ML24326A014
| ML24326A014 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/2024 |
| From: | Blind A - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57200, 50-255-LA-3, ASLBP 24-986-01-LA-BD01 | |
| Download: ML24326A014 (0) | |
Text
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 1
25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, and Holtec Palisades, LLC (Docket No. 50-255-LA-3)
Joint Petitioners Brief on Representation, Consolidation of Petitions, and Standing of Our Appointed Consolidated Point of Contact, Alan Blind From Joint Petitioners: Jody Flynn, Tom Flynn, Bruce Davis, Karen Davis, Christian Moevs, Mary and Chuck Hoffman, and Diane Ebert Note: See attached individual declaration sheets for each joint petitioner.
Prepared By: Alan Blind Introduction The Joint Petitioners thank the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) for the opportunity to address the issues raised regarding Alan Blinds eligibility to represent the Joint Petitioners in this matter and propose a remedy through consolidation of Joint Petitioners.
This brief is submitted in response to the Boards Memorandum and Order dated November 14, 2024, which provides Joint Petitioners an opportunity to address issues of representation. On September 9, 2024, Alan Blind, as a
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 2
25 concerned member of the public, filed a hearing request on behalf of we, the Joint Petitioners regarding the Palisades Nuclear Plant. This filing was accompanied by supplemental submissions intended to strengthen the arguments presented, to introduce a new contention five, and to provide rebuttals to NRC Staff and Holtec responses. Although Mr. Blind is not a licensed attorney, he acted as the designated point of contact for Joint Petitioners, all of whom own homes and reside, either full-or part-time, in close proximity to the Palisades facility and now, support Mr. Blinds role as our consolidated Joint Petitioners representative.
We, the Joint Petitioners, now recognize the ASLBs conclusion that this representation, as first filed, was not permitted under the NRCs rules of practice governing adjudications. To remedy this issue, this brief establishes that Mr. Blind meets the requirements of a petitioner with standing and has been elected by Joint Petitioners to represent our consolidated petition and all supplemental filings, past and future.
Using NRC Staffs own proximity standard from its response to Joint Petitioners, we demonstrate that Mr. Blind qualifies as a petitioner based on his full-time residence and property ownership within the 50-mile radius of the Palisades Nuclear Plant. In the attached declarations, each Joint Petitioner elects Mr. Blind as our consolidated representative, bringing
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 3
25 essential expertise to ensure our interests are effectively represented in this proceeding.
Arguments Mr. Blinds Standing Based on Proximity and Property Ownership NRC Staff, in its response to petitioners, defended and agreed that the Joint Petitioners have standing based on the proximity presumption. As stated in Section I, Page 11:
In practice, the Commission has applied the proximity presumption for power reactors to find standing where a petitioner resides within approximately 50 miles of the facility.
Page 15, Section II:
Additionally, NRC Staff explicitly stated in its response, In license amendment proceedings, however, the proximity presumption applies where the license amendment presents an obvious potential of offsite radiological consequences. A determination of an obvious potential for offsite radiological consequences takes into account the nature of the proposed action and the significance of the radioactive source.
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 4
25 NRC Staff further affirmed on Page 17 that:
The amendment request Petitioners contest proposes changing the license to enable a currently shutdown and defueled reactor to resume operation at full power, which would involve generating radioactivity in the reactor core. This, on its face, entails an obvious potential for offsite consequences in the unlikely event of an accident. For these reasons, it is appropriate to apply, for purposes of Petitioners standing, the 50-mile proximity presumption used in operating license proceedings.
Based on these statements, NRC Staff not only defended but agreed that Joint Petitioners standing is valid under the proximity presumption due to their residence within 50 miles of the Palisades Nuclear Plant and the radiological risks associated with the license amendment request and a direct connection to petitioners requested ASLB actions on its contentions.
We now extend this same defense to include Mr. Blind, who resides at 1000 West Shawnee Road, Baroda, Michigan, approximately 28 miles, as per Google Earth Distance Calculation, from the Palisades Nuclear Plant and within the Ingestion Exposure Pathway, EPZ. As defined by the NRC in 10 C.F.R. § 50.47(c)(2), the Ingestion Exposure Pathway EPZ extends approximately 50 miles in radius around the reactor site and is designed to
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 5
25 reduce exposure to radioactive materials through ingestion pathways.
Protective actions within this zone include contaminated food, water, and other consumables. Additionally, this framework is further detailed in NRC guidance document NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, which outlines the emergency planning zones, protective action requirements, and ingestion pathway response strategies necessary to protect the public in the event of a radiological release.
The linkage between Mr. Blinds potential harm and the Contentions is clear.
First, NRC Staff presented legal based arguments for linkage noted earlier, In addition, specific to linkage of harm, from Joint Petitioners petition, the unresolved issues raised in Contentions One through Five demonstrate that Holtecs reliance on an outdated licensing basis and quality assurance manuals, if permitted to use it proposed regulations, the subject of petitioners contentions, will reduce safety margins, thereby increasing the probability and consequences of radiological releases. This risk stems from the diminished margin to NRC-defined safety limits, which are designed to prevent failure of the three barriers, fuel cladding, coolant pressure boundary, and the containment building, preventing the offsite release of radiological materials in the event of a design basis accident. This assertion is supported by the NRC Safety Determination Process, which employs probabilistic
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 6
25 assessments to compare scenarios with lower and higher remaining margins to safety limits. These safety margins, determined by the plant specific NRC-approved licensing and design basis, form the foundation challenged by the Joint Petitioners Contentions.
Such releases would have a direct impact on the Ingestion Exposure Pathway EPZ, contaminating water, crops, and other consumables and thereby harming Mr. Blinds property, including its safety, usability, and value.
For a more detailed explanation of the legal foundation of the NRCs requirements for Emergency Planning, as well as Mr. Blinds actual, on the ground, experience as a qualified Emergency Plan Site Director at Palisades, Indian Point and DC Cook nuclear plants, see Petitioners supplemental response, Blind Second Standing Supplement: Filed September 26, 2024.
By extending NRC Staffs defense of standing, included in it response to petitioners to include Mr. Blind, it becomes evident that he qualifies as a petitioner with standing under the same proximity presumption and impact from radiological releases, applied to the Joint Petitioners. The radiological risks associated with no action on joint petitioners contentions, coupled with
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 7
25 Mr. Blinds property interest within the Ingestion Exposure Pathway EPZ, firmly establish his standing and support his participation in this proceeding.
NRC Staff, in its response on page 18 concluded, with regard to joint petitioners:
Regardless, because the Petition on its face demonstrates standing, the Staff is not further addressing these supplements.
Joint petitioners now, in our consolidated petition response, argue the same conclusion applies to standing for our elected point of contact representative, Mr. Alan Blind.
Option for Consolidated Representation with Mr. Blind as Point of Contact The ASLB has recognized the option for Joint Petitioners to consolidate their presentations and designate Mr. Blind as their single point of contact, as provided by 10 C.F.R. § 2.316. In its Order, the ASLB stated:
[Joint Petitioners] could move to consolidate their presentations and designate Mr. Blind as their single point of contact while Mr. Blind represents himself as a petitioner.
This guidance aligns with Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-09-22, 70 NRC 640, 650-51
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 8
25 (2009), where the Board highlighted the procedural efficiency and clarity achieved through unified representation.
Following this framework, Joint Petitioners have elected to consolidate their petitions and designate Mr. Blind as their representative and point of contact including all past and future filings. This arrangement allows Joint Petitioners to effectively participate in the proceeding while complying with NRC procedural requirements. Consolidating under Mr. Blind ensures consistent representation and facilitates the resolution of complex issues inherent to this case.
- 3. Essential Knowledge and Experience for Effective Representation The NRCs rules of practice under 10 C.F.R. § 2.314(b) restrict representation by a non-attorney who is not representing himself or acting as an officer of an organization. However, the unique qualifications of Mr. Blind, provide compelling justification for granting him authority to represent Joint Petitioners.
As homeowners near the Palisades Nuclear Plant, Joint Petitioners have a direct interest in the facilitys operations but lack the technical expertise in nuclear engineering, NRC regulatory processes, and procedures to effectively argue their case. Mr. Blind, a retired nuclear executive with over 40 years of
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 9
25 industry experience, bridges this knowledge gap. His expertise in nuclear operations, regulatory compliance, and safety oversight uniquely positions him to advocate for Joint Petitioners interests as our consolidated representative.
Without Mr. Blinds representation, Joint Petitioners would face impossible barriers to participate meaningfully in this highly technical adjudication. His qualifications ensure that our concerns are raised comprehensively and effectively.
Public Access to a Fair Hearing: White Houses November 2024 Framework If the Board denies Mr. Blind the ability to represent Joint Petitioners, public access to a fair hearing will be severely compromised, if not impossible.
Disqualifying Mr. Blind on procedural grounds, combined with the petitioners lack of technical expertise, creates an insurmountable barrier to meaningful participation in this complex adjudicatory process.
Allowing Mr. Blind to represent the consolidated Joint Petitioners ensures that public concerns are heard and addressed through knowledgeable and informed advocacy, maintaining the fairness and integrity of this proceeding.
NRC Staff, as noted in Joint Petitioners petition, have represented the
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3
of 10 25 request for public hearing process as an appropriate means for public participation and for raising concerns. This representation is critical in a matter involving health, safety, and environmental impact.
The White Houses November 2024 framework, published earlier this month, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/US-Nuclear-Energy-Deployment-Framework.pdf for expanding U.S. nuclear energy underscores the critical role of public involvement and adherence to stringent safety, security, and environmental standards in nuclear regulatory processes. As articulated on page 12 of the framework:
NRC also considers public involvement in, and information about, its activities to be a cornerstone of strong, fair regulation of the nuclear industry and to be successful, must not only excel in carrying out its mission but must do so in a manner that inspires confidence.
The White House framework further emphasizes:
Meaningful engagement includes timely access to information, timely notice of opportunities to share input, demonstrated careful consideration of public input, and technical assistance, tools, and resources where appropriate to assist affected communities.
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3
of 11 25 By consolidating the Joint Petitioners and allowing Mr. Blind to join as a petitioner and act as their elected representative, the ASLB would ensure these public participation principles are fully upheld. The White House foundational statements capture the essence of Joint Petitioners contentions in our petition. Mr. Blinds technical expertise and ability to articulate and advocate for the petitioners concerns align with the NRCs commitment to public involvement as a cornerstone of strong, fair regulation.
Submission of Supplemental Filings and Rebuttals with Joint Petitioners Approval Mr. Blind has submitted supplemental filings, Contention Five, and rebuttals to NRC Staff and Holtec responses with the full knowledge and informed consent of we, Joint Petitioners. These filings strengthened and clarified arguments within Contentions One through Four and introduced a new Contention Five.
Contention Five was filed as a supplemental submission following the ASLBs response to a request for a declaratory order concerning Specific Exemption Requests (ML24270A263), filed under the Petition for Declaratory Order.
This order was issued on September 26, after Joint Petitioners initially filed their petition on September 9. Consequently, a supplemental filing was necessary to address petitioners concerns and contention regarding the
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3
of 12 25 Holtec Specific Exception Request, resulting in the introduction of Contention Five.
The NRC Staff acknowledged in its response to Joint Petitioners (NRC Staff Response, Page 13) that:
because defective representation can be cured, the Blind Supplements may be further considered under C.F.R. § 2.316 if the Petitioners appropriately address the matter Joint Petitioners have addressed this matter through the consolidation of our petitions, showing that Mr. Blind has standing, and the formal election of Mr.
Blind as our representative. Furthermore, each Joint Petitioners declaration includes the statement: I have reviewed and understand the arguments presented in the filings by Mr. Blind on behalf of Joint Petitioners, attesting to their knowledge and support of the supplemental filings and rebuttals.
Accordingly, Joint Petitioners respectfully request the inclusion of these supplemental submissions as part of the adjudicative record for our consolidated petitions, as they are important to enhance the substantive basis of our petition, raise a new contention five, and respond to NRC Staff and Holtec responses to Joint Petitioners.
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3
of 13 25 The list of submissions, to date, includes:
Blind First Standing Supplement: Filed September 9, 2024.
Blind First Steam Generator Supplement: Filed September 11, 2024.
Blind First § 50.59 Supplement: Filed September 13, 2024.
Blind Second Steam Generator Supplement: Filed September 17, 2024.
Blind Third Steam Generator Supplement: Filed September 22, 2024.
Blind Transparency Supplement: Filed September 23, 2024.
Blind Second Standing Supplement: Filed September 26, 2024.
Blind Second § 50.59 Supplement: Filed September 30, 2024.
Blind Third Steam Generator Supplement (Part II): Filed October 5, 2024.
Contention Five Filing: Filed October 8, 2024.
Contention Five Supplement: Filed October 10, 2024.
Challenge to NRC Email: Filed October 21, 2024.
Rebuttal to NRC Response: NRC Staff Answer To Hearing Request From Individual Petitioners In Palisades Restart Amendment Proceeding
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3
of 14 25 Rebuttal to Holtec's Response: Contrasting Public Participation Principles with Procedural Barriers Conclusion For the reasons stated above, Joint Petitioners respectfully request that the Board recognize Mr. Blinds standing based on his proximity, radiological release harm, and property ownership within the 50-mile zone around the Palisades Nuclear Plant. Furthermore, given Mr. Blinds essential technical and regulatory knowledge, the Board should authorize him to represent Joint Petitioners in our consolidated petitions.
Respectfully submitted, Joint Petitioners: Jody Flynn, Tom Flynn, Bruce Davis, Karen Davis, Christian Moevs, Mary and Chuck Hoffman, and Diane Ebert Prepared and submitted by, Alan Blind Petitioner and Representative of Joint Petitioners Consolidation
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3
of 15 25 Palisades Plant Distance to Alan Blind Residence, 1000 West Shawnee Road, Baroda, Michigan: Google Earth
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3
of 16 25 Joint, Consolidated, Petitioners:
Jody Flynn jodygflynn@gmail.com 317-506-0803 80036 Ramblewood Drive Covert, Michigan 49043 Tom Flynn tflynn71@gmail.com 317-371-3233 80036 Ramblewood Drive Covert, Michigan 49043 Bruce Davis cdxp@aol.com 518-441-1821 27903 Shorewood Drive Covert, Michigan 49043 Karen Davis 518-441-0125 27903 Shorewood Drive Covert, Michigan 49043 Christian Moevs christian.Moevs.1@nd.edu 312-623-3925 38340 Blue Star Highway Covert, Michigan 49043 Mary and Chuck Hoffman huffmanmaryd@hotmail.com 317-679-3625 317-714-8753 28595 Ravine Circle Covert, MI 49043
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3
of 17 25 Diane Ebert rebes1025@gmail.com 708-927-6190 80021 Ramblewood Drive Covert, Mi. 49043 New Petitioner and Elected Consolidated Petitioner Representative A. Alan Blind a.alan.blind@gmail.com 269-303-6396 1000 West Shawnee Road Baroda, Mi. 49101
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3
of 18 25 Declaration of Alan Blind, Petitioner and Consolidated Joint Petitioners Representative
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3
of 19 25 Declaration of Petitioner: Bruce Davis
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3
of 20 25 Declaration of Petitioner: Karen Davis
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3
of 21 25 Declaration of Petitioner: Christian Moevs
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3
of 22 25 Declaration of Petitioners: Mary and Chuck Huffman
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3
of 23 25 Declaration of Petitioner: Jody Flynn
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3
of 24 25 Declaration of Petitioner: Tom Flynn
Submission Date: 11/21/2024 50-255-LA-3
of 25 25 Declaration of Petitioner: Diane Ebert