ML15139A034

Comment (12) of Kevin Kamps on Behalf of Beyond Nuclear Opposing Draft Guidance Regarding the Alternate Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule

ML15139A034
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	05/12/2015
From:	Kamps K Beyond Nuclear
To:	Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch
References
80FR13449 00012, NRC-2014-0137
Download: ML15139A034 (19)

Text

Page 1 of2RULES AD ;r SPUBLIC SUBMISSIONV!:' i3 1-5 2: i ?As of: 5/13/15 12:12 PMReceived: May 12, 2015Status: PendingPostTracking No. ljz-8ite-oqgyComments Due: May 12, 2015Submission Type: WebDocket: NRC-2014-0137 RF.. ,:\/7V3Technical Basis for Regulatory Guidance on the Alternate PTS RuleComment On: NRC-2014-0137-0001Draft Guidance Regarding the Alternate Pressurized Thermal Shock RuleDocument: NRC-2014-0137-DRAFT-0015Comment on FR Doc # 2015-05754Submitter InformationName: Kevin KampsAddress:Beyond Nuclear6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400Takoma Park, MD, 20912Email: kevin@beyondnuclear.orgGeneral Comment

Dear NRC,

Please see the attached file:March 17, 2006: PETITIONERS NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM ASLB DENIAL OF HEARING, ANDSUPPORTING BRIEF, submitted to the U.S. NRC ASLB, by attorney Terry Lodge, on behalf of Don't WasteMichigan and NIRS, in opposition to Palisades' 20-year license extension (Appeal of dismissal of ContentionNo. 1, The license renewal application is untimely and incomplete for failure to address the continuing crisis ofembrittlement, specifically pages 3 to 9, as well as portions of the conclusion relevant to PTS risks/RPVembrittlement).Please accept the numerous challenges and criticisms contained within this document, in the current context ofEntergy Nuclear's July 2014 License Amendment Request for IOCFR50.61 a regulatory relief, as publiccomments in your DG-1299 and NUREG-2163 proceeding. At the time, in 2005-2006, 1OCFR50.61 was theruling regulatory regime. The concerns raised by attorney Terry Lodge on behalf of intervening groups NIRSand Don't Waste MI at the time, are all the more poignant now, that an even less conservative alternate fracturetoughness rule (1OCFR50.61 a) is the context for this proceeding on DG-1299 and NUREG-2163.Thank you for considering our public comments.https://www.fdms.gov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=0900006481 adcffe&for... 05/13/2015 Page 2 of 2Sincerely,Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear (and Don't Waste Michigan, board member representing the KalamazooChapter)Attachmentsobjections031706https://www.fdms.gov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=090000648 1 adcffe&for... 05/13/2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICABEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONBefore the Atomic Safety and Licensing BoardIn the Matter ofNUCLEAR MANAGEMENT COMPANYPALISADES NUCLEAR GENERATINGSTATIONRegarding the Renewal of Facility OperatingLicense No. DPR-20 for a 20-Year Period)Docket No. 50-255-LRASLBP No. 05-842-03-LR)) March 17, 2006)PETITIONERS' NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM ASLB DENIALOF HEARING, AND SUPPORTING BRIEFTerry J. Lodge (Ohio #0029271)316 N. Michigan St., Suite 520Toledo, OH 43624-1627(419) 255-7552Fax (419) 255-8582tjlodge50@yahoo.comCounsel for Petitioners TABLE OF CONTENTST able of A uthorities .......................................................... iiNotice of Appeal 1Brief in Support of Notice of Appeal 1ARGUMENT 2Status of Demetrios Basdekas as Petitioners' Expert on Embrittlement 2Appeal of dismissal of Contention No. 1 (The license renewal application is untimely andincomplete for failure to address the continuing crisis of embrittlement) 3Appeal of Dismissal of Contention No. 3 (The Palisades reactor has no place to store itsoverflowing irradiated nuclear fuel inventory within NRC regulations) 9Conclusion 12Certification of Service 13-i-TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCasesDuke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC328, 334 (1999) 4Houston Lighting, ALAB-549, 9 NRC 649 3North Atlantic Energy Services Corp. (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 201,219-21 (1999) 4Philadelphia Elec. Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8AEC 13, 21 (1974) 4Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-98-7, 47NRC 142, aff'd, CLI-98-13, 48 NRC 26 (1998) 4Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-01-3, 53NRC 84, 99 (2001) 3Regulations10 CFR § 2.202 1110 CFR § 2.206 9,1110 CFR § 2.311 110 CFR § 54.21(c)(1) 610 CFR Part 72 Subpart K 1110 CFR § 72.212(b) 9,10-Ii-NOTICE OF APPEALNow come the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, et al., Petitioners-Inter-venors herein (and hereinafter referred to as "Petitioners"), by and through counsel, andpursuant to 10 CFR § 2.311, give notice of their appeal from the March 7 "Memorandum andOrder" (hereinafter "Order") issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel in thismatter, by which the ASLB denied Petitioners a hearing on their sundry contentions./s/ Terry J. LodgeTerry Lodge, Esq.Ohio Sup. Ct. #0029271316 N. Michigan St., Ste. 520Toledo, OH 43624-1627(419) 255-7552Fax (419) 255-5852tjlodge50@yahoo.comCounsel for PetitionersBRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF APPEALL INTRODUCTIONThis proceeding involves the application of Nuclear Management Company, LLC("NIMC") to renew the operating license for its Palisades Nuclear Plant for an additional twenty-year period commencing in 2011. A number of groups and individuals jointly petitioned forstanding as intervenors and submitted contentions challenging various safety andenvironmental aspects of the proposed license renewal.There was no genuine controversy raised over the standing of the Petitioners, all ofwhom were granted status to intervene. The matter proceeded to a prehearing conference inNovember 2005, and in its March 7, 2006 "Memorandum and Order," the ASLB reviewed the contentions and denied Petitioners a hearing on any of them, terminating the adjudication,"despite [Petitioners] having in some instances touched upon some serious topics." Order p.2.From the order ending the adjudication, Petitioners have timely taken this appeal,challenging the ASLB's rulings on Contentions.1, 3 and 5.II. ARGUMENTStatus of Demetrios Basdekas as Petitioners' Expert on EmbrittlementAfter being presented extensive evidence of Demetrios' Basdekas involvement withPetitioners in the drafting of Contention 1 on reactor pressure vessel embrittlement, the ASLBdenigrated the value of Basdekas' involvement by relegating him (Order p. 17) to the role ofhaving "assisted Petitioners in drafting Contention 1, not that he would be relied upon oravailable to assist them at any hearing." Petitioners have proven that Basdekas framed hisstatement to the press, that he actively co-wrote Contention No. 1, and that in his pressstatement, he stated that the best indicators of embrittlement at Palisades were NMC's ownrecords. Basdekas' assertions about embrittlement were not simply "obvious" or generic, butwere made with specific reference to Palisades. Mr. Basdekas was Petitioners' expert at thetime of submission of Contention No. 1 on August 8, 2005. He was not merely a co-drafter ofthe contention.The ASLB has exalted form over substance, letting slavish adherence to rules work tobar the litigation on its merits of matters which the Board has itself termed "very serious." Asthe below discussion reveals, infra, Petitioners timely submitted their contentions in thisintervention, and then followed up with a supplemental filing some five (5) weeks later whichthe Board has declined to consider, calling the supplemental filing untimely. This licenseextension proceeding has seen several major delays for accommodation of other parties or incurred on the Board's own motion, which in the aggregate amount to more lost time from"delay" than the "delay" of the five weeks supposedly caused by Petitioners betweencontention submission and supplemental filing. However, the perceived damage to therelatively slow progress of the proceedings is laid only at the feet of the Petitioners.Appeal of dismissal of Contention No. I (The license renewal application isuntimely and incomplete for failure to address the continuing crisis of embrittlement)Despite giving lip service (Order p. 23) to the adages that "technical perfection is not anessential element of contention pleading"1 and that the "[s]ounder practice is to decide issueson their merits, not to avoid them on technicalities,"'2 the ASLB nonetheless contrived to denyadmission of the embrittlement contention. The licensing panel notes (Order p. 34) that in"Petitioners' Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Nuclear Management Company Answers" filedon September 16, 2005 -5 weeks after Petitioners' submission of their embrittlementcontention -that Petitioners "provide[ ] additional support for the contention, of the sort thatmight have been included in the original basis for the contention."The panel emphasized that embrittlement of the reactor pressure vessel is a "veryserious topic, with regard to Palisades or indeed any nuclear plant," Order p. 35; that it waswithin the scope of license renewal, Order p. 36, and "warrants close attention." Id. But theASLB proceeded to discard the contention for stating the "obvious" and presenting no specificissue which is Palisades-specific and susceptible to litigation. Order p. 37-38. The panelcharitably noted that the rules of contention pleading might have "place[d] ... petitioners in adifficult position," Order pp. 40-41, but denies the contention, with the ASLB limiting itself to the'Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-01-3, 53 NRC84, 99 (2001).2Houston Lighting, ALAB-549, 9 NRC at 649.

