Detroit dock collapse is a wake-up call

Justin Onwenu, Sierra Club Michigan staff

Last week, a southwest Detroit dock thought to be contaminated with uranium collapsed into the river. Authorities have assured the public that there is little to no risk of uranium exposure in our water sources based on extensive tests done on the Detroit River and soil tests done on site.

More: State: Samples from Detroit dock collapse site show 'no risk to health'

More: Lawmaker urges probe of dock collapse at Detroit site that once had radioactive material

Let me be clear: Not having uranium in the Detroit River is great news, but it’s also a ridiculously low bar to set for public safety and healthy waterways. This may not be the public health crisis that many feared at first glance, and for that we should be relieved, but there is still a lot at stake.

Read more ... 

Midwestern lawmakers green the grid, slightly

Benjamin Storrow, E&E News reporter

Published: Monday, December 19, 2016

Midwestern state capitals buzzed with energy legislation in the dying days of 2016.

In Illinois, legislators handed out $2.4 billion in subsidies to two nuclear plants, bolstered the state's renewable energy mandates and gave utilities added financial incentive to pursue energy efficiency measures. Michigan lawmakers haggled over how much of the state's power market should be open to competition but ultimately made few major changes. And in Ohio, legislators passed a plan to effectively make the Buckeye State's renewable power standards optional. The measure's fate now hinges on Gov. John Kasich (R), who has voiced his displeasure with the plan.

The net impact of all that paper-pushing: a slightly greener grid in one of America's most coal-dependent regions.

How much credit, or derision, lawmakers can claim is unclear. Coal was already under siege from cheap natural gas in the Midwest. Wind, too, has made inroads — especially in Illinois, where it accounts for the majority of new capacity.

"On the margin, some of the legislation will have an impact," said Travis Miller, an analyst who tracks the power sector at the investment research firm Morningstar. "But these are very large power markets, and at the end of the day, economics are going to drive what type of generation is in the energy mix."

That's not to dismiss the entirety of what lawmakers did, particularly in Illinois. Subsidies for Exelon Corp.'s two nuclear plants make the economic landscape for Dynegy Inc.'s coal plants even more challenging, analysts said. The Illinois Power Generating Co., an Dynegy subsidiary, filed for bankruptcy a few days after the bill passed.

Lawmakers in Springfield, Ill., provided a fix to Illinois' renewable portfolio standard, ensuring an annual budget of $200 million in renewable energy credits. Greens are especially excited that roughly half of that sum will go toward distributed and community solar.

"Illinois will have more wind power and solar energy, as they receive policy support and are increasingly economic in the marketplace," said Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center in Chicago. "The public wants more clean renewable energy, and the public is going to get more clean renewable energy."

The bill also set energy efficiency goals of 21.5 percent and 13 percent, respectively, by 2030 for a pair of distribution utilities, Commonwealth Edison and Ameren Corp. (Energywire, Dec. 2)

Coal's struggle for survival

In Michigan, lawmakers boosted the state's renewable portfolio standard from 10 percent to 15 percent by 2021 (Energywire, Dec. 16).

The bill calls on utilities to provide a more robust analysis of their long-term plans to the Michigan Public Service Commission. Independent power providers will be able to submit bids when utilities file plans for generation projects greater than 225 megawatts. Though the commission is under no obligation to accept those bids, they can use them as a benchmark for rejecting the utilities' plans.

"I think these bills have clarified and reinforced the course we're on, which is a steady move away from coal and a reorganization of power markets toward wind and solar," said Nachy Kanfer, deputy regional director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign.

More telling, perhaps, is what the debates symbolize: Baseload power generators, like coal and nuclear facilities, are struggling to compete in markets with stagnant power demand and weak prices.

The dynamic is particularly acute in states like Illinois and Ohio, which boast competitive wholesale power markets.

Illinois lawmakers followed in the steps of New York in giving financial assurances to nuclear plants. Michigan lawmakers ultimately rebuffed calls to either expand or eliminate the 10 percent of its power market now open to competition. Instead, they effectively required independent producers to guarantee their supply.

The fights look set to continue. Ohio utilities are now lobbying lawmakers to re-regulate struggling coal facilities, guaranteeing them a financial return. The Midcontinent Independent System Operator has also proposed reforms to ensure future capacity, in a move analysts say would bolster struggling baseload plants (Energywire, July 15).

Utilities' switch to natural gas would likely be even greater if the matter were left to the market, said Paul Patterson, a financial analyst at Glenrock Associates LLC.

"What you're seeing is people having second thoughts about what the outcome will be," he said. "Otherwise, competition will drive out a lot of the generation we have, and we don't like the idea of that happening."

Clean Energy Emerges from Lame Duck! - MI Chapter Update 12-18-16

50th Anniversary of FERMI 1 Nuclear Core Partial Meltdown,

Monroe, MI. On a bright sunny day fifty years ago where the River Raisin flows into Lake Erie, Detroit Edison’s new FERMI1 suffered a near catastrophic melt down of its fuel core. Of course the residents of Monroe knew nothing about the nuclear accident as DTE had asked the local police to keep the potentially lethal mishap secret from the public in order to avoid a panic.

What is not secret is that if FERMI 1’s core had completely melted down hundreds of thousands of people would have been killed or seriously injured. No one knows how much radiation was released during the FERMI 1 meltdown. And to this day, no one knows how to deal with the highly radioactive sodium coolant that was trucked to the Idaho National Laboratory, where it sits today.

Fifty years later, on an equally bright sunny day, Michael Keegan and Alliance to Halt FERMI 3, ATHF3, organized the commemoration of the meltdown at FERMI 1, which featured David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists USA, Paul Gunter, Nuclear Information Research Services, Ethyl Riviera, director of  “Got KI?” campaign in Monroe, tireless environmental attorney Terry Lodge, and Wyandot Nation’s Chantel Gros-Louis.

Speakers called for halting the construction of FERMI 3, to be built on the site of the FERMI 1 meltdown, at a cost of $20 Billion, the end of the poisoning of Lake Erie by DTE’s FERMI 2 and Monroe Coal-fired plant, which contributes more mercury pollution to adjacent waters than any other plant in the US, and strengthening of a “moribund” Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Sierra Club Nuclear Free Michigan                                                                               October 5, 2016

Mark Muhich, Chairman

Markmuhich0@gmail.com

Today marks 50 years since Fermi 1 accident

JC Reindl , Detroit Free Press 12:09 a.m. EDT October 5, 2016

It was 50 years ago today that Monroe County was the site of the worst nuclear accident at a U.S. commercial power plant, years before Three Mile Island captivated the nation.

 The incident occurred around 3 p.m. at the now-defunct Fermi 1 plant in Frenchtown Township near Monroe and involved the partial meltdown of nuclear fuel in the reactor's core. No one was hurt and no dangerous radiation released in the Oct. 5, 1966, mishap. However, the plant remained shut down for nearly four years. It reopened in July 1970 but then was permanently shut for economic reasons in 1972 after producing just a trickle of electricity.

More ...

Beyond Nuclear - October 5, 2016: 50 years since the "We Almost Lost Detroit" partial core meltdown at Fermi 1 in Michigan

Sierra Club - Huron Valley Group endorses the Alliance to Halt Fermi 3

  Huron Valley Group


On April 11, 2016, the Executive Committee of the Sierra Club Huron Valley Group (HVG) passed a resolution without objection to officially endorse the Alliance to Halt Fermi 3 (ATHF3.org).

HVG supports the mission and purpose of ATHF3 as stated in ATHF3's Bylaws. In fact, the national Sierra Club’s position is very clear: "The Sierra Club remains unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy. ..." http://sierraclub.org/michigan/nuclear-free-future

Therefore, in light of our common goals, HVG agrees to collaborate with ATHF3 to the extent that HVG resources are available, especially for events and activities which occur within HVG's tri-county territory, and provided that such collaboration complies with the Sierra Club's national and state policies. HVG does not commit to provide any financial resources or membership dues to ATHF3 and will clarify the restrictions for affiliation and use of the Sierra Club logo.

HVG will provide updated group contact information to be posted publicly in ATHF3's list of endorsing groups and organizations. HVG and ATHF3 will share relevant links and announcements for posting on social media and website event calendars.

Sierra Club Huron Valley Group (HVG) looks forward to working with the Alliance to Halt Fermi 3 (ATHF3) to advocate for a nuclear-free energy future.


Signed,


Nancy L. Shiffler
Chair, Sierra Club Huron Valley Group (HVG) On Behalf of the HVG Executive Committee
July 19, 2016

Michigan Chapter Update - December 20, 2015

Position Statement on Energy Policy

Sierra Club Michigan Chapter Position Statement 

Energy Policy

Sierra Club encourages lawmakers to expand Michigan’s renewable energy and efficiency programs, and more specifically:
- Increase Michigan's renewable energy standard to 30% by 2030.
- Increase Michigan's energy efficiency/optimization standard from 1% to 2% annually.
- Remove the existing spending cap on Michigan's energy efficiency program.
- Ensure that "clean" or "renewable" energy is not redefined to include any fossil fuels, nuclear energy, or energy from incinerating wastes.
- Ensure that customers are able to produce their own energy and are allowed to either use that energy themselves or sell it back to a utility company at full price, not a wholesale price.
- Enable everyone to participate in community renewable energy projects.



Issue Background
In 2008, the Michigan Legislature passed the Clean, Renewable, and Efficient Energy Act (PA 295). The law put in place a Renewable Energy Standard (RES) that requires Michigan’s utility companies to obtain 10% of their electricity from clean and renewable sources by 2015. The law also created an energy efficiency program, which is funded through a small fee on all ratepayers’ energy bills to help homeowners and businesses make their homes and offices more energy efficient.

PA295 has been an unparalleled success. All major utilities have met the 10% renewable energy standard and have reduced/eliminated surcharges to pay for it. While the costs of coal and nuclear energy range from $108-133 per megawatt/hour, wind contracts cost between $43-59 per megawatt/hour, which is cheaper than natural gas at $67 per MWh. The Michigan Public Service Commission’s 2013 report on renewables states that Michigan can achieve a 30% renewable energy standard (RES) without technical difficulties or increased costs. PA 295 defined renewable energy to include solar, wind, hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, and landfill gas.

Michigan’s energy efficiency standard of 1% annual savings has also been successful. For every $1 invested in our energy efficiency program, ratepayers have saved $4.38. Energy efficiency is the most cost-effective way to reduce spending on electricity, costing $11 per MWh, cheaper than any form of new generation. The 2008 law also set a cap on how much utilities could spend on energy efficiency.


Sierra Club Perspective
Fossil fuels create $523 billion of domestic public health and environmental costs annually and receive over $500 billion in annual subsidies from our government. The Legislature should increase Michigan’s RES to 30% by 2030 and increase its efficiency standard to 2% annually. This would combat subsidies/costs and promote meaningful progress in climate disaster mitigation. The legislature should also ensure that customers are able to produce their own energy and sell it at full price.

Michigan currently spends $24 billion per year importing fuel into the state. 100% of our fuel for coal and nuclear power comes from out-of-state, 99% of our petroleum and 80% of our natural gas as well. Solar, wind and energy efficiency have no fuel costs and don’t send our money out of state.

The Sierra Club opposes proposals to gut the definition of renewable/clean energy. Fossil fuels, nuclear energy, waste incineration, and pumped storage are not renewable energy sources. Energy sources that emit air pollution (including the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane), water pollution, and produce radioactive waste should not be considered “clean energy” in Michigan’s laws.




Current Legislation on Clean Energy in Michigan
There is currently no legislation introduced to establish a 30% Renewable Energy Standard annual increase.

Sierra Club Supports the Following Bills
Powering Michigan’s Future legislation SB 295-297 and HB 4518-4519, HB 4055: increase Michigan’s renewable energy standard to 20% by 2022, gradually increase the energy optimization standard until reaching 2% annually in 2019 for electricity and 1.5% for natural gas, and eliminate the renewable energy surcharge.
Bill sponsors: Hoon-Yung Hopgood, David Knezek, Sam Singh, Marcia Hovey-Wright, Julie Plawecki.

Bipartisan Energy Freedom legislation HB 4878-4881: remove barriers for businesses and individuals to generate their own energy and receive fair-value pricing. Enable community energy projects.
Bill sponsors: Gary Glenn, Ed McBroom, Scott Dianda, Jeff Irwin

HB 4304 (Jason Sheppard): prevent natural gas utilities from raising rates to pay for fines and penalties. This bill is a positive step toward establishing stricter accountability for utility companies when they fail to comply with the law.

HB 4683 (Scott Dianda): require the Michigan Public Service Commission to adopt integrated resource plans for regions of the state. This is designed to make energy distribution in the Upper Peninsula cheaper, cleaner and more reliable.


Sierra Club Opposes the Following Bills
SB 437-438 (Mike Nofs, John Proos): sunset Michigan’s Energy Optimization standard in 2019, repeal Michigan’s Renewable Energy Standard, establish a definition for “clean energy” that includes polluting fossil fuels, implement a voluntary green pricing program, eliminate net metering, destroy the distributed energy market, and replace standards with an Integrated Resource Planning process.

HB 4297-4298 (Aric Nesbitt): replace renewable energy/efficiency mandates with an Integrated Resource Planning process, establish an unenforceable 30% renewable/efficiency goal, and remove sustainability criteria for wood/tree biomass.

SB 465 (Mike Shirkey): require the legislature to review Michigan’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the federal Clean Power Plan and give them the power to disapprove it. It would also prevent a SIP from being submitted if there is pending litigation against the Clean Power Plan. This will handcuff our ability to comply with the Clean Power Plan, slow down our implementation, and lessen our ability to mitigate climate change.

HB 4303 (Brett Roberts): allow natural gas utilities to expand their infrastructure with Michigan Public Service Commission oversight/review and use ratepayer money to pay for it. This ratepayer money should instead be spent on repairing/replacing old natural gas pipelines, distributed generation, community renewable projects, or energy efficiency.

HB 4066 (Ray Franz): completely ban offshore wind deeds, leases, or permits in the Great Lakes.

HB 4308 (Ray Franz): repeal Michigan’s current Renewable Energy Standard.

Michigan Chapter Update - November 15, 2015

Kalamazoo Mayor Hopewell's Letter on the Pallisades Nuclear Plant

Sierra Club Submits Testimony Opposing SB 438: Destructive Energy Legislation

The Sierra Club Michigan Chapter submitted the following testimony to the Senate Energy and Technology Committee in response to Senate Bill 438 on Tuesday, August 25.

August 25, 2015

To: Chairman Nofs and members of the Senate Energy and Technology Committee

RE: Senate Bill 438

On behalf of our 60,000 members and supporters in Michigan, the Sierra Club urges a NO vote on SB 438 (Proos), a bill that would eliminate Michigan’s renewable energy standard, sunset the state’s energy optimization standard, establish a definition for “clean energy resources” that includes polluting fossil fuels, and modify net metering in a way that would discourage distributed generation. Michigan legislators must reject SB 438 because it would undermine Michigan’s progress to date and put our future at risk.

Michigan’s renewable energy and efficiency standards have been unparalleled successes. They’ve created jobs, saved ratepayers money and enhanced economic development, while simultaneously protecting the health of Michigan’s citizens and the Great Lakes by reducing dirty, costly fossil fuels in our energy sector. Now is the time for our elected officials to increase Michigan’s renewable energy standard as both Michigan state agencies and nationally acclaimed energy experts show that our state can dramatically increase its renewable energy and efficiency capacity while boosting our economy and protecting our environment.

Energy Waste

Eliminating Michigan’s energy optimization (EO) standard in 2019 is the wrong choice for ratepayers. Energy savings, monetary savings, and greenhouse gas emission savings would all be decreased without an Energy Optimization standard. Integrated Resource Planning should be used in conjunction with a mandated efficiency goal, not instead of it. Investor-owned energy companies have little incentive to sell less energy and reap less profit, but as regulated monopolies they can and should be required to help their customers reduce energy waste.

Eliminating the EO standard contradicts both Governor Snyder’s plan to eliminate energy waste and the outstanding success of the current measure in saving ratepayers money. Michigan residents today save $3.55 for every dollar invested in our current efficiency program, while simultaneously preventing carbon and other pollution. Michigan’s energy efficiency industry is a driving force in our economy that employs more than 46,000 Michiganders, while also averting greenhouse gas emissions. The bill also establishes a cap on how much utility companies can spend on energy waste reduction programs at 2% of total utility retail sales. Waste Reduction is the cheapest way to save ratepayers money and decrease greenhouse gas emissions, so Sierra Club opposes any arbitrary limits or caps.

Definition of Clean Energy

The bill defines “Clean Energy” in a way that allows unsustainable forms of energy such as natural gas, waste incineration, nuclear, and other fossil fuels to be considered clean energy sources. This definition is too broad and weakens the true meaning of Clean Energy.  Energy sources that emit air and water pollution, including the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane, and produce radioactive waste should not be considered “clean energy” in Michigan’s laws.

Climate Change

SB 438 is a dangerous proposal that takes Michigan in the wrong direction when it comes to protecting our state from climate disaster. Climate disruption caused by greenhouse gases from human sources is an urgent threat to our everyday lives and our future, and its impact is already being felt in Michigan. Climate disruption is about more than warmer temperatures – it’s about disrupting the basic weather patterns that affect almost everything in our lives - our water supplies, how we grow our food, the kinds of diseases we deal with, and the ability to keep our families safe.

We can already see the effects of climate disruption all across America: unprecedented droughts and wildfires in Western states, record-breaking heat in the Southwest and Midwest, Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy, extreme winter weather in traditionally warm states, and melting glaciers in Alaska. Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent, harming people, their economic well-being, their health, their homes, and their futures. Right here in Michigan, we’ve seen cherry and apple crops completely devastated due to abnormal and extreme weather patterns exacerbated by climate disruption. The time to fight climate disruption is now, but enacting SB 438 would contribute to more climate disasters.

Sierra Club members call on our elected leaders to combat climate disruption by moving Michigan beyond fossil fuels and towards true clean energy sources like wind, solar, and energy efficiency. According to a Yale study from last year, 61% of Michiganders believe climate change is happening, 76% believe we should regulate carbon pollution, and 60% support increasing our state’s renewable energy standard.  The message is clear: Michiganders oppose SB 438 and want more renewable energy and efficiency instead.

Green Pricing Program

The green pricing program established in this legislation is a step in the right direction. However, voluntary programs wane in the long run because utility companies operate under a regulated monopoly with a guaranteed rate of return/profit. Investor-owned energy companies have little incentive to invest in energy sources that protect the planet, because they are guaranteed a profit no matter which sources they utilize. If we can guarantee utility companies a profit, we should also require them to invest in energy sources that protect our air and water instead of unsustainable sources. We need mandates in addition to voluntary programs in order to truly protect Michigan’s environment and ratepayers.

Distributed Generation

The distributed generation portion of this legislation is a step in the wrong direction. Currently, small-scale solar projects in place or being installed on Michigan homes, businesses, and non-profits are able to connect to the grid through Michigan’s net metering program, which has been a huge success. SB 438 would drastically undercut homeowners who are investing in Michigan’s future through renewable energy systems.  Under SB 438, those families which invest their own funds in their own private renewable power systems and connect them to the grid to help with power distribution and peak demand, would be mandated to buy all their power at retail rates from the monopoly power company in their area, and meanwhile be forced to sell the electricity they generate at home back to utility companies for less than it is worth. This staggeringly anti-entrepreneurial concept runs contrary to common sense and the best interests of our state.  Net metered electricity from solar is normally produced when there is peak demand for electricity. This means solar power generation through net metering actually saves all ratepayers substantial money over time by reducing the need to invest in electric generation plants for peak load, which are the most expensive to build, maintain and run, and drive up the cost of electricity for all ratepayers.

According to the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings, between 2003 and 2010, the solar industry was one of the fastest growing segments of Michigan's economy, increasing at a rate of 15.8 percent each year with 121 companies in Michigan and employing 6,300 workers. This bill could kill that economic progress. This bill would discourage investment in solar production by delaying payback periods from 10 years (which most customers get today) to 18-20 years.  Ratepayers who are investing in distributed generation already are willing to take on the burdensome costs for net metering, including application fees, metering installation, interconnection, and testing costs, while also requiring pay delivery charges and non-fuel portion of power supply rates. We should not be adding more costs on these ratepayers while at the same time requiring them to sell their clean, home generated energy for less than its true value. In addition, facilities that produce energy on-site via distributed generation are better protected from large power outages than traditional customers who depend on the grid.

Michigan should encourage distributed generation instead of limiting it. Although the new plan increases allowed distributed generation to 10% from the previous 1% cap, we believe there should be no cap, giving the opportunity for all Michiganders to participate and decide how they want to use their energy. Senate Bill 438 would discourage distributed generation to the detriment of ratepayers, homeowners and businesses.

Subsidies

Some supporters of SB 438 have claimed that renewable energy and efficiency programs are being unfairly subsidized and that this bill restores market forces. What they don’t disclose, however, is that the fossil fuel industry received $502 billion in overall subsidies from U.S. taxpayers in 2012, according to a report from the International Monetary Fund. In comparison, the renewable energy industry (excluding biomass) received $24 billion in federal support in 2012, less than five percent the subsidization of fossil fuels.

In addition, the International Monetary Fund recently reported that fossil fuel pollution costs the world $5 trillion annually in public health and environmental problems. Pollution costs are externalized from the market and are another form of fossil fuel subsidization, balanced out by costs to people’s health and degradation to our natural resources. For an example right here in Michigan, a 2011 report from Environmental Health and Engineering, Inc. showed that particulate matter pollution (PM2.5) from Michigan’s nine oldest coal plants are costing $5.4 billion a year in public health costs.

When determining Michigan’s next energy policy, the legislature must also consider the context of excessive subsidies currently given to fossil fuel based suppliers. We encourage you to pass policies that even the playing field for sustainable forms of energy such renewable energy standards, energy optimization standards, fair pricing for distributed generation, and enabling community energy projects.

Out of State Spending

Michigan currently spends $22 billion a year importing fossil fuel into the state, for both transportation and power. We get 100% of our fuel for coal and nuclear energy and 80 percent of our natural gas from other states. Solar and wind are fuel free; once installed, the cost of energy is zero. That is all money that then gets spent in Michigan instead of sent out of state to import fuel. Our public policies should support renewable energy development and energy optimization instead of continuing our reliance on polluting and volatile fossil fuels like natural gas and coal.

Sierra Club’s Policy Recommendations

The Sierra Club specifically calls on the Michigan legislature to:

• Increase Michigan's renewable energy standard to 30% by 2030, as the Public Service Commission and Energy Office have all said is readily achievable.
• Increase Michigan's energy optimization standard from 1% to 2% annually.
• Remove the existing spending cap on Michigan's energy efficiency program.
• Ensure that "clean" or "renewable" energy is not redefined to include anything that emits greenhouse gasses or creates radioactive waste such as fossil fuels, nuclear energy, or energy from incinerating wastes.
• Ensure that electric ratepayers are able to produce their own energy to either use themselves or sell back to a utility company at full retail price, not a wholesale or lowered price.
• Remove the existing cap on net metering and all other regulatory barriers to distributed generation.
• Enable all individuals, organizations, places of worship and utilities to establish community renewable energy gardens, similar to the ones currently operated by Cherryland Electric Co-Op and proposed for the Lansing Board of Water and Light, and require investor-owned utilities to purchase generated energy from these entities.

For these reasons, we urge you to vote NO on SB 438. Votes pertaining to this bill will be included in the Sierra Club’s legislative scorecard.

Sincerely,

Mike Berkowitz

Legislative and Political Director

Sierra Club Michigan Chapter

Michigan Chapter Update - August 15, 2015

	Web Version | Join or Give | Send to a Friend Sent to lighthawk.pilot@gmail.com (Not You? Sign Up Here)
	Michigan Chapter Update AUGUST 16 2015  In this issue: GOV BLANCHARD URGED TO PROTECT GREAT LAKES FROM ENBRIDGE LINE 5 UPCOMING EVENTS: -LAST CHANCE: SIGN UP FOR THE ANNUAL RETREAT: AUGUST 21-23-PEOPLE'S CLIMATE MARCH IN GRAND RAPIDS: SEPTEMBER 19 -DETROIT MARCH FOR JUSTICE: OCTOBER 3 SIERRA CLUB FILES AMICUS BRIEF ON PALISADE'S NUCLEAR PLANT SENATE BILL WOULD UNDERMINE NET METERING FOR SOLAR  GO SOLAR WITH SIERRA CLUB! MI SOLAR PARTNERSHIP JOIN THE BAN FRACKING IN MICHIGAN PETITION DRIVE! SPEAK UP ABOUT MICHIGAN'S WATER STRATEGY THANK YOU TO TIM MINOTAS! EXPLORE AND ENJOY: IARGO SPRINGS LAST CHANCE TO SIGN UP TODAY AND MONDAY: Chapter Annual Retreat  August 21-23 Camp Miniwanca Shelby, MI  Join us for a Peoples' Climate March in West Michigan! Learn more and RSVP here. September 19, 1-2:30 p.m. 6th Street Bridge Park, Grand Rapids  SAVE THE DATE! Detroit March for Justice October 3, 12 p.m. Roosevelt Park, Detroit SIERRA CLUB URGES FORMER GOVERNOR TO USE ROLE ON ENBRIDGE BOARD TO SHUT DOWN LINE 5 The Sierra Club called on former Michigan Governor James Blanchard, who currently serves as a board member for Enbridge, Inc., to address immediate safety concerns associated with the Canadian company's Line 5 crude oil pipeline that runs through the Straits of Mackinac. Advocates gathered at the Capitol to urge government officials to shut down the 62-year-old Line 5 pipeline. Photo by Cecilia Garcia. As chair of the Enbridge board's Committee of Social Responsibility, Blanchard's position calls for his oversight on environmental stewardship and the protection of local communities. The Sierra Club letter calls on the former governor to compel the company to publicly disclose safety inspection results and cooperate in an independent investigation sought by the state, in line with Blanchard's authority and duties at the company. The request calls directly on Blanchard to aid in the immediate shut down of Line 5, as the company failed to maintain legal pipeline infrastructure and provided inconsistent liability information in the event of an oil spill. The company's history with this 61-year-old pipeline proves to violate the very goals of Blanchard's position on the board of directors, one created in response to the company's catastrophic Line 6b breech that devastated the Kalamazoo River and local communities. Michigan Sierra Club Chair David Holtz weighed in on the importance of preventing a similar catastrophe by holding the company, specifically Blanchard, accountable. "Governor Blanchard is not only in a unique position to protect the Great Lakes from an Enbridge catastrophe, but as an Enbridge board member he is responsible to Enbridge shareholders for making sure the company stops behaving badly," Holtz said. To read our full press release, which includes each request to Blanchard, click here. SIERRA CLUB FILES AMICUS BRIEF ON REVIEW OF PALISADES NUCLEAR REACTOR  Palisade's Nuclear Plant sits on the shores of Lake Michigan. Photo by Sierra Club Nuclear Free. On August 7 the Sierra Club submitted an Amicus brief to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), joining the call for the agency to conduct a full evidentiary hearing on the unprecedented request by the owners of the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant, Entergy, that they be exempted from federal safety regulations. Sierra Club is supporting the efforts of Beyond Nuclear, Don't Waste Michigan, Michigan Safe Energy Future-Shoreline Chapter, and Nuclear Energy Information Service who petitioned the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel (ASLBP) to require a hearing on Palisades and its embrittled reactor. In a Memorandum and Order released on June 18th, the ASLB panel determined that the request from Entergy warranted a full evidentiary hearing. The Louisiana based owner of Palisades appealed the ASLB order to the NRC. The Palisades plant, located on the Lake Michigan shoreline in Covert, MI, is one of the oldest nuclear power plants still operating in the world, and has the most embrittled reactor pressure vessel (RPV) in the United States. The RPV, which includes both the shroud that shields the rest of the plant and the environment from radioactive materials, and the reactor core where controlled nuclear reactions are used to generate electricity, faces significant deterioration and embrittlement from more than forty years of operation and exposure to radioactive materials. The Palisades' embrittled RPV poses the threat of a catastrophic rupture or breakdown. According to Mark Muhich, chairman of Sierra Club Nuclear Free Michigan, an RPV rupture "could kill thousands of western Michigan residents, ruin thousands of square miles of the best agricultural land in the state, and poison Lake Michigan, the source of drinking water for millions of people." Sierra Club is represented by attorney Wallace Taylor of Iowa, who has worked with Sierra Club chapters around the nation on issues related to nuclear power safety.  Join the clean energy age & power your home with the sun!   Our solar partners, McNaughton-McKay Electric Company, Solar Winds Power Supply and Michigan Solar Solutions, offer their services by evaluating your home's solar capacity, educating the public on the benefits of solar power and providing expert installation of the customer's choice of solar array. Sales through our partnership provides for donations to the Michigan Chapter to support our work as well! Fill out our solar survey.  NEW ENERGY LEGISLATION COULD DESTROY SOLAR ENERGY IN MICHIGAN Senate Energy Committee Vice Chairman John Proos recently introduced a bill to rewrite Michigan's energy policy which could prevent people from using their own solar energy produced for their homes and businesses. Currently, small-scale solar projects are able to connect to the grid through Michigan's net metering program, allowing homes, businesses, and non-profits to use their own energy. Senate Bill 438 would essentially eliminate net metering, barring program participants under the new plan from using their own generated energy and instead force them to sell the energy back to utility companies for less than it is worth. We believe customers should have free will to use their own produced energy. The bill also repeals Michigan's renewable energy standard, eliminates our energy efficiency programs, and redefines clean energy to include polluting sources of energy such as natural gas, nuclear energy, and hazardous waste incineration. We need your help to stop this bill and get the legislature to pass policies that support sustainable energy sources like wind and solar. Click here to take action and tell your lawmakers to oppose this devastating legislation. STAND UP FOR STRONGER GREAT LAKES PROTECTION IN MICHIGAN The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Office of the Great Lakes released a 156-page draft of a Water Strategy in Junethat it calls "a roadmap to achieve a 30-year vision to ensure Michigan’s water resources support healthy ecosystems, citizens, communities and economies." Sunset on Lake Michigan. Photo by Gail Philbin.   The document broadly addresses an array of water-related issues, from algal blooms and invasive species to infrastructure issues and the need for monitoring surface and groundwater. While the goal of a long-term approach to protecting our most precious resource is laudable, Sierra Club has serious concerns about the effectiveness of the state's Water Strategy given the voluntary nature of the measures it promotes.    "I am disappointed that the Water Strategy speaks to what government 'can' and 'should' do versus what it WILL do to protect waters within the Great Lakes Basin," says Erma Leaphart, Conservation Organizer for the Sierra Club Great Lakes Program. "I respect and agree that people of Michigan have a role to play but the State of Michigan must take a leadership role starting with creating a stronger vision statement, establishing or adopting specific identified impactful goals and data driven solutions." If you want the Great Lakes State to take the lead on meaningful Great Lakes stewardship, make your voice heard: • Read the Water Strategy here.  • Send your written comments by Aug. 28 to the Office of the Great Lakes, DEQ, P.O. Box 30473-7973, Lansing, Michigan 48909, by fax at 517-335-4053 or by emailing Mi-waterstrategy@michigan.gov.    • Or click here to send a message by Aug. 28.  A camper completes the high ropes course. Photo by Sierra Club. LAST DAY TO REGISTER FOR ANNUAL RETREAT This year's Annual Retreat is less than a week away but you can still register online today and tomorrow! The weekend includes a packed schedule of recreational and educational activities, which can be tailored to you and your family's interests. The affordable weekend getaway offers hiking, tubing and boating (to name a few). The sandy beaches and dunes along the coastline of Lake Michigan offer a unique escape and breathtaking panoramic views that everyone can appreciate. Keynote speakers and presenters will offer insight on important ways to protect Michigan's environment in creative ways that are sure to engage all campers. Don't miss out on the unique opportunity to spend a weekend with those who love the environment, while also enjoying the natural beauty our state offers. TO REGISTER FOR THE ANNUAL RETREAT TODAY OR TOMORROW ONLY, CLICK HERE.  Photo from New York Sierra Club. LET'S BAN FRACKING IN MICHIGAN Do you believe we can do better than polluting our water and air by allowing fracking for natural gas and oil? Hundreds of Michiganders are currently collecting petition signatures to put the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan's ballot proposal onto the November 2016 ballot. YOU can help ensure that Michigan voters have a say on whether: Michigan continues to allow radioactive wastes from fracking in other states to be disposed of in Michigan landfills; Michigan continues to allow the use of fracking by oil and gas developers, with the air and water quality contamination it can cause; and Michigan overturns its policy favoring the maximum production of oil and gasover protection of the environment and public health.  Join us in circulating the ballot petition for the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan! You can make a big difference by collecting signatures in your own community or beyond. Time is short and there is a lot of work to do, so please join with Sierra Club in supporting this petition drive! Sign up here and you'll hear from our Campaign Coordinators, Craig Brainard or John Ford, within a few days with details about how Sierra Club is supporting this effort. You can also go to the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan's website to register and get training on how to collect petitions. Be sure to let them know that Sierra Club referred you at the bottom of the volunteer sign up sheet! Contact Craig Brainard or John Ford for more information about Sierra Club's work to end fracking, and to get involved in the ballot petition drive. Paid for with regulated funds by the Sierra Club Committee to Make Michigan Safe from Fracking, 109 E. Grand River Avenue, Lansing, MI 48906. (L to R): Anne Woiwode, State Representative John Kivela, Robert Gordon and Tim Minotas on Michigan Sierra Club Lobby Day. A FOND FAREWELL TO OUR TWO-YEAR INTERN This fall, our Legislative Intern Tim Minotas is heading back to Central Michigan University to finish his degree in Political Science and Environmental Studies and lead the Student Environmental Alliance on campus. Tim spent a year as a chapter Political Intern working on campaigns for Sierra Club's endorsed candidates in Oakland County and Mt. Pleasant. As our Legislative Intern, he helped organize our Spring Citizen Lobby Day, a political fundraiser, and was our eyes and ears at the capitol. Thanks to Tim for all his hard work over the past two years. Interested in being a legislative and political activist like Tim? Learn more information here. EXPLORE AND ENJOY! IARGO SPRINGS Sierra Club is committed to "exploring, enjoying and protecting the planet." The Michigan Chapter Update includes features on exploring and enjoying places in Michigan. In this edition, Becky Hammond writes about the Iargo Springs, located on the Au Sable River in the Huron Manistee National Forest, which host a wide range of wildlife and offer breathtaking views.  A family of ducks. Photo by Becky Hammond. If you've driven along the River Road National Scenic Byway that parallels the Au Sable River as it heads to Lake Huron and (as I did for years) skippedIargo Springs in favor of the Lumberman's Monument (or any other scenic overlook; they abound there), you need to put the springs on your to-do list. Like so many Michigan attractions, they are wonderful and there are many other things to do nearby. Iargo Springs changed the word "spring" for me forever. These are not seeps or even streams trickling out of hillsides, these are almost waterfalls that pour out, some held in manmade pools, all eventually winding and criss-crossing the forest floor until finding their way to the dammed-up part of the Au Sable known as Cooke Pond. To call the water "crystal clear" is to redefine that term.And the springs and streams go on and on, visible from a network of boardwalks that branch out after you descend a long flight of stairs (300 or so). Cooke Pond is the kind of marshy backwater at that point that waterfowllove. Take your camera. It would make a great early-morning paddle. Late May provided a viewing gallery of mergansers, geese, swans, all with young. Iargo springs was, and is, a holy place to Native Americans, with the water considered to have medicinal value. Just being there feels holy, walking around seems to have medicinal value. The spot is the trailhead for the seven-mile Highbanks Trail. It's close enough to Oscoda for a meal and drink afterwards, close enough to Lake Huron for a swim. Join Sierra Club members on Outings, including hikes, camping, and paddling adventures across the state of Michigan and beyond. Find out more about Michigan Chapter and Group Outings here by scrolling down to the calendar.  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here are Some Great Ways to Support Sierra Club Michigan Chapter and Get Engaged! Support the Michigan Chapter!  Click here to make a Secure Online Donation SierraClubMichigan on Facebook Sign up for a Sierra Club Credit Card today Follow us on Twitter @MichiganSierra We welcome feedback on the Michigan Chapter Update - Contact us at michigan.chapter@sierraclub.org.   Unsubscribe from Michigan Chapter Updates Update My Profile | Manage My Email Preferences | Update My Interests | Explore Our Online Communities  Michigan Chapter - Sierra Club 109 E. Grand River Avenue Lansing, MI 48906 Contact Us Header photo Near Andrus Lake, Upper Michigan, by Beverly Wolf.

Sierra Club's amicus brief on Palisades Nuclear Plant

This is a text copy of the Sierra Club's amicus brief in support of atomic safety and licensing board decision on Palisades Nuclear Plant. Email markmuhich0@gmail.com to get a full copy of this amicus brief.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION

In the Matter of: Docket No. 50-255-LA-2 ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC., August 7, 2015 (Palisades Nuclear Plant) ___________________________________________________________

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF BY SIERRA CLUB IN SUPPORT OF ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD DECISION ___________________________________________________________

WALLACE L. TAYLOR Law Offices of Wallace L. Taylor 118 3rd Ave. S.E., Suite 326 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401 319-366-2428;(Fax)319-366-3886 e-mail: wtaylorlaw@aol.com
ATTORNEY FOR SIERRA CLUB

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. THE INTERVENORS ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING. . . . . 2
III. EMBRITTLEMENT IS AN ISSUE THAT AFFECTS ALL OLDER NUCLEAR REACTORS SO THIS CASE HAS BROAD APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
IV. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
I. CASES Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI-01-24, 54 NRC 349 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
In re FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., 75 N.R.C. 393, 396-397 (2012) . . . . . . . . . . 6
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, 53 NRC 22, 27 (2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 554 (1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
York Comm. for a Safe Env’t. v. NRC, 527 F.2d 812, 815 n. 12 (D.C. Cir. 1975). . . . . 4

II. STATUTES AND RULES 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
10 C.F.R. § 50.61a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2239(a) . . . . . . . . 2

III. OTHER AUTHORITIES Diego Ferreno, Inaki Gorrochategui, Frederico Gutierrez-Solana, Degradation Due to Neutron Embrittlement of Nuclear Vessel Steels: A Critical Review about the Current Experimental and Analytical Techniques to Characterise the Material, with Particular Emphasis on Alternative Methodologies (2011). . . . . . . . . 7

I. INTRODUCTION This matter is an appeal by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., from the decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) granting the Intervenors, Beyond Nuclear, et al., a hearing on Entergy’s license amendment request (LAR). The Sierra Club supports the ASLB decision and files this Amicus Curiae Brief to explain why it supports the ASLB decision and why it is important for the Commission to allow the intervention of Beyond Nuclear, et al. to be heard.

The Sierra Club is the nation’s largest grassroots environmental organization, with over 600,000 members. Its Michigan Chapter has approximately 16,000 members. The Sierra Club supports sustainable energy alternatives that do not harm the environment. The Sierra Club opposes nuclear power because its fuel cycle from uranium mining to spent radioactive fuel poses grave dangers to the environment. In addition, reliance on nuclear power unjustifiably delays the beneficial transition to clean and renewable energy sources.

With specific reference to the Palisades Nuclear Plant and the embrittlement of the reactor vessel at the plant, members of the Michigan Chapter are at risk if the embrittled reactor vessel shatters and disperses radioactive material into the environment. This can affect the air, water and soil upon which Michigan residents depend. Therefore, the attempt by Entergy to shortcut assurances that the reactor vessel is safe is unacceptable.

II. THE INTERVENORS ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING It is important to remember that the decision of the ASLB from which this appeal is taken was simply a decision that the Intervenors are entitled to a hearing. No decision was made on the merits of the Intervenors’ contention. Therefore, the decision was a victory for public participation. The Commission justifiably prides itself on promoting transparency and public participation.

Specifically, with respect to licensing decisions, the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2239(a), requires that the Commission must grant a hearing upon “the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding, and shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding.”

Furthermore, the Commission’s regulations promote the concept of public participation when a hearing is requested. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f), a petitioner’s contentions must: (1) provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted; (2) provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; (3) demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; (4) 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; (5) provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the petitioner’s position on the issue and on which the petitioner intends to rely at hearing, together with references to specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely; (6) provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the licensee on a material issue of law or fact.

The Commission has also made clear that the burden on a petitioner in stating its contentions is not as heavy as Entergy asserts in its appeal brief. In Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI-01-24, 54 NRC 349, the Commission described the contention admissibility standards as “insist[ing] upon some ‘reasonably specific factual and legal basis’ for the contention.” Id., 54 NRC 349, 359. The Commission further explained in Millstone that the standards for contention admissibility were meant to prevent contentions based on “little more than speculation” and intervenors who had “negligible knowledge of nuclear power issues and, in fact, no direct case to present.” Id. at 358. Rather, petitioners are required only to “articulate at the outset the specific issues they wish to litigate.” Id. at 359.

The Commission and the courts have also made clear that the burden of persuasion is on the licensee, not the petitioner. The petitioner only needs to “com[e] forward with factual issues, not merely conclusory statements and vague allegations.” Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, 53 NRC 22, 27 (2001). The Commission described the threshold burden in stating a contention as requiring a petitioner to “raise any specific, germane, substantial, and material factual issues that are relevant to the . . . request for a license amendment and that create a basis for calling on the [licensee] to satisfy the ultimate burden of proof.” Id.

Courts have found, however, that this burden may not be appropriate where, as here, the information was in the hands of the licensee or NRC Staff and was not made available to the petitioner. See, e.g., York Comm. for a Safe Env’t. v. NRC, 527 F.2d 812, 815 n. 12 (D.C. Cir. 1975)(where the information necessary to make the relevant assessment is “readily accessible and comprehensible to the license applicant and the Commission staff but not to 5 petitioners, placing the burden of going forward on petitioners appears inappropriate.”). Also, in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 554 (1978), the United States Supreme Court affirmed the NRC in finding that the proper standard to apply required intervenors to simply make a “showing sufficient to require reasonable minds to inquire further,” a burden the NRC found to be significantly less than that of making a prima facie case.

The authorities cited in Entergy’s appeal brief do not support its argument (Entergy Brief p. 11). It is clear that the Intervenors’ contention is based on much more than mere speculation. The contention cites specific facts, relies on the expert opinion of Arnold Gundersen, a qualified nuclear engineer, and also relies on technical documents and guidance from the Commission. The contention is discussed in significant detail, showing clearly that the Intervenors and their expert witness know what they are talking about and that the contention is more than mere speculation.

The ASLB majority issued a thoroughly explained decision, based on the correct standard for evaluating contention admissibility. With respect to contention admissibility, the Commission defers to the ASLB unless the Commission finds either an error of law or an abuse of discretion. In re FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., 75 N.R.C. 393, 396-397 (2012). In this case, the ASLB committed neither an error of law nor an abuse of discretion. Entergy simply disagrees with the reasoning of the ASLB majority.

The Sierra Club emphasizes again that this appeal is not about the merits of the contention. It is only about whether the Intervenors are entitled to a hearing. Entergy’s brief goes into great detail about the technical issues involved in the Intervenors’ contention. The Commission should not be distracted by this journey into the weeds. At this point, the Intervenors have not had an opportunity to present their proof in support of their technical arguments. It is the duty of the ASLB, not the Commission, at this stage of the proceedings to determine the merits of the contention. The Intervenors have presented more than enough information in support of their contention to show that the contention is based on facts and not mere speculation. That is all that is required to support a contention.

The majority decision of the ASLB was correct and the Commission should affirm that decision.

III. EMBRITTLEMENT IS AN ISSUE THAT AFFECTS ALL OLDER NUCLEAR REACTORS SO THIS CASE HAS BROAD APPLICATION
Embrittlement of pressure vessels is not a problem confined to the Palisades plant. So the decision in this case will have far-reaching consequences for nuclear safety. That is why it is important to get this case right. Getting it right means conducting a hearing where evidence can be presented and the ASLB can exercise its expertise in making an informed decision.

The pressure vessel constitutes the most important structural component in a nuclear reactor in terms of safety. Diego Ferreno, Inaki Gorrochategui, Frederico Gutierrez-Solana, Degradation Due to Neutron Embrittlement of Nuclear Vessel Steels: A Critical Review about the Current Experimental and Analytical Techniques to Characterise the Material, with Particular Emphasis on Alternative Methodologies (2011). The pressure vessel is a virtually irreplaceable element which is subjected to operating conditions that lead to a progressive degradation over time of its steel casing. Id.

The original design lifetime for nuclear light water reactors is 40 years. So the reactors constructed in the early 1970’s have exceeded their designed life, but the licenses for those reactors have been extended for an additional 20 years. In other words, those reactors are living on borrowed time. That is why it is so important that Entergy not be allowed to set a bad precedent in this case.

Such a precedent would allow a lack of proper testing at the worst age-degraded reactors in the nation, as identified by the Commission in 2013, including Point Beach Unit 2, Indian Point Unit 3, Diablo Canyon Unit 1, Beaver Valley Unit 1, and Davis-Besse. And over the next 20 years or more, with license extensions, that list will certainly grow. This is an unacceptable and unnecessary risk waiting to happen.

Entergy has not explained why it cannot test the coupons, but rather attempts to justify its assertion that the Palisades reactor pressure vessel is safe by extrapolating data from other reactors. Entergy’s argument for failing to test coupons is apparently that it didn’t test coupons because it claims it doesn’t have to. There is no technical or practical reason why the coupons could not be tested. If Entergy is allowed to use extrapolated estimates to justify its risky actions in this case, then other aging reactors will also be allowed to do the same, resulting in a collapsing “house of cards,” where succeeding estimates will be based on prior questionable estimates. The people of Michigan, and the residents near other reactors that are subject to embrittlement, deserve more protection than that.

It is also important to emphasize that Entergy is not relying on the alternative procedure for assuring pressure vessel reliability set out in 10 C.F.R. § 50.61a. That regulation establishes a very detailed procedure that the Commission through its rulemaking process has determined will adequately assure pressure vessel reliability. As the ASLB majority found in this case, instead, Entergy is attempting to rely on an NRC staff guidance document that is still in draft form and an industry standard that has not even been approved by the Commission. The ASLB majority also noted that the staff guidance document says that it may be used if there is no material, i.e., coupons, available for testing. In this case, however, there are more than enough coupons available for testing. Furthermore, as noted above, the staff guidance is in draft form and has not been approved or adopted by the Commission. It should certainly not supercede Commission regulations.

Therefore, Entergy’s attempt to avoid following any NRC regulation provides no assurance that the pressure vessel is safe and reliable. This would indeed be a bad precedent for the Commission to establish.

IV. CONCLUSION A majority of the ASLB in this case, after applying its expertise and applying the standard for the Intervenors’ right to a hearing, decided that the Intervenors are indeed entitled to a hearing on their contention. The Intervenors have more than satisfied the requirements for a valid contention that justifies a hearing. Pressure vessel embrittlement is an issue that has far-reaching consequences. This case will set a precedent that will impact the safety of nuclear power for years to come. The Commission should deny Entergy’s appeal and uphold the ASLB decision granting the Intervenors a hearing.

/s/ Wallace L. Taylor WALLACE L. TAYLOR Law Offices of Wallace L. Taylor 118 3rd Ave. S.E., Suite 326 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401 319-366-2428;(Fax)319-366-3886 e-mail: wtaylorlaw@aol.com ATTORNEY FOR SIERRA CLUB

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R § 2.305, I certify that, on August 7, 2015, copies of Sierra Club’s Amicus Curiae Brief were served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRC’s E-Filing System) in the above-captioned proceeding. /s/ Wallace L. Taylor WALLACE L. TAYLOR