ML25050A569
| ML25050A569 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 02/19/2025 |
| From: | Bernstein K, Mary Spencer NRC/OGC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57291, ASLBP 24-986-01-LA-BD01, 50-255-LA-3 | |
| Download: ML25050A569 (0) | |
Text
February 19, 2025 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of HOLTEC DECOMISSIONING INTERNATIONAL, LLC, AND HOLTEC PALISADES, LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant)
Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 NRC STAFF POSITION ON THE EFFECT OF THE STAFFS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF PETITIONING ORGANIZATIONS PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL CONTENTIONS INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (Boards) Memorandum and Order of February 3, 2025 (Briefing Order), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff (Staff) provides its position on the effect that the Staffs Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (collectively, Draft EA/FONSI) have on the admissibility of the proposed environmental contentions (2, 5, 6, and 7) submitted by Beyond Nuclear, Dont Waste Michigan, Michigan Safe Energy Future, Three Mile Island Alert, and Nuclear Energy Information Service (Petitioning Organizations). As discussed below, the Draft EA/FONSI moots the formerly admissible aspects of Proposed Contention 7 on climate change, while Proposed Contentions 2 (asserting than an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required), 5 (asserting that the environmental report (ER) omitted a purpose and need statement), and 6 (asserting that the ER omitted a discussion of alternatives, including the no-action alternative) remain inadmissible after publication of the Draft EA/FONSI.
In particular, Proposed Contention 2 remains inadmissible because, while the Petitioning Organizations assert that an EIS is required, neither the law nor the regulations require preparation of an EIS for the proposed amendment requests. The Staffs approach of initially evaluating the environmental impacts though a draft EA is fully consistent with NRC regulations and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). Proposed Contentions 5 and 6 also remain inadmissible because the application, as originally submitted or as supplemented, includes a purpose and need statement and discusses alternatives (including the no-action alternative), as does the Draft EA/FONSI. Thus, the Petitioning Organizations have identified no omission. Finally, Proposed Contention 7 asserted that required information and discussions regarding climate change were omitted from the Applicants ER. While the Staff initially supported the admission of Proposed Contention 7, in part, as an environmental contention of admission, the Draft EA/FONSI contains the relevant discussions of climate change. Therefore, Proposed Contention 7 is now moot and, therefore, inadmissible.
Consequently, none of Petitioning Organizations contentions are admissible, and their hearing request should be denied.
BACKGROUND As is relevant here,1 on August 7, 2024, the NRC published a Federal Register notice of opportunity to request a hearing regarding the four license amendments related to the potential restart of Palisades.2 The amendment requests cite a categorical exclusion for the environmental review, but the Amendments Notice explained that the Staff was preparing an EA 1 For a detailed procedural history up to the filing of the Staffs answer, refer to NRC Staff Answer to Intervention Petition from Beyond Nuclear, Dont Wast Michigan, Michigan Safe Energy Future, Three Mile Island Alert, and Nuclear Energy Information Service in Palisades Restart Amendments Proceeding, at 2-7 (Nov. 4, 2024) (ADAMS Accession No. ML24309A277) (Staff Answer).
2 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) (Amendments Notice).
rather than invoking the categorical exclusion.3 The Amendments Notice further stated, The NRCs decision to prepare an EA and additional detail about the environmental review are discussed in the NRCs notice of intent to prepare an EA and conduct scoping [Notice of Intent],
published on June 27, 2024 (89 FR 53659).4 The referenced Notice of Intent explained why the Staff decided to prepare an EA rather than invoke a categorical exclusion, and also stated:
To inform its environmental review, the NRC staff is considering a number of sources, including the previous NRC environmental review for [Palisades Nuclear Plant] license renewal that is documented in the October 2006 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 27, Regarding Palisades Nuclear PlantFinal Report (hereafter License Renewal EIS Supplement). The NRC staff is also considering the environmental information that [Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (HDI)] submitted in Enclosure 2, Environmental New and Significant Review Proposed Resumption of Power Operations Palisades Nuclear Plant, of the September 28, 2023, exemption request. As stated in the exemption request, documents HDIs environmental review of potentially new and significant information, and environmental issues not addressed in the License Renewal EIS Supplement.5 Three of the four amendment requests reference the Applicants environmental evaluation in of the Exemption Request, which meets the definition of Environmental report in 10 C.F.R. § 51.14 and is referred to as such in the Staff Answer and this brief.6 In response to the Amendments Notice, Petitioning Organizations filed a hearing request, in which Petitioning Organizations argued that they had standing and had submitted 3 Amendments Notice, 89 Fed. Reg. at 64,488.
4 Id.
5 Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, and Holtec Palisades, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant; Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare an Environmental Assessment, 89 Fed. Reg. 53,659, 53,660 (June 27, 2024) (Notice of Intent). See also Staff Answer at 27.
6 See Staff Answer at 24-27; 10 C.F.R. § 51.14 (Environmental report means a document submitted to the Commission by an applicant for a permit, license, or other form of permission, or an amendment to or renewal of a permit, license or other form of permission, or by a petitioner for rulemaking, in order to aid the Commission in complying with section 102(2) of NEPA.).
seven admissible contentions and that they, therefore, should be granted a hearing.7 The Petitioning Organizations filed four contentions related to environmental matters, Proposed Contentions 2, 5, 6, and 7.8 The Staff, in its Answer, concluded that two of the five organizations had standing, that Proposed Contentions 1 to 6 were inadmissible, and that Proposed Contention 7 was admissible in part.9 The Applicant filed an answer (Applicant Answer) disputing the Petitioning Organizations standing and arguing that none of the proposed contentions were admissible.10 The Petitioning Organizations filed a combined reply (Reply) to the Staff Answer and Applicant Answer that, among other things, maintained that Proposed Contentions 2, 5, 6, and 7 were admissible.11 On January 31, 2025, the Staff published a notice in the Federal Register requesting comment on the Draft EA/FONSI12 and notified the Board and participants of this fact (Board Notification).13 Subsequently, the Board issued its Briefing Order, which instructed the Participants to be prepared to discuss the potential impact of the Draft EA/FONSI on the 7 Petition to Intervene and Request for Adjudicatory Hearing by Beyond Nuclear, Dont Waste Michigan, Michigan Safe Energy Future, Three Mile Island Alert and Nuclear Energy Information Service, at 3-4, 21-25 (Oct. 7, 2024) (ML2428A364) (Hearing Request).
8 Id. at 40-44, 63-65, 66-68, 68-73.
9 See, generally, Staff Answer.
10 See, generally, Applicants Answer Opposing Beyond Nuclear et al.s Petition for Hearing, (Nov. 4, 2024) (ML24309A302) (Applicant Answer).
11 Petitioning Organizations Combined Reply to Answers Filed by NRC Staff and Holtec to the Petition to Intervene, at 21-23, 30-31 (Nov. 12, 2024) (ML24317A201) (Reply).
12 Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact for the Palisades Nuclear Plant Reauthorization of Power Operations Project (Draft for Comment) (Jan. 2025) (ML24353A157)
(Draft EA/FONSI); Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC and Holtec Palisades, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant; Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact, 90 Fed. Reg. 8721 (Jan. 31, 2025).
13 See Notification of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (Jan. 31, 2025) (ML25031A007) (Board Notification).
proposed contentions during the February 12, 2025 prehearing conference and which established a briefing schedule for the participants to provide written briefing on this subject.14 At the prehearing conference, the Staff asserted that Proposed Contentions 2, 5, and 6 remain inadmissible and that Proposed Contention 7 has been mooted by the Draft EA/FONSI.15 DISCUSSION As explained below, the Draft EA/FONSI moots the formerly admissible aspects of proposed Contention 7 on climate change impacts, and Proposed Contentions 2, 5, and 6 remain inadmissible. Proposed Contention 2 remains inadmissible, as explained in the Staff Answer, because an EIS is not automatically required for license amendments, and the Staff may prepare an EA to determine whether an EIS is required.16 The Staff has now published a Draft EA/FONSI, which is consistent with NEPA and NRC regulations on EAs and draft FONSIs.
The remaining environmental contentions are contentions of omission, but a proposed contention of omission is inadmissible if new information in the application or a Staff environmental document (in this case, the Draft EA/FONSI) moots the proposed contention.17 Proposed Contentions 5 and 6 were inadmissible because the application, as originally submitted or supplemented, discussed the purportedly omitted matters, as previously stated in the Staff Answer.18 These contentions remain inadmissible because the Draft EA/FONSI discusses the same matters. Finally, the formerly admissible aspects of Proposed Contention 7 14 Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant), LBP Memorandum and Order (Scheduling Briefing Concerning the Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact) (Feb. 3, 2025) (unpublished) (ML25034A217) (Briefing Order).
15 See Tr. at 55-57 (Feb. 12, 2025).
16 Staff Answer at 48-53.
17 See cases cited infra Discussion Section I.
18 Staff Answer at 74-76.
have been mooted by the Draft EA/FONSI and are therefore now inadmissible. Thus, none of the proposed contentions are admissible, and the Hearing Request should be denied.
I.
Legal Authorities on Mooting of Proposed Contentions Proposed contentions may be mooted at the contention admissibility phase of the proceeding.19 In general, contentions are of two broad typescontentions of omission and contentions of adequacy.20 Contentions that claim a failure to include required information are considered contentions of omission, while contentions that challenge substantively and specifically how particular information has been discussed in [an] application are considered contentions of adequacy.21 A contention on an ER may migrate in certain circumstances to the Staffs later-issued environmental document,22 and the resolution of a contention of omission requires no more than a formal finding by the Board or the Commission that the required information asserted by the contention to be missing has been supplied by the applicant in a revision to its application or by the Staff in its environmental document.23 When a contention is mooted, there is no longer a factual basis for the asserted deficiency. And when the factual 19 See, e.g., USEC Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant), CLI-06-9, 63 NRC 433, 444-45 (2006) (explaining that a presiding officer may find a proposed contention on an environmental report is mooted by a Staff environmental impact statement as part of the contention admission phase of the proceeding); Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 and Associated Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-22-1, 95 NRC 1, 13, 18 (2022) (where the Commission found proposed contentions moot at the contention admissibility stage based on an update to the application and a related licensee decision).
20 See Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-16-11, 83 NRC 524, 534 (2016).
21 Id. at 534 n.60; Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-02-28, 56 NRC 373, 382-84 (2002).
22 Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (In Situ Leach Facility, Crawford, Nebraska), CLI-15-17, 82 NRC 33, 42 n.58 (2015) (explaining that a contention migrates when a Board construes a challenge to an environmental section of an application as a challenge to a subsequently issued Staff environmental document without the petitioner amending the contention).
23 McGuire, CLI-02-28, 56 NRC at 384. The Commission also stated, Where a contention alleges the omission of particular information or an issue from an application, and the information is later supplied by the applicant or considered by the Staff in a draft EIS, the contention is moot. Id. at 383.
basis for a proposed contention has been eliminated by subsequent events, the proposed contention must be dismissed as it no longer raises a material dispute with the application.24 II.
Proposed Contentions 2, 5, and 6 Remain Inadmissible as Challenges to the Draft EA/FONSI A.
Proposed Contention 2 is Inadmissible Because an EIS is Not Automatically Required for the Restart Actions and the Draft EA/FONSI Does Not Alter This Conclusion Proposed Contention 2 was inadmissible when submitted, as discussed in the Staff Answer, and publication of the Draft EA/FONSI does not alter this conclusion, as explained below. Proposed Contention 2 is stated as follows: An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),
not an Environmental Assessment (EA), must be compiled for the proposed restart of the Palisades reactor. An EIS is required because of the major regulatory decision sought by Holtec.25 The Petitioning Organizations made four principal arguments in support of this contention:
- 1) The Staff must prepare an EIS in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 51.20(b)(2) because the Applicant is seeking the issuance or renewal of a reactor operating license.
- 2) An EIS is required under § 51.20(b)(2) because the only regulatory pathway for restart is issuance of a new operating license.
- 3) An EIS is required because potential restart of reactor operations at Palisades is a major federal action under NEPA.
- 4) The Applicant did not submit an ER as required by 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.45 and 51.53.26 As set forth in the Staff Answer, Proposed Contention 2 is inadmissible because (1) 10 C.F.R.
§ 51.20(b)(2) does not apply since the restart-related actions do not involve issuance or renewal of a power reactor operating license; (2) the Applicant has an existing renewed operating 24 See Calvert Cliffs, CLI-22-1, 95 NRC at 19 (stating, Moreover, many of Mr. Bradford's statements concerning decommissioning costs appear to be founded on the presumption that the four facilities previously slated for early retirement will close early, which is no longer accurate given Exelon's update to its application. Therefore, ELPC Contention 2 is inadmissible because it does not raise a material dispute with the application.).
25 Hearing Request at 40.
26 Id. at 40-45.
license, so a new license is not required; (3) an EIS is not required for all major Federal actions but only those that significantly affect the human environment; and (4) the Applicants ER is not subject to 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.45 or 51.53, and even if these regulations did apply, the Petitioning Organizations did not explain how any specific portion of the ER failed to meet the cited regulations or how a claim regarding the ER supports a contention claiming than an EIS is required.27 The publication of the Draft EA/FONSI means that there is still a live (but inadmissible) challenge to the Staffs decision to prepare an EA, and otherwise (1) further supports the Staffs previous arguments that its approach to NEPA compliance is permissible and (2) effectively renders immaterial the challenge to the form of the Applicants ER. There is still a live challenge regarding the Staffs decision to prepare an EA, as announced in the challenged Staff Notice of Intent, because the Staff carried through with this decision and published a draft EA. However, this challenge is inadmissible for the reasons provided in the Staff Answer.28 Also, the Draft EA/FONSI further supports the positions taken in the Staff Answer. The Staff prepared a draft FONSI because the Staff did not identify any significant impacts of the proposed actions in the draft EA, and an EIS is not necessary if the agency is able to issue a FONSI.29 However, if the Staff were to have found that the proposed actions would significantly affect the quality of the 27 Staff Answer at 48-53. In their Reply, the Petitioning Organizations add a new argument, that an EIS is required because a construction permit is necessary for restart. Reply at 21-23. The Staff, however, is not addressing the effect the Draft EA/FONSI has on this argument because it was not in the original contention, and such new arguments are not permitted in a reply. DTE Electric Co. (Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), CLI-15-18, 82 NRC 135, 146 (2015) (explaining that a petitioner may use a reply to respond to the legal or logical arguments presented in the answers to its hearing request, but a petitioner may not use its reply to raise new issues for the first time). Regardless, the Applicant is not applying for a construction permit, nor is a construction permit required, as explained in the Staffs answer to a similar claim by petitioners Alan Blind, Jody Flynn, Tom Flynn, Bruce Davis, Karen Davis, Christian Moevs, Mary Huffman, Chuck Huffman, and Diane Ebert (Joint Petitioners). NRC Staff Answer to Hearing Request from Individual Petitioners in Palisades Restart Amendment Proceeding, at 34-35 (Nov. 4, 2024)
(ML24309A276).
28 Staff Answer at 48-53.
29 10 C.F.R. § 51.32(a)(2).
human environment, the Staff would then have proceeded to prepare an EIS.30 Finally, the Petitioning Organizations challenge to the form of the Applicants ER, which was inadmissible in any event, has no continuing relevance to this proceeding because it is the Staff that has the ultimate responsibility for complying with NEPA,31 a contention on an ER may be superseded by a Staff environmental document,32 and the Petitioning Organizations challenge was purely one of form that did not address an environmental matter that has continuing relevance to the Draft EA/FONSI. This is an additional reason why the challenge to the ER in Proposed Contention 2 is not material to the required NRC findings for the challenged restart requests and therefore fails to satisfy § 2.309(f)(1)(iv), (vi).
For the reasons given above, Proposed Contention 2 remains inadmissible.
B.
Proposed Contentions 5 and 6 Remain Inadmissible Because There is No Omission in the Application or Draft EA/FONSI Regarding Purpose and Need or Alternatives Proposed Contentions 5 and 6 asserted omissions in the Applicants ER regarding the discussion of project purpose and need and alternatives to the proposed actions (in particular, the no action alternative).33 However, as explained in the Staff Answer, these contentions were inadmissible because the application as originally submitted or as supplemented by the Applicant addresses both of these matters.34 These contentions remain inadmissible because 30 See Staff Answer at 53.
31 Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041, 1049 (1983)
(stating that [i]t is also settled that the NRC has the burden of complying with NEPA); Nuclear Innovation North America LLC (South Texas Project, Units 3 and 4), LBP-12-5, 75 NRC 227, 235-36 (2012).
32 McGuire, CLI-02-28, 56 NRC at 382 (stating that where a contention is superseded by the subsequent issuance of licensing-related documentswhether a draft EIS or an applicant's response to a request for additional informationthe contention must be disposed of or modified) (internal quotation marks omitted).
33 Hearing Request at 63-68.
34 Staff Answer at 74-76.
the Draft EA/FONSI also discusses both of these topics.35 Therefore, Proposed Contentions 5 and 6 are inadmissible because they do not demonstrate the genuine, material dispute required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi) as there is no omission in the Application or Draft EA/FONSI on the identified topics.
III.
Proposed Contention 7 is Moot as a Challenge to the Draft EA/FONSI, No Longer Demonstrating a Genuine, Material Dispute Exists, and is Therefore Wholly Inadmissible As discussed below, Proposed Contention 7 is wholly inadmissible as it does not demonstrate that a genuine, material dispute exists with the Draft EA/FONSI. Whereas the Applicants ER omitted the relevant discussions of climate change, the Staffs Draft EA/FONSI has cured this omission. As Proposed Contention 7 was only admissible, in part, as a contention of omission and this omission has been cured by the Draft EA/FONSI, the formerly admissible parts of Proposed Contention 7 are moot and no longer demonstrate a genuine, material dispute exists, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi). The previously inadmissible parts of Proposed Contention 7 remain inadmissible for failing to meet 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii), (iv),
and (vi). Therefore, Proposed Contention 7 is wholly inadmissible, as all parts of the Contention fail to meet 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).
Petitioning Organizations proposed Contention 7 as follows:
The proposed license amendments and supporting documents, including the document that the NRC and Holtec claim to suffice as an Environmental Report, contain no meaningful identification nor discussion of the effects of anthropocene climate change on the functioning and componentry of the plant, nor is there any identification or analysis of the effects that restored plant operations would have on anthropocene climate change, the physical environment and public health.36 The NRC Staff argued that Proposed Contention 7 included inadmissible arguments but ultimately was admissible, in part, in the following form:
35 Draft EA/FONSI at § 1.2 (project purpose and need) and §§ 2.2, 4.2 (alternatives to the proposed action, including the no action alternative).
36 Hearing Request at 68 (internal footnote omitted).
The Environmental Report submitted by Holtec for the proposed action of restart and resumption of operations at Palisades omits the required discussions of 1) greenhouse gas emissions and 2) a description of how the baseline environment in the environmental review might change as a result of climate change and a discussion of how proposed action impacts would either increase, decrease, or remain the same in this new baseline environment.37 The Applicant argued that Proposed Contention 7 was wholly inadmissible.38 In their Reply, the Petitioning Organizations stood by Proposed Contention 7 as stated, but did not otherwise specifically contest opposing arguments from the Staff and Applicant.39 The Staff concludes that the formerly admissible parts of Proposed Contention 7 are now inadmissible as moot because the omission has been cured by new information in the Draft EA/FONSI. As stated in the Staffs Board Notification:
The draft EA and draft FONSI relate to the environmental contentions proposed by [Petitioning Organizations] as follows:.
- Proposed Contention 7: Appendix F of the Draft EA/FONSI addresses greenhouse gas emissions of the proposed actions, how climate change is expected to affect the baseline environment, and how the proposed actions' impacts would be altered by this change to the baseline environment.40 Specifically, Appendix F.4 Greenhouse Gases addresses the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the proposed actions.41 Appendix F.2 Expected Climatological Changes describes the projected changes to the baseline environment using climate projections through 2050 to bound the proposed actions, which support restart of reactor 37 Staff Answer at 88-89. While the Applicant Answer provided references that discussed climate change, the referenced discussions did not provide greenhouse gas emission estimates relevant to the proposed actions, climate change projections for the affected environment during the proposed period of operation, or how the proposed actions impacts may change in this new baseline environment. Applicant Answer at 69-70, 71-72.
