ML24267A304
| ML24267A304 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/2024 |
| From: | Blanton M, Eskelsen G, Lovett A Balch & Bingham, LLP, Holtec Decommissioning International, Holtec Palisades, Palisades Energy |
| To: | NRC/OCM |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57119, 50-255-LT-3, 72-007-LT-3 | |
| Download: ML24267A304 (0) | |
Text
24316589 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission In the Matter of
)
)
Holtec Palisades, LLC,
)
Palisades Energy, LLC
)
Docket Nos. 50-255-LT-3
- and,
)
72-007-LT-3 Holtec Decommissioning
)
International, LLC
)
)
September 23, 2024 (Palisades Nuclear Plant)
)
)
Applicants Answer Opposing Beyond Nuclear et al.s Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for a Hearing
i 24316589 Table of Contents I.
Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 II.
Regulatory Framework and Background.............................................................................3 A.
License Transfer Applications.................................................................................3 B.
Operating Licenses...................................................................................................4 C.
Cessation of Power Operations at Palisades............................................................5 D.
Prior License Transfer from ENOI to Holtec Palisades and HDI............................5 III.
Procedural History...............................................................................................................6 A.
The Application.......................................................................................................6 B.
Opportunity to Request a Hearing and Petition.......................................................8 IV.
Joint Petitioners Have Not Proffered an Admissible Contention........................................9 A.
Contention Admissibility Standard..........................................................................9 B.
Challenges to the Prior License Transfer and Claims that HDI Does Not Hold a Part 50 Operating License are Beyond the Scope of this Proceeding and Immaterial to NRCs Review of the Application..................................................10 1.
Joint Petitioners May Not Challenge the Qualifications of the Current Licensees or the Current Licensing Basis in this Proceeding....................10 2.
Joint Petitioners Assertion that the Application Should be Denied Because the Palisades RFOL Does Not Currently Authorize Power Operations are Also Beyond the Scope of this Proceeding.......................13 C.
The Petition Does Not Provide Any Support for Its Claims that HDI Made Misrepresentations to NRC Regarding the Proposed Restart................................15 V.
Joint Petitioners Have Not Demonstrated Standing...........................................................21 A.
Legal Standard for Establishing Standing..............................................................21 B.
Joint Petitioners Have Not Established Standing...................................................22 VI.
Conclusion.........................................................................................................................24
1 24316589 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission In the Matter of
)
)
Holtec Palisades, LLC,
)
Palisades Energy, LLC
)
Docket Nos. 50-255-LT
- and,
)
72-007-LT Holtec Decommissioning
)
International, LLC
)
)
September 23, 2024 (Palisades Nuclear Plant)
)
)
Applicants Answer Opposing Beyond Nuclear et al.s Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for a Hearing I.
Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.309(i)(1), Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (HDI),
Holtec Palisades, LLC (Holtec Palisades), and Palisades Energy, LLC (OPCO) (collectively, Applicants), hereby answer and oppose the Petition to Intervene and Request for an Adjudicatory Hearing (Petition) filed on August 27, 2024 by Beyond Nuclear, Dont Waste Michigan, and Michigan Safe Energy Future (collectively, Joint Petitioners).1 Joint Petitioners seek to intervene in the license transfer proceeding for the Palisades Nuclear Plant (Palisades) and request that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission or NRC) conduct a hearing on the application for NRC consent to a license transfer submitted on December 6, 2023 1
Beyond Nuclear, Michigan Safe Energy Future, and Dont Waste Michigan, Petition to Intervene and Request for Adjudicatory Hearing by Beyond Nuclear, Dont Waste Michigan and Michigan Safe Energy Future (Aug. 27, 2024) (ML24240A210).
2 24316589 (Application).2 The Petition proffers a single contention consisting of two arguments. The first challenges the prior license transfer involving the sale of Palisades from Entergy Corporation and its subsidiaries (collectively Entergy) to Holtec International and its subsidiaries (collectively Holtec)claiming that Holtec misled NRC because it never intended to decommission Palisades and requesting that the Commission unwind the prior transfer and return ownership and operation of Palisades to Entergy. The second argument asserts that the Palisades Part 50 operating license is no longer an operating license, and thus HDI does not[] have a valid license to transfer to
[OPCO].3 The Petition should be denied because the contention fails to meet the admissibility criteria of 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1). Both arguments seek to litigate matters that are well outside the scope of the proceeding. The Petition does not challenge the contents of the Application or the qualifications of the Applicants. Neither the prior license transfer from Entergy to Holtec nor the overarching regulatory framework that allows licensees to request changes to a plants operating license are within the scope of this proceeding. In addition, the arguments Joint Petitioners do make are unsupported by any factual or legal basis and are clearly contradicted by NRC regulations and readily-available public information.
Because Joint Petitioners have failed to proffer an admissible contention, the Commission need not address their standing. Nevertheless, the Petition should further be denied because Joint Petitioners have failed to demonstrate standing of their members. That is because none of the alleged injuries articulated by Joint Petitioners members are relevant to the current license transfer 2
HDI PNP 2023-028, Letter from J. Fleming, HDI, to NRC Document Control Desk, Application for Order Consenting to Transfer of Control of License and Approving Conforming License Amendments (Dec. 6, 2024)
(ML23340A161).
3 Petition at 21.
3 24316589 proceeding. While they have offered general concerns about past operations, siting, and the age of plant equipment, they do not articulate any possible injury that is relevant to or redressable in this proceeding. In fact, the Petition does not challenge the technical or financial qualifications of the Applicants at all. Generalized concerns about the location, age, and status of plant equipment are not material to this proceeding and are, thus, insufficient to demonstrate standing.
Accordingly, the Commission should dismiss the Petition.
II.
Regulatory Framework and Background A.
License Transfer Applications Under Section 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, a NRC reactor license, or any right under it, may not be transferred, assigned or in any manner disposed of, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control to any person unless the NRC first gives its consent in writing. The requirement for NRC consent applies to both the licensed ownership interests or the operation interests for the facility. The NRCs implementing regulations for Section 184 are set forth in 10 CFR 50.80.
