ML25057A328
| ML25057A328 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/2025 |
| From: | Blanton M, Eskelsen G, Lovett A, Tompkins J Balch & Bingham, LLP, Holtec Decommissioning International, Holtec Palisades |
| To: | NRC/OCM |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57300, Palisades 50-255-LA-3, ASLBP 24-986-01-LA-BD01, 50-255-LA-3 | |
| Download: ML25057A328 (0) | |
Text
1 24678312 February 26, 2025 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 RESPONSE BRIEF REGARDING IMPACT OF DRAFT EA/FONSI Applicants (Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC and Holtec Palisades, LLC) provide this reply pursuant to the Boards February 3, 2025 Order1 and in response to the initial brief filed by Petitioning Organizations (Beyond Nuclear, Dont Waste Michigan, Michigan Safe Energy Future, Three Mile Island Alert, and Nuclear Energy Information Service)2 regarding the impact of NRCs Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (Draft EA/FONSI)3 on the proposed contentions in this proceeding.
Applicants provided relevant background in their initial brief, which also explains why Petitioning Organizations proposed Contentions 5, 6, and 7 are mooted by the Draft EA/FONSI, 1
Memorandum and Order (Scheduling Briefing Concerning the Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact) (Feb. 3, 2025) (ML25034A217).
2 Petitioning Organizations Brief on Effects of Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact for Palisades Nuclear Power Plant (Feb. 19, 2025) (ML25050A618) (Petitioning Organizations Brief).
3 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).
2 to the extent they were not already moot or inadmissible.4 These three proposed contentions are contentions of omission. Petitioning Organizations agree that the allegedly omitted information is in the Draft EA/FONSI.5 But Petitioning Organizations urge the Board not to dismiss these contentions as moot because Petitioning Organizations believe that doing so would prejudice their ability to file new or amended contentions under 10 CFR 2.309(c) and (f).6 It is enough that Petitioning Organizations agree, as a factual matter, that the originally-pled contentions are moot. The briefing requested by the Board has served its purpose by resolving whether the concerns first expressed had been satisfied by the new information.7 The clear Commission precedent is that a contention of omission has no ongoing relevance once the allegedly-missing information has been supplied.8 The Board should therefore dismiss proposed Contentions 5, 6, and 7 because there is no ongoing controversy regarding these contentions and to avoid any confusion regarding the ongoing relevance of these claims.9 Dismissing Petitioning Organizations original contentions of omission as moot does not diminish Petitioning Organizations rights under 10 CFR 2.309(c) and (f) given that the standard 4
Applicants Brief in Response to Boards Order Requesting Briefing on Impact of Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (Feb. 19, 2025) (ML25050A567).
5 Petitioning Organizations Brief at 3 (The Petitioning Organizations maintain that publication of the EA assuages the omissions they alleged in their Contentions 5 and 6, and the omission of discussion of climate change effects claimed in Contention 7.).
6 Id. at 4-7.
7 Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-02-2, 55 NRC 20, 30 (2002).
8 Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI 28, 56 NRC 373, 383 (2002) (If we did not require an amended or new contention in omission situations, an original contention alleging simply a failure to address a subject could readily be transformed--without basis or support--into a broad series of disparate new claims[, which] would circumvent NRC contention-pleading standards and defeat the contention rules purposes[.]).
9 USEC, Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant), CLI-06-9, 63 NRC 433, 444-45 (2006) ([R]esolution of the mooted contention requires no more than a finding by the presiding officer that the matter has become moot[, which] may be accomplished as part of the contention admission phase of the proceeding.).
3 is no different for new or amended contentions.10 If Petitioning Organizations wish to proceed, Petitioning Organizations must specifically challenge any new information in the Draft EA/FONSI in a manner that satisfies 10 CFR 2.309(c) and (f).11 Whether they choose to style any such arguments as new contentions or amended contentions is irrelevant to the Boards determination that the originally-pled contentions of omission are moot.
For the reasons set forth herein and in Applicants prior pleadings, Petitioning Organizations proposed Contentions 5, 6, and 7 are inadmissible and moot and should be dismissed.
10 10 CFR 2.309(c) (motions for leave to file new or amended contentions filed after the deadline... will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that a participant has demonstrated good cause...
(emphasis added)).
11 McGuire, CLI-02-28, 56 NRC at 383 (Intervenors must timely file a new or amended contention that addresses the factors in [10 CFR 2.309(c)] in order to raise specific challenges regarding the new information.).
4 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) 226-8769 sblanton@balch.com alovett@balch.com Jason Tompkins 1901 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 226-8743 jtompkins@balch.com Counsel for Holtec Palisades, LLC and Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC
[certificate of service]
February 26, 2025 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 Response Brief Regarding Impact of Draft EA/FONSI 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 and Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC