Text

Petition to Intervene and Request for Adjudicatory Hearing
	ML24240A210
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	08/27/2024
From:	Lodge T, Taylor W; - No Known Affiliation, Beyond Nuclear, Don't Waste Michigan, Michigan Safe Energy Future
To:	; NRC/OCM
	SECY RAS
References
	RAS 57086, 50-255 LT-3, 72-007 LT-3
	Download: ML24240A210 (0)
	v • d • e

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

In the Matter of )

Docket No. 50-255 Holtec Palisades LLC and Holtec )

Decommissioning International

)

(Palisades Nuclear Plant August 27, 2024 Request for License Transfer) )

PETITION TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR ADJUDICATORY HEARING BY BEYOND NUCLEAR, DONT WASTE MICHIGAN AND MICHIGAN SAFE ENERGY FUTURE

INTRODUCTION

Holtec Palisades LLC and Holtec Decommissioning International (collectively,

Holtec), on December 6, 2023, submitted to the NRC an application to approve the

direct transfer of control of the Palisades Nuclear Plant (Palisades) to Palisades Energy LLC. 1 Palisades was placed on a path to decommissioning status beginning in 2017, and

permanently ended power generation activities on May 20, 2022. Holtec purchased

Palisades from Entergy Nuclear Operations (Entergy) on June 28, 2022. Holtec is now

trying to remove Palisades from decommissioning status and return Palisades to active

power operations. It is proposed that Palisades Energy would operate the plant if it is

restarted.

Palisades went on line, producing electricity, in 1971. Its operating license was

renewed in 2006 to authorize operation through 2031. In 2016, Entergy, then-owner of

Palisades at the time, decided to cease operations by 2018, which it later moved back to

1 Application for Order Consenting to Transfer of Control of License and Approving Conforming License Amendments, ML23340A161.

1 May 2022. On May 20, 2022, Entergy finally closed Palisades and placed the plant into

decommissioning status.

Three petitioning organizations, Beyond Nuclear, Michigan Safe Energy Future,

and Dont Waste Michigan, demonstrate below that they have standing to pursue

contentions against Holtecs request for approval of a license transfer from Holtec to

Palisades Energy, as violative of the Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations.

Petitioners set forth why Holtecs proposal must be rejected by the NRC.

PETITIONING PARTIES AND THE BASIS FOR LEGAL STANDING

Beyond Nuclear

Beyond Nuclear is a not-for-profit public policy, research, education organization

based in Takoma Park, Maryland that advocates the immediate expansion of renewable

energy sources to replace commercial nuclear power generation. Beyond Nuclear has

over 12,000 members of whom a number reside, work and recreate near the Palisades

Nuclear Plant. Beyond Nuclear herewith provides its declaration, agreeing to represent

two of its members, W. Dillon Reed and Caroline Ferry in this proceeding. Both have

designated Beyond Nuclear to intervene to protect their interests in physical health and

safety, the health and safety of their family members, their real property, and the health

and stability of the physical environment proximate to Palisades. Beyond Nuclears

address is 7304 Carroll Ave., #182, Takoma Park, MD 20912, phone (301) 270-2209,

www.beyondnuclear.org.

W. Dillon Reed is an adult Michigan citizen who lives at 80015 Ramblewood

Drive, Covert, MI 49043, which is located 0.75 straight-line miles from the Palisades

2 Nuclear Plant. (Palisades). His home is near Lake Michigan and in the warm season he

walks on the beach and wades in the Lake within a few hundred yards of Palisades and

goes boating with friends or relatives. He opposes the granting of an exemption by the

NRC to Holtec Decommissioning International LLC and Holtec Palisades LLC because

of concerns over safety, the potential for significant damage to public health and the

environment, Holtecs lack of nuclear power generation experience and controversial

historical performance of the parent company, Holtec International (Holtec), as a

corporation.

Mr. Reed is concerned that before Palisades could be restored to operation, there

would have to be resolution of its half-century-long plague of control rod drive

mechanism (CRDM) seal leakage problems. The root cause(s) of the problem have never

been established, but CRDM seals are a key safety feature to protect the radioactive fuel

core from damage.

He further knows that the Palisades reactor vessel is severely embrittled and that

Palisades has perennially been ranked by the NRC as having one of the most embrittled

reactor vessels in the industry, one which could critically fail in the event of too-rapid

heating or cooling. According to Mr. Reed, there has been no meaningful physical

scientific assessment of the Palisades reactor vessel for more than 20 years.

Mr. Reed also states that restoration of Palisades to operation would also require

replacement of the reactor pressure vessel head and replacement of the steam generators

for the second time in Palisades history. He recounts the 1994 reports by Dr. Ross

Landsman, an NRC safety inspector, who identified violations of the Palisades Safe

3 Shutdown Earthquake Evaluation in the form of subsurface stability beneath the concrete

pads for the loaded nuclear waste casks that are perched on the Lake Michigan shoreline.

Landsman has stated that both cask pads at Palisades violate NRC earthquake safety

regulations. Mr. Reed also cites concerns with Cask No. 4, the fourth dry storage cask

(DSC) to be loaded with spent nuclear fuel at Palisades, which has weld defects and

possible damage to its spent fuel contents. Cask No. 4 poses a serious danger to workers

and the physical environment and must at some point be remediated.

Mr. Reed points out that no U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has ever been

restored to operations after being permanently shut down and he lacks confidence that

necessary quality assurance record keeping and ongoing maintenance have been

performed of key systems and components since power operations were permanently

ended in May 2022. He is afraid that if Palisades is restored to operability there could be

one or more operations incidents or accidents that will result in radiation release and that

his family and he might suffer irreparable damage to their health as well as to real and

personal property located at his residence. Mr. Reed has designated Beyond Nuclear to

represent his interests in this proceeding and states that they will not be adequately

represented unless Beyond Nuclear is allowed to participate as a party on his behalf.

Caroline Ferry is an adult citizen of Michigan who lives at 79964 Fernwood

Drive, Covert, MI 49043, which is located 0.75 straight-line miles from the Palisades

Nuclear Plant (Palisades). Her home is near Lake Michigan and in the warm season she

walks on the beach and wades in the Lake within a few hundred yards of Palisades and

goes boating with friends or relatives. She opposes the granting of an exemption by the

4 NRC to Holtec Decommissioning International LLC and Holtec Palisades LLC because

of concerns over safety, the potential for significant damage to public health and the

environment, Holtecs lack of nuclear power generation experience and controversial

historical performance of the parent company, Holtec International (Holtec), as a

corporation.

Ms. Ferry is concerned that before Palisades could be restored to operation, there

would have to be resolution of its half-century-long plague of control rod drive

mechanism (CRDM) seal leakage problems. The root cause(s) of the problem have never

been established, but CRDM seals are a key safety feature to protect the radioactive fuel

core from damage.

She further knows that the Palisades reactor vessel is severely embrittled and that

Palisades has perennially been ranked by the NRC as having one of the most embrittled

reactor vessels in the industry, one which could critically fail in the event of too-rapid

heating or cooling. According to Ms. Ferry, there has been no meaningful physical

scientific assessment of the Palisades reactor vessel for more than 20 years.

Ms. Ferry also states that restoration of Palisades to operation would also require

replacement of the reactor pressure vessel head and replacement of the steam generators

for the second time in Palisades history. She recounts the 1994 reports by Dr. Ross

Landsman, an NRC safety inspector, who identified violations of the Palisades Safe

Shutdown Earthquake Evaluation in the form of subsurface stability beneath the concrete

pads for the loaded nuclear waste casks that are perched on the Lake Michigan shoreline.

Landsman has stated that both cask pads at Palisades violate NRC earthquake safety

5 regulations. Ms. Ferry also cites concerns with Cask No. 4, the fourth dry storage cask

(DSC) to be loaded with spent nuclear fuel at Palisades, which has weld defects and

possible damage to its spent fuel contents. Cask No. 4 poses a serious danger to workers

and the physical environment and must at some point be remediated.

Ms. Ferry points out that no U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has ever been

restored to operations after being permanently shut down and she lacks confidence that

necessary quality assurance record keeping and ongoing maintenance have been

performed of key systems and components since power operations were permanently

ended in May 2022. She is afraid that if Palisades is restored to operability there could be

one or more operations incidents or accidents that will result in radiation release and that

her family and she might suffer irreparable damage to their health as well as to real and

personal property located at her residence. Ms. Ferry has designated Beyond Nuclear to

represent her interests in this proceeding and states that they will not be adequately

represented unless Beyond Nuclear is allowed to participate as a party on her behalf.

Michigan Safe Energy Future

Michigan Safe Energy Future (MSEF) is a grassroots association of people in

western and southwestern Michigan which since 2013 has advocated for the permanent

shutdown of Palisades Nuclear Plant and replacement of nuclear and natural gas power

generation with safe and renewable nonnuclear energy technologies. MSEF has a dozen

members and does not have a fixed office address.

MSEF herewith provides its declaration, agreeing to represent two of its members,

James Scott and Ann Scott in this proceeding. Both Scotts designated MSEF to intervene

6 to protect their interests in physical health and safety, the health and safety of their family

members, their real property, and the health and stability of the physical environment

proximate to Palisades.

James Scott is an adult citizen of Michigan who lives at 80014 Ramblewood Hill,

Covert, MI 49043, which is located 1.2 straight-line miles from the Palisades Nuclear

Plant. His home is near Lake Michigan and in the warm season he walks on the beach and

wades in the Lake within a few hundred yards of Palisades and goes boating with friends

or relatives. He opposes granting an exemption by the NRC to Holtec Decommissioning

International LLC and Holtec Palisades LLC because of concerns over safety, the potential

for significant damage to public health and the environment, Holtecs lack of nuclear

power generation experience and controversial historical performance of the parent

company, Holtec International (Holtec), as a corporation.

Mr. Scott is concerned that before Palisades could be restored to operation, there

would have to be resolution of its half-century-long plague of control rod drive

mechanism (CRDM) seal leakage problems. The root cause(s) of the problem have never

been established, but CRDM seals are a key safety feature to protect the radioactive fuel

core from damage.

He further knows that the Palisades reactor vessel is severely embrittled and that

Palisades has perennially been ranked by the NRC as having one of the most embrittled

reactor vessels in the industry, one which could critically fail in the event of too-rapid

heating or cooling. According to Mr. Scott, there has been no meaningful physical

scientific assessment of the Palisades reactor vessel for more than 20 years.

7 Mr. Scott also states that restoration of Palisades to operation would also require

replacement of the reactor pressure vessel head and replacement of the steam

generators for the second time in Palisades history. He recounts the 1994 reports by Dr.

Ross Landsman, an NRC safety inspector, who identified violations of the Palisades

Safe Shutdown Earthquake Evaluation in the form of subsurface stability beneath the

concrete pads for the loaded nuclear waste casks that are perched on the Lake Michigan

shoreline. Landsman has stated that both cask pads at Palisades violate NRC

earthquake safety regulations. Mr. Scott also cites concerns with Cask No. 4, the fourth

dry storage cask (DSC) to be loaded with spent nuclear fuel at Palisades, which has

weld defects and possible damage to its spent fuel contents. Cask No. 4 poses a serious

danger to workers and the physical environment and must at some point be remediated.

Mr. Scott points out that no U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has ever been

restored to operations after being permanently shut down and he lacks confidence that

necessary quality assurance record keeping and ongoing maintenance have been

performed of key systems and components since power operations were permanently

ended in May 2022. He is afraid that if Palisades is restored to operability there could be

one or more operations incidents or accidents that will result in radiation release and that

his family and he might suffer irreparable damage to their health as well as to real and

personal property located at his residence. Mr. Scott has designated Michigan Safe

Energy Future to represent his interests in this proceeding and states that they will not be

adequately represented unless MSEF is allowed to participate as a party on his behalf.

8 Ann Scott is an adult citizen of Michigan who lives at 80014 Ramblewood Hill,

Covert, MI 49043, which is located 1.2 straight-line miles from the Palisades Nuclear

Plant. Her home is near Lake Michigan and in the warm season she walks on the beach

and wades in the Lake within a few hundred yards of Palisades and goes boating with

friends or relatives. She opposes the granting of an exemption by the NRC to Holtec

Decommissioning International LLC and Holtec Palisades LLC because of concerns over

safety, the potential for significant damage to public health and the environment, Holtecs

lack of nuclear power generation experience and controversial historical performance of

the parent company, Holtec International (Holtec), as a corporation.

Ms. Scott is concerned that before Palisades could be restored to operation, there

would have to be resolution of its half-century-long plague of control rod drive

mechanism (CRDM) seal leakage problems. The root cause(s) of the problem have never

been established, but CRDM seals are a key safety feature to protect the radioactive fuel

core from damage.

She further knows that the Palisades reactor vessel is severely embrittled and that

Palisades has perennially been ranked by the NRC as having one of the most embrittled

reactor vessels in the industry, one which could critically fail in the event of too-rapid

heating or cooling. According to Ms. Scott, there has been no meaningful physical

scientific assessment of the Palisades reactor vessel for more than 20 years.

Ms. Scott also states that restoration of Palisades to operation would also require

replacement of the reactor pressure vessel head and replacement of the steam generators

for the second time in Palisades history. She recounts the 1994 reports by Dr. Ross

9 Landsman, an NRC safety inspector, who identified violations of the Palisades Safe

Shutdown Earthquake Evaluation in the form of subsurface stability beneath the concrete

pads for the loaded nuclear waste casks that are perched on the Lake Michigan shoreline.

Landsman has stated that both cask pads at Palisades violate NRC earthquake safety

regulations. Ms. Scott also cites concerns with Cask No. 4, the fourth dry storage cask

(DSC) to be loaded with spent nuclear fuel at Palisades, which has weld defects and

possible damage to its spent fuel contents. Cask No. 4 poses a serious danger to workers

and the physical environment and must at some point be remediated.

Ms. Scott points out that no U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has ever been

restored to operations after being permanently shut down and she lacks confidence that

necessary quality assurance record keeping and ongoing maintenance have been

performed of key systems and components since power operations were permanently

ended in May 2022. She is afraid that if Palisades is restored to operability there could be

one or more operations incidents or accidents that will result in radiation release and that

her family and she might suffer irreparable damage to their health as well as to real and

personal property located at her residence. Ms. Scott has designated Michigan Safe

Energy Future to represent her interests in this proceeding and states that they will not be

adequately represented unless MSEF is allowed to participate as a party on her behalf.

Dont Waste Michigan

Dont Waste Michigan (DWM) is a 32-year-old grassroots association with

over 50 members in southern, western and central Michigan. DWM is located at 811

Harrison St., Monroe, MI 48161. DWM works to shut down aging, dangerous nuclear

10 power plants in the Great Lakes Basin; to halt or block the construction of new nuclear

power plants; to educate the public about the dangers of nuclear power and nuclear

waste, its deadly by-product; and to block the practice of landfilling nuclear waste.

DWM herewith provides its declaration, agreeing to represent two of its members,

Alice Hirt in this proceeding. Ms. Hirt has designated DWM to intervene to protect her

interests in physical health and safety, the health and safety of her family members, her

real property, and the health and stability of the physical environment proximate to

Palisades.

Alice Hirt is an adult citizen of Michigan who lives at 6677 Summit View,

Holland, MI 49024, which is located 36.5 straight-line miles from the Palisades Nuclear

Plant. Her home is near Lake Michigan and in the warm season she walks on the beach

and wades in the Lake and goes boating with friends or relatives. She opposes the

granting of an exemption by the NRC to Holtec Decommissioning International LLC and

Holtec Palisades LLC because of concerns over safety, the potential for significant

damage to public health and the environment, Holtecs lack of nuclear power generation

experience and controversial historical performance of the parent company, Holtec

International (Holtec), as a corporation.

Ms. Hirt is concerned that before Palisades could be restored to operation, there

would have to be resolution of its half-century-long plague of control rod drive

mechanism (CRDM) seal leakage problems. The root cause(s) of the problem have never

been established, but CRDM seals are a key safety feature to protect the radioactive fuel

core from damage.

11 She further knows that the Palisades reactor vessel is severely embrittled and that

Palisades has perennially been ranked by the NRC as having one of the most embrittled

reactor vessels in the industry, one which could critically fail in the event of too-rapid

heating or cooling. According to Ms. Hirt, there has been no meaningful physical

scientific assessment of the Palisades reactor vessel for more than 20 years.

Ms. Hirt also states that restoration of Palisades to operation would also require

replacement of the reactor pressure vessel head and replacement of the steam generators

for the second time in Palisades history. She recounts the 1994 reports by Dr. Ross

Landsman, an NRC safety inspector, who identified violations of the Palisades Safe

Shutdown Earthquake Evaluation in the form of subsurface stability beneath the concrete

pads for the loaded nuclear waste casks that are perched on the Lake Michigan shoreline.

Landsman has stated that both cask pads at Palisades violate NRC earthquake safety

regulations. Ms. Hirt also cites concerns with Cask No. 4, the fourth dry storage cask

(DSC) to be loaded with spent nuclear fuel at Palisades, which has weld defects and

possible damage to its spent fuel contents. Cask No. 4 poses a serious danger to workers

and the physical environment and must at some point be remediated.

Ms. Hirt points out that no U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has ever been

restored to operations after being permanently shut down and she lacks confidence that

necessary quality assurance record keeping and ongoing maintenance have been

performed of key systems and components since power operations were permanently

ended in May 2022. She is afraid that if Palisades is restored to operability there could be

one or more operations incidents or accidents that will result in radiation release and that

12 her family and she might suffer irreparable damage to their health as well as to real and

personal property located at her residence. Ms. Hirt has designated Dont Waste Michigan

to represent her interests in this proceeding and states that they will not be adequately

represented unless DWM is allowed to participate as a party on her behalf.

The declarations of the standing declarants are attached to this Petition.

LEGAL BASIS FOR STANDING

Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, the Commission must grant a hearing in a

licensing proceeding 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 support the request, a petitioner must provide the Commission with

information regarding (1) the nature of the petitioners right under the governing statutes

to be made a party; (2) the nature of the petitioners property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; (3) the possible effect of any decision or order on the petitioners

interest. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), 60 N.R.C. 548, 552 (2004)(citing 10 C.F.R. §

2.309(d)(1). The NRC generally uses judicial concepts of standing in interpreting this

regulation. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, 60 N.R.C. at 552. Thus, a petitioner may

intervene if it can specify facts showing that (1) it has suffered or will suffer a distinct

and palpable harm constituting injury-in-fact within the zone of interests arguably

protected by the governing statutes, (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the action being

challenged, and (3) the injury will likely be redressed by a favorable determination. Id. at

13 552-553. In determining whether a petitioner has met the requirements for establishing

standing, the Commission construe[s] the petition in favor of the petitioner. Id. at 553.

A petitioner for leave to intervene must, of course, show the potential for injury-

in-fact to its interests before intervention can be granted. Nuclear Engg Co., Inc.

(Sheffield, Ill. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), 7 NRC 737, 743 (1978). A

petitioner need not establish that injury will inevitably result from the proposed action to

show an injury-in-fact, but only that it may be injured in fact by the proposed action.

Gulf States Utils. Co., et al. (River Bend Station, Unit 1), 40 NRC 43 (1994).

An organization that wishes to intervene in a proceeding may do so either in its

own right by demonstrating harm to its organizational interests, or in a representational

capacity by demonstrating harm to its members. See Hydro Resources, Inc. (2929 Coors

Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 261, 271 (1998). Both

incorporated entities, such as BN and DWM, and unincorporated associations such as

Michigan Safe Energy Future, may act as representational entities by demonstrating harm

to their members..

An organization seeking representational standing must demonstrate how at least

one of its members may be affected by the licensing action (such as by activities on or

near the site), must identify that member by name and address, and must show

(preferably by affidavit) that the organization is authorized to request a hearing on behalf

of that member. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343

(1975) (There is no question that an association may have standing in its own right to

seek judicial relief from injury to itself and to vindicate whatever rights and immunities

14 the association itself may enjoy. Moreover, in attempting to secure relief from injury to

itself the association may assert the rights of its members, at least so long as the

challenged infractions adversely affect its members' associational ties. E.g., NAACP v.

Alabama, supra, at 458-460); Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 183-

187 (1951) (Jackson, J., concurring).... Even in the absence of injury to itself, an

association may have standing solely as the representative of its members. E.g., National

Motor Freight Assn. v. United States, 372 U.S. 246 (1963). Also, see Sperry Products v.

Assn ofAm. Railroads, 132 F.2d 408, 410-11 (2d Cir. 1942) (noting that unincorporated

associations can be treated as singular entities for procedural incidents such as service

of process and venue, but that for most purposes, including jurisdiction over []

subject matter, the law looks at such associations as mere aggregations of

individuals).

An organization seeking representational standing must demonstrate how at

least one of its members may be affected by the licensing action (such as by activities

on or near the site), must identify that member by name and address, and must show

(preferably by affidavit) that the organization is authorized to request a hearing on

behalf of that member. See, e.g., Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech

Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CLI-95-12, 42 NRC 111, 115 (1995); Houston

Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-549, 9 NRC 644,

646-48 (1979); Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating

Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 390-97 (1979). Regarding the preference for

an affidavit, see Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. (Cambridge, Ohio Facility), CLI

15 12, 49 NRC 347, 354 & n.4 (1999); Northeast Nuclear Energy Co. (Millstone Nuclear

Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-96-1, 43 NRC 19, 23 (1996).

In this case, three organizations - Beyond Nuclear, Dont Waste Michigan, and

Michigan Safe Energy Future - are each petitioning on behalf of certain of their

members, all of whom herewith have submitted declarations. Four of the five members

are residents of Palisades Park, Michigan, who live within two miles or less miles of the

Palisades plant, and the fifth lives within 37 miles The petitioning organizations base

their claims to standing on the facts that the restoration of Palisades to power generation

is analogous to licensing a new nuclear power plant, and that the longstanding NRC

policy is to readily recognize the legal standing of persons who live, work and/or recreate

within 50 miles of a power plant in the present generation of light water reactors based

on the inherent dangerousness of commercial nuclear power. Amergen Energy Co., LLC

(Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), LBP-06-7, 63 NRC 188, 195 (2006). Florida

Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), LBP-01-6,

53 NRC 138, 146, affd, CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3 (2001).

In an analogous operating license proceeding, a petitioner can base his or her

standing upon a combination of residence or visits near the plant and a showing that the

proposed action entails an increased potential for offsite consequences. Commonwealth

Edison Co. (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-99-4, 49 NRC 185, 191

(1999) ; Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 &

4), LBP-08-18, 68 NRC 533, 541 (2008). Petitioners members may be accorded

standing if they reside close enough to a planned project so that there is reasonable

16 apprehension of injury. Hydro Resources, Inc., supra. As each of the member declarants

explains, they will suffer (or will be under threat of suffering) concrete and

particularized injuries from the restored operations of Palisades if the exemption sought

by Holtec is granted. If the exemption is denied, the potential threats or actual harms

from Palisades will not occur. Palisades may not resume operations without a license

from the Commission, which by statute also has the power to order mitigation

arrangements. 42 U.S.C. § 2133(a). In addition, the member-declarants have expressed

bases for standing that fall within the zone of interests protected by the Atomic Energy

Act and the National Environmental Policy Act and their respective implementing

regulations, which are pertinent to this proceeding, even if the Commission decides to

grant the requested categorical exclusion. See, e.g., Ouachita Watch League v. Jacobs,

463 F.3d 1163, 1173 (11th Cir. 2006) ([S]ince the injury alleged is environmental, it

falls within the zone of interests protected by NEPA....); Sabine River Auth. v. U.S.

Dep't of Interior, 951 F.2d 669, 675 (5th Cir. 1992) (plaintiffs' concerns about impacts

on water quality and quantity fell within NEPA's zone of interests).

The member-declarants have standing to intervene in their own right, having met

the requirements for injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability. See Lujan v. Defenders

of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 572 n.7 (1992) ([P]rocedural rights are special: The person

who has been accorded a procedural right to protect his concrete interests can assert that

right without meeting all the normal standards for redressability and immediacy.)

(internal quotations omitted); see also Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire, Units 1 and 2;

Catawba, Units 1 and 2) CLI-02-17, 56 NRC 1, 10 (2002) (emphasizing NEPAs goal to

17 ensure that the agency does not act upon incomplete information, only to regret its

decision after it is too late to correct.).

STANDARD FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS

Section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2239, provides:

In any proceeding under this Act, for the granting, suspending, revoking, or amending of any license or construction permit, or application to transfer control, and in any proceeding for the issuance or modification of rules and regulations dealing with the activities of licensees, and in any proceeding for the payment of compensation, an award, or royalties under section 153, 157, 186c., or 188, the Commission shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding, To carry out the provisions of that statute, the NRC has adopted a regulation, 10

C.F.R. § 2.309, regarding hearing requests and petitions to intervene. The regulation

authorizes any person whose interest may be affected by a proceeding to intervene in the

proceeding. That is the basis on which this petition is presented. However, the

Commission has held that § 189(a) does not apply to proceedings involving a request for

an exemption. Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2),

51 NRC 90 (2000). The Petitioners herein, so as not to waive any procedural

requirement, are submitting this Petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309, because the

NRCs consideration of Holtecs Request for Exemption in their estimation comprises a

licensing-related act that comprises a proceeding pursuant to § 2.309.

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f), a petitioners contentions must: (1) provide a

specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted; (2) provide a

brief explanation of the basis for the contention; (3) demonstrate that the issue raised in

the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; (4) demonstrate that the issue raised

in the contention is material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action that

18 is involved in the proceeding; (5) provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or

expert opinions which support the petitioners position on the issue and on which the

petitioner intends to rely at hearing, together with reference to specific sources and

documents on which the petitioner intends to rely; (6) provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with the licensee on a material issue of law or fact.

The NRC has made clear that the burden on a petitioner in stating its contentions

is not heavy. In Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units

2 & 3), CLI-01-24, 54 NRC 349, the NRC described the contention admissibility

standards as insist[ing] upon some reasonably specific factual and legal basis for the

contention. Id., 54 349,359. The NRC further explained in Millstone that the standards

for contention admissibility were meant to prevent contentions based on little more

than speculation and intervenors who had negligible knowledge of nuclear power

issues and, in fact, no direct case to present. Id. at 358. Rather, petitioners are required

only to articulate at the outset the specific issues they wish to litigate. Id. at 359.

The NRC and the courts have also made clear that the burden of persuasion is on

the licensee, not the petitioner. The petitioner only needs to com[e] forward with

factual issues, not merely conclusory statements and vague allegations. Northeast

Nuclear Energy Company, 53 NRC 22, 27 (2001). The NRC described the threshold

burden in stating a contention as requiring a petitioner to raise any specific, germane,

substantial, and material factual issues that are relevant to the... request for a license...

and that create a basis for calling on the [licensee] to satisfy the ultimate burden of

proof. Id.

19 Courts have found, however, that this threshold burden may not be appropriate

where the information was in the hands of the licensee or NRC staff and was not made

available to the petitioner. See, e.g., York Comm. for a Safe Envt. v. NRC, 527 F.2d 812,

815 n. 12 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (where the information necessary to make the relevant

assessment is readily accessible and comprehensible to the license applicant and the

Commission staff but not to petitioners, placing the burden of going forward on

petitioners appears inappropriate.).

Also, in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 554

(1978), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the NRC in finding that the proper standard to

apply required intervenors to simply make a showing sufficient to require reasonable

minds to inquire further, a burden the NRC found to be significantly less than that of

making a prima facie case.

The ASLB in the Yucca Mountain case observed:

The Commission therefore amended its rules to require that contentions have at least some minimal factual and legal foundation in support. That is all. That is what DOE agreed at oral argument is the standard. As the Commission emphasized in Oconee, the contention requirements were never intended to be turned into a fortress to deny intervention.

U.S. Dept. ofEnergy (High Level Waste Repository, LBP-09-06 (May 11, 2009).

PETITIONERS CONTENTIONS AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

CONTENTION 1

The NRC staff approved a transfer of the operating license for Palisades from Entergy to Holtec on December 13, 2021. The application for license transfer submitted by Entergy and Holtec, and the approval decision issued by the NRC staff, made clear that the basis for the license transfer was to authorize Holtec to undertake the decommissioning of Palisades. Consistent with the requirements for license transfer, in June 2022 Entergy submitted the 10 C.F.R. § 50.82 decommissioning certifications. But

20 Holtec knew its intent was to restart Palisades, not to continue decommissioning.

Section 184 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2234, requires that a license transfer must be based on full disclosure to the NRC. The license transfer from Entergy to Holtec violated that requirement. Moreover, as a practical matter, Holtec does not own an operating license for Palisades, but only a possession-only license for nuclear material. Therefore, Holtec did not, and does not, have a valid license to transfer to Palisades Energy. The proposed license transfer to Palisades Energy would violate the Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations and must not be approved.

Basis for the Contention

A. Misrepreentation by Holtec to Secure License Transfer from Entergy

The application for the transfer of the operating license for Palisades filed by

Holtec was based on the assertion that Holtec would continue the decommissioning of

Palisades begun by Entergy. The facts set out below demonstrate that the application

for license transfer of Palisades was conclusively based on the assertion and

understanding that Holtec would continue the decommissioning of Palisades. The facts

also show that at the time of the license transfer, Holtecs intention was to attempt to

restore Palisades to full operation. The NRC was denied full information as required

by AEA § 184 (42 U.S.C. § 2234), which states:

No license granted hereunder... 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 this chapter, and shall give its consent in writing. (Emphasis added).

Based on the foregoing, Holtec has no valid license to transfer to Palisades Energy

as requested.

Facts Upon Which Petitioners Intend to Rely In Support of This Contention

Review of the timeline of pertinent events reveals Holtecs pretense of acquiring

Palisades to undertake decommissioning while actually intending to restart it:

21 l Early December 2016 - Entergy announced it would close Palisades for good by October 2018 (in 2017, Entergy changed its mind, and announced it would close Palisades for good by May 31, 2022.)

l 1-4 Entergy submitted a plan to the NRC to close Palisades

l 12-23 Entergy and Holtec jointly filed a PSDAR (Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report) 2 and DCE (Decommissioning Cost Estimate) for Palisades with NRC

l 2-24 Beyond Nuclear, Dont Waste Michigan, and Michigan Safe Energy Future, the Michigan Attorney-General and the Environmental Law and Policy Center all filed intervention petitions and requests for hearing to challenge the license transfer of Palisades from Entergy to Holtec, introducing numerous technical and legal contentions. The interventions were submitted by the deadline, 20 days after NRCs hearing notice publication at 86 Fed. Reg. 8226 (February 4, 2021)

l 12-13 Despite the still-pending intervention petitions and hearing requests, immediately above, NRC staff approved the transfer of the operating license for Palisades from Entergy to Holtec, predicated on Palisades being decommissioned, and the operating license being converted into a decommissioning phase possession-only (non-operating) license 3

l 5-20 Entergy permanently closed Palisades

l 6-10 Entergy de-fueled the Palisades reactor core for the final time

l 6-13 Entergy submitted the decommissioning certifications to the NRC (Final De-Fueling of the Reactor Core, and Permanent Cessation of Power Operations)

6-28 The sale of Palisades from Entergy to Holtec was completed

l 7-5 Holtec secretly submitted an application to the Department of Energy for $2 to 3 billion in funding to restart Palisades

2 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report, ML20358A239 3 Order approving license transfer, ML21292A145

22 l July 2023 - The NRC Commissioners approved a hearing for the merits of the State of Michigans challenge regarding Holtecs takeover of Palisades, but rejects all environmental group intervenors intervention petitions and hearing requests

l 3-31 Holtec submitted a decommissioning trust fund expenditure report to the NRC, even as it proceeded with its plan to restart Palisades; the published report revealed that Holtec had spent down $44 million from Palisades Decommissioning Trust Fund, while at the same time admitting that very little to no decommissioning work had actually been done 4

l 9-28 Holtec submitted an application for an exemption from the decommissioning certifications filed by Entergy on 6-13-22.

What this timeline shows is that when the Palisades license transfer from Entergy

to Holtec was approved by NRC staff on December 13, 2021, Holtec indisputably knew

that the transfer was contingent on the closing and decommissioning of Palisades.

Nonetheless, on July 5, 2022, Holtec applied for federal funding to restart Palisades

without telling either the NRC or the public until on or about September 9, 2022.

On March 31, 2023, Holtec submitted a DTF expenditure report saying that it was

still undertaking to decommission Palisades, even though it is obvious that Holtecs plan

was simultaneously to restart Palisades.

The application for license transfer filed jointly by Entergy and Holtec states

that the license transfer would occur only after removal of fuel from Palisades reactor

core, as required by the sale agreement between Entergy and Holtec. And the license

transfer would not occur until after Entergy submitted the certifications required by 10

C.F.R. § 50.82. Also, the application stated that HDI, a Holtec subsidiary, would

4 Decommissioning Funding Status Report, ML23090A140

23 assume license responsibility for Palisades for the purpose of decommissioning, that is,

a possession-only license.

The license transfer application also states at page 3, the [t]he transfers are

desirable and of considerable benefit to the citizens of Michigan, because the transfers

will result in the decommissioning of the Palisades Site on an accelerated schedule.

Likewise, the application, at pp. 3 and 5-13, describes in detail the qualifications of the

parties related to decommissioning. Finally, the application, at p. 17-19, presents

assurances that Holtec had funding sufficient to complete decommissioning of Palisades.

Holtecs stated intention to continue decommissioning could not be more clear.

But the truth is, Holtec did not provide the NRC full and accurate information about the

license transfer from Entergy to Holtec, and so that transfer should be rescinded and

invalidated.

B. Holtecs Present License Is Not a Renewed Facility Operating License

The license that Holtec acquired from Entergy is not a renewed facility operating license, as is asserted in the August 7, 2024 Federal Register notice. 5 With that license

transfer invalidated, Holtec has nothing to transfer to Palisades Energy, as requested in

the current application before the Commission. In other words, contrary to the assertion

on page 1 of Holtecs application, Holtec has no operating authority to transfer to

Palisades Energy. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 50.82(a)(2), once a licensee (in this case

Entergy) submits a certification for permanent cessation of operations, the license no

longer authorizes operation of the reactor. As Holtec admits on page 2 of the license

5 The application seeks NRC approval of the direct transfer of control of PNP RFOL No. DPR-20 and the Palisades ISFSI general license from HDI to Palisades Energy, LLC (the proposed new licensed operator). 89 Fed. Reg. 64493 (August 7, 2024).

24 transfer application, when [Entergy] transferred operational authority to [Holtec] on

June 28, 2022, the permanently defueled licensing basis no longer authorized power

operations. Holtec only received from Entergy a possession-only license. That would

be all that Holtec can possibly transfer to Palisades Energy, but Holtec has foreited that

option by clearly misrepresenting its true intentions and motivations in acquiring the

Palisades Nuclear Plant from Entergy.

What did Holtec gain in acquiring the Palisades complex?

1) A location situated by Lake Michigan for construction of two prototype

reactors to be designed by Holtec, including a shot at hundreds more millions of dollars

in federal subsidies. Holtec is presently marketing its unbuilt and untested SMR-300

design globally with aims of becoming a serious player. By not disclosing its SMR

construction plans, Holtec faced no competition in negotiating a deal with Entergy to

buy the plant and may have secured a more favorable purchase price.

2) Access to Palisades nearly half-billion-dollar decommissioning trust fund.

Holtec has raised questions about DTF expenditures at other of its six shutdown nuclear

plants besides Palisades.

3) Access to some $1.85 billion in U.S. Department of Energy and State of

Michigan bailout (taxpayer) funds.

4) The benefits of a rigged, premium-priced power purchase agreement to

provide a market for Palisades above-market-price electricity because it is unlikely that

Palisades power can be competitively priced.

25 Holtec undeniably benefited from buying Palisades from Entergy. But Holtecs

deliberate nondisclosure of its true intentions has caused regulatory and engineering

problems. As an amateur at nuclear reactor restart, Holtec may have caused the

unnecessary expenditure of millions of dollars to rehabilitate the plant as a consequence

of failure to properly mothball the plant. Major components were not placed in wet or

dry layup. Proper disclosure of intentions would have prompted the NRC to require

clear plans from Holtec for stabilization of Palisades. Instead, the NRCs regulatory

burden and the planned restart have become more complicated. Holtec has added to the

risks involved in rehabilitating and restarting the plant.

CONCLUSION

According to 42 U.S.C. § 2236(a),

Any license may be revoked for any material false statement in the application or any statement of fact required under section 2232 of this title, or because of conditions revealed by such application or statement of fact or any report, record, or inspection or other means which would warrant the Commission to refuse to grant a license on an original application....

What emerges from Holtecs pattern of misleads and misrepresentations

respecting its acquisition of Palisades is that Holtec benefited economically while the

public and the regulator are expected to absorb the economic and oversight costs of the

Palisades restart to a large extent. Petitioners therefore request that the NRC revoke the

original December 2021 license transfer in its entirety. Moreover, Holtec owns a

possession-only license for Palisades and does not have a renewed facility operating

license to transfer to Palisades Energy. For that additional reason the license transfer must

be denied.

26

/ s/ Terry J. Lodge / s/ Wallace L. Taylor Terry J. Lodge Wallace L. Taylor 316 N. Michigan St, Suite 520 4403 1 st Ave. N.E., Suite 402 Toledo, Ohio 43604 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52402 419-205-7084 319-366-2428 (Fax) 419-932-6625 (Fax) 319-366-3886 e-mail: tjlodge50@yahoo.com e-mail: wtaylorlaw@aol.com

CO-COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS

27 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

In the Matter of )

Docket No. 50-255 Holtec Palisades LLC and Holtec )

Decommissioning International

)

(Palisades Nuclear Plant August 27, 2024 Request for License Transfer) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 3.305, I certify that, on this date, copies of this Petition to

Intervene and Request For Adjudicatory Hearing were served upon the Electronic

Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System) in the above captioned proceeding.

/s/ Wallace L. Taylor WALLACE L. TAYLOR 4403 1 st Ave. S.E., Suite 402 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52402 319-366-2428 Email: wtaylorlaw@aol.com

ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONERS

28

#

$

%&'()&&

#

" )* )')+

!

#

" #

- ! .

! / . 01 0 !

2 3

4%

15 6!

7.

*8'+

"1 94:) $

$ )';4) % 8'4#)*'())'; 222%<.

%

=

%

)%7.

!

2

> .?! >? #

% @)'

#

! 6!> 6

6>6#

#

.

%7.

>?

1! !

!

%7

!

A

2

!

>?

% @)'2 <.

<

!!

!

=

!

2

!

%

8%7.

1 4)  <

2

1 2 &'

%7.

= !

!

1 .

! < .

< .

!. 1

2 < 1%

+%7.

1

<

< 5 %

.> .

!

% > .1!

1

!!

7 A

1

!

%

4

&%7.

<

$

.

!

1

<

.

7.

< !. 1

2 .

!

%

<. ! .

! / .

. !

!

<

./ %

7.

" )* )')+ 7.B B01 0 !

01 0 !

15 6!

"

2 4' > )%8'+ #

)

!

" !#$! !%

'

( )

' * +

, +-

. + ( ) /

0

1

2+

$

3

! +

4. ) 1 '

5 $

5 $%6 %7$'

#

8 9 +

'

1 ' ' '

+

8 9 :

+

1

'

5

7

$

$ ; +$ 5** *

)' < +:* )<:

)=!

