ML25190A645
| ML25190A645 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 07/09/2025 |
| From: | Eskelsen G Balch & Bingham, LLP, Holtec Palisades |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57402, 50-255-LA-4, ASLBP 25-988-01-LA-BD01 | |
| Download: ML25190A645 (0) | |
Text
1 July 9, 2025 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
Holtec Palisades, LLC
)
Docket Nos. 50-255-LA-4
)
(Palisades Nuclear Plant)
)
ASLBP No. 25-988-01-LA-BD01
)
)
JOINT STATUS REPORT IN RESPONSE TO BOARDS DIRECTION DURING JULY 2, 2025 TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE On behalf of applicant Holtec Palisades, LLC (Holtec), the undersigned submits this status report in response to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (Boards) direction during the July 2, 2025 Telephonic Status Conference in this proceeding. Counsel for Holtec has conferred with counsel for the NRC Staff and counsel for Beyond Nuclear, Dont Waste Michigan, Michigan Safe Energy Future, Three Mile Island Alert, and Nuclear Energy Information Service (collectively, Petitioners) and counsel for both NRC Staff and Petitioners concur with this filing and have authorized the undersigned to file on behalf of all Participants.
During the telephonic conference, the Board directed counsel for the Participants to provide their positions on six topics. The six requests are summarized below, with citations to the transcript of the status conference where the requests were made, followed by the Participants positions on each.
2 Request 1:
Confirm that the 2022 Holtec document referenced in the Declaration of Mr.
Arnold Gundersen, pg. 26, n.5 (among other locations in the Petition) has been removed from Petitioners website (Tr. 5:8-6:13).
Response: Given Holtecs response to Request 2 below, Petitioners request confirmation from the Board that Beyond Nuclear need not remove the 2022 document referenced in the Declaration of Mr. Arnold Gundersen, pg. 26, n.5 (among other locations in the Petition (see e.g., Petition at 2 n.4; Gundersen Declaration at 22, n.11)) from its website.
Request 2:
Confirm whether the 2022 Holtec Document referenced is now in the public domain (Tr. 6:14-15).
Response: The document referenced in Request 1 was the July 5, 2022 application Holtec submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy that (unsuccessfully) requested funds under the Civil Nuclear Credit Program (CNCP) to restart Palisades. At the time of submittal, Holtec considered the application to be confidential and proprietary and marked it accordingly. However, Holtec understands, in reliance on representations from counsel for Petitioners to Holtec and the Board, that Petitioners legally received the document from the Michigan Public Service Commission in response to a Michigan Freedom of Information Act request. Since receiving that document on May 18, 2023, Petitioners have made it publicly available on their website and have referenced it in prior public pleadings filed by Petitioners in other NRC proceedings involving the Palisades Restart. Accordingly, and without waiving any rights Holtec may have outside of this proceeding, Holtec does not believe that it can claim that the 2022 CNCP application remains confidential in the context of 10 CFR 2.390 or NRCs definition of Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
3 Request 3:
Confirmation that whenever a party references a document that is not in the public domain, that document will not be hyperlinked, but instead the party seeking to use that document will provide the Board and the parties with a hard copy of any such document (Tr. 6:16-22).
Response: The Participants confirm that they will not reference documents that are not in the public domain by using hyperlinks but will instead provide them to the Board and to the other Participants in hard copy or as otherwise allowed by the Board or NRC regulations, e.g., under the terms of Sections 10 and 11 of the Protective Order.
Request 4:
Identify whether the Petition as-filed contained information that was subject to protection under the Protective Order and provide the Parties views on whether the Petition as-filed should remain on the non-public docket. (Tr.
8:20-9:7, 11:10-22)
Response: Holtec confirms that, after consulting with the other Participants, as well as Framatome, Inc., that there is no information subject to protection under the Protective Order that was included in the Petition as originally filed on June 16, 2025 on the non-public docket consistent with Section 11.e of the Protective Order, and re-filed on the public docket on June 27, 2025. Thus, the Participants do not consider there to be a need for the markings called for under Section 8 of the Protective Order to be applied to the original Petition filed on June 16, 2025.
Request 5:
Identify whether there is a need to maintain a non-public docket for this proceeding. (Tr. 9:8-10)
Response: At this time, the Participants do not believe that any pleadings that have been filed, or any Pleadings that they expect to file, contain information subject to the Protective Order that should be maintained solely on a non-public docket.
However, the License Amendment Request that is the subject of this proceeding does contain proprietary information subject to the Protective Order and the Participants cannot predict whether a non-public docket may be needed in the future. The Participants therefore request that
4 the NRC maintain the capability for a Participant to file a non-public document on a non-public docket as required under Section 11.e of the Protective Order.
Request 6:
In the event that the Board decides to hold oral argument on the admissibility of Petitioners contention, whether to conduct an in-person oral argument in the NRCs hearing room in Rockville, MD or whether it can be virtually. If the Parties decide it can be done virtually, confirm that all participants can be connected appropriately so as not to encounter technical issues. (Tr. 12:5-17)
Response: Counsel for Holtec and NRC Staff can support oral argument in person in Rockville, MD or virtually.
Counsel for Petitioners have stated that Petitioners' first preference is that it should take place in person in southwestern Michigan proximate to Palisades. If not there, then Petitioners would agree to the argument being convened virtually and would make every effort to participate via TEAMS, although counsel for Petitioners believes there are more compatible video options.
If the Board decides to hold oral argument, the NRC Staff requests that all participants and the Board remain alert to the need to protect against the inadvertent disclosure of protected information and that depending on the arguments and questions raised during the prehearing conference, it may be necessary to close a portion of the prehearing conference to the public under Section 12 of the Protective Order.
Respectfully submitted, Signed electronically by
/s/ Grant W. Eskelsen Grant W. Eskelsen BALCH & BINGHAM LLP 601 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 825 South Washington, DC 20004-2601 Telephone: (202) 661-6344 E-mail: geskelsen@balch.com Date of Signature: July 9, 2025
[Certificate of Service]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of:
)
)
HOLTEC DECOMMISSIONING
)
INTERNATIONAL, LLC AND HOLTEC
)
Docket No. 50-255-LA-4 PALISADES, LLC
)
)
Palisades Nuclear Plant
)
July 9, 2025
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.305, I certify that on this date copies of the foregoing status report were served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System) in the above captioned matter.
Signed electronically by
/s/ Grant W. Eskelsen Grant W. Eskelsen BALCH & BINGHAM LLP 601 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 825 South Washington, DC 20004-2601 Telephone: (202) 661-6344 E-mail: geskelsen@balch.com Date of Signature: July 9, 2025