information which accompanied the presentation of the timely-filed August 8, 2005 petition, notthe supplementation filed on September 16, 2005.By parsing the information available to it so constrictively, the ASLB carefully erectedthe very "fortress3 which it had counseled should be avoided.4The ASLB "fortress" is impervious to these inconvenient facts: The Palisades reactorvessel was built some 39 years ago of an alloy containing unknown percentages of copper andnickel. The blend has been lost to history, if it ever were written down in the first place. Thisfact, alone, creates tremendous difficulty in accurately predicting the degree of embrittlementpresent in the reactor pressure vessel at any point during Palisades' operating history.Moreover, when the reactor pressure vessel was constructed, the utility elected not toinstall a thermal shield in the vessel, making it somewhat anomalous among similar reactors inthe U.S. nuclear industry. When the vessel was completed, it was outfitted with so-called3Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 334(1999):This is not to say that our contention rule should be turned into a "fortress to denyintervention." [Philadelphia Elec. Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 21 (1974)]. The Commission and its boards regularly continueto admit for litigation and hearing contentions that are material and supported byreasonably specific factual and legal allegations. See, e.g., [North Atlantic EnergyServices Corp. (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 201, 219-21 (1999)];Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-98-7, 47NRC 142, aff'd, CLI-98-13, 48 NRC 26 (1998)Id. at 335.4Prehearing Tr.149-50 (ASLB chair questioning Staff Counsel):... [tihere's also case law that says the contention rule should not be used [as] a fortressto deny intervention[,] that what you need is enough to indicate that further inquiry isappropriate.... Basically something to indicate that the petitioners are qualified, able tolitigate the issue that they raise. So what we have here is [-] we have an allegation thatthe application is incomplete for failure to address the continuing crisis ofembrittlement[,] supported by this factual allegation about early embrittlement and theidentification of an expert who used to work with the NRC. So on the face of that itwould seem that that provides something to indicate that further inquiry might beappropriate.

"surveillance coupons," pieces of metal deliberately left inside the vessel to be serially removedat refueling outages so they could be analyzed to predict the extent of embrittlement going onin the reactor vessel. Yet there was an insufficient number of coupons originally placed in thereactor, which ran out in the early 1990's, far before completion of the initial, 40-year, licensingperiod. See Exhibit 1-B in the "Appendix of Evidence" accompanying Petitioners' "CombinedReply.'Calculations by NMC show that the Palisades vessel may have surpassed its PressureThermal Shock ("PTS") limits as early as 1995. Re-analyses of Palisades have produced anever-widening range of resulting estimates for exceeding vessel embrittlement limits with avery broad range of uncertainty (as much as +/- 25%) with many PTS values for the severely-embrittled reactor vessel. Palisades has neared the maximum-embrittlement boundaries timeand again over the years,6 but each time those "goalposts" have been moved back withcontemporaneous rejiggering of the assumptions and calculations. In 1995, for example, theNRC staff noted that the "Palisades RPV ... is predicted to reach the PTS screening criteriaby late 1999, before any other plant." NRC Generic Letter 92-01, Revision 1, Supplement 1:Reactor Vessel Structural Integrity (May 19, 1995) (Exhibit 1-J to "Combined Reply"). Themost recent estimates project that the current PTS criteria will be exceeded in 20147 -three (3)years into the proposed 20-year license extension period which would begin in 2011.5 Palisades Thermal Shock, NRC Staff Presentation to the ACRS, Viewgraphs, December 09,1994, p. 3.6,"For example that is sort of a summary of the regulatory framework that applies to annealing.With regard to Palisades, we completed an evaluation in April of 1995 in which we concluded that theywould reach the screening criteria. At least they were okay until 1999. That evaluation was consistentwith the 50.61, the Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule. The current license for Palisades expires in 2007so they would fall somewhat short of the current operating license with regard to the life of the vessel.""Briefing on Annealing Demonstration Project," NRC Public Meeting, August 27, 1996.7Application, p. 4-15.

The Applicant claims that to address new technical issues relating to neutron irradiationembrittlement of the reactor pressure vessel, NMC proposes to use the third measure set forthin 10 CFR § 54.21 (c)(1) to disposition the issue -i.e., adequate management of the effects ofneutron irradiation embrittlement -for the period of extended operation. But in its application,NMC merely demonstrates that it plans to make an election by 2011 -that the utility currentlyplans to have a plan at the beginning of the 20-year proposed extension period.The Petitioners treat NMC's admission (Application p. 4-10) that the option of installingshield assemblies or flux suppression devices to achieve flux reduction would not be cost-effective as a sign that public safety concerns must be given center stage in the licenserenewal proceeding. NMC admits it cannot cost-effectively reduce an increasing safety-significant risk to the public through flux reduction, states that its current pressure/temperatureanalyses for the reactor vessel expire in 2014, and cannot adequately demonstrate in advanceof the 20-year licensing period that the available alternatives can properly address and mitigateadvancing embrittlement and the associated higher Pressure Thermal Shock values anybetter. The deep and disturbing history of embrittlement management and projection atPalisades compels the conclusion that 2006, not 2011 or 2014, must be the date at whichNMC is required to provide a plan which conclusively demonstrates the ability of the companyto sustain operations for the full 20 years of additional licensure. The adequacy of that planwould be the focus of an adjudication here, and it is that plan which the ASLB presently, andthe NRC staff before it, have declined to require of NMC.NMC currently relies on a complex re-analysis to assure safety margins in thephysically-deteriorating reactor pressure vessel. The resulting labyrinth of smoke-and-mirrorscomputer models has been viewed skeptically by the NRC's own Advisory Committee onReactor Safeguards. Petitioners suggest that it is unreasonable for the Applicant to forego Flux Reduction programs for the extension period which might reasonably reduce the risk topublic health and safety from a Pressure Thermal Shock accident potentially occurring duringthe same license extension period unless NMC can show, now, with high confidence thatalternative approaches, including the option of annealing the vessel,8 can adequately preserverequired public safety margins in the 20-year extension period. It is therefore unreasonableand unacceptable for the Applicant to foreclose options within its established managementstrategy for economic reasons without first being required to demonstrate with confidence thatthe proposed alternatives adequately provide for the public's protection from this significantongoing and potentially worsening age-associated safety issue.In its final remarks in denying the embrittlement contention for hearing, the ASLBscolds Petitioners for not requesting an extension to research and develop relevant technicaland legal issues and arguments or to obtain access to experts or counsel competent in NRCpractice. Order p. 41. It is easy, at this end of the adjudicatory process, to suggest that suchrequests from the public might have been greeted with compassion and sensitivity. But that isbelied by the ASLB's record of time management in these proceedings.The panel moved the originally-schedule prehearing conference dates back nearlythree (3) weeks, from October 14 to November 3, 2005 to accommodate the religiousrequirements of the lead attorney for the Staff.9 Following the November 3-4 prehearingconference, the Board granted itself an indeterminate period of several weeks, into December2005, by which time to issue its final ruling. On December 21, 2005, the ASLB orderedPetitioners to provide a brief immediately after the holidays on the status of their embrittlement8There is no safe, proven annealing process.9A request to which Petitioners had absolutely no objection.

expert, occasioned by an email to the Board by the NRC staff counsel. Following submissionof Petitioners' filing on the expert controversy, the Staff and NMC were given a week torespond, pushing any decision on the overall merits deeper into January 2006. Then, at theend of February 2006, the Board again granted itself an indeterminate period of time intoMarch 2006 to issue its "Memorandum and Order" which, of course, was ultimately issued onMarch 7.Any damage from Petitioners' five-week delay (between the August 8 and September16 filings) which is attributed to the belated completion of these proceedings or the fulfillmentof the lockstep mandate of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to complete milestonesaccording to a strict calendar has been more than offset by the time delays caused by caseevents beyond the control of Petitioners. Yet the Board's whipping-children for delays remainthe Petitioners, who produced relevant and detailed information "too late" -5 weeks into thelicense extension case -to have it considered. The ASLB uses Petitioners' supposed delay tojustify the exclusion of relevant and detailed information about the "very serious" topic ofembrittlement. The ASLB has devoted a lot of time to building a fortress of compliance withprocess to the detriment of considering potentially inconvenient facts which happen not tohave arrived at a technical, rule-prescribed interval.Such is the method by which form not merely triumphs over, but supplants, substancebefore the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Rather than compelling NMC to affirmativelyprove the physical capability of Palisades to operate for a full 20 years beyond 2011 (aproposition which Petitioners submit is metallurgically and financially specious), the ASLBascends the ramparts to stave off the question. Rather than having the NRC staff explain theagency's culpability in the methodological legerdemain which contrives never to see firmembrittlement mileposts, the ASLB instead flogs Petitioners for belatedly introducing relevant detail the tragic flaw of which has nothing to do with its content and all to do with the timing ofits introduction.This result is unfair, unjust, disparages the public interest in safety, flies in the face ofeven the NRC's present draconian regulations, and should be reversed by the Commission.The embrittlement contention should be sent back to the ASLB for adjudication.Appeal of Dismissal of Contention No. 3 (The Palisades reactor has no place tostore its overflowing irradiated nuclear fuel inventory within NRC regulations)The licensing board ruled Contention 3 inadmissible because it is outside the scope ofa license renewal proceeding for not addressing an age-related .component, and because 10CFR § 2.206 supposedly affords Petitioners a remedy to complaint about two (2) concrete drycask storage facilities which unaccountably do not meet NRC engineering specifications.Order, pp. 48-49.Petitioners demonstrated using the expert calculations of Dr. Ross Landsman, formerlyof the NRC staff, that Palisades' dry cask storage arrangements violate NRC regulations.Neither the old pad nor the more recently-constructed concrete pad for holding irradiated fuelcasks at Palisades conform with longtime NRC requirements for earthquake stabilitystandards. The Affidavit of Dr. Landsman demonstrates that both of the existing pads werebuilt on compacted sand and other subsurface materials, but dozens of feet above bedrock,and well above the ground elevation of the nearby nuclear power plant. Dr. Landsman, whohad direct oversight role in the inspection of dry cask storage at Palisades when he worked atNRC Region III during the critical 1993-2005 period of dry cask storage installation andoperation, concluded from his personal knowledge of the subsoil conditions that the older pad(the one nearer the lake) violates NRC liquefaction regulations under 10 CFR § 72.212(b)

(2)(i)(B)1°, while the newer pad (further inland) violates NRC amplification regulations under thesame regulations. Neither the older nor newer cask storage pads at Palisades plant weredesigned in consideration of the factors contained in the cited regulation. See LandsmanAffidavit, ¶ 3-13.11Either violation, then, comprises an ongoing violation of 10 CFR § 72.212(b)(3).i2 Thismeans that the cask storage pads have violated NRC regulations since they were constructed,and in the absence of enforcement will continue to violate NRC regulations during thecontemplated 20-year license extension, and beyond.The NRC considers the older pad to be in compliance with regulations and allows NMCto store high-level radioactive waste there,13 while the NRC is supposedly still trying to resolvethrough ongoing inspection, investigation, and analysis the status of the newer pad. Duringthis period of supposed ongoing investigation, and despite evidence of apparent structuralinsufficiency, the NRC is prepared to let NMC store waste on the new pad in the face of these'0[The general licensee shall perform written evaluations, prior to use, that establish that]: Caskstorage pads and areas have been designed to adequately support the static and dynamic loads of thestored casks, considering potential amplification of earthquakes through soil-structure interaction, andsoil liquefaction potential or other soil instability due to vibratory ground motion."The Landsman Affidavit appears in hard copy at pp. App. 3-a through 3-d of the "Petitioners'Appendix of Evidence in Support of Contentions."S2[The general licensee shall]: Review the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) referenced in theCertificate of Compliance and the related NRC Safety Evaluation Report, prior to use of the generallicense, to determine whether or not the reactor site parameters, including analyses of earthquakeintensity and tornado missiles, are enveloped by the cask design bases considered in these reports. Theresults of this review must be documented in the evaluation made in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.1 3ncluding the unloadable, unmovable cask #4 at Palisades, loaded in June 1994 and shortlythereafter admitted by Consumers Power to be defective, having faulty welds. Now, eleven years on,Consumers has yet to unload the defective cask, because it technically cannot do so safely. And theconfiguration of the 18 to 19 dry casks currently stored on the older pad nearer Lake Michigan is suchthat the casks furthest back cannot be moved or unloaded until all other casks in front of them have beenmoved out of the way first. This situation increases the risks, making it very difficult to addressemergencies involving certain casks in the configuration in a timely manner.

documented, unresolved safety concerns. The simple reality is, there is high likelihood thatNRC inaction will make the noncompliant cask storage facilities of 2006 the older, less-compliant storage facilities of 2011-2031.In 1994, Dr. Landsman, then an NRC Region III safety engineer and dry cask storageinspector overseeing Palisades, warned then-Commission Chairman, Ivan Selin that:[I]f you use NRC-approved casks under Subpart K [of 10 CFR Part 72], theregulations are silent about the foundation material or the pad. Actually, it's theconsequences that might occur from an earthquake that I'm concerned about. Thecasks can either fall into Lake Michigan or be buried in the loose sand because ofliquefaction .... It is apparent to me that NMSS [sic] doesn't realize the catastrophicconsequences of their continued reliance on their current ideology. (Emphasis added)It is impossible to disconnect the dry cask storage pad problems from the proposedlicense extension. If both dry cask storage pads are ever finally deemed to violate NRC safetyregulations and are barred from use, then where, exactly, would NMC store its bulginginventory of irradiated nuclear fuel? And where would the dozens of dry casks already loadedand stored on those defective pads be moved? The pads constitute aging-related or aging-affected facilities, since they have been obsolescent literally from the date of construction.Petitioners' contention is integral to the 20- year license extension period, since high-levelradioactive waste is an inevitable byproduct of electricity production at the Palisades nuclearreactor and there will be several refuelings during the renewal period which will increase theusage of the concrete storage pads.Petitioners urge reversal and remand of this issue to the ASLB for adjudication. In thealternative, the Commission presently having been put on notice of a potential serious safetyissue rife with facial violations of NRC regulations, should assume jurisdiction and set thismatter separately for adjudication pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.202 and 2.206.

