ML24240A210
| 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) | |
Text
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) license3 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 done4 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 1st 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 1st Ave. S.E., Suite 402 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52402 319-366-2428 Email: wtaylorlaw@aol.com ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONERS 28
!
"#
$
%&'()&&
")* )')+
- ! .
! / . 010!
23 4%
156!
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
12&'
%7.
=!
!
!
1 .
!< .
< .
!. 1
2< 1%
+%7.
1
<
< 5 %
.> .
!
!
%> .1!
1
!!
7A
1
!
%
4
&%7.
<
<
$
.
.
!
1
<
.
7.
< !. 1
2 .
!
%
<. ! .
! / .
. !
!
<
./%
7.
")* )')+
7.BB010!
010!
156!
"
24'>)%8'+#
)
!
"!#$! !%
'
( )
' * +
- , +-
.+( ) /
0
1
2+
$
3
3
!+
4 . )1 '
5$
5 $%6 %7$'
#
8 9 +
'
'
1' ' '
+
89 :
+
1
'
5
7
$
$ ; +$5** *
)'< +:* )<:
)=!
*0*< 0
0<0
; +$*
'
>)
)<:
5* *
*
<
$)
)<:
)=
! ' ?1+
1
$$
**
*
/
*
'
15 ?
)
**
5
**
' *
*
'
!%$! 7. >
?
?@*
?
%5 +
$
@* 5 +
+
1
*
'
@*
1+)1
5 +$*
- 1 5
$
*
'
@*
5
*
*
*+$
8
9$
2
1
- $
@* $ '
5
1
+
*
5)
1 >
*
1 55 11 ) +
+
*
5
'* +
+! $! !!=..+ +=1
5
A>
5 5 +1 * +1
1+)5
1
5 +$
'
+ 5
*
> 1
*+
5
! +
- )
'
? *
- 5 *
B
+
4.66%$) +*
$ )
$ 5
B0 0
'; ? ;5
1 1 +1
*
' *
2
* 5
) ? +
6
%$
+
0
1
'*
$' ;
*
'
; +*
- +
'
+
0<
.
<
*
' ' 0<'% # <
>
@*
$'
$
- +
5'
+ + >*
1
? +
'
'
5
%
1
* 1
* 5
+7 +
.
C 0
*
' * 5 1
1* +
'
+? +
*
1*
++
*
*
'
' * ++! !!
..
- 1 +
1
1
*
*
- + +
* 1
'
*
*
- +
+
.! ? 5
5
+@*
*
5+
5 * 1+2+
$
*
/
5
*
' 5
5$
'1 $
+
1
2+
+ '
1? + * 1+ 5
'
+
2+
* * * +@*
*
+1
.7<
"!#$! !%
DD( )
( )
7
!
"#
$
%&'()&&
")* )')+
- ! .
! / . 0
12 3%
4
566#
!
! !
1
!
1
!
!
17 .
.
4
%
8
%
)%
56
!
19 .:! 9:#
%;)'
#
!<!9 <
<9<#
#
. %6
9:
4! !
!
%6
!
5
1 !
9:
%;)'1 7.
7
!!
!
8
!
1
!
%
=%
56
4 +'7
1
41&'
%6
8!
!
!
4 .
!7 .
7 .
!. 4
1
7 4%
+%6
4
7
7 >
!%0 $"
!
!
%0 $ 4!
4
!!
65 4
!
%
3
&%6
7
7
$
.
.
!
4
7
.
67 !. 4
1
.
!
%
7. ! .
! / .
. !
!
7
./%
56
")* )')+
?.@@ 0AAAAAA
0
4
"
13'9)%='+#
)
!
"!#$! !%
'
"
' ( )
( * )+
,)" -
.
/
01$
2
2
!)
33##.4'$
$%5 !%$'
6#
7 8 )
9
'
: )'
/' ')
$
/
'
9
6
$
$
$ ; )$9(( (
(
<'= )>( <=>
<?!
(.(= .
.=.
; )$(
(
'
(
@<
<=>
9( (
(
(
=
$<
<=>
<?
! ' :/)
/
$$
((
(
-
(
'
(
/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 ( /)
01718$6 )
(
(
'
9
(
'
9'
(/
)$(/
99
)
(
/
1 ) '
/: ) ( /
) 9
'
((
)
1
( ( ( )
A(
(
)/
,6=
"! $! !%
"
- A"
', =<! 6 %
6
!"#
$
%&'()&&
)* )')+
- .
/ . 0 1 2#
34 5%
$
6 .7 16 72#
%
8
%
)%6 7
!37 .
9 !79#
%!:)'
#
6 7 6
676#
#
.
%;
!79
<
%;
=
3
!79
%!:)'3 ">.
>
8
3
%
?%6 7
35'>
3
%6 7" )'??33 < 0
>
+@'))%6 7
3
$
3
>
<<
.
%6 7
<
.
>
3
>
/ .%
+%6 7
<
>
> 6
A6
"
%6
<
<
6 7= <
%
5
&%6 7
>
>
$
.
.
!
<!
>
.
6 7> . <
3
.
%
B% >. .
/ .
.
>
./%
- %7 %
6 .7
)* )')+
0.CC0
0 6
$
)
Executed in Accord with 10 CFR 2.304(d)
Executed in Accord with 10 CFR 2.304(d)