NRC-2022-0185, Eric Joseph Epstein'S Petition for Leave to Intervene and Hearing Request

Eric Joseph Epstein'S Petition for Leave to Intervene and Hearing Request

ML22332A535
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	11/28/2022
From:	Epstein E - No Known Affiliation
To:	NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
References
RAS 56541, 50-387, 50-388, 72-28-LT-3, NRC-2022-0185
Download: ML22332A535 (36)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of: ) Docket ID Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC. ) NRC-2022-0185 Indirect Renewed Facility )

Operating License Nos. NPF-14 )

and NPF-22 for the ) November 28, 2022 General License and )

Independent Spent Fuel Storage )

Installation As A Result of )

Restructuring and Bankruptcy )

of Talen Energy Corporation )

To A Reorganized Company Yet )

To Be Named (Reorganized Talen)

November 28, 2022 ERIC JOSEPH EPSTEINS PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND HEARING REQUEST Eric Joseph Epstein, Pro se 4100 Hillsdale Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of ) Docket ID Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC. ) NRC-2022-0185 Indirect Renewed Facility )

Operating License Nos. NPF-14 )

and NPF-22 for the ) November 25, 2022 General License and )

Independent Spent Fuel Storage )

ERIC JOSEPH EPSTEINS PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND HEARING I. Introduction.

Eric Joseph Epstein (Epstein, Mr. Epstein or the Petitioner) is filing a Petition for Leave to Intervene and a Hearing Request in the above captioned matter. The NRC is considering the issuance of an Order under 10 CFR 50.80 and 72.50 approving the Indirect Transfer of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22 for Susquehanna, Units 1 and 2, respectively, and the general license for the Susquehanna Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISIFI) as a result of the restructuring of Talen Energy Corporation (TES, Talen, or Talen Energy as Reorganized Talen.

The NRC is also considering amending the renewed facility operating licenses for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed License Transfer.

2

The proposed License Transfer fails to address the core issues that undermined the financial position of Talen. It will reduce financial security and safety margins, and increase the likelihood of significant hazards after the undisclosed new corporate entity emerges from bankruptcy, which will occur after the NRC approves the transfer. The fact that no management changes are proposed only means that the name of the captain of this corporate Titanic will change, but the sinking vessel will remain intact.

The expectation is that, at the conclusion of the proposed transactions, Susquehanna Nuclear will continue to be directly owned by Talen Energy Supply, which will, in turn, either be, or be directly owned by, Reorganized Talen, and no other changes to the ownership or control of Susquehanna Nuclear will occur in the restructuring. NRC consent to the indirect transfer of control of the Susquehanna licenses will be required prior to consummating the transactions contemplated by the reorganization plan.

According to the application, the proposed transactions do not involve any change to Susquehanna Nuclear's continued operation or its ownership of Susquehanna and do not involve any physical changes in Susquehanna or any changes to the conduct of operations at Susquehanna. (Federal Register, Posted on November 8, 2022)

An expectation is not a guarantee, and this transaction can not be approved until guarantees are in place along with accountable and enforceable milestones as part of the License Transfer process. This stay the course doctrine is remarkably similar to Talens initial distress signal sent to the NRC on July 5, 2017, (Susquehanna Electric Steam Station Notice of Restructuring, PLA-7617, Docket Nos. 50-387; 50-388 and 72-28.).

When Talens spin-off from PPL was completed in 2015, there was no expectation that the company would go bankrupt, and seek protection from a Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of Texas.

3

The purpose of this letter is to notify the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

("NRC") of the planned elimination of one of the intermediate parent companies from the chain of ownership of Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, which is the licensed operator and an owner of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station ("SSES").

Currently, Susquehanna Nuclear is a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Talen Generation, LLC, which in turn is a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary ofTalen Energy Supply, LLC. Talen Energy Supply, LLC is a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Talen Energy Holdings, Inc., which is a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary ofTalen Energy Corporation, the stock of which is held by portfolio companies of Riverstone Holdings, LLC. On or about June 30, 2017, Talen Generation will distribute its membership interests in Susquehanna Nuclear to Talen Energy Supply, making Susquehanna Nuclear a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Talen Energy Supply.

There are no other planned changes to Susquehanna Nuclear's chain of ownership involved in this restructuring, as shown in the attached figures.

This elimination of an intermediate parent does not involve any direct or indirect transfer of control of the SSES licenses that would require NRC consent pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 50.80 This corporate change does not require any change to the terms and conditions of the SSES licenses, and will have no effect on the management, technical qualifications, or financial qualifications of Susquehanna Nuclear. The change will not alter Susquehanna Nuclear's organization, staff, officers, or managers, or any of Susquehanna Nuclear's programs, procedures, or conduct of operations. The corporate change does not involve any changes to the nuclear plant operations or equipment at SSES, and does not affect SSES's costs, revenues, or the Parent Support Agreement currently in place between Susquehaana Nuclear and Taeln Energy Corporation(1)

The letter provided to the NRC an organization chart, i.e. Figure 2, with no discussion on data mining, debt exposure, or staffing reductions. The five companies are organized as Limited Liability Corporations in Delaware with corporate headquarters in The Woodlands, Texas. Figure 1 is almost identical to Figure 2 which was the corporate compass prior to the restructuring that lead to bankruptcy.

1 10 CFR 50.80, Docket Nos. 50-387 50-388 and 72-28, SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STA TION NOTIFICATION OF RESTRUCTURING PLA-7617, Brad Berryan, Site Vice President, July 5, 2017.

4

Figure 2 Simplified Organization Chart- After Restructuring Riverstone Shareholders (DE LLCs) 100%

Talen Energy Corporation (DE Corp)

Talen Energy Holdings, Inc. (DE Corp)

Talen Energy Supply, LLC (DELLC)

Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC (DELLC)

However, not disclosed in the letter and as part of Talens restructuring plan, is the fact that Talen eliminated 131 excess employees in July, 2016. The 53 layoffs just at the nuclear plant came after the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) had to shut down both of its reactors. A water leak in early June shut down Unit 1 for three weeks, and then in mid-May, Unit 2 was manually shut down for a weekend after officials found a fault in the electrical distribution center.

Relicensing and restructuring are a crap shoot based on the proposed business adjacent to the nuclear power plant as advertised in its Disclosure Statement for Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Talen Energy Supply, LLC and Its Affiliated Debtors filed in Houston, Texas on October 24, 2022. (2) 2 In the middle of the bankruptcy proceeding, Talen Energy stopped construction of a bitcoin mine - the financial staple of reorganization - on the property of the nuclear power plant. Talens initial expectation was to bring the Susquehanna Hyperscale Campus online in the second quarter of 2022. Taeln revised its expectation, and announced it would start mining bitcoin by the end 2022. Talen announced on August 17, 2022 that the construction has been suspended due to "circumstances out of our control."

5

The development of (i) the Data Campus (the Cumulus Data Project) through non- Debtor affiliate Cumulus Data LLC (Cumulus Data) and (ii) the digital currency mining facility at the Data Campus (the Cumulus Coin Project and, together with the Cumulus Data Project, the Cumulus Digital Project) through non-Debtor subsidiary Cumulus Coin LLC (Cumulus Coin) creates a competitive advantage by solving the reliability, costs, and zero-carbon energy trilemma by providing an integrated power and digital infrastructure solution. As described above, flat power demand and an increased power supply have decreased the Debtors profits, particularly in the PJM region where the Nuclear Plant is located.

The Cumulus Digital Project capitalizes on a clear synergy by bringing a growing electricity demand (i.e., data storage and digital currency mining) directly to the Nuclear Plants low-cost, reliable, and carbon-free power supply.

Pursuant to certain power purchase agreements, Susquehanna Nuclear will sell power generated by the Nuclear Plant to Talen Generation, as a wholesale customer, and Talen Generation will then sell the power to Cumulus Data, as a retail customer.

Cumulus Data is expected to sub-meter this power to customers of the Cumulus Data Project as well as the Cumulus Coin Project. Because Cumulus Data owns the transmission lines that interconnect the Cumulus Digital Project to the Nuclear Plant, the cost of power to be sub-metered will be reduced by eliminating the need to transport the power on the grid and incur the associated costs with such transportation. This arrangement is expected to positively impact supply and demand dynamics for the Debtors by providing a stable, long-term source of revenue for the Nuclear Plant, enabling its longevity. This model can also be replicated at other Talen Generation facilities, with similar potential benefits.

(Disclosure Statement, p. 30)

This statement was made three days prior to the collapse of Bitcoin miner Core Scientific on October 27, 2022. The information in this Disclosure Statement is no longer current or valid. Core Scientific, also based in Texas, one of the largest publicly traded crypto mining companies in the U.S., raised the possibility of bankruptcy in November in a statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company disclosed that it will not make debt payments due in late October and early November. Core Scientifics stock was down 77% following the SEC filing, and has lost more than 97% of its value to date. (3) 3 If Susquehanna Nuclear defaults under the arrangements with the Nuclear Co-Owner, the Nuclear Co-Owner may be entitled to all of the energy and capacity generated by the Nuclear Plant that would have been allocated to Susquehanna Nuclear until such default is cured.

6

This proposed Indirect License Transfer must be postponed until after the Disclosure Statement is revised to reflect current market conditions. The legal milestones associated with bankruptcy have not been met and evaluated. (4) The impact of the Core Scientifics meltdown and pending bankruptcy on Talen Energys Disclosure Statement published on October 24, 2022 have to be reevaluated. The Disclosure Statement contains outdated, erroneous and inaccurate forward-looking information regarding future financial conditions.

4 Confirmation Timeline The Debtors seek to move forward expeditiously with the Solicitation of votes and a hearing on Confirmation of the Plan in an effort to minimize the continuing accrual of administrative expenses. Accordingly, subject to the Bankruptcy Courts approval, the Debtors are proceeding on the following timeline with respect to this Disclosure Statement and the Plan.

O Plan Supplement Filing:

N November 29, 2022.

Voting Deadline: D December 6, 2022.

Deadline to Object to Confirmation of Plan:

D December 6, 2022.

Deadline to File (i) Reply to Plan Objection(s) and (ii) Brief in Support of Plan Confirmation:

December 12, 2022 Confirmation Hearing:

C December 15, 2022.

7

II. Background.

Debtor Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC (Susquehanna Nuclear) is a subsidiary of TES.

Its primary asset, and liability, is a nuclear power generation facility in Berwick, Pennsylvania, (the Nuclear Plant), which occupies approximately 1,075 acres. As part of the Talen Transition Strategy, land adjacent to the Nuclear Plant may be the site of a proposed Data Campus. The plant has stopped construction in August, 2022. Susquehanna Nuclears interest in the Nuclear Plant consists of a 90% undivided interest in the plant. A non-profit electric cooperative owns the remaining 10% undivided interest in the plant (the Nuclear Co-Owner), (5) with a contractual arrangement to share all costs of operating the Nuclear Plant with Susquehanna Nuclear. Pursuant to certain agreements with the Nuclear Co-Owner, Susquehanna Nuclear operates the Nuclear Plant. Sales of power and energy-related products from the Nuclear Plant are conducted in the PJM market.

However, Three Mile Island Unit-1, located down river from the SSES, closed in September, 2019 after it failed to clear the PJM capacity market auction for the 2020-2021 delivery year. Susquehanna Nuclear is financially vulnerable and a borrower under the Prepetition CAF Facility. (6) The NRC is considering the issuance of an Order under 10 CF 50.80 and 72.50 approving the Indirect Transfer of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22 for Susquehanna, Units 1 and 2, respectively, and the general license for the Susquehanna ISFSI as a result of the restructuring of Talen Energy Corporation as Reorganized Talen under these precarious financial conditions.

5 If Susquehanna Nuclear defaults under the arrangements with the Nuclear Co-Owner, the Nuclear Co-Owner may be entitled to all of the energy and capacity generated by the Nuclear Plant that would have been allocated to Susquehanna Nuclear until such default is cured.

6 All of the Debtors currently producing Energy Plants are held by certain subsidiaries of Debtor Talen Energy Supply (TES) (each, a TES Generating Subsidiary). TES was the primary obligor on most of the Companys funded debt: TES was the sole borrower under the Prepetition RCF Agreement and Prepetition TLB. (Case 22-90054 Document 1396 Filed in TXSB on 10/24/22 Page 41 of 179.)

8

Susquehanna Nuclear is a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Talen Energy Supply, which is a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Talen Energy Corporation, the stock of which is held by affiliates of Riverstone Holdings, LLC (Riverstone). (7) Talen Energy Supply and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, the Debtors) each filed a voluntary case under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas and executed a restructuring support agreement.

The Debtors filed a joint plan of reorganization. (8) Under the terms of this plan, the Debtors and Talen Energy Corporation intend to pursue a comprehensive restructuring.

The expectation is that, at the conclusion of the proposed transactions, Susquehanna Nuclear will continue to be directly owned by Talen Energy Supply, which will, in turn, either be, or be directly owned by, (yet to be determined) Reorganized Talen, and no other changes to the ownership or control of Susquehanna Nuclear will occur in the restructuring. NRC consent to the Indirect Transfer of control of the Susquehanna licenses will be required prior to consummating the transactions contemplated by the reorganization.

7 TES is not a borrower under the Prepetition CAF Facility; TEM and Susquehanna Nuclear (both subsidiaries of TES) are the borrowers thereunder. However, because TES is party to the agreement as parent and guarantor, the Prepetition CAF Facility is considered TES debt for purposes of this Disclosure Statement.

8 The TES Subsidiary Guarantors include all subsidiaries of TES in which TES or another TES Subsidiary Guarantor has a majority common equity ownership except Talen II Growth Holdings LLC, Talen Technology Ventures LLC, LMBE-MC Holdco I LLC, LMBE-MC Holdco II LLC, MC Project Company LLC, LMBE Project Company LLC, and Talen Receivables Funding LLC.

9

For the avoidance of doubt, the debtors are continuing to review their unexpired leases and executive contracts to determine which contracts the debtors will seek to assume and which contracts they will seek to reject pursuant to section 365 of the bankruptcy code. The deadline to file the rejection schedule (among the other plan supplement documents) is November 29, 2022. Such determination will likely impact the amount of allowed claims and projected recoveries at each debt or plan. (Case 22-90054 Document 1396 Filed in TXSB on 10/24/22 Page 34 of 179.)

10

III. Mr. Epstein Has Standing on His Own Behalf.

The general requirements for standing are set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d)(1): (a) the name, address and telephone number of Petitioner; (b) the nature of Petitioners right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (c) the nature and extent of Petitioners property, financial or other interest in the proceeding; and (d) the possible effect of any decision or Order that may be issued in the proceeding on Petitioners interest. These will be addressed seriatim.

a) The name, address and telephone number of the Petitioner:

Eric Jospeh Epstein 4100 Hillsdale Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717)-635-8615 b) The nature of the Petitioners right under the Act to be made a party:

Mr. Epstein has the right to intervene in this proceeding because his interests may be affected by the proceeding. Section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the AEA), 42 U.S.C. § 2239(a)(1)(A). Section 189(a) provides in pertinent part:

In any proceeding under this chapter for the granting, suspending, revoking, or amending of any license ... the Commission shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding, and shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding. (42 U.S.C. § 2239(a)(1)(A).

To qualify for standing a Petitioner must allege (1) a concrete and particularized injury, (2) that is traceable to the challenged action, and (3) that will be redressed by a decision favorable to the Petitioner. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 102-04 (1998). The requisite injury may be either actual or threatened, e.g., Wilderness Society v. Griles, 824 F.2d 4, 11 (D.C. Cir. 1987), and must arguably lie within the zone of interests protected by the statutes governing the proceeding - here, either the AEA or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

11

See Yankee Atomic Electric Company (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-98-21, 48 NRC 185, 195-96 (1998); Quivira Mining Co. (Ambrosia Lake Facility, Grants, New Mexico), CLI-98-11, 48 NRC 1, 6 (1998).

This Petition shows that Mr. Epstein will suffer actual, concrete, particularized, and imminent injuries directly resulting from granting the Indirect License Transfer to a yet to be determined iteration of Talen Energy, and that the injuries are likely to be prevented by a decision favorable to Epstein. This Petition shows, inter alia, that Indirect License Transfer will result in adverse health and safety risks to Mr. Epstein.

Commission case law provides that, in making a standing determination, a presiding officer is to construe the petition in favor of the Petitioner, Georgia Tech, CLI- 95-12, 42 NRC at 115; Atlas Corporation (Moab, Utah Facility), LBP-97-9, 45 NRC 414, 424 (1997).

Further, even minor radiological exposures resulting from a proposed licensee activity can be enough to create the requisite injury in fact. (General Public Utilities Nuclear Corp. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), LBP-96-23, 44 NRC 143, 158 (1996);

Atlas, LBP-97-9, 45 NRC at 425.)

12

c) The nature and extent of the Petitioners interest.

Mr. Epstein was accorded standing in prior proceedings involving PPLs Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. Epstein routinely pierces the 50-mile proximate rule during his regular activities in Dauphin, Lebanon, Lehigh, Luzerne, Northampton, and Schuylkill, Counties.

Mr. Epsteins routine has varied, but he necessarily pierces the 50-mile proximity zone for substantial periods of time. Mr. Epstein stated that he commuted to the township building in Grantville in the previous proceeding, and site visits occur at a minimum of once a week. Mr. Epstein in no longer employed by East Hanover Township, but travels from his home in Lower Paxton Township to rural Grantville (similar distance) to shop weekly on Friday and/or Saturdays at the Farmstead Farmers Market.

https://farmsteadmarket.com Mr. Epstein stated in previous proceedings that he commuted to the Sustainable Energy Fund (SEF) office in Allentown, and to related meetings at offsite locations.

