ML25009A025
| ML25009A025 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 01/09/2025 |
| From: | Blanton M, Eskelsen G, Lovett A, Tompkins J Holtec Decommissioning International, Holtec Palisades |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57255, ASLBP 24-986-01-LA-BD01 | |
| Download: ML25009A025 (0) | |
Text
January 9, 2025 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
)
Holtec Decommissioning
)
Docket Nos. 50-255-LA-3 International, LLC and
)
Holtec Palisades, LLC
)
ASLBP No. 24-986-01-LA-BD01
)
(Palisades Nuclear Plant)
)
)
APPLICANTS OPPOSITION TO JOINT PETITIONERS MOTION TO ADD RAI DOCUMENTS TO THE ADJUDICATORY DOCKET Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.323(c), Holtec Palisades, LLC and Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (HDI, together with Holtec Palisades, the Applicants) submit this reply to the Joint Petitioners (Alan Blind, Jody Flynn, Tom Flynn, Bruce Davis, Karen Davis, Christian Moevs, Mary Hoffman, Chuck Hoffman, and Diane Ebert) December 31, 2024 motion to add a draft request for additional information (Draft RAI) 1 and Applicants response (RAI Response) 2 to the adjudicatory docket (Motion).
3 Beyond Joint Petitioners belief that placing these documents into the adjudication docket is required for a complete and accurate record, 4
the Motion does not offer any reason why the Board should grant the Motion or explain what relevance adding documents to the record serves at this stage of the proceeding. The Board is 1
NRC email to HDI, Draft Request for Additional Information Related to the License Amendment Request to Reinstate the Operating Technical Specifications (Nov. 22, 2024) (ML24358A148).
2 HDI PNP 2024-049, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the License Amendment Request to Reinstate the Operating Technical Specifications (Dec. 19, 2024) (ML24354A111).
3 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 Adjudicatory Docket (Dec. 31, 2024) (ML24366A163).
4 Motion at 10, 13.
2 not compiling an evidentiary record before it decides if Joint Petitioners contentions are admissible. Nor do Joint Petitioners need to submit documents on ADAMS into evidence in order for the parties or the Board to reference them. To the extent Joint Petitioners are trying to further supplement their arguments at this stage of the proceeding, the Motion violates NRC regulations and the Boards direction to Joint Petitioners in its December 17, 2024 Order.
5 To the extent Joint Petitioners are trying to submit a new contention or amend one of their contentions submitted before the Federal Register deadline, the Motion does not say that, 6 nor does it satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 2.309(c) and (f). Accordingly, the Motion should be rejected.
The Draft RAI and RAI Response discuss the portions of the future power operations Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) that are expected to be different from Rev. 35 of the FSAR (the version in effect immediately prior to shutdown).
7 The RAI Response lists the relevant FSAR sections, which fall into two categories: (1) language in the current FSAR that differs from Rev.
5 10 CFR 2.309(i)(3); Board Memorandum and Order (Addressing Joint Petitioners Representation and Requesting Information on Availability for Oral Argument), at 6 (Dec. 17, 2024) (ML24352A266) (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.). Applicants have already opposed Joint Petitioners other late-filed pleadings that do not comply with NRC rules or the Boards orders. See Applicants Answer to Joint Petitioners Late-Filed Pleadings (Dec. 19, 2024) (ML24354A322). The same arguments apply to the present Motion.
6 The Motion cites 10 CFR 2.323 and its prayer for relief is only to add the Draft RAI and RAI Response into the adjudication docket for this LAR proceeding. Motion at 10. However, the Motion also cites 10 CFR 2.309(c) without articulating a new or amended contention and without acknowledging that 2.309(c)(2)(ii) and 2.323(a)(1) both explain that section 2.323 does not apply to new or amended contentions under 2.309(c). Moreover, in Joint Petitioners separate Motion for Extension of Time, filed December 30 and withdrawn a day later, Joint Petitioners appear to say the Motion will propose[] no new arguments or contentions, but rather ensures a complete and accurate motion addressing [the Draft RAI and RAI Response]. Joint Petitioners Motion for Extension of Time, at 4 (Dec. 30, 2024) (ML24365A266) withdrawn by Motion at 3.
7 Draft RAI at 2. As explained in the Tech Spec LAR, HDI expects to reinstate Rev. 35 of the FSAR via 10 CFR 50.59 but also expects that certain portions of the FSAR will differ from Rev. 35. HDI PNP 2023-030, License Amendment Request to Revise Renewed Facility Operating License and Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications to Support Resumption of Power Operations, Encl. at 4 (Dec. 14, 2023) (ML23348A148) (Tech Spec LAR).
3 35 and is expected to be retained in the future power operations FSAR, 8 and (2) sections that may be affected by ongoing restart activities and will be evaluated under 10 CFR 50.59 to determine if NRC approval is required prior to implementation.
9 None of the LARs at issue in this proceeding seek NRC approval to modify any of these FSAR sections. The first category of differences vs.
Rev. 35 are in the FSAR today. The second category consists of prospective changes that are dependent on ongoing restart activities, which will be evaluated to determine if NRC approval is required prior to implementation, and, [i]f prior NRC approval is required, HDI will... request and obtain approval of the license amendment pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90 and 10 CFR 50.92(a).
10 The only bases Joint Petitioners offer as to why these documents are relevant to the current proceeding are the following statements: (1) [t]he final RAI and Holtecs response affirms the Joint Petitioners contention that a complete and updated operating Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) is necessary for evaluating the Technical Specifications and other aspects of the LAR; 11 and (2) [t]he RAI supports the Joint Petitioners argument regarding the necessity of an updated FSAR and highlights further deficiencies and ambiguities in Holtecs application.
12 Joint 8
RAI Response, Encl. Att. 2 & 3. This updated FSAR language describes facility or licensing basis changes that were implemented after Rev. 35, remains relevant to an operating plant, and more accurately reflects the current Palisades licensing basis (as compared to Rev. 35).
9 RAI Response, Encl. Att. 3 at 1.
10 RAI Response, Encl. Att. 3 at 1. Indeed, there are two examples of emergent restart activities that have prompted HDI to develop additional 50.90 requests: (1) to modify sections of the FSAR that address steam generator tubing, and (2) to implement an alternative leak-before-break analysis. See HDI Presubmittal Meeting Slides, License Amendment Request to Support Leak Before Break (LBB) Application in the PNP Licensing Basis and License Amendment Request to Support Repairing of Steam Generator Tubes by Sleeving (Jan. 7, 2025)
(ML25006A181). Neither future LAR is within the scope of this proceeding. See Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-16-9, 83 NRC 472, 474-75 (2016) ([T]he prospect of a future license amendment does not create a present hearing opportunity.).
11 Motion at 4-5.
12 Motion at 10.
4 Petitioners offer no explanation as to why the RAI bolsters their contentions, beyond simply stating that it does.
In their Contention 2, Joint Petitioners claimed that HDI is required to develop a new FSAR from scratch because they believe Palisades no longer has a valid FSAR.
13 But the Draft RAI is premised on the understanding that HDI will use 10 CFR 50.59 to modify the existing Palisades FSAR. And the RAI Response explains that all future changes to the FSAR will be subject to evaluation under 10 CFR 50.59 and, if necessary, a license amendment under 10 CFR 50.90. I.e.,
the documents demonstrate the proper operation of NRC regulations as they apply to the Palisades licensing basis, in the process demonstrating that Joint Petitioners Contention 2 is wrong.
14 Moreover, like Joint Petitioners prior pleadings, the Motion cites no specific section of the Tech Spec LAR that Joint Petitioners allege is deficient or incomplete. Even if the Board were to liberally reinterpret the Motion as an attempt to raise a new contention of omission under 2.309(c),
simply referencing an RAI does not support admission of a contention or justify filing it after the Federal Register deadline.
15 The fact that NRC staff asked for more information did not absolve Joint Petitioners from their obligation to review the Tech Spec LAR and articulate contentions before the Federal Register deadline.
16 Nor did it change Commission precedent that requires 13 See Petition for Hearing regarding the Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC and Holtec Palisades, LLC Application for License Amendments for Palisades Nuclear Plant, at 51-52 (Sept. 9, 2024) (ML24253A185). The Draft RAI further demonstrates that Joint Petitioners understanding of NRC regulations is wrong.
14 See also Applicants Answer Opposing Joint Petitioners Petition for Hearing at 38-44 (Nov. 4, 2024)
(ML24309A303) (explaining why proposed Contention 2 is inadmissible).
15 Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3) CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 341-42 (1999).
16 Id. at 342 (rejecting contentions from petitioners who themselves have no particular expertiseor expert assistanceand no particularized grievance, but are hoping something will turn up later as a result of NRC staff work because such petitioners dispute is not with the contents of the application, but with the very structure of the Commissions adjudicatory processwhich requires petitioners to come forward now, rather than later, with contentions).
5 challenges to a licensees implementation of 10 CFR 50.59 to be raised in a 2.206 petition.
17 Nor did it absolve Joint Petitioners of their responsibility under 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1) to present coherent arguments that challenge specific portions of the Tech Spec LAR.
18 Accordingly, the Motion, which asks that the Board place the Draft RAI and RAI Response on the adjudication docket, should be denied because doing so adds nothing to the Boards decision on the admissibility of Joint Petitioners contentions. Even if the Board were to evaluate the Motion under the standard governing late-filed contentions (despite the fact that Joint Petitioners have not submitted a new or amended contention), neither the issuance of the Draft RAI nor anything in the Motion itself supports Joint Petitioners ability to file a new contention after the Federal Register deadline, much less justifies admission of such a contention under 2.309(f)(1). Finally, as explained in NRC staffs answer to the Motion, Joint Petitioners did not consult with Applicants or staff regarding the portion of the Motion that requests to add the RAI Response to the docket.
19 For these reasons, the Board should deny the Motion.
17 Yankee Atomic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-94-3, 39 NRC 95, 101 n.7 (1994).
18 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1)(i)-(vi); Oconee, CLI-99-11, 49 NRC at 341 ([A] genuine and material dispute for litigation does not arise from a petitioners mere mention of the RAI. The petitioners contention must indicate why the petitioner believes the particular [RAI] makes the... application unacceptable.... (emphasis in original)).
19 See NRC Staff Answer to Joint Petitioners Motion to Include NRC Staff Request for Additional Information and Applicant Response into the Adjudication Docket, at 10 (Jan. 8, 2025).
6 Respectfully submitted, Signed (Electronically) by Alan D. Lovett Alan D. Lovett Balch & Bingham LLP 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 226-8769 alovett@balch.com Executed in Accord with 10 CFR 2.304(d)
M. Stanford Blanton Balch & Bingham LLP 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 226-3417 sblanton@balch.com Jason Tompkins 1901 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 226-8743 jtompkins@balch.com Grant W. Eskelsen Balch & Bingham LLP 601 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 825 South Washington, DC 20004 (202) 661-6344 geskelsen@balch.com Counsel for Holtec Palisades, LLC, and Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC
January 9, 2025
[Certificate of Service]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
)
Holtec Decommissioning
)
Docket Nos. 50-255-LA-3 International, LLC and
)
Holtec Palisades, LLC
)
ASLBP No. 24-986-01-LA-BD01
)
(Palisades Nuclear Plant)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.305, I certify that, on this date, a copy of the foregoing Applicants Opposition to Joint Petitioners Motion to Add RAI Documents to the Adjudicatory Docket was served through the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System) in the above-captioned docket.
Signed (Electronically) by Alan D. Lovett Alan D. Lovett Balch & Bingham LLP 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 226-8769 alovett@balch.com Counsel for Holtec Palisades, LLC and Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC