ML25026A001
| ML25026A001 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/2025 |
| From: | Blind A - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57268, ASLBP 24-986-01-LA-BD01, 50-255-LA-3 | |
| Download: ML25026A001 (0) | |
Text
Submittal Date: Jan 26, 2025 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 1
18 PRE-SUBMITTAL OF FIVE-MINUTE PREHEARING OPENING REMARKS AND REGULATORY ROADMAP ADDENDUM Prepared by: Alan Blind, Joint Petitioners pro se Representative Introduction and Background On December30, 2024, the Licensing Board issued a Memorandum and Order (Scheduling Initial Prehearing Conference) in this proceeding. That Order sets an in-person prehearing conference for February12, 2025, at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, allocating five minutes to each participant for an opening statement, followed by fifteen minutes for Board questions.
In anticipation of that conference and to streamline board questions within the allotted time, Joint Petitioners submit the five-minute opening remarks below, drawn from the broader petition already on file. These remarks focus on the core, actionable issues within the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (ASLBs) authority under 10C.F.R. Part2. Accompanying these remarks is an Addendum mapping each section of the Opening Remarks from the contentions to the relevant Part2 provisions that empower the Board to adjudicate or condition Holtecs License
Submittal Date: Jan 26, 2025 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 2
18 Amendment Requests (LARs). Also included is the text from FSARRevision35, Section1.4.16.3, cited in the remarks.
Advance Filing of Opening Remarks Under 10C.F.R. §2.304 (Filing of documents and serving papers),
participants in an NRC adjudicatory proceeding may file relevant documents on the docket if they meet the Commissions procedural requirements. By filing these Opening Remarks via the NRCs electronic docket, the remarks are also served on all parties in advance, ensuring each participant has notice and the opportunity to prepare responses prior to the scheduled prehearing conference.
Additionally, the Licensing Boards December30, 2024 Order specifically allots five minutes for each participants opening statement at the February12 prehearing conference. 10C.F.R. §2.319 (Presiding officer powers) grants the Board discretion to regulate the course of the hearing and manage procedural requests, including accepting early filings if it aids clarity and efficiency. Submitting these remarks now furthers transparency and allows the board to more effectively ask questions central objectives of Part2and ensures they become part of the official
Submittal Date: Jan 26, 2025 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 3
18 record before the oral session, allowing both the Board and the parties a more informed and streamlined prehearing conference.
No New Arguments or Contentions Introduced The Joint Petitioners emphasize that this submittal of our opening remarks, five minutes reading time in length, including a road map addendum, does not introduce any new arguments or contentions. Rather, we offer further detail and organize the issues we have raised consistently since our initial filings allowing the board to understand the construction of a complex petition submittal. Specifically:
1.
Consistency With Existing Contentions Our core challenge remains unchanged: we question the lack of established regulations or guidance governing a return to operation from decommissioning, the adequacy of Holtecs FSAR, and the NRC Staffs interpretation of policies such as the Berka Petition denial, and the special circumstances for a specific exception request. Any additional information here simply reinforces and clarifies these same contentions.
2.
Clarification, Not Expansion By highlighting certain points in our opening remarks, and linking
Submittal Date: Jan 26, 2025 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 4
18 them directly from the contentions to specific FSAR sections or NRC section 2 regulations, outlining ASLB authorities, we are making our arguments more accessible for the Presiding Officer and other parties. This clarification does not amount to raising new bases or issues.
3.
No New Regulatory or Factual Challenges We do not allege previously unknown facts or contest any new aspect of Holtecs License Amendment Request. Every statement in this submittal ties directly back to the same matters already placed before the board on the docket.
4.
Purpose of the Road Map The addendum functions merely as a guide, showing where and how each part of our petition interrelates with ASLB authority, and supporting our previously stated positions. This organizational aid ensures our positions remain transparent and traceable, without expanding their scope.
For these reasons, our submittal remains firmly within the bounds of our existing contentions and no new arguments. We respectfully ask the Presiding Officer to treat this material as clarification and support for
Submittal Date: Jan 26, 2025 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 5
18 arguments long on the recordnot as any introduction of new issues or arguments.
========================
January12 Pre-Hearing: Five-Minute, Opening Remarks by Alan Blind, pro se Representative for Joint Petitioners Context Everyone agrees there is no dedicated NRC regulation or rules for returning a plant from decommissioning to operation. However, that does not exempt Holtecs LARs from meeting the general framework for operating reactorsincluding updated safety analyses under 10C.F.R.
§50.34, Contents of applications. Holtec has not submitted any current operating FSAR, so its LAR fails to comply with §50.34.
Increases the Burden Holtec suggests that, without a specific return-to-service rule, there is no valid dispute in essence saying: no explicit rule, no admissible contention. We disagree. If Holtec wants to revert from decommissioning to full power, the absence of a bespoke rule, a rule specific to the current
Submittal Date: Jan 26, 2025 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 6
18 application, increases its burden to show full compliance with operating regulations, especially §50.34, which mandates a current and accurate FSAR for an operating license or any new LAR submittal. Because Holtecs LAR lacks such an updated FSAR, it fails.
FSAR Requirements & Revision 35 Although we do not agree that Revision35 can be used as Holtec proposes, the LAR still hinges on this outdated FSARrooted in a 1969-era design basis and never updated for post-1970s design criteria or later safety insights. Yet Revision35 (Section1.4.16.3) expressly states the plant staff should use current guidance and review criteria in order to make appropriate decisions regarding the adequacy of systems design and performance. Holtecs LAR ignores that directive.
Moreover, Holtec has filed no updated operating FSAR under any regulatory theory. Without a modern FSAR, reviewing the Technical Specification LAR is impossible and not permitted under §50.34, because TechSpecs rely on a current design and licensing basis.
Submittal Date: Jan 26, 2025 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 7
18 Berka Denial & Staff Interpretations We also challenge how NRC Staff and Holtec cite a single sentence from the Berka Denial Petition for Rulemaking as though it establishes new rules or guidance for reviving a decommissioned plant, while overlooking the Commissions broader reasons for denying Berkas proposal. The Commissions denial stands on its ownanything beyond that denial is an interpretation extrapolated to a different context. If Holtec or Staff rely on that denial for authority, they must still satisfy all existing requirements for a safe operating license, which our contentions show they do not.
Misuse of 10C.F.R. §50.82(b)
Staff attorneys cite §50.82(b)originally intended for safe decommissioning and site release after 60 yearsto claim the old design basis persists for the same time period. This reading misapplies a regulation never meant to preserve outdated authority. Allowing return to power operations without updated design-basis submittals is not allowed.
Holtecs Special Circumstances Claim for Exemption In addition, we dispute Holtecs assumption that its new exemption request meets special circumstances by using flawed references and
Submittal Date: Jan 26, 2025 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 8
18 arguments. Holtec has not demonstrated a valid basis for these alleged special circumstances, and the reliance on incomplete or outdated regulatory interpretations fails to justify the claimed exemption.
Board Authority & What We Seek We ask this Board to determine whether Holtecs LARs comply with existing operating-reactor requirements. Although no bespoke return-to-service rule exists, all existing operating rules remain in force. Absent a valid demonstration of complianceparticularly an updated operating FSAR reflecting current design and QA criteriathe Board may deny or condition these license amendment requests.
Additionally, 10C.F.R. §50.3 (the Interpretations rule) was cited in our petition to emphasize that only a General Counsels written interpretation is binding. If Staff or Holtec rely on an unwritten interpretation of the Berka PRM, the Board can deny or condition the LAR unless an official, authorized interpretation is secured.
Conclusion As the 1980 Kemeny Report on TMI stated, Regulations, while essential,
Submittal Date: Jan 26, 2025 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 9
18 cannot be effective if approached with a compliance-only mentality.
Holtecs proposals exemplify this shortcoming, using rules out of context to further its own self-interest.
Reliance on Staff interpretationssuch as the Berka Denial or a
§50.82(b)-based legal theorycannot override the requirement to meet existing operating-plant rules. Therefore, the Board should deny or condition the LAR if these obligations remain unmet.
Thank you for considering our prose petition. We respectfully request that our contentions be admitted so the Board can fully evaluate these critical safety and regulatory issues.
End of Opening Remarks, Five Minutes, 675 Words
========================================
Addendum Mapping Opening Remarks to 10C.F.R. Part2 ASLB Authorities This mapping demonstrates how each segment of the Opening Remarks aligns with the Petition Contentions and 10C.F.R. Part2 provisions that
Submittal Date: Jan 26, 2025 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 10 18 grant the Board jurisdiction in a license amendment proceeding, along with the relevant sentence from the remarks.
Section: Context Relevant Opening Remarks Sentence:
Holtec has not submitted any current and accurate operating FSAR, so its LAR fails to comply with §50.34.
Applicable Contention(s):
Contention Two (Holtecs Flawed FSAR Approach)
Applicable §50.2 Regulations:
10C.F.R. §§2.309(a), (f) require petitioners to establish the scope and need for a specific regulatory basis. By citing §50.34 directly, Joint Petitioners raise a clear compliance question for the Boards review under Part2.
Section: Increases the Burden Relevant Opening Remarks Sentence:
Submittal Date: Jan 26, 2025 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 11 18 Holtec suggests that, without a specific return-to-service rule, there is no valid dispute... the absence of a bespoke rule increases its burden to show full compliance with §50.34....
Applicable Contention(s):
Contention One (Staffs Use of SECY-20-0110 Denial as Policy)
Contention Two (Holtecs Flawed FSAR Approach)
Applicable §50.2 Regulations:
10C.F.R. §2.309(f)(1)(iii), (iv) require identifying a genuine dispute of law or fact. Here, the material dispute is whether Holtecs LAR meets 10C.F.R. §50.34 in the absence of a return-to-service rule, which validly frames a Part2 contention.
Section: FSAR Requirements & Revision 35 Relevant Opening Remarks Sentence:
Yet Revision35 (Section1.4.16.3) expressly states... Holtecs LAR ignores that directive.
Applicable Contention(s):
Submittal Date: Jan 26, 2025 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 12 18 Contention Two (Holtecs Flawed FSAR Approach)
Applicable §50.2 Regulations:
10C.F.R. §2.309(f)(1)(v) demands specific references to show how the LAR is deficient. By quoting Holtecs proposed Revision35s own language on current guidance, Joint Petitioners demonstrate a concrete failure to comply with even the proposed FSAR revision 35s stated licensing basis and §50.34 standards.
Section: Berka Denial & Staff Interpretations Relevant Opening Remarks Sentence:
If Holtec or Staff rely on that denial for authority, they must still satisfy all existing requirements for a safe operating license...
Applicable Contention(s):
Contention One (Staffs Use of SECY-20-0110 Denial as Policy)
Applicable §50.2 Regulations:
10C.F.R. §2.319 grants the Board broad authority to regulate the hearing and to weigh Staff or Holtecs interpretations of prior Commission actions, including a PRM denial.
Submittal Date: Jan 26, 2025 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 13 18 10C.F.R. §2.340 authorizes the Board to deny or condition the license amendment if the applicants reliance on such interpretations is insufficient to demonstrate regulatory compliance.
Section: Misuse of 10C.F.R. §50.82(b)
Relevant Opening Remarks Sentence:
Staff attorneys cite §50.82(b)... never meant to preserve outdated authority indefinitely. Allowing reactivation without updated design-basis submittals is not allowed.
Applicable Contention(s):
Contention Four (NRC Allowing Work Without Approved Process)
Applicable §50.2 Regulations:
10C.F.R. §2.340(a) provides authority for the Board to deny or condition a license amendment if the licensees reading of §50.82(b) conflicts with the regulations intended scope, thus failing to meet NRC requirements.
Section: Holtecs Special Circumstances Claim for Exemption
Submittal Date: Jan 26, 2025 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 14 18 Relevant Opening Remarks Sentence:
In addition, we dispute Holtecs assumption that its new exemption request meets special circumstances by using flawed references and arguments. Holtec has not demonstrated a valid basis for these alleged special circumstances, and the reliance on incomplete or outdated regulatory interpretations fails to justify the claimed exemption.
Applicable Contention(s):
Contention Five (Holtecs Exemption Request Fails to Meet Requirements for Acceptance Review, as per 10C.F.R. §50.12)
Applicable §50.2 Regulations:
10C.F.R. §2.309(f)(1)(iii), (iv), (vi) require a contention to raise a genuine dispute on a material issue and be supported by references.
Petitioners assert that Holtec has not satisfied the special circumstances standard under §50.12, creating a valid challenge.
10C.F.R. §2.340(a) authorizes the Board to deny or condition a license or exemption if the applicant fails to demonstrate compliance with NRC requirements.
Section: Board Authority & What We Seek
Submittal Date: Jan 26, 2025 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 15 18 Relevant Opening Remarks Sentence:
If Holtec has not demonstrated complianceparticularly an updated operating FSAR reflecting current design and QA criteriathe Board may deny or condition these license amendment requests.
Applicable Contention(s):
Contention Two (Holtecs Flawed FSAR Approach)
Contention Three (Holtecs Flawed QAPD Approach)
Applicable §50.2 Regulations:
10C.F.R. §§2.340(a), 2.341 empower the Board to issue an initial decisiongranting, denying, or conditioning the LAR if the applicant does not meet the NRCs existing requirements.
Section: Conclusion Relevant Opening Remarks Sentence:
Reliance on Staff interpretationssuch as the Berka Denial or §50.82(b) cannot override the requirement to meet existing operating-plant regulations... the Board should deny or condition the LAR...
Submittal Date: Jan 26, 2025 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 16 18 Applicable Contention(s):
Contention One (Staffs Use of SECY-20-0110 Denial as Policy)
Contention Two (Holtecs Flawed FSAR Approach)
Contention Three (Holtecs Flawed QAPD Approach)
Contention Four ongoing reliance on outdated authority Applicable §50.2 Regulations:
10C.F.R. §2.319 underscores the Boards broad authority to ensure a fair hearing and maintain public health and safety in its final determination on the license amendment.
End of Mapping
====================================
FSARRevision 35, Section1.4.16.3 Standards and requirements have changed since the original licensing of Palisades. The plant has been reevaluated in light of these newer standards and requirements, as well as industry experience, and has at times been required to make changes on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, as new issues arise, the plant staff should use current guidance and review criteria
Submittal Date: Jan 26, 2025 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 17 18 in order to make appropriate decisions regarding the adequacy of systems design and performance.
===================================
Submittal Conclusion The Boards December30, 2024 Order schedules an in-person prehearing conference for February12, 2025, allocating five minutes for each participants opening remarks. In light of that Order, Joint Petitioners respectfully submit these remarks in advance to facilitate a more efficient proceedingeach point grounded in 10C.F.R. Part2. This submittal is offered for entry into the docket so the ASLB may fully consider these remarks as part of the February 12, 2025 oral prehearing.
Respectfully submitted, Alan Blind pro se Joint Petitioners Representative Electronic signature via NRC Electronic Docket
Submittal Date: Jan 26, 2025 Docket No. 50-255-LA-3 of 18 18 DECLARATION OF ALAN BLIND