Therefore he regularly pierces the 50-mile proximity zone for substantial periods of time.

The SEF office has been relocated to Schnecksville, and Mr. Epstein is now President of Green Connexions, a subsidiary of the Sustainable Energy Fund. He attends quarterly meetings in Lehigh County as part of his fiduciary responsibilities, including financing Program Related Investments (PRI) in central eastern Pennsylvania.

https://thesef.org The duration and location of meetings vary based on the complexity and size of the PRIs. From 2020- 2021, Green Connexions was actively engaged in discussions to acquire companies in the solar energy chain and battery storage sectors. However, the discussions did not result in the consummation of the deals based on COVID and the uncertainty of federal legislation.

13

However, with the advent of federal legislation, and Green Connexions interest in pursuing investments in the solar chain industry, it is likely Mr. Epstein will be visiting the area more frequently. As the nuclear plant ages, and continues to shed and replace owners, the Petitioners material and safety interests are in peril. https;//energypath.org Mr. Epstein resides downstream from the SSES. As such, any negative impact on the Susquehanna River Basin directly impacts Mr. Epsteins health and quality of life, and he has offered comments at the Susquehanna River Basin Commission regarding water use at the nuclear plant for over years in Berwick and the Commissions headquarters in Harrisburg. Those documents are available at: https://www.srbc.net Mr. Epsteins Petition provided details about how often and for what period of time his personal and professional interests cause him to travel within fifty miles of the site.

Mr. Epstein's commute to the Green Connexions office, and to meetings at offsite locations bring him within the fifty-mile zone for substantial periods of time. The location and time commitment are based on the complexity and requisite due diligence required to process Program Related Investments.

Admittedly, those visits have been tempered by COVID. Mr. Epstein has established sufficient contacts in the affected area to establish standing from a period dating back to 1985 including numerous hearings in Berwick on Bell Bend (BBNP) and the Susquehanna Electric Steam Station relating to licensing, uprates, water use, and proposed rate increases. These contacts, including overnight stays in Luzerne and Northampton counties, constitute sufficient contacts to establish a bond between Mr.

Epstein and the proposed Indirect License Transfer. Mr. Epsteins sustained commitment to monitor the nuclear plant is in stark contrast to the fluid ownership of 90% of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.

14

In fact, numerous pleadings before the NRC, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC), and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) are matters of public record. There is ample information regarding the length of time that Epstein has committements within the 50- mile radius, including public testimony in Berwick and site visitations to address Chilled Work Environment during 2009 at public meetings convened by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Public Utility Commission https://www.poweronline.com/doc/puc-approves-ppl-restructuring-plan-0001 https://www.puc.pa.gov/general/pdf/RD-PPL_RSP_030408.pdf Susquehanna River Basin Commission https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0724/ML072490036.pdf http://www.tmia.com/sites/tmia.com/files/media/TMIA%20Testimony%2C%20%2812_

11_20%29%20%281%29.pdf The duration and timing of the meetings are also dictated in part, by the hearing schedule of the NRC, PUC, and the SRBC. All these meetings collectively over a thirty-five year period provide not only a clear, unbroken, and sustained commitment of Mr.

Epsteins investment in the Berwick community, but are a matter of public record.

Mr. Epstein makes the required showing of an injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability, by his more than thirty-five year commitment to attend, monitor and track the SSES. Mr. Epstein's commitment to the issue predates that of the stakeholders associated with the proposed Indirect License Transfer. The Petitioner has compiled the Incident Chronology at the Susquehanna Electric Steam Station from 1982-2022 from NRC records: https://www.tmia.com/node/1833 The most recent problem occurred on October 18, 2022, during an emergency preparedness exercise. The Federal Emergency Management Agency identified a Level 1 Finding. The Memorandum of Understanding is available on the NRC web site at ADAMS (ML15344A371).

15

Public participation through intervention is a positive factor in the licensing process and is to be encouraged. (9) That said, every Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating standing in order to participate in hearings before a licensing board.

A Petitioner must be able to show how it would have personally suffered or will suffer a distinct and palpable harm that constitutes injury in fact. The sum total of Mr.

Epsteins career at the SSES as a rate payer advocate and nuclear watchdog, and his regular activities within the region demonstrate he has standing in this proceeding. Mr.

Epstein has sought, and been granted, standing to participate in NRC proceedings in the past.

However, a Petitioner has an affirmative duty to demonstrate that it has standing in each proceeding in which it seeks to participate because a Petitioner's status can change over time. The basis for Epsteins standing in earlier proceedings established Mr. Epsteins connection with the community. Mr. Epstein provides the NRC with a unique perspective as a Petitioner who has tracked the Susquehanna Steam Electric Statiomn for over thirty-five years, and has a working knowledge of its corporate iterations from Pennsylvania Power & Light to PPL to PPL Electric Utilities to Talen Energy.

In the Susquehanna license renewal proceeding, the Licensing Board granted Mr. Epstein standing after he was able to demonstrate a significant pattern of regular contacts within the fifty-mile radius around the plant. (10) The record compiled in that case was detailed and comprehensive as to the proximity, timing, and duration of his contacts than the showing. Mr. Epstein was also granted standing in the Susquehanna extended power uprate (EPU) case. (11) 9 Final Rule, Changes to Adjudicatory Process, 69 Fed. Reg. 2182 (Jan. 14, 2004).

10 PPL Susquehanna LLC (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-07-4, 65 NRC 281, 296 (2007).

11 PPL Susquehanna LLC (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2), LBP 10, 66 NRC 1, 21 (2007).

16

The question is the sufficiency of Petitioner Epsteins showing regarding his activities within such a radius of the SSES as a basis for invoking the presumption.

Mr. Epsteins thirty-five year career and prior standing is a living record of his commitment to the community, which allows him to provide an important and unique perspective that enhances the discussion relating to the Indirect License Transfer.

The Petitioner acknowledges the NRC must make a finding based on the factual circumstances presented by the information before the Board regarding his activities, which, as the Commission has noted in the past, may include consideration of the proximity (i.e., is the activity within the presumption zone), timing, and duration of those activities. Furthermore, the EPU Board reiterated to Mr. Epstein that the better practice for a Petitioner is to submit a fully developed showing regarding standing in each proceeding in which it seeks to intervene, regardless of whether it has previously been found to have standing relative to the facility that is the locus of the proceedings. (12) Mr.

Epstein has cleared that hurdle.

In this case, the Petitioner Mr. Epstein, has demonstrated there is an abundance of material and facts on the ground to weigh accurately the number, length, frequency, and proximity of his trips to or near the Susquehanna Electric Steam Station site. The distances from where Mr. Epstein intersect the proposed facility over the years, regardless of the composition of corporation or the type of regulatory hearing, are sufficiently explained for this Board to understand Mr. Epsteins relationship to the facility.

Mr. Epstein is also the last principal stakeholder involved in the PP&L Restructuring Settlement negotiated in 1998 that created a rate recovery mechanism for $2.86 billion in stranded costs for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. The Board need only look to the Settlement to view Mr. Epsteins contributions which included a 4% nuclear decommissioning cost sharing clause for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.

12 EPU Board, Id. at 19 n.9.

17

It is the burden of the Petitioner to clearly state these facts in a Petition to Intervene.

(13) It is imperative for Mr. Epstein to provide the requisite information or update the information provided in the previous Susquehanna proceedings. (14) Mr. Epstein has presented specific information regarding the geographic proximity, the timing, and the duration of his regular visits.

Mr. Epstein has standing to participate in this proceeding.

Public participation through intervention is a positive factor in the licensing process and is to be encouraged. (15) The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating standing in order to participate in hearings before a licensing board. (16) A Petitioner must be able to show how it would have personally suffered or will suffer a distinct and palpable harm that constitutes injury in fact. (17)

The extent, frequency, and duration of Mr. Epsteins business and community service work takes Mr. Epstein to the site of the vicinity of the plant. This includes frequent PUC rate hearings and negotiations. Dating back to 1985. In fact, Mr. Epstein has testified on record on behalf of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. He publicly stated that the proposed unsolicited merger attempts from PECO in 1995 should be rejected, and PPL was better suited to operate the nuclear plant. The testimony occurred before Representative Clarence Bell in the House of Representatives, and like all other public testimonies from Mr. Epstein, is a matter of public record.

13 See Babcock & Wilcox Co. (Apollo, Pennsylvania Fuel Fabrication Facility), LBP 4, 37 NRC 72, 81, appeal dismissed, CLI-93-9, 37 NRC 190 (1993).

14 Texas Util. Elec. Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2), CLI-93-4, 37 NRC 156, 162-63 (1993).

15 Final Rule, Changes to Adjudicatory Process, 69 Fed. Reg. 2182 (Jan. 14, 2004).

16 See Babcock & Wilcox Co.

17 Dellums v. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commn, 863 F.2d 968, 971 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

See generally Atomic Energy Act § 189a, 42 U.S.C. § 2239(a); 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d).

18

Mr. Epstein has sought, and been granted, standing to participate in NRC proceedings in the past. However, a Petitioner has an affirmative duty to demonstrate that it has standing in each proceeding in which it seeks to participate because a Petitioner's status can change over time. Mr. Epsteins continued commitment to the Berwick community, over a thirty-five year period, is just as vigorous as it was in 1985.

d) The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the Petitioners interest.

A decision by the Commission allowing the License Transfer without evaluating post-Application developments which have grossly distorted the record would subject Mr.

Epstein to the health and safety risks set forth in detail in this Petition. This Petition shows, inter alia, that the License Transfer will result in adverse health and safety risks to the Petitioner. The proposed License Transfer is built on a fatally flawed business plan, which will erode financial solvency. The storage of high-level radioactive waste for an indefinite period of time by a bankrupt company is a prescription for disaster.

The following points address the four factors for allowing discretionary intervention set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(e), while incorporating by reference the elements set forth in Section 2.1 above: (a) the extent to which the Petitioners participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record; (b) the availability of other means whereby the Petitioners interest will be protected; (c) the extent to which the requestors/Petitioners interest will be represented by existing parties; and, (d) the extent to which the requestors/Petitioners participation will inappropriately broaden the issues or delay the proceeding. Mr. Epstein requests discretionary standing in the event that he is denied standing as of right, or in the event none of his contentions are admitted.

19

a. The Petitioners participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record:

Epsteins participation in the proceeding will assist the Commission in developing a sound record because the Petitioner will be presenting evidence concerning the economic, environmental, health, and safety effects created by the License Transfer. Epstein will provide local insight, information and evidence that cannot be provided by the Applicant or other parties.

b. Other means are not available whereby the Petitioners interest will be protected.

There are no other means available whereby the interests of Mr. Epstein will be protected.

c. The Petitioners interest will not be represented by existing parties.

The interests of Epstein are localized, and will not be represented by the existing parties.

d. The Petitioners participation will not inappropriately broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.

Epstein is raising appropriate issues; therefore, his participation in the proceeding will not inappropriately broaden the issues or delay the proceeding. Mr. Epstein also meets Prudential Standing requirements. In addition, Courts have created a prudential standing requirement that a plaintiffs interests fall within the zone of interests protected by the statute on which the claim is based. Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 162 (1997). Mr. Epstein should be accorded standing in the above captioned proceeding.

20

III. Statutory and Regulatory Framework.

This proceeding is governed by the AEA and NEPA. The AEA sets minimum standards for the safe and secure operation of nuclear facilities. NEPA requires NRC to consider and attempt to avoid or mitigate significant adverse environmental impacts.

Although the statues have some overlapping concerns, they establish independent requirements. Limerick Ecology Action v. NRC, 869 F.2d 719, 729- 30 (3rd Cir. 1989).