* 0*< 0

0<0

; +$ *

'

> )

)<:

5* *

*

<

$ )

)<:

)=

! ' ? 1+

1

$ $

**

*

/

*

'

1 5 ?

)

**

5

**

' *

*

'

!%$! 7. >

?

? @ *

?

% 5 +

$

@* 5 +

+

1

*

'

@ *

1+ ) 1

5 +$*

1 5

$

*

'

@*

5

*

+$

8

9 $

2

1

$

@ * $ '

5

1

+

*

5 )

1 >

*

1 55 1 1 ) +

+

*

5

' * +

+! $! !!=.. + +=1

5

A >

5 5 + 1 * +1

1+ ) 5

1

5 +$

'

+ 5

*

> 1

*+

5

! +

)

'

? *

5 *

B

+

4 .66%$ ) + *

$ )

$ 5

B 00

'; ? ;5

1 1 +1

*

' *

2

* 5

) ? +

6

%$

+

0

1

' *

$ ' ;

*

'

; +*

+

'

+

0 <

.

<

*

' ' 0 <' % # <

>

@*

$'

$

+

5'

+ + > *

1

? +

'

5

%

1

* 1

* 5

+7 +

.

C 0

*

' * 5 1

1 * +

'

+? +

*

1*

+ +

*

'

' * + +! !!

..

1 +

1

*

+ +

* 1

'

*

+

+

.! ? 5

5

+ @ *

*

5 +

5 * 1+2+

$

*

/

5

*

' 5

5$

'1 $

+

1

2+

+ '

1 ? + * 1 + 5

'

+

2+

* * * + @ *

*

+1

.7 <

" !#$! !% D D( )

( )

7

#

$

%&'()&&

#

" )* )')+

!

#

" #

- ! .

! / . 0

1 2

3%

4

56 6#

!

! !

1

!

1

!

17 .

.

4

%

8

%

)%

56

!

1 9 .:! 9: #

% ;)'

#

! <!9 <

<9<#

#

. % 6

9:

4! !

!

% 6

!

5

1 !

9:

% ;)'1 7.

7

!!

!

8

!

1

!

%

=%

56

4 +' 7

1

4 1 &'

% 6

8 !

!

4 .

! 7 .

7 .

!. 4

1

7 4%

+% 6

4

7

7 >

! %0 $ "

!

%0 $ 4!

4

!!

65 4

!

%

3

&% 6

7

$

.

!

4

7

.

6 7 !. 4

1

.

!

%

7. ! .

! / .

. !

!

7

./ %

56

" )* )')+ ?.@ @ 0 AAAAAA

0

4

"

1 3' 9 )%='+ #

)

!

" !#$! !%

'

"

' ( )

( * )+

, ) " -

.

/

01 $

2

! )

33##. 4 '$

$%5 !%$'

6#

7 8 )

9

'

: )'

/ ' ' )

$

/

'

9

6

$

$ ; )$ 9(( (

(

<' = )>( <=>

<?!

( .(= .

.=.

; )$ (

(

'

(

@ <

<=>

9( (

(

=

$ <

<=>

<?

! ' : /)

/

$ $

((

(

-

(

'

(

/ 9 :

<

((

9

((

' (

(

'

(

!%$! 6, @

:

: A (

:

% 9 )

$

A( 9 )

)

(

/

(

'

((

A (

/) < /

9 )$(

( / 9

$

(

'

A(

9

(

()$

7

8 $

(

B

/

( $

A ( $ '

9

/

)

(

9 <

(

/ @

(

/ 99 / / < )

)

(

9

' ( )

)! $! !!?,, ) )?/

9

3 @

9 9 ) / ( )/

/) < 9

/

9 )$

'

) 9

(

@ /

()

9

! )

<

(

'

: (

( 9 (

0

)

C ,55%$ < ) (

$ <

$ 9

0 ..

'; : ;9

/ / )/

(

' (

B

( 9

< : )

5

%$

)

.

/

' (

$ ' ;

(

'

; )(

( )

'

)

. =

,

=

(

' ' . =' % # =

@

A(

$'

$

()

9'

) ) @ (

/

: )

'

9

%

/

(

( /

( 9

)6 )

,

D.

(

' ( 9 /

(

/ ( )

'

): )

(

/(

) )

(

'

(

' ( ) )! !!

,,

( / )

/

(

( ) )

( /

'

(

( )

)

,! : 9

9 E

(

9 ) 9 ( /)

01 7 18 $6 )

(

'

9

(

'

9 '

( /

)$ ( /

9 9

)

(

/

1 ) '

/ : ) ( /

) 9

'

((

)

1

( ( ( )

A (

(

)/

,6 =

" ! $! !%

"

A "

' , =<! 6 %

6

#

$

%&'()&&

#

)* )')+

#

!" #

#

- .

/ . 0 1 2#

3 4

5%

$

6 .7 16 72#

%

8

%

)%6 7

!3 7 .

9 !79 #

% !:)'

#

6 7 6

676#

#

.

% ;

!79

<

% ;

=

3

!79

% !:)'3 " >.

>

8

3

%

?%6 7

3 5' >

3

%6 7 " )'?? 3 3 < 0

>

+@'))%6 7

3

$

3

>

< <

.

%6 7

<

.

>

3

>

/ .%

+%6 7

<

>

> 6

A 6

"

% 6

<

6 7= <

%

5

&%6 7

>

$

.

!

< !

>

.

6 7 > . <

3

.

%

B% >. .

/ .

.

>

./ %

%7 %

6 .7

)* )')+ 0.C C0

0 6

$

)

Executed in Accord with 10 CFR 2.304(d)

ML24240A210

Text

Navigation menu

Search