ML052510507

Nuclear Management Company'S Answer to the August 8, 2005 Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene

ML052510507
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	09/02/2005
From:	Gaukler P Nuclear Management Co, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Byrdsong A T
References
50-255-LR, ASLBP 05-842-03-LR, RAS 10432
Download: ML052510507 (39)

Text

WA 5 .10 C-3c September 2, 2005 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board September 2, 2005 (12:48pm)

OFFICE OF SECRETARY In the Matter of ) RULEMAKINGS AND

) ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Nuclear Management Company, et al. ) Docket No. 50-255-LR

) ASLBP No. 05-842-03-LR (Palisades Nuclear Plant) )

NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY'S ANSWER TO THE AUGUST 8,2005 REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION TO INTERVENE I. INTRODUCTION Nuclear Management Company ("NMC") hereby answers and opposes the "Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene" dated August 8, 2005 (the "Petition" or "Pet."), filed by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service ("NIRS"), West Michigan Environmental Action Council ("WMEAC"), Don't Waste Michigan ("DWM"), the Green Party of Van Buren County

("Green Party"), the Michigan Land Trustees ("Trustees") (collectively "Petitioners")' regarding NMC's application to renew the operating license for the Palisades Nuclear Plant. The Petition should be denied because Petitioners failed to identify any admissible contention.

11. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND NMC has submitted its application, dated March 22, 2005, requesting renewal of Operat-ing License DPR-20 for the Palisades Nuclear Plant (the "Application"). 2 On June 8,'2005, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or "Commission") published a Notice of Acceptance The Petition also names 31 individuals as "member-Intervenors." The declarations of these individuals authorize the organizations of which they are members to represent their interests, so NMC presumes that these individuals are identified to support their organizations' standing, and are not seeking to be made separate parties.

2 NMC isthe licensed operator of the Palisades Nuclear Plant and submitted this application on its own behalf and as agent for Consumers Energy Company, which owns the plant.

le=

emnp/c Stec /- 037 *6Cy- 59

for Docketing of the Application and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing ("Notice") regarding NMC's application. 70 Fed. Reg. 33,533 (June 8, 2005). The Notice permitted any person whose interest may be affected to file a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene within 60 days of the notice. Id. at 33,534.

The Notice directs that any petition shall set forth with particularity the interest of the pe-titioner and how that interest mnay be affected, and must also set forth the specific contentions sought to be litigated. Id. The Notice states:

Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the re-questor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of each contention-and a concise statement of the alleged facts or the expert opinion that supports the contention on which the re-questor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the re-questor/petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The re-questor/petitioner must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the action under consideration. The contention must be one that, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief.

A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to partici-pate as a party.

Id. (footnote omitted). On August 8, 2005, Petitioners submitted twelve proposed contentions for consideration in this proceeding.

III. STANDING NMC does not challenge any Petitioners' standing to seek to participate in this proceed-ing.

IV. PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS ARE INADMISSIBLE None of Petitioners' contentions are admissible. The failure to submit any admissible contention is grounds to deny the Petition.

2

A. Standards for Admissibility of Contentions

1. Contentions Must Be Within the Scope of the Proceeding and May Not Challenge NRC's Rules As a fundamental requirement, a contention is only admissible if it addresses matters within the scope of the proceeding and does not seek to attack the NRC's regulations governing the proceeding. This fundamental limitation is particularly important in a license renewal pro-ceeding, because the Commission has conducted extensive rulemaking to define and limit the technical and environmental showing that an applicant must make. As discussed later in this an-swer, a number of Petitioners' contentions exceed the scope of this proceeding.

10 C.F.R. Part 54 governs the health and safety matters that must be considered in a li-cense renewal proceeding. The Commission has specifically limited this safety review to the matters specified in 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.21 and 54.29(a),3 which focus on the management of aging of certain systems, structures and components, and the review of time-limited aging evaluations.

See Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI 17, 54 N.R.C. 3, 7-8 (2004); Duke Power Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-02-26, 56 N.R.C. 358, 363 (2002). Thus, the potential effect of aging is the issue that essentially defines the scope of license renewal proceedings. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut. Inc. (Mill-stone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-04-36, 60 N.R.C. 631, 637 (2004).

The rules in 10 C.F.R. Part 54 are intended to make license renewal a stable and predict-able process. 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,461, 22,463, 22,484. As the Commission has explained, "We sought to develop a process that would be both efficient, avoiding duplicative assessments where possible, and effective, allowing the NRC Staff to focus its resources on the most significant 3The Commission has stated that the scope of review under its rules determines the scope of admissible issues in a renewal hearing. 60 Fed. Reg. 22,461, 22,482 n.2 (May 8, 1995). "Adjudicatory hearings in individual license renewal proceedings will share the same scope of issues as our NRC Staff review, for our hearing process (like our Staff's review) necessarily examines only the questions our safety rules make pertinent." Turkey Point CLI-0 1-17, 54 N.R.C. at 10.

3

safety concerns at issue during the renewal term." Turkey Point, CLI-01-17, 54 N.R.C. at 7 (2001). "License renewal reviews are not intended to 'duplicate the Commission's ongoing re-views of operating reactors."' Id. (citation omitted). To this end, the Commission has confined 10 C.F.R. Part 54 to those issues uniquely determined to be relevant to the public health and safety during the period of extended operation, leaving all other issues to be addressed by the existing regulatory processes. 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,463. This scope is based on the principle, es-tablished in the rulemaking proceedings, that with the exception of the detrimental effects of ag-ing and a few other issues related to safety only during the period of extended operation, the ex-isting regulatory processes are adequate to ensure that the licensing bases of currently-operating plants provide and maintain an adequate level of safety. 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,464, 22,481-82.

Consequently, license renewal does not focus on operational issues, because these issues "are effectively addressed and maintained by ongoing agency oversight, review, and enforcement."

Millstone CLI-04-36, 60 N.R.C. at 638 (footnote omitted).

The NRC rules governing environmental matters - which are contained in 10 C.F.R.

§§ 51.53(c), 51.95(c), and Appendix B to Part 51 - are similarly intended to produce a more fo-cused and, therefore, more effective review. 61 Fed. Reg. 28,467 (June 5, 1996); Turkey Point.

CLI-01-17, 54 N.R.C. at 11. To accomplish this objective, the NRC prepared a comprehensive Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437) and made generic findings reflected in the GEIS and in Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 51. Those issues that could be resolved generically for all plants are designated as Category 1 issues and are not evaluated further in a license renewal proceeding (absent waiver or suspen-sion of the rule by the Commission based on new and significant information). 61 Fed. Reg. at 28,468, 28,470, 28,474; Turkey Point, CLI-01-17, 54 N.R.C. at 12. The remaining (i.e., Cate-gory 2) issues that must be addressed in an applicant's environmental report are defined specifi-cally in 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c). See generally. Turkey Point, CLI-01-17, 54 N.R.C. at 11-12.

4

10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii)-(iv) requires a petitioner to demonstrate that the issue raised by each of its contentions is within the scope of the proceeding and material to the findings that the NRC must make. Licensing boards "are delegates of the Commission" and, as such, they may "exercise only those powers which the Commission has given [them]." Public Service Co.

of Indiana (Marble Hill Nu6lear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-316, 3 N.R.C. 167, 170 (1976) (footnote omitted); accord Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant),

ALAB-534, 9 N.R.C. 287, 289-90 n.6 (1979). Accordingly, it is well established that a conten-tion is not cognizable unless it is material to a matter that falls within the scope of the proceeding for which the licensing board has been delegated jurisdiction. Id.; see also Commonwealth Edi-son Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-616, 12 N.R.C. 419, 426-27 (1980); Common-wealth Edison Co. (Carroll County Site), ALAB-601, 12 N.R.C. 18, 24 (1980).

It is also well established that a petitioner may not demand an adjudicatory hearing to at-tack generic NRC requirements or regulations. Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1,2 and 3), CLI-99-11, 49 N.R.C. 328, 334 (1999). "[A] licensing proceeding ... is plainly not the proper forum for an attack on applicable statutory requirements or for challenges to the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process." Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 A.E.C. 13, 20, affd in part on other grounds CLI-74-32, 8 A.E.C. 217 (1974) (footnote omitted). Thus, a contention which collater-ally attacks a Commission rule or regulation is not appropriate for litigation and must be rejected.

10 C.F.R. § 2.335; Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-218, 8 A.E.C. 79, 89 (1974). A contention which "advocate[s] stricter requirements than those imposed by the regulations" is "an impermissible collateral attack on the Commission's rules" and must be rejected. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), LBP-82-106, 16 N.R.C. 1649, 1656 (1982); see also Arizona Public Ser-vice Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1,2, and 3), LBP-91-19, 33 N.R.C. 397, 5

410, affd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds CLI-91-12, 34 N.R.C. 149 (1991). Like-wise, a contention that seeks to litigate a generic determination established by Commission rule-making is "barred as a matter of law." Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), LBP-93-1, 37 N.R.C. 5, 30 (1993).

These limitations are very germane to this proceeding in that the scope of admissible en-vironmental contentions is constrained by the NRC's GEIS, and the scope of technical conten-tions is constrained by 10 C.F.R. Part 54. See Turkey Point CLI-01-17, 54 N.R.C. at 5-13. See also Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI 23, 52 N.R.C. 327, 329 (2000); Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-98-14, 48 N.R.C. 39, 41 (1998), motion to vacate denied CLI-98-15, 48 N.R.C. 45, 56 (1998); Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), CLI-98-17, 48 N.R.C. 123, 125 (1998).

2. Contentions Must Be Specific and Supported By a Basis Dem-onstrating a Genuine, Material Dispute In addition to the requirement to address issues within the scope of the proceeding, a con-tention is admissible only if it provides:

• a "specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted;"

• a "brief explanation of the basis for the contention;"

• a "concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion" supporting the contention to-gether with references to "specific sources and documents on which the re-questor/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue;" and

"[s]ufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact," which showing must include "references to specific portions of the application (including the applicant's environmental report and safety re-port) that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the pe-titioner believes that the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the peti-tioner's belief."

10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i), (ii), (v) and (vi). The failure of a contention to comply with any one of these requirements is grounds for dismissing the contention. Palo Verde CLI-91-12, 34 6

N.R.C. at 155-56. As discussed later in this answer, none of Petitioners' contentions complies with these requirements.

These pleading standards governing the admissibility of contentions are the result of a 1989 amendment to 10 C.F.R. § 2.714, now § 2.309, which was intended "to raise the threshold for the admission of contentions." 54 Fed. Reg. 33,168 (Aug. 11, 1989); see also Oconee CLI-99-11, 49 N.R.C. at 334; Palo Verde, CLI-91-12, 34 N.R.C. at 155-56. The Commission has stated that the "contention rule is strict by design," having been "toughened ... in 1989 because in prior years 'licensing boards had admitted and litigated numerous contentions that appeared to be based on little more than speculation."' Dominion Nuclear Connecticut. Inc. (Millstone Nu-clear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-01-24, 54 N.R.C. 349, 358 (2001) (citation omitted).

The pleading standards are to be enforced rigorously. "If any one ... is not met, a contention must be rejected." Palo Verde, CLI-91-12, 34 N.R.C. at 155 (citation omitted). A licensing board is not to overlook a deficiency in a contention or assume the existence of missing informa-tion. Id.

The Commission has explained that this "strict contention rule" serves multiple purposes, which include putting other parties on notice of the specific grievances and assuring that full ad-judicatory hearings are triggered only by those able to proffer at least some minimal factual and legal foundation in support of their contentions. Oconee CLI-99-11, 49 N.R.C. at 334. By rais-ing the threshold for admission of contentions, the NRC intended to obviate lengthy hearing de-lays caused in the past by poorly defined or supported contentions. Id. As the Commission reit-erated in incorporating these same standards into the new Part 2 rules, "[t]he threshold standard is necessary to ensure that hearings cover only genuine and pertinent issues of concern and that issues are framed and supported concisely enough at the outset to ensure that the proceedings are effective and focused on real, concrete issues." 69 Fed. Reg. 2,182, 2,189-90 (Jan. 14, 2004).

7

Under these standards, a petitioner is obligated "to provide the [technical] analyses and expert opinion" or other information "showing why its bases support its contention." Georgia Institute of Technologv (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), LBP-95-6, 41 N.R.C. 281, 305, vacated in part and remanded on other grounds CLI-95-10, 42 N.R.C. 1, affid in part CLI-95-12, 42 N.R.C. 111 (1995). Where a petitioner has failed to do so, "the [Licens-ing] Board may not make factual inferences on [the] petitioner's behalf." Id., citing Palo Verde CLI-91-12, 34 N.R.C. 149. See also Private Fuel Storage. L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Stor-age Installation), LBP-98-7, 47 N.R.C. 142, 180 (1998) (a "bald assertion that a matter ought to be considered or that a factual dispute exists ... is not sufficient; rather "a petitioner must pro-vide documents or other factual information or expert opinion" to support a contention's "prof-fered bases") (citations omitted).

Further, admissible contentions "must explain, with specificity, particular safety or legal reasons requiring rejection of the contested [application]." Millstone, CLI-01-24, 54 N.R.C. at 359-60. In particular, this explanation must demonstrate that the contention is "material" to the NRC's findings and that a genuine dispute on a material issue of law or fact exists. 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1)(iv), (vi) (emphasis added). The Commission has defined a "material" issue as meaning one where "resolution of the dispute would make a difference in the outcome of the li-censing proceeding." 54 Fed. Reg. at 33,172 (emphasis added).

As observed by the Commission, this threshold requirement is consistent with judicial decisions, such as Conn. Bankers Ass'n v. Bd. of Governors 627 F.2d 245, 251 (D.C. Cir.

1980), which held that:

[A] protestant does not become entitled to an evidentiary hearing merely on re-quest, or on a bald or conclusory allegation that ... a dispute exists. The protes-tant must make a minimal showing that material facts are in dispute, thereby demonstrating that an "inquiry in depth" is appropriate.

Id. (footnote omitted); see also Calvert Cliffs, CLI-98-14, 48 N.R.C. at 41 ("It is the responsibil-ity of the Petitioner to provide the necessary information to satisfy the basis requirement for the 8

admission of its contentions... ."). A contention, therefore, is not to be admitted "where an in-tervenor has no facts to support its position and where the intervenor contemplates using discov-ery or cross-examination as a fishing expedition which might produce relevant supporting facts."

54 Fed. Reg. at 33,171.4 As the Commission has emphasized, the contention rule bars conten-tions where petitioners have what amounts only to generalized suspicions, hoping to substantiate them later, or simply a desire for more time and more information in order to identify a genuine material dispute for litigation. Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),

CLI-03-17, 58 N.R.C. 419, 424 (2003).

Therefore, under the Rules of Practice, a statement "that simply alleges thai some matter ought to be considered" does not provide a sufficient basis for a contention. Sacramento Mu-nicipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), LBP-93-23, 38 N.R.C. 200, 246 (1993), review declined, CLI-94-2, 39 N.R.C. 91 (1994). Similarly, a mere reference to documents does not provide an adequate basis for a contention. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.

(Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-98-25, 48 N.R.C. 325, 348 (1998).

Rather, NRC's pleading standards require a petitioner to read the pertinent portions of the license application, including the safety analysis report and the environmental report, state-the applicant's position and the petitioner's opposing view, and explain why it has a disagreement with the applicant. 54 Fed. Reg. at 33,170; Millstone CLI-01-24, 54 N.R.C. at 358. If the peti-tioner does not believe these materials address a relevant issue, the petitioner is "to explain why the application is deficient." 54 Fed. Reg. at 33,170; Palo Verde, CLI-91-12, 34 N.R.C. at 156.

A contention that does not directly controvert a position taken by the applicant in the license ap-4 See also Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-687, 16 N.R.C. 460, 468 (1982), vacated in part on other grounds CLI-83-19, 17 N.R.C. 1041 (1983) ("[A]n intervention peti-tioner has an ironclad obligation to examine the publicly available documentary material pertaining to the facility in question with sufficient care to enable [the petitioner] to uncover any information that could serve as the foundation for a specific contention. Stated otherwise, neither Section 189a of the Act nor Section 2.714 [now 2.309] of the Rules of Practice permits the filing of a vague, unparticularized conten-tion, followed by an endeavor to flesh it out through discovery against the applicant or staff.").

9

plication is subject to dismissal. See Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2), LBP-92-37, 36 N.R.C. 370, 384 (1992). Furthermore, an allegation that some aspect of a license application is "inadequate" or "unacceptable" does not give rise to a genuine dispute unless it is supported by facts and a reasoned statement of why the application is unac-ceptable in some material r6spect. Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), LBP-90-16, 31 N.R.C. 509, 521 & n.12 (1990).

B. Petitioners' Contentions Are Beyond the Scope-of this Proceeding, Vague, Unsupported, and Entirely Inadmissible As explained below, Petitioners' contentions do not meet any of the applicable standards.

1. Contention 1 (Re: RPV Embrittlement and PTS Concerns) Is Inadmissible Contention 1 is inadmissible because the Contention: (i) fails to challenge the Applica-tion and demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute on a material issue of fact or law; (ii) fails to provide a factual basis to support any dispute with the Application; and (iii) improperly challenges Commission regulations. Petitioners' contention asserts that the Application "is fun-damentally deficient because it does not adequately address technical and safety issues arising out of the embrittlement of the reactor pressure vessel and unresolved Pressure Thermal Shock

('PTS') concerns that might reasonably result in failure of the reactor pressure vessel ('RPV')."

Petition at 4. The Petitioners, however, provide neither explication nor factual basis for their claim that the Application is "deficient." Contrary to the Petitioners' bald claim, the Application addresses the technical and safety issues related to RPV embrittlement in accordance with applicable NRC regulations.

NRC regulations allow a license renewal applicant to address time limited aging analyses

("TLAAs"), such as neutron irradiation embrittlement of the RPV, by one of three approaches:

(i) demonstrating that existing analyses "remain valid for the period of extended operation;" (ii) revising existing analyses to demonstrate their validity "to the end of the period of extended op-10

eration;" or (iii) demonstrating that "[t]he effects of aging on the intended function(s) will be adequately managed for the period of extended operation." 10 C.F.R. § 54.21 (c)(1). For neutron irradiation embrittlement of the Palisades' RPV, the Application adopts the third option - dem-onstrating that the effects of neutron irradiation embrittlement will be adequately managed for the period of extended operation. See Application, Table 4.1-1 at 4-4, and Section 4.2; see also Section 3.1.2.2.3 and Appendix B at B-120 to B-126.

Specifically, Section 4.2 of the Application ("Reactor Vessel Neutron Embrittlement")

addresses the technical issues relating to neutron irradiation embrittlement of the RPV, i.e., the Upper Shelf Energy of materials in the reactor vessel beltline (Section 4.2.1), Pressurized Ther-mal Shock (Section 4.2.2) and Pressure-Temperature Limits and Low Temperature Overpressure Protection Setpoints (sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4). Application at 4-10 to 4-16. With respect to each of these issues, the Application adopts the third option set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(c)(1) to dis-position the issue - i.e., adequate management of the effects of neutron irradiation embrittlement for the period of extended operation. Id. at 4-12, 4-15, & 4-16. Additionally, the Application states that "the relevant activities" relating to each technical issue "will be managed under the Reactor Vessel Integrity Surveillance Program" for the Palisades plant. I. see also id. at 3-19.

- The "Reactor Vessel Integrity Surveillance Program is an existing program that manages the aging effect reduction of fracture toughness due to neutron embrittlement ... in accordance with 10 CFR Appendix H" and is designed to ensure that:

the reactor vessel materials (a) meet the fracture toughness re-quirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix G, and (b) have adequate margins against brittle fracture caused by Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) in accordance with 10 CFR 50.61.

Id. at B-120. "This program includes (a) capsule insertion, withdrawal and materials test-ing/evaluation, (including upper shelf energy and RTNDT determinations), (b) fluence and uncer-tainty calculations, (c) monitoring of Effective Full Power Years (EFPY), (d) development of 11

pressure temperature limitations, and (e) determination of low temperature overpressure protec-tion (LTOP) set points." Id. The "continued implementation of the Reactor Vessel Integrity Surveillance Program provides reasonable assurance that the aging effects" of neutron irradiation embrittlement of the RPV "will be managed such that [systems, structures and components]

within the scope of the program will continue to perform their intended functions consistent with the current licensing basis for the period of extended operation." Id. at B-126.

The Application also identifies the steps that NMC is, and will be, taking to ensure pro-tection against RPV embrittlement and PTS. For plants projected to exceed the PTS screening criteria established by 10 C.F.R. § 50.61, the NRC regulations require a licensee td implement "those flux reduction programs that are reasonably practicable" to avoid exceeding the criteria.

10 C.F.R. § 50.61 (b)(3). If such a flux reduction program will not prevent the reactor vessel from exceeding the PTS screening criteria at the end of its licensed life, 10 C.F.R. § 50.61 allows the licensee two options. The licensee may (i) submit a safety analysis pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 50.61(b)(4) to determine what, if any, modifications to equipment, systems and plant operation are necessary to prevent failure of the RPV from a postulated PTS event, or (ii) perform a ther-mal-annealing treatment of the reactor vessel pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 50.61 (b)(7) to recover frac-ture toughness of the RPV materials. Details of the approach selected are to be submitted to the NRC for approval at least three years before the RPV is projected to exceed the PTS screening criteria. Id.

Here, NMC is taking and will take the above actions prescribed by the regulations for ensuring protection against PTS. NMC is currently implementing reasonably practicable flux reduction programs at the Palisades plant. Application at 4-10. Furthermore, NMC will either undertake the safety analysis required by 10 C.F.R. § 50.61 (b)(4) to determine those plant modi-fications, if any, that are necessary to protect against PTS failure of the RPV, or else perform a thermal-annealing treatment of the reactor vessel pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 50.61 (b)(7). Applica-12

tion at 4-10; see also id. at 4-15. NMC will submit the necessary information to the NRC for its review and approval at least three years prior to exceeding the PTS screening as required by the regulation. Id. Similarly, NMC will submit an equivalent margins analysis in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Appendix G Section IV.A. I for NRC review and approval at least three years before any reactor vessel beltline material upper shelf energy decreases to less than 50 ft-lb. Id. at 4-12.

The Petitioners' contention blithely ignores the Application's explication of how the age related effects of RPV neutron irradiation embrittlement will be inanaged at the Palisades plant.

The contention simply asserts that the Application "does not adequately address the technical issues arising out of the embrittlement" of the RPV. Petition at 4. Nowhere does the contention take issue with any aspect of the program described in the Application for managing RPV em-brittlement and PTS or provide any reasoned statement why the Application is unacceptable in some material respect. The regulations are crystal clear in this respect. A properly pled conten-tion must

[p]rovide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the ap-plicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application (including the applicant's envi-ronmental report and safety report) that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute or, if the petitioner believes that the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the petitioner's belief.

10 C.F.R. § 2.309(0(1) (vi) (emphasis added). See also Turkey Point supra. LBP-90-16, 31 N.R.C. at 521 &n. 12.

5 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix G Paragraph IV.A. 1 requires that the reactor vessel beltline materials must have Charpy upper shelf energy of no less than 68 J (50 ft-lb) throughout the life of the reactor vessel, unless otherwise approved by the NRC. In the event that the 50 fl-lb requirement cannot be satisfied, plant operation may continue provided the licensee performs an analysis that demonstrates the existence of equivalent margins of safety for continued operation. Id. at IV. A.l. Licensees are to submit this analysis at least 3 years prior to the time that the upper-shelf energy of any of the reactor vessel is pre-dicted to drop below 50 fl-lb as measured by Charpy V-notch testing. Id.

13

Nor does the contention provide any factual basis to support a dispute with the Applica-tion. The only factual basis the contentions provides is an asserted statement of a Mr. Demetrios Basdekas that the longer that Palisades operates, the "more embrittled its RPV becomes, with decreasing safety margins in the event of the initiation of emergency operating procedures." Pe-tition at 4. However, the question is not whether the RPV becomes more embrittled with contin-ued operation, but whether the Application provides for adequate management of RPV embrit-tlement. The contention provides no factual basis to support any claim challenging the adequacy NMC's management of RPV embrittlement set forth in the Application.

Finally, the contention must also be rejected for implicitly challenging NRC regulations.

The NRC has established by regulation the steps by which a licensee is to manage the aging ef-fects of RPV neutron irradiation embrittlement and ensure protection of the public health and safety from PTS. The Application fully addresses and embraces the requirements of the NRC regulations. NMC has instituted the required Reactor Surveillance program to monitor the condition of the RPV and is taking and will take the steps prescribed by the regulation for protecting public health and safety. The contention's challenge of the adequacy of the steps provided for by the Application is a collateral attack on the NRC regulations fully embraced by the Application. Hence the contention must be rejected as well as on grounds that it impermissibly challenges NRC regulation. S, eg., Seabrook supra. LBP-82-106, 16 N.R.C. at 1656 (a contention which "advocate[s] stricter requirements than those imposed by the regulations" is "an impermissible collateral attack on the Commission's rules").

2. Contention 2 (Re: Alleged Excessive Emissions) Is Inadmissible Petitioners' Contention 2 is inadmissible because (i) the substance of the assertions (al-leged radioactive and chemical emissions from the plant) are outside the scope of this proceed-ing, and (ii) the assertions are vague and unsupported by any factual basis. The contention as-serts - with no factual basis whatsoever - that "radioactive and toxic chemical emissions from 14

the Palisades nuclear power plant into the waters of Lake Michigan contaminate the recently-installed drinking water supply intake for the City of South Haven." Petition at 4.

First, radioactive and chemical emissions from the plant are not issues related to the management of aging or time-limited aging analyses. Such emissions relate to the plant's "daily

'routine' operations," as acknowledged by the contention itself. Id. Hence, the contention repre-sents a challenge to the scope of 10 C.F.R. Part 54, which is limited to aging-related issues, and must be rejected as beyond the scope of this license renewal proceeding. See Florida Power &

Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 3 and 4), LBP-01-6, 53 N.R.C. 138, 163-64 (2001), aff'd CLI-01-17, 54 N.R.C. at 15-16 (holding that a contention alleging that the release of radionuclides and chemicals would endanger the public was unrelated to aging man-agement and therefore outside the scope of a license renewal proceeding).

Moreover, to the extent that this contention might be construed as raising an issue under National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), it similarly represents a challenge to the scope of the environmental review specified in 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c) and to the NRC's generic environ-mental findings in the GEIS and Appendix B to C.F.R. Part 51. See id. The Petitioners' allega-tions do not relate to any of the matters required to be addressed by 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c). In-stead, to the extent that these allegations may be construed as having any bearing on environ-mental impacts during the period of extended operation, they relate to generically resolved Cate-gory 1 issues. Radiation exposure to the public during the renewal term is a Category 1 issue determined to be small, based on a generic finding that radiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with normal operations. 10 C.F.R. Part 51, App. B, Table B-1. Simi-larly, the discharge of chlorine and other biocides, the discharge of metals, the discharge of sani-tary wastes and minor chemical spills, are also Category I issues determined to be small. 10 C.F.R. Part 51, App. B, Table B-1. See also GEIS, § 4.4.2.2 and Table 4.4.

15

Second, even if Contention 2 were within the scope of this proceeding - and it is not - it would be inadmissible because it is vague and unsupported by any factual basis. At the outset, the contention fails to identify what toxic and radioactive substances allegedly are released dur-ing the plant's "routine" operations, and in what respect any such emissions are allegedly "ex-cessive." Additionally, Petitioners admittedly failed to provide any "alleged facts" or "expert opinion that supports the contention." See 70 Fed. Reg. at 33,534. Rather, the contention ex-pressly rests upon a mere "hope to produce public records of toxics and radiation testing to evi-dence" this asserted "public health problem." Petition at 5 (emphasis added). Such is plainly inadequate to meet the Commission's standards for pleading an admissible contention. McGuire supra CLI-03-17, 58 N.R.C. at 424 (contention rule bars contentions where petitioners have what amounts only to generalized suspicions, hoping to substantiate them later).

3. Contention 3 (Re: Spent Fuel Storage) Is Inadmissible Petitioners' Contention 3, which alleges that Palisades has "no place to store its overflow-ing irradiated nuclear fuel inventory within NRC regulations" because the dry storage pads on which the spent fuel casks rest assertedly fail to comply with NRC earthquake requirements con-tained in 10 C.F.R. § 72.212(b)(2), Pet. at 5, is inadmissible because it raises issues outside the scope of a license renewal proceeding under 10 C.F.R. Part 54. It is also inadmissible because it is not supported by a basis demonstrating the existence of a genuine material dispute.

This contention is beyond the scope of 10 C.F.R. Part 54, because the dry cask storage pads are part of the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation ("ISFSI") facility which is dis-tinct from - and licensed separately from - the Palisades nuclear power plant. ISFSIs are li-censed and regulated under 10 C.F.R, Part 72 oftheNRC's regulations. See 10 C.F.R. §§ 72.2 and 72.3. 10 C.F.R. Part 72 provides for two types of ISFSI licenses, site specific licenses and 16

general licenses (such as that for the ISFSI at Palisades). 6 Both site specific and general licenses are issued for a maximum of 20 years, not 40 years as for nuclear power plants. See 10 C.F.R.

§§ 72.42(a) (license term for site-specific licenses); 10 C.F.R. § 72.212(a)(3) (license term for general licenses). Moreover, Part 72 contains its own license renewal provisions for ISFSIs separate and distinct from 10 C.F.R. Part 54 for nuclear power plants. See 10 C.F.R. §§ 72.42(b)

(license renewal for site-specific licenses); 10 C.F.R. § 72.212(a)(3) (extension of general li-censes). For these reasons, the Commission has observed in the context of the license renewal proceeding for the Oconee nuclear power plant, that "the Commission handles as a separate li-censing matter" the licensing of onsite ISFSIs under Part 72 of its regulations. Oconee CLI 11, 49 N.R.C. 328 at 344 n.4.7 Reflecting the fact that ISFSIs are handled as a separate licensing matter, the storage pads for the dry storage casks do not fall within the scope of 10 C.F.R. Part 54 as defined by 10 C.F.R.

§ 54.4. That provision limits the scope 10 C.F.R. Part 54 to (1) safety related systems, structures and components relied on to maintain the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe condition, and to prevent or mitigate the conse-quences of reactor accidents; (2) non-safety related systems, structures and components whose failure could prevent safety-related systems from accomplishing their function, and (3) other 6 10 C.F.R. § 72.40 provides for site specific licenses for ISFSIs located either at or away from reactor sites subjecttotheapplicableprocedural and substantiverequirements of Part 72. 10 C.F.R. § 72.210 provides for general licenses for ISFSIs located at nuclear power plants using approved NRC spent fuel casks subject to the conditions set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 72.212. The ISFSI at the Palisades plant has a general license under 10 C.F.R. § 72.210. See Kellev v. Selin 42 F.3d 1501 (6th Cir.), cert. denied 515 U.S. 1159 (1995).

7 Thus, for example, the NRC has renewed the licenses for the on-site ISFSIs at the Surry and Robinson nuclear power plants under 10 C.F.R. Part 72 separately from renewal of the licenses for the Surry and Robinson nuclear power plants. See Notice of Issuance of Renewed Materials License SNM-2501: Vir-ainia Elec. & Power Co.. Surrv Indenendent Spent Fuel Storage Installation 70 Fed. Reg. 10,695 (Mar. 4, 2005); Notice of Issuance of Renewed Materials License SNM-2502: Progress Energv Carolinas. Inc.:

H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant. Unit 2 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation 70 Fed. Reg.

17,721 (Apr. 7,2005).

17

nuclear power plant systems, structures and components relied on to meet certain Commission rules, none of which pertain to an ISFSI. The storage pads do not fall within any of these catego-ries.

Thus, as noted in the Application, the dry fuel storage systems at Palisades "are managed under 10 CFR 72 and do not fall under the requirements of 10 CFR 54." Appl. at 2-43 (Table 2.2-1). The regulations do not require licensees to explore the aging of components for a facility not covered by this license renewal proceeding, as sought by the Petitioners in Contention 3.

Further, Contention 3 seeks to raise the alleged inadequacy of the current ISFSI design.

Even if the ISFSI were within the scope of this proceeding - it is not - Contention 3 would be inadmissible because it does not concern any aging related issue. See Turkey Point CLI-01-17, 54 N.R.C. at 23 (holding that claims concerning alleged inadequate construction practices and lack of defense in depth for a spent fuel pool go to the adequacy of the plant's current licensing of basis, which is not within the scope of the license renewal review).

Moreover, this contention is also barred by the NRC's Waste Confidence Rule at 10 C.F.R. § 51.23. That rule states in relevant part as follows:

The Commission has made a generic determination that, if necessary, spent fuel generated at any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environ-mental impacts for at least 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage in-stallations.

10 C.F.R. § 51.23(a) (emphasis added). The Petitioners' assertion in Contention 3 that the "Pali-sades reactor has no place to store its overflowing irradiated fuel inventory . . . " runs afoul of 10 C.F.R. § 51.23.

In addition, to the extent Contention 3 seeks to raise a NEPA issue, it is a challenge both to the NRC's Waste Confidence Rule and to the generic findings in the GEIS and Appendix B to 18

Part 51. As the Commission ruled in dismissing a similar contention in the Oconee license re-newal proceeding:

Category 1 issues include the radiological impacts of spent fuel and high-level waste disposal, low-level waste storage and disposal, mixed waste storage and disposal, and on-site spent fuel. See Table B-1, Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B.

The Commission's generic determinations governing onsite waste storage preL dude the Petitioners from attempting to introduce such waste issues into this ad-iudication.

Oconee supra CLI-99-11, 49 N.R.C. at 343 (emphasis added).

Finally, Contention 3 is not supported by a basis demonstrating a genuine issue. As re-ported in NRC Information Notice 95-28, Emplacement of Support Pads for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Installations at Reactor Sites at p. 3 (June 5, 1995):

Since the Palisades plant is in close proximity to Lake Michigan, questions were raised by the NRC staff and interested members of the public regarding the possi-ble effects of earthquakes on soil liquefaction, wind and wave effects on ground erosion, and the effects of these phenomena on the cask support pad and the spent fuel storage casks.

As a result of these questions, the licensee performed a detailed analysis of the ef-fects of soil erosion, including the effects of high lake waves, wind and rain on the cask support pad. In addition, the licensee analyzed the effect of a safe shut-down earthquake (SSE) on soil foundation stability, based on both existing soil data and new data acquired from additional soil borings taken in response to the questions regarding the stability of the pad site.

• *

• The results of the licensee analysis showed that the pad could support the casks safely. The results are documented in a letter to the NRC dated July 27, 1994.

NRC independently reviewed the licensee analyses of soil liquefaction effects on pad integrity, the pad design and construction, and the stability of slopes sur-rounding the pad to the determine both the long-term effects of erosion under normal conditions and the effects of a postulated earthquake. This independent analysis concludes that the cask pad would adequately support the cask as re-quired by 10 CFR 72.212. The NRC independent assessment of the licensee analysis is documented in the "Independent NRC Staff Final Safety Assessment of the Dry Storage Facility at Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Site," dated Septem-ber20, 1994.

19

Petitioners fail to mention this resolution of the seismic issues related to the old pad - resolved for more than a decade - and provide no basis to dispute its adequacy.

The Petitioners similarly provide no basis to challenge the seismic adequacy of the new pad. Petitioners refer to -asserted bald expert opinion, but provide no sworn declaration, expert credentials, or any reasoned basis for the asserted expert opinion. Such pleading provides no ba-sis for an admissible contention. Private Fuel Storage. L.L.C., supra, LBP-98-7, 47 NRC at 181

("an expert opinion that merely states a conclusion . . . without providing a reasoned basis or ex-planation for that conclusion is inadequate because it deprives the Board of the ability to make the necessary, reflective assessment of the opinion as it is alleged to provide a basis for the con-tention"). Moreover, the seismic analysis of the new pads is a current design issue that is being addressed by the NRC Staff as an inspection item and therefore is being addressed by the normal regulatory process.

In short, Contention 3 is simply beyond the scope of this license renewal proceeding and provides no basis demonstrating the existence of a genuine material dipute. Hence, it must be rejected.

4. Contention 4 (Re: Dry Storage Cask #4) Is Inadmissible Contention 4, which alleges that dry storage cask #4 has defective welds and is unload-able (Pet. at 5), is inadmissible because it (i) raises issues outside the scope of the proceeding, and (ii) is vague and lacks any basis demonstrating the existence of a genuine dispute on a mate-rial issue.

Like Contention 3, Contention 4 must be rejected as outside the scope of this proceeding because it solely concerns issues related to the dry cask storage ISFSI, and not the Palisades nu-clear power plant. As discussed above, the Commission handles as a separate matter under Part 72 the renewal of licenses for onsite ISFSIs. Accordingly, issues concerning onsite ISFSIs do not fall within the scope of license renewal proceedings under Part 54. Moreover, also like Con-20

tention 3 above, Contention 4 concerns the current adequacy of the ISFSI, not aging related is-sues, and is thus beyond the scope of this license renewal proceeding for that reason as well.

Turkey Point, CLI-01-17, 54 N.R.C. at 23 (alleged construction deficiencies go to the adequacy of the plant's current licensing of basis, which is not within the scope of the license renewal re-view). Finally, the contention is also barred by the Waste Confidence Rule and the generic find-ings in the GEIS and Appendix B to Part 51 discussed above.

Contention 4 is also inadmissible because it is vague and lacks any basis demonstrating the existence of a genuine dispute on a material issue. Although the contention's caption refers to the "unloadable, unmovable dry storage cask #4" (Pet. at 5), Petitioners fail to provide any basis for the assertion that this cask is unloadable or unmovable. Similarly, they provide no basis to indicate that there is any defect in the cask creating a safety issue. As reflected in a prior Di-rector's Decision, the licensee discovered radiographic indication of possible defects in a weld in this cask in 1994, but evaluated these indications and determined that the cask continued to meet its design basis and was capable of safely storing spent fuel for the duration of the certificate.

Consumers Power Co. (Palisades Nuclear Plant), DD-97-5 45 N.R.C. 135, 137 (1997). Petition-ers fail to mention this resolution concerning the adequacy of cask #4 and provide no basis to dispute the sufficiency of this resolution. 8 Petitioners identify no expert opinion supporting its contention, and provide no references to specific documents, sources or other information to support a claim that cask #4 in any way presents a safety problem. Thus, Petitioners fail to dem-onstrate that there is any genuine dispute concerning a material issue.

8The Director's Decision does reflect the commitment to unload this cask after a transportable storage system is procured. DD-97-45 at 141. While Petitioners may be displeased that these actions have yet to be completed, Petitioners fail to show that, contrary to the Director's determination, the current status of cask #4 presents an issue of any safety significance.

21

5. Contention 5 (Re: Permanent Repository),.Is Inadmissible Petitioners' Contention 5, which alleges that there is no permanent repository for spent fuel generated by Palisades after 2010 (Pet. at 6), is inadmissible because it (i) impermissibly challenges Commission regulations and (ii) is outside the scope of this proceeding.

Contention 5 must be rejected as a direct challenge to the NRC's waste confidence rule at 10 C.F.R. § 51.23. This Commission regulation states that:

The Commission has made a generic determination that, if necessary, spent fuel generated at any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environ-mental impacts for at least 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage in-stallations. Further, the Commission believes that there is reasonable assurance that at least one mined geologic repository will be available within the first quar-ter of the twenty-first century and sufficient repository capacity will be available within 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation of any reactor to dispose of the commercial high-level waste and spent fuel originating in such reactor and generated up to that time.

10 C.F.R. § 51.23(a) (emphasis added). Moreover, the Commission has specifically considered and rejected claims that license renewal applications need to address the potential availability and viability of a permanent repository due to alleged uncertainties in the schedule and capacity of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository or of alternative repositories. Oconee supra. CLI-99-11, 49 N.R.C. at 344-45 ("At bottom, the Petitioners voice concerns only about uncertainties in high-level waste disposal, uncertainties that the Commission has always acknowledged, but has decided will be overcome in the next several decades."); "Environmental Review for Re-newal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses," 61 Fed. Reg. 66,537, 66,538 (1996) ("The Commission believes that conditioning individual license renewal decisions on resolution of ra-dioactive waste disposal issues is not warranted because the Commission has already made a ge-neric determination, codified in 10 CFR 51.23, that spent fuel generated at a reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impact for at least 30 years beyond a license 22

renewal term and that there will be a repository available with the first quarter of the twenty-first century.") (emphasis added).

Moreover, the Commission Waste Confidence Decision has explicitly considered the fact that the additional spent fuel generated by reactors with renewed licenses might exceed the ca-pacity of a first repository.

In sum, although some uncertainty in total spent fuel projections does arise from such developments as utilities' planning renewal of OLs for an additional 20 to 30 years, the Commission believes that this Waste Confidence review need not at this time consider the institutional uncertainties arising from having to restart a second repository program. Even if work on the second repository program is not begun until 2010 as contemplated under current law, there is sufficient assurance that a second repository will be available in a timeframe that would not constrain the removal of spent fuel from any reactor within 30 years of its licensed life for operation.

55 Fed. Reg. 38,474, 38,504 (Sept. 18, 1990) (emphasis added).

Further, Contention 5 is a direct challenge to the generic findings in the GEIS and Ap-pendix B to Part 51 which exclude from license renewal proceedings consideration of impacts from spent fuel and high-level waste disposal. As the Commission ruled in dismissing a similar contention in the Oconee license renewal proceeding:

Category 1 issues include the radiological impacts of spent fuel and high-level waste disposal, low-level waste storage and disposal, mixed waste storage and disposal, and onsite spent fuel. See Table B-1, Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B.

The Commission's generic determinations governing onsite waste storage pre-clude the petitioners from attempting to introduce such waste issues into this ad-judication.

Oconee supra. CLI-99-11, 49 N.R.C. at 343.

Thus, Contention 5 is inadmissible because it impermissibly challenges Commission regulation and is beyond the scope of this license renewal proceeding.

6. Contention 6 (Re: Dry Cask Storage Pads) Is Inadmissible Contention 6, which alleges sand erosion could compromise the ISFSI storage pads (Pet.

at 6), is inadmissible because it is outside the scope of this proceeding. It is also inadmissible 23

because it is unsupported by a basis demonstrating the existence of any genuine, material issue regarding license renewal.

As with Contentions 3 and 4, Contention 6 must be rejected as outside the scope of this proceeding because it solely concerns issues related to the dry cask storage ISFSI, and not the Palisades nuclear power plant. As discussed above, the Commission handles as a separate matter under Part 72 the renewal of licenses for onsite ISFSIs. Accordingly, issues concerning onsite ISFSIs do not fall within the scope of license renewal proceedings under Part 54. Moreover, like Contentions 3 and 4 above, Contention 6 concerns the current adequacy of the ISFSI design and its foundation, not aging related issues. Thus, like Contentions 3 and 4, Contention 6 is likewise beyond the scope of this license renewal proceeding for that reason as well. Finally, the conten-tion is also barred by the Waste Confidence Rule and the generic findings in the GEIS and Ap-pendix B to Part 51 discussed above in connection with Contentions 3 and 4.

Further, Contention 6 is not supported by a basis demonstrating a genuine dispute on a material issue. Petitioners do not provide any expert opinion, or any references to document or other sources, indicating that the cask pads are improperly designed or threatened by erosion or that the affirmative determination made in NRC Information Notice 95-28 that erosion poses no threat to the ISFSI is in anyway erroneous. Nor do Petitioners provide any expert opinion or ref-erences to specific documents or sources to support their position that a "global climate crisis and climate de-stabilization" exacerbates this risk. In sum, Petitioners provided no information showing that there is a genuine dispute concerning a material issue.

7. Contention 7 (Re: Non-Radiological Toxins) Is Inadmissible Contention 7, which alleges that pollutants are not adequately controlled under require-ments of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") 9 (Pet. at 7), is inad-9NPDES permits are issued under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act ("FWPCA"),

33 U.S.C. § 1342. Under section 402(b) of the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b), the EPA may authorize a State to implement the NPDES permitting program for discharges into navigable waters within the State's Footnote continued on next page 24

missible because it: (i) raises an issue that is beyond the scope of both this proceeding and the NRC's jurisdiction; and (ii) lacks any basis and fails to establish a genuine dispute concerning a material issue.

Contention 7 is outside of the scope of this proceeding because toxic pollutants allegedly released by the plant relate to plant operations and do not concern issues related to the manage-ment of aging or time-limited aging analyses. Thus, the contention represents a challenge to the scope of 10 C.F.R. Part 54, which is limited to these aging-related issues. See Turkey Point LBP-01-6, 53 N.R.C. at 163-164 (holding that a contention alleging that the release of radionu-clides and chemicals would endanger the public was unrelated to aging management and there-fore outside the scope of a license renewal proceeding).

To the extent that this contention might be construed as raising a NEPA issue, it similarly represents a challenge to the scope of the environmental review specified in 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c) and to the NRC's generic environmental findings in the GElS and Appendix B to C.F.R. Part 51.

The Petitioners' allegations do not relate to any of the issues required to be addressed by 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c). Instead, to the extent that these allegations may be construed as having any bearing on environmental impacts during the period of extended operation, they relate to Cate-gory 1 issues resolved generically in this proceeding. The discharge of chlorine and other bio-cides, the discharge of metals, the discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills, are also Category 1 issues determined to be small. 10 C.F.R. Part 51, App. B, Table B-1: see also GEIS § 4.4.2.2 and Table 4.4. Challenges to these generic findings are barred, absent a waiver of the NRC's rules.

Footnote continued from previous page jurisdiction. Michigan is an authorized state. See U.S. EPA NPDES State Program Status at http://cfpub.epa.eov/npdes/statestats.cfm.

25

Further, Section 511 of the FWPCA bars this contention. Section 511 of the FWPCA provides that nothing in NEPA shall "authorize any [Federal] agency ... to review any effluent limitation or other requirement established pursuant to [the FWPCA] ... or to impose, as a con-dition precedent to the issuance of any license or permit, any effluent limitation other than any such limitation established" by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") or authorized states under the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. § 1371 (c)(2). The NPDES Permit for Palisades establishes specific limits for the use of Betz Clam-Trol, and the sufficiency of these limits is not subject to NRC review. See 10 C.F.R. § 51.10(c) ("responsibility for Federal Regulation of nonradiologi-cal pollutant discharges into receiving waters rests by statute" with the EPA) (footAote omitted);'

see also 49 Fed. Reg. 9,352, 9,359 n.12, 9,380 (Mar. 12, 1984) ("EPA, and those states to whom permitting authority has been delegated, have exclusive responsibility for regulating nonra-diological pollutant discharges through the NPDES permit system.").

Contention 7 is also inadmissible because it lacks any basis and fails to establish a genu-ine dispute on a material issue. Petitioners cite only an Environmental Protection Agency Quar-terly Non-Compliance Report ("QNCR") indicating a noncompliance at the Palisades plant with Betz Clam-Trol in November 2000. This reference provides no basis for Petitioners' allegation of "apparent multiple misuses of Betz Clam-Trol" (Pet. at 7) nor any indication of a current or significant problem.' 0 In sum, Petitioners provide no information showing that there is a genuine dispute concerning a material issue, and the contention must be rejected.

8. Contention 8 (Re: Second-use of Fuel Assemblies) Is Inadmissible Contention 8, which alleges that "second-use of irradiated fuel assemblies" weakens fuel cladding (Pet. at 7), is inadmissible because it is beyond the scope of a license renewal proceed-

'0 In fact, NMC is not aware of any nonconformance at Palisades with the use of Betz Clam-Trol, and believes that the QNCR is a data entry error. The Palisades November 2000 Daily Discharge Monitoring Report form indicates that neither CT-2 or CT- Betz Clam-Trol was used during the month in which this nonconformance is stated to have occurred.

26

ing. It is also inadmissible because it is unsupported by any factual basis or expert opinion dem-onstrating the existence of a genuine, material issue.

Contention 8 is outside the scope of this proceeding for several reasons. First, it does not relate to any long-lived component required to be addressed by the license renewal rule. 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(1)(ii) requiires evaluation of components that are not subject to replacement based on a qualified life or specified period of time. As indicated in the NRC's Standard Review Plan, a qualified life does not necessarily have to be based on calendar time but may be based on run time or cycles. NUREG-1800 at 2.1-10. Therefore, because fuel assemblies are replaced at regular intervals based on the operating cycle of the plant, they are not subject to aging manage-ment review under the license renewal rule. Id. at 2.3-6.

Contention 8 is also outside the scope of the proceeding because it concerns current op-erational practices, not aging related issues. In essence, Petitioners seek to raise the issue whether fuel assemblies are adequately designed to maintain their integrity when irradiated a second time. This design issue relates to the adequacy of the plant's current licensing basis, and not to any matter uniquely relevant to the period of extended operations (see 60 Fed. Reg. at 22,463).

Contention 8 is also inadmissible because it is wholly devoid of any adequate factual ba-sis. Petitioners do not identify any portion of the Application alleged to be deficient. They pro-vide no information demonstrating that the Application has omitted any component required to be addressed. They do not identify any deficiency in the aging management programs described in the Application. Thus, they do not demonstrate that there is any genuine, material dispute concerning the adequacy of the Application.

Further, Petitioners provide no expert opinion, reference, or any other sources to support any safety concerns arising from "second-use of irradiated fuel assemblies." Nor do Petitioners address the fundamental conflict between their assertion that "second-use" fuel assemblies pre-27

sent an "elevated risk" and the routine industry practice of replacing only approximately one third of the fuel assemblies in a reactor core each refueling. See Carolina Power & Light Co.,

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), LBP-00-12, 51 N.R.C. 247, 253 n.4 (2000). In light of this well established and accepted industry practice, Petitioners' bald and unsupported assertions in Contention 8 must be rejected as lacking the adequate factual basis required for a litigable contention under the NRC's rules of practice. S, e.. Private Fuel Storage LBP-98-7, 47 NRC at 180 ("bald assertion that a matter ought to be considered~or that a factual dispute exists

... is not sufficient"; rather "a petitioner must provide documents or other factual information or expert opinion" to support the bases proffered for a contention).

9. Contention 8a'1 (Re: Environmental Justice) Is Inadmissible Petitioners' Contention 8a, which alleges various so-called environmental justice claims (Pet. at 7-8), is inadmissible because the claims raised by the contention are: (i) outside the scope of the proceeding; (ii) fail to challenge the Application and to demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute on a material issue of fact or law; and (iii) fail to provide an adequate factual basis to support any dispute with the Application.

Petitioners' raise a host of unrelated issues under the rubric of environmental justice, which we address in seriatim below. At bottom, none of Petitioners' claims address the the "es-sence of an environmental justice claim" arising under NEPA in a NRC licensing proceeding, -

i.e., "disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects" on minority and low-income populations that may be different from the impacts on the general population.

Private Fuel Storage. L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-02-20, 56 N.R.C. 147, 153 (2002), quoting in part E.O 12898, 3 C.F.R. 859 (emphasis partially added and partially in original); see also "Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Mat-ters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions", 69 Fed. Reg. 52,040, 52,042, 52,045 (Aug. 24,

" The Petition contains two proposed contentions numbered '8.' Pet. at 7.

28

2004) ("NRC EJ Policy Statement"). Contrary to this clear NRC precedent, discussed further below, Petitioners attempt to raise claims not recognizable under NEPA and supply only vague allegations of inadequacies in the Application, without identifying any single specific deficiency relating to disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts on a specific minority population.

At the outset, the contention's claims concerning the Palisades workplace, referring both to alleged discrimination ("little or no prospects for promotion") and a hostile workplace envi-ronment ("death threats" etc.), do not concern disparate environmental impacts recognizable un-der NEPA. Hence, they do not give rise to raise any litigable contention in an NRt licensing proceeding. Commission precedent is clear: Environmental justice is an offspring of NEPA and environmental justice issues are relevant only to actions under NEPA and 'not under any other statutory duty." System Energv Resources. Inc. (Early Site Permit for Grand Gulf ESP Site),

CLI-05-4, 61 N.R.C. 10, 13 (2005). Furthermore, as the Commission has repeatedly held, "envi-ronmental justice does not transform NEPA into a general 'civil rights law."' Private Fuel Stor-age CLI-02-20, 56 N.R.C. at 155, citing Louisiana Energy Services. L.P. (Clairbome Enrich-ment Center), CLI-98-3, 47 N.R.C. 77, 106 (1998). Thus, as stated in the Commission's Final Policy Statement on Environmental Justice:

Racial motivation and fairness or equity issues are not cognizable under NEPA, and ... their consideration would be contrary to NEPA .... The focus of any "EJ" review should be on identifying and weighing disproportionately significant and adverse environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations that may be different from the impacts on the general population. It is not a broad-ranging or even limited review of racial or economic discrimination.

NRC EJ Policy Statement, 69 Fed. Reg. at 52,047 (emphasis added); see also id. at 52,045

("NEPA is an environmental statute and a broad-ranging inquiry into allegations of racial dis-crimination goes beyond the scope of NEPA's mandate to adequately identify and weigh signifi-cant adverse environmental impacts."). Accordingly, the claims of discrimination and a hostile 29

work environment raised in Contention 8a are not admissible and litigable here under the aus-pices of NEPA.12 The Petitioners next allege that the Application "inadequately addressed" the "traditional land uses, spiritual, cultural, and religious practices and treaty rights" of people in the plant vicinity, Pet. at 8. This allegation is improperly vague and does not identify a deficiency in any specific section of the Application. Contention pleading rules require that contentions "must in-clude references to specific portions of... the applicant's environmental report ... . that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute." 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) (vi); see also Grand Gulf ESP CLI-05-4, 61 NRC at 13 ("[a]t NRC licensing hearings, petitioners may raise contentions seeking correction of significant inaccuracies and omissions in the [environ-mental report]"). Here, Petitioners do not identify an environmental impact that is inaccurately assessed in or omitted from the Environmental Report ("ER") (filed as Appendix E to the Appli-cation). To the contrary, cultural issues are addressed in a number of sections of the ER. See, M.. ER §§ 2.5.3 "Minority Populations;" 2.6 "Area Economic Base;" 2.8 "Social Services and Public Facilities;" 2.9 "Land Use Planning;" 2.10 "Historic and Archaeological Resources"; 4.6 "Housing Impacts;" 4.9 "Offsite Land Use;" 4.11 "Historic and Archaeological Resources."

Nowhere does the contention point to any alleged significant inaccuracy or omission with respect to the ER's analysis of these topics. Nor do Petitioners provide any basis to show that any spe-cific minority population will be subject to a disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts.

Indeed, rather than focus on the ER, this part of Contention 8a focuses on alleged inade-quacies in the NRC's invitation to Indian Tribes to participate in the license extension process.

12 The fact that such claims are not recognizable in NRC licensing proceedings does not mean that such claims will not be heard, but only that the NRC licensing proceeding is not the proper forum for their liti-gation. Here, the claims are being resolved through the judicial process, which is an appropriate avenue for pursuing such claims.

30

The claims in this respect are not only irrelevant because they do not identify any deficiency in the ER, but are also factually wrong. Petitioners erroneously claim that "only three tribes were contacted by the NRC and invited to participate." In fact, 11 tribes were invited to participate, from as far as way as Oklahoma.13 The next claim raised in Contention 8a - that the ER inadequately addresses the socio-economic impacts of a catastrophic accident release - is equally deficient. The NRC has deter-mined - based on the GEIS - that both the environmental and the "societal and economic im-pacts from severe accidents are small for all plants." 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 (emphasis added).' 4 Therefore, the impacts from severe accidents is a Category I is-sue that cannot, absent a waiver, be raised in this proceeding.

Furthermore, Petitioners fail to provide any factual basis to support any genuine dispute.

concerning the alleged socio-economic impacts of catastrophic accidents. The Petitioners pro-vide no basis to show that any specific minority population will be subject to a disproportion-ately high and adverse environmental impacts in any aspect related to plant accidents. Indeed, such disproportionate impacts would, as a practical matter be impossible given the Category 1 conclusion based on the GEIS that the socio-economic impacts for severe accidents "are small for all plants." In short, Petitioners' unsupported allegations lack any factual basis and must be rejected. S, eg., Private Fuel Storage LBP-98-7, 47 NRC at 180 ("bald assertion that a matter ought to be considered or that a factual dispute exists ... is not sufficient"; rather "a petitioner must provide documents or other factual information or expert opinion" to support the bases proffered for a contention).

13 See NRC ADAMS documents, available at http://www.nrc.zov/reading-rm/adams/login.html Acces-sion nos. ML051950574, ML051950602, ML051950614, ML051950435, ML051950495, ML051960002, ML051960011, ML051960027, ML051960103, ML051960173, & ML051960069.

14 The NRC has similarly determined that the "environmental impacts of design basis accidents are of small significance for all plants." Id.

31

The last claim raised in Contention 8a - that there is an alleged "unacceptable lack of Spanish language emergency evacuation instructions and notifications" (Pet. at 8) - is both be-yond the scope of this proceeding and improperly vague and unsupported. The claim concerns emergency planning, which as discussed in connection with Contention 9 below, is clearly be-yond the scope of license renewal proceedings. Furthermore, the Federal Emergency Manage-ment Agency ("FEMA") (now part of the Department of Homeland Security) has established criteria for publishing a foreign language version of emergency planning information made available to the public, which is five percent (5%) of the voting age residents within the 10 mile emergency planning zone. See FEMA Guidance Memorandum GM 20: "Foreign'Language Translation of Education Brochures and Safety Messages," Joint FEMA/NRC Issuance, Oct. 19, 1983; Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-85-12, 21 N.R.C. 644, 766 (1985) (GM 20 provides that "public information should be translated into a foreign language if the number of foreign population exceeds 5% of the total population"); see also 57 Fed. Reg. 4,880 (Feb. 10, 1992) and 63 Fed. Reg. 48,222, 48,232 (Sept. 9, 1998). The Petitioners have provided no basis to show that this criterion is either inappropriate or has been exceeded here, or that the measures of the Palisades' emergency plan are in any respect inade-quate for the foreign speaking population.' 5 Thus, the Contention provides no information de'm-onstrating either a factual basis or a genuine dispute on any material issue with respect to this claim. S, ea. Private Fuel Storage LBP-98-7, 47 NRC at 180.

In sum, Contention 8a is inadmissible and must be dismissed because (i) it seeks to raise issues beyond the scope of this proceeding, (ii) it fails to challenge the Application and to dem-onstrate, with supporting bases, the existence of a genuine dispute on a material issue of fact or 15 Indeed, NMC (and previously Consumers Power) has raised this issue with the Michigan State Police Emergency Management Division (after the 1990 and 2000 censuses) and was advised that a Spanish lan-guage version of the Public Information Booklet on emergency planning need not be prepared because the permanent population of Spanish speaking individuals within the 10 mile emergency planning zone is less than four percent of the total population.

32

law, and (iii) fails to provide an adequate factual basis to support any dispute with the Applica-tion.

10. Contention 9 (Re: Emergency Preparedness) Is Inadmissible Contention 9, which alleges that emergency responders are inadequately trained and equipped, Pet. at 8, is inadmissible because it is outside the scope of this proceeding and because it is vague and unsupported by any factual basis or expert testimony. This contention is beyond the scope of the proceeding because it does not relate to the management of aging or to time-limited aging analyses, and because the Commission has specifically determined that emergency preparedness need not be reassessed as part of license renewal. Thus, the contention represents a challenge to the scope of 10 C.F.R. Part 54, which is limited to aging-related issues, and must be rejected.

As stated by the Commission when it first promulgated 10 C.F.R. Part 54, "the Commis-sion concludes that the adequacy of existing emergency preparedness plans need not be consid-ered anew as part of issuing a renewed operating license." 56 Fed. Reg. 64,943, 64,967 (1991).

This exclusion of emergency preparedness from license renewal proceedings has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Commission:

Through mandated periodic reviews and emergency drills, 'the Commission en-sures that existing plans are adequate throughout the life of any plant even in the face of changing demographics, and other site related factors.... [D]rills, per-formance criteria, and independent evaluations provide a process to ensure con-tinued adequacy of emergency preparedness.' 56 Fed. Reg. 64,966. Emergency planning, therefore, is one of the safety issues that need not be re-examined within the context of license renewal.

Turkey Point, CLI-01-17,54 N.R.C. at 9; see also Millstone CLI-04-36, 60 N.R.C. at 640 ("We consider Turkey Point dispositive of this issue.").

Contention 9 is also inadmissible because it fails to meet any of the NRC's pleading standards. The Petitioners offer only vague, unsupported and conclusory assertions in support of their contention. Petitioners do not provide any expert opinion or references to documents or 33

other sources of information supporting their allegations. The Contention provides no informa-tion demonstrating that there is a genuine dispute on any material issue.

Lacking any relevance to this proceeding, as well as any factual basis or specificity, Con-tention 9 is clearly inadmissible and must be rejected.

11. Contention 10 (Re: SAMA Analysis) Is Inadmissible Contention 10, which alleges that a Severe Accident Mitigation Analysis ("SAMA")

must be performed and circulated for public review and comment (Pet. at 9), is inadmissible be-cause it fails to challenge the Application and demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute on a material issue of fact or law. Contrary to the Contention, the Application in fact contains a SAMA analysis. NMC has performed detailed analyses of the alternatives to mitigate severe ac-cident risks, which are contained in section § 4.12 and Attachment E to the ER. The Petitioners completely ignore this analysis in the ER, and raise no claims disputing its adequacy. Conten-tion 10 therefore fails to demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute on a material issue of fact or law and must be rejected. S, M.. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) (vi) (contention must contain "references to specific portions of the application ... that the petitioner disputes and the support-ing reasons for each dispute"); see also Turkey Point. supra LBP-90-16, 31 N.R.C. at 521 & n.

12.

12. Contention 11 (Re: Terrorist Threat) Is Inadmissible Petitioners' Contention 11, which alleges that "Palisades represents a target for poten-tially catastrophic terrorist attack or sabotage" (Pet. at 9), is inadmissible because it challenges the NRC's rules limiting the scope of this proceeding and because it is vague and unsupported and thus fails to meet the NRC's standards for admissible contentions. It is well established that security issues are simply not among the aging-related questions considered in a license renewal proceeding. Thus, the contention represents a challenge to the scope of 10 C.F.R. Part 54, which is limited to these aging-related issues.

34

The Commission has ruled repeatedly that "contentions related to terrorism are beyond the scope of [a license renewal] proceeding." Millstone CLI-04-36, 60 N.R.C. at 638, quoting McGuire CLI-02-26, 56 N.R.C. at 363. As stated by the Commission in Millstone "[s]ecurity issues at nuclear power plants, while vital, are simply not among the aging-related questions at stake in a license renewal proceeding." Millstone, CLI-04-36, 60 N.R.C. at 638. Terrorism con-tentions "are, by their very nature, directly related to security and are, therefore, under our rules, unrelated to 'the detrimental effects of aging."' McGuire CLI-02-26, 56 N.R.C. at 364. Thus, terrorism contentions "are beyond the scope of, not 'material' to,' and inadmissible in,'a license renewal proceeding." Id.

To the extent that this contention could be construed as raising an issue under NEPA, it is again outside the scope of this proceeding. First, terrorism is not within the scope of any of the NEPA issues that must be addressed in this proceeding pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c). Sec-ond, the Commission has explicitly ruled "that NEPA imposes no legal duty on the NRC to con-sider intentional malevolent acts, such as the [September 11, 2001, attacks], on a case-by-case basis in conjunction with commercial power reactor license renewal applications." Id. at 365.

More generally, the Commission has held that terrorism is not cognizable under NEPA. Private Fuel Storage. L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-02-25, 56 N.R.C. 340, 357 (2002); Dominion Nuclear Connecticut. Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3),

CLI-02-27, 56 N.R.C. 367 (2002).

In addition to being outside the scope of the proceeding and an attack on the NRC's rules, Contention 11 is inadmissible because it is vague and unsupported. Petitioners provide no expert opinion or references to documents or other sources of information demonstrating that there is any genuine dispute concerning security. Such ill-defined, conclusory, unsupported claims pro-vide no basis for a litigable contention under the NRC's rules of practice. S, es, Private Fuel Storage LBP-98-7, 47 NRC at 180 ("bald assertion that a matter ought to be considered or that a 35

factual dispute exists ... is not sufficient"; rather "a petitioner must provide documents or other factual information or expert opinion" to support the bases proffered for a contention).

V. SELECTION OF HEARING PROCEDURES Commission rules require the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated to rule on the Petition to "determine aiid identify the specific procedures to be used for the proceeding" pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.310 (a)-(h). 10 C.F.R. § 2.310. The regulations are explicit that "proceedings for the ... renewal ... of licenses subject to [10 C.F.R. Part 50] may be conducted under the procedures of subpart L." Id. § 2.3 10(a). The regulations permit the presiding officer to use the procedures in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart G ("Subpart G") in certain circumstances. Id.

§ 2.31 0(d). It is the proponent of the contentions, however, who has the burden of demonstrating "by reference to the contention and bases provided and the specific procedures in Subpart G of this part, that resolution of the contention necessitates resolution of material issues of fact which may be best determined through the use of the identified procedures." Id. § 2.309(g). Petitioners did not address the selection of hearing procedures in the Petition and so failed to satisfy their burden to demonstrate why Subpart G procedures should be used in this proceeding. Accord-ingly, any hearing should be governed by the procedures of Subpart L.

36

VI. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Petitioners have failed to offer any admissible contention in this proceeding. Therefore, Petitioners' Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene should be denied.

Respectfully Submitted, David R. Lewis Paul A. Gaukler PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20037-1128 Tel. (202) 663-8474 Counsel for Nuclear Management Company Dated: September 2, 2005 37

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of Nuclear Management Company, et al. ) Docket No. 50-255-LR II

) ASLBP No. 05-842-03-LR (Palisades Nuclear Plant) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "Nuclear Management Company's Answer to the August 8, 2005 Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene" dated September 2, 2005, were served on the persons listed below by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, and where indi-cated by an asterisk by electronic mail, this 2nd day of September, 2005.

• Administrative Judge *Administrative Judge Ann Marshall Young, Esq., Chair Dr. Anthony J. Baratta Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop T-3 F23 Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 AMY(anrc.gov AJB5(inrc.gov

• Administrative Judge *Secretary Dr. Nicholas T. Trikouros Att'n: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop 0-16 C1 Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 secyenrc.gov, hearingdocket(inrc.gov N.TRIKOUROSQ~att.net Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop 0-16 Cl Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

• Susan L. Uttal, Esq. *Terry Lodge, Esq.

• Darani Reddick, Esq. 316 N. Michigan St., Suite 520 Office of the General Counsel Toledo, OH 43624-1627 Mail Stop 0-15 D21 tilodge50avahoo.com U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 slu(anrc.gov; dmr10,nrc.gov

• Kary Love, Esq. *Mr. Paul Gunter Executive Business Center Nuclear Information and Resource Service 348 Waverly Road, Suite 2 1424 16'h Street, N.W.

Holland, MI 49423 Suite 404 karv love()yahoo.com Washington, D.C. 20036 pmunteraWnirs.org

• Mr. Michael Keegan *Ms. Alice Hirt Don't Waste Michigan Western Michigan Environmental Action 2213 Riverside Drive, NE Council Grand Rapids, MI 49505 1415 Wealthy St., SE mkeegan( comrcast.net Suite 280 Grand Rapids, MI 49506 alicehirta)charter.net

• Mr. Chuck Jordan Mr. Maynard Kaufman Green Party of Van Buren County Michigan Land Trustees 50521 34" Avenue 25485 County Road 681 Bangor, MI 49013 Bangor, MI 49013 iordanc(ibtc-bci .com Paul A. Gaukler Document#: 1496956 v3 2