ML25002A274
| ML25002A274 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 01/02/2025 |
| From: | Blind A Public Citizen |
| To: | NRC/EDO |
| Buckberg P | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML24235A485 | List: |
| References | |
| EPID L-2024-CRS-0004, OEDO-24-00267 | |
| Download: ML25002A274 (1) | |
Text
Supplemental Filing to Further Strengthen the Argument that Holtecs Proposed Use of § 50.59 Is Flawed Based on NEI 96-07 Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Implementation To Requests must be addressed to the Executive Director for Operations.
Petitioner Alan Blind 1000 West Shawnee Road Baroda, Michigan. 49101 a.alan.blind@gmail.com Supplemental Information for Petition As per § 2.206 Requests for action, (a) Any person may file a request to institute a proceeding pursuant to § 2.202 to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or for any other action as may be proper.
I am submitting supplemental information for requesting action under other actions as may be proper.
Licensee Holtec, Restart of Palisades Nuclear Power Plant. Docket Nos. 50-255 Docket No. 50-255
Subject:
Supplemental - Part Two: Filing to Strengthen the Argument that Holtecs Use of § 50.59 is Flawed, Based on NEI 96-07 Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Implementation Prelude: Summary of § 2.206 Petition and Requested NRC Action The previously submitted § 2.206 Petition for Action requests that the NRC take formal regulatory action concerning Holtecs proposed use of 10 CFR 50.59 to update the Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR) and transition it to the operating Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). This petition, filed on August 19, 2024, outlines several contentions, the primary one being that Holtecs reliance on
§ 50.59 to reclassify safety systems, structures, and components (SSCs) and reinstate accident analyses without NRC review or approval is legally flawed and poses safety concerns.
The petitioner argued that Holtecs use of § 50.59 for these purposes exceeds the scope of the regulation, which is intended to allow licensees to make only limited, non-safety-significant changes without prior NRC approval. Given the significance of the changes Holtec is proposing, petitioners assert that, a full NRC review and approval process is required to ensure compliance with current safety standards and licensing requirements.
The petition specifically requests that the NRC:
1.
Deny Holtecs use of § 50.59 for reclassifying SSCs and updating accident analyses, as these changes exceed the scope of what is permissible under § 50.59.
2.
Require Holtec to submit a comprehensive PSAR/FSAR update for NRC review and approval under 10 CFR 50.71(e), ensuring that any proposed changes undergo a full evaluation in accordance with NRC regulations and Regulatory Guide 1.181, Content of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.71(e).
3.
Ensure that the public has access to Holtecs proposed changes and that NRC reviews are conducted transparently, maintaining accountability to the public and stakeholders in the Palisades Nuclear Plant region.
This supplement provides additional support for the petitioners' contentions and further strengthens the argument that Holtecs proposed use of § 50.59 requires NRC approval, and should not be permitted without a formal, comprehensive review process The NEI 96-07 Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Implementation provide the framework for how licensees can make changes to their facilities without prior NRC approval, as long as those changes do not affect the plants licensing basis or increase risks beyond established thresholds. These guidelines clarify that any changes to methods of evaluation, safety-related SSCs, or accident analyses must undergo a thorough review to ensure they do not introduce new safety concerns.
These guidelines are crucial for maintaining consistency and integrity in the safety framework established by the NRC, ensuring that unapproved changes do not compromise public safety.
NRCs Lack of Regulatory Clarity and Transparency Regarding NEI 96-07 in Holtecs Palisades Proposal Despite the widespread use of NEI 96-07 by operating utilities to guide the implementation of 10 CFR 50.59, its use remains a guideline, not a mandatory requirement.
Neither Holtec nor NRC staff has committed to or required the use of NEI-96-07.
For Holtecs proposed use § 50.59, this represents another instance of the NRC failing to establish clear rules, effectively allowing licensees like Holtec to select which rules to follow. The lack of mandatory requirements and transparency in NRC oversight creates uncertainty, as the public cannot ascertain whether Holtec intends to use NEI 96-07 in its proposal to restart Palisades. This underscores the need for NRC action in response to the petitioners' request for formal intervention and oversight, as outlined in the 2.206 Petition for Action.
Due to the history and extensive use of NEI 96-07, it is troubling that in the case of Holtecs proposed restart of Palisades, as outlined in the petition, it remains unclear whether Holtec intends to use NEI 96-07 and whether the NRC requires its application.
Furthermore, given the unique legal circumstances surrounding Palisades, where the § 50.82 certifications have been submitted, there is no active FSAR for Holtec to perform an "unreviewed safety question" analysis under § 50.59. This ambiguity strengthens the petitioners' argument for formal NRC action to ensure transparency and public accountability in Holtecs plans.
- 1. Holtecs Misapplication of § 50.59 in ML23348A148 Document
Title:
"Regulatory Path to Reauthorize Power Operations for the Palisades Nuclear Plant" ML Number: ML23348A148 Holtec states:
"The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), now titled the Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR), will be updated, via the 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, tests and experiments, process to reflect the docketed version that was in effect prior to the 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) certifications."
Holtec further notes:
"The DSAR change back to the PNP POLB UFSAR will be accomplished under the 10 CFR 50.59 process and be implemented coincident with the associated license amendments."
NEI 96-07 Analysis NEI 96-07, Section 4.3.1, specifies that § 50.59 evaluations should not be used if the proposed activity involves a "departure from a method of evaluation described in the UFSAR." Holtecs proposed changes, which include the reclassification of SSCs and the reinstatement of accident analyses, would fundamentally alter the plant's licensing basis. This exceeds the threshold for what is permissible under § 50.59 and demands formal NRC review and approval.
- 2. Holtecs Use of § 50.59 in ML23072A404 Document
Title:
"Request to Revise Operating License and Technical Specifications to Support Resumption of Power Operations for the Palisades Nuclear Plant" ML Number: ML23072A404 Holtec states:
"The DSAR will be updated, via the 10 CFR 50.59 process, to reflect the docketed version that was in effect prior to the 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) certifications."
Holtec also asserts:
"Reinstatement of accident analyses and the safety reclassification of systems, structures, and components (SSCs) required to support the Palisades Nuclear Plant power operations licensing basis (POLB) will occur under the 50.59 process."
NEI 96-07 Analysis Section 4.2 of NEI 96-07 emphasizes the importance of a rigorous screening process to determine if proposed changes meet § 50.59 criteria. Holtec has not demonstrated that the required screening process has been completed. Additionally, NEI 96-07 specifies that changes affecting design functions or accident analyses exceed the scope of § 50.59 and require formal NRC review.
- 3. Holtecs Misuse of § 50.59 for Reclassifications and Accident Analyses Document Titles:
ML23348A148: "Regulatory Path to Reauthorize Power Operations for the Palisades Nuclear Plant" ML23072A404: "Request to Revise Operating License and Technical Specifications to Support Resumption of Power Operations for the Palisades Nuclear Plant" Holtec proposes:
"Reinstatement of accident analyses and reclassification of SSCs will be evaluated via the 50.59 process against UFSAR Revision 35."
NEI 96-07 Analysis NEI 96-07, Section 4.3.8, clarifies that changes involving a departure from methods of evaluation described in the UFSAR require NRC review under § 50.59(c)(2)(viii). Holtecs proposals to reclassify SSCs and update accident analyses represent a significant departure from approved methods, demanding NRC oversight.
Further Complexity with SEP and NUREG-0820 As outlined in the 2.206 Petition, Palisades was originally licensed under NUREG-0820, the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP), to transition from a conditional operating license to a full-term license. This history adds significant complexity to the idea of allowing Holtec to proceed with its proposed use of 10 CFR 50.59through implicit approval. The reliance on the SEP during the licensing process raises questions about whether the current licensing basis is adequately
preserved, and whether § 50.59 can be applied in this context. These factors reinforce the need for formal NRC oversight rather than allowing the proposed changes through indirect approval.
Conclusion Holtecs proposed use of § 50.59 to reclassify SSCs, update accident analyses, and revise the DSAR to UFSAR, as referenced in both ML23348A148 and ML23072A404, is inconsistent with the NEI 96-07 Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Implementation. These changes represent significant modifications to the plants licensing basis and safety functions, which require formal NRC review and approval. The NRC should deny Holtecs proposed use of § 50.59 for these activities and require a comprehensive PSAR submittal and FSAR process to ensure safety and compliance, as requested in the 2.206 Petition for Action.