NEPA goes beyond the AEA, requiring the consideration of alternatives to reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts. Id., citing 10 C.F.R. § 51.71 (d).

Atomic Energy Act.

The AEA prohibits the NRC from issuing a license amendment to operate a nuclear power plant if it would be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. 42 U.S.C. § 2133(d). Talen Energys proposed License Transfer may not be granted unless and until the New Talen has satisfied requirements of 10 C.F.R. 54.

21

National Environmental Policy Act.

This proceeding is also governed by the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C § 4321, et seq. (NEPA). NEPA mandates that federal agencies involved in activities that may have a significant impact on the environment must complete a detailed statement of the environmental impacts and project alternatives. NEPA requires, in pertinent part, that all agencies of the Federal Government, including the NRC take a hard look at environmental impacts of proposed actions NEPA places upon an agency the obligation to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action, and ensures that the agency will inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decision making process. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Counsel, Inc., 462 U.S.

87, 97 (1983).

NEPA was created to ensure that agencies will base decisions on detailed information regarding significant environmental impacts and that information will be available to a wide variety of concerned public and private actors. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Federal Aviation Administration, 161 F.3d 569, 575 (9th Cir. 1998)

(quoted in Mississippi River Basin Alliance v. Westphal, 230 F.3d 170, 175 (5th Cir.

2000)).

Thus, the fundamental goal of a NEPA evaluation is to require the responsible government agency to undertake a careful and thorough analysis of the need for the project and its impacts before proceeding. Agencies must consider environmentally significant aspects of a proposed action, let the public know that the agency's decision-making process includes environmental concerns, and decide whether the public benefits of the project outweigh the environmental costs. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97, 76 L. Ed. 2d 437, 103 S. Ct. 2246 (1983);

Utahns For Better Transportation v. United States Dept. of Transp., 305 F.3d 1152, 1162 (10th Cir. 2002); Illinois Commerce Com. v. Interstate Commerce Com., 848 F.2d 1246, 1259 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

22

IV. Standards Governing Contention Admissibility.

To grant the Petition, the Commission must find that Petitioners have submitted at least one proposed contention that satisfies all six admissibility criteria in 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1). Petitioners have not done so here. Accordingly, the Petition must be denied.

Petitions to intervene must set forth with particularity the contentions a Petitioner seeks to have litigated in a hearing. (18) The requirements for an admissible contention are set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309 (f)(1)(i)-(vi) and also described in the Hearing Opportunity Notice. (19) The Commissions contention of admissibility seeks to ensure that NRC hearings serve the purpose for which they are intended: to adjudicate genuine, substantive safety and environmental issues placed in contention by qualified interveners. (20) To warrant an adjudicatory hearing, the NRC requires proposed contentions to have some reason factual or legal basis. (21) The Petitioner bears the burden to meet the ably specific standards of contention admissibility. (22) 18 PPL Susquehanna, LLC (Susquehanna Steam Elec. Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-15-8, 81 NRC 500, 503-04 (2015) (quoting 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)); Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC (Susquehanna Steam Elec. Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-17-4, 85 NRC 59, 74 (2017).

19 Notice of Consideration of Approval of Indirect License Transfer and Conforming Amendments and Opportunity to Request A Hearing , Susquehanna Steam Electric Steam Installation and the Associated Independent Spent Fuel Installation, (EPID L-2202-LLM-0003). (Audrey Klett, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, November 3, 2022.)

20 Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2), CLI 14, 58 NRC 207, 213 (2003) (quoting Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, & 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 334 (1999).

21 Millstone, CLI-03-14, 58 NRC at 213).

22 See Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-15-23, 82 NRC 321, 325, 329 (2015) ([I]t is Petitioners responsibility . . . to formulate contentions and to provide the necessary information to satisfy the basis requirement for admission)

(internal citation omitted).

23

In order to participate as a party in this proceeding, a Petitioner for intervention must not only establish standing, but must also proffer at least one admissible contention that meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1). An admissible contention must: (1) provide a specific statement of the legal or factual issue sought to be raised; (2) provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; (3) demonstrate that the issue raised is within the scope of the proceeding; (4) demonstrate that the issue raised is material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding; (5) provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions, including references to specific sources and documents, that support the Petitioners position and upon which the Petitioner intends to rely at the hearing; and (6) provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with regard to a material issue of law or fact, including references to specific portions of the application that the Petitioner disputes, or if the application is alleged to be deficient, the identification of such deficiencies and the supporting reasons for this allegation. (23)

The Susquehanna Steam Electric Station serves as a guidepost for establishing standing. Ultimately, in seeking to establish standing to intervene in a licensing adjudication based on regular activities within a proximity zone (including business, recreational, or personal activities), a Petitioner, whether pro se or otherwise, is best served by accurately delineating in as much detail as practicable the particulars associated with the proximity, timing, and duration of those activities. (PPL Susquehanna, LBP 10, 66 NRC at 21 n.13.)

23 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i)-(vi).

24

A Petitioner must provide some minimal basis indicating the potential validity of the contention.(16) The Commissions rules bar contentions where Petitioners (24) have only what amounts to generalized suspicions, hoping to substantiate them later. (25)

Although a Petitioner does not have to prove its contention at the admissibility stage, (26)

[m]ere notice pleading is insufficient. (27 If a Petitioner fails to provide the requisite support for its contentions, the Board may not make assumptions of fact that favor the Petitioner or supply information that is lacking. (28) 24 Final Rule, Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings, Procedural Changes in the Hearing Process, 54 Fed. Reg. 33,168, 33,170 (Aug. 11, 1989).

25 Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-03-17, 58 NRC 419, 424 (2003) (quoting Oconee, CLI-99-11, 49 NRC at 337-39).

26 Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI 22, 60 NRC 125, 139 (2004).

27 Fansteel, Inc. (Muskogee, Oklahoma Site), CLI-03-13, 58 NRC 195, 203 (2003).

28 See Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI- 91-12, 34 NRC 149, 155 (1991).

25

Epstein Contention, #1: The Applicants Indirect License Transfer Request Fails to Fully Address 10 CFR 72.50 C: The application shall describe the financial assurance that will be provided for the decommissioning of the facility under § 72.30.

A) Brief Explanation of the Basis for the Contention.

The NRC is considering the issuance of an Order under 10 CFR 50.80 and 72.50 approving the License Transfer of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22 for Susquehanna, Units 1 and 2, respectively, and the general license for the Susquehanna ISFSI as a result of the restructuring of Talen Energy Corporation as Reorganized Talen. The NRC is also considering amending the renewed facility operating licenses for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer.

In order to comport with Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations the Applicant must comply with financial assurances: (3) The application shall describe the financial assurance that will be provided for the decommissioning of the facility under § 72.30.

The prepayment mode is no longer available as a stand-alone option for a bankrupt and debtor entity.

1) Prepayment is the deposit before the start of operation into an account segregated from licensee assets and outside the licensee's administrative control of cash or liquid assets such that the amount of funds would be sufficient to pay decommissioning costs.

Prepayment must be made into a trust account, and the trustee and the trust must be acceptable to the Commission.

26

The Applicants current debt ($1.5042 billion) and approximate recovery (17.7% to 34.5%) (29) does not allow for the New Parent or Reorganized Talen to provide adequate financial assurances. Reorganized Talen is financially vulnerable, (30) as evinced by the current bankruptcy proceeding, and must provide a surety to supplement the Decommissioning Trust Fund under (e) (2):

(2 ) A surety method may be in the form of a surety bond, or letter of credit. A parent company guarantee of funds for decommissioning costs based on a financial test may be used if the guarantee and test are as contained in Appendix A to Z of this chapter. For commercial corporations that issue bonds, a guarantee of funds by the applicant or licensee for decommissioning costs based on a financial test may be used if the guarantee and test are as contained in Appendix C to part 30 of this chapter. For commercial companies that do not issue bonds, a guarantee of funds by the applicant or licensee for decommissioning costs may be used if the guarantee and test are as contained in Appendix D to part 30 of this chapter. Except for an external sinking fund, a parent company guarantee or a guarantee by the applicant or licensee may not be used in combination with other financial methods to satisfy the requirements of this section.

A guarantee by the applicant or licensee may not be used In any situation where the applicant or licensee has a parent company holding majority control of the voting stock of the company. (Bold face type added) 29 Disclosure Statement For Joint Chapter 11 Plan Of Talen Energy Supply, LLC And Its Affiliated Debtors, Houston, Texas, October 24, 2022, Page, 22.

30 If Susquehanna Nuclear defaults under the arrangements with the Nuclear Co-Owner, the Nuclear Co-Owner may be entitled to all of the energy and capacity generated by the Nuclear Plant that would have been allocated to Susquehanna Nuclear until such default is cured. (Disclosure Statement, Page 31).

27

The New Parent is not suited in this instance, or by NRC edict, to provide a guarantee. As discussed further in Section VIII. A and Section VIII. B.2(a) below, New Parent may be TEC, TES, or another entity and, if New Parent is TEC, it may file a chapter 11 petition and become a Debtor in order to implement the Restructuring, the specifics of which will be included in the Plan Supplement. (Disclosure Statement, Page, 5.)

Complicating matters is the Byzantine nature of III. Voting Procedures and Requirements, and the fluid Restructuring Role of the New Parent. (31)

Certain of the Debtors are parties to that certain Credit Agreement, dated as of December 14, 2021 (as amended, restated, amended and restated, supplemented, or otherwise modified from time to time, the Prepetition CAF Agreement), by and among TES, as parent, TEM and Susquehanna Nuclear, as borrowers, the lenders from time to time party thereto (the Prepetition CAF Lenders),

and Alter Domus (US) LLC, as administrative agent (in such capacity, the Prepetition CAF Agent). The Prepetition CAF Agreement provides for a senior secured revolving loan facility in the aggregate maximum principal amount of up to $848 million (the Prepetition CAF Facility).

The Prepetition CAF Facility matures in 2024 and bears interest at a per annum rate with applicable margin equal to (i) in the case of Base Rate loans, 7.00% and (ii) in the case of Revolving Loans maintained as LIBOR Loans, 8.00%. In addition, the borrowers are required to pay a quarterly fee of 4.50% per annum on unused revolving loan commitments. Amounts under the Prepetition CAF Facility were fully funded as of late December 2021, and were periodically paid back and redrawn prior to the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases.

As a result of the Chapter 11 Cases, amounts are no longer available to be drawn under the Prepetition CAF Facility. (Page, 41) 31 Discussion under Disclosure Statement,Section VIII. A and Section VII. B. 2(a)

(Pages, 3-4) 28

Given the Applicants bankruptcy, debt load, and inability to assure decommissioning funds will be available, this Application is deficient on its face.

Reorganized Talen must provide a supplemental surety method, insurance, or other guarantee method outside of the new family corporate chain.

B. This is a Valid Contention Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.309.

The specific issue of fact and law to be controverted is whether the Applicant complied with the NCR's Requirement Order under 10 CFR 50.80 and 72.50 approving the Indirect Transfer of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22 for Susquehanna, Units 1 and 2, respectively, and the general license for the Susquehanna ISFSI as a result of the restructuring of Talen Energy Corporation as Reorganized Talen. The NRC is also considering amending the renewed facility operating licenses for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer.

C. Factual Allegations Supporting the Claim as Required by 10 CFR § 2.309(f)(1)(v).

Within 30 days of taking the actions required by paragraph (g)(1)or (g)(2) of this section, the licensee must provide a written report of such actions to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and state the new balance of the fund. (24)

For the foregoing reasons, pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.309(f)(3), this Contention should be admitted in its entirety. (32) 32 53 FR 31658, Aug. 19, 1988, as amended at 55 FR 29191, July 18, 1990; 58 FR 39635, July 26, 1993; 58 FR 67662, Dec. 22, 1993; 58 FR 68732, Dec. 29, 1993; 59 FR 1618, Jan. 12, 1994; 61 FR 24675, May 16, 1996; 62 FR 39092, July 21, 1997; 63 FR 29544, 29

June 1, 1998; 66 FR 51840, Oct. 11, 2001; 67 FR 78351, Dec. 24, 2002; 76 FR 35573, June 17, 2011; 79 FR 75741 Dec. 19, 2014].