When reviewing a license transfer application, the NRC reviews the technical and financial qualifications of the proposed transferee, including the potential impact on the licensees ability both to maintain adequate technical qualifications and organizational control and authority over the facility[,] and provide adequate funds for safe operation and decommissioning.4 Before it can issue its consent, the NRC must find reasonable assurance of the proposed transferees financial and technical qualifications.5 4
Final Policy Statement on the Restructuring and Economic Deregulation of the Electric Utility Industry, 62 Fed.
Reg. 44,071, 44,077 (Aug. 19, 1997).
5 See 10 CFR 50.80 (incorporating 10 CFR 50.33(f)(2) by reference).
4 24316589 The Atomic Energy Act requires that the NRC offer an opportunity for a hearing on a license transfer.6 NRC published a Federal Register notice providing an opportunity to request a hearing on the Application on August 7, 2024.7 B.
Operating Licenses Under 10 CFR Part 50, the NRC licensing of a reactor to operate requires two separate approvals by the NRC - (1) a construction permit and (2) an operating license.8 When issuing the second approval, the NRC issues what it titles a facility operating license. Once a facility operating license is issued, it is valid for a period of up to forty years.9 However, [e]ach license for a facility that has permanently ceased operations, [sic] continues in effect beyond the expiration date to authorize ownership and possession of the... facility until the Commission notifies the licensee in writing that the license is terminated.10 Licensees that hold an operating license are still required to conduct activities in accordance with NRC regulations and the license.11 Licensees can, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54, seek to renew the license in up to twenty year increments. When renewed, NRC practice is to refer to the operating license as a renewed facility 6
Atomic Energy Act § 189.a(1)(A) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 2239(a)(1)(A)).
7 Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, Holtec Palisades, LLC, and Palisades Energy, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant and the Palisades Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of Licenses and Conforming Amendment, 89 Fed. Reg. 64,493 (Aug. 7, 2024) (Federal Register Notice).
8 See 10 CFR 50.23 (discussing conversion of construction permit into operating license).
9 See 10 CFR 50.51(a).
10 10 CFR 50.51(b).
5 24316589 operating license or RFOL. The license for Palisades was renewed in January 2007 with a term running through March 24, 2031 (Palisades RFOL).12 C.
Cessation of Power Operations at Palisades In 2022, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENOI), the operator of Palisades prior to HDI, submitted the certifications of permanent shutdown and defueling under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1).13 By operation of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), upon ENOIs docketing of those certifications, the Palisades RFOL no longer authorized operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel.14 Immediately thereafter, ENOI implemented the standard suite of operating license amendments to reflect the shutdown status.15 Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.51(b),
however, the Palisades RFOL remained in effect following ENOIs 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) certifications and corresponding licensing changes implemented in connection with the shutdown.
The Palisades RFOL may not be terminated except in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(9)-(11) following completion of decommissioning.
D.
Prior License Transfer from ENOI to Holtec Palisades and HDI Shortly after ENOI filed the 50.82(a)(1) shutdown and defueling certifications and implemented the shutdown license amendments, Holtec International, the ultimate owner of HDI, 12 Issuance of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20 for Palisades Nuclear Plant (Jan. 17, 2007)
(ML070100476); Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant; Notice of Issuance of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20 for an Additional 20-Year Period; Record of Decision, 72 Fed. Reg. 3168 (Jan. 24, 2007).
13 PNP 2022-010, Letter from D. Corbin, ENOI, to NRC Document Control Desk, Certifications of Permanent Cessation of Power Operations and Permanent Removal of Fuel from the Reactor Vessel (June 13, 2022)
(ML22164A067).
15 See, e.g., NRC, Palisades Nuclear Plant - Issuance of Amendment Re: Changes to the Emergency Plan for Permanently Defueled Condition (Sept. 24, 2018) (ML18170A219) (implemented June 15, 2022); NRC, Palisades Nuclear Plant - Issuance of Amendment Regarding Administrative Controls for Permanently Defueled Condition (June 4, 2018) (ML18114A410) (implemented June 15, 2022); NRC, Palisades Nuclear Plant -
Issuance of Amendment No. 272 Re: Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications (May 13, 2022)
(ML22039A198) (implemented June 15, 2022).
6 24316589 indirectly acquired Palisades from Entergy, renaming the company that owns the plant Holtec Palisades, and ENOI transferred operating authority under the Palisades RFOL to HDI. The application for that transfer was submitted in December 2020,16 and NRC staff approved the transfer in December 2021.17 Because that transfer was proposed to occur after Palisades shut down, NRC only reviewed the financial and technical qualifications of Holtec Palisades and HDI to conduct decommissioning activities with reference to the shutdown licensing basis.18 The transfer was completed on June 28, 2022, shortly after ENOI defueled the facility.
III.
Procedural History A.
The Application The proposed transfer described in the present Application is related to Holtecs efforts to return Palisades to power operations, which has been discussed at length in docketed correspondence and in public meetings. Relevant to the return to power operations, but separately as a procedural matter, HDI has requested an exemption from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2) and has filed license amendment requests to unwind various licensing changes implemented during the step 16 PNP 2020-042, Letter from C. Bakken, ENOI, to NRC Document Control Desk, Application for Order Consenting to Transfers of Control of Licenses and Approving Conforming License Amendments (Dec. 23, 2020)
(ML20358A075) (2020 LTA).
17 NRC, Order Approving Transfer of Licenses and Draft Conforming Administrative License Amendments (Dec.
13, 2021) (ML21292A146). Like the current Application, NRC provided an opportunity for interested parties to request a hearing on the license transfer from Entergy to Holtec. NRC, Palisades Nuclear Plant and Big Rock Point Plant[;] Consideration of Approval of Transfer of Control of Licenses and Conforming Amendments, 86 Fed. Reg. 8225 (Feb. 4, 2021). In response, Joint Petitioners filed a petition requesting a hearing on that 2020 LTA, but the Commission determined that they did not proffer an admissible contention. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Palisades Nuclear Plant and Big Rock Point Site), CLI-22-8, 96 NRC 1, 67-92 (2022).
18 NRC, Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to the Request for Transfer of Control of Facility Operating License No. DPR-6, Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20, and the General Licenses for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. and Entergy Nuclear Palisades, LLC to Holtec International and Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, Big Rock Point Plant and Palisades Nuclear Plant, Docket Nos. 50-155, 50-255,72-007, and 72-043, at 4, 9 (Dec. 13, 2021) (ML21292A148).
7 24316589 down into decommissioning.19 One of those license amendment requests seeks approval to reinstate the provisions of the Palisades RFOL that were in effect during power operations (essentially unwinding a license amendment ENOI implemented after shutdown).20 Joint Petitioners previously requested a hearing on the Exemption Request,21 which the Commission Secretary denied because an exemption does not give rise to a hearing opportunity under the Atomic Energy Act.22 The LARs have been separately noticed in the Federal Register and are subject to a parallel adjudicatory process.23 The Application requests NRC approval to transfer operational authority from HDI to OPCO and to vest in OPCO exclusive control of operation and maintenance of Palisades once it returns to power operations.24 OPCO is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Holtec International, formed, staffed, and resourced specifically for power operations of Palisades.25 The Application describes OPCOs technical and financial qualifications to conduct licensed activities 19 HDI PNP 2023-025, Letter from J. Fleming, HDI, to NRC Document Control Desk, Request for Exemption from Certain Termination of License Requirements of 10 CFR 50.82 (Sept. 28, 2023) (ML23271A140) (Exemption Request); HDI PNP 2023-030, Letter from J. Fleming, HDI, to NRC Document Control Desk, License Amendment Request to Revise Renewed Facility Operating License and Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications to Support Resumption of Power Operations (Dec. 14, 2023) (ML23348A148) (Tech. Spec.
LAR); HDI PNP 2024-001, Letter from J. Fleming, HDI, to NRC Document Control Desk, License Amendment Request to Revise Selected Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications Administrative Controls to Support Resumption of Power Operations (Feb. 9, 2024) (ML24040A089); HDI PNP 2024-005, Letter from J. Fleming, HDI, to NRC Document Control Desk, License Amendment Request to Revise the Palisades Nuclear Plant Site Emergency Plan to Support Resumption of Power Operations (May 1, 2024) (ML24122C666).
20 Tech. Spec. LAR, Encl. at 8-16.
21 Petition to Intervene and Request for Adjudicatory Hearing by Beyond Nuclear, Dont Waste Michigan, and Michigan Safe Energy Future (Dec. 5, 2023) (ML23339A192) (Petition on Exemption Request).
22 Order of the Secretary, Docket No. 50-255 (Dec. 18, 2023) (ML23352A325) (Secretary Order).
23 Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, and Holtec Palisades, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant, Applications for Amendments to Renewed Facility Operating License Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Safeguards Information, 89 Fed. Reg. 64,486 (Aug. 7, 2024) (Federal Register Notice for License Amendment Requests).
24 Application at 1.
25 Application, Encl. 1 at 3.
8 24316589 under the Palisades RFOL upon the return to power operations.26 Applicants requested that the transfer be conditioned on satisfaction of all conditions imposed as part of the exemption or license amendments submitted in connection with the restart, i.e., the transfer will not occur unless and until all of the conditions to restarting the plant and reinstating the authority to conduct power operations under the Palisades RFOL have been satisfied.27 B.
Opportunity to Request a Hearing and Petition The NRC published an Opportunity to File a Petition to Intervene and Request a Hearing in the Federal Register on August 7, 2024.28 Joint Petitioners filed their Petition on August 27, 2024, seeking leave to appear as representatives of five individuals (two for Beyond Nuclear, two for Michigan Safe Energy Future, and one for Dont Waste Michigan) who were members of each group. None of the three groups sought to intervene on their own, but solely as representatives of the identified members.29 The Petition was accompanied by affidavits from each of the five individuals.
The Petition includes one contention, asserting that Holtec misrepresented its intention to decommission Palisades when it sought approval under 10 CFR 50.80 for the transfer from ENOI to Holtec Palisades and HDI of the Palisades RFOL. The gist of Joint Petitioners argument is that Holtec planned to restart the plant all along, and because Holtec allegedly misrepresented its intentions to own and decommission a shutdown plant, the Commission should unwind the prior transfer and return ownership and operation of Palisades to Entergy. The second half of the contention asserts that the Palisades RFOL is not an operating license because it was converted to 26 Application, Encl. 1 at 6-18.
27 Application at 2.
28 Federal Register Notice, 89 Fed. Reg. at 64,493.
29 Petition at 16.
9 24316589 a possession-only license in connection with the shutdown, which, according to Joint Petitioners, means that HDI cannot transfer authority under the Palisades RFOL to OPCO.
IV.
Joint Petitioners Have Not Proffered an Admissible Contention A.
Contention Admissibility Standard To be admissible, a contention must raise issues within the scope of the proceeding and material to the findings the Commission must make.30 The Commissions contention admissibility requirements are strict by design.31 Under 10 CFR 2.390(f)(1), a petitioner must explain the basis for each proffered contention by stating alleged facts or expert opinions that support the petitioners position and on which the petitioner intends to rely in litigating the contention at the hearing.32 The issue also must fall within the scope of the proceeding and be material to the findings that the NRC must make with respect to the application for which the hearing opportunity applies.33 The scope of a proceeding is determined by the requested licensing action and corresponding Federal Register notice providing an opportunity for hearing.34 The NRC requires proposed contentions to have some reasonably specific factual or legal basis.35 To be admissible, a contention must provide support for its claims.36 The proposed contention must 30 Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-23-1, 97 NRC 81, 84 (2023).
