A group of five environmental organizations is pushing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to take a deeper look at environmental impacts from the proposed restart of the Palisades plant in Southwest Michigan.

A panel of NRC judges heard oral arguments this week to decide whether to hold a hearing.

The five groups — Beyond Nuclear, Don’t Waste Michigan, Michigan Safe Energy Future, Three Mile Island Alert and Nuclear Energy Information Service — filed a motion to have the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board reconsider several regulatory requirements for the restart going forward.

One contention from the groups is that the NRC should prepare an “Environmental Impact Statement” going into more detail than the agency did in its draft “Environmental Assessment.”

Terry Lodge, an attorney representing the environmental groups, said at Thursday’s hearing the existing environmental assessment doesn’t look closely enough at the potential for earthquakes.

“That is particularly important because there is, of course, going to be additional radioactive waste stored there.”

The NRC’s draft environmental assessment for the Palisades restart plan found there would be no significant environmental impact.

That finding came in part because the plant’s buildings are still standing, and nuclear waste is already being stored on site. Resuming operations at Palisades would likely have similar impacts to what happened there prior to 2022, the NRC concluded.

At Thursday’s hearing, a lawyer for the NRC said the five groups lacked standing to bring the claims, which she said came too late in the process anyway.

“Put plainly, there is no good cause if the information being challenged is not actually new and could have been raised earlier,” said NRC attorney Anita Ghosh Naber.

Holtec International has said it hopes to resume generating power at Palisades by the end of this year. The NRC has said it plans to complete its regulatory approval process by the end of July.

Experts and advocates with Oil and Water Don’t Mix said they don’t trust the federal government to properly vet Enbridge’s Great Lakes Tunnel Project.

Last week, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers expedited the permitting process for the project, which would cover the section of Line 5 that travels under the Straits of Mackinac.

The shortened timeline isn’t enough to confirm the project is safe, said Sean McBrearty, an organizer with the advocacy group.

“We’ve seen that we are not going to be able to trust the Trump administration to protect the Great Lakes,” he said. “And the Army Corps decision last week made that crystal clear, if it wasn’t before.”

The project is responding to what the Trump administration believes is “an energy emergency” under President Donald Trump’s January executive order “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” the Corps said in a memo circulated last week. The order argues that the U.S. is too reliant on foreign energy and needs to increase domestic oil and gas production to protect national security.

The proposed tunnel around Line 5 would provide an extra layer of protection for the pipeline, according to Enbridge. The Canadian pipeline carries crude oil and natural gas liquids through the United States.

Advocates are concerned the tunnel won’t be effective and could actually do more harm to the bottomlands under the straits. That’s the land underneath the water in the lakes. It’s publicly owned, according to Michigan law.

Advocates with Oil and Water Don’t Mix said they want an independent review of Enbridge’s plans for the tunnel’s construction.

That includes Brian O’Mara, a geological engineer with decades of experience. The review process should take much longer than the fast-tracked plan the corps approved last week, he said.

“It’s really come down to the state of Michigan,” he said. “And hopefully they can do the right thing and give this project the scrutiny and the review that it deserves.” O’Mara said the bedrock underneath the straits is too fragile to support the tunnel project.

Enbridge has previously made its case before the Michigan Public Service Commission, where O’Mara testified. The commission didn’t find any problems with the company’s plans, Enbridge said in a statement.

The company has been working with the state and federal governments to reduce any negative impacts the tunnel could have, Enbridge said in a statement.

It’s also partnering with companies that have previously built tunnels in similar environments, the statement said.

But Enbridge still needs a permit from Michigan’s Submerged Lands Program. The advocacy group will direct their energy there, McBrearty said.

“We are going to focus on the state processes that are still functioning here in Michigan, rather than a dysfunctional and dishonest federal process.”

Editor’s note: Enbridge is among Michigan Public’s corporate sponsors.

Environmental groups and tribal nations are asking the Michigan Supreme Court to put the brakes on a Canadian company’s plans to bury an oil and gas pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac, a waterway that connects Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.

The appeal filed Thursday asks the Supreme Court to reverse a decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals and a determination by the Michigan Public Service Commission to allow Enbridge to move ahead with the Great Lakes Tunnel project, which would encase the company’s Line 5 oil and gas pipeline. The plaintiffs claim the public service commission failed to perform a thorough review before giving its permission.

“These failures jeopardize the sanctity of the Great Lakes and the Tribal economic and cultural interests and treaty-protected rights, which are inherent rights, including ‘the usual privileges of occupancy’ — such as the rights to fish, hunt, and gather, in perpetuity,” the complaint said. “They also threaten to harm everyone who depends on the Great Lakes for drinking water, recreation, or economic benefit because all likely effects of the proposed project, including oil spills, have not been considered.”

The tribes argue the commission’s review failed to fully consider the consequences of leaks or a spill in a waterway that could lead to widespread contamination of the Great Lakes.

“If you take a step back and you do that holistic review and analysis, I think people would understand that there are alternatives that could lead to a decommissioning of Line 5 and wouldn’t have to construct this one-off tunnel through the Straits of Mackinac,” said David Gover, a senior attorney with the Native American Rights Fund, which represents the Bay Mills Indian Community.

Gover told the Michigan Public Radio Network the tunnel’s location also violates long-standing treaty rights and disrespects “a sacred place” for tribes.

“So, any proposed tunneling and running of a pipeline through that area is a desecration of that sacred place,” he said. “It would like be putting an oil and gas pipeline under the Vatican or through the Garden of Eden.”

Enbridge spokeperson Ryan Duffy said in a statement e-mailed to MPRN that the Michigan Public Service Commission and the appeals court got it right.

“The February decision from the Michigan Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the comprehensive and detailed work of the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) to approve the application for the Great Lakes Tunnel Project,” he said. “The Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that the MPSC appropriately examined the location of the Line 5 replacement segment within the Great Lakes Tunnel, consistent with Michigan law.”

He said the tunnel will make “what has always been a safe pipeline even safer.”

Enbridge faces other legal and procedural hurdles, including state and federal permits and other lawsuits. The protective tunnel was part of a agreement between Enbridge and the then-Gov. Rick Snyder’s administration. That was following revelations of known gaps in the existing line’s protective coating and an anchor strike in 2018 that damaged the line.