ML24366A163
| ML24366A163 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/2024 |
| From: | Blind A - No Known Affiliation, Holtec Decommissioning International, Holtec Palisades |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57249, ASLBP 24-986-01-LA-BD01, 50-255-LA-3 | |
| Download: ML24366A163 (0) | |
Text
Submittal Date: 12/31/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 1
17 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)
Prepared By: Alan Blind, Joint Petitioners Consolidated Representative
MOTION TO INCLUDE NRC STAFF LAR REVIEWER REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING UPDATED OPERATIONS FSAR AND HOLTECS USE OF 10 C.F.R. § 50.59 INTO THE ADJUDICATION DOCKET I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the directives outlined in the Initial Pre-Hearing Order dated September 19, 2024, and in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c), the Joint Petitioners hereby submit this Motion to include the November 22, 2024, NRC Sta Request for Additional Information: Request to Revise
Submittal Date: 12/31/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 2
17 Operating License and Technical SpeciBcations to Support Resumption of Power Operations (ML24358A148) (RAI) available on ADAMS on 12/23/2024, and Holtecs Response, available in ADAMS on 12/30/2024 (start of ten day clock for this motion); ML24354A111, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the License Amendment Request to Reinstate the Operating Technical SpeciBcations into the adjudication docket for the ongoing proceeding regarding the proposed License Amendment Request (LAR) by Holtec Palisades, LLC. This Motion is supported by new and material information contained in the RAI, which directly aects the issues under contention and raises additional questions regarding the adequacy of Holtecs License Amendment Requests, including the Request to Revise Operating License and Technical SpeciHcations to Support Resumption of Power Operations (ML23348A148).
Timeliness Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323 and Request for Consideration of the Holiday Period and Need for Consultation
Under the Commissions rules, motions arising from new circumstances must generally be Hled within ten days of the triggering event. See Initial Prehearing Order, at 4. Here, the relevant new information consists of:
Submittal Date: 12/31/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 3
17 1.
The NRC Stas December 23, 2024, posting in ADAMS of the Request for Additional Information: Request to Revise Operating License and Technical SpeciHcations to Support Resumption of Power Operations (ML24358A148), and
2.
Holtecs December 30, 2024, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the License Amendment Request to Reinstate the Operating Technical SpeciHcations (ML24354A111).
Previously, the Joint Petitioners Hled a motion seeking to use December 30 as the start date for the ten-day Hling periodan approach the NRC Sta
opposed. Accordingly, the Joint Petitioners now withdraw that Motion for an Extension of Time and instead proceed with this Motion to add the new information to the docket. This submission meets the ten-day requirement based on the December 23 date of the RAIs posting in ADAMS.
This Hling also includes the relevant consultations from the NRC Sta and Holtec regarding the addition of the RAI to the docket.
Because the NRC Sta opposed our request for additional time and we are now nearing the base ten-day period, we did not expressly seek consultation on adding Holtecs December 30 RAI response. We regard both the RAI and the Holtec response as part of the same new information set. Given the NRC Stas and Holtecs existing opposition to
Submittal Date: 12/31/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 4
17 adding the RAI (the questions), we conclude that further consultation on including Holtecs reply would be unlikely to yield any dierent outcome.
II. BACKGROUND On October 20, 2024, the Joint Petitioners requested that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) place correspondence between the Joint Petitioners representative and NRC Sta on the docket of this proceeding. In a subsequent order, the Board established that Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, and Holtec Palisades, LLC (collectively, Holtec), as well as NRC Sta, could respond to the Joint Petitioners October 20 request as part of their answers to the pending hearing petitions, due November 4, 2024. The Board further directed that the Joint Petitioners may address those responses in their reply, due November 12, 2024.
III. NEW INFORMATION AND ISSUES RAISED BY THE NRC STAFF LAR REVIEWERS RAI Updated FSAR Is Essential The Hnal RAI and Holtecs response arms the Joint Petitioners
Submittal Date: 12/31/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 5
17 contention that a complete and updated operating Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) is necessary for evaluating the Technical SpeciHcations and other aspects of the LAR. Also, it was and remains unclear the process Holtec is using to produce an Updated Operating FSAR.
In particular, the NRC LAR reviewer cites 10 C.F.R. § 50.34(b), Contents of applications; technical information, which requires the FSAR to comprehensively describe the facility and its operational safety limits.
Submittal Date: 12/31/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 6
17 Ambiguities in Regulatory Framework
The NRC RAI says:
As stated above, HDI plans to make or retain other UFSAR changes in addition to restoring the UFSAR to Revision 35, but the application does not speciBcally describe these changes or explain why they are acceptable. Under 10 CFR 50.90, an application for an amendment must fully describ[e] the changes. Accordingly, please (1) speciBcally describe any planned dierences from the content of UFSAR Revision 35 (including the planned retention of DSAR changes to UFSAR Revision 35) and (2) explain why these dierences from Revision 35 are acceptable and satisfy the standards in 10 CFR 50.92(a) for license amendments.
Holtec Response says:
These ongoing, planned, and pending activities will be evaluated under 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, tests and experiments, and incorporated into the POLB UFSAR at implementation of the PNP powerHDI PNP 2024-049 operations technical speciBcations (POTS) following NRC approval of the LAR (Reference 3). The updated POLB UFSAR will be submitted to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR
Submittal Date: 12/31/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 7
17 50.71, Maintenance of records, making of reports, paragraph (e). The changes to the pre-shutdown UFSAR and DSAR will provide assurance that the POLB UFSAR remains consistent with the plant design and analyses to support the previously submitted POTS LAR which revise selected sections of the RFOL, the PDTS, and the Environmental Protection Plan to reCect the proposed resumption of power operations at PNP. Furthermore, HDI has processes in place in compliance with 10 CFR 50.59 and/or 10 CFR 50.54, Conditions of licenses, to determine whether changes to plant equipment and required programs would result in changes to the pre-shutdown UFSAR and DSAR and if the changes require NRC approval prior to implementation.
The Hnal RAI further reveals that the NRC LAR Review Sta questioned Holtecs proposed use of 10 C.F.R. § 50.59 to reinstate the updated operating FSAR. Holtecs response provides a more detailedbut nonetheless newdescription of its plan to produce an Updated Operating FSAR, which diers substantially from what was included in its Technical SpeciHcation LAR submittal. This new plan underscores the need to add both the NRC RAI and Holtecs response to the adjudicatory record.
Submittal Date: 12/31/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 8
17 IV. PARALLEL NATURE OF THE STAFF REVIEW AND ASLB ADJUDICATION
The NRC Stas technical review of the License Amendment Request(s)
(LAR)including the issuance and analysis of Requests for Additional Information (RAIs)proceeds on a separate but parallel track to this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) proceeding. Nonetheless, information that emerges from the Stas RAI process may be pertinent to the adjudication. Indeed, 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2) allows new or amended contentions to be Hled if they are based on new and materially dierent information that was not previously available.
In Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3), CLI-09-11, 69 NRC 575, 587 (2009), the Commission emphasized that a party seeking to Hle a new or amended contention must demonstrate that the information upon which the proposed new or amended contention is based was not previously available and that it is materially dierent from information previously available. Likewise, in Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation),
LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 142, 179 (1998), the Board recognized that newly issued RAIs and the applicants responses may contain new factual
Submittal Date: 12/31/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 9
17 information not previously in the record, and thus could support new or amended contentions.
Hence, the Stas newly issued RAI (ML24358A148) is new and materially dierent information within the meaning of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2).
Including that RAI in the adjudicatory record aligns with NRC practice and ensures the Board and all parties have a complete and accurate record upon which to evaluate any issues arising from the Stas review.
