The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) had no changes following the previous swearing in of Commissioners Caputo and Crowell in August 2022. The most notable industry milestone during the reporting period is the loading of fuel into Vogtle Unit 3 in October 2022. Southern Nuclear expects the unit to begin service in mid-2023. The Commission’s policy and licensing landscape continues to address issues that reflect the age of the current operating fleet: decommissioning, subsequent license renewal, and consolidated interim storage. NRC licensing of private consolidated interim storage facilities is still the subject of ongoing federal lawsuits. Some federal courts have dismissed challenges to consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) licenses, while others remain pending. Finally, on the legislative front, there are several bills addressing nuclear innovation, public participation, and cooperation in the industry.
On September 29, 2022, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) introduced the “Nuclear Assistance for America’s Small Businesses Act” (H.R. 9045). The bill would amend the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, enacted in 2019, to aid small businesses seeking to participate in the research, development, and deployment of advanced nuclear reactors. It would do so by providing small businesses the opportunity to request that the NRC delay collection of fees assessed for certain advanced reactor licensing activities. Specifically, applicants may request delayed collection of 50 percent of pre-application fees and 35 percent of fees assessed between the time an application is submitted and the operating license is issued. Beginning on the date that the operating license is issued, the NRC would collect ten percent of the delayed fees annually over a ten-year period.
H.R. 9045 was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy, on September 30, 2022.
On September 30, 2022, Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), introduced the “International Nuclear Energy Act of 2022” (H.R. 9098). The purpose of the bill is to provide civil nuclear technology coordination and strategy with allied nations. The bill would establish a “Nuclear Exports Working Group” comprised of senior-level officials from various Federal agencies, including the Departments of State, Commerce, and Energy, as well as the NRC. This working group would develop a 10-year civil nuclear trade strategy to include targets for exporting civil nuclear technologies, materials, and fuels.
H.R. 9098 also would require the President to commence an international initiative for outreach to nations seeking to start civil nuclear energy programs. It would require the administration to establish financing relationships with allied nations to promote nuclear exports from the U.S. and provide assistance to new civil nuclear energy programs. Additionally, the bill would encourage the Department of Energy (DOE) to prioritize activities to increase domestic production of low-enriched uranium and accelerate efforts to establish a domestic high-assay, low-enriched uranium enrichment capability, both of which are intended to eliminate reliance on the Russian Federation and People’s Republic of China for energy fuels.
H.R. 9098 was referred to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, Science, Space, and Technology, Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce. It was subsequently referred to the latter’s Subcommittee on Energy on October 3, 2022.
On October 21, 2022, Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA) introduced the “NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation Act of 2022” (H.R. 9215). The bill would establish at the NRC the Office of Public Engagement and Participation. This new office would support public participation in proceedings before the NRC (including providing educational, legal, and technical guidance), advocate for the public interest for matters before the NRC, and coordinate assistance to persons participating in NRC proceedings. The bill would also allow for the NRC to provide compensation for attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and other costs of participating in an NRC proceeding, if the agency finds that the proceeding is significant and the compensation is warranted due to significant financial hardship.
The bill is substantially similar to Section 319 of the Federal Power Act, which was enacted into law in 2021 and directed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish the Office of Public Participation. H.R. 9215 contains more explicit guidance regarding the responsibilities of the NRC Office of Public Engagement and Participation than Section 319 of the Federal Power Act, though both contain nearly identical provisions regarding the availability of compensation.
H.R. 9215 was referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee on October 21, 2022, and subsequently to the Subcommittee on Energy on October 24, 2022.
On November 3, 2022, Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA) introduced the “100 Year Canister Life Act” (H.R. 9267). The purpose of the bill is to direct the NRC to establish regulations that would prohibit the NRC from issuing a Certificate of Compliance or specific license for a spent nuclear fuel dry cask unless the NRC has found that the dry cask storage system or facility can operate safely with spent nuclear fuel for at least 100 years. The NRC would be required to promulgate these regulations no later than eighteen months after enactment of the bill.
H.R. 9267 was referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy, on November 4, 2022.
On November 22, 2022, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) introduced the “Nuclear Regulatory Commission Survey Act” (H.R. 9351). The bill finds that the NRC’s licensing processes are very prescriptive and based on conventional pressurized water reactor designs, which has the potential to restrict nuclear innovation. Therefore, the bill would require the NRC Inspector General to draft and distribute an optional and anonymous survey to NRC employees that would cover specific topics. For example, the survey would inquire about potential enhancements to the NRC’s licensing frameworks, stakeholder outreach, unnecessary nuclear-related regulations, improving efficiency of the licensing process to enhance innovation, and improving the transparency of NRC’s budget and fee processes. The bill would also require the NRC Inspector General, “if feasible” and only at the request of a “stakeholder in the nuclear industry,” to distribute the same survey to the requesting nuclear industry stakeholder that is distributed to NRC employees.
No later than sixty days after distributing the survey, the NRC Inspector General would be required to submit a report to the appropriate Congressional committees that summarizes the survey results, as well as each individual response to each survey question.
H.R. 9351 was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on November 11, 2022, and subsequently to the Subcommittee on Energy the following day.
Although the federal used fuel management program has been largely inactive for more than a decade, private companies have launched two private CISFs—one in Texas and the other in New Mexico. Interim Storage Partners, LLC (ISP), a joint venture between Waste Control Specialist and Orano USA, received a 10 C.F.R. Part 72 license for its CISF in 2021. The NRC is expected to decide on the license application for Holtec International’s New Mexico CISF in the first quarter of 2023. Both projects have faced legal challenges, and the federal courts are actively handling several lawsuits challenging the NRC’s licensing of these facilities.
On March 31, 2017, Holtec submitted an application for a CISF to be built in Lea County, New Mexico. The application sought initial authorization for a facility that would house 500 canisters of spent nuclear fuel for a license term of forty years. Several groups intervened in the licensing process and submitted various petitions and motions purporting to challenge the application. In May 2019, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) denied all hearing requests and terminated the proceeding. In a series of decisions across the next two years (the last of which was CLI-21-7, issued April 2021), the Commission denied all associated appeals and motions seeking the admission of new contentions. Petitions for review of various NRC orders are being held in abeyance before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit pending completion of NRC proceedings.
Although no contested matters remain pending in the NRC adjudicatory proceeding, staff’s review of the application remains ongoing. Staff issued the final environmental impact statement (EIS) in July 2022, and based on staff’s latest review schedule, the final safety evaluation report and licensing decision are expected in the first quarter of 2023.
In February 2021, several organizations that were denied party status in the NRC’s ISP adjudicatory proceeding petitioned for review of these NRC decisions before the D.C. Circuit. After NRC issued the license, some of these organizations filed additional petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit challenging the license and associated NRC actions, and the D.C. Circuit consolidated the various petitions before it.
In March 2022, the petitioners filed three sets of briefs before the D.C. Circuit. Beyond Nuclear filed a brief arguing that the NRC violated the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) by including a license condition stating that the ISP must have an executed contract with the commercial owners of used fuel or DOE before beginning operations. Fasken Land and Minerals (Fasken) filed a second brief challenging the rejection of its proposed transportation-related contention by the NRC. Sierra Club and other organizations filed a third brief, which raised more than a dozen separate arguments related to various proposed contentions that were rejected in the NRC adjudicatory proceeding as well as other National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) arguments that were unrelated to its contentions.
In June 2022, the NRC, intervenor ISP, and amicus Nuclear Energy Institute filed briefs in support of affirming the NRC decisions granting a license to ISP for its CISF in Texas. Briefing was completed in July 2022 and oral argument was held on November 10, 2022.
On January 25, 2023, the D.C. Circuit issued an unpublished per curiam opinion denying Beyond Nuclear’s petition for review of the NRC’s intervention decision as its contention ignored the proposed license's plain text, which requires ISP to obtain contracts with either DOE or private entities as the titleholders of spent nuclear fuel. Beyond Nuclear argued that the NRC violated the NWPA by including a license condition stating that the ISP must have an executed contract with the commercial owners of used fuel or DOE before beginning operations. The D.C. Circuit disagreed, finding the NRC properly rejected Beyond Nuclear’s argument, stating: “All parties agree that DOE would violate the NWPA by taking title to and transporting spent nuclear fuel to the facility. But, by ignoring the possibility of private ownership, Beyond Nuclear’s contention failed on its face.” The court also noted that “[s]torage and disposal are different concepts,” and that the NRC’s authority to license and regulate the possession and use of nuclear material under the Atomic Energy Act – unaffected by the NWPA – permits it to issue licenses to store spent fuel.
The three-judge panel also dismissed Beyond Nuclear’s petition for review of the issuance of ISP’s license as it did not have standing to petition for review of the decision to issue the license. Fasken’s petition for review of the NRC’s decision on its contention was denied, as Fasken failed to demonstrate good cause to file its new contention out of time, as required by NRC regulations. Finally, the panel denied the Sierra Club and other organizations’ petition for review of their denied intervention and dismissed their claims that issuance of ISP’s license violated NEPA, as the panel concluded that the environmental report contained adequate consideration and discussion of ISP’s environmental impacts; and the Board and Commission took the requisite “hard look” at the environmental impacts.
Separate from the D.C. Circuit litigation involving challenges to unsuccessful attempts to obtain party status in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, the State of Texas and Fasken petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review of the NRC’s issuance of the ISP license. The NRC moved to dismiss both petitions for review.
In February 2022, Texas and Fasken each filed briefs before the Fifth Circuit. In its brief, Texas argues that the NRC lacked authority to issue the license under both the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and the NWPA. Texas also argues that the NRC violated NEPA for failing to assess risks associated with potential terrorist attacks, as well as falling short of the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In its brief, Fasken argues that the NRC’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion, violating the APA, NEPA, and NWPA.
In April 2022, the NRC and intervenor ISP filed briefs opposing the Texas and Fasken petitions. The NRC and ISP argue that the Fifth Circuit lacks jurisdiction over the petitions for review because, among other reasons, neither petitioner seeks review of an NRC final order as a “party aggrieved” under the Hobbs Act because neither participated in the adjudicatory proceedings before the NRC and neither seeks review of the NRC’s decision denying them party status. The NRC and ISP also argue that the NRC’s issuance of the license was fully consistent with the APA, AEA, NEPA, and NWPA as the NRC has statutory authority to license private, away-from-reactor spent fuel storage.
Briefing was completed in May 2022 and oral argument was held August 29, 2022. As of the date of publication, the Fifth Circuit’s opinion remains pending.
The State of New Mexico, which (like Texas) had not participated in the adjudicatory proceedings before the NRC, filed a petition for review of the NRC’s issuance of the ISP license in the Tenth Circuit. The NRC moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and the Tenth Circuit opted to carry the motion with the case.
In March 2022, New Mexico filed a brief challenging the NRC’s issuance of the ISP license, arguing that the NRC’s action amounts to licensing de facto permanent storage of spent fuel in violation of the NWPA. New Mexico also raised several arguments concerning the NRC’s assumptions and analyses performed to comply with NEPA.
In May 2022, the NRC and intervenor ISP filed briefs opposing the New Mexico petition. The NRC and ISP argued that the Tenth Circuit lacks jurisdiction over the petition for review because, among other reasons, New Mexico did not seek review of an NRC final order as a “party aggrieved” under the Hobbs Act because it did not participate in the adjudicatory proceedings before the NRC and did not seek review of the NRC’s decision denying it party status. The NRC and ISP also defended the NRC’s authority to issue a materials license to ISP and the NRC’s NEPA evaluations performed in support of the ISP license.
Briefing was completed in June 2022 and oral argument held on November 15, 2022. On February 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a decision dismissing New Mexico’s challenge to the NRC’s issuance of a license to ISP to construct and operate a consolidated interim storage facility for used fuel in Andrews County, Texas. The court ruled that New Mexico did not qualify as an aggrieved party because it only commented on the NRC’s draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), and did not request a hearing, seek to interview, or propose contentions. As a result, the court held that its jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act and AEA was not triggered.
The Tenth Circuit also rejected New Mexico’s argument that jurisdiction was not proper because the NRC had closed the adjudicatory record before it issued the DEIS. The court pointed out that New Mexico could have raised its concerns by filing contentions based on the applicant’s environmental report or filing new or amended contentions based on the NRC’s DEIS. The court further held that it lacked jurisdiction under the NWPA because the NRC’s action was in response to an application by a private entity taken in reliance on its AEA authority, not the NWPA.
On March 29, 2021, the New Mexico Attorney General filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for New Mexico against the NRC seeking to suspend the NRC’s proceedings to license the Holtec and ISP CISFs. The State claimed that the two proposed facilities would violate the NWPA because both facilities were allegedly based upon the assumption that DOE would take ownership of the spent fuel stored at the CISFs and contract to store it there until DOE had a permanent repository.
On June 17, 2021, the NRC moved to dismiss the lawsuit based on several jurisdictional deficiencies. First, the case was filed in the wrong court; it should have been filed in a U.S. Court of Appeals rather than in a Federal District Court. Second, New Mexico failed to exhaust the NRC’s statutory remedies before filing in court. Finally, New Mexico failed to challenge a final NRC order. Holtec intervened in support of the NRC’s motion.
Oral argument was held on January 20, 2022, and on March 10, 2022, the court issued an order granting the NRC’s motion and dismissing the case, finding that New Mexico filed its case in the wrong court and had failed to challenge a final agency action. New Mexico has not appealed that order.
The judge presiding over the case stated that he would also be issuing a Memorandum and Opinion “more fully detailing [the Court’s] rationale for this decision.” As of today, Judge Browning has yet to issue the promised Memorandum and Opinion.
On February 13, 2023, the New Mexico Senate passed S.B. 53, a bill that would ban the storage of nuclear waste in New Mexico. If passed by the state House and signed into law by Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, the bill would prohibit public agencies from granting permits for a nuclear-waste disposal project unless certain conditions were met, including the state consenting to storage of the waste.
This follows legislation from Texas, where, on September 9, 2021, Governor Greg Abbott signed H.B. 7 into law, effectively banning high-level radioactive materials from coming into Texas. The law now bars the disposal of high-level radioactive waste in Texas (other than from former nuclear power reactors and former nuclear research and test reactors on university campuses). Nuclear power plants must keep the waste generated from operations on-site until a long-term disposal site is available. The law also prohibits state agencies from issuing construction, stormwater or pollution permits for facilities that are licensed to store high-level radioactive waste.
On March 3, 2022, the NRC published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register. NRC staff has been engaged in this rulemaking process for several years. In November 2021, the Commission approved the NRC staff’s recommendation to publish a proposed rule amending NRC regulations for nuclear power plants transitioning from operations to decommissioning (SRM-SECY-18-0055). The Commission’s action directed the NRC staff to delete certain proposed changes that were widely supported by the industry. The Commission also mandated additional opportunities for external stakeholder involvement in the rulemaking process, as well as the decommissioning process for each plant, which are likely to further prolong the NRC’s already-lengthy rulemaking and oversight processes and is likely to mean that any final rule will come well after the current raft of recently-shutdown facilities have navigated the decommissioning licensing process under the current regulatory construct.
Current NRC regulations make few distinctions between operating reactors and decommissioning projects. Thus, many licensees must seek exemptions and license amendments on a case-by-case basis as they progress through the decommissioning process. The proposed regulations seek to incorporate best practices and industry developments learned from recent plants that transitioned to decommissioning while improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory framework. More specifically, the rulemaking would implement specific regulatory requirements for different phases of the decommissioning process, consistent with the reduced radiological risk. The phases within the regulation include (1) permanent cessation of operations and removal of all fuel from the reactor, (2) sufficient decay of fuel in the spent fuel pool such that it would not reach ignition temperature for the zirconium alloy cladding of the fuel within ten hours after a hypothetical loss of all water in the spent fuel pool, (3) transfer of all fuel to dry storage, and (4) removal of all fuel from the site.
However, the Commission directed the staff to perform further analysis of bounding parameters, including those related to high burnup fuel. Notably, the Commission rejected the NRC staff’s proposal to allow licensees to use nuclear decommissioning trust funds for spent fuel management without seeking a regulatory exemption. Under the current regulations, those funds may only be used for radiological decommissioning activities. The NRC staff initially proposed allowing licensees that had accumulated more than sufficient funds to complete radiological decommissioning and met certain criteria to use those excess funds to cover spent fuel management expenses. Without this change, licensees must continue seeking regulatory exemptions on a case-by-case basis. The Commission also directed NRC staff to update the generic minimum decommissioning cost estimate formula in 10 C.F.R. § 50.75(c). Any changes to this formula could have significant impacts on the requirements for funding of decommissioning trusts. Finally, the Commission rejected the NRC staff’s recommendation that it stop issuing “preliminary approval” of the irradiated spent fuel management plans for shutdown reactors.
The public comment period for the proposed rulemaking ended on August 30, 2022. As of the date of this report, the NRC received over 4,000 comments. Additionally, the NRC held six public meetings last year throughout the country.
Among recently shutdown facilities, the asset transfer model continues to be the most prevalent means of executing decommissioning, particularly for merchant facilities. Under this approach, the incumbent utility transfers the shutdown facility, NRC licenses, decommissioning liability, and decommissioning trust funds to a new company to carry out the decommissioning—typically on a more accelerated schedule than a traditional SAFSTOR schedule out to the sixty years allowed by NRC regulations.
The main regulatory drivers for this decommissioning model have mostly been based on state and local stakeholder engagement. In some states with recently-shutdown facilities, a combination of public utility regulators, attorneys general, environmental agencies, legislatures, and local tax jurisdictions have engaged with outgoing utilities and incoming decommissioning companies to assert state and local interests related to funding, schedule, non-radiological remediation standards, and future land use. These stakeholders often participate to some degree in the NRC licensing process; however, in most states, there are also existing processes to afford state and local input into the decommissioning process. NRC’s review of the corresponding license transfers has remained focused on the adequacy of radiological decommissioning funding, spent fuel management funding, and technical wherewithal (without the operational component). Regarding licensees’ spent fuel management plans, NRC staff has shown a bit more willingness to credit future DOE recoveries, which have become more predictable over the years, although staff continues to require backstops to ensure licensees can reasonably cover Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) operating and maintenance costs in the event DOE recoveries are not as predictable as they anticipate.
The Michigan Governor’s office recently announced that the state is in discussions with Holtec International to potentially restart the recently-shutdown Palisades facility. Palisades’s renewed operating license ran through 2031, but the facility shut down in mid-2022, and Entergy sold the facility to Holtec shortly after permanent removal of fuel from the reactor. Holtec’s initial application for Civil Nuclear Credit Program (CNCP) funding for Palisades proved unsuccessful. However, Holtec intends to continue pursuing federal funding to support the restart. Upon certification of permanent defueling, NRC regulations no longer authorize Palisades’s operations; however, NRC has indicated that its existing regulatory framework can accommodate plant restarts like the one being considered for Palisades. Further details on the potential restart schedule or NRC licensing timeline associated with such a restart are not available as of the date of this report.
In 2018, licensees began to apply for subsequent license renewal (SLR) to allow operation for up to 80 years. NRC previously prepared a generic EIS (GEIS) for license renewal based on experience gained from reactor operations. In early 2022, the Commission (with Commissioner Wright dissenting) issued an order in the Turkey Point SLR adjudicatory proceeding (CLI-22-2) reversing its earlier decision and concluding that the license renewal GEIS applies only to initial license renewal and does not address SLR. The two Commissioners who dissented in the prior (now reversed) decision (CLI-20-3) comprised the majority of the three-member Commission that decided CLI-22-2. The Commission also issued a separate adjudicatory order applicable to all pending SLR proceedings (CLI-22-3) essentially discarding all SLR environmental reviews performed to date and directing the staff to perform new evaluations based on, at the election of the applicant, either: (1) new site-specific information provided by the applicant or (2) the future updated GEIS and revisions to 10 C.F.R. Part 51, once completed. On the same day, the Commission disapproved the NRC staff’s proposed rulemaking plan on the GEIS update and directed it to submit a new one within thirty days (SRM-SECY-21-0066) “to clearly include, but not be limited to, a thorough evaluation of the environmental impacts of renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant for one term of SLR.” The Commission requested a separate evaluation, within sixty days, regarding “options for a future effort that would incorporate any changes determined to be necessary for the 10-year regulatory update cycle.”
Consistent with the Commission orders, NRC staff submitted SECY-22-0024 to the Commission with three different options for regulatory rulemaking on March 25, 2022. On April 4, 2022, the Commission chose Alternative 3 for promulgation (SRM-SECY-22-0024). This alternative pushes the NRC to develop a final rule within twenty-four months.
Staff published the proposed rule in the Federal Register on March 3, 2023. The proposed rule redefines the number and scope of environmental issues addressed by the NRC and license renewal applications. The proposed rule is the result of NRC staff thoroughly re-evaluating SLR as directed by SECY-22-0024. From the previous regulation in 2013, the total amount of environmental issues addressed rose from seventy-eight to eighty, and the number of Category 2 issues to be addressed in plant specific environmental impact statements increased from seventeen to twenty. These changes include: (1) consolidation of some issues within their respective categories; (2) addition of greenhouse gas effects on climate change to Category 1; (3) movement of severe nuclear accident impacts from Category 2 to Category 1; (4) division of one Category 2 issue into three separate issues addressing various endangered species and habitats; and (5) addition of National Marine Sanctuaries and climate change impact on environmental resources to Category 2. As with the current regulation, Category 1 considerations are addressed in the GEIS, and licensees must address any varied impacts of Category 1 items at the specific site and all Category 2 items. Under the proposed regulation, SLR applications will be subject to the same SEIS requirements as an initial LR. Additionally, the NRC simultaneously published a draft of the revised LR GEIS for comment. The draft revised LR GEIS and proposed regulation specifically cover both initial LR and the first SLR. The comment period for this proposed regulation ends May 2, 2023.
As a result of the Commission determining that the license renewal GEIS did not apply to SLR, the expiration date of the subsequent renewed licenses for Turkey Point (Florida Power & Light (FP&L)) and Peach Bottom (Constellation) reverted to the original renewed license (sixty year) expiration dates pending completion of the additional NEPA reviewed required by the Commission. In response to the Commission’s February decisions and related orders, FP&L submitted an Environmental Report Supplement as an additional appendix to the Turkey Point SLR application on June 9, 2022. NRC staff has updated its timeline for review of the SLR application, with the final Federal Register notice projected to be issued at the end of 2023.
The Commission’s February 2022 GEIS order also has delayed action on the four pending SLR applications: North Anna by Virginia Electric and Power Company, Point Beach by NextEra Energy, Oconee by Duke Energy, and St. Lucie by FP&L. Order CLI-22-2 delayed specific milestones in the application review process related to environmental review. It is currently undetermined when the Final Supplemental EIS will be issued for the North Anna and Point Beach applications or when the Draft Supplemental EIS for Oconee and St. Lucie will be issued.
The NRC expects to receive SLR applications for five additional units at three sites by December 2023.
On August 3, 2022, Georgia Power Company and Southern Nuclear Operating Company received NRC authorization under 10 C.F.R. § 52.103(g) to load fuel in Vogtle Unit 3, marking the first reactor to achieve this milestone under the NRC’s Part 52 regulatory framework. Fuel loading began on October 14, 2022. Following pre-operational testing, the licensee expects Unit 3 to begin service in mid-2023. Georgia Power projects that Unit 4 will be complete in either late 2023 or the beginning of 2024. Cold hydro testing of Unit 4 confirmed compliance with design standards on December 7, 2022.
In December 2020, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. submitted an application to the NRC to sell the Palisades Nuclear Plant and the Big Rock Point ISFSI to subsidiaries of Holtec International. The transaction closed and the licenses transferred on June 28, 2022, shortly after Palisades permanently ceased operation. The NRC staff approved the license transfers in December 2021; however, on July 15, 2022, nearly eighteen months after contentions were filed, the Commission (which acts as the presiding officer in license transfer proceedings) admitted four portions of the Michigan Attorney General’s financial challenge and rejected several other contentions. In that order (CLI-22-8), a three-member Commission admitted financial contentions similar to those previously rejected by the full Commission (over two Commissioner’s dissent) in proceedings involving Holtec’s acquisition of Oyster Creek, Pilgrim, and Indian Point. The evidentiary hearing on portions of the Michigan Attorney General’s admitted contentions took place in February 2023. A final decision by the Commission is likely to take several months.
As noted above, the Michigan Governor also has announced that the state is in discussions with Holtec regarding a potential restart of Palisades.
The NRC has not yet published its annual enforcement report for 2022. For calendar year 2021, the total number of allegations in 2021 increased by approximately 40 percent from the previous year, driven by increases in allegations associated with both reactor and materials licensees and vendors.
The NRC issued several notices of violations associated with white significance determinations for several operating reactors since the last reporting period. Additionally, the NRC issued several Severity Level (SL) III findings to materials licensees. Among these was a notice of violation and proposed imposition of civil penalty of $16,000 to the Hawai’i Agriculture Research Center on January 11, 2023, for a SL III problem and violation. The SL III problem consisted of three violations involving: (1) failure to perform an inventory of the radioactive material possess as required by a license condition, (2) possession of material not authorized by the license, and (3) improper storage of unsealed radioactive material and contaminated waste items. The SL III violation involved the licensee’s failure to develop and implement a radiation protection program as required by the license. The NRC also issued three SL IV violations, which were not assessed in the proposed civil penalty.
