ML25115A265

Notice of Appeal of ASLB Decision LBP-25-04, by Beyond Nuclear, Dont Waste Michigan, Michigan Clean Energy Future, Three Mile Island Alert and Nuclear Energy Information Service, and Brief in Support of Appeal

ML25115A265
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	04/25/2025
From:	Lodge T, Taylor W Beyond Nuclear, Don't Waste Michigan, Law Offices of Wallace L. Taylor, Nuclear Energy Information Service, Three Mile Island Alert
To:	NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
References
RAS 57347, 50-255-LA-3, ASLBP 24-986-01-LA-BD01
Download: ML25115A265 (0)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission In the Matter of HOLTEC DECOMMISSIONING INTERNATIONAL, LLC, AND HOLTEC PALISADES, LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant - Request for Exemption and License Amendments)

)

Docket No. 50-255-LA-3

)

)

April 25, 2025

)

)

)

)

)

NOTICE OF APPEAL OF ASLB DECISION LBP-25-04, BY BEYOND NUCLEAR, DONT WASTE MICHIGAN, MICHIGAN CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE, THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT AND NUCLEAR ENERGY INFORMATION SERVICE, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL Terry J. Lodge Wallace L. Taylor 316 N. Michigan St, Suite 520 4403 1st Ave. N.E., Suite 402 Toledo, Ohio 43604 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52402 419-205-7084 319-366-2428 (Fax) 419-932-6625 (Fax) 319-366-3886 e-mail: tjlodge50@yahoo.com e-mail: wtaylorlaw@aol.com CO-COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities 3

Notice of Appeal 6

Brief in Support 6

Introduction 6

Standards for Admissibility of Contentions 9

The ASLB Erred in Rejecting Petitioners Contentions 13 Contention 1 13

1. The Exemption Request Is Not A Licensing Action And Should Not Be Considered In This Proceeding 13

2. Even If The Exemption Is Within Scope, Contention 1 Should Have Been Admitted 16 Contentions 2 and 3 23 Contention 4 30 Contentions 5, 6 and 7 32 Conclusion 33 Certification 34 Appendix: Exhibit A, Declaration and CV of Arnold Gundersen 2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Court Decisions Page(s)

Alaska Professional Hunters Assn v. F.A.A., 177 F.3d 1030, 1034 (D.C. Cir.1999) 26, 30 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) 11 MetWest Inc. v. Secy of Labor, 560 F.3d 506, 509-12 (D.C. Cir. 2009) 26, 30 NRDC v. NRC, 695 F.2d 623 (D.C. Cir. 1982) 16, 20 Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D.C. Arena, 117 F.3d 579, 586 (D.C. Cir. 1997) 27, 30 Syncor Int'l Corp. v. Shalala, 127 F.3d 90, 94-95 (D.C. Cir. 1997) 27, 30 West Virginia v. USEPA 31 Administrative Decisions Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), 53 NRC 370 (2001) 24 Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2), 51 N.R.C. 91 (1999) 14 Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2), 58 NRC 207 (2003) 9 Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328 (1999). 49 NRC 328 (1999) 9, 10, 12, 25, 33 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 and ISFSI), 93 NRC 1 (2021) 13 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Palisades Nuclear Plant and Big Rock Point Site), 96 NRC 1, 104-05 (2022) 9 Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), 82 NRC 68, 78 (2015) 13 Entergy NuclearVermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), 82 NRC 211, 221 (2015) 9 Fansteel, Inc. (Muskogee, Oklahoma Site), 58 NRC 195, 204 (2003) 10 3

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), 75 NRC 393, 396 (2012) 9 GPU Nuclear, Inc. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), 51 NRC 193, 208 (2000) 9 International Uranium (USA) Corp., CLI-00-1, 51 NRC 9, 19 (2000) 27 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation),

98 NRC 1 (2023) 10 Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), 6 NRC 1179, 1183 (1977) 24 Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), 29 NRC 234, 240-41 (1989) 10 Southern Nuclear Operating Co. (Early Site Permit for Vogtle ESP Site), LBP-07-3, 65 NRC 237, 254 (2007) 22, 27 Texas Utilities Generating Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2),

LBP-83-33, 18 NRC 27, 35 (1983) 30 United States Dept of Energy, et al. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), 16 NRC 412, 426 (1982) 20 Washington Public Power Supply System, 5 NRC 719, 723 (1977)

16. 20 Federal Statute 5 U.S.C. § 551(5) 27 Federal Procedural Rule Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b) 11 AEA Regulations 10 C.F.R. § 2.309 9, 11, 33 10 C.F.R. § 2.311 6

10 C.F.R. § 2.710 11 10 C.F.R. § 2.800 17 10 C.F.R. § 50.12 6, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26 4

10 C.F.R. § 50.59 25, 32 10 C.F.R. § 50.82 7, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23 10 C.F.R. § 50.92 24 10 C.F.R. § 51.20 23, 25 10 C.F.R. § 72.22 10 Federal Register Notices 39 Fed. Reg. 14,506, 14,507 (1974) 16 54 Fed. Reg. 33,168 (1989) 11 5

NOTICE OF APPEAL Beyond Nuclear, Dont Waste Michigan Clean Energy Future, Three Mile Island Alert and Nuclear Energy Information Service, by and through counsel, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.311(c), hereby give notice of their appeal to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (ASLB) ruling, LBP-25-04, Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Intervention Petitions) (March 31, 2025) (ASLB Decision) in this proceeding.

Petitioners appeal and seek reversal of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (ASLBs) underlying determinations and the Boards overall decision which individually and collectively denied admission of Petitioners proffered contentions for adjudication.

/s/ Wallace L. Taylor Wallace L. Taylor, Esq.

/s/ Terry J. Lodge Terry J. Lodge, Esq.

Co-Counsel for Beyond Nuclear, Michigan Safe Energy Future, Dont Waste Michigan, Three Mile Island Alert and Nuclear Energy Information Service (Petitioning Organizations)

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL INTRODUCTION Holtec Decommissioning and Holtec Palisades (Holtec) have filed with the NRC a request for exemption pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 50.12 and license amendment requests (LARs) in support of Holtecs plan to return the permanently shutdown Palisades Nuclear Plant (Palisades) to power operations. As a shut down plant, Palisades is in decommissioning status.

6

Both Holtec and NRC staff have admitted that NRC regulations do not prescribe a specific regulatory path for reinstating operational authority.1Holtec, with the complicity of the NRC,2 has cobbled together a scheme to attempt to use existing regulations to restore Palisades operating license. The linchpin of this plan is a proposed exemption from the certifications provided pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 50.82 for permanent shutdown and removal of fuel from the reactor. There is no basis in fact or law supporting this exemption, nor is there any legal or factual basis for the LAR to revise the license and technical specifications to support resumption of power operations at Palisades. There are both safety issues and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance aspects to the LARs.

The Petitioning Organizations, Beyond Nuclear, Michigan Safe Energy Future, Dont Waste Michigan, Three Mile Island Alert and Nuclear Energy Information Service timely filed a Petition for Leave to Intervene on October 7, 2024 pursuant to a notice in the Federal Register.

These Petitioners included seven proposed contentions of law and fact in their Petition. Holtec and the NRC Staff timely answered the Petition, and these Petitioners replied in support of their petition. Oral argument directed at contention admissibility took place on February 12, 2025.

On March 31, 2025, the assigned ASLB issued a ruling that granted legal standing to the Petitioning Organizations but denied all of their contentions to be inadmissible for hearing. Two members of the Board found that Contention 1, challenging the exemption request, was within the scope of the proceeding and that all of Petitioners claims were conclusory or speculative. In a concurring opinion, however, Judge Arnold agreed with Petitioners and Holtec that Contention 2 NRC Chair Christopher Hanson testimony to U.S. House Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce Committee on July 23, 2024 (This is something we have never done before and requires some creativity by the staff as well as Holtecs part.), video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjVfV2tDomQ, starting at 1:41:00.

1 Holtec letter to NRC, Regulatory Path to Reauthorize Power Operations at the Palisades Nuclear Plant, March 13, 2023 (ML23072A404.

7

1 was not within the scope of this proceeding because it is not a licensing action and is not inextricably intertwined with the LAR. He noted that the Staff has the authority to decouple the applications but has chosen a review/approval methodology that keeps them linked. Concurring Opinion p. 5. Where such separation is possible, but the Staff chooses not to separate them, Judge Arnold concluded, in my view the term inextricably intertwined just does not apply. Id.

Contentions 2 and 3 asserted that because Holtecs restart plan presents significant environmental issues in order to restart Palisades, a new operating license is required, and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required instead of the Environmental Assessment (EA) that the NRC has prepared. Without actually analyzing the regulatory framing, the ASLB concluded that these contentions were beyond the scope of this proceeding because Petitioners were ostensibly challenging NRC regulations. Furthermore, the ASLB claimed that the Petitioners did not show that there were significant environmental impacts requiring an EIS.

Contention 4 asserted that there was no regulatory pathway to restarting Palisades and that the exemption request and LARs submitted by Holtec were not a valid application of the existing regulations. The ASLB claimed that Petitioners were attacking the regulations, even though Petitioners were alleging that the NRC was misapplying and misinterpreting the regulations. The regulations themselves were not being attacked.

Finally, Contentions 5, 6, and 7 alleged that the environmental document Holtec submitted did not contain a purpose and need statement, an analysis of alternatives, or a discussion of the impacts of climate change. After the contentions were filed, the NRC produced an EA that did contain those missing elements, in response to which Petitioners have since asserted that the EA presentation of those subjects is deficient. Because the EA allegedly cured the contentions of omission, the ASLB dismissed the contentions as moot.

8

STANDARDS FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS The ASLB purported to set forth the standards for admissibility of contentions, but simply recited the 6 criteria for contentions in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f).3 The Board then determined that, based on those criteria, the Petitioners contentions did not satisfy the strict admissibility standards.4 But the § 2.309(f) criteria are not as strict as the ASLB claimed nor are they as strict as applied by the Board to the facts and issues in this case.

The pleading requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) do not encompass the overly burdensome standards asserted by the ASLB. The standards are not meant to be insurmountable.

Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), 49 NRC 328, 335 (1999)

(explaining that the rule should not be used as a fortress to deny intervention) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Palisades Nuclear Plant and Big Rock Point Site), 96 NRC 1, 104-05 (2022) (admitting for hearing portions of a contention that raised a genuine material dispute with the application). The rule serves to assess the scope, materiality, and support provided for a proposed contention, to ensure that the hearing process is properly reserve[d]... for genuine, material controversies between knowledgeable litigants. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), 75 NRC 393, 396 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).Contentions need only have some reasonably specific factual or legal basis. Entergy NuclearVermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear PowerStation), 82 NRC 211, 221 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Entergy Nuclear Operations (Palisades Nuclear Plant and Big Rock Point Site), 96 NRC 1 at 45 (rejecting argument that did not establish a supported genuine dispute with the application). Specificity is key: mere 4 Id. at p. 24.

3 ASLB Decision, pp. 23-24.

9

speculation is insufficient, see, e.g., Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2), 58 NRC 207, 216 (2003) (rejecting an argument that, at best, was based on speculation); GPU Nuclear, Inc. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), 51 NRC 193, 208 (2000) (finding bare assertions and speculation insufficient to trigger a contested hearing), and a petitioner may not simply reference documents without clearly identifying or summarizing the portions of the documents on which it relies. See Fansteel, Inc. (Muskogee, Oklahoma Site), 58 NRC 195, 204 (2003); Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),

29 NRC 234, 240-41 (1989)). While petitioners need not prove their contentions at the admissibility stage, the contention admissibility standards do require petitioners to proffer at least some minimal factual and legal foundation in support of their contentions. Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), 49 NRC 328, 334 (1999).

Based on the foregoing, the ASLB erred in requiring Petitioners to present enough evidence to prove the merits of the contentions at the admissibility stage.

The decision in Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), 98 NRC 1 (2023) demonstrates this misuse of admissibility criteria. That proceeding concerned a hearing request from San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP) challenging an application from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to renew its license to store spent nuclear fuel in the Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) for an additional 40 years beyond the current license expiration date. The petitioners contention alleged that PG&Es analysis of its financial qualifications to operate the ISFSI failed to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 72.22(e) because the analysis was based on the invalid assumption that PG&E would not seek renewal of the operating licenses for the Diablo Canyon reactors. PG&E countered that the contention was inadmissible for failing to satisfy the materiality requirement 10

in § 2.309(f)(1)(iv) because PG&E is financially qualified to continue operating the ISFSI regardless of whether the reactor licenses are renewed. However, the ASLB determined that that argument went to the merits, and that the issue at that point was only whether the petitioner had satisfied the contention admissibility requirements.

Another way to contextualize this point is to compare contention admissibility to the motion to dismiss procedure in federal court. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b), a motion to dismiss is evaluated by accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). If, by doing so, the complaint fails to plausibly state a claim, then dismissal is warranted. Beyond the motion to dismiss, if facts are developed, a party can file with the court a motion for summary judgment, where the judge reviews substantive facts to determine if there is a genuine factual dispute. That procedure is analogous to the motion for summary disposition provided in 10 C.F.R. § 2.710, which becomes available only after a contention is admitted for hearing.

The current contention admissibility standards were adopted in 1989 out of concern that the previously existing standards allowed intervention for petitioners who had no real basis for their contentions. 54 Fed. Reg. 33,168 (1989). The Federal Register discussion states that the rule, now 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1), does not require the petitioner to make its case at the contention admissibility stage, but merely to indicate what facts or expert opinions provide the basis for the contention. The Federal Register discussion goes on to say that a petitioner need only include some alleged facts in support of its position sufficient to indicate that a genuine issue of material fact or law exists. This prevents admission of a contention where the petitioner has no facts to support its position and where the intervenor wants to use discovery or 11

cross-examination as a fishing expedition. Most importantly, the Federal Register discussion contains the following statement:

[The rule] was intended to parallel the standard for dismissing a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The intent of Rule 12(b)(6) is to permit dismissal of a claim where the plaintiff would be entitled to no relief under any set of facts which could be proved in support of his claim.

Shortly after the 1989 amendment to the admissibility criteria, the Commission had occasion to address the intent and purpose of the rule, in Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), 49 NRC 328, 335 (1999):

The 1989 revisions to the contention rule thus insist upon some factual basis for an admitted contention. 54 Fed. Reg. at 33,171. The intervenor must be able to identify some facts at the time it proposes a contention to indicate that a dispute exists between it and the applicant on a material issue. Id. These requirements are intended to preclude a contention from being admitted where an intervenor has no facts to support its position and [instead] contemplates using discovery or cross-examination as a fishing expedition which might produce relevant supporting facts. Id. Although in quasi-formal adjudications like license renewal an intervenor may still use the discovery process to develop his case and help prove an admitted contention, contentions shall not be admitted if at the outset they are not described with reasonable specificity or are not supported by some alleged fact or facts demonstrating a genuine material dispute. Id. at 33,170.

What has happened since the 1989 rule amendment, however, is that the NRC Staff and permit applicants have created axioms that misconstrue the intent of the rule and have nudged licensing boards, and sometimes the Commission, to accept and normalize overly strict contention admissibility interpretations. Petitioners respectfully request the Commission in this case to take this opportunity to clarify the contention admissibility standards.

Despite clear precedent that the standards for admissibility of contentions are not heavy and must not be used as a fortress to deny intervention, the ASLB, as more specifically enumerated in the discussion below regarding the decision on Petitioners contentions, contravened precedent and held Petitioners to an unreasonable standard for admissibility.

12

THE ASLB ERRED IN REJECTING PETITIONERS CONTENTIONS Contention 1 In Contention 1, the Petitioners asserted that the exemption requested by Holtec, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 50.12, to reverse the effects of the certifications for decommissioning filed by Palisades prior owner, Entergy, does not satisfy the exemption requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 50.12. Petitioners argued that the exemption request was not within the scope of this licensing proceeding, but that even if it was, the contention should be admitted for hearing. Two of the ASLB members held that the exemption request is within the scope of this proceeding, but that it was inadmissible. Judge Arnold, in a concurring opinion, agreed with the Petitioners that the exemption request is not a licensing action and was not admissible in this proceeding.

1. The Exemption Request Is Not A Licensing Action And Should Not Be Considered In This Proceeding.

As stated in Petitioners Petition, Holtecs exemption request is the linchpin upon which the subsequent elements of Holtecs plan to restart Palisades rests.5 But it is not a licensing action. Even if the exemption were granted, the subsequent license amendments could still be denied. Moreover, the granting of the requested exemption would not change the status or any aspects of the license. It would simply allow Palisades to be removed from decommissioning status. So Holtec correctly argues that Contention 1 is outside the scope of this proceeding.

The Commissions decision in Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 and ISFSI), 93 NRC 1 (2021) is instructive. In that case, as in this case, Holtec had obtained ownership of the nuclear plant for the alleged purpose of decommissioning. Holtec requested an exemption to use the decommissioning trust fund for non-decommissioning activities. The Commission held that the exemption request was properly 5 Petition to Intervene, p. 30.

13

addressed in the licensing proceeding because the exemption requests were completely dependent on the [license-amendment request] and cannot take effect unless and until the

[license-amendment request] is approved. Id. at 16, citing Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), 82 NRC 68, 78 (2015). See id. at 16, n. 78 (Where a requested exemption raises questions that are material to a proposed licensing action and bear directly on whether the proposed action should be taken, however, a petitioner may propose exemption-related arguments in the licensing proceeding.). The requested exemption in this case does not depend on granting the LARs nor does it bear directly on whether the LARs should be granted.

Petitioners presented Contention 1 only because the NRC inferred that the exemption request was so closely intertwined with the license amendment requests that it must be included as a contention in this proceeding.6 Out of an abundance of caution, Petitioners have submitted Contention 1, so as not to waive any challenge to the exemption request, if indeed, the challenge to the exemption must be raised in this proceeding.

It is significant that Holtec agreed with the Petitioners that the exemption request is not within the scope of this proceeding. As Holtec pointed out, Congress intentionally limited the opportunity for a hearing to certain designated agency actionsagency actions that do not include exemptions.7 Holtecs Answer went on to state:8 NRC has allowed hearings on exemption requests that make up the required elements of a parallel licensing action, such that the proposed exemption directly bears on whether the proposed action should be granted. Put another way, when NRCs review of a licensing action necessarily involves consideration of the same subject matter as its review of an exemption request, Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act does not remove the exemption request from scope of matters that may be adjudicated on the licensing 8 Id. at p. 43.

7 Holtec Answer, p. 39, citing Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2), 51 N.R.C. 91, 96 (1999).

6 Order of the Secretary, September 26, 2024 (ML24270A263).

14

action. This situation most often presents itself when an exemption request is bundled with a licensing action, such that the applicant cannot meet the criteria for approval of the licensing action without receiving approval of the related exemption.

Finally, Holtec correctly concluded:9 But the fact that the Exemption Request and the LARs are both aimed at the same ultimate objective - authorizing the restart - does not mean that NRCs approval of the LARs is dependent on its parallel review of the Exemption Request. Put differently, just because both the exemption and the amendments may ultimately be required to resume power operations does not mean that the two are co-dependent in a manner that scopes the Exemption Request into the Section 189a hearing process. They are separate approvals on parallel tracks, just like the license transfer application that is also not within the scope of this proceeding. Whether NRC grants the exemption from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2) to allow application to rescind the certifications of shutdown and defueling will not affect the criteria against which the LARs are judged.

However, even in the face of this clear precedent, a majority of the ASLB discarded the Petitioners and Holtecs argument in one short paragraph10 without referring to any of the authority cited by the Petitioners and Holtec, nor considering the definition of inextricably intertwined, as Judge Arnold did.11 The majority simply concluded that because the exemption was necessary to the restart plan, it was therefore inextricably intertwined with the LARs, without considering whether the LARs could be denied even if the exemption were granted.

Judge Arnold, in his concurring opinion, correctly made the distinction between the concepts of intertwined and linked, relying on the statements of NRC counsel that the exemption and LARs could be separated.12 The Board majority should have made a similar analysis, but did not.

Consequently, the majority erred in finding that the exemption request is within the scope of this licensing proceeding.

12 Id., concurring opinion, p. 5.

11 Id., concurring opinion, p. 2.

10 ASLB Decision, p. 43.

9 Id. at p. 44-45.

15

2. Even If The Exemption Is Within Scope, Contention 1 Should Have Been Admitted On May 20, 2022, Entergy, the previous owner of Palisades, closed Palisades and placed the plant into decommissioning status. As a part of the decommissioning process, Entergy certified, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 50.82(a)(1)(i), that power operations permanently ceased at Palisades on May 20, 2022, and that pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 50.82 (1)(a)(ii), the fuel was permanently removed from the Palisades reactor vessel and placed in the spent fuel pool on June 10, 2022.13 Holtec, the current owner of Palisades, now requests an exemption pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 50.12 from the impact of the 50.82 certifications. But an exemption is not so easily obtained. The District of Columbia Circuit has limited the granting of exemptions to exigent circumstances:

Section 50.12 provides a mechanism for obtaining an exemption from the procedures incorporated in section 50.10, but one that may be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances. The Commission has made clear that section 50.12 is available only in the presence of exigent circumstances, such as emergency situations in which time is of the essence and relief from the Licensing Board is impossible or highly unlikely. [citing Washington Public Power Supply System, 5 NRC 719, 723 (1977)].

NRDC v. NRC, 695 F.2d 623 (D.C. Cir. 1982). The Commission has similarly emphasized that § 50.12 exemptions are to be granted sparingly and only in cases of undue hardship. 39 Fed. Reg.

14,506, 14,507 (1974). So Holtec bears an extremely heavy burden to justify its request for an exemption.

It is clear that exemptions are meant to apply, ad hoc, to specific situations in specific cases, much like a variance in zoning cases. The abuse of the exemption procedure, as demonstrated here by Holtec and the NRC Staff, is not being narrowly invoked just for Palisades, but is being directly replicated in efforts to restart the reactors at Three Mile Island and 13 Letter, Certifications of Permanent Cessation of Power Operations and Permanent Removal of Fuel from the Reactor Vessel, June 13, 2022, (ML22164A067).

16

Duane Arnold.14 This exemption is actually a new policy, not an exemption. Indeed, the exemption provision is an unofficial rulemaking procedure, albeit one that bypasses the formal rulemaking requirements of 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.800 et seq. That is clearly not the purpose of an exemption.

Exemptions under § 50.12 must first be authorized by law.15 The ASLB majority opinion claimed that the Petitioners cited no legal authority for the proposition that § 50.12 requires affirmative legal authorization.16 But the majority did not cite any legal authority for its claim that silence is authorization. Taken to its logical conclusion, the majoritys position means that anything is authorized unless it is specifically prohibited. That would essentially make the regulatory regime a nullity.

The majority next criticizes the Petitioners argument that the exemption doesnt serve the purpose of § 50.82, as required by § 50.12(2)(ii).17 The purpose of § 50.82 is to provide a process for decommissioning and operating license termination. The majority apparently claims that somehow the restart of Palisades is a circumstance that would achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.18 In fact, restarting Palisades would contradict the purpose of a rule focused on decommissioning and license termination. There is absolutely nothing in § 50.82 that even infers a purpose to restart a decommissioning reactor, and the ASLB majority did not identify one.

Beyond those misguided attacks on Petitioners Contention, the ASLB majority simply attacks the Petitioners claims and evidence as generalized, conclusory and speculative.19 In doing so, the majority is misapplying the standards for admissibility as discussed in the first 19 Id. at p. 49-51 18 Id.

17 Id.

16 ASLB Decision, p. 50.

15 10 C.F.R. § 50.12(a)(1).

14 Three Mile Island application (ML24324A048); Duane Arnold application (ML25023A270).

17

section of this Brief.

Even though the ASLB majority did not really discuss or address the Petitioners arguments as to why Holtecs exemption request does not satisfy the requirements of § 50.12, Petitioners believe the Commission would benefit from such a discussion.

A request for a § 50.12 exemption must show that the exemption will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety and common defense and security. In an attempt to satisfy this requirement, Holtec simply states that Palisades will be returned to the condition it was in prior to decommissioning. The problem with that assertion, however, is that there were significant safety problems with the plant that militated against such a conclusion. In fact, risks to the public health and safety prompted Palisades to be shut down earlier than anticipated. The attached declaration of Arnold Gundersen20 establishes the undue risks to public health and safety and common defense and security if Palisades is reopened. Pointing out that [t]he overall design of the Palisades reactor is not licensable to the 21st century standards,21 Mr. Gundersen asserts that the Palisades atomic facility is one of the world's most decrepit and flawed nuclear reactors.

When Entergy sold it to Holtec two years ago, the reactor was operating with poorly maintained parts, woefully inadequate safety equipment, and outdated and outmoded components.22 In discussing Holtecs void of corporate nuclear power plant construction and operating experience, he observes that Relicensing and resuscitating a shuttered, aged and defunct atomic reactor by a corporation with no nuclear operations or engineering experience, while relying on a workforce of mercenaries without corporate nuclear operations and management knowledge, is a recipe for an atomic disaster.23 He sees several reasons prompting genuine danger and risk from Holtec 23 Gundersen Declaration, p. 11.

22 Gundersen Declaration, p. 8.

21 Gundersen Declaration, p. 22.

20 Declaration and CV of Arnold Gundersen, Exhibit A to Petitioning Organizations October 10, 2024 Petition to Intervene filing (Gundersen Declaration).

18

attempting to bring Palisades back to life. These include that [t]he long-standing equipment problems at Holtec Palisades are substantial and extensive. Additionally, Holtecs entire proposal completely underestimates the extreme costs of these repairs and equipment fabrication in its whole proposal. Furthermore, the duration for making said repairs is grotesquely underestimated and minimized by years.24 Besides the requirements for an exemption in 10 C.F.R § 50.12(a)(1),

§ 50.12(a)(2) lists several special circumstances, at least one of which must be present. Holtec relied on circumstances ii, iii, and vi, discussed as follows:

(ii) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstance would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.

This requirement means that applying § 50.82 to this case would not serve the purpose of

§ 50.82. The purpose of § 50.82 is to ensure that the reactor is certified to be in decommissioning status in order to facilitate decommissioning. Palisades has been in the process of decommissioning since June 2022. It is absurd to think that § 50.82 is not serving its purpose in this case.

Holtecs attempted justification for reliance on this factor is twofold. First, Holtec claims that application of § 50.82 in this case would not serve its purpose because that would prevent Holtec from reopening Palisades. The fallacy of that argument is self-evident. It is not the purpose of § 50.82 to allow a reactor in decommissioning status to restart. On the contrary, as explained above, the purpose of the rule is to facilitate decommissioning.

Second, Holtec claims that the purpose of § 50.82 is simply to notify the NRC of Entergys intent to place Palisades into decommissioning status. If that is so, why does Holtec need an exemption? It could just rescind the certification. Furthermore, Holtec has not shown that application of § 50.82 in this case would not serve that rules purpose. If the rules purpose, as 24 Gundersen Declaration, p. 21.

19

Holtec alleges, is just to notify the NRC of the intent to decommission, that purpose is accomplished without an exemption.

What Holtec tacitly admits is that the actual purpose of § 50.82 is to formally undertake the decommissioning process. That application of the rule is clearly served in this case by continuing the decommissioning process, not by attempting to restart Palisades.

(iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated.

In its attempt to support this factor, Holtec relies on support it has received from the State of Michigan. It is not at all clear how there will be an undue hardship on Holtec if the requested exemption is not granted. Even if, as Holtec contends, reopening Palisades would benefit the people of Michigan (a concept with which Petitioners vehemently disagree), that does not show an undue hardship on Holtec. Holtec merely finds itself in a difficult situation of its own making.

To the contrary, Holtec knew Palisades was going to be in decommissioning status when it bought the plant. This is certainly not an exigent circumstance or undue hardship, except for Holtecs profit motive. See, NRDC v. NRC, supra. Holtecs argument brings to mind the quip about the boy who killed his parents and then begged for mercy because he is an orphan.

(vi) There is present any other material circumstance not considered when the regulation was adopted for which it would be in the public interest to grant an exemption.

The public interest criterion for granting an exemption under 10 C.F.R. § 50.12(b) is a stringent one: exemptions of this sort are to be granted sparingly and only in extraordinary circumstances. United States Dept of Energy, et al. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), 16 NRC 412, 426 (1982), citing Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Power Projects Nos. 3 & 5), 5 NRC 719 (1977).

20

Here, Holtec contends that NRC regulations for decommissioning, including § 50.82, were adopted for reactors intended to be permanently shut down, not reactors that are proposed to be restarted. But that does not mean that NRC did not consider the possibility of restarting a reactor in decommissioning status when it promulgated the decommissioning rules. On the other hand, if the NRC had considered the possibility of restarting a decommissioning reactor, it would have provided for that possibility in the rules. Beyond that, however, Holtec must establish that restarting Palisades is in the public interest.

Holtec insists that its scheme to restart is just a simple matter of getting the requested exemption and then a few license amendments. But in a February 9, 2023, interview with NRC Commissioner Bradley Crowell by the ExchangeMonitor,25 Commissioner Crowell acknowledges that a Palisades restart would be a difficult and complicated process. Crowell said the NRC has no authority to license a restart, and that Holtc would have to apply for a new license. He surmised that Holtec would have to start from scratch.26 Holtec relies on the fact of having monetary support appropriated by the Michigan legislature to support its argument that restarting Palisades is in the public interest. But political support of Holtec does not equate to a scientific or technical basis for the restart scheme.

Petitioners attached the declaration of Mark Z. Jacobson, recognized as a premier expert in the country on renewable energy and future energy policy. He makes it clear that nuclear power is not the energy source of the future, and consequently restarting Palisades is not in the public interest:

Nuclear power contributes to global warming and air pollution in the following ways: (1) emissions of air pollutants and global warming agents from the background grid due to its long planning-to-operation and refurbishment times (Section 3.2.2.1); (2) lifecycle 26 Id.

25 www.exchangemonitor.com/nuclear-renaissance-now-or-never-30-minutes-with-bradley-crowell-comm issioner-nuclear-regulatory-commission/

21

emissions of air pollutants and global warming agents during construction, operation, and decommissioning of a nuclear plant; (3) heat and water vapor emissions during the operation of a nuclear plant (Sections 3.2.2.2 and 3.2.2.3); (4) carbon dioxide emissions due to covering soil or clearing vegetation during the construction of a nuclear plant, uranium mine, and waste site (Section 3.2.2.5); and (5) the emissions risk of air pollutants and global warming agents due to nuclear weapons proliferation (Section 3.3.2.1).

Every one of these categories represents an actual emission or emission risk, yet most of these emissions, except for lifecycle emissions, are incorrectly ignored in virtually all studies of nuclear energy impacts on climate. Virtually no study considers the impact of nuclear energy on air pollution mortality. By ignoring these factors, studies distort the impacts on climate and air pollution health associated with some technologies over others.27 (Emphasis added).

The declaration of Kevin Kamps further demonstrates that public support from the State of Michigan and Federal Government does not automatically allow the conclusion that Holtecs scheme is in the public interest because Holtec is driven by whatever public funding it can garner, not by an established history of starting up and operating nuclear power plants. Besides some $3.12 billion in state and federal largesse, Holtec insists on a locked-in power purchase agreement (PPA) guaranteeing electrical sales at a fixed price that may be well above comparable market prices. As Kamps notes, Holtecs scheme would protect it from free market competition at the Palisades zombie reactor via $3.3 billion in government subsidies, and $412.5 million per year in new PPA revenues, yet another form of subsidization.28 Petitioners expert nuclear engineer, Arnold Gundersen, explains what the previous fixed-price PPA meant for Palisades when Entergy was the owner and operator: Entergys corporate laser-like focus on minimizing costs became apparent as Palisades approached 2022.

Because Entergy couldn't make a profit at Palisades without the Michigan ratepayer-funded subsidy created by the Power Purchase Agreement, Entergy stopped investing in essential nuclear 28 Declaration of Kevin Kamps accompanying Petition, Ex. B., p. 4.

27 Declaration of Mark Z. Jacobson accompanying this Petition, Ex. C, p. 9 22

power plant repairs and upgrades made at other nuclear electrical generators during the years leading up to 2022. Simply put, Entergy risked the safety of the Palisades community and the atomic reactors capacity to operate again in order to make a profit. By not making essential repairs and upgrades, Entergy drove Palisades into the ground before its 2022 closing.29 Of significance here, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia were the first nuclear reactors to be licensed in over 30 years. Also, 16 reactors have been permanently shut down since the 1990s. It is clear, therefore, that even the nuclear industry knows enough to quit when faced with reality. In this case, if it were not for the billions of DOE dollars on the table, and hundreds of millions of State of Michigan dollars as well, Holtec would not be proposing to restart Palisades, either. The NRC must not abandon the strictures of Atomic Energy Act requirements. Granting the requested exemption would violate NRC regulations Contentions 2 and 3 The ASLB in this case considered Contentions 2 and 3 together because they assert from different perspectives that the LARs in this case require an EIS to be prepared, rather than an EA.

Contention 2 pointed out that restarting a closed and decommissioning reactor is a major federal action with significant environmental impacts, at least as significant as a license renewal, which requires an EIS.30 Contention 3 asserted that because § 50.82 does not provide a pathway to restart once decommissioning has begun, a new operating license is required. This would necessitate issuance of a new operating license, which would require an EIS.31 Regarding Contention 2, what Holtec proposes to do, and what the NRC proposes to permit, is changing a presently unusable operating license into a fully functional operating license, through an exemption and several LARs. Notably, the NRC Staff itself has referred to the 31 Id.

30 10 C.F.R. § 51.20(b)(2) 29 Gundersen Declaration accompanying this Petition, Ex. A p. 13.

23

Holtec exemption request as a major licensing action.32 The Staff then asserts that [b[ecause license amendments are typically used to change the authorities and requirements for a reactor in decommissioning, the amendment process may be used to restore those authorities so long as the amendment standards in 10 C.F.R. § 50.92(a) are met.33 Petitioners agree that the standards of 10 C.F.R. § 50.92(a) must be met. According to § 50.92(a):

In determining whether an amendment to a license, construction permit, or early site permit will be issued to the applicant, the Commission will be guided by the considerations which govern the issuance of initial licenses, construction permits, or early site permits to the extent applicable and appropriate. If the application involves the material alteration of a licensed facility, a construction permit will be issued before the issuance of the amendment to the license....

Alterations of the type that require a construction permit are those that involve substantial changes that, in effect, introduce significant new issues relating to the nature and function of the facility. See Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), 6 NRC 1179, 1183 (1977). To trigger the need for a construction permit, the change must essentially [render] major portions of the original safety analysis for the facility inapplicable to the modified facility. See Id.; Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), 53 NRC 370, 391-92 (2001).

Petitioners submitted to the ASLB the expert declaration of Arnold Gundersen, detailing the major technical and mechanical flaws in the Palisades systems, structures, and components that must be replaced or significantly repaired before Palisades could reasonably be returned to operational status.34 In fact, one of the most significant points made by Mr. Gundersen - the significant deterioration of the steam generators -- has now been acknowledged by Holtec and NRC Staff, resulting in the submission of a license amendment request by Holtec.35 35 Holtec Steam Generator LAR (ML25043A348) 34 Petitioners Petition to Intervene, p. 60-63, 70-73 33 NRC Staff Answer p. 23.

32 NRC Staff Answer p. 78 ([T]the Staff considers climate change to be within the scope of the NEPA environmental review for major licensing actions, a term that the Staff concludes would apply to the restart and resumption of operations at Palisades.)

24

In any event, Contention 2 has now been amended in accordance with the Boards Order approving a schedule for amending contentions.36 Regarding Contention 3, because there is no legitimate regulatory pathway to restart a closed decommissioning reactor, a new license must be issued. That clearly requires preparation of an EIS.37 Rather than applying for a new license, Holtec proposes to accomplish the restart with license amendments, and also changes pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 50.59, essentially a paper transaction, to return Palisades to operational status.

The ASLB claimed that contentions 2 and 3 are not within the scope of this proceeding because they allegedly challenge NRC regulations and policy.38 The ASLB relied on language in Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), 49 NRC 328, 334 (1999). This was an incorrect reading of Oconee. What the Commission said was, a petitioner may not demand an adjudicatory hearing to attack generic NRC requirements or regulations, or to express generalized grievances about NRC policies. Id. Petitioners are clearly not attacking generic NRC requirements or making generalized grievances about NRC policies.

The Board claimed that Petitioners are challenging regulations and policy since the NRC Staff has determined that the restart of Palisades can be accomplished by using existing regulations.39 But that is a self-serving argument. Reference was made to a decision by the NRC that denied a request for a rule that would allow retired nuclear reactors to return to operation.40 The NRC decision simply found that a rule was not justified at that time. The NRC specifically emphasized that no request for restarting a closed reactor had ever been made and that reactor 40 The denial of the petition is found at https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/main.jsp?AccessionNumber=ML20205L305 39 Id.

38 ASLB Decision, p. 53 37 10 C.F.R. § 51.20(b)(2) 36 ASLB Order on amended contentions (ML25041A133) 25

operators expressed no interest in adopting the requested rule. The NRC mentioned in passing that existing regulations might be available, through an exemption, to accomplish the purpose, but § 50.12 was not mentioned. The Commissions May 2021 decision in PRM-50-117 was not an adjudication, and was far more equivocal than the ASLB would have it:

While current regulations do not specify a particular mechanism for reauthorizing operation of a nuclear power plant after both certifications are submitted, there is no statute or regulation prohibiting such action. Thus, the NRC may address such requests under the existing regulatory framework.

The ASLB treats the rejection of a rulemaking as the making of a rule, that Volume 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations is consigned to corporate applicants to restart candidate reactors to pick and choose among existing regulations to divine a pathway, and that the pathway has the force and effect of a new Commission regulation. The ASLB has transformed the rejection of a petition for rulemaking and the fact that the Commission specified no definitive regulatory pathway, into an affirmative and unassailable adjudication of a new procedure having the effect of a new rule. It is a new rule leaving it to the applicants to state which rules they intend to follow, whereby the NRC Staff accepts the applicants proffer outside of the formal notice, comment and court challenge procedures that are part of an actual APA rulemaking.

The ASLB seems to hail the PRM-50-117 rulemaking rejection as the pronouncement of a new Commission policy, i.e., recognition for the first time that existing NRC regulations support a pathway for a shutdown reactor in decommissioning can reverse course and restart the nuclear power plant. And if indeed the Commission was authoritatively re-interpreting its regulations, that is a statement of policy at odds with prior history. If a policy statement changes the agencys interpretation of a rule, it may constitute an interpretive rule and would therefore require notice and comment. MetWest Inc. v. Secy of Labor, 560 F.3d 506, 509-12 (D.C. Cir.

2009), citing Alaska Professional Hunters Assn v. F.A.A., 177 F.3d 1030, 1034 (D.C. Cir.1999) 26

(Once an agency gives its regulation an interpretation, it can only change that interpretation as it would formally modify the regulation itself: through the process of notice and comment rulemaking.). An agency has less leeway in its choice of the method of changing its interpretation of its regulations than in altering its construction of a statute. Rule making, as defined in the APA, includes not only the agency's process of formulating a rule, but also the agency's process of modifying a rule. 5 U.S.C. § 551(5). Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D.C.

Arena, 117 F.3d 579, 586 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (When an agency has given its regulation a definitive interpretation, and later significantly revises that interpretation, the agency has in effect amended its rule, something it may not accomplish without notice and comment). Syncor Int'l Corp. v.

Shalala, 127 F.3d 90, 94-95 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (modification of an interpretive rule construing an agency's substantive regulation will likely require a notice and comment procedure.).

The ASLB conclusively reinforces its new interpretation campaign by pointing to the NRC Staffs issuance of a guidance document allegedly establishing a regulatory pathway to restart41 in August of 2024, long after Holtecs letter proposed a pathway to restart. The NRC guidance amounts to a mere post hoc rationalization for approving Holtecs novel scheme.

Although NRC guidances are routine agency policy pronouncements that do not carry the binding effect of regulations. International Uranium (USA) Corp., CLI-00-1, 51 NRC 9, 19 (2000); Southern Nuclear Operating Co. (Early Site Permit for Vogtle ESP Site), LBP-07-3, 65 NRC 237, 254 (2007), the new guidance evidences the need to clarify the NRCs policy change -

and that requires treatment as a rulemaking, which has never occurred in the wake of the PRM-50-117 ruling.

In addition, NRC Staff, during the oral argument before the ASLB, described the guidance document as follows:

41 Palisades Nuclear Plant Restart Inspection Plan, ML24228A195.

27

It's an inspection manual chapter, and it concerns inspection and oversight and states that the licensing is discussed only to the extent necessary to provide that context that's needed for the oversight piece. And so we don't see that inspection manual chapter as having the same significance that Holtec does.42 It is problematic for the ASLB majority that the NRC Staff made a valid determination that a decommissioning reactor can be restarted using existing regulations. Absent notice and comment opportunity, the overblown significance ascribed to the PRM-50-117 dicta that the regulations may allow a restart cannot suffice as a basis for rejecting the Petitioning Organizations Contentions 2 and 3.

In sum, the ASLB has transformed a Commission rejection of a rulemaking into a hard-and-fast limitation on the scope of this proceeding, But whether there is, in fact, an existing regulatory pathway to restart is exactly the factual and legal question the Petitioning Organizations have presented in their petition. The Petitioning Organizations are not challenging a regulation; rather, they are challenging the NRC Staffs misconstruction (or perhaps, deconstruction) and misapplication of specific regulations.

Of Contentions 2 and 3, the ASLB states that Petitioning Organizations claims that Applicants operating license may not be amended or that Applicants may not seek exemptions from regulations amount to an impermissible challenge to agency policy and regulations. Those are striking mischaracterizations of what these Petitioners have stated. They have not stated that the Palisades operating license may not be amended, but instead, that the regulatory scheme of shutdown and decommissioning goes only in one direction, viz., from shutdown to and through decommissioning to termination of license, and that logically, an operating license conditioned by fuel removal and the onset of decommissioning activities is not amenable to whimsy-based reversal. Nor have these Petitioners stated, as the ASLB claims, that Holtec may not seek 42 Transcript of February 12, 2025 oral argument, p. 89.

28

exemptions from regulations; to the contrary, the Petitioning Organizations have in considerable detail laid out precisely why the Holtec exemption request, once made, must fail according to the historically limited range of activities for which exemptions have been granted.

In contentions 2 and 3, the Petitioning Organizations have not attacked generic NRC requirements or regulations, nor have they expressed generalized grievances about NRC policies, per Duke Energy Corporation (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 334 (1999). Rather, they are challenging the lack of sufficient facts and law which would allow the Commission to countenance a means of authorizing the ad hoc restart of Palisades.

The present proceeding is the very first litigation opportunity the public has had to legally question this changed regulatory philosophy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Petitioning Organizations here timely raised their contentions; fleshed them out with disputed facts about the effects of climate change necessitating new components at Palisades; provided an alternative critique of the usefulness of the steam generator tubes at Palisades; and have questioned the unprecedented restart pathway suggested by an applicant and merely vouchsafed by the NRC Staff. None of this has ever before been tested in a legal proceeding, and the ASLB is incorrectly precluding any contentions that challenge key already-made NRC decisions about applicable regulations.

The Petitioning Organizations explained earlier in this brief how overlitigation at the contention stage contravenes the established standards for contention admissibility. That has happened with respect to Contentions 2 and 3, and they should, instead, be assigned for adjudication.

29

Contention 4 The ASLB decision on this contention principally reiterates its ruling as to Contentions 2 and 3. The Licensing Board maintains that:

... Petitioning Organizations argument that restart-specific statutory and regulatory provisions are necessary to allow Applicants to restart Palisades is not cognizable in this adjudicatory proceeding. The Commission has determined that the agencys existing regulatory framework applies to restart requests, and a challenge to the use of this framework is a challenge to both the NRCs regulations and Commission policy.

Memorandum and Order p. 58. Using this reasoning, the ASLB avoided having to decide whether restart constitutes a major question that requires clear Congressional approval.

The Petitioning Organizations respond with the same points they made in defense of Contentions 2 and 3. The ASLB has distorted the Commissions May 2021 decision to deny the rulemaking requested in PRM-50-117; it was far more equivocal a ruling than the ASLB is willing to admit.

But if, as the ASLB maintains, the rulemaking rejection was a precedential Commission statement of policy, then its use as a barrier to the Petitioning Organizations contentions should founder on the requirements of NRC rulemaking. As the Organizations pointed out, supra, if a policy statement changes the agencys interpretation of a rule, it may constitute an interpretive rule and would therefore require notice and comment. MetWest Inc. v. Secy of Labor, 560 F.3d 506, 509-12 (D.C. Cir. 2009), citing Alaska Professional Hunters Assn v. F.A.A., 177 F.3d 1030, 1034 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D.C. Arena, 117 F.3d 579, 586 (D.C.

Cir. 1997); Syncor Int'l Corp. v. Shalala, 127 F.3d 90, 94-95 (D.C. Cir. 1997). There was no public notice and opportunity to comment provided the public in the wake of the rulemaking rejection.

The NRC Staff and the ASLB position that Holtec is allowed to plot its own pathway 30

through agency regulations to restart Palisades sharply contradicts the long-understood roles of regulator and regulated. Just as regulations that reference the ASME code were not intended to give over the Commissions full rulemaking authority to a private organization on an ongoing basis, neither may a private organization become the authority concerning the criteria necessary to the issuance of a license. Texas Utilities Generating Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2), LBP-83-33, 18 NRC 27, 35 (1983). The ASLB interpretation of the significance of PRM-50-117 works to outsource the substance of regulatory action to the regulated. After Holtec posited its pathway to restart, the NRC Staff bolstered Holtecs choice by publishing a post hoc guidance document that coincidentally is 100% congruent with Holtecs pathway proposal. By this post hoc guidance, the NRC quietly approved a unique new procedure that has completely bypassed the rigors of an announced, intentional interpretive rulemaking.

While the ASLB repeatedly characterized the rulemaking rejection as merely an embrace of the NRCs existing regulatory framework,43 it is anything but that endorsement of the routine. The restart pathway delineated by Holtec states a contrived and completely novel, unprecedented procedure for undoing an operating license downgrade that is an interim step toward license termination.

The ASLB found the NRC Staffs argument against applicability of the major questions doctrine to undermine the Petitioning Organizations doctrinal invocation, but the Staff actually buttressed these Petitioners argument that a new license must be sought. The Staff contended that if the challenged restart requests involve an issue of such economic and political significance that the major questions doctrine applies, then the doctrine would appear to apply to all new reactor licensing, a result that would undermine the Courts characterization of the 43 See Memorandum and Order pp.4, 28, 31, 35, 37, 39, 53, 56, 58.

31

doctrine as one reserved for extraordinary cases. 44 These Petitioners had previously pointed out that there are at least two other formally shutdown reactors that are moving toward restart and that there are inherently concerning issues involved in restarting a plant that has been inconsistently mothballed for a period of years while approaching startup. The point of citing West Virginia v. USEPA was to argue by allowing a unique bypass of the Atomic Energy Acts purposes and existing regulations, that the NRC is applying the AEA in a way which Congress has not clearly delegated to the agency. Holtecs novel relicensing navigation is aimed at avoidance of having to qualify Palisades for a completely new reactor operating license.

The ASLB engages in another false characterization of Contention 4 by referring to Petitioning Organizations claim that 10 C.F.R. § 50.59 may not be used to update the UFSAR.

That is not at all the nature of the contention. Far from urging that § 50.59 cant be used, the Petitioning Organizations assert that subjecting major componentry at Palisades to the § 50.59 threshold analysis, given future operations will be influenced by deteriorated equipment and the effects of climate change certainly will militate in favor of a very changed, new SAR. The ASLB again reconstituted these Petitioners contention into a target that it could streamroll instead of acknowledging the factual and legal merit, finding issues of fact were stated, and setting the matter for hearing. That is what the ASLB should have done instead of misstating the nature and thrust of the actual contentions. The Commission should reverse the ASLB decision based on the Petitioning Organizations compliance with the standards of contention content and presentation.

Contentions 5, 6 and 7 The ASLB noted that Petitioning Organizations appear to request that we wait until new and amended contentions are filed before dismissing Contentions 5, 6, and 7.45 In contrast to the 45 Memorandum and Order p. 63.

44 Staff Answer quoted at Memorandum and Order, pp. 58-59.

32

Board mischaracterizations described hereinabove, supra, as to Contentions 5, 6 and 7, the Board seems to have correctly understood Petitioning Organizations objective. For whatever reasons, the Board forbore from dismissing these Petitioners Contentions 5, 6, and 7 until proposed amendments and supplements were timely filed by these Petitioners.

CONCLUSION The pleading requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) do not encompass the overly burdensome standards that were repeatedly applied by the ASLB against the Petitioning Organizations. The standards are not meant to be used as a fortress to deny intervention, Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), 49 NRC 328, 335 (1999), yet here, once again, they were. The Petitioning Organizations repeatedly provided the requisite reasonably specific factual or legal basis. Entergy NuclearVermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear PowerStation), 82 NRC 211, 221 (2015)

(internal quotation marks omitted). These Petitioners proffer[ed] at least some minimal factual and legal foundation in support of their contentions. Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), 49 NRC 328, 334 (1999). But it was unavailing, and consequently, the Petitioning Organizations now look to the Commission to thoroughly review the matters they have raised in this Brief, reverse the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, and remand Contentions 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the ASLB for adjudication on the merits.

April 25, 2025

/s/ Wallace L. Taylor Wallace L. Taylor, Esq.

4403 1 Ave. S.E., Suite 402 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52402 319-366-2428; (Fax) 319-366-3886 wtaylorlaw@aol.com 33

/s/ Terry J. Lodge Terry J. Lodge, Esq.

316 N. Michigan St., Ste. 520 Toledo, OH 43604-5627 (419) 205-7084; (Fax) 419-932-6625 tjlodge50@yahoo.com Co-Counsel for Petitioning Organizations (Beyond Nuclear, Michigan Safe Energy Future, Dont Waste Michigan, Three Mile Island Alert and Nuclear Energy Information Service)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.305, I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF APPEAL AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT was deposited in the Electronic Information Exchange (NRC Filing System) in the captioned proceeding this 25th day of April, 2025, and that according to the protocols of the EIE they were served upon all parties registered with the system.

/s/ Terry J. Lodge Terry J. Lodge, Esq.

Co-Counsel for Petitioning Organizations 34

Arnold Gundersen, Curriculum Vitae Chief Engineer, Fairewinds Associates, Inc October 2024 Education and Training ME NE Master of Engineering Nuclear Engineering Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1972 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Fellowship Thesis: Cooling Tower Plume Rise BS NE Bachelor of Science Nuclear Engineering Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Cum Laude, 1971 James J. Kerrigan Scholar RO Licensed Reactor Operator, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, License # OP-3014 Patents Energy Absorbing Turbine Missile Shield U.S. Patent # 4,397,608 8/9/1983 Honors U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Fellowship, 1972 B.S. Degree, Cum Laude, RPI, 1971, 1st in nuclear engineering class Tau Beta Pi (Engineering Honor Society), RPI, 1969 1 of 5 in the sophomore class of 700 James J. Kerrigan Scholar 1967 1971 Publicly commended to the U.S. Senate by NRC Chairman Ivan Selin in May 1993 Expert Qualifications including and not limited to:

Chief Engineer, Fairewinds Associates, Inc, 2003 to present Nuclear Engineering, Safety, and Reliability Expert Federal and Congressional hearing testimony, Expert Witness testimony, Public Utility Commission Testimony, state legislative hearings, community stakeholder expert witness Vermont Community Research Fellow, University of Vermont Former Senior Vice President Nuclear Licensee Former Licensed Reactor Operator Atomic Energy Commission Fellow More than 52 years of nuclear industry experience and oversight Publications Co-author Radioactive Microparticles Related to the Woolsey Fire in Simi Valley, CA; Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, Volume 240, released October 8, 2021: Co-author with corresponding author Dr. Marco Paul Johann Kaltofen, Boston Chemical Data, Natick, MA, USA and Maggie Gundersen, Founder of Fairewinds Energy Education, Charleston, SC, USA.

Page 2 of 23 Co-author Radioactive Isotopes Measured at Olympic and Paralympic Venues in Fukushima Prefecture and Tokyo, Japan, Journal of Environmental Engineering Science Volume 38, Number 2, 2021, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., DOI: 10.1089/ees.2020.0139 Co-author with corresponding author Dr. Marco Paul Johann Kaltofen, Department of Physics, Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI), Worcester, MA, USA, and Maggie Gundersen, Founder of Fairewinds Energy Education, Charleston, SC, USA.

Co-author Science of the Total Environment (STOTEN) published a peer-reviewed article entitled: Radioactively-hot particles detected in dusts and soils from Northern Japan by combination of gamma spectrometry, autoradiography, and SEM/EDS analysis and implications in radiation risk assessment. Co-authored with Dr. Marco Kaltofen, Boston Chemical Data, it details the analysis of radioactively hot particles collected in Japan following the Fukushima Dai-ichi meltdowns.