31 PPL Susquehanna, LLC (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-15-8, 81 NRC 500, 504 (2015);
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-01-24, 54 NRC 349, 358 (2001).
32 10 CFR 2.390(f)(1)(ii), (v).
33 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1)(iii)-(vi); Susquehanna, CLI 23-1, 97 NRC at 84.
34 Fansteel, Inc. (Muskogee, Oklahoma Facility), LBP-03-13, 58 NRC 96, 100 (2003); Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-825, 22 NRC 785, 790 (1985).
35 Susquehanna, CLI-15-8, 81 NRC at 504 (quoting Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI-03-14, 58 NRC 207, 213 (2003)).
36 Susquehanna, CLI-23-1, 97 NRC at 86.
10 24316589 refer to the specific portions of the application... that the petitioner disputes, along with the supporting reasons for each dispute; or, if the petitioner believes that an application fails altogether to contain information required by law, the petitioner must identify each failure, and provide supporting reasons for the petitioners belief.37 Bare assertions and speculation, even by an expert, are insufficient to trigger a full adjudicatory proceeding.38 The petitioner has the burden of proof to meet the standards of contention admissibility.39 B.
Challenges to the Prior License Transfer and Claims that HDI Does Not Hold a Part 50 Operating License are Beyond the Scope of this Proceeding and Immaterial to NRCs Review of the Application 1.
Joint Petitioners May Not Challenge the Qualifications of the Current Licensees or the Current Licensing Basis in this Proceeding The Petition does not challenge the contents of the Application, the qualifications of OPCO or Holtec Palisades, or any other matter within the scope of NRCs review in determining whether to approve the Application. Most of the Petition is a collateral attack on the NRC staffs approval of the 2020 LTA, which NRC staff approved in December 2021 and which associated transaction the parties consummated in June 2022. Joint Petitioners challenged that application at the time, but the Commission dismissed their contentions.40 Since then, Joint Petitioners have made similar 37 Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-17-4, 85 NRC 59, 74 (2017)
(quoting 10 CR 2.309(f)(1)(vi)).
38 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-12-14, 75 NRC 704, 714 (2021) (quoting AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-08-28, 68 NRC 658, 674 (2008)).
39 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Palisades Nuclear Plant) CLI-15-23, 82 NRC 321, 329 (2015); Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 18, 22 (1998). Applicants note that the Petition improperly relies on certain contention admissibility precedent that predates the agencys 1989 rulemaking that revised these rules and intentionally raised the bar for what constitutes an admissible contention under NRC rules. See Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing ProceedingsProcedural Changes in the Hearing Process, 54 Fed. Reg. 33,168 (Aug. 11, 1989) (1989 Final Rule); Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, & 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 334 (1999) (In 1989 the Commission toughened its contention rule in a conscious effort to raise the threshold bar for an admissible contention and ensure that only intervenors with genuine and particularized concerns participate in NRC hearings.).
40 See Palisades, CLI-22-8, 96 NRC at 67-92.
11 24316589 assertions in various filings and statements to NRC in opposition to Holtecs well-publicized efforts to restart Palisadesrequesting that NRC revoke changes implemented by ENOI in connection with shutdown, prohibit HDI from using decommissioning trust funds, bring criminal charges against HDI for making false statements to NRC, and dismiss the current Application as premature.41 The current Petition requests that NRC revoke the original [Entergy-to-Holtec]
license transfer in its entirety.42 That remedy, and all of the arguments attacking the 2020 license transfer, are outside the scope of this proceeding, are not material to NRCs review of the Application, and do not raise a material dispute with the Application.
A petitioner must [d]emonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding43 The scope of this proceeding is defined by the requested licensing action and the associated Federal Register notice.44 As discussed above, HDI is seeking approval to transfer operational authority under the Palisades RFOL from HDI to OPCO, and accordingly, the Federal Register Notice provided an opportunity for Joint Petitioners to request a hearing on the Application. The scope of a license transfer proceeding is focused on whether the proposed transferees have shown that they are qualified technically and financially to hold the license in question.45 41 See, e.g., Comment of Kevin Kamps on HDI Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR)
(Dec. 27, 2022) (ML23005A213); Comment of Terry Lodge on HDI PSDAR (Dec. 27, 2022) (ML23005A211);
Petition for Declaratory Order (Feb. 2, 2023) (ML23052A209) (Beyond Nuclears and Dont Waste Michigans petition for declaratory order revoking prior exemption to recordkeeping requirements at Palisades); Petition to Intervene and Request for Adjudicatory Hearing by Beyond Nuclear, Dont Waste Michigan, and Michigan Safe Energy Future (Dec. 5, 2023) (ML23339A192) (request for a hearing on the Exemption Request); Letter from Wallace Taylor to NRC Secretary, Holtecs Application for Order Consenting to Transfer of Control of License and Approving Conforming License Amendments (Dec. 15, 2023) (ML24003A802); Transcript of 2.206 Petition Review Board Meeting with Joint Petitioners Regarding Holtec Palisades (Apr. 10, 2024) (ML24114A016).
42 Petition at 26.
44 Fansteel, LBP-03-13, 58 NRC at 100 (2003); Catawba, ALAB-825, 22 NRC at 790.
45 Palisades, CLI-22-8, 96 NRC at 46.
12 24316589 That does not afford Joint Petitioners the opportunity to litigate whether the existing licensee is qualified to hold the Palisades license. Challenges to the transferor or the existing licensing basis are beyond the scope of matters that may be disputed in an adjudicatory hearing on a proposed license transfer.46 Likewise, none of Joint Petitioners collateral attacks on the prior transfer are material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding.47 To be material means that the resolution of the dispute would make a difference in the outcome of the licensing proceeding.48 Relatedly, to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact, a valid contention must include references to specific portions of the application... that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute.49 Joint Petitioners collateral attacks on the prior license transfer are not relevant to the findings NRC must make on the current Application, which, again, is limited to review of the proposed transferees (i.e., OPCOs, not HDIs) financial and technical qualifications.50 Joint Petitioners do not take issue with OPCOs financial and technical qualifications and do not dispute any portion of the Application that discusses those qualifications. The entire Petition is aimed at the current licensees authority to hold the Palisades RFOL as it exists today. Challenges to the 46 See Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3), LBP 08-9, 67 NRC 421, 437-38 (2008); GPU Nuclear Inc. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-00-06, 51 NRC 193, 212-14 (2000).
48 1989 Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. at 33,172.
50 Palisades, CLI-22-8, 96 NRC at 46; Power Auth. of the State of N.Y. (James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant; Indian Point, Unit 3), CLI-00-22, 52 NRC 266, 298 (2000) (The issue at bar [in a license transfer proceeding] is the financial qualifications of the transferee. (emphasis in original)).
13 24316589 current licensee and the current licensing status quo are not material to NRCs review of, and do not raise a material dispute with, a license transfer application.51 Joint Petitioners collateral attacks on NRCs approval of the prior license transfer from Entergy to Holtec and Joint Petitioners challenges to HDIs current authority to hold the Palisades RFOL are beyond the scope of this proceeding, do not raise an issue that is material to NRCs review of the Application, and do not raise a dispute with the Application on a material issue of law or fact.
2.
Joint Petitioners Assertion that the Application Should be Denied Because the Palisades RFOL Does Not Currently Authorize Power Operations are Also Beyond the Scope of this Proceeding Similarly, Joint Petitioners assertion that the Application should be denied because the Palisades RFOL does not currently authorize power operations also fails to raise a material dispute with the Application and is beyond the scope of this proceeding. Applicants agree that the Palisades RFOL does not currently authorize HDI to load fuel and resume power operations at Palisades. That is why HDI has submitted the Exemption Request and the LARs seeking to reinstate the operating licensing basis and resume operation, commencing with reloading fuel into the reactor. The LARs have been separately noticed in the Federal Register.52 To the extent Joint Petitioners wish to challenge the merits of the LARs, they may do so in that proceeding, but not in this one. Joint Petitioners have already challenged HDIs Exemption Request and had the challenge dismissed by the Commission Secretary because the Atomic Energy Act does not 51 See Oyster Creek, CLI-00-06, 51 NRC at 213 (A license transfer proceeding is not a forum for a full review of all aspects of current plant operation.); Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. (Indian Point, Units 1 and 2), CLI-01-19, 54 NRC 109, 141-42 (2001) (declining to admit contentions that raise operational issue[s] outside the scope of the license transfer proceeding).
52 Federal Register Notice for License Amendment Requests, 89 Fed. Reg. at 64,486.
14 24316589 provide for hearings on exemption requests.53 Joint Petitioners have recently revisited that issue in a request for a declaratory order,54 but regardless of the validity of their attempts to challenge the Exemption Request or any argument they may raise in response to the Federal Register Notice for License Amendment Requests, those matters are not within the scope of this proceeding.
This proceeding is limited to the Application to transfer operational authority from HDI to OPCO, subject to the reinstatement of the operational licensing basis. A contention based on the fact that the Palisades RFOL does not currently authorize power operations does not raise a genuine dispute on a material issue of law or factbecause that is accurate and is stated in the Application.55 The Petition does not challenge the portions of the Application that demonstrate OPCOs financial and technical qualifications to hold the license if the authority to operate Palisades is reinstated. To the extent the Petition should be understood to assert that the Palisades RFOL is no longer a Part 50 operating license or that there is no regulatory process to unwind the licensing changes implemented in connection with the 2022 shutdown, those arguments are clearly contradicted by NRC regulations at 10 CFR 50.51(b), 50.12, and 50.90. More importantly, though, regardless of their merits, they are challenges to the NRCs regulatory framework or the pending LARs, both of which are beyond the scope of this proceeding.56 Accordingly, Joint Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that their contention is within the scope of the proceeding as required by 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1)(iii), material to the findings that the 53 Secretary Order at 2.
54 Beyond Nuclear, Dont Waste Michigan, and Michigan Safe Energy Future, Petition for Declaratory Order, Docket No. 50-255 (Sept. 5, 2024) (ML24250A100).
55 Application, Encl. 1 at 1.
56 10 CFR 2.335(a); Tenn. Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3), LBP-16-11, 84 NRC 139, 145 (2016) ([A] petitioner may not challenge a regulatory requirement, unless it petitions for a waiver
[under 2.335(b)].); see also Oyster Creek, CLI-00-06, 51 NRC at 212-13 (rejecting portions of a contention on a license transfer application that sought to litigate technical matters that were relevant to a separate license amendment request).
15 24316589 NRC must make on the Application as required by 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1)(iv), or raises a genuine dispute with the Application as required by 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1)(vi).
C.
The Petition Does Not Provide Any Support for Its Claims that HDI Made Misrepresentations to NRC Regarding the Proposed Restart Even assuming that Joint Petitioners allegations regarding the previous transfer from Entergy to Holtec were within the scope of this proceeding (which they are not), Joint Petitioners have failed to provide any factual or legal support for their arguments that HDI misled NRC in the prior license transfer proceeding or in HDIs ongoing decommissioning filings.
The Petition presents a timeline of HDIs restart activitiesincluding the unsuccessful application for Department of Energy (DOE) funds under the Civil Nuclear Credit Program that Holtec filed shortly after acquiring Palisadesto support Joint Petitioners claims that HDIs 2020 license transfer application was a pretense, and HDI misrepresent[ed] its true intentions to NRC because HDI allegedly never planned to decommission the plant.57 The Petition recites various portions of the 2020 license transfer application to support the proposition that Holtec indisputably knew that the transfer [from Entergy] was contingent on the closing and decommissioning of Palisades.58 Applicants agree with that point, so far as it goes. The license transfer from Entergy to Holtec was clearly contingent on Palisades being shut down. Applicants also agree that the application for that license transfer and corresponding Post-Shutdown PSDAR were based on the assumption that the shutdown would be permanent and HDI would decommission Palisades after the sale.59 The record from the prior license transfer clearly shows 57 Petition at 21-25.
58 Id. at 21-23.
59 The current Application says this: When NRC previously approved the transfer of operational authority from
[ENOI] to HDI, it was based on the understanding that [Palisades] would be permanently shut down and defueled by ENOI and decommissioned by HDI. Application, Encl. 1 at 1.
16 24316589 that was Entergys and Holtecs expectation when they signed a purchase agreement in 2018,60 filed the license transfer application in 2020,61 and implemented the suite of post-shutdown changes that stepped down the licensing basis to reflect a defueled condition.62 It is those changes that now necessitate the Exemption Request and LARs currently pending before the NRC.
But none of that foreclosed Holtec from attempting to restart Palisades, and more importantly, none of that supports Joint Petitioners contention that Holtec misled NRC by acquiring the facility from Entergy under the post-shutdown licensing basis.
First, the Petition does not identify any information in the 2020 LTA that was inaccurate when it was filed or when the transfer was consummated in June 2022. That is because all of the assumptions underlying that application remained accurate throughout the transfer and, indeed, are still applicable today. When the transfer was completed in June 2022, Holtec acquired a facility that had been shut down, HDIs licensing authority was limited to conducting decommissioning activities under the defueled licensing basis, and following the transfer, HDI was (and remains) obligated to comply with NRC regulations governing decommissioning, including adherence to the PSDAR and maintaining sufficient funds to complete decommissioning. All of that will continue to be true unless and until NRC issues all required approvals, and Holtec satisfies all associated conditions, to resume power operations. Until then, Palisades will remain in decommissioning status and HDI will continue to comply with NRC regulations governing decommissioning. The December 2023 Application (the only license transfer application at issue 60 2020 LTA, Encl. 1, Att. C (Membership Interest Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated July 30, 2018), at 58 (requiring, as a condition to closing, [t]he delivery by [Entergy] of written notice to NRC of the permanent cessation of operations of the Palisades NPS and [t]he Palisades NPS shall have been permanently shut down and all Nuclear Fuel shall have been removed from the Palisades NPS reactor vessel and placed in the Palisades NPS spent nuclear fuel pool.).
61 Id. at 2.
62 See n.15, supra.
17 24316589 in the current proceeding) clearly states that Palisades is still in decommissioning, and HDI is still adhering to the [PSDAR].63 Joint Petitioners presumably agree with this, given that they have urged NRC to require HDI to finish decommissioning, and they have a pending petition asserting HDI has violated NRCs decommissioning rules that is being considered under 10 CFR 2.206.64 The fact that Holtec began taking steps towards restarting Palisades shortly after acquiring the facility did not retroactively convert the license transfer from Entergy into a pretense for a first-of-a-kind project that would require multiple NRC approvals, state and federal legislation, and years of at-risk capital expenditures, planning, and negotiations to get off the ground, much less complete. Indeed, the Civil Nuclear Credit Program did not exist until November 2021,65 and DOE did not publish guidance for the first round of applicants until April 2022.66 And, as the Petition points out, Holtecs application for that program was ultimately rejected by DOE. It was not until April 2024, after Holtec secured conditional commitment of funds under a different DOE 63 Application at 2, Encl. 1 at 16.
64 See Holtec Palisades, LLC; Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant; Petition, 89 Fed. Reg. 56,437 (July 9, 2024). In the petition being considered under 10 CFR 2.206, Joint Petitioners assert that HDI violated restrictions on the use of decommissioning funds because it has accrued Palisades decommissioning costs to the decommissioning trust fund while HDI is also pursuing the restart project. See id.
NRC staff inspected HDIs decommissioning funding report for year-end 2022, and while staff found discrete costs that had been erroneously charged to the trust fund due to inadvertent oversight or mis-coding (NRC Inspection Report No. 05000255/2023004 (Feb. 20, 2024) (ML24045A147)), neither inspection staff nor the 2.206 Petition Review Board agreed with Joint Petitioners argument that HDI was categorically barred from accruing costs to the decommissioning trust fund during 2022 simply because of the restart project. 89 Fed. Reg.
at 56,438. Notwithstanding this, in their current Petition, Joint Petitioners again point to HDIs year-end 2022 decommissioning funding report as evidence that HDI is misleading NRC about its plans to decommission Palisades. Petition at 23. This issue has been raised and resolved through NRCs inspection and the 10 CFR 2.206 process. HDI has not misled NRC by filing a report they are required to file by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(v) or accruing funds spent at Palisades towards the decommissioning trust fund. Nor has HDI misled NRC by continuing to comply with the requirements that apply to Palisades while it remains in decommissioning status, even while HDI is seeking NRC approvals to change that status.
65 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, P.L. 117-58, § 40323, Civil Nuclear Credit Program, 135 Stat. 429, 1019-22 (2021).
66 DOE, Notice of Availability of Guidance for the First Award Period of the Civil Nuclear Credit Program, 82 Fed.
Reg. 24,291 (Apr. 25, 2022).
18 24316589 program created by the Inflation Reduction Act (passed in August 2022),67 that HDI reached the point at which it was willing to commit to the restart in earnest.68 It is simply not credible for Joint Petitioners to suggest that, in 2018, when Holtec signed the agreement to buy Palisades (at the same time Holtec was in the process of acquiring several other shutdown plants and standing up HDI with the organizational purpose of decommissioning them), or in 2020, when ENOI and HDI filed the 2020 LTA, that HDI knew that future political and economic forces (brought about in part by a global pandemic) would make it viable to restart a plant that Entergy was in the process of shutting down early for economic reasons. Accordingly, rather than lending support for the contention that HDI misled the NRC, the restart timeline presented in the Petition simply demonstrates that the project has high risk and complexity and, thus, came with the long planning horizons that accompany projects of that nature.69 Second, Joint Petitioners offer no legal support for their claim that HDI should have amended the 2020 LTA to address the possibility that HDI might try to restart the plant after the transfer from Entergy. Of course, submissions to NRC can only contain information that is available at the time of submission and are not judged in hindsight simply because circumstances or business plans change. Joint Petitioners cite no authority for their claim that applicants must anticipate changes that may not come to fruition for years after a transfer. In fact, the Commission has rejected such a standard, requiring that license transfer applications be based on plausible 67 Inflation Reduction Act, P.L. 117-169, § 50144, Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Financing, 136 Stat. 1818, 2044-45 (2022).
68 See HDI PNP 2024-006, Letter from J. Fleming, HDI, to NRC Document Control Desk, Notification of Changes in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(7) (Apr. 9, 2024) (ML24100A689).
69 As the current Application explains, [g]iven the long lead time for developing, obtaining, and implementing the necessary NRC approvals, hiring and qualifying operational staff, and completing physical site work needed to resume power operations on an economically-viable schedule, Holtec has made the decision to begin pursuing discrete restart activities at risk, with priority on long lead items that do not impact decommissioning.
Application, Encl. 1 at 2.
19 24316589 assumptions and projections, with the recognition that both macroeconomic and plant-specific circumstances may change down the road.70 Joint Petitioners have also not explained how the possibility of a restart in 2022 would have been material to NRCs review of the transfer from Entergy. Nascent plans to commence the years-long process of restarting the plant would not have excused Holtec from its obligation to buy the plant from Entergy, exempted HDI from NRC regulations requiring a PSDAR and adequate funding for decommissioning, changed HDIs or Holtec Palisades financial or technical qualifications to hold the license as it existed at the time, or authorized HDI to undertake any activities beyond those allowed by the defueled licensing basis that was in effect when the transfer occurred. NRC reviews license transfer applications based on what is allowed by the then-current licensing basis, even when NRC knows that the license could be amended, extended, or the facility even shut down following the transfer.71 In the context of a license transfer proceeding, the Commission has specifically rejected other petitioners attempts to litigate the proposed transferees future business plans for a facility, including those that might necessitate license amendments after the transfer occurs.72 In other words, even if Holtec had known, in June 2022, 70 N. Atl. Energy Serv. Corp. (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 201, 221-22 (1999); In the Matter of Exelon Generation Co., CLI-22-1, 95 NRC 1, 13 (2022) ([A]n applicant is not required to provide absolutely certain predictions of future economic conditions. (quoting Seabrook, CLI-99-6, 49 NRC at 221)).
71 See Oyster Creek, CLI-00-06, 51 NRC at 213 ([W]hether Oyster Creek should file a license amendment application to [implement licensing changes advocated by petitioners] is a matter appropriately addressed in a license amendment proceeding rather than a license transfer case.); Safety Evaluation for Transfer of Licenses and Draft Conforming License Amendments, Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446, 72-74, 50-334, 50-412, 72-1043, 50-346, 72-14, 50-440, 72-69 (Sept. 28, 2023) (ML23237B430) (approving a transfer involving three reactors with then-pending license renewal applications based on the transferors demonstration of decommissioning funding using the current operating license term; i.e., not crediting the pending license renewal application); Exelon Generation Co., CLI-22-1, 95 NRC at 13 (rejecting a contention on a license transfer application that argued certain facilities could be shut down following the transfer).
72 Oyster Creek, CLI-00-06, 51 NRC at 211 (rejecting portions of a contention in a license transfer proceeding that were based on arguments that the transferee would be required to amend the licensing basis to address deferred maintenance and capital upgrades).
20 24316589 that, in the coming years, Congress would pass landmark energy legislation, Michigan would appropriate state funding, HDI would negotiate power sales agreements to support operations, and the project would qualify for funds under a newly-created DOE loan program, none of that would have been material to NRCs review of the proposed transfer for Holtec to acquire the facility under the post-shutdown licensing basis that existed in June 2022. NRC does not review applications against speculative circumstances that might exist years down the road, and, correspondingly, applicants have no obligation to present the array of future possibilities in their filings to NRC.73 Finally, given Joint Petitioners suggestion that Holtec violated the Atomic Energy Act when it secretly submitted its DOE application for Civil Nuclear Credit Program funds,74 it bears noting that (1) Congress directed DOE to protect the confidentiality of applications submitted under the program (which, of course, contain commercially sensitive information to companies and power markets),75 and (2) pursuant to the memorandum of understanding between DOE and NRC for the program, DOE was required to (and did) consult with NRC regarding Holtecs application.76 In summary, the 2020 LTA was accurate when it was filed and remained accurate through consummation of the transfer. HDI had no obligation to supplement its transfer application to reflect the possibility that it might restart the plant years later. Following the transfer, HDI was just as free as any other licensee to request modifications to the Palisades licensing basis. In the 73 See Palisades, CLI-22-8, 96 NRC at 18 ([I]n license transfer adjudications we long have found financial assurance to be acceptable if it is based on plausible assumptions and forecasts.).
74 Petition at 22-23.
75 See 42 U.S.C. § 18753(g)(3).
76 Memorandum of Understanding between DOE and NRC on Civil Nuclear Credit Program, Sec. IV (Apr. 19, 2022) (ML22111A275).
21 24316589 meantime, Palisades remains in decommissioning and HDI must comply with the defueled licensing basis and NRCs decommissioning requirements. Accordingly, in addition to being outside the scope of this proceeding, Joint Petitioners have not provided the requisite legal or factual support for their claims that Holtec misled NRC in connection with the restart. Joint Petitioners failure to satisfy the contention admissibility standards of 2.309(f)(1)(i) or (v) provide an independent basis to deny the Petition.
V.
Joint Petitioners Have Not Demonstrated Standing A.