38 Applicant Answer at 67-72.
39 Reply at 30-31.
40 Board Notification at 2 (internal footnotes omitted).
41 See also Draft EA/FONSI at § 3.3.
operation until the expiry of the renewed facility operating license in 2031. Finally, Appendix F.3 Environmental Consequences of Preparation to Resumption of Power Operations and the Resumption of Power Operations analyzes whether the proposed actions impacts would either increase, decease, or remain the same in this new baseline environment. As the relevant climate change discussions are found in the Draft EA/FONSI, the formerly admissible portions of Proposed Contention 7 are now moot.42 As this contention does not demonstrate a genuine, material dispute exists with the Draft EA/FONSI, as required by § 2.309(f)(1)(vi), it is therefore inadmissible.
Proposed Contention 7 also raised arguments that were inadmissible when pled. As stated in the Staff Answer, the portions of Proposed Contention 7 that raised safety and operational impacts of climate change are inadmissible because they are outside the scope of the environmental review, not material to the findings the NRC must make to support the actions in this proceeding, and based on speculation that does not demonstrate a genuine, material dispute with any part of the challenged license amendment requests, even if interpreted as a safety contention.43 The Draft EA/FONSI does not moot these arguments, but they remain inadmissible by failing to meet the admissibility criteria of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii), (iv), and (vi).
Therefore, Proposed Contention 7 is wholly inadmissible. The previously admissible parts of Proposed Contention 7 are moot and do not demonstrate a genuine, material dispute exists with the Draft EA/FONSI as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi), whereas the previously inadmissible arguments remain inadmissible as they are not within the scope of Staffs environmental review, are not material to the Staffs environmental findings, or otherwise 42 See, e.g., McGuire, CLI-02-28, 56 NRC at 383; USEC, CLI-06-9, 63 NRC at 444-45.
43 Staff Answer at 84-88.
do not demonstrate that a genuine, material dispute exists with the Draft EA/FONSI, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii), (iv), and (vi).
CONCLUSION Petitioning Organizations proposed environmental contentions 2, 5, 6, and 7 are inadmissible as a challenge to the Staffs Draft EA/FONSI. Proposed Contentions 2, 5, and 6 were inadmissible as explained in the Staff Answer, and they continue to be inadmissible as a challenge to the Draft EA/FONSI. While Staff agreed in its Answer that Proposed Contention 7 was admissible, in part, as a challenge to the ER, the Draft EA/FONSI has addressed these omissions from the ER and the formerly admissible parts of Proposed Contention 7 are now moot. Thus, Proposed Contention 7 no longer demonstrates that a genuine, material dispute exists with the Draft EA/FONSI and is, therefore, inadmissible.
Respectfully submitted,
/Signed (electronically) by/
Kevin D. Bernstein Counsel for NRC Staff Mail Stop: O-14-A44 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone: (301) 415-1001 Email: Kevin.Bernstein@nrc.gov Executed in Accord with 10 CFR 2.304(d)
Michael Spencer Counsel for NRC Staff Mail Stop: O-14-A44 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone: (301) 287-9115 Dated February 19, 2025 Email: Michael.Spencer@nrc.gov UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of HOLTEC DECOMISSIONING INTERNATIONAL, LLC, AND HOLTEC PALISADES, LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant)
Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305, I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing NRC Staff Position on the Effect of the Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact on the Admissibility of Petitioning Organizations Proposed Environmental Contentions, dated February 19, 2025, have been served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System) in the captioned proceeding this 19th day of February 2025.
/Signed (electronically) by/
Kevin D. Bernstein Counsel for NRC Staff Mail Stop: O-14-A44 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone: (301) 415-1001 Email: Kevin.Bernstein@nrc.gov Dated February 19, 2025