[1]

Published Lecture The Lessons of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident published in the International Symposium on the Truth of Fukushima Nuclear Accident and the Myth of Nuclear Safety, August 30, 2012 University of Tokyo, Iwanami Shoten Publishers, Tokyo, Japan Published Lecture -- Crisis Without End: The Medical and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe, from the Symposium at the New York Academy of Medicine, The New Press, 2014, Chapter 12, What Did They Know and When Author The Echo Chamber: Regulatory Capture and the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster, Lessons from Fukushima, February 27, 2012, Greenpeace International Author Fukushima Daiichi: Truth and The Way Forward, Shueisha Publishing, February 17, 2012, Tokyo, Japan. Written with Reiko Okazaki, Barrister, and Maggie Gundersen, Co-author DOE Decommissioning Handbook, First Edition, 1981-1982, invited author.

[Additional Publications continued on the last page.]

University Fellowship, Teaching, and Academic Administration University of Vermont Community Research Fellow, appointed from January 2016 through 2018 Community College of Vermont Mathematics Professor 2007 through Spring 2013 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)

Advanced Nuclear Reactor Physics Lab Professional Films:

SOS: The San Onofre Syndrome: Nuclear Power's Legacy is an Ecological Options Network (EON) production, October 2023, directed by James Heddle, Mary Beth Brangan, and Morgan Peterson, produced/ executive produced by Mary Beth Brangan, and edited by Morgan Peterson. Christopher Hedge is the composer. Mocamedia runs the impact campaign with Lisa Smithline and Chelo Alvarez-Stehle as Impact Producers.

https://vimeo.com/685302673

Page 3 of 23 The Fukushima Disaster, by filmmaker Philippe Carillo, was released in February 2023. There has been endless hand-wringing and finger-pointing following the 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Disaster. However, the full effects of the disaster are still shrouded in secrecy, and both TEPCO and the Japanese Government have limited any meaningful scientists and whistle-blowers, this unwavering documentary reveals the political and financial interests at work behind the most severe nuclear accident since Chornobyl.

https://exposurefilmstrust.com/index.html Netflix: Meltdown: Three Mile Island, Released May 2022, This gripping four-part documentary series tackles the near catastrophe at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania through the lens of chief engineer and whistleblower Richard Parks, as well as the community it impacted. Insiders recount the events, controversies, and lingering effects of the worst nuclear incident in U.S. history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAOIH8HRdDo Power Lines: Forage Films Documentary, Laura Asherman, filmmaker and founder of Forage Films, Released October 25, 2018 Power Lines is a short documentary about the expansion of Plant Vogtle, a nuclear power plant located in Waynesboro, Georgia. With a timeline already five years behind schedule and a current price tag of more than $13 billion over original estimates, the addition of two nuclear reactors has proven to be a black hole for both citizens of Waynesborough and the state of Georgia.

https://www.powerlinesfilm.com/

Power Struggle, by Turning Tide Production and directed by Robbie Leppzer, was released in 2019 in the U.S. The shortened version was released in Japan in 2018 and produced with NHK TV, Japan.

Power Struggle portrays a heated political battle to shut down the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant on the banks of the Connecticut River in southern Vermont. The film follows the unfolding drama as citizen activists and elected state officials alarmed at increasing safety violations take on the federal government and one of the biggest power companies in the United States and eventually win.

https://www.powerstrugglemovie.com/

Committee Memberships Board of Directors, Fairewinds Energy Education Corp, 501(c)3 2008 to present.

Vermont Yankee Public Oversight Panel, appointed in 2008 by President Pro-Tem Vermont Senate National Nuclear Safety Network (NNSN)

Founding Board Member Three Rivers Community College, Thames, Connecticut Nuclear Academic Advisory Board Connecticut Low-Level Radioactive Waste Advisory Committee 10 years, founding member Radiation Safety Committee, NRC Licensee founding member ANSI N-198, Solid Radioactive Waste Processing Systems

Page 4 of 23 Expert Witness Testimony and Nuclear Engineering Analysis and Consulting Presentation to the New York State Decommissioning Oversight Board (DOB) Concerning Indian Point Decommissioning by Holtec Decommissioning International, April 24, 2024, Cortlandt, New York, Town Hall. PowerPoint Presentation to the DOB Regarding onsite storage of liquid radioactive waste adjacent to the Hudson River.

Rebuttal Report of Arnold Gundersen, MENE, BSNE, RO, Fairewinds Associates, Inc to Arthur Desrosiers, Ph.D. February 16, 2024, In the matter of: Steward Et Al., V. Honeywell International, Inc., Case No.: 3:18-Cv-01124-Smy, City of Metropolis, Illinois, And County of Massac V. Honeywell International, Inc., Case No. 3:21-Cv-00860, Dassing V. Honeywell International Inc. Defendant. Consolidated, Case No. 3:21-Cv-00485-Smy, Rebuttal Before The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, December 5, 2023, Declaration of Arnold Gundersen in Support of The Motion Petition to Intervene and Request for Adjudicatory Hearing by Michigan Safe Energy Future, Don't Waste Michigan, And Beyond Nuclear, In The Matter Of Holtec Palisades LLC, Request For Exemption, Docket No. 50-255 Expert Report of Arnold Gundersen, September 22, 2023, Honeywell Metropolis and Its Failure to Follow Federal Nuclear Regulations; How Honeywell Metropolis Violated Nuclear Power Regulations and Standard Industry Practices Thereby Compromising Public Health and Safety United States District Southern District of Illinois East St. Louis Division June 20, 2023, Declaration of Arnold Gundersen Civil Action Case No.: 3:22-cv-02114 for Thompson and Barney, Attorneys at Law, and Cooper Law to review the attached Brochure: Responsible Care, Our Commitment To Sustainability, created by the Honeywell Corporation in April 2010, 2768 North US 45 Road, Metropolis, IL 62960, (618) 524-6200, www.honeywell.com, 2010 Honeywell International, Inc.

Before The United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission Declaration of Arnold Gundersen, April 26, 2023. Amended Declaration of Arnold Gundersen of Fairewinds Associates, Inc., for Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin (PSR-WI) Arnold Gundersen to review a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to extend the licensed life of 80 years, along with the related Environmental Report for NextEra Energy P Plant, Units 1 and 2.

Before The United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission Declaration of Arnold Gundersen, March 21, 2023. Declaration of Arnold Gundersen of Fairewinds Associates, Inc., for Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin (PSR-WI) Arnold Gundersen to review a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to extend the licensed life of 80 years, along with the Plant, Units 1 and 2.

September 29, 2022, United States District Court Southern District Of Illinois East St. Louis Division, Affidavit Of Arnold Gundersen Concerning Radiological Contamination Of The Crow Hill Property Case No.: 3:18-cv-01124-MJR-SCW Roger Steward, Saundra Steward, Clyde

Page 5 of 23 Schmidt, Joan Schmidt, Tim Beck, Charlotte Beck, Randy Langford, Brenda Langford, Todd Faulkner, And Kim Faulkner, Illinois residents, on behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Honeywell International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, individually and as successor-in-interest to Allied-Signal, Inc., Defendant.

Department of Veterans Affairs, July 28, 2021, Expert opinion by Arnold Gundersen, MENE, RO, regarding a U.S. Service Veteran with thyroid cancer due to their duty experiences in military service resulting from exposure(s) to ionizing radiation while serving their country.

Before the United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April 26, 2021. In the Matter of NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2).

Declaration of Arnold Gundersen for Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin (PSR-WI).

This declaration supplements an earlier declaration I provided in this case on March 23, 2021.

During 2020, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) became aware of errors in the computer codes its members use to predict the neutron embrittlement of components inside US nuclear reactors. EPRI determined that these embrittlement codes are inaccurate and under-predicting the extent of embrittlement damage to reactor components within the atomic reactor cores.

and may create serious safety flaws if left unchecked.

Before the United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission, In the Matter of NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), March 23, 2021. Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-30, NRC 2021 0021, Declaration of Arnold Gundersen For Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin (PSR-WI) to review a license application to the Nuclear reactors until they have operated for 80 years and a related Environmental Report for NextEra This declaration examines and analyzes the technical and environmental issues regarding the License Renewal Request by NextEra for 20 more years of operation, extending the operating life of Point Beach Units 1 and 2 from a 60-year license to an 80-year license.

Before The United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of The Secretary December 7, 2020. Declaration Of Arnold Gundersen to Support The Motion To Reopen Proceeding And Request To Amend Contention By The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League And Its Request For A License Amendment And Exemption For Unit 3 Auxiliary Building Wall 11 Seismic Gap Requirements, Lar-20-001. In the Matter of the Southern Nuclear Operating Company License Amendment Application for Combined License NPF-91 at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit

3. Docket No. 52-025-LA-3 Before The United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of The Secretary May 11, 2020, In the Matter of the Southern Nuclear Operating Company License Amendment Application for Combined License NPF-91 at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 3. Docket No. 52-025-LA-3 Declaration of Arnold Gundersen to Support The Petition For Leave To Intervene And Request For Hearing By The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League And Its Chapter

Page 6 of 23 License Amendment And Exemption For Unit 3 Auxiliary Building Wall 11 Seismic Gap Requirements, Lar-20-001 State of Arkansas District Court Russellville AR, 2017-12-14, Expert Report Regarding Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) Stator Drop, Prepared for Bailey & Oliver Attorneys at Law, In Support Of Susan Allen et al. V. Siemens Energy and Entergy Corporation.

Before the State of Vermont Public Utilities Commission, Surrebuttal Testimony of Arnold Gundersen. December 1, 2017. VTPUC Docket 8880, Joint Petition of NorthStar Decommissioning Holdings, LLC.

Before the State of Vermont Public Utilities Commission. August 30, 2017. Testimony of Arnold Gundersen Supporting the New England Coalition: An Evaluation of The Financial Risks to Vermont In the Proposed Sale of The Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee Power Plant Site to NorthStar Decommissioning Holdings, LLC. VTPUC Docket 8880, Joint Petition of NorthStar Decommissioning Holdings, LLC.

Before the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois, May 25, 2017. Steve Lawson And Darla Lawson, Other Similar Situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, VS. General Electric, And Does 1-200, Defendants. Expert Witness Report by Arnold Gundersen, Prepared for Plaintiffs Attorney:

Charles A. Bonner, Esq. Sb# 85413. Analysis of radiation exposure to GE journeyman welder.

Before the Public Utilities Commission of The State of California January 27, 2017 Prepared Direct Testimony of Arnold Gundersen of Fairewinds Associates, Inc., For San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace regarding the Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Approval of the Retirement of Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Implementation of the Joint Proposal, and Recovery of Associated Costs Through Proposed Ratemaking Mechanisms Application 16-08-006 (Filed August 11, 2016)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Before the Secretary May 2, 2016, Declaration of Arnold Gundersen To Support the Petition for Leave to Intervene And Request For Hearing By The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Regarding Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 And 4 Request For License Amendment And Exemption:

Containment Hydrogen Igniter Changes (LAR-15-003)

Fairewinds Energy Education Report Submitted to NRC in Response to an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power Reactors:

March 17, 2016, The Nationwide Failures of Decommissioning Regulation: Decommissioning Trust Funds or Slush Funds?

Fairewinds Energy Education Report Submitted to NRC for Public Comment to Staff Regarding the Decommissioning of the Vermont Yankee Atomic Reactor March 23, 2015, Decommissioning as an Example of Nationwide Failures of Decommissioning Regulation NRC Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB)

December 1, 2014, Gundersen Declaration Palisades Embrittlement, Docket No. 50-255, Entergy, Palisades, Petition to Intervene and for A Public Adjudication Hearing of Entergy License Amendment Request for Authorization to Implement 10 CFR §50.61a, Alternate Fracture Toughness Requirements For Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events.

Page 7 of 23 NRC Before the Commission November 6, 2014, Second Supplemental Declaration of Arnold Gundersen, In the Matter of Florida Power & Light Co., Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2.

NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB)

October 10, 2014 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Gundersen Affidavit Supporting Friends of the to Intervene: In the matter of Pacific Gas & Electric Company Docket No. 50-275-LR & Docket No.

50-323-LR, License Renewal Application.

NRC Hearing Request Declaration of Arnold Gundersen Supporting Hearing Request, March 10, 2014 retained by Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) in the matter of Florida Power &

Light Co., Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 NRC ASLB Proceeding Fermi Unit 3 52-033-COL October 30, 2013 Retained by Don't Waste Michigan, Beyond Nuclear et al., Oral Expert Witness Testimony regarding Contention 15: Quality Assurance.

State of Utah Seventh District Court of Emory County September 25, 2013 Retained by HEAL Utah et al. as an expert witness testifying on cooling tower consumptive use of water for a proposed nuclear power plant owned by Blue Castle Holdings and located on the Green River.

The defendants were Kane County Water Conservancy District.

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission May 29-30, 2013 Retained by Durham Nuclear Awareness to present expert witness testimony in hearings regarding the proposed life extension for the Pickering Nuclear Station owned Ontario Power Generation.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 30, 2013 Expert witness report Before the Secretary NRC in the Matter of Detroit Edison Nuclear Power Station: Rebuttal Testimony of Arnold Gundersen Supporting of Program.

, et al.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 20, 2013 Expert witness report Before the Secretary NRC in the Matter of Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station: Expert Witness Report of Arnold Gundersen to Support the Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing by Beyond Nuclear, Citizens Waste Michigan and The Sierra Club.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 6, 2013 Expert witness report Before the Secretary NRC:

Expert Witness Report of Arnold Gundersen to Support the Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing by The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team, And Mothers Against Tennessee River Radiation. Fairewinds was retained by BREDL et al.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission April 30, 2013 Expert witness report to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board: Testimony of Arnold Gundersen Supporting of Intervenors Contention 15: DTE Cola Lacks Statutorily Required Cohesive QA Program. Fairewinds was r Michigan, Beyond Nuclear, et al.

Page 8 of 23 Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)

April 29, 2013 Expert witness report to Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC): Analysis of The Relicensing Application for Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. Durham Nuclear Awareness retained Fairewinds.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission January 16, 2013 Expert witness presentation to NRC Petition Review Board: 2.206 Presentation San Onofre Units 2 and 3 Replacement Steam Generators Meeting with Petitioner Friends of the Earth, Requesting Enforcement Action Against Southern California Edison Under 10 CFR 2.206 Expert Witness Report for Friends of The Earth July 11, 2012 ators:

Significantly Worse Than All Others Nationwide, Fairewinds Associates, Inc Expert Witness Report for Friends of the Earth May 15, 2012 San Onofre Steam Generator Failures Could Have Been Prevented, Fairewinds Associates, Inc Expert Witness Report for Friends of the Earth April 10, 2012 San Onofre Cascading Steam Generator Failures Created by Edison: Imprudent Design and Fabrication Decisions Caused Leaks, Fairewinds Associates, Inc Expert Witness Report for Friends of the Earth March 27, 2012 Steam Generator Failures at San Onofre: The Need for A Thorough Root Cause Analysis Requires No Early Restart, Fairewinds Associates, Inc Expert Witness Report for Greenpeace February 27, 2012 Lessons from Fukushima: The Echo Chamber Effect, Fairewinds Associates, Inc Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 21, 2011 Expert witness report to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board: Prefiled Direct Testimony of Arnold Gundersen Regarding Consolidated Contention RK-EC-3/CW-EC-1 (Spent Fuel Pool Leaks)

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation November 15-16, 2011 Expert witness report for Riverkeeper: hearing testimony regarding license extension application for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 contention: tritium in the groundwater.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission November 10, 2011 Expert witness report entitled: Fukushima and the Westinghouse-Toshiba AP1000, A Report for the AP1000 Oversight Group by Fairewinds Associates, Inc, and Video. Submitted to NRC by the AP1000 Oversight Group.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 7, 2011 Testimony to the NRC Petition Review Board Re: Mark 1 Boiling Water Reactors, Petition for NRC to shut down all BWR Mark 1 nuclear power plants due to problems in containment integrity in the Mark 1 design.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation October 4, 2011 Prefiled Rebuttal Testimony of Arnold Gundersen On Behalf of Petitioners Riverkeeper, Inc., Scenic Hudson, Inc., And Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. To The Direct Testimony of Matthew J. Barvenik (Senior Principal GZA Geoenvironmental, Inc.) Regarding Radiological Materials

Page 9 of 23 Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) submission to TVA Board of Directors August 3, 2011 Expert witness report entitled:

and Video prepared for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE).

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, July 22, 2011 Prefiled Direct Testimony of Arnold Gundersen On Behalf of Petitioners Riverkeeper, Inc., Scenic Hudson, Inc.,

And Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Regarding Radiological Materials Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 10, 2011 Comment to the proposed rule on the AP1000 Design Certification Amendment Docket ID NRC-2010-0131 As noticed in the Federal Register on February 24, 2011 Retained by Friends of the Earth as Expert Witness.

NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS)

May 26, 2011 Lessons learned from Fukushima and Containment Integrity on the AP1000.

Vermont Energy Cooperative (VEC)

April 26, 2011 Presentation to the Vermont Energy Cooperative Board of Directors, Vermont Yankee Is It Reliable for 20 more years?

Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel (VSNAP)

February 22, 2011 Testimony and presentation entitled the Vermont Yankee Public Oversight Panel Supplemental Report regarding management issues at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant to the reconvened Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel.

Vermont State Legislature Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy February 8, 2011.

Testimony: Vermont Yankee Leaks and Implications. (http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/envy.aspx)

Vermont State Legislature January 26, 2011 House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, and Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy Testimony regarding Fairewinds Decommissioning the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant and Storing Its Radioactive Waste (http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/envy.aspx). Additional testimony was also given regarding the newest radioactive isotopic leak at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

Vermont State Legislature Joint Fiscal Committee Legislative Consultant Regarding Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee Decommissioning the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant and Storing Its Radioactive Waste January 2011. (http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/envy.aspx).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (NRC-ACRS)

AP1000 Sub-Committee Nuclear Containment Failures: Ramifications for the AP1000 Containment Design, Supplemental Report submitted December 21, 2010.

(http://fairewinds.com/reports)

Vermont State Legislature Joint Fiscal Committee Legislative Consultant Regarding Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee Reliability Oversight Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, December 6, 2010.

Discussion regarding the leaks at Vermont Yankee, the ongoing monitoring of those leaks, and in addressing the 90 items identified in Act 189 that require remediation.

(http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/envy.aspx).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (NRC-ASLB)

Declaration of Arnold Gundersen Supporting

Page 10 of 23 Contention Regarding Consumptive Water Use at Unit 3 Pressurized Water Reactor in the matter of Dominion Virginia Power North Anna Power Station Unit 3 Docket No.52-017 Combined License Application ASLBP#08-863-01-COL, October 2, 2010.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (NRC-ASLB)

Declaration of New Contention Regarding AP1000 Containment Integrity on the Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 And 4 in the matter of the Southern Nuclear Operating Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3&4 Combined License Application, Docket Nos. 52-025-COL and 52-026-COL and ASLB No. 09-873-01-COL-BD01, August 13, 2010.

Vermont State Legislature Joint Fiscal Committee Legislative Consultant Regarding Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee July 26, 2010 Summation for 2009 to 2010 Legislative Year for the Joint Fiscal Committee Reliability Oversight Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY) Fairewinds Associates 2009-2010.

meeting the milestones outlined by the Act 189 Vermont Yankee Public Oversight Panel in its March 2009 report to the Legislature, the new milestones that have been added since the incident with the tritium leak and buried underground pipes, and the new reliability challenges facing ENVY, Entergy, and the State of Vermont. (http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/envy.aspx)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (NRC-ASLB)

Declaration of Arnold Gundersen Supporting Contentions in Dominion Virginia Power North Anna Station Unit 3 Combined License Application, Docket No.52-017, ASLBP#08-863-01-COL, July 23, 2010.

Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC)

Licensing and construction delays due to problems with the newly designed Westinghouse AP1000 reactors in Direct Testimony in Re: Nuclear Plant Cost Recovery Clause by The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE), FPSC Docket No. 100009-EI, July 8, 2010.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (NRC-ACRS)

AP1000 Sub-Committee Presentation to ACRS regarding design flaw in AP1000 Containment June 25, 2010 PowerPoint Presentation: http://fairewinds.com/content/ap1000-nuclear-design-flaw-addressed-to-nrc-acrs.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (NRC-ASLB)

Second Declaration of Arnold Gundersen Supporting Supplemental Petition of Intervenors Contention 15: DTE COLA Lacks Statutorily Required Cohesive QA Program June 8, 2010.

NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, ACRS, Secretary of Energy Chu, and the White House Office of Management and Budget AP1000 Containment Leakage Report Fairewinds Associates - Gundersen, Hausler, 4-21-2010. This report, commissioned by the AP1000 Oversight Group, analyzes a potential flaw in the containment of the AP1000 reactor design.

Vermont State Legislature House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy April 5, 2010 Testified to the House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy regarding discrepancies in Fairewinds Cost Comparison TLG Decommissioning (http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/envy.aspx).

Page 11 of 23 Vermont State Legislature Joint Fiscal Committee Legislative Consultant Regarding Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee February 22, 2010 The Second Quarterly Report by Fairewinds Associates, Inc to the Joint Legislative Committee regarding buried pipe and tank issues at Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and Entergy proposed Enexus spinoff. See two reports: Fairewinds Associates 2nd Quarterly Report to JFC and Enexus Review by Fairewinds Associates.

(http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/envy.aspx).

Vermont State Legislature Senate Natural Resources February 16, 2010 Testified to Senate Natural Resources Committee regarding causes and severity of tritium leak in unreported buried underground pipes, status of Enexus spinoff proposal, and health effects of tritium.

Vermont State Legislature Senate Natural Resources February 10, 2010 Testified to Senate Natural Resources Committee regarding causes and severity of tritium leak in unreported buried underground pipes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36HJiBrJSxE Vermont State Legislature Senate Finance February 10, 2010 Testified to Senate Finance Committee regarding A Chronicle of Issues Regarding Buried Tanks and Underground Piping at VT Yankee. (http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/envy.aspx).

Vermont State Legislature House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy January 27, 2010 A Chronicle of Issues Regarding Buried Tanks and Underground Piping at VT Yankee.

(http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/envy.aspx).

Submittal to Susquehanna River Basin Commission, by Eric Epstein January 5, 2010 Expert Witness Report of Arnold Gundersen Regarding Consumptive Water Use of the Susquehanna River by The Proposed PPL Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant in the Matter of RE: Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Application for Groundwater Withdrawal Application for Consumptive Use BNP-2009-073.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (NRC-ASLB)

Declaration of Arnold Gundersen Supporting Supplemental Petition of Intervenors Contention 15:

Detroit Edison COLA Lacks Statutorily Required Cohesive QA Program, December 8, 2009.

U.S. NRC Region III Allegation Filed by Missouri Coalition for the Environment Expert Witness Report entitled: Comments on the Callaway Special Inspection by NRC Regarding the May 25, 2009 Failure of its Auxiliary Feedwater System, November 9, 2009.

Vermont State Legislature Joint Fiscal Committee Legislative Consultant Regarding Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee Oral testimony given to the Vermont State Legislature Joint Fiscal Committee October 28, 2009. See report: Quarterly Status Report - ENVY Reliability Oversight for JFO (http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/envy.aspx).

Vermont State Legislature Joint Fiscal Committee Legislative Consultant Regarding Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee The First Quarterly Report by Fairewinds Associates, Inc to the Joint Legislative Committee regarding reliability issues at Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, issued October 19, 2009.

See report: Quarterly Status Report - ENVY Reliability Oversight for JFO (http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/envy.aspx).

Page 12 of 23 Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC)

Gave direct oral testimony to the FPSC in hearings in Tallahassee, FL, September 8 and 10, 2009 in support of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) contention of anticipated licensing and construction delays in newly designed Westinghouse AP 1000 reactors proposed by Progress Energy Florida and Florida Power and Light (FPL).

Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC)

NRC announced delays confirming my original testimony to FPSC detailed below. My supplemental testimony alerted FPSC to NRC confirmation of my original testimony regarding licensing and construction delays due to problems with the newly designed Westinghouse AP 1000 reactors in Supplemental Testimony in Re: Nuclear Plant Cost Recovery Clause by The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, FPSC Docket No. 090009-EI, August 12, 2009.

Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC)

Licensing and construction delays due to problems with the newly designed Westinghouse AP 1000 reactors in Direct Testimony in Re: Nuclear Plant Cost Recovery Clause by The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE), FPSC Docket No.

090009-EI, July 15, 2009.

Vermont State Legislature Joint Fiscal Committee Expert Witness Oversight Role for Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY)

Appointment from July 2009 to May 2010. Contracted by the Joint Fiscal Committee of the Vermont State Legislature as an expert witness to oversee the compliance of ENVY to reliability issues uncovered during the 2009 legislative session by the Vermont Yankee Public Oversight Panel of which I was appointed a member along with former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford for one year from July 2008 to 2009. At the time, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY) was under review by Vermont State Legislature to determine if it should receive a Certificate for Public Good (CPG) to extend its operational license for another 20-years.

Vermont was the only state in the country that had legislatively created the CPG authorization for a additional 20 years.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Expert Witness Declaration regarding Combined Operating License Application (COLA) at North Anna Unit 3 Declaration of Arnold Gundersen Supporting (June 26, 2009).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Expert Witness Declaration regarding Through-wall Penetration of Containment Liner and Inspection Techniques of the Containment Liner at Beaver Valley Unit 1 Nuclear Power Plant Declaration of Arnold Gundersen Supporting Petition (May 25, 2009).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Expert Witness Declaration regarding Quality Assurance and Configuration Management at Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Declaration of Arnold Gundersen Supporting Request for Hearing, May 6, 2009.

Pennsylvania Statehouse Expert Witness Analysis presented in formal presentation at the Pennsylvania Statehouse, March 26, 2009 regarding actual releases from Three Mile Island Nuclear Accident. Presentation may be found at: http://www.tmia.com/march26 Vermont Legislative Testimony and Formal Report for 2009 Legislative Session As a member of the Vermont Yankee Public Oversight Panel, I spent almost eight months examining the Vermont

Page 13 of 23 Yankee Nuclear Power Plant and the legislatively ordered Comprehensive Vertical Audit. Panel submitted Act 189 Public Oversight Panel Report March 17, 2009 and oral testimony to a joint hearing of the Senate Finance and House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy March 19, 2009. http://www.leg.state.vt.us/JFO/Vermont%20Yankee.htm Finestone v Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) (11/2003 to 12/2008) Federal Court Expert Witness in United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Retained by Attorney Nancy LaVista, from Lytal, Reiter, Fountain, Clark, Williams, West Palm Beach, FL. Case# 06-11132-E. This case involved two plaintiffs in cancer cluster of 42 families alleging request, discov for deposition, preparation of expert witness testimony, preparation for Daubert Hearings, ongoing technical oversight, source term reconstruction and appeal to Circuit Court.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory Committee Reactor Safeguards (NRC-ACRS)

Expert Witness providing oral testimony regarding Millstone Point Unit 3 (MP3) Containment issues in hearings regarding the Application to Uprate Power at MP3 by Dominion Nuclear, Washington, and DC. (July 8-9, 2008).

Appointed by President Pro-Tem of Vermont Senate Shumlin (later elected as Vermont Governor) to Legislatively Authorized Nuclear Reliability Public Oversight Panel To oversee Comprehensive Vertical Audit of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (Act 189) and testify to State Legislature during 2009 session regarding operational reliability of ENVY in relation to its 20-year license extension application. (July 2, 2008 to present).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (NRC-ASLB) Expert Witness providing testimony regarding Underground Pipes (April 10, 2008).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (NRC-ASLB)

Expert Witness supporting Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone in Its Petition for Leave to Intervene, Request for Millstone Power Station Unit 3 License Amendment Request for Stretch Power Uprate (March 15, 2008).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (NRC-ASLB)

Expert Witness supporting for Contention 1: specific to issues regarding Aging Management Program to determine their integrity. (January 26, 2008).

Vermont State House 2008 Legislative Session House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy Comprehensive Vertical Audit: Why NRC Recommends a Vertical Audit for Aging Plants Like Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY)

House Committee on Commerce Decommissioning Testimony Vermont State Senate 2008 Legislative Session Senate Finance testimony regarding Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Fund Senate Finance testimony on the necessity for a Comprehensive Vertical Audit (CVA) of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee

Page 14 of 23 House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy testimony regarding the placement of high-level nuclear fuel on the banks of the Connecticut River in Vernon, VT U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (NRC-ASLB)

MOX Limited Appearance Statement to Judges Michael C. Farrar (Chairman), Lawrence G. McDade, and Defense League, and Nuclear Information & Resource Service in support of Contention 2:

Accidental Release of Radionuclides, requesting a hearing concerning faulty accident consequence assessments made for the MOX plutonium fuel factory proposed for the Savannah River Site.

(September 14, 2007).

Appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court (March 2006 to 2007)

Expert Witness Testimony in support of Appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court Concerning: Degraded Reliability at Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee as a Result of the Power Uprate. New England Coalition represented by Attorney Ron Shems of Burlington, VT.

State of Vermont Environmental Court (Docket 89-4-06-vtec 2007)

Expert witness retained by reduce the heat discharged by Vermont Yankee into the Connecticut River. Provided Vermont's Environmental Court with analysis of alternative methods systematically applied throughout the nuclear industry to reduce the heat discharged by nuclear power plants into nearby bodies of water and avoid consumptive water use. This report included a review of the condenser and cooling tower modifications.

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman Peter Welch (2007)

Briefed Senator Sanders, Congressman Welch, and their staff members regarding technical and engineering issues, reliability and aging management concerns, regulatory compliance, waste storage, and nuclear power reactor safety issues confronting the U.S. nuclear energy industry.

State of Vermont Legislative Testimony to Senate Finance Committee (2006)

Testimony to the Senate Finance Committee regarding Vermont Yankee decommissioning costs, reliability issues, design life of the plant, and emergency planning issues.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (NRC-ASLB)

Expert witness retained by New England Coalition to provide Atomic Safety and Licensing Board with an independent analysis of the integrity of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant condenser (2006).

U.S. Senators Jeffords and Leahy (2003 to 2005)

Provided the Senators and their staffs with periodic overview regarding technical, reliability, compliance, and safety issues at Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY).

10CFR 2.206 filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (July 2004)

Filed 10CFR 2.206 petition with NRC requesting confirmation of Vermont Yankee's compliance with General Design Criteria.

State of Vermont Public Service Board (April 2003 to May 2004)

Expert witness retained by New England Coalition to testify to the Public Service Board on the reliability, safety, technical, and

Page 15 of 23 year-old Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant.

International Nuclear Safety Testimony Ten Days advising the President of the Czech Republic (Vaclav Havel) and the Czech Parliament on their energy policy for the 21st century.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspector General (IG)

Assisted the NRC Inspector General in investigating illegal gratuities paid to NRC Officials by Nuclear Energy Services (NES)

Corporate Officers. In a second investigation, assisted the Inspector General in showing that materially false statements (lies) by NES corporate president caused the NRC to overlook important violations by this licensee.

State of Connecticut Legislature Assisted in the creation of State of Connecticut Whistleblower Protection legal statutes.

Federal Congressional Testimony Publicly recognized by NRC Chairman, Ivan Selin, in May 1993 in his comments to U.S. Senate, Commended by U.S. Senator John Glenn, Chair NRC Oversight Committee for public for testimony to NRC Oversight Committee PennCentral Litigation Evaluated NRC license violations and materially false statements made by management of this nuclear engineering and materials licensee.

Three Mile Island Litigation Evaluated unmonitored releases to the environment after accident, including containment breach, letdown system and blowout. Proved releases were 15 times higher than government estimate and subsequent government report.

Western Atlas Litigation Evaluated neutron exposure to employees and license violations at this nuclear materials licensee.

Commonwealth Edison In-depth review and analysis for Commonwealth Edison to analyze the efficiency and effectiveness of all Commonwealth Edison engineering organizations, which support the operation of all of its nuclear power plants.

Peach Bottom Reactor Litigation Evaluated extended 28-month outage caused by management breakdown and deteriorating condition of the plant.

Presentations, Events, & Media Three Mile Island (TMI) Presentations and Events, March 23 through March 27, 2019 A Legacy of Lies, PennState TMI 40th Commemoration Keynote, March 27, 2019, followed by 4-TV interviews, available on CSPAN NBC TV Andrea Mitchell Interview filmed 2019-3-26, aired March 28, 2019 Presentation Pennsylvania State House Rotunda, Harrisburg, PA, March 25, 2019

Page 16 of 23 TMI Survivors Banquet, Keynote and Q&A, March 23, 2019 Media Interviews with WHP 21 (CBS), WGAL (NBC), WHP 27 (ABC)

Keynote Harrisburg Historical Society, keynote, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania March 23, 2019 The Fukushima Vogtle Connection, hosted by Georgia Wand and Nuclear Watch South, March 9, 2019 Power Lines Documentary Premier at Emory University, Atlanta, GA, October 2018 CCTV, Nuclear Free Future TV with host Margaret Harrington, Picking Up the Pieces from Atoms for Peace, May 10, 2018 CCTV, Nuclear Free Future TV with host Margaret Harrington, Nuclear Update with Fairewinds Energy Education - March 10, 2018 Chicago, NIRS meetings and group presentations November 28 to December 4, 2017 Radio Interviews, November 2017: David Goodman, October 25, 2017; Project Censored with Mickey Huff, November 2017 Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, September 7-18, 2017, Arnie Gundersen and Dr. Marco Kaltofen, research and data review technical meeting with the Deputy Director General and the Senior Associate with the Japanese Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA). Trip to Japan was organized and funded by Fairewinds Energy Education.

CCTV, Nuclear Free Future TV with host Margaret Harrington, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl [Chornobyl], March 30, 2017 Radio Ecoshock, Alex Smith Interview, Nuclear Power Is Not a Climate Change Solution, January 26, 2017 38 Years and Five Meltdowns Later: The Real Lessons from TMI (Three Mile Island), March 25, 2017, keynote presentation hosted by Three Mile Island Alert, Harrisburg, PA Arnie Gundersen speaks with Margaret Prescod, March 14, 2017, Sojourner Truth Radio, Pacifica Radio on the Sixth-Year Commemoration of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power disaster.

Arnie Gundersen interviewed on Radiation Rattles Robot in Fukushima, Newsday - BBC World Service. High levels of nuclear radiation have forced a robot to cut short its investigations of the exploration, February 10, 2017.

Extreme Nuclear Dangers, Radio Ecoshock host Alex Smith interviews Arnie Gundersen, the relationship between the nuclear power industry and nuclear weapons development, February 2, 2017.

Arnie Gundersen Appears on Project Censored with Dan Simon, Ted Rall, and Maggie Gundersen, November 27, 2016 Arnie Gundersen Appears on Solartopia's Green Power and Wellness Hour, November 16, 2016 Nuclear Power Is Not "Green Energy": It Is a Fount of Atomic Waste, Published in Truthout, November 14, 2016 Powerstruggle Sneak Preview Panel Discussion, Northampton, MA (October 23, 2016)

Brattleboro, VT (Nov 3, 2016), organized by Turning Tide Productions Is Solar Power in Nuclear Disaster Exclusion Zones Advisable? published in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September 15, 2016 CO2 Smokescreen Presentation, Montreal, Canada, invited speaker at the World Social Forum at the University of Quebec at Montreal (August 8, 2016) & McGill University, (August 10, 2016)

Page 17 of 23 Gendai Business Online exclusive interview with Fairewinds Chief Engineer Arnie Gundersen entitled: American nuclear expert warns: "There is a possibility that now in Fukushima

, June 14, 2016.

Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Annual Meeting, Seabrook, NH, organized by the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, open to the public, May 16, 2016 Arnie Gundersen Appears on Project Censored with Medea Benjamin, March 30, 2016 Pilgrim Coalition Decommissioning Forum, Plymouth, MA, organized by the Pilgrim Coalition, March 23, 2016 Osaka Global Environment Forum 2016, in Osaka City, Japan, organized by Choetsu Kiko Association of Osaka and Friends of the Earth, February 27, 2016 Peace Forum Presentation, in Kobe City, Japan, organized by YMCA, UNICEF, and Kobe Cooperative, February 22, 2016 Nuclear and Human Beings after Fukushima Event, in Hiroshima City, Japan organized by Hiroshima YMCA, and Hiroshima Cooperative HANWA (Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition), February 20, 2016 Peace Event at Jimmy Carter Civic Center, in Konu-town Miyoshi, Hiroshima, Japan organized by Peace Platform, February 17, 2016 Middlebury College Student Global Affairs Conference: Power and Protest, Middlebury, VT at Middlebury College, invited speaker for a student-organized event, January 22, 2016 Ready for the Big One? Diablo Canyon Earthquake Vulnerability, San Luis Obispo, invited guest of the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, December 2, 2015 Expect the Unexpected: Nuclear Power's Unlearned Lessons, California Polytechnic Institute, December 1, 2015 World in Danger: From Fukushima to California, University of California at Berkeley, in conversation with Joanna Macy, November 22, 2015 World in Danger: The Fukushima - California Connection, Point Reyes Station, in conversation with Mary Beth Brangan, November 21, 2015 World in Danger: Fukushima, Sonoma State University, in conversation with Majia Nadesan, November 18, 2015 World Uranium Symposium 2015: Fukushima Workshop, April 2015, Quebec, Canada Did Tesla Just Kill Nuclear Power? May 1, 2015, Article written by journalist Jeff McMahon for Forbes Magazine that captures the excitement and buzz surrounding Tesla's big announcement and Arnie's auspicious speech Building New Nukes Would Make Global Warming Worse April 30, 2015, Presentation at Northwestern University, Chicago, IL Failures of Decommissioning Regulation presented to the Senate Committee for Natural Resources and Energy April 22, 2015, Presentation Vermont Statehouse, Montpelier, VT An Economic Analysis of the Cost of Nuclear Power April 14, 2015, Presentation at the World Uranium Symposium, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, Keynote Speaker Commemoration of Meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi: 4-Years Later March 11, 2015, Presentation to the House of Commons in London, England Should Nuclear Energy Be Expanded to Help Create a More Sustainable Future? November 20, 2014, Invited guest speaker in Debate at Hofstra University Radiation Knows No Borders August 2, 2014, Invited speaker at The Wave Conference, Life Chiropractic West, San Francisco, CA

Page 18 of 23 Thirty-Five Years and Five Meltdowns Later: The Real Lessons of Three Mile Island March 28, 2014, Three Mile Island at 35 (TMI@35) Symposium at Penn State, Harrisburg, PA, Keynote Speaker The Nuclear Renaissance? Is It Too Big To Fail? November 20, 2013, University North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.

Speaking Truth to Power October 22, 2013 Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY The United States at A Crossroads: Two Futures October 17 2013, Global Forum, Waitsfield, Vermont A Road Less Taken: Energy Choices for the Future October 16, 2013, Johnson State College, Johnson, Vermont.

Fukushima: Ongoing Lessons for Boston October 9, 2013 Boston, Massachusetts State House. Speakers were Arnie Gundersen, Former Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, Former NRC Chair Gregory Jaczko, Former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford, and Massachusetts State Senator Dan Wolf.

Fukushima: Ongoing Lessons for New York October 8, 2013 New York City 82nd Street YMCA. Speakers were Arnie Gundersen, Riverkeeper President Paul Galley, Former Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, Former NRC Chair Gregory Jaczko, Former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford, and Ralph Nader.

Fukushima: Ongoing Lessons for California June 4, 2013 New York City 82nd Street YMCA.

Speakers were Arnie Gundersen, Riverkeeper President Paul Galley, Former Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, Former NRC Chair Gregory Jaczko, Former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford, and Friends of the Earth Nuclear Campaigner Kendra Ulrich.

What Did They Know and When? Fukushima Daiichi Before and After the Meltdowns, Symposium: The Medical and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident, The New York Academy of Medicine, New York City, NY, March 11, 2013 A Mountain of Waste 70 Years High, Presentation: Old and New Reactors, University of Chicago, December 1, 2012 Congressional Briefing September 20, 2012; invited by Representative Dennis Kucinich Presentations in Japan August/September 2012: Presentation at University of Tokyo (August 30, 2012), Presentation at Japanese Diet Building (members of the Japanese Legislature - August 31, 2012), Presentation to citizen groups in Niigata (September 1, 2012), Presentations to citizen groups in Kyoto (September 4, 2012), Presentation to Japanese Bar Association (September 2, 2012), and Presentation at the Tokyo Olympic Center (September 6, 2012)

Multi-media Opera: Curtain of Smoke, by Filmmaker Karl Hoffman, Composer Andrea Molino, and Dramatist Guido Barbieri, Rome, Italy (2012-5-21,22)

Curtain of Smoke Symposium (2012-5-21), with Dr. Sherri Ebadi 2004 Nobel Laureate The Italian National Press Club Rome (2012-5-21) with Dr. Sherri Ebadi 2004 Nobel Laureate:

the relationship between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, Radio 3 Rome (2012-5-21) Discussion of Three Mile Island and the triple meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi (Japan),

Sierra Club Panel Discussions (2012-5-5): Consequences of Fukushima Daiichi with Paul Gunter and Waste Disposal with Mary Olson, Physicians for Social Responsibility Seattle (2012-3-17),

Fukushima Daiichi Forum with Chiho Kaneko, Brattleboro, VT (2012-3-11),

Physicians for Global Responsibility Vancouver (2012-3-11) Skype Video Lecture, University of Vermont (2 2011),

Boston Nuclear Forum, Boston Library (6/16/11),

Duxbury Emergency Management (6/15/11),

Page 19 of 23 Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel (VSNAP),

New Jersey Environmental Federation (5/14/11),

Press Conference for Physicians for Social Responsibility (5/19/11),

St. Johnsbury Academy Nuclear Power 101.

More than 200 Educational videos on nuclear safety, reliability and engineering particularly Fukushima issues. Videos may be viewed @ fairewinds.org (501c3 non-profit)

Expert commentary (hundreds of TV, radio, print media, and internet interviews): CNN (8), The John King Show (16), BBC, CBC, Democracy Now, Washington Post, New York Times, Tampa Bay Times, The Guardian, Bloomberg (print & TV), Reuters, Associated Press, The Global Post, Miami Herald, Orange County Times, LA Times, Al Jazeera (print), Al Jazeera America, Fox News. Huffington Post (Paris) named Fairewinds.com the best go-to site for information about the Fukushima Daiichi accident (5/9/11), KPBS (Radio & TV) VPR, WPTZ, WCAX, WBAI, CCTV, NECN, Pacifica Radio, CBC (radio & TV) (4), Rachel Maddow Show, The Tennessean, The Chris Martinson Show, Mainichi News, TBS Japan, Gendai Magazine, Russia Today, NHK television, and Scientific American.

Special Remediation Expertise:

Director of Engineering, Vice President of Site Engineering, and the Senior Vice President of Engineering at Nuclear Energy Services (NES) Division of Penn Central Corporation (PCC)

NES was a nuclear licensee that specialized in dismantlement and remediation of nuclear facilities and nuclear sites. Member of the radiation safety committee for this licensee.

Department of Energy chose NES to write the DOE Decommissioning Handbook because NES had a unique breadth and depth of nuclear engineers and nuclear physicists on staff.

Personally, I Handbook, personnel on my staff authored other sections, and I reviewed the entire Decommissioning Handbook.

Served on the Connecticut Low-Level Radioactive Waste Advisory Committee for 10 years from its inception.

Managed groups performing analyses on dozens of dismantlement sites to thoroughly remove radioactive material from nuclear plants and their surrounding environment.

Managed groups assisting in decommissioning the Shippingport nuclear power reactor.

Shippingport was the first large nuclear power plant ever decommissioned. The decommissioning of Shippingport included remediation of the site after decommissioning.

Managed groups conducting site characterizations (preliminary radiation surveys prior to commencement of removal of radiation) at the radioactively contaminated West Valley site in upstate New York.

Personnel reporting to me assessed the dismantlement of the Princeton Avenue Plutonium Lab extremely toxic and carcinogenic underground radioactive contamination.

Personnel reporting to me worked on decontaminating radioactive thorium at the Cleveland Avenue nuclear licensee in Ohio. The thorium had been used as an alloy in turbine blades.

During that project, previously undetected extremely toxic and carcinogenic radioactive contamination was discovered belowground after an aboveground gamma survey had purported that no residual radiation remained on site.

Page 20 of 23 Additional Expert Qualifications including and not limited to:

Nuclear engineering management assessment, prudency assessment, contract administration, assessment, and review Nuclear power plant licensing and permitting assessment and review Decommissioning experience: including radioactive waste processes, storage issue assessment, and waste disposal Nuclear safety and risk assessment, source term reconstruction, dose assessments, criticality analysis, and thermohydraulic assessment (i.e. power plant steam generation)

Systems engineering and structural engineering assessments Cooling tower operation, cooling tower plumes, thermal discharge assessment, and consumptive water use Technical patents, nuclear fuel rack design and manufacturing, and nuclear equipment design and manufacturing Reliability engineering, & aging plant management assessments, in-service inspection Employee awareness programs, whistleblower protection, and public communications Quality Assurance (QA) & records Nuclear Engineering Experience 1970 to Present Expert witness testimony in nuclear litigation and administrative hearings in federal, international, and state court and to Nuclear Regulatory Commission, including but not limited to: Three Mile Island, US Federal Court, US NRC, NRC ASLB, ACRS, and Petition Review Board, California Public Utilities Commission, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), Diet (Parliament)

Japan, House of Commons (UK), Vermont State Legislature, Vermont State Public Service Board, Vermont Public Utility Commission, Florida Public Service Board, Czech Senate, Connecticut State Legislature, Western Atlas Nuclear Litigation, U.S. Senate Nuclear Safety Hearings, Peach Bottom Nuclear Power Plant Litigation, and Office of the Inspector General NRC, and numerous Congressional Briefings and Hearings.

Nuclear Engineering, Safety, and Reliability Expert Witness 1990 to Present Fairewinds Associates, Inc Chief Engineer, 2005 to Present Arnold Gundersen, Nuclear Safety Consultant and Energy Advisor, 1995 to 2005 GMA 1990 to 1995, including expert witness testimony regarding the accident at Three Mile Island.

Nuclear Energy Services, Division of PCC (Fortune 500 company) 1979 to 1990 Corporate Officer and Senior Vice President - Technical Services Responsible for the overall performance of the company's Inservice Inspection (ASME XI), Quality Assurance (SNTC 1A),

and Staff Augmentation Business Units up to 300 employees at various nuclear sites.

Senior Vice President of Engineering Responsible for the overall performance of the company's Site Engineering, Boston Design Engineering and Engineered Products Business Units.

Integrated the Danbury based, Boston based and site engineering functions to provide products such as fuel racks, nozzle dams, and transfer mechanisms and services such as materials management and procedure development.

Vice President of Engineering Services Responsible for the overall performance of the company's field engineering, operations engineering, and engineered products services.

Page 21 of 23 Integrated the Danbury-based and field-based engineering functions to provide numerous products and services required by nuclear utilities, including patents for engineered products.

General Manager of Field Engineering Managed and directed NES' multi-disciplined field engineering staff on location at various nuclear plant sites. Site activities included structural analysis, procedure development, technical specifications and training. Have personally applied for and received one patent.

Director of General Engineering Managed and directed the Danbury based engineering staff.

Staff disciplines included structural, nuclear, mechanical and systems engineering. Responsible for assignment of personnel as well as scheduling, cost performance, and technical assessment by staff on assigned projects. This staff provided major engineering support to the company's nuclear waste management, spent fuel storage racks, and engineering consulting programs.

New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (NYSE&G) 1976 to 1979 Reliability Engineering Supervisor Organized and supervised reliability engineers to upgrade performance levels on seven operating coal units and one that was under construction. Applied analytical techniques and good engineering judgments to improve capacity factors by reducing mean time to repair and by increasing mean time between failures.

Lead Power Systems Engineer Supervised the preparation of proposals, bid evaluation, negotiation and administration of contracts for two 1300 MW NSSS Units including nuclear fuel, and solid-state control rooms. Represented corporation at numerous public forums including TV and radio on sensitive utility issues. Responsible for all nuclear and BOP portions of a PSAR, Environmental Report, and Early Site Review.

Northeast Utilities Service Corporation (NU) 1972 to 1976 Engineer Nuclear Engineer assigned to Millstone Unit 2 during start-up phase. Lead the high velocity flush and chemical cleaning of condensate and feedwater systems and obtained discharge permit for chemicals. Developed Quality Assurance Category 1 Material, Equipment and Parts List. Modified fuel pool cooling system at Connecticut Yankee, steam generator blowdown system and diesel generator lube oil system for Millstone. Evaluated Technical Specification Change Requests.

Associate Engineer Nuclear Engineer assigned to Montague Units 1 & 2. Interface Engineer with NSSS vendor, performed containment leak rate analysis, assisted in preparation of PSAR and performed radiological health analysis of plant. Performed environmental radiation survey of Connecticut Yankee. Performed chloride intrusion transient analysis for Millstone Unit 1 feedwater system. Prepared Millstone Unit 1 off-gas modification licensing document and Environmental Report Amendments 1 & 2.

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) 1971 to 1972 Critical Facility Reactor Operator, Instructor Licensed AEC Reactor Operator instructing students and utility reactor operator trainees in start-up through the full-power operation of an atomic reactor.

Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) 1970 Assistant Engineer Performed shielding design of radwaste and auxiliary buildings for Newbold Island Units 1 & 2, including the development of computer codes.

Page 22 of 23 Additional Publications (continued from the front page)

Co-author Fairewinds Associates 2009-2010 Summary to JFC, July 26, 2010 State of Vermont, Joint Fiscal Office, (http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/envy.aspx).

Co-author Supplemental Report of the Public Oversight Panel Regarding the Comprehensive Reliability Assessment of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant July 20, 2010, to the Vermont State Legislature by the Vermont Yankee Public Oversight Panel.

Co-author The Second Quarterly Report by Fairewinds Associates, Inc to the Joint Legislative Committee regarding buried pipe and tank issues at Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee and Entergy proposed Enexus spinoff. See two reports: Fairewinds Associates 2nd Quarterly Report to JFC and Enexus Review by Fairewinds Associates.

Co-author Fairewinds Associates, Inc First Quarterly Report to the Joint Legislative Committee, October 19, 2009.

Co-author Report of the Public Oversight Panel Regarding the Comprehensive Reliability Assessment of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, March 17, 2009, to the Vermont State Legislature by the Vermont Yankee Public Oversight Panel.

Co-author Vermont Yankee Comprehensive Vertical Audit VYCVA Recommended Methodology to Thoroughly Assess Reliability and Safety Issues at Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, January 30, 2008 Testimony to Finance Committee Vermont Senate.

Co-author Decommissioning Vermont Yankee Stage 2 Analysis of the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Fund The Decommissioning Fund Gap, December 2007, Fairewinds Associates, Inc. Presented to Vermont State Senators and Legislators.

Co-author Decommissioning the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant: An Analysis of Vermont

, November 2007, Fairewinds Associates, Inc.

Media Organizations - including and not limited to:

Featured Nuclear Safety and Reliability Expert (1990 to present) for Television, Newspaper, Radio,

& Internet Including, and not limited to: DemocracyNow, CNN: JohnKingUSA, CNN News, Earth Matters; NECN, WPTZ VT, WTNH, VPTV, WCAX, RT, CTV (Canada), CCTV Burlington, VT, CAN TV (Chicago Access), ABC, TBS/Japan, Bloomberg: EnergyNow, KPBS, Japan National Press Club (Tokyo), Italy National Press Club (Rome), The Shadow: Robert Knight, Mark Johnson Show, Steve West Show, Anthony Polina Show, WKVT, WDEV, WVPR, WZBG CT, Seven Days, AP News Service, Houston Chronicle, Christian Science Monitor, Reuters, The Global Post, International Herald, The Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Miami Herald, St. Petersburg Times, Brattleboro Reformer, Rutland Herald, Times-Argus, Burlington Free Press, Litchfield County Times, The News Times, The New Milford Times, Hartford Current, New London Day, Vermont Daily Briefing, Green Mountain Daily, EcoReview, Huffington Post, DailyKos, Voice of Orange County, AlterNet, Common Dreams, Gendai Media, Truthout, Progressive Radio Network, Project Censored and numerous other national and international blogs Public Service, Cultural, and Community Activities 2008 to Present Fairewinds Energy Education Corp 501(C)3 non-profit board member 2005 to Present Public presentations and panel discussions on nuclear power safety, reliability, economics, waste disposal, and decommissioning at numerous universities and colleges in

Page 23 of 23 the US, Canada, and Japan including DePaul University, Plymouth State University, Northwestern University, Life Chiropractic West, Middlebury College, McGill University, Hofstra University, New York School of Medicine, Cal Poly, Sonoma State, Amherst College, University of Vermont, Vermont Law School, Tokyo University, and before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in hearings, Federal Court, Town and City Select Boards, Legal Panels, Local Schools, and via National & International Media: Television, Radio, Print, & Internet.

2007-2008 Energy Production created concept of Solar Panels on Burlington High School; worked with Burlington Electric Department and Burlington Board of Education Technology Committee on a Grant to install solar collectors for Burlington Electric peak summer use; Grant was developed with assistance from Senator Sanders.

Vermont State Legislature Public Testimony to Legislative Committees regarding nuclear power and energy issues NNSN National Nuclear Safety Network, Founding Advisory Board Member, meetings with and testimony to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General (NRC IG)

New York State Electric & Gas (NYSE&G) Speakers Club speaking about nuclear waste issues.

Northeast Utilities Representative Conducting Public Lectures on Nuclear Safety Issues with the Northeast Utilities Speakers Bureau End