spent nuclear fuel are uncertain at best. Indeed, the status reports 4 expressly state that the 2028 assumption may be updated periodically due to the ongoing 5 uncertainties regarding the availability of a permanent repository for spent fuel.

6 VIII. DESPITE SERIOUS PUBLIC CONCERNS AND HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS THE NRC PERMITS LICENSEES TO RESUME 7 DANGEROUS BURIAL OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL 8 44. In March 2019, an NRC inspector, Lee Brookhart, issued an internal report 9 concluding that the damaged and defective Holtec canisters would require a formal design 10 change, approved by the NRC, if they were to continue in service under the applicable 11 CoCs, which require loading into the ISFSI to be accomplished without any scratching or 12 damage to the canisters. See Exhibits 27 and 29. On May 21, 2019, however, the NRC 13 disregarded Mr. Brookharts warnings, Licensees string of poor project oversight, 14 Holtecs history of incompetence and malfeasance, and the fanciful assumptions 15 underlying Licensees entire decommissioning plan, and announced its determination that 16 burial of spent nuclear fuel could continue at SONGS. See Exhibit 22. Thereafter, in July 17 2019, Licensees resumed their decommissioning operations, including the burial of spent 18 nuclear fuel at the SONGS ISFSI.

19 45. Given the uncertainty surrounding the renewed canister burial, as well as 20 litigation seeking to halt the process pending development of a record, Counsel for 21 Petitioneron September 6, 2019requested that Licensees briefly abate further 22 interment. See Exhibit 23. Licensees declined the request and are apparently poised to 23 continue the transfer operations and complete the burial of spent nuclear fuel at SONGS 24 as fast as possible. See Exhibit 24; see also Exhibit 15.

25 26 27 28 16 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 GROUNDS FOR ORDER IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDING 2 DECOMMISSIONING OPERATIONS 3 I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS 4 46. Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.206, Any person may file a request to institute a 5 proceeding pursuant to § 2.202 to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or for any other 6 action as may be proper. Upon the filing of a petition under § 2.206, the NRC may 7 institute a proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke a license or take such other action as 8 may be proper by serving on the licensee or other person subject to the jurisdiction of the 9 Commission an order that will, among other things, [a]llege the violations with which 10 the licensee or other person subject to the Commissions jurisdiction is charged, or the 11 potentially hazardous conditions or other facts deemed to be sufficient ground for the 12 proposed action, and specify the action proposed. Petitioner respectfully requests that 13 the NRC issue an order immediately suspending all decommissioning operations at 14 SONGS, including the burial of spent nuclear fuel at the SONGS ISFSI, and requiring 15 Licensees to submit an amended decommissioning plan that properly accounts for the 16 reality that the spent nuclear fuel being buried at SONGS will remain there indefinitely.

II. LICENSEES BURIAL OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AT SONGS POSES 17 AN IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY 18 47. As detailed above, Licensees are burying hundreds of tons of deadly spent 19 nuclear fuel in thin-wall canisters that cannot be loaded into the storage system without 20 being critically damaged, and cannot be monitored, inspected, repaired, or safely removed 21 once they are loaded. Moreover, at least some of the canisters were surreptitiously 22 redesigned in a way that makes them even more susceptible to failure, and there is no way 23 for anyone to determine whether or when those canisters might fail and cause a nuclear 24 disaster. To make matters worse, Licensees have a proven track record of negligence, if 25 not recklessness, in their past attempts to load the canisters into the SONGS ISFSI, nearly 26 dropping a 49-ton canister full of spent nuclear fuel on at least two occasions.

27 48. As if this werent enough, Licensees have elected to bury these defective 28 canisters in perhaps the most hazardous location possiblemerely 108 feet from, and only 17 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 inches above, a rising Pacific Ocean, in a tsunami zone surrounded by active fault lines, 2 and in a humid environment that is likely to corrode and cause stress-induced cracking of 3 the canisters outer walls.

4 49. In other words, the SONGS ISFSI is a proverbial ticking time bomb, and 5 it is not a matter of whether a nuclear disaster will occur at the site, but a matter of when 6 and how damaging the nuclear disaster will be. Accordingly, the NRC should immediately 7 suspend all decommissioning operations at the SONGS site, including, and especially, the 8 continued burial of spent nuclear fuel, and require Licensees to submit a proposed 9 decommissioning plan that will not pose an imminent threat to public safety.

10 III. LICENSEES ESTIMATED COST OF DECOMMISSIONING SONGS IS BASED ON UNREASONABLE AND FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED 11 ASSUMPTIONS 12 50. The fundamental premise for Licensees various decommissioning cost 13 estimates is that the spent nuclear fuel being buried at SONGS will remain there only 14 temporarily. Indeed, Licensees initial DCE was based on the assumption that the DOE 15 will begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from the industry in 2024 and that all spent nuclear 16 fuel will be permanently removed from SONGS by 2049. Accordingly, Licensees have 17 allocated only enough funds to store and monitor spent nuclear fuel at SONGS through 18 2049.

19 51. Both Licensees and the NRC know full well that these assumptions are 20 unreasonable and untethered to reality because there is currently no viable plan for the 21 DOE to construct a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel and there is certainly no 22 plan or intention for the DOE to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from the industry in 23 2024. In fact, the NRC states in its own publications that, although it considers that 25 24 to 35 years is a reasonable timeframe for repository development, it acknowledges that 25 there is sufficient uncertainty in this estimate that the possibility that more time will be 26 needed cannot be ruled out. See Exhibit 28.

27 52. Although Licensees 2017 DCE and decommissioning funds status reports 28 push back to 2028 the assumed date on which the DOE will begin accepting spent nuclear 18 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 fuel from the industry, this is no more realistic or supported by any actual evidence than 2 the initial 2024 estimate. Furthermore, this updated assumption renders Licensees cost 3 estimates even more fanciful, because, while they push back the date on which they 4 assume the DOE will begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from the industry, they 5 inexplicably maintain the assumption that all spent nuclear fuel will be permanently 6 removed from SONGS by 2049.

7 53. By unreasonably assuming that all spent nuclear fuel will be permanently 8 removed from SONGS by 2049, and only allocating sufficient funds to store and monitor 9 the spent nuclear fuel at the site through that date, Licensees grossly understate the full 10 cost of decommissioning SONGS and storing and monitoring spent nuclear fuel at the site 11 through the termination of the SONGS licenses. Among other things, Licensees cost 12 estimates fail to account for the costs associated with: (1) storing and monitoring fuel 13 beyond 2049 and perhaps permanently; (2) replacing and/or repairing canisters that have 14 degraded, been damaged, and/or outlived their 40-year certifications; and (3) transferring 15 canisters to another location when the storage system itself inevitably degrades and 16 becomes unfit for storage of spent nuclear fuel. Accordingly, the NRC should suspend all 17 decommissioning operations currently underway at SONGS and require Licensees to 18 submit a new decommissioning cost estimate that is grounded in the reality that spent 19 nuclear fuel will be stored at SONGS indefinitely.

20 IV. LICENSEES FLAWED DECOMMISSIONING PLAN POSES A LONG TERM THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY 21

54. By falsely assuming that spent nuclear fuel will be stored at SONGS only 22 temporarily, Licensees have not only understated the total cost associated with their 23 decommissioning operations but they have set a disaster off on the horizon that will be 24 unavoidable if not addressed immediately. As already discussed at length, Licensees 25 entire decommissioning plan, including all decisions related to the location of the SONGS 26 ISFSI, the selection of the Holtec storage system and canisters, and the estimated cost of 27 28 19 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 decommissioning and monitoring spent fuel at SONGS, are predicated on the false 2 assumption that spent nuclear fuel will be stored at SONGS only temporarily.

3 55. Licensees selected a storage system with an extremely limited warranty and 4 usable life based on the false assumption that it will be empty and demolished in thirty 5 years. Licensees selected defective canisters with limited warranties that cannot be safely 6 replaced when damaged based on the false assumption that the DOE would be removing 7 them in thirty years. And Licensees selected a hazardous storage location near a rising sea 8 based on the false assumption that the spent nuclear fuel will be permanently removed by 9 the time the storage facility is underwater. If the NRC does not suspend decommissioning 10 operations now, these fanciful assumptions will inevitably lead to a disastrous reality for 11 the millions of people who reside in the vicinity of SONGS. Accordingly, the NRC should 12 immediately suspend all decommissioning operations at SONGS, including and especially 13 the burial of spent nuclear fuel in the SONGS ISFSI, and require Licensees to submit a 14 new decommissioning plan that is grounded in the reality that the spent nuclear fuel being 15 buried at SONGS will remain there indefinitely, if not permanently.

16 V. THE NRCS FAILURE TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 17 STATEMENT PRIOR TO APPROVING DECOMMISSIONING 18 ACTIVITIES VIOLATES NEPA AND THE APA

56. The NRC failed to prepare either an environmental assessment (EA) or an 19 environmental impact statement (EIS) prior to issuing the July 17, 2015 license 20 amendment or otherwise approving decommissioning activities at SONGS Units 2 and 3, 21 in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Administrative 22 Procedure Act (APA), and the NRCs own regulations.

23

57. NEPA requires all federal agencies to conduct environmental evaluations of 24 any major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human 25 environment. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). Major federal actions are defined broadly to 26 include new and continuing activities, including projects and programs entirely or partly 27 financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by federal agencies. 40 C.F.R.

28 20 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 § 1508.18. When an agency is uncertain whether a proposed action will significantly 2 affect the environment, it must prepare an EA to determine whether the preparation of a 3 more detailed EIS is necessary. 40 C.F.R §§ 1508.9(a), 1508.13 (2009); see also California 4 Wilderness Coal. v. U.S. Dept of Energy, 631 F.3d 1072, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (If the 5 proposed action does not categorically require the preparation of an EIS, the agency must 6 prepare an EA to determine whether the action will have a significant effect on the 7 environment.). In either case, NEPA obligates federal agencies to take a hard look at 8 the potential environmental consequences of proposed actions. California Wilderness 9 Coal., 631 F.3d at 1097 (9th Cir. 2011).

10 58. The NRCs issuance of a license amendment and approval of 11 decommissioning activities at SONGS Units 2 and 3 constituted a major federal action 12 that required NEPA compliance. As an initial matter, the NRC has historically prepared 13 either an EA or EIS upon issuing a license amendment at SONGS Units 2 and 3. In 1981, 14 the NRC prepared an EIS when it issued the initial operating license to Edison for Units 2 15 and 3. See Exhibit 30. The NRC then prepared EAs each time it amended the license.

16 For example, in 1996, it prepared an EA prior to approving a license amendment to allow 17 an increase in fuel enrichment. See Exhibit 31. In 2001, it prepared an EA prior to 18 approving a license amendment to allow Edison to increase its maximum reactor core 19 power level. See Exhibit 32. And in 2015, it prepared an EA prior to approving an 20 amendment allowing security personnel to use certain firearms and ammunition on site.

21 See Exhibit 33. The NRCs failure to prepare either an EA or EIS prior to issuing a license 22 amendment and approving decommissioning activities is contrary to its prior practice at 23 SONGS.

24 59. Furthermore, the NRCs own regulations and guidance documents state that 25 the NRC will prepare an EA or EIS prior to authorizing decommissioning. The NRCs 26 regulations provide that [i]n connection with the amendment of an operating or combined 27 license authorizing decommissioning activities . . . the NRC staff will prepare a 28 supplemental environmental impact statement for the post operating or post combined 21 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 license stage or an environmental assessment. 10 C.F.R. part 51.95(d). Similarly, the 2 NRCs Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS 3 Programs NUREG-1748 (2003) states that the NEPA review process is usually initiated 4 by . . . a decommissioning plan submitted to the NRC. See Exhibit 34 at 1-2.

5 60. Numerous federal courts have also noted that decommissioning is an action 6 which, even under the [NRCs] new policy, requires NEPA compliance. See, e.g.,

7 Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commn, 59 F.3d 284, 293 8 (1st Cir. 1995); see also New Jersey v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 526 F.3d 98, 103 9 (3d Cir. 2008) ([T]he NRC will conduct site-specific environmental analyses when 10 licensees decommission); see also Benton Cty. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 256 F. Supp.

11 2d 1195, 1202 (E.D. Wash. 2003) (Prior to committing any resources to any one of the 12 options for decommissioning, the [agency] must prepare an EIS.). Thus, the NRC was 13 required to prepare either an EA or EIS prior to approving the Decommissioning Plan.

14 61. The NRC partially discharged its duty to comply with NEPA prior to 15 decommissioning through the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on 16 Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-0586 (1988), as supplemented by 17 NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (2002) (collectively, the Decommissioning GEIS). See 18 Exhibit 35. The generic EIS analyzed the environmental impacts of decommissioning 19 that are common to all sites. But the Decommissioning GEIS concluded that a site-20 specific supplemental EIS would be necessary to evaluate non-generic issues, such as the 21 environmental impacts of decommissioning on environmental justice and threatened and 22 endangered species:

23 The staff has considered available information on the potential impacts of 24 decommissioning on environmental justice, including comments received on the draft of Supplement 1 of NUREG-0586. Based on this information, the 25 staff has considered that the adverse impacts and associated significance of 26 the impacts must be determined on a site-specific basis . . . . Subsequent to the submittal of the PSDAR, the NRC staff will consider the impacts related 27 to environmental justice from decommissioning activities.

28 22 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 See Exhibit 35 Supp. 1 at 4-65.

2 The staff has considered available information on the potential impacts of 3 decommissioning on threatened and endangered species, including 4 comments received on the draft of Supplement 1 of NUREG-0586. Based on this information, the staff has considered that the adverse impacts and 5 associated significance of the impacts must be determined on a site-specific 6 basis.

7 See Exhibit 35 Supp. 1 at 4-30. The NRCs regulations and guidance documents purport 8

to fill these gaps in the Decommissioning GEIS by requiring the NRC to prepare either an 9

EA or supplemental EIS prior to approving a decommissioning plan. See, e.g., 10 C.F.R. 10 51.95(d). The NRC, however, failed to prepare either an EA or supplemental EIS when 11 it approved Edisons license amendment and authorized decommissioning at SONGS 12 Units 2 and 3.

13

62. The City of Laguna Beach (City) notified the NRC of this failure to comply 14 with NEPA at SONGS in its August 12, 2016 letter. See Exhibit 36. Notably, the 15 California State Lands Commission (CSLC) correctly determined that the 16 decommissioning activities required the CSLC to prepare an Environmental Impact 17 Report (EIR) under Californias Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which is the 18 State of Californias NEPA analog. In connection with preliminary scoping of the CSLC 19 EIR, the City insisted that the NRC prepare a supplemental EIS, as required by NEPA, or 20 alternatively prepare a joint EIS with the CSLC, as authorized by NEPAs implementing 21 regulations. See 40 C.F.R. 1506.2. The City expressed specific concern over the following 22 issues:

23 The NRC has not considered the environmental and safety effects of sea level 24 rise caused by climate change.

25 The NRC has not addressed the environmental impacts of decommissioning 26 on environmental justice, threatened and endangered species, offsite land use, offsite aquatic and terrestrial ecology, and certain cultural and historic 27 resources.

28 23 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 The NRC has not approved the design of the Holtec UMAX system that 2 Edison has proposed for the ISFSI and that a partially subterranean design may reduce radiation safety.

3 4 The NRC has not addressed certain radiological safety concerns, such as the site-specific radiological safety concern of storing SNF in a seismically 5

active marine environment, which is not addressed in the Decommissioning 6 GEIS.

7 The proposed changes and alterations to the SONGS facilitys design 8 associated with decommissioning, including the Spent Fuel Pool Island Project and the expanded and modified ISFSI, were never addressed in the 9

SONGS Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and thus require a separate 10 license amendment.

11 63. Despite the Citys letter, the NRC failed to take corrective action. Instead, 12 the NRC took the incorrect and inconsistent position that it was not required to prepare an 13 EA or supplemental EIS in connection with approving decommissioning, because the 14 decommissioning activities remain within the scope of the Decommissioning GEIS [and]

15 applicable site-specific NEPA analyses conducted in support of previous licensing 16 actions. See Exhibit 37. Specifically, the NRC claimed that review of site-specific 17 environmental impacts (i.e., those not dispositioned generically in the Decommissioning 18 GEIS) are first addressed in the [1981 EIS] and were additionally analyzed in the 19 EA/FONSIs for license amendment or exemption requests during the plants operation, 20 such as the 1996 EA, 2001 EA, and 2015 EA. But this is plainly untrue. The prior site-21 specific analyses at SONGS never addressed the potential environmental impacts of 22 decommissioning. They addressed the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 23 actions stated therein (e.g., a license amendment to allow security personnel to carry 24 certain ammunition on-site). See Exhibit 33. These prior analyses do not act to satisfy 25 the NRCs duty to prepare a site-specific supplemental EIS for non-generic 26 decommissioning issues, as contemplated by the Decommissioning GEIS and NRC.

27 64. This is not the first time the NRC has failed to comply with its own 28 regulations in the context of preparing site-specific supplemental EISs that tier off of a 24 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition

1 generic EIS. In August 2013, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audited the 2 NRCs NEPA compliance and concluded that the NRC had an incorrect understanding 3 of the regulations related to scoping for EISs that tier off of a generic EIS. See Exhibit 4 38 at 24. The issue here is similar. The NRCs reasoning for refusing to prepare a 5 supplemental site-specific EIS is based on an incorrect understanding of its own 6 regulations and the role of the Decommissioning GEIS.

7 65. The NRCs failure to prepare either an EA or supplemental EIS prior to 8 approving Edisons license amendment and authorizing decommissioning at SONGS 9 Units 2 and 3 is contrary to the Decommissioning GEIS, NRC regulations, and federal 10 court opinions. In addition, it violates NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), and constitutes 11 arbitrary and capricious conduct under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706.

12 Petitioner therefore requests that the NRC immediately suspend all decommissioning 13 operations at SONGS and prepare a supplemental EIS that evaluates site-specific 14 environmental issues not addressed in the Decommissioning GEIS or prior site-specific 15 NEPA analyses, such as the those issues referenced herein. In so doing, the NRC should 16 (1) discuss mitigation measures the agency could take to reduce environmental impacts; 17 (2) discuss the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that may result from 18 decommissioning activities; and (3) ensure the use of accurate scientific analysis and 19 high quality information. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500.1(b), 1508.25(b).

20 21 22 Dated: September 24, 2019 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 23 24 25 By: /s/ Charles G. La Bella 26 Charles G. La Bella Attorneys for Plaintiff 27 Public Watchdogs 28 25 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petition