Epstein Contention, #2: Per § 72.50 Transfer of license. (a) No license or any part included in a license issued under this part for an ISFSI or MRS shall be transferred, assigned, or in any manner disposed of, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license to any person, unless the Commission gives its consent in writing. The Applicant failed to comply with Bankruptcy Review Team compliance mandates for a bankrupt company.

A) Brief Explanation of the Basis for the Contention.

The regulations require that, "No license issued or granted pursuant to the regulations, nor any right under a license shall be transferred, assigned or in any manner disposed of, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of any license to any person, unless the Commission shall, after securing full information, find that the transfer is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and shall give its consent in writing." Therefore, control of licenses cannot be transferred without the prior written consent of the Commission. These regulations apply to specific licensees, as well as certain general licensees.

This requires that licensees notify the Commission that they are undergoing a possible change of control. While this notification is not required within a certain time frame, NRC needs adequate time to review the response to ensure that the transfer is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Once notified, NRC will ask that licensees submit the details of the transaction as described in Sections 5.1 through 5.6.

Definition of Control (Regulations: 10 CFR 30.34(b); 10 CFR 31.2; 10 CFR 40.46; 10 CFR 70.36.)

30

The filing of the petition in bankruptcy court triggers the automatic stay provision in Section 362(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code. This provision stays legal actions against the debtor or against the property of the bankruptcy estate, except in certain limited circumstances that include public health, safety, and environmental obligations. (See Midlantic National Bank v New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 474 U.S. 494 (1986) and In re Chateaugay Corporation, 944 F. 2d 997 (2d Cir 1991.))

The NRC is charged with establishing a Bankruptcy Review Team (BRT) to review and act on bankruptcy notifications when they occur. The BRT brings together the various NRC offices and is typically composed of members of the relevant licensing office staff, the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), the Office of the Controller (OC), the Office of Enforcement (OE), the Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety (IMNS), and the Division of Waste Management (DWM).

As referenced on the Petitioners filing on p.7, the timeline for bankruptcy has been set in motion, but frozen at the proposed Disclosure Statement stage. Even if the NRC convened a BRT, the outcome of Case 22-90054 Document Filed in TXSB which was submitted for approval on October 24, 2022, has not yet been approved. Only the proposed Disclosure Statement has been tentatively approved, and it is subject to change. Therefore, the NRCs Bankruptcy Teams Review is premature and must be postponed until this matter is fully adjudicated.

31

B. This is a Valid Contention Pursuant to 10C FR 2.309.

The specific issue of fact and law to be controverted is whether the Applicant complied with the NCR's Requirement Order under 10 CFR 50.80 and 72.50 approving the Indirect License Transfer of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22 for Susquehanna, Units 1 and 2, respectively, and the general license for the Susquehanna ISFSI as a result of the restructuring of Talen Energy Corporation as Reorganized Talen. The NRC is also considering amending the renewed facility operating licenses for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer.

The OGC representative will provide the BRT with copies of all pertinent filings in the bankruptcy proceeding. The bankruptcy lead will maintain copies of these filings. The licensee might, as a courtesy, provide some copies of filings, but there is no obligation to do so. ( 10 CFR 30.34(h); 10 CFR 40.41(f); 10 CFR 70.32.)

C. Factual Allegations Supporting the Claim as Required by 10 CFR § 2.309(f)(1)(v).

Bankruptcy Regulations: 10 CFR 30.34(h); 10 CFR 40.41(f); 10 CFR 70.32(a)(9).

For the foregoing reasons, pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.309(f)(3), this Contention should be admitted in its entirety.

32

VI. Conclusion.

This Petition is timely.

For the foregoing concerns, Eric Joseph Epsteins Request for Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene should be granted prior to the issuance of an Order under 10 CFR 50.80 and 72.50 approving the Indirect Transfer of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22 for Susquehanna, Units 1 and 2, respectively, and the general license for the Susquehanna ISFSI as a result of the restructuring of Talen Energy Corporation as Reorganized Talen. The NRC is also considering amending the renewed facility operating licenses for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer.

Respectfully submitted, Eric Epstein, Pro Se 4100 Hillsdale Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 epstein@efmr.org (717)-635-8615 33

Dated: November 28, 2022.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of: ) Docket ID Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC. ) NRC-2022-0185 Indirect Renewed Facility )

Operating License Nos. NPF-14 )

and NPF-22 for the ) November 28, 2022 General License and )

Independent Spent Fuel Storage )

Installation As A Result of )

Restructuring and Bankruptcy )

of Talen Energy Corporation )

to A Reorganized Company Yet )

To Be Named (Reorganized Talen) 34

November 28, 2022 ERIC JOSEPH EPSTEINS PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND HEARING REQUEST Certificate of Service I hereby certify that copies of Eric Joseph Epsteins Petition for Leave to Intervene and Hearing have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop:

O-16B33 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail.resource@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16B33 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E. Roy Hawkens, Chairman E-mail: Roy.Hawkens@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-14A44 Susan H. Vrahoretis E-mail: Julie.Ezell@nrc.gov Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov Mauri.Lemoncelli@nrc.gov Ethan.Licon@nrc.gov Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov David.Roth@nrc.gov Sherwin.Turk@nrc.gov Susan.Vrahoretis@nrc.gov 35

Talen Energy Mr. Kevin Cimorelli, Site Vice President.

Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC.

769 Salem Boulevard Berwick, PA 18603-0467 KevinCimorelli@TalenEnergy.com Eric Joseph Epstein Dated at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania this 28th day of November, 2022 36