ML24351A005
| ML24351A005 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 12/16/2024 |
| From: | Blind A - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57226, ASLBP 24-986-01-LA-BD01, 50-255-LA-3 | |
| Download: ML24351A005 (0) | |
Text
Submittal Date: 12/16/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 1
15 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)
Ensuring a Common Understanding of NRC Terms: Design Basis, Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), and Technical Specifications Prepared By: Alan Blind, Joint Petitioners Consolidated Representative Introduction This paper is intended to ensure that all parties to this adjudication have a common understanding of the NRC terminology being used. In our previous submittals, it was assumed that these NRC terms were well known. However, to avoid any potential misunderstanding and recognizing that we may have been incorrect in making this assumption, this paper provides the Joint Petitioners use and understanding of these terms.
Submittal Date: 12/16/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 2
15 Given that the terms discussedsuch as Design Basis, Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), and Technical Specificationsare fundamental to NRC processes, it is reasonable to expect that all participants to this proceeding should agree on their meanings and usage. By clarifying this shared understanding, we aim to establish a consistent foundation for evaluating the issues, and difference in their application by the parties, the subject of this adjudication. This adjudication is to important to have assumed that all parties were using the NRC terms with equal knowledge of how they interrelate to one another.
Procedural Context and Justification for Allowing Supplemental Filing; No Procedural Impact and Case Law As outlined in the ASLB Memorandum and Order dated November 14, 2024, the scheduling of oral arguments in this proceeding has been postponed pending resolution of an issue regarding Joint Petitioners' representation (ASLBP No. 24-986-01-LA-BD01). This order defers oral arguments originally considered for December 2024 until the representation issue has been addressed. Consequently, the delay in oral argument scheduling provides procedural flexibility for the Board to consider this supplemental filing without impacting the efficiency or timeline of the hearing process.
Submittal Date: 12/16/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 3
15 Given this postponement, accepting this brief on common understanding of terminology being used, will not interfere with the conduct of the proceedings. Instead, it will provide the ASLB Panel with a more comprehensive and substantiated basis for evaluating the issues at hand.
Coupled with the legal precedents cited later in this submittal, this supplemental filing is both procedurally efficient, and integral to completeness of the full record.
Summary of Common Terminology Usage This document is provided for informational purposes only and does not introduce any new facts or arguments. Its purpose is to provide common terminology from the existing NRC regulatory framework and offer the Joint Petitioners use of the relationship between the Design Basis, the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), and the Technical Specifications (Tech Specs). The Joint Petitioners aim to explain our understanding of how this hierarchy is structured.
Importantly, this paper defines the terms Joint Petitioners used in our rebuttals to explain why the lack of a properly defined and transparent hierarchy prevented Joint Petitioners from providing meaningful technical comments on Holtecs License Amendment Request (LAR) for Technical
Submittal Date: 12/16/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 4
15 Specification changes. NRC Staff and Holtec are now citing this inability as the basis for dismissing Joint Petitioners contentions.
The Technical Specification LAR was within the scope of the invitation for public hearing requests, and this paper aims to provide context for why establishing the proper hierarchy, first, is critical for providing any meaningful comments to the Holtec Technical Specification LAR and goes to the ripeness Doctrine arguments in the Joint Petitioners contentions.
The Regulatory Hierarchy and Its Intended Role The Design Basis, FSAR, and Technical Specifications represent a structured hierarchy that ensures nuclear plants operate safely within established regulatory limits and their NRC Operating License.
The NRC regulatory framework hierarchy Joint Petitioners use in our submissions can be summarized as follows:
- 1. The Design Basis - A Necessary Foundation The Design Basis forms the foundation of the regulatory framework, providing the essential safety requirements and performance criteria for
Submittal Date: 12/16/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 5
15 the plants structures, systems, and components (SSCs). A modern design basis includes:
General Design Criteria (GDC) - Codified safety requirements applicable to all post-1971 plants, unlike Palisadess Design Basis.
Alternatives or justifications for deviations where pre-GDC plants are concerned, as established in formal analyses. Like Palisades reliance on NUREG0820, Systematic Assessment Process.
- 2. The FSAR - Ensuring Alignment with a Modern Design Basis The Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) serves as the critical link between the design basis and the Technical Specifications. It provides:
Detailed analysis of plant systems and accident scenarios.
Justification for compliance with NRC regulations and alternate safety standards.
Joint Petitioners contend that the FSAR must be updated and and informed to current General Design Criteria (GDC). A NRC approved and updated FSAR would:
Reassess the plants safety margins under current standards.
Submittal Date: 12/16/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 6
15 Demonstrate how proposed changes to the Technical Specifications are supported by modern safety evaluations.
Holtecs proposed reliance on an outdated FSAR Revision 35, developed prior to decommissioning and under a pre-GDC framework, bypasses this process. Without access to a transparent, updated FSAR:
Joint Petitioners were unable to evaluate the technical adequacy of Holtecs Technical Specification LAR.
NRC Staffs insistence on standard-based arguments creates a no-win situation for Petitioners, as the standards were neither defined nor disclosed to the public.
- 3. Technical Specifications - Translating the FSAR into Enforceable Limits The Technical Specifications (Tech Specs) operationalize the FSARs safety analyses into enforceable requirements. These include:
Safety Limits: The maximum allowable parameters to prevent system failures.
Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs): Requirements ensuring safety systems remain operable.
Submittal Date: 12/16/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 7
15 Surveillance Requirements: Testing and monitoring schedules to verify compliance.
Holtecs License Amendment Request (LAR) for Tech Spec changes must:
1.
Demonstrate alignment with an updated FSAR grounded in a NRC approved design basis, contained in the FSAR.
2.
Show that the revised Tech Specs maintain adequate safety margins.
Joint Petitioners argue that without an NRC approved and updated FSAR, there is no assurance that the proposed Tech Specs:
Accurately reflect the plants safety limits and operational conditions.
Align with current NRC safety standards and the GDC, as applied to Palisades on a case by case basis.
Why This Hierarchy Matters Joint Petitioners are advocating for a NRC Staff approved and defended regulatory framework, specific to Palisades considering its age and pre-GDC design basis, that prioritizes:
Submittal Date: 12/16/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 8
15 1.
Modern Safety Standards - A design basis that adheres to contemporary GDC and NRC safety expectations.
2.
Transparency - An updated FSAR that is clear, accessible, and justifiable to the public.
3.
Technical Adequacy - Tech Specs that are demonstrably consistent with the updated FSAR and design basis.
NRC Staff and Holtecs approachrelying on a pre-GDC design basis and FSAR Revision 35undermines this hierarchy. By failing to clearly define and approve the regulatory framework, accessible to the public, NRC Staff has made it impossible for Joint Petitioners to provide meaningful technical comments on the Technical Specification LAR. This lack of clarity is now being used as the basis for dismissing Joint Petitioners contentions, despite the regulatory shortcomings at issue.
Conclusion The Design Basis, FSAR, and Technical Specifications must form a cohesive, modern hierarchy to ensure public safety, transparency, and regulatory compliance. Joint Petitioners argue this hierarchy should look as follows:
Submittal Date: 12/16/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 9
15 1.
Modern Design Basis 2. Updated FSAR 3. Tech Specs.
Allowing Holtec to rely on a pre-GDC design basis and outdated FSAR Revision 35 undermines this structure and precludes meaningful public evaluation of Holtecs Technical Specification LAR.
Joint Petitioners were unable to provide the detailed technical arguments NRC Staff and Holtec are now demanding because the lack of transparency and clarity in the regulatory framework made such evaluation impossible. The Joint Petitioners respectfully submit that the NRC must ensure this hierarchy aligns with its mission to protect public health and safety through a transparent and accountable process.
Argument for ASLB Acceptance Based on Ensuring Common Understanding of NRC Terminology The Joint 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 Presented in Prior Submissions This supplemental filing is intended to provide a detailed explanation of the
Submittal Date: 12/16/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 10 15 NRC terminology central to this adjudication. While the Joint Petitioners assumed in earlier submissions that the terms such as Design Basis, Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), and Technical Specifications (Tech Specs) were well known and shared among all parties, it is now submitted to ensure that this understanding is explicitly documented.
Petitioners did not previously present this detailed explanation, as they relied on the assumption that these terms were self-evident.
(ii) The Information is Material to Establishing a Common Framework for Review The terminology and hierarchy discussed in this filing are materially different from the assumptions made in prior submissions. By documenting the Joint Petitioners understanding of these terms and processes, this filing seeks to ensure all participants, including NRC Staff, Holtec, and the ASLB, operate from a consistent foundation. These terms are fundamental to the adjudication process, and agreement on their definitions is critical for meaningful evaluation of the License Amendment Request (LAR).
Submittal Date: 12/16/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 11 15 This submission directly addresses gaps in clarity identified during the adjudication process, where the absence of an explicitly shared understanding has contributed to disputes about the sufficiency of Joint Petitioners contentions.
(iii) The Filing is Submitted in a Timely Fashion This supplemental filing is submitted promptly as part of the ongoing adjudication process to clarify any ambiguity surrounding NRC terminology. It seeks to proactively address potential misunderstandings before the ASLB makes its determinations. By filing at this stage, Petitioners aim to facilitate a constructive review process and avoid further procedural delays or disputes over terminology.
Case Law Allowing This Submittal 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
Submittal Date: 12/16/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 12 15 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 this purpose, ensuring that NRC Staffs new arguments and interpretations are not left uncontested.
- 3. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985)
Submittal Date: 12/16/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 13 15 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)
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.
Submittal Date: 12/16/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 14 15 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: 12/16/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 15 15 Declaration of Alan Blind