ML24348A106
| ML24348A106 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 12/13/2024 |
| From: | Blind A - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57224, ASLBP 24-986-01-LA-BD01, 50-255-LA-3 | |
| Download: ML24348A106 (0) | |
Text
Submittal Date: 12/13/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 1
13 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)
Supplement Two Based on New Information, To Supplement Petitioners Rebuttal To NRC Staffs: APPLICANTS ANSWER OPPOSING JOINT PETITIONERS PETITION FOR HEARING Prepared By: Alan Blind, Joint Petitioners Consolidated Representative Supplemental Two Argument: Newly Disclosed Holtec Statement Further Highlights Flaws in NRC Staffs Reliance on §50.82(b) to Justify Operational Authority And Use of Original Design Basis via § 50.59 Base Argument Strengthened with Holtec's December 4 Letter Holtecs December 4, 2024, ML24339A068, Palisades Nuclear Plant -
Request for NRC to Rescind Previously Approved Exemptions to Support Transition to a Power Operations Licensing Basis letter provides newly
Submittal Date: 12/13/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 2
13 disclosed information that fundamentally supports petitioners contention that NRC Staffs reliance on §50.82(b) and a NRC Termination of License Letter, to justify return to power operations under the original design basis is flawed. Holtec explicitly admits in their letter:
HDI has identified other exemptions that are no longer warranted and require rescission in support of PNP exiting the decommissioning process and the resumption of power operations And.
This exemption request was approved by the NRC on November 23, 2021 (Reference 8). The exemption allows HDI to eliminate (1) records associated with structures, systems, and components (SSCs) and activities which were removed from the 10 CFR Part 50 licensing basis due to docketing the 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) certifications...
This acknowledgment must also be viewed in light of the NRC's own statement in its approval of the same exemption on November 23, 2021, ML21195A372, PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT - PARTIAL EXEMPTIONS FROM RECORD RETENTION REQUIREMENTS (EPID L-2021-LLE-0033):
Submittal Date: 12/13/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 3
13 In its June 15, 2021, partial exemption request, the licensee stated that the basis for eliminating records associated with reactor facility SSCs and activities is that these SSCs have been or will be removed from service per regulatory change processes, dismantled or demolished, and released from any function regulated by the NRC.
These statements directly impact the NRC Staffs defense of §50.82(b) allowance for return to full power operations using the original design basis, by introducing three critical issues:
1.
Contradiction in Licensing Basis Integrity: Holtecs letter acknowledges that SSCs were removed from the licensing basis and their records destroyed because they were deemed no longer necessary. This action was explicitly supported by the NRC's approval, which justified record elimination based on the SSCs permanent removal from service and their release from regulatory oversight. These facts directly contradict NRC Staffs claim that the Part 50 license remains intact and eligible to return to full power operation using the pre-shutdown licensing basis. The destruction of records critical to SSC validation renders any assertion of licensing continuity untenable. Putting the destruction of records Genie Back Into the Bottle is insurmountable under the best of circumstances.
Submittal Date: 12/13/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 4
13 2.
Inability to Restore SSCs Without Historical Records: Holtecs claim that the record retention exemption will no longer apply to PNP when the SSCs...are restored is unsubstantiated. Joint Petitioners argue that without the original recordseliminated or rendered irretrievable under the 2021 exemptionit is impossible to fully validate these SSCs against current, or even the proposed past safety and operational standards. The NRCs 2021 statement underscores that records were eliminated precisely because these SSCs were dismantled or demolished. Attempting to restore these SSCs now without documentation creates an unacceptable regulatory and safety gap, as it is unclear how traceability to the original licensing basis could be reestablished.
3.
Regulatory Conflict Between Record Retention Exemption and
§50.82(b): The 2021 exemption was granted based on the explicit assumption that the SSCs and their associated records were permanently removed from the licensing basis and no longer required for regulatory oversight. The NRC approved this action on the premise that these SSCs were "released from any function regulated by the NRC."
Holtecs December 4 letter attempts to reverse this regulatory
Submittal Date: 12/13/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 5
13 assumption by claiming that these SSCs can be restored. However, Holtec fails to address how the destroyed records, or the lack of traceability to original documentation, affect compliance with the licensing basis or how a high level of assurance may be restored in the records. This omission undermines the NRCs reliance on
§50.82(b) as a mechanism for maintaining operational authority during decommissioning of SSCs outside the decommissioned plant required SSCs, such as spent fuel pool cooling, as the original basis for the exemption conflicts with the current claim of operational restoration to any flavor of design basis.
In conclusion, Holtecs December 4 letter, coupled with the NRCs own justification for approving the 2021 exemption, demonstrates that the regulatory framework relied upon by NRC Staff is fundamentally inconsistent. It further highlights the need to apply the on a case by case basis clause in the Berka PRM denial interpretation argued by NRC staff as setting the NRC Commission Policy for selection the most applicable regulations and processes from the NRC existing regulatory framework.
The destruction of SSC records need for a operational, full power, plant, as justified by their removal from regulatory oversight, irreversibly
Submittal Date: 12/13/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 6
13 compromises the licensing basis and renders the NRC Staffs reliance on
§50.82(b) to support Holtecs proposed regulations for the pre shutdown design basis unsupportable. These facts underscore the critical flaws in the premise that Palisades operating license remains viable for a return to power operations.
Petitioners Argument Against §50.82(b) Revisited Petitioners have consistently argued that §50.82(b) does not justify the continuation of full power operational authority for a decommissioned facility when critical aspects of the licensing basis have been dismantled.
Holtecs December 4 statement reinforces this argument by showing that:
The SSCs were removed from the licensing basis, invalidating the operational framework that NRC Staff claims remains viable under
§50.82(b).
The exemption granted in 2021 effectively nullifies the safety and compliance record for these SSCs, making any claim of operational authority under §50.82(b) illogical and unsafe.
Holtecs reliance on the restoration of SSCs without addressing the loss of records raises significant safety and compliance questions that the ASLB
Submittal Date: 12/13/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 7
13 must consider. Petitioners emphasize that the destruction of records cannot be reconciled with NRC Staffs interpretation of §50.82(b) as allowing resumption of operations.
Argument for ASLB Acceptance Based on Newly Available Information The petitioners respectfully request the ASLB to accept this supplemental submission pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.309(c)(1). This filing satisfies the three criteria for late submissions:
(i) The Information Was Not Previously Available The supplemental argument is based on Holtecs December 4, 2024, letter, which was only made publicly available through its upload to ADAMS on December 12, 2024. Petitioners could not have accessed or relied on this information before its public release.
(ii) The Information is Materially Different from Previously Available Information The letter introduces a important regulatory development by acknowledging that:
Submittal Date: 12/13/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 8
13 1.
The 2021 record retention exemption was approved based on the removal of SSCs from the licensing basis.
2.
Holtec now seeks to reverse this exemption by claiming the SSCs can be restored to support the reinstatement of the power operations licensing basis.
This admission is materially different from any information previously available, as it highlights a direct contradiction between the exemptions basis and the current justification for SSC restoration.
(iii) The Filing is Submitted in a Timely Fashion This supplemental filing is being submitted promptly following the public release of Holtecs December 4 letter on ADAMS on December 12, 2024.
Petitioners have acted expeditiously to analyze and incorporate this new information into their arguments.
Conclusion Holtecs December 4 letter provides newly available and materially different information that directly undermines NRC Staffs reliance on §50.82(b).
Petitioners argue that the destruction and or loss of traceability of SSC records under the 2021 exemption renders the restoration of the licensing
Submittal Date: 12/13/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 9
13 basis impossible to any standard, including as proposed by Holtec using Revision 35 of the FSAR, invalidating NRC Staffs claim that the Part 50 license remains operationally viable and Palisades can return to full power operations using the original design basis up until the moment the NRC issues the License Termination Letter (up to 60 years).
Petitioners respectfully request the ASLB to:
1.
Accept this supplemental filing based on the criteria outlined in 10 CFR § 2.309(c)(1).
2.
This submittal urges the ASLB to reject the NRC Staffs interpretation of § 50.82(b), Termination of License, as presented in its reply to Joint Petitioners. Instead, the Board should affirm the regulations intended purpose as a safeguard for public safety and regulatory compliance, consistent with its structured purpose and historical rulemaking intent.
The petitioners submit that the Holtec letter highlights a critical flaw in NRC Staffs interpretation of §50.82(b), underscoring the need for thorough ASLB review and corrective action.
Case Law Allowing This Submittal
Submittal Date: 12/13/2024 50-255-LA-3
of 10 13 The submission of this reply is grounded in the principles of procedural fairness, transparency, and the creation of a complete adjudicatory record.
While the ASLB order did not explicitly invite a reply, established case law supports the legal grounds for submitting such a reply in situations where new facts or arguments raised by an opposing party require clarification or response to ensure a balanced record. Below are key cases that underscore the justification for this reply:
- 1. Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 920 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
This case emphasizes the importance of a full and transparent record in NRC proceedings. It held that ensuring all relevant issues are properly addressed is essential for fair adjudication. By submitting this reply, Joint Petitioners contribute to the completeness of the record, addressing new arguments raised by NRC Staff that would otherwise remain unchallenged.
- 2. Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. v. NRC, 391 F.3d 338 (1st Cir.
2004)
This case highlights the need for parties to be afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond to new issues raised in agency proceedings. The court recognized that parties must have the chance to address arguments or facts introduced after their initial filings. Joint Petitioners reply serves
Submittal Date: 12/13/2024 50-255-LA-3
of 11 13 this purpose, ensuring that NRC Staffs new arguments and interpretations are not left uncontested.
- 3. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985)
This decision emphasizes the need for accountability in agency actions.
While the court deferred to the agency's discretion in certain enforcement matters, it underscored the necessity of a reasoned explanation for decisions. By replying to NRC Staffs arguments, Joint Petitioners are seeking accountability and a reasoned response to issues raised outside the scope of the original order.
- 4. Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v. NRC, 598 F.2d 1221 (1st Cir. 1979)
The court in this case emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and ensuring that all parties have the opportunity to present their positions fully. Submitting this reply aligns with the principles established in Seacoast, allowing Joint Petitioners to address new NRC Staff arguments that were not part of the original briefing.
- 5. Northeast Nuclear Energy Co. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3), CLI-00-3, 51 NRC 45 (2000)
Submittal Date: 12/13/2024 50-255-LA-3
of 12 13 This case recognizes the need for transparency and fairness when material information is at issue. In situations where agency filings introduce new facts or legal interpretations, procedural fairness dictates that opposing parties be allowed to respond to maintain the integrity of the adjudicatory process.
Alan Blind, Petitioner and Joint Petitioners representative Conclusion These cases collectively establish that the submission of this reply is both procedurally justified and legally supported. By addressing new facts and arguments raised by NRC Staff, this reply ensures the completeness and fairness of the adjudicatory record, upholding principles essential to NRC proceedings and administrative law. The ASLB is encouraged to consider this reply as a necessary step in maintaining a balanced and transparent process.
Alan Blind, Petitioner and Joint Petitioners Representative
Submittal Date: 12/13/2024 50-255-LA-3
of 13 13 Declaration of Alan Blind