CONCLUSIONThe NRC license extension adjudicatory process is, at turns, remniscent of a 19th-century children's novel coupled with a post-industrial existential dystopia. Within Petitioners'intervention, it was possible to be on time, but too late, to be superficially complete, butconclusively unfulfilled, as though one were in a novel by Kafka. The obligation to have theentirety of one's case marshaled as if for trial on the first day of the case, poised for itscomprehensive and visceral deconstruction, brings to mind Alice in Wonderland: Through theLooking Glass. Just as the inevitability of embrittlement is somehow "obvious" but notremediable for want of just the right wording, linked to the proper documentation and servedlukewarm at precisely the optimum moment, it is equally "obvious" that the concept ofsubstantive justice is secondary to perfunctory, bloodless conformance to ironic standards.The notion that one can raise a contention of "very serious" import, yet be denied theopportunity to litigate it on its merits because the NRC Staff deigns ignore it on behalf of thegeneral public, is anathema to the notion of justice. Humpty Dumpty would be pleased.Petitioners respectfully pray the Commission reverse the ASLB decisions as to theirFirst and Third contentions, and remand the same for a hearing on their merits.Respectfully submitted for the Petitioners,Is/ Terry J. LodgeTerry Lodge, Esq.Ohio Sup. Ct. #0029271316 N. Michigan St., Ste. 520Toledo, OH 43624-1627(419) 255-7552Fax (419) 255-5852tjlodge50@yahoo.comCounsel for all Petitioners UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONBEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDIn the Matter ofNUCLEAR MANAGEMENTCOMPANY, LLC(Palisades Nuclear Plant)))))))Docket No.50-255-LRASLBP No. 05-842-03-LRCERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby certify that copies of the "PETITIONERS' NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM ASLBDENIAL OF HEARING, AND SUPPORTING BRIEF" in the above-captioned proceeding havebeen served on the following through deposit in the NRC's internal mail system, with copies byelectronic mail, as indicated by an asterisk, by U.S. mail, first class, as indicated by doubleasterisk, with copies by electronic mail, or by U.S. mail, first class, as indicated by tripleasterisk, were delivered all parties at the following mailling addresses; all on this 17th dayof March, 2006:Office of the Secretary*ATTN: Docketing and ServiceMail Stop: O-16C1U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001(E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov)Office of Commission AppellateAdjudicationMail Stop O-16C1U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001Dr. Anthony Baratta*Administrative JudgeAtomic Safety and Licensing Board PanelMail Stop: T-3F23U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555-0001(E-mail: ajb5@nrc.gov)Dr. Nicholas G. Trikouros*Administrative JudgeAtomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.Mail Stop: T-3F23U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555-0001(E-mail: n.trikouros@att.net)

Ann Marshall Young*Administrative JudgeAtomic Safety and Licensing Board PanelMail Stop: T-3F23U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555-0001(E-mail: amy@nrc.gov)Paul Gunter**DirectorNuclear Information & Resource Service1424 16th Street, NWSuite 404Washington, DC 20036(E-mail: pgunter@nirs.org)Chuck Jordan**ChairmanGreen Party of Van Buren County50521 34th AvenueBangor, MI 49013(E-mail: jordanc@btc-bci.com)Alice Hirt**Western Michigan Environmental Action Co.1415 Wealthy Street, SESuite 280Grand Rapids, MI 49506(E-mail: alicehirt@charter.net)Michael Keegan**Co-ChairDon't Waste Michigan2213 Riverside Drive, NEGrand Rapids, MI 49505(E-mail: mkeeganj@comcast.net)Maynard Kaufman***Michigan Land Trustees25485 County Road 681Bangor, MI 49013David R. Lewis, Esq.**Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP2300 N Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20037-1128(E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com)Jonathan Rogoff, Esq.**Vice President, Counsel, & SecretaryNuclear Management Company, LLC700 First StreetHudson, WI 54016(E-mail: jonathan.rogoff@nmcco.com)Susan Uttal, Esq.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionOffice of the General CounselMail Stop: O-15D21Washington, D.C. 20555(E-mail Address: slu@nrc.gov)Is! Terry J. LodqeTerry J. Lodge-14-