Legal Standard for Establishing Standing To have standing, petitioners must claim a concrete and particularized injury (actual or threatened) that is fairly traceable to the challenged action and is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision in the proceeding.77 Joint Petitioners have not asserted standing in their own right; they have only asserted representational standing.78 An organization that seeks to establish representational standing must demonstrate how at least one of its members may be affected by the challenged licensing action and would have standing in his or her own right.79 Proving standing requires a showing that (a) the action sought in a proceeding will cause injury-in-fact, and (b) the injury is arguably within the zone of interests protected by statutes governing the proceeding.80 No injury-in-fact can result where no new activity is proposed.81 When carrying its burden to demonstrate standing, a petitioner must meet the prudential requirement that the interests it is 77 Palisades, CLI-22-8, 96 NRC at 16.
78 Petition at 16.
79 Palisades, CLI-22-8, 96 NRC at 17.
80 Metro. Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-83-25, 18 NRC 327, 332 (1983).
81 Sequoyah Fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI-01-01, 59 NRC 1, 4 (2004).
22 24316589 representing falls within the zone of interests of the governing statute or regulation.82 The injury must be due to the requested NRC licensing action and not to the license itself if the license was previously granted.83 In certain types of proceedings, the Commission determines, on a case-by-case basis whether the proximity presumption, i.e., that being within 50 miles of a facility is sufficient to prove standing, should apply, considering the obvious potential for offsite consequences, or lack therefore, from the application at issue.84 The initial issue upon deciding a question of proximity standing is whether the requested action justifies a presumption that the licensing action could plausibly lead to the offsite release of radioactive fission products from... the...
reactors.85 The petitioner carries the burden of making this showing.86 B.
Joint Petitioners Have Not Established Standing Joint Petitioners basis for claiming standing relies solely only upon the proximity presumption that their identified members live and recreate near Palisades. As support for this claim, Joint Petitioners provide generic language that each of the five individuals walk on the beach and wades within a few hundred yards of Palisades and goes boating with friends and relatives.87 But, they do not explain how the proposed transfer from HDI to OPCO will affect 82 Paina Hawaii, LLC, LBP-06-04, 63 NRC 99, 103 (2006).
83 Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-00-5, 51 NRC 90, 98 (2000); Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. (White Mesa Uranium Mill), LBP-97-10, 45 NRC 429, 431 (1997).
84 Consumers Energy Co. (Big Rock Point Indep. Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-07-19, 65 NRC 423, 426 (2007) (quoting Exelon Generation Co., LLC (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-05-26, 62 NRC 577, 580-81 (2005)).
85 Peach Bottom, CLI-05-26, 62 NRC at 581 (2005) (quoting Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-98-27, 48 NRC 271, 277 (1999) affd, CLI-99-04, 49 NRC 185 (1999), petition for review denied, Dienethal v. NRC, 203 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (table)).
86 Zion, CLI-00-5, 51 NRC at 98.
87 E.g., Petition at 3.
23 24316589 the individuals. Instead, Joint Petitioners claims of potential harms all appear to be associated with prior operations, siting of the plant, and the age of Palisades equipment. Joint Petitioners point to alleged concerns about seal leaks of certain reactor control mechanisms, the embrittled reactor pressure vessel, replacement of the reactor pressure vessel head, and replacement of the steam generator, as well as potential seismic concerns.88 But none of these concerns relate to the NRC action at issue in this proceeding. In fact, the only regulatory action referenced in the Petitions standing section is the Exemption Request.89 There is no mention of the Application or any allegation of harm that might come from it. Thus, Joint Petitioners have not met their burden to prove they meet the proximity presumption in this proceeding.
As a result, Joint Petitioners must demonstrate that they have traditional standing and show a proposed injury, causation, and redressability that would directly result from the transfer of operating authority requested in this proceeding. Joint Petitioners have not raised any concrete concerns about the financial or technical qualifications of OPCO set forth in the Application. Joint Petitioners also provided no evidence of causation or redressability associated with the transfer to OPCO. Because Joint Petitioners have failed to put forth any evidence associated with harms within the scope of the requested NRC license application, they have failed to carry their burden to demonstrate standing.
Thus, Joint Petitioners failure to establish that any of the representatives have standing serves as an independent basis for rejecting the Petition.
88 E.g., Petition at 3, 5, 7, 9.
89 E.g., Petition at 3 (He opposes the granting of an exemption by the NRC....), 4 (She opposes the granting of an exemption by NRC....); id. at 17 (As each of the member declarants explains, they will suffer... injuries from the restored operations of Palisades if the exemption sought by Holtec is granted. (emphasis added)).
24 24316589 VI.
Conclusion For the reasons more fully stated above, the Petition must be dismissed as Joint Petitioners have failed to proffer an admissible contention and have failed to demonstrate that their members have standing.
Respectfully submitted, Signed (Electronically) by Grant W. Eskelsen Grant W. Eskelsen Balch & Bingham LLP 601 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 825 South Washington, DC 20004 (202) 661-6344 geskelsen@balch.com Executed in Accord with 10 CFR 2.304(d)
M. Stanford Blanton Alan D. Lovett Balch & Bingham LLP 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 226-3417 (205) 226-8774 sblanton@balch.com alovett@balch.com Counsel for Holtec Palisades, LLC, Palisades Energy, LLC, and Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC
[Certificate of Service]
24316589 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission In the Matter of
)
)
Holtec Palisades, LLC,
)
Palisades Energy, LLC
)
Docket Nos. 50-255-LT-3
- and,
)
72-007-LT-3 Holtec Decommissioning
)
International, LLC
)
)
September 23, 2024 (Palisades Nuclear Plant)
)
)
Certificate of Service Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.305, I certify that, on this date, a copy of the foregoing Applicants Answer Opposing Beyond Nuclear et al.s Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for a Hearing was served through the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System) in the above-captioned docket.
Signed (Electronically) by Grant W. Eskelsen Grant W. Eskelsen Balch & Bingham LLP 601 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 825 South Washington, DC 20004 (202) 661-6344 geskelsen@balch.com Counsel for Holtec Palisades, LLC, Palisades Energy, LLC, and Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC