UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: 

Stephen G. Burns, Chairman 

Kristine L. Svinicki 

William C. Ostendorff 

Jeff Baran 

In the Matter of: 

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. 

(Palisades Nuclear Plant) 

Docket No. 50-255-LA-2 

CLI-15-23 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

This proceeding stems from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.’s license amendment 

request seeking agency approval of its “equivalent margins analysis” for the Palisades Nuclear 

Plant reactor pressure vessel. In LBP-15-20, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board granted a 

petition to intervene and request for hearing filed by Beyond Nuclear, Don’t Waste Michigan, 

Michigan Safe Energy Future—Shoreline Chapter, and the Nuclear Energy Information Service 

(collectively, Petitioners) that challenged the license amendment request.1 Entergy has 

appealed.2 As discussed below, we reverse the Board’s decision. 

I. PROCEDURAL AND TECHNICAL BACKGROUND 

Petitioners challenge Entergy’s license amendment request on the ground that Entergy’s 

equivalent margins analysis “does not provide adequate assurance of margins of safety against 

 

1 LBP-15-20, 81 NRC 829 (2015). 

2 Entergy’s Notice of Appeal of LBP-15-20 (July 13, 2015) (Appeal). 
- 2 - 

fracture or rupture.”3 We provide first a short summary of the technical issue and license 

amendment request. A more detailed discussion of these issues is available in the Board’s 

decision.4

Pressure vessels in operating pressurized water reactors must meet certain 

requirements to demonstrate their fracture toughness (that is, their resistance to failure under 

certain conditions). Under normal plant conditions the materials at the “beltline” of the reactor 

pressure vessel must maintain “Charpy upper-shelf energy” of no less than 50 foot-pounds 

(ft-lb) (68 joules (J)).5 Charpy upper-shelf energy “is a measurement of the amount of energy 

the material can absorb at high temperatures before it fractures and fails.”6

As a reactor pressure vessel ages, it is exposed to increasing amounts of neutron 

radiation from the fission reaction occurring inside the reactor pressure vessel, which over time 

decreases the ductility (and fracture toughness) of the ferritic materials making up the vessel, 

thus reducing their Charpy upper-shelf energy. When a licensee determines that the Charpy 

upper-shelf energy of these materials will fall below 50 ft-lb, it must submit an analysis, known 

as an equivalent margins analysis. This analysis must demonstrate that the calculated energy 

will nevertheless “provide margins of safety against fracture [that are] equivalent to those 

required by Appendix G of Section XI of the ASME Code.”7

 

3 Petition to Intervene and for a Public Adjudication Hearing of Entergy License Amendment 

Request for Approval of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix G Equivalent Margins Analysis (Mar. 9, 

2015), at 2 (Petition). 

4 LBP-15-20, 81 NRC at 832-35. 

5 10 C.F.R. pt. 50, app. G(IV)(A)(1)(a). 

6 LBP-15-20, 81 NRC at 833. 

7 10 C.F.R. pt. 50, app. G(IV)(A)(1)(a). 
- 3 - 

Fulfilling a commitment made in the license renewal application for Palisades, Entergy 

performed an equivalent margins analysis for the plant in early 2013.8 The results of that 

analysis demonstrated that certain materials in the Palisades reactor pressure vessel would fall 

below the 50 ft-lb Charpy upper-shelf energy level. Accordingly, Entergy submitted its 

equivalent margins analysis to the NRC in October 2013, followed by a corresponding license 

amendment request in November 2014.9 The NRC Staff published in the Federal Register a 

notice of the proposed amendment shortly thereafter, notifying the public of an opportunity to 

request a hearing.10 In response, Petitioners filed their hearing request. Entergy and the NRC 

Staff opposed the request; Petitioners replied.11

In LBP-15-20, the Board granted Petitioners’ request for hearing, finding that Petitioners 

had demonstrated standing and proffered one admissible contention. Specifically, Petitioners’ 

contention (as admitted) states: 

 

8 Westinghouse WCAP-17651-NP, Rev. 0, Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Reactor Vessel 

Equivalent Margins Analysis (Feb. 2013) (ADAMS accession no. ML14316A208) (Equivalent 

Margins Analysis). In the Palisades license renewal application, Nuclear Management 

Company (the licensee at the time) committed to submit an equivalent margins analysis for 

materials where the Charpy upper-shelf energy would fall below 50 ft-lbs “at least three years 

prior to the date” this would occur. Appeal at 4-5 (citing Palisades Nuclear Plant Application for 

Renewed Operating License (Mar. 22, 2005), at 4-12 (ML050940446)). 

9 Letter from Anthony J. Vitale, Site Vice President, Palisades Nuclear Plant, to Document 

Control Desk, NRC (Oct. 21, 2013) (ML13295A448); Letter from Anthony J. Vitale, Site Vice 

President, Palisades Nuclear Plant, to Document Control Desk, NRC (Nov. 12, 2014) 

(ML14316A190). The license amendment request and all attachments are available at 

ML14316A370. 

10 Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined 

Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 80 Fed. Reg. 520, 523–24 (Jan. 6, 

2015). 

11 Entergy’s Answer Opposing Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing (Apr. 3, 2015); 

NRC Staff’s Answer to Petition to Intervene and Hearing Request Filed by Beyond Nuclear, 

Don’t Waste Michigan, Michigan Safe Energy Future—Shoreline Chapter, and the Nuclear 

Energy Information Service (Apr. 3, 2015); Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Petition to Intervene 

on Entergy License Amendment Request for Approval of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix G 

Equivalent Margins Analysis (Apr. 10, 2015). 
- 4 - 

The methods of prediction used by Entergy concerning whether steel plate and 

weld materials within the reactor pressure vessel (“RPV”) at the Palisades 

Nuclear Power Plant possess Charpy upper shelf energy (“USE”) values of less 

than 50 ft.-lbs. of ductility stress do not provide adequate assurance of margins 

of safety against fracture or rupture which are equivalent to those required by 

Appendix G of Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.12

Petitioners focus on Entergy’s decision not to test physical samples—called coupons or 

capsules—as part of its equivalent margins analysis.13

In evaluating the contention, a Board majority found that Petitioners had provided 

sufficient factual support to demonstrate a genuine dispute with the license amendment 

request.14 Judge Arnold dissented; in his view, “the information provided by Petitioners ... [was] 

inadequate to establish a material dispute with the application.”15 Entergy’s appeal of the 

Board’s decision followed.16

 

12 Petition at 2; see also LBP-15-20, 81 NRC at 838. 

13 See, e.g., Petition at 2; LBP-15-20, 81 NRC at 838. 

14 The Board rejected several arguments proffered by Entergy and the Staff that are not 

challenged on appeal (e.g., whether Petitioners’ contention is barred as a challenge to 

10 C.F.R. pt. 50, app G under 10 C.F.R. § 2.335). See LBP-15-20, 81 NRC at 848-49. 

Therefore we need not address them further. 

15 LBP-15-20, 81 NRC at 864 (Arnold, J., dissenting). 

16 Petitioners oppose the appeal. Petitioners’ Brief in Opposition to Entergy Appeal of 

LBP-15-20 (Aug. 7, 2015). Additionally, the Sierra Club filed a motion for leave to file a brief 

amicus curiae opposing the appeal. Motion by Sierra Club for Permission to File Amicus Brief 

(Aug. 7, 2015); Amicus Curiae Brief by Sierra Club in Support of Atomic Safety and Licensing 

Board Decision (Aug. 7, 2015). Entergy opposed the Sierra Club’s motion. Entergy’s Answer 

Opposing the Sierra Club’s Motion for Permission to File Amicus Curiae Brief (Aug. 17, 2015). 

The Sierra Club replied; Entergy opposed that reply. Sierra Club’s Reply to Entergy’s Answer to 

Motion to File Amicus Brief (Aug. 20, 2015); Entergy’s Answer Opposing the Sierra Club’s 

Unauthorized Reply (Aug. 20, 2015). Our rule governing amicus curiae participation does not 

contemplate a brief under the current circumstances. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.315(d) (providing the 

opportunity to file amicus briefs for matters taken up at our discretion under 10 C.F.R. § 2.341 or 

sua sponte). Nonetheless, we have considered the Sierra Club’s views as a matter of 

discretion. See, e.g., Omaha Public Power District (Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1), CLI-15-5, 

81 NRC 329, 333 n.19 (2015) (citing Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear 

Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-13-9, 78 NRC 551, 556 n.17 (2013)). 
- 5 - 

II. DISCUSSION 

Entergy seeks review under 10 C.F.R. § 2.311(d), which allows for an appeal of a 

licensing board order granting a request for hearing on the question whether the request should 

have been wholly denied. Our decision today assesses whether the Board erred in granting 

Petitioners’ request for hearing by finding their proffered contention admissible.17 In ruling on 

Entergy’s appeal, we will defer to the Board’s rulings on contention admissibility absent an error 

of law or abuse of discretion.18 As discussed below, we find that the Board erred in admitting 

Petitioners’ contention. 

A. Contention Admissibility Standards 

Our strict-by-design contention admissibility standards focus our hearing process on 

“disputes that can be resolved in ... adjudication.”19 To obtain a hearing, Petitioners must 

demonstrate standing and proffer an admissible contention.20 To satisfy our contention 

admissibility standards, a petitioner must: 

(i) Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or 

controverted; 

(ii) Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; 

(iii) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the 

proceeding; 

(iv) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings the 

NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding; 

 

17 The Board found that Petitioners had demonstrated standing. LBP-15-20, 81 NRC at 836-37. 

We do not address that ruling here. 

18 See, e.g., Exelon Generation Co., LLC (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), 

CLI-12-19, 76 NRC 377, 379-80 (2012); AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear 

Generating Station), CLI-06-24, 64 NRC 111, 121 (2006). 

19 Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3), CLI-08-17, 

68 NRC 231, 233 (2008). 

20 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(b), (d), and (f). 
- 6 - 

(v) Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions that support 

the petitioner's position on the issue and on which the petitioner intends to rely at 

hearing, together with references to the specific sources and documents on 

which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue; and 

(vi) Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the 

licensee on a material issue of law or fact.21

The proponent of a contention is responsible for formulating the contention and providing 

the necessary support to satisfy the contention admissibility requirements in 10 C.F.R. 

§ 2.309(f)(1). When raising a genuine material dispute with an application, we expect the 

petitioner to present “well-defined issues,” not issues based on “little more than guesswork.”22 

Finally, the petitioner must review the relevant documents, in this case the license amendment 

request and the equivalent margins analysis, and provide sufficient discussion of these 

documents and its concerns to demonstrate the existence of a genuine material dispute with the 

licensee on a material issue of law or fact.23

B. Petitioners Have Not Satisfied Our Contention Admissibility Standards 

On appeal, Entergy argues that the Board erred when it found (1) that the contention 

raises a genuine material dispute and (2) that Petitioners provided adequate support for their 

 

21 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i)-(vi). 

In this vein, Entergy argues that the Board erred in relying on an outdated contentionadmissibility standard that was discussed in an unreviewed licensing board decision. Appeal at 

20 (citing LBP-15-20, 82 NRC at 847-48, 855 (quoting, in turn, Duke Power Co. (Catawba 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-116, 16 NRC 1937, 1946 (1982) (“‘[a] contention about 

a matter not covered by a specific rule need only allege that it poses a significant safety 

problem’”))). The contention admissibility rules in place at the time permitted less-detailed 

notice pleading. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.714(b) (1982) (requiring petitioners to file “a list of the 

contentions which petitioner seeks to have litigated in the matter, and the bases for each 

contention set forth with reasonable specificity”). To the extent that the Board relied on 

Catawba in making its contention admissibility determination, we agree that the Board erred. 

22 Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (North Trend Expansion Project), CLI-09-12, 69 NRC 535, 552 

(2009) (citations omitted). 

23 See, e.g., Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 

18, 22 (1998). 
- 7 - 

contention.24 Our contention admissibility rules require petitioners to proffer contentions that 

demonstrate a genuine dispute with the application.25 Here, the Board found that Petitioners’ 

single reference to the equivalent margins analysis, along with the general discussion in 

Petitioners’ supporting documents, was sufficient to provide the requisite specificity to satisfy 

our regulations.26 We disagree. 

As Entergy notes, Petitioners provide only one specific reference to the equivalent 

margins analysis—an excerpt from the analysis that discusses the sulfur and nickel content in 

the Palisades reactor pressure vessel materials.27 Petitioners claim that this discussion shows 

that “the higher sulfur content of the plates means lower fracture toughness.”28 But Petitioners 

provide no basis for their statement regarding the sulfur content, nor does their expert address 

this claimed relationship between sulfur content and fracture toughness. We find, therefore, that 

 

24 Appeal at 2-3. Entergy also argues that the Board erred when it found that Petitioners’ 

challenge to the equivalent margins analysis did not constitute an unauthorized challenge to the 

coupon removal schedule that the NRC approved under 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix H. Appeal 

at 11-13, 13 n.74; LBP-15-20, 81 NRC at 841-45. Here, we agree with the Board—Petitioners 

have not challenged the coupon-removal schedule in Appendix H; rather, they have challenged 

Entergy’s Appendix G equivalent margins analysis—arguing that additional physical data must 

be obtained to support the analysis. See, e.g., Petition at 11, LBP-15-20, 81 NRC at 842. As 

the Board correctly stated, were Petitioners “to prevail on the merits, Entergy would need to test 

one or more capsules sooner than 2019 to provide adequate support” for the equivalent margins 

analysis. LBP-15-20, 81 NRC at 842. Thus, our regulations do not prohibit the additional 

testing requested by Petitioners. See 10 C.F.R. pt. 50, app. H(III)(c)(3) (specifying that “no 

reduction in the amount of testing” is allowed without NRC approval). But the absence of a 

prohibition is not sufficient justification to admit a contention—Petitioners must still satisfy our 

contention admissibility criteria. 

25 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi); NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), 

CLI-12-5, 75 NRC 301, 307 (2012) (citations and quotation marks omitted). 

26 LBP-15-20, 81 NRC at 861-62. 

27 Appeal at 3; see also Petition at 19-20 (citing Equivalent Margins Analysis at 24-25). One of 

Petitioners’ supporting documents, Declaration of Arnold Gundersen (Dec. 1, 2014) (Gundersen 

Declaration), discussed further infra, likewise includes one general reference to the equivalent 

margins analysis. Gundersen Declaration ¶ 45.5. 

28 Petition at 19-20. 
- 8 - 

the Board erred in finding that Petitioners provided sufficient specific references to the 

application to satisfy our contention admissibility criteria.29

Petitioners attached two documents to the Petition to support their contention: a 

declaration by Mr. Arnold Gundersen, an engineer and Petitioners’ expert in this matter, and a 

report by Greenpeace on “microcracking” in reactor pressure vessels.30 The Board found that 

the Gundersen Declaration and Greenpeace Report provided sufficient support for Petitioners’ 

contention.31 We hold that the Board erred in making this determination. We address each 

document in turn below. 

1. Gundersen Declaration

In finding that the Gundersen Declaration supports Petitioners’ contention, the Board 

noted that Mr. Gundersen “has pointed to an alleged deficiency in the analysis (lack of recent 

capsule data) and he has provided a foundation for his opinion with a discussion of the 

characteristics of the Palisades reactor vessel that allegedly make this data significant.”32 In 

particular, the Board points to paragraphs 8-11 and 45-48 of the Gundersen Declaration. 

Paragraph 8 contains an unsupported claim that “[t]he current analysis cannot be substantiated 

because physical data is lacking to support any mathematical analysis.”33 Paragraphs 9-11 

 

29 With respect to the nickel content of the Palisades reactor pressure vessel, the Board found 

that Petitioners did not provide adequate support for their claim that the nickel content “will 

weaken the materials in the Palisades reactor” and that Petitioners’ support for this assertion 

“does not explain how high nickel content results in ‘nickel impurities’ or otherwise leads to any 

undue risk to the Palisades [reactor pressure vessel].” LBP-15-20, 81 NRC at 862. We find no 

error in this determination. 

30 See Petition at 16-19, 21-22 (referencing the Gundersen Declaration and Nuclear Reactor 

Pressure Vessel Crisis: Greenpeace Briefing (Feb. 15, 2015) (Greenpeace Report)). 

31 LBP-15-20, 81 NRC at 851. 

32 Id. at 852 (citations omitted). 

33 Gundersen Declaration ¶ 8. 
- 9 - 

contain factual statements regarding reactor pressure vessels in general (e.g., that they are 

made of “thick steel plates”) and the Palisades reactor pressure vessel in particular (e.g., its 

date of construction), together with an unsupported statement that the weld materials at 

Palisades contain “metallic components ... that are now considered unacceptable due to 

impurities.”34 Paragraphs 45-48 generally criticize the instant license amendment request and a 

separate request that is not at issue here.35 In reviewing these paragraphs, the Board found 

that the Declaration “offers enough factual support and explanation to dispute the adequacy of 

the inputs used in Entergy’s [equivalent margin analysis].”36 Further, the Board found that these 

paragraphs also identify an “alleged deficiency” in the equivalent margins analysis—the “lack of 

recent capsule data.”37

We disagree. Although Petitioners and the Gundersen Declaration challenge the 

adequacy of the equivalent margins analysis (i.e., stating that the analysis is inadequate without 

additional testing of metal coupons),38 the Gundersen Declaration does not cite—or otherwise 

discuss—the specific portions of Entergy’s analysis that Petitioners and Mr. Gundersen believe 

to be insufficient. Nor do Petitioners or Mr. Gundersen, as noted by Judge Arnold, “provide a 

description of new information that could be provided by coupon removal that is not already 

available” from the analysis of earlier coupons that were removed from the reactor.39 As we 

 

34 Id. ¶¶ 9-11.

35 Id. ¶¶ 45-48. That license amendment application pertains to Entergy’s request to use 

alternate fracture toughness requirements at Palisades. In a separate decision issued today, 

we affirmed the Board’s ruling denying Petitioners’ request for a hearing in that matter. See 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Palisades Nuclear Plant), LBP-15-17, 81 NRC 753, aff’d, 

CLI-15-22, 82 NRC __ (Nov. 9, 2015) (slip op.). 

36 LBP-15-20, 81 NRC at 852. 

37 Id. 

38 See e.g., Petition at 11; LBP-15-20, 81 NRC at 851-55. 

39 Id. at 864 (Arnold, J., dissenting). 
- 10 - 

have previously held, “an expert opinion that merely states a conclusion ... without providing a 

reasoned basis or explanation for that conclusion is inadequate because it deprives the Board 

of the ability to make the necessary, reflective assessment of that opinion.”40 Here, Mr. 

Gundersen provides no explanation for his claim that additional physical testing is necessary to 

support the equivalent margins analysis. Further, Petitioners and Mr. Gundersen neither 

“explain how additional testing would improve knowledge of the vessel embrittlement” at 

Palisades, nor “relate this concern to their contention in any way.”41

To proffer an admissible contention, Petitioners must “explain the basis for the 

contention and read the relevant parts of the license application and show where the application 

is lacking”; an assertion that additional analysis is necessary, without further support (e.g., a 

basis to support the need for additional physical testing), is not sufficient.42 Based on our review 

of the record and the Board’s decision, we find that the Board erred in finding that Mr. 

Gundersen’s Declaration provided “concrete and specific” support for Petitioners’ contention.43

 

 

40 USEC, Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant), CLI-06-10, 63 NRC 451, 472 (2006) (citations and 

quotation marks omitted). 

41 LBP-15-20, 81 NRC at 867 (Arnold, J., dissenting). 

42 Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3), 

CLI-91-12, 34 NRC 149, 156 (1991). 

43 The Board further cites to Mr. Gundersen’s statements regarding the need for “physical 

data ... to determine the actual toughness of the reactor vessel.” LBP-15-20, 81 NRC at 852 

(citing Gundersen Declaration ¶ 51). But the discussion cited by the Board here appears to be 

a reference to a separate license amendment request not at issue here. Paragraph 51 is the 

only numbered paragraph in a section that discusses Entergy’s pending request to implement at 

Palisades the alternate fracture toughness requirements in 10 C.F.R. § 50.61a, a matter the 

NRC is addressing separately. Gundersen Declaration § IX (unnumbered paragraph preceding 

¶ 51). See generally Palisades, CLI-15-22, 82 NRC __ (slip op.). Even if Paragraph 51 can be 

read as discussing the license amendment request at issue here, it does not provide sufficient 

support for Petitioners’ contention. 
- 11 - 

2. Greenpeace Report 

Petitioners cite the Greenpeace Report as evidence that “world-recognized nuclear 

engineers have advised close attention to [the microcracking] phenomenon in older reactor 

[pressure vessels].”44 Petitioners only cite the Report to call for additional examination of the 

microcracking phenomenon at Palisades, not to support their challenge to the equivalent 

margins analysis.45

The Board, however, found more support in the Greenpeace Report than is reflected in 

the Petition and relied heavily on the Report in admitting Petitioners’ contention.46 In its 

decision, the Board provides a lengthy analysis of the Report and documents cited therein. In 

particular, the Board stated that “[t]hese microcracking allegations imply that the Palisades 

[reactor pressure vessel] materials may be of lower fracture toughness than described by 

Entergy, and thus that Entergy’s [equivalent margins analysis] fails to show that the Palisades 

reactor vessel demonstrates equivalent margins of safety under 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix 

G.”47 However, it is Petitioners’ responsibility, not the Board’s, to formulate contentions and to 

provide “the necessary information to satisfy the basis requirement” for admission.48 At the 

contention admissibility stage, the Board should view Petitioners’ support for their contention “in 

a light that is favorable” to Petitioners, but the Board “cannot do so by ignoring the requirements 

set forth in [10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)].”49 We agree with Judge Arnold that the “vague 

speculation” in the Greenpeace Report “that this type of flaw may exist in other reactor vessels 

 

44 Petition at 21-22. 

45 See id. at 22. 

46 Compare LBP-15-20, 81 NRC at 856-61 with Petition at 21-22. 

47 LBP-15-20, 81 NRC at 857. 

48 Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, CLI-98-12, 48 NRC at 22. 

49 Palo Verde, CLI-91-12, 34 NRC at 155. 
- 12 - 

[than the two Belgian reactor vessels discussed in the Greenpeace Report] is not sufficient to 

establish a material challenge” to the license amendment request.50

III. CONCLUSION 

As discussed above, we find that the Board erred in finding that Petitioners had satisfied 

our contention admissibility criteria. Therefore, we reverse the Board’s decision in LBP-15-20 

and direct the Licensing Board to terminate this proceeding. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 For the Commission 

NRC SEAL /RA/ 

 ________________________ 

 Annette L. Vietti-Cook 

 Secretary of the Commission 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, 

this 9th day of November, 2015. 

 

50 LBP-15-20, 81 NRC at 866-67 (Arnold, J., dissenting). 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket No. 50-255-LA-2 

 (Entergy) ) 

 ) 

 (Palisades Nuclear Plant) ) 

 ) 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-15-23) 

have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 

Mail Stop: O-7H4 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

ocaamail@nrc.gov

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of the Secretary of the Commission 

Mail Stop O-16C1 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Hearing Docket 

hearingdocket@nrc.gov

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 

Mail Stop: T-3F23 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Ronald M. Spritzer, Chair 

Administrative Judge 

ronald.spritzer@nrc.gov 

Gary S. Arnold, 

Administrative Judge 

gary.arnold@nrc.gov

Thomas J. Hirons 

Administrative Judge 

thomas.hirons@nrc.gov

Sachin Desai, Law Clerk 

sachin.desai@nrc.gov 

Nicole Pepperl, Law Clerk 

nicole.pepperl@nrc.gov 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of the General Counsel 

Mail Stop O-15D21 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Anita Ghosh, Esq. 

Joseph Lindell, Esq. 

David Roth, Esq. 

Daniel Straus, Esq. 

John Tibbetts, Paralegal 

Edward Williamson, Esq. 

anita.ghosh@nrc.gov

joseph.lindell@nrc.gov

david.roth@nrc.gov

daniel.straus@nrc.gov 

john.tibbetts@nrc.gov

edward.williamson@nrc.gov
Docket No. 50-255-LA-2 

COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-15-23)

2

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Raphael P. Kuyler, Esq. 

Paul Bessette, Esq. 

Ryan Lighty, Esq. 

Martin O’Neill, Esq. 

rkuyler@morganlewis.com

pbessette@morganlewis.com

rlighty@morganlewis.com

martin.oneill@morganlewis.com

Beyond Nuclear, Don’t Waste Michigan, Michigan 

Safe Energy Future – Shoreline Chapter, Nuclear 

Energy Information Service “The Petitioners” 

316 N. Michigan St., Street, 520 

Toledo, OH 43604-5627 

Terry Lodge, Counsel for the Petitioners 

tjlodge50@yahoo.com

Entergy 

William B. Glew, Jr., Esq. 

Jeanne Cho, Esq. 

440 Hamilton Avenue 

White Plains, NY 10601 

wglew@entergy.com 

jcho1@entergy.com

[Original signed by Herald M. Speiser ] 

 Office of the Secretary of the Commission 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland 

this 9th day of November, 2015