V. LEGAL BASIS FOR INCLUDING THE RAI Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c), a motion to introduce new information must demonstrate good cause by showing:
1.
The information is new and materially dierent from previously available information.
The Hnal RAI was issued after the deadlines for initial contentions and directly addresses issues central to this proceeding.
2.
The information is relevant to the proceeding.
Submittal Date: 12/31/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 10 17
The RAI supports the Joint Petitioners argument regarding the necessity of an updated FSAR and highlights further deHciencies and ambiguities in Holtecs application.
3.
The admission of the information will not unduly delay the proceeding.
Including the RAI in the record will promote a more complete and transparent adjudicatory process, without imposing unwarranted delays.
VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF For the reasons stated above, the Joint Petitioners respectfully request that the Board:
1.
Grant this Motion.
Include the November 22, 2024, NRC Sta Request for Additional Information (ML24358A148) and the Holtec Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the License Amendment Request to Reinstate the Operating Technical SpeciBcations (ML24354A111) into the adjudication docket for this LAR proceeding.
Submittal Date: 12/31/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 11 17 VII. CERTIFICATION OF CONSULTATION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), the Joint Petitioners certify that they have made a sincere eort to consult with counsel for Holtec and NRC Sta
regarding this Motion. On December 25, 2024, all parties were sent an email containing a draft copy of this Motion and requesting their consultation. A modiHed version of the motion was sent to all participants on December 27, 2025. Responses were requested no later than January 3, 2025. Email copies of each consultation are included in Appendix One.
Summary of Consultations Remarks. See Appendix Two for Full Consultation Responses:
- Counsel for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oce of the General Counsel The NRC Stas email states they oppose the Joint Petitioners motion because (1) it amounts to impermissible supplemental arguments on existing contentions, (2) the RAI does not actually support the contentions the Joint Petitioners have raised, (3) the motion does not properly meet the criteria in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c), and (4) the Sta does
Submittal Date: 12/31/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 12 17 not believe the newly cited regulation (10 C.F.R. § 50.34(b)) constitutes genuinely new information that would allow for a new or amended contention. The Sta also clariHes they are not commenting on any alleged new document from December 30, 2024, because no consultation was requested on that separate matter.
- Counsel for Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, and Holtec Palisades, LLC (Balch and Bingham LLP Holtecs counsel states that the latest draft of the proposed motion presents no valid basis for adding the NRCs Request for Additional Information (RAI) to the adjudicatory record. They argue that, to the extent the motion attempts to supplement existing contentions or raise new ones, it fails to meet the standards for late-Hled contentions under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c) and does not accurately reIect its true purpose. Additionally, Holtec considers the RAI response material to be outside the scope of this proceeding.
Therefore, Holtec opposes the motion.
Holtecs counsel also notes that the Joint Petitioners did not consult with them prior to Hling the recent motion for an extension of time, as
Submittal Date: 12/31/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 13 17 is required, and they intend to oppose that motion as well, asserting it concerns information that is neither material nor within the scope of this proceeding.
- Counsel for Beyond Nuclear, Dont Waste Michigan, Michigan Safe Energy Future, Three Mile Island Alert, and Nuclear Energy Information Services No response as of 1/1/2025
VIII. CONCLUSION The inclusion of the RAI into the adjudication docket is critical for a thorough and transparent evaluation of Holtecs LAR. The Joint Petitioners therefore urge the Board to grant this Motion to ensure that the proceeding reIects the most complete and accurate record.
Signed by NRC Electronic Submission Alan Blind Representative for Joint Petitioners
Submittal Date: 12/31/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 14 17 DECLARATION OF ALAN BLIND
Submittal Date: 12/31/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 15 17 Appendix One Consultation Response; Counsel for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oce of the General Counsel
12/31/24, 1:25 PM Gmail - RE: Re: Third Version of Motion to Include NRC Staff LAR Reviewer RAI - Consultation Request Page 1 of 4 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/ik=fde94bb936&view=pt&search=Cmsg-f:1819973070220986331&simpl=msg-f:1819973070220986331&mb=1 Alan Blind <a.alan.blind@gmail.com>
RE: Re: Third Version of Motion to Include NRC Staff LAR Reviewer RAI -
Consultation Request 1 message Michael Spencer <Michael.Spencer@nrc.gov>
Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 11:12 AM To: Alan Blind <a.alan.blind@gmail.com>
Cc: Anita Ghosh Naber <anita.ghoshnaber@nrc.gov>, "Lovett, Alan" <alovett@balch.com>, "Blanton, Stan"
<sblanton@balch.com>, Julie Ezell <Julie.Ezell@nrc.gov>, Terry Lodge <tjlodge50@yahoo.com>, "Eskelsen, Grant"
<geskelsen@balch.com>, David Roth OGC <David.Roth@nrc.gov>, Wally Taylor <wtaylor784@aol.com>, Susan Vrahoretis <Susan.Vrahoretis@nrc.gov>, Peter Lom <Peter.Lom@nrc.gov>
Mr. Blind, In this email, I am responding to your request for consultation on the third version of the draft motion that you emailed to us on December 29, 2024.
We oppose your motion for several reasons:
First, Joint Petitioners appear to be using this motion to add arguments in support of their current contentions, but NRC regulations do not provide for this. The deadline for replies to the Staffs and Applicants answers was November 12, 2024, and 10 CFR 2.309(i)(3) states, [n]o other written answers or replies will be entertained.
Also, as we explained in our December 18 filing, replies are limited to responding to the legal and logical arguments in the answers, so the information set for a reply was established when the Staff and Applicant filed answers on November 4. Further, the Board has already stated in its December 17 order: We will not entertain further written briefs that provide variations on arguments in support of Joint Petitioners standing or the admissibility of their currently pending contentions. In this regard, we note that in their December 17 filing, the Joint Petitioners recognized this stating, We also fully understand that such leniency is limited, as expressly stated by the Board, and that no further filings seeking to expand upon or supplement our current standing or contentions will be entertained (emphasis added).
Second, the Staff RAI you cite does not support the Joint Petitioners current contentions. While Contention 2 addresses the FSAR, this contention does not raise the issues addressed by the RAI. Rather, the Joint Petitioners are trying to challenge Holtecs use of the 10 CFR 50.59 process, which is outside the scope of the proceeding (as we explained in our answer to the hearing request), and Joint Petitioners are ultimately proposing to impose requirements (like the GDC) that are not applicable to Palisades or the requested license amendments.
Third, the motion otherwise lacks a basis. The third draft of the motion emailed to us on December 29, 2024, argues that the final RAIs citation to 10 CFR 50.34(b) is new information of significance to the Petitioners contention, but any arguments based on 10 CFR 50.34(b) could have been made in the Petitioners original hearing request. Regardless, the Staffs November 4, 2024, answer to the hearing request (on page 31) also
12/31/24, 1:25PM Gmail - RE: Re: Third Version of Motion to Include NRC Staff LAR Reviewer RAI - Consultation Request Page 2 of 4 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/ik=fde94bb936&view=pt&search=Cmsg-f:1819973070220986331&simpl=msg-f:1819973070220986331&mb=1 cites to 10 CFR 50.34(b). In addition, the draft motion states that in the final RAI the NRC staff questioned Holtecs proposed use of 10 C.F.R. § 50.59 to reinstate the updated operating FSAR, but the requests for information in the final RAI are not directed at implementation of 10 CFR 50.59. Rather, the final RAI merely asks Holtec to fully describe any planned differences from UFSAR Revision 35 because their originally filed application mentioned such differences but did not fully describe them. Therefore, the final RAI does not provide a basis for the motion.
We note that the draft motion states that it is being submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 2.309(c), but 10 CFR 2.309(c) is, by its terms, for [h]earing requests, intervention petitions, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions filed after the deadline, and is not for the type of motion that Joint Petitioners appear to be intending to file. But if you do intend to file a new or amended contention, you should make that clear in your filing and address all applicable requirements.
Further, we do not agree that 10 CFR 2.309(c) is (or could be) satisfied in this case because the RAI is based on the application and regulations as they existed at the original deadline for hearing requests, so any contention pursuing matters raised in the RAI could have been filed by the original deadline. And the RAI itself may not be the subject of a contention because safety contentions must be based on the application and not the Staffs safety review, as we explained in our November 4, 2024 answer to the hearing request.
Finally, this response to consultation addresses the draft motion you sent based on the Staffs RAI. You filed a motion for extension of time yesterday that mentions a separate document that you state became available on December 30, 2024. You have not initiated consultation on that matter and so we have nothing to respond to at this time.
- Thanks, Michael A. Spencer Counsel for NRC Staff From: Alan Blind <a.alan.blind@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2024 10:02 AM To: Michael Spencer <Michael.Spencer@nrc.gov>
Cc: Anita Ghosh Naber <anita.ghoshnaber@nrc.gov>; Lovett, Alan <alovett@balch.com>; Blanton, Stan
<sblanton@balch.com>; Julie Ezell <Julie.Ezell@nrc.gov>; Terry Lodge <tjlodge50@yahoo.com>;
Eskelsen, Grant <geskelsen@balch.com>; David Roth OGC <David.Roth@nrc.gov>; Caitlin Byrd
<Caitlin.Byrd@nrc.gov>; Wally Taylor <wtaylor784@aol.com>; Susan Vrahoretis
<Susan.Vrahoretis@nrc.gov>; Peter Lom <Peter.Lom@nrc.gov>
Subject:
[External_Sender] Re: Third Version of Motion to Include NRC Staff LAR Reviewer RAI -
Consultation Request Michael
12/31/24, 1:25PM Gmail - RE: Re: Third Version of Motion to Include NRC Staff LAR Reviewer RAI - Consultation Request Page 3 of 4 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/ik=fde94bb936&view=pt&search=msg-f:1819973070220986331&simpl=msg-f:1819973070220986331&mb=1 Thank you for the reply.
Yes, please use the third, December 29 email and motion R2 for the consultation.
Also, thanks for the heads up on the ten days. I had not totally considered that, but I thought of the holidays for everyone, in proposing the January 3 consultation date.
If the other participants can move up the date to meet ten days, I will turn around the motion to the docket the next day.
Alan Blind On Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 9:53AM Michael Spencer <Michael.Spencer@nrc.gov> wrote:
Mr. Blind, We are considering your request for consultation and intend to respond soon, hopefully by tomorrow. Consistent with your email below, our response will be based solely on the third version of the draft motion included in your December 29, 2024, email.
Based on your requests for consultation, it appears that you are asking us provide our views by January 3, 2025, to support a timely filing. To the extent you may be considering the 10-day deadline in 10 CFR 2.323(a), I note that the ADAMS properties information in publicly available web-based ADAMS (you can verify this yourself) indicates that the final RAI became available to the public on December 23, 2024, and 10 days from December 23 is January 2.
Finally, your emails include a typo for Peter Loms email address. In the future, please use Peter.Lom@nrc.gov.
- Thanks, Michael A. Spencer Counsel for NRC Staff From: Alan Blind <a.alan.blind@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2024 9:58 AM To: Anita Ghosh Naber <anita.ghoshnaber@nrc.gov>; Lovett, Alan <alovett@balch.com>; Michael Spencer <Michael.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Peter.Lon@nrc.gov; Blanton, Stan <sblanton@balch.com>;
Julie Ezell <Julie.Ezell@nrc.gov>; Terry Lodge <tjlodge50@yahoo.com>; Eskelsen, Grant
12/31/24, 1:25PM Gmail - RE: Re: Third Version of Motion to Include NRC Staff LAR Reviewer RAI - Consultation Request Page 4 of 4 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/ik=fde94bb936&view=pt&search=msg-f:1819973070220986331&simpl=msg-f:1819973070220986331&mb=1
<geskelsen@balch.com>; David Roth OGC <David.Roth@nrc.gov>; Caitlin Byrd
<Caitlin.Byrd@nrc.gov>; Wally Taylor <wtaylor784@aol.com>; Susan Vrahoretis
<Susan.Vrahoretis@nrc.gov>
Subject:
[External_Sender] Third Version of Motion to Include NRC Staff LAR Reviewer RAI -
Consultation Request
Subject:
Third Version of Motion to Include NRC Staff LAR Reviewer RAI - Consultation Request
Dear Counsel and Interested Parties,
Please disregard the first two requests for consultation, December 25, and December 27.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), I am writing to request your consultation on a third version of the Motion to Include NRC Staff LAR Reviewer Request for Additional Information Concerning Updated Operations FSAR and Holtecs Use of 10 C.F.R. § 50.59 Into the Adjudication Docket. A copy of the updated motion is attached for your review (RAI Motion R2.pdf).
I respectfully apologize for the multiple requests for consultation. This new draft represents a greatly simplified version of the prior motions, focusing on the arguments regarding the Joint Petitioner's bases to include the November 22, 2024, NRC Staff RAI (ML24358A148) in the adjudicatory docket.
All APA (Administrative Procedure Act) references have been removed to streamline the text and to better address the core procedural and substantive issues.
We would appreciate your comments, concurrence, or non-concurrence on Friday, 12/3/2025, so that we can finalize and submit it to the Board. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Best regards, Alan Blind Joint Petitioners Representative
Submittal Date: 12/31/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 16 17 Appendix One Consultation Response: Counsel for Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, and Holtec Palisades, LLC (Balch and Bingham LLP)
12/31/24, 5:41 PM Gmail - RE: Third Version of Motion to Include NRC Staff LAR Reviewer RAI - Consultation Request Page 1 of 3 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/ik=fde94bb936&view=pt&search=Cmsg-f:1819993267133138100&simpl=msg-f:1819993267133138100&mb=1 Alan Blind <a.alan.blind@gmail.com>
RE: Third Version of Motion to Include NRC Staff LAR Reviewer RAI -
Consultation Request 1 message Blanton, Stan <SBLANTON@balch.com>
Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 4:33 PM To: Alan Blind <a.alan.blind@gmail.com>, Anita Ghosh Naber <anita.ghoshnaber@nrc.gov>, "Lovett, Alan"
<alovett@balch.com>, Michael Spencer <Michael.Spencer@nrc.gov>, "Peter.Lon@nrc.gov" <Peter.Lon@nrc.gov>,
"Julie.Ezell@nrc.gov" <Julie.Ezell@nrc.gov>, Terry Lodge <tjlodge50@yahoo.com>, "Eskelsen, Grant"
<geskelsen@balch.com>, "David.Roth@nrc.gov" <David.Roth@nrc.gov>, "Caitlin.Byrd@nrc.gov"
<Caitlin.Byrd@nrc.gov>, Wally Taylor <wtaylor784@aol.com>, "Susan.Vrahoretis@nrc.gov" <Susan.Vrahoretis@nrc.gov>
Dear Mr. Blind This is in response to your multiple requests for consultation regarding what is now the third draft of a proposed motion to add NRCs Request for Additional Information concerning Holtecs pending license amendment requests.
Nothing in your draft motion suggests a valid basis for adding the RAI requests to the adjudicatory record in this case.
To the extent the motion is actually an attempt to supplement your contentions or state new contentions, your draft motion does not accurately describe its purpose, nor does it satisfy the requirements for a late filed new or amended contention in 10 CFR 209(c). Moreover the information provided in response to the RAI is neither material nor within the scope of this proceeding. Therefore Holtec does not agree with the draft motion.
We also note that you did not seek consultation as required prior to filing your motion for extension of time, that motion also is apparently based on information that is not material and is out of scope of this proceeding. Accordingly Holtec will oppose that motion as well.
Stan Blanton M. Stanford Blanton Managing Partner Balch & Bingham LLP P.O. Box 306 Birmingham AL 35201 205-226-3417 (office) 205-516-6468 (mobile)
12/31/24, 5:41PM Gmail - RE: Third Version of Motion to Include NRC Staff LAR Reviewer RAI - Consultation Request Page 2 of 3 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/ik=fde94bb936&view=pt&search=Cmsg-f:1819993267133138100&simpl=msg-f:1819993267133138100&mb=1 M. StanfordBlanton,Partner,Balch & Bingham LLP 1710 Sixth Avenue North * Birmingham,AL35203-2015 t: +1 (205) 226-3417 f: +1 (205) 226-8799 e: SBLANTON@balch.com www.balch.com From: Alan Blind <a.alan.blind@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2024 8:58 AM To: Anita Ghosh Naber <anita.ghoshnaber@nrc.gov>; Lovett, Alan <alovett@balch.com>; Michael Spencer
<Michael.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Peter.Lon@nrc.gov; Blanton, Stan <SBLANTON@balch.com>; Julie.Ezell@nrc.gov; Terry Lodge <tjlodge50@yahoo.com>; Eskelsen, Grant <geskelsen@balch.com>; David.Roth@nrc.gov; Caitlin.Byrd@nrc.gov; Wally Taylor <wtaylor784@aol.com>; Susan.Vrahoretis@nrc.gov
Subject:
Third Version of Motion to Include NRC Staff LAR Reviewer RAI - Consultation Request
Subject:
Third Version of Motion to Include NRC Staff LAR Reviewer RAI - Consultation Request
Dear Counsel and Interested Parties,
Please disregard the first two requests for consultation, December 25, and December 27.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), I am writing to request your consultation on a third version of the Motion to Include NRC Staff LAR Reviewer Request for Additional Information Concerning Updated Operations FSAR and Holtecs Use of 10 C.F.R. § 50.59 Into the Adjudication Docket. A copy of the updated motion is attached for your review (RAI Motion R2.pdf).
I respectfully apologize for the multiple requests for consultation. This new draft represents a greatly simplified version of the prior motions, focusing on the arguments regarding the Joint Petitioner's bases to include the November 22, 2024, NRC Staff RAI (ML24358A148) in the adjudicatory docket.
All APA (Administrative Procedure Act) references have been removed to streamline the text and to better address the core procedural and substantive issues.
We would appreciate your comments, concurrence, or non-concurrence on Friday, 12/3/2025, so that we can finalize and submit it to the Board. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Best regards, Alan Blind Joint Petitioners Representative CONFIDENTIALITY: This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or privileged and are therefore protected against copying, use, disclosure or distribution. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us
12/31/24, 5:41PM Gmail - RE: Third Version of Motion to Include NRC Staff LAR Reviewer RAI - Consultation Request Page 3 of 3 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/ik=fde94bb936&view=pt&search=Cmsg-f:1819993267133138100&simpl=msg-f:1819993267133138100&mb=1 immediately by replying to the sender and double deleting this copy and the reply from your system.
Submittal Date: 12/31/2024 50-255-LA-3 of 17 17 Appendex One Opposition for an Extension of Time: Council for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oce of the General Counsel
December 31, 2024 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 (Palisades Nuclear Plant)
Docket No. --LA-
NRC STAFF ANSWER TO JOINT PETITIONERS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 3XUVXDQWWR&)5 F and the licensing boards (Boards) order dated 6HSWHPEHU (Initial Prehearing Order), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff (Staff) herein answers the 'HFHPEHUPRWLRQIRUH[WHQVLRQRItime (Motion for
([WHQVLon of Time) filed by Alan Blind, Jody Flynn, Tom Flynn, Bruce Davis, Karen Davis, Christian Moevs, Mary Huffman, Chuck Huffman, and Diane Ebert (collectively, Joint Petitioners). $VH[SODLQHGEHORZWhe Staff opposes the 0RWLRQIRU([WHQVLon of Time because
it does not include a certification of consultation with the other participants that complies with
§ E and the Joint Petitioners failed to consult with the Staff on an H[WHQVLRQ of time before filing the motion; WKH0RWLRQIRU([WHQVLRQRI7LPHGRHVQRWVDWLVI\\WKHUHTXirements for such motions in the Boards Initial Prehearing Order; DQG WKHUHLVQRJRRGFDXVHIRUDQ
H[WHQVLRQRIWLPH
BACKGROUND The Staff has described the procedural background of this proceeding in other filings, most recently in the Staffs 'HFHPEHU, answer to the Joint Petitioners motions to supplement their replies to the Staff and Applicants answers WRWKHKHDULQJUHTXHVW (Staff
Answer to Repl\\6XSSOHPHQW5HTXHVWV .1 Regarding the instant Motion for E[WHQVLRQRITime:
2Q'HFHPEHUWhe Joint Petitioners initiated consultation by email on a draft motion (Draft RAI Motion) based on a Staff UHTXHVWIRUDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQ(RAI) that was sent to the Applicant on 1RYHPEHU, but made available to the public in $'$06RQ'HFHPEHU
7KHJoint Petitioners emailed a second draft of the Draft RAI Motion RQ'HFHPEHU
, and a third draft of the Draft RAI Motion on 'HFHPEHU. The 'HFHPEHU,
email stated that this third draft entirely superseded the previous ones. 7KHUHTXHVWVIRU
consultation sought a response from the other participants by January 2 On December WKH6WDIIUHSOLHGE\\HPDLOWKDWLWhoped to respond to the UHTXHVW IRUFRQVXOWDWLRQE\\'HFHPEHU. Regarding the UHTXHVWHG-DQXDU\\, response date, the Staff informed the Joint Petitioners that the RAI became available to the public on
'HFHPEHUVRthe ten-day deadOLQHLQ&)5 a) for filing a motion based on that RAI fell on -DQXDU\\QRW-DQXDU\\. In the Joint Petitioners email response on
'HFHPEHUtheir representative stated the following regarding the timing of consultation and filing the draft motion:
Also, thanks for the heads up on the ten days. I had not totally considered that, but I WKRXJKWRIWKHKROLGD\\VIRUHYHU\\RQHLQSURSRVLQJWKH-DQXDU\\FRQVXOWDWLRQGDWH
If the other participants can move up the date to meet ten days, I will turn around the PRWLRQWRWKHGRFNHWWKHQH[WGD\\3 1 NRC Staff Answer to Joint Petitioners Requests to Supplement Their Replies to the Answers to Joint Petitioners Hearing Request, at - 'HF (Staff Answer to Repl\\6XSSOHPHQW5HTXHVWV .
2 7KH'HFHPEHU, HPDLOUHTXHVWHGthe participants views on Friday, , but the Staff understands the to be a typographical error. The previous emails from Joint Petitioners UHTXHVWHG
participants views E\\-DQXDU\\, and the Joint Petitioners December , email (discussed below) DJDLQUHIHUHQFHVD-DQXDU\\GDWHIRUFRQVXOWDWLRQ
3 6HH$WWDFKPHQW, Email Correspondence Regarding Timing of Consultation (Dec & . The Staff has not included all correspondence related to consultation on the Draft RAI Motion, just those emails that are particularly relevant to this Motion for E[WHQVLRQRITime.