ML25006A178
| ML25006A178 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 01/06/2025 |
| From: | Blanton M, Eskelsen G, Lovett A, Tompkins J Blach & Bingham, LLP, Holtec Decommissioning International, Holtec Palisades |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57252, ASLBP 24-986-01-LA-BD01, 50-255-LA-3 | |
| Download: ML25006A178 (0) | |
Text
January 6, 2025 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
)
Holtec Decommissioning
)
Docket Nos. 50-255-LA-3 International, LLC and
)
Holtec Palisades, LLC
)
ASLBP No. 24-986-01-LA-BD01
)
(Palisades Nuclear Plant)
)
)
APPLICANTS OPPOSTION TO PETITIONING ORGANIZATIONS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.323(c), Holtec Palisades, LLC and Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (Applicants) submit this reply to the Petitioning Organizations (Beyond Nuclear, Dont Waste Michigan, Michigan Safe Energy Future, Three Mile Island Alert, and Nuclear Energy Information Service) Motion for Reconsideration of Prehearing Conference Agenda (Motion).
1 The Motion asks the Board to reconsider its December 30, 2024 Memorandum and Order Scheduling Initial Prehearing Conference (December 30th Order) 2 to give the Petitioning Organizations over an hour to present arguments during the prehearing conference scheduled for February 12, 2025.
3 The Board should deny the Motion because it does not satisfy 10 CFR 2.323(e), which requires compelling circumstances for a motion for reconsideration, and the additional time Petitioning Organizations have requested is neither necessary nor appropriate.
1 Petitioning Organizations Motion for Reconsideration of Prehearing Conference Agenda (Jan. 3, 2025)
(ML25003A145).
2 Memorandum and Order (Scheduling Initial Prehearing Conference) (Dec. 30, 2024) (ML24365A200).
3 Motion at 3.
2 The Motion does not mention 2.323(e) or offer compelling circumstances that justify reconsideration of the December 30th Order. The only basis provided is Petitioning Organizations desire for adequate time to address and amplify their arguments given the first-of-a-kind nature of the Palisades restart project and the importance and complexity of the issues raised in their Petition.
4 This is not a compelling circumstance for reconsideration under 2.323(e),
5 nor is it persuasive. The purpose of the prehearing conference is to allow the Board to ask questions to simplify or clarify the parties arguments, 6 which are fully briefed. The prehearing conference is not an opportunity to present new arguments or supplement pleadings.
7 Indeed, NRC regulations do not require the Board to hold a prehearing conference at all, 8 and presiding officers, including the Commission, routinely render contention-admissibility decisions without doing so. The Board, therefore, exercised its discretiontaking into account the pleadings, the complexity of the underlying licensing actions, and the first-of-a-kind nature of the Palisades restartin deciding to hold the February 12 conference and in granting Petitioning Organizations 20 minutes and a brief closing statement and rebuttal.
9 While there is no requirement to hold a prehearing conference, the December 30 Order is a reasonable exercise of the Boards discretion and is consistent with adjudicatory practice before NRC and U.S. Courts of Appeal that routinely decide these matters.
The Petitioning Organizations are not prejudiced by the December 30 Order because they have 4
Motion at 3.
5 Compelling circumstances include the existence of a clear and material error in a decision, which could not have reasonably been anticipated, that renders the decision invalid. 10 CFR 2.323(e).
6 See 10 CFR 2.319(j); 10 CFR 2.329(c).
7 See Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (North Trend Expansion Project), CLI-09-12, 69 NRC 535, 569-570 (2009)
(overturning Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panels admission of a contention relying on arguments only advanced at prehearing conference and not in briefs).
8 10 CFR 2.329(a) (The Commission or the presiding officer may... direct the parties or their counsel to appear at a specified time and place for a conference or conferences.).
9 December 30 Order at 2.
3 already had the opportunityand were in fact requiredto present all of their arguments in written pleadings.
For the foregoing reasons, the Board should reject the Motion.
Respectfully submitted, Signed (Electronically) by Alan D. Lovett Alan D. Lovett Balch & Bingham LLP 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 226-8769 alovett@balch.com Executed in Accord with 10 CFR 2.304(d)
M. Stanford Blanton Balch & Bingham LLP 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 226-3417 sblanton@balch.com Jason Tompkins 1901 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 226-8743 jtompkins@balch.com 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, and Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC
January 6, 2025
[Certificate of Service]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
)
Holtec Decommissioning
)
Docket Nos. 50-255-LA-3 International, LLC and
)
Holtec Palisades, LLC
)
ASLBP No. 24-986-01-LA-BD01
)
(Palisades Nuclear Plant)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.305, I certify that, on this date, a copy of the foregoing Applicants Opposition to Petitioning Organizations Motion for Reconsideration was served through the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System) in the above-captioned docket.
Signed (Electronically) by Alan D. Lovett Alan D. Lovett Balch & Bingham LLP 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 226-8769 alovett@balch.com Counsel for Holtec Palisades, LLC and Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC