ML25119A109

Memorandum and Order (CLI-25-03)

ML25119A109
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	04/29/2025
From:	Carrie Safford NRC/SECY
To:	Beyond Nuclear, Don't Waste Michigan, Michigan Safe Energy Future
SECY RAS
References
RAS 57348, 50-255-LT-3, 72-007-LT-3, CLI-25-03
Download: ML25119A109 (0)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:

David A. Wright, Chairman Annie Caputo Christopher T. Hanson Bradley R. Crowell Matthew J. Marzano In the Matter of HOL TEC DECOMMISSIONING INTERNATIONAL, LLC; HOLTEC PALISADES, LLC; AND PALISADES ENERGY, LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant)

Docket No. 50-255-L T-3 72-007-L T-3 CLl-25-03 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This order responds to the intervention petition and hearing request filed by Beyond Nuclear, Michigan Safe Energy Future, and Don't Waste Michigan (Petitioners) on August 27, 2024. 1 Because the Petitioners do not present an admissible contention for hearing, we deny the petition and hearing request.

1 Petition to Intervene and Request for Adjudicatory Hearing by Beyond Nuclear, Don't Waste Michigan and Michigan Safe Energy Future (Aug. 27, 2024) (Petition). See also NRC Staff Answer to Intervention Petition and Hearing Request in Palisades Restart License Transfer Proceeding (Sept. 23, 2024) (Staff Answer); Applicants' Answer Opposing Beyond Nuclear et al. 's Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for a Hearing (Sept. 23, 2024) (Applicants Answer).

I.

BACKGROUND Petitioners challenge a December 6, 2023, license transfer request (Restart Transfer Request), which was filed by Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (HDI); Holtec Palisades, LLC; and Palisades Energy, LLC (Applicants). 2 In May 2022, the previous license holder, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Entergy) permanently shut down Palisades Nuclear Plant (Palisades) before it transferred the licenses to HDI and Holtec Palisades. The Applicants now seek to transfer the licenses 3 to Palisades Energy, LLC as part of their plan to restart the Palisades reactor. 4 Palisades is a single unit pressurized water reactor that began operations in Covert, Michigan in 1971. In 2007, the NRC granted Entergy a renewed operating license for Palisades, authorizing operations through 2031. 5 Due to market conditions, however, Entergy decided in 2016 to end operations at Palisades by October 2018, which it later deferred to 2022. In 2020, Entergy and HDl's parent company, Holtec International, LLC, entered into a contract to transfer 2 See Letter from Jean A. Fleming, Holtec International, LLC to NRC Document Control Desk (Dec. 6, 2023) (Restart Transfer Request), Encl. 1, Application for Order Consenting to Transfer of Control of License and Approving Conforming License Amendments (Application) (ADAMS accession no. ML23340A160 (package)).

3 The Restart Transfer Request includes the license for the Palisades Nuclear Plant and the general license for the Palisades Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation.

4 See Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, Holtec Palisades, LLC, and Palisades Energy, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant and the Palisades Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of Licenses and Conforming Amendment, 89 Fed. Reg. 64,493 (Aug. 7, 2024) (Palisades Transfer Notice). The NRC staff review of the transfer is ongoing. This order does not approve the proposed transfer to Palisades Energy, LLC.

5 See Letter from Juan Ayala, NRC, to Paul A. Harden, Nuclear Management Company, Issuance of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20 for Palisades Nuclear Plant (Jan.

17, 2007) (ML070100476).

the facility and licenses to HDI, which provided that the transfer would take place "only after the permanent removal of fuel from the Palisades reactor."6 Entergy and Holtec International applied for NRC approval of the transfer and explained that HDI, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Holtec International, would take over responsibility for decommissioning the plant. 7 The 2020 license transfer application stated that

"[b]ecause the transfers will not occur until after the docketing of [Entergy's] certifications of permanent cessation of operations and permanent removal of fuel from the Palisades reactor vessel... the Part 50 licenses will no longer authorize operation of the reactor[]."8 According to the 2020 license transfer application, HDI intended to decommission and dismantle the facility, which would allow releasing the site for unrestricted use by "approximately 2041." 9 The NRC Staff approved the transfer of the operating license to HDI on December 13, 2021.10 Several petitioners, including the same petitioners in this proceeding, opposed the transfer to Holtec and HDI and filed hearing requests.11 In July 2022, we granted the State of Michigan's request for a hearing on a contention challenging HDl's financial qualifications to 6 See Letter from A. Christopher Bakken Ill, Entergy, to NRC Document Control Desk (Dec. 23, 2020), at 2 (ML20358A075) (2020 Transfer Application); see also id., Encl. 1, Application for Order Consenting to Transfers of Control of Licenses and Approving Conforming License Amendments; Palisades Nuclear Plant and Big Rock Point Plant Consideration of Approval of Transfer of Control of Licenses and Conforming Amendments, 86 Fed. Reg. 8225 (Feb. 4, 2021). Big Rock Point is the site of a former boiling water reactor in Charlevoix County, Michigan, which has since been shut down and dismantled, and which is not included in the current transfer.

7 2020 Transfer Application at 2.

9 Id. at 3.

10 Order Approving Transfer of Licenses and Draft Conforming Administrative License Amendments (Dec. 13, 2021) (ML21292A146).

11 See Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Palisades Nuclear Plant and Big Rock Point Site),

CLl-22-8, 96 NRC 1, 7 (2022).

carry out the planned decommissioning of the facility and we denied the other hearing requests.12 Accordingly, a Presiding Officer held a two-day hearing in February 2023 and certified to the Commission an extensive record concerning HDl's and Holtec Palisades' financial ability to decommission the Palisades reactor. 13 Entergy shut down the reactor on May 20, 2022, and on June 13, 2022, removed all fuel from the core and placed the plant into a decommissioning status. 14 The sale of Palisades from Entergy to Holtec closed on June 28, 2022.15 In its June 13, 2022, letter to the NRC certifying that it had permanently shut down, Entergy acknowledged that "upon docketing... these certifications, the [Palisades] 10 CFR Part 50 license no longer authorizes operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel in the reactor vessel."16 The NRC issued amendments changing the operating license, which includes technical specifications, to reflect the authorities and requirements for a reactor in decommissioning status. 17 The amendments removed language from the license authorizing the 12 Id. at 7, 64-65.

13 See Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Palisades Nuclear Plant and Big Rock Point Site),

LBP-23-5, 97 NRC 116 (2023).

14 Application at 2; see also Letter from Darrell W. Corbin, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., to NRC Document Control Desk (June 13, 2022) (regarding certifications of permanent cessation of power operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel) (ML22164A067)

(Certification Letter).

15 See Applicants Answer at 6. Holtec International acquired the company that owns Palisades from Entergy and renamed it Holtec Palisades. Id. at 5-6.

16 Certification Letter at 1.

17 Letter from Scott P. Wall, NRC, to Vice President for Operations, Entergy (June 4, 2018)

(ML18114A410) (Defueled Administrative Controls Amendment); Letter from Scott P. Wall, NRC, to Vice President for Operations, Entergy (May 13, 2022) (M L22039A 198) (Defueled TS Amendment).

licensee to operate the reactor and removed technical specifications that were not relevant to a plant undergoing decommissioning. 18 According to the Petitioners, on July 5, 2022-within days of the sale closing-HDI applied for federal funding from the Department of Energy (DOE) to restart Palisades. 19 Holtec was unsuccessful in that application, but it was later approved for a conditional DOE loan guarantee in March 2024 and DOE has begun disbursing funds to Holtec. 20 Between September 2023 and May 2024, HDI filed several requests for amendments to its license or exemptions from regulatory requirements related to potentially restarting the plant. 21 The Petitioners in this proceeding are among several who have petitioned for a hearing with respect to the four related license amendment requests. 22 18 See, e.g., Defueled TS Amendment, Encl. 2 at 14, 17, 30, 34, 36, 39-42 (discussion of changes to License Conditions 2.8.(1) and 2.C.(1) in Sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.8 of the Staff safety evaluation and discussion of changes to the TS in Section 4.3 of the Staff safety evaluation);

Defueled Administrative Controls Amendment, Encl. 2 (discussion of TS changes in Section 4 of the Staff safety evaluation).

19 Petition at 22.

20 Applicants Answer at 15, 17-18; see also Letter from Jean A. Fleming, Holtec International, to NRC Document Control Desk (Apr. 9, 2024), at 2 (ML24100A689) (notification of changes to 2020 Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report); DOE, DOE Approves Loan Disbursement for Palisades, https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-approves-loan-disbursement-palisades-nuclear-plant (Mar. 17, 2025).

21 See Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, and Holtec Palisades, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant; Applications for Amendments to Renewed Facility Operating License Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Safeguards Information, 89 Fed. Reg.

64,486 (Aug. 7, 2024).

22 See Petition to Intervene and Request for Adjudicatory Hearing by Beyond Nuclear, Don't Waste Michigan, Michigan Safe Energy Future, Three Mile Island Alert and Nuclear Energy Information Service (Oct. 7, 2024) (ML24284A364).

While our regulations do not require the NRC Staff to participate in a license transfer proceeding, the Staff chose to participate and oppose the Petition. 23 The NRC Staff argues that the Petitioners have not demonstrated standing nor proposed an admissible contention. The Applicants also oppose the hearing request on both standing and contention admissibility grounds.

II.

DISCUSSION A. LegalStandards To be granted a hearing, our regulations provide that a person whose interest may be affected by a proceeding must submit a request in writing that establishes their standing and offers an admissible contention. 24 A contention is a particularized statement of the dispute the petitioner has with a license application. Our regulations set forth deliberately strict requirements for a contention to be admitted for hearing to ensure that adjudicatory resources are not needlessly spent on vague or speculative claims. 25 A contention must be within the scope of the proceeding and material to the findings the Staff must make in approving the application, be set forth with particularity, and provide an explanation of its factual or expert support. 26 Moreover, the contention must show that the petitioner has a genuine dispute with the application on a material issue and include references to the "specific portions of the application."27 23 Staff Answer at 2, n.1.

24 See generally, 10 C.F.R. § 2.309.

25 See, e.g., PPL Susquehanna, LLC (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),

CLl-15-8, 81 NRC 500, 504 (2015); NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1),

CLl-12-5, 75 NRC 301, 307 (2012).

26 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i) (specificity), (ii) (explanation of basis); (iii) (scope); (iv) (materiality);

(v) (factual support or expert opinion).

27 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi).

B. Contention: Misrepresentation by Holtec to Secure Initial License Transfer from Entergy Petitioners offer a single contention that comprises two distinct claims. 28 First, Petitioners claim that HDI disingenuously acquired Palisades by representing that it intended to decommission the plant when it really intended to restart operations. Petitioners assert that this constitutes a failure to provide to the NRC "full information" concerning a license transfer as required by Section 184 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and constitutes a "material false statement" under Section 186(a) of the AEA, which provides that any license may be revoked for such a statement in the application. 29 Second, Petitioners argue that the license HDI holds is a "possession-only license," and therefore it has no "operating license" to transfer to Palisades Energy. 3° For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that neither of these claims, taken separately or together, presents an admissible issue.

1. Claim that Applicants Made Material False Statements AEA Section 184 provides that no license can be transferred unless "the Commission shall, after securing full information, find that the transfer is in accordance with the provisions of this Act." 31 AEA Section 186 provides that:

Any license may be revoked for any material false statement in the application or any statement of fact required under section 182, or because of conditions revealed by such application or statement of fact or any report, record, or inspection or other means which would warrant the Commission to refuse to grant a license on an original application, or for failure to construct or operate a facility in accordance with the terms of the construction permit or license or the technical specifications in the 28 Petition at 20-21.

29 See id. at 26; 42 U.S.C. §§ 2234, 2236(a).

30 Petition at 21, 24-25.

31 42 U.S.C. § 2234.

application, or for violation of, or failure to observe any of the terms and provisions of this Act or of any regulation of the Commission. 32 Petitioners assert that the timing of events leading up to the license transfer indicates that HDI pursued the transfer from Entergy under the false pretense that it would decommission the plant rather than restart it. Petitioners claim that Holtec acquired the site so it could build two new reactors of its own design. 33 Petitioners also claim that by purchasing Palisades, Holtec gained access to the Palisades decommissioning trust fund, access to "some $1.85 billion in U.S. Department of Energy and State of Michigan bailout (taxpayer) funds," and the "benefits of a rigged, premium-priced power purchase agreement to provide a market for Palisades' above-market-price electricity." 34 Petitioners also assert that HDl's "deliberate nondisclosure of its true intentions has caused regulatory and engineering problems at the plant."35 The Applicants answer that the license transfer from Entergy to Holtec was contingent on Palisades being shut down and that it was Entergy's and Holtec's expectation when they signed the purchase agreement in 2018 that the plant would be shut down and defueled when the transfer took place. 36 Applicants assert that it was not until after the initial license transfer when HDI had actually gained DO E's approval for a conditional commitment of funds that it committed to the restart plan "in earnest."37 Applicants refute Petitioners' claim that Holtec 32 42 U.S.C. § 2236(a).

33 Petition at 25. Petitioners claim that Holtec plans to apply to build two SMR-300 reactors, a design that is currently in the pre-application stage. See NRC, SMR-300, https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/who-were-working-with/pre-application-activities/holtec/smr300.html (last visited Mar. 18, 2025).

34 Petition at 25.

35 /d. at 26.

36 Applicants Answer at 15-16.

37 Id. at 17-18.

violated the AEA by "secretly" applying for DOE financing under the Civil Nuclear Credit Program and point out that the legislation creating the program directed DOE to protect confidentiality (including commercially sensitive information) and that a memorandum of understanding between NRC and DOE required DOE to consult with NRC regarding Holtec's application. 38 As explained below, we find that Petitioners' claims do not amount to an admissible contention because they are outside the scope of the proceeding, insufficiently supported, and do not raise a material issue or genuine dispute with the Application. Because Petitioners do not present an admissible contention, we need not reach the issue of standing. 39

a.

Scope The Federal Register notice of opportunity to request a hearing describes the scope of the proceeding, which in this case, entails review of a license transfer application. 40 A license transfer review is limited to specific matters, including the financial and technical qualifications of the proposed transferee. 41 Here, the Federal Register notice explained that the requested license transfer would be for the. authority to operate Palisades, and would be conditioned on the NRC's approval of separate license amendment requests (subject to hearing requests in 38 See 42 U.S.C. § 18753(g)(3); Memorandum of Understanding between U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Civil Nuclear Credit Program (Apr. 19, 2022), Sec. IV (ML22111A275).

39 See, e.g., Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),

CLl-23-1, 97 NRC 81, 84 n.17 (2023); Palisades, CLl-22-8, 96 NRC at 67; Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLl-20-12, 92 NRC 351, 364-65 (2020).

40 See Palisades Transfer Notice, 89 Fed. Reg. at 64,493. See Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-825, 22 NRC 785, 790 (1985); NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), LBP-17-7, 86 NRC 59, 97 (2017).

41 10 C.F.R. § 50.80(b)(1); Exelon Generation Co. LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station}, CLl-19-6, 89 NRC 465, 470-71 (2019).

separate proceedings) that would be necessary prior to restoration of power operations. 42 Thus, the scope of the instant proceeding is to determine whether the proposed transferee-Palisades Energy-is technically and financially qualified to operate a nuclear power plant.

Petitioners' claims do not challenge the technical or financial qualifications of the proposed transferee to operate Palisades. Petitioners claim that Holtec made false statements or had hidden motives when it initially acquired Palisades from Entergy to decommission the plant, but these claims do not pertain to Palisades Energy's technical or financial qualifications to operate the plant if restart is approved. The claims relate instead to the prior license transfer, which the NRC Staff has already approved. None of Petitioners' claims relate to Palisades Energy's financial and technical qualifications to operate Palisades; therefore, they do not meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii) and are inadmissible.

b.

Lack of Support Petitioners' claim that Holtec deliberately misled the NRC about its initial plans to decommission Palisades is without meaningful factual support. Petitioners rely on inferences drawn from the timing of several events (including business negotiations, closing dates, licensing and loan applications, and various regulatory approvals) to state their claim.43 But Petitioners provide no specific facts to support the inferences they urge us to draw from this timeline.44 Applicants respond that their plans for Palisades changed when circumstances changed, and they cite several facts in support of their position. As an initial matter, we observe that HDI is in the business of decommissioning and dismantling shut down nuclear reactors, and it has 42 Palisades Transfer Notice, 89 Fed. Reg. at 64,494.

43 See Petition at 21-23.

44 See Applicants Answer at 15-18.

several such projects ongoing around the country. 45 This is the reason Applicants give for wanting to transfer the operating license from HDI, which oversees decommissioning projects, to a new entity dedicated to operating Palisades so that it will be appropriately structured and staffed for power operations.46 In addition, Applicants point out that when Holtec entered into a contract to buy Palisades in 2018, it could not have known that "future political and economic forces" would make restarting the plant a viable option.47 Congress did not create the Civil Nuclear Credit Program-under which Holtec initially failed to obtain a loan-until 2021 ; and the program under which Holtec successfully secured financing for the Palisades restart was not created until 2022. 48 Nor could Holtec have known that the State of Michigan would appropriate funding for the project or that HDI would be able to negotiate power sales agreements to support operations. 49 Against these facts, Petitioners provide only speculation that HDI deliberately misled the NRC concerning its plans for the plant, and "[b]are assertions and speculation" are not enough to support an admissible contention. 50 45 See, e.g., Letter from Jean A. Fleming, Holtec International, to NRC Document Control Desk (Mar. 29, 2024) (ML24089A117) (report on status of decommissioning funding for reactors and independent spent fuel storage installations at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station; Indian Point Nuclear Generating Stations 1, 2, and 3; Palisades Nuclear Plant and Big Rock Point).

46 See Application at 2-3.

47 Applicants Answer at 18.

48 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58, § 40323, Civil Nuclear Credit Program, 135 Stat. 429, 1019-22 (2021); Inflation Reduction Act, Pub. L. No. 117-169, § 50144, Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Financing, 136 Stat. 1818, 2044-45 (2022).

49 Applicants Answer at 20; see also Application at 4.

so See Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLl-12-15, 75 NRC 704, 714 (2012) (quoting AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLl-08-28, 68 NRC 658, 674 (2008)).

Similarly, Petitioners' assertions that HDl's nondisclosur-e of plans to pursue restart "may have caused the unnecessary expenditure of millions of dollars to rehabilitate the plant as a consequence of failure to properly mothball the plant," and a failure to place "[m]ajor components... in wet or dry layup" are unsupported. 51 Petitioners offer only speculation with these claims, and they do not explain how these claims are germane to the technical or financial qualifications of the proposed transferee in this license transfer proceeding. Therefore, these claims are inadmissible. 52 Petitioners also ask us to "revoke the original December 2021 license transfer in its entirety."53 Under the AEA, and apart from any hearing request, we could revoke the license or refer the matter to the NRC Staff for further investigation, at our discretion, if we found that Holtec had made material misrepresentations. 54 But because we see no factual basis for Petitioners' claim that Holtec deliberately misled the NRC, we decline to take either action.

c.

Materiality Petitioners' claims largely concern HDl's business motives in acquiring the Palisades facility. But the business motives of an applicant are generally not material to the NRC's licensing review, which is focused on whether the application demonstrates that the requested licensing action can be safely approved in accordance with pertinent technical and financial requirements set forth in NRC regulations. The NRC is "not in the business of regulating the market strategies of licensees" or "determin[ing] whether market conditions warrant 51 Petition at 26.

52 See 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v).

53 Petition at 26.

54 See 10 C.F.R. § 50.100.

commencing" operations, and we leave to licensees the "ongoing business decisions that relate to costs and profit. "55 We have nevertheless considered Petitioners' claims regarding Holtec's motives.

Petitioners claim these motives are to 1) gain a site to build "two prototype reactors" of its own design; 2) acquire Palisades' "nearly half-billion-dollar decommissioning trust fund"; 3) gain access to "$1.85 billion in U.S. Department of Energy and State of Michigan bailout (taxpayer) funds," and 4) get the benefits of "a rigged, premium-priced power purchase agreement to provide a market for Palisades above-market price electricity."56 We find none of these claims material to the findings the NRC Staff must make regarding this Application.

Petitioners' first claim-that Holtec plans to build new prototype reactors-plainly concerns business strategy and does not pertain to Palisades Energy's financial or technical qualifications to operate the existing facility. If Holtec were to pursue this strategy, it would require NRC review and approval of new reactors in a future proceeding (to date, Holtec has not filed any application to build new reactors on the site). Petitioners' second claim is that Holtec was motivated to obtain Palisades' decommissioning trust fund. However, there is nothing improper in such a motive: Transfer of the decommissioning trust fund was a necessary element of the initial license transfer from Entergy. Regardless of whether the restart is approved, the decommissioning trust fund may only be used to decommission Palisades or other NRC-approved purposes. Petitioners' third claim relates to funding that will be used for the restart, and although the financial qualifications of the proposed license transferee is material to the findings the Staff must make, Petitioners do not claim that access to these funds would 55 See Louisiana Energy Services, L.P (National Enrichment Facility), CLl-05-28, 62 NRC 721,

726 (2005) (quoting Hydro Resources, Inc. (P.O. Box 15910, Rio Rancho, NM 87174), CLl-01-4, 53 NRC 31, 48-49 (2001)).

56 Petition at 25.

challenge those qualifications. Petitioners' fourth claim suggests that Palisades Energy will be able to overcharge for the electricity generated by Palisades, however, the NRC does not regulate prices for electricity, and the claim is immaterial to the findings required for NRC approval.

d.

Genuine Dispute with the Application A petition must refer to the "specific portions of the application" that it disputes; here the Petitioners do not cite the relevant Application in their statement of contention. 57 As both the Staff and the Applicants point out, the focus of a license transfer proceeding is the technical and financial qualifications of the transferee. 58 The Application addresses Palisades Energy's technical qualifications, including a discussion of the credentials of senior management, its plans to retain site management and former senior operators that were employed at Palisades during operations, and its "hiring, training, and recertification plan to ensure that all positions in the operational organization are filled prior to transfer to [Palisades Energy] with individuals qualified to meet the [power operations licensing basis] requirements." 59 The Application also addresses the transferees' financial ability to run the plant, including its power purchase agreements with two customers under a "long-term, fixed price arrangement that will remain in effect for the full term of the Facility license, including any license renewal terms," and a support agreement provided by Holtec International. 60 Petitioners' contention disputes none of these 57 The Petition mentions the prior license transfer application several times. See id. at 20-24.

58 Staff Answer at 21-22; Applicants Answer at 11.

59 Application at 6-12. Attachment E of Enclosure 1 of the application lists regulatory commitments, including that at least five business days before the planned transfer, HDI will provide evidence that the facility has employees to meet the staffing and qualification requirements set forth in the power operations Technical Specifications, Physical Security Plan, Emergency Plan, Quality Assurance Program Manual, and Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. See Application, Encl. 1, Attach. E, at 1.

60 Application at 14-16.

representations and focuses instead on the supposed motives of the transferor in acquiring the plant in the prior license transfer. None of Petitioners' claims about Applicants' motives raises a genuine dispute with the Application on a material issue of law or fact, as required by 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1)(vi).

We also consider whether various assertions made in the standing declarations would support a contention. The declarants assert that restarting the plant would be unsafe because of alleged past safety problems. 61 They raise a safety concern with the fact that no commercial nuclear power plant in the country has ever been restored to operation after permanently shutting down. 62 Additionally, the declarants state they are concerned about "the lack of nuclear power generation experience and controversial historical performance of the parent company, Holtec International. "63 None of these claims support an admissible contention. These assertions are outside the scope of this proceeding to the extent that they relate to license amendment applications filed in support of restart, rather than the license transfer application that is the subject of this proceeding. 64 Petitioners' claim that the plant has not or may not have been properly maintained with a view to restoring operations since its shutdown lacks both support and specificity. 65 Petitioners' claim that Holtec lacks power generation experience is outside the scope of the 61 See, e.g., Petition, Declaration of William D. Reed in Support of Petition for Leave to Intervene in Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Exemption Proceeding (Aug.27. 2024) (Reed Declaration),,m 5-9 (alleged past safety problems). The standing declarations proffered by all three Petitioners are substantially identical.

62 Id.,I 10.

63 Id.,I 4.

64 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii).

65 See, e.g., Reed Declaration,I 10 (maintenance since shutdown and first reactor restored to operations); Petition at 26; 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1 )(ii), (v).

proceeding and immaterial because the proposed operator's qualifications, not those of the parent company, are at issue here. 66 Moreover, Petitioners do not dispute the portions of the Application that describe Palisades Energy's qualifications. 67

2. Claim that HD/ Does Not Possess a Valid Operating License to Transfer Petitioners also claim that because the license prohibits HDI from operating the plant, it "has no operating authority to transfer to Palisades Energy."68 Petitioners assert that "as a practical matter," HDI received a "possession-only license" in the transfer from Entergy. 69 Petitioners go on to argue that Holtec does not "have a valid license to transfer to Palisades Energy."70 We find these claims lack the sufficient support required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1 )(v).

Although Petitioners are correct-and neither the Staff nor Applicants disagree-that HDI is not currently authorized to operate the reactor, Petitioners cite no authority for the claim that HDI holds a "possession-only license" or that Entergy did not transfer its renewed operating license to HDl. 71 On the contrary, NRC regulations specifically provide that a license "for a facility that has permanently ceased operations continues in effect beyond the expiration date to 66 See 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii).

67 Id.§ 2.309(f)(1)(vi).

68 Petition at 24.

69 Id. at 21, 24-25.

70 Id. at 21, 25. It is not clear whether Petitioners argue that HDI has no "valid" license because a "possession-only" license is not valid or if they are reiterating their claim that HD l's license is invalid because Holtec misrepresented its intentions. In either case, we find these arguments to be without merit.

71 As the Staff point out in its brief, the "possession-only license amendment" process was eliminated in the 1996 decommissioning rule. See Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors, 61 Fed. Reg. 39,278; 39,284; 39,290-91 (July 29, 1996) (final rule) (disagreeing with comments suggesting that the possession-only license amendment process be retained for power reactor decommissioning); Staff Answer at 25.

authorize ownership and possession of the production and utilization facility, until the Commission notifies the licensee in writing that the license is terminated."72 Thus, while HDI is not currently authorized to operate the reactor, HDl's license remains a renewed facility operating license during the decommissioning process until license termination.

In 2021, we determined that the existing regulatory framework allows an applicant to apply for the restart of a shutdown reactor that had already submitted the 10 C.F.R.

§ 50.82(a)(1) certifications. In denying a petition for rulemaking, the Commission stated that "the NRC may consider requests from licensees to resume operations under the existing regulatory framework."73 We determined that no statute or regulation prohibits reauthorizing operation after the section 50.82(a)(1) certificates have been issued. 74 Petitioners do not address this determination or provide any substantive reason why we should reconsider it here.

Ill. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioners have not set forth an admissible contention for hearing. Therefore, we deny the Petition and terminate this adjudicatory proceeding.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of April 2025 72 10 C.F.R. § 50.51(b).

For the Commission

~.~~~

Secretary of the Commission 73 Criteria To Return Retired Nuclear Power Reactors to Operations, 86 Fed. Reg. 24,362, 24,363 (May 6, 2021) (denying a petition for rulemaking).

74 Id.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of HOL TEC DECOMMISSIONING INTERNATIONAL, LLC, HOLTEC PALISADES, LLC, AND PALISADES ENERGY, LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 50-255-L T-3 72-007-L T-3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI -

25-03) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop: O-16B33 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail.resource@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16B33 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-14A44 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Julie G. Ezell, Esq.

Anita G. Naber, Esq.

Susan H. Vrahoretis, Esq.

Stacy Schuman, Team Leader Georgia Hampton, Paralegal Joelysa McLeod, Paralegal Anne Fream, Paralegal Email: Julie.Ezell@nrc.gov Anita.ghoshnaber@nrc.gov Susan.Vrahoretis@nrc.gov Stacy.schumann@nrc.gov Georgiann.Hampton@nrc.gov Joelysa.mcleod@nrc.gov Anne.fream@nrc.gov Counsel for Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, Holtec Palisades, LLC, and Palisades Energy, LLC Balch and Bingham LLP 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 M. Stanford Blanton, Esq.

Grant Eskelsen, Esq.

Alan D. Lovett, Esq.

Email: sblanton@balch.com geskelsen@balch.com alovett@balch.com

Palisades Nuclear Plant, Docket No. 50-255-L T-3 & 72-007-L T-3 COMMISSION MEMO.RANDUM AND ORDER (CLI 03)

Counsel for Beyond Nuclear, Don't Waste Michigan, and Michigan Safe Energy Future Wallace L. Taylor 4403 1st Ave. S.E., Suite 402 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52402 Email: wtaylorlaw@aol.com Terry J. Lodge 316 N. Michigan Street, Suite 520 Toledo, OH 43604-5627 Email: tjlodge@yahoo.com Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of April 2025.

Office of the Secretary of the Commission 2

KRISTEN HALOJ Digitally signed by KRISTEN HALOJ Date: 2025.04.29 09:57:33 -04'00'