ML25215A001
| ML25215A001 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 08/03/2025 |
| From: | Blind A - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57432, 50-255-LA-5 | |
| Download: ML25215A001 (0) | |
Text
50-255-LA-5 of 1
17 August 3, 2025 SUPPLEMENTAL ONE, To July 30, 2025 PETITION SUBMITTAL, TO ADD CONTENTION TWO AND BASIS FOR SAME Docket No. 50-255-LA-5 Palisades Nuclear Plant - License Amendment Request to Defer NFPA-805 Modi"cation S2-15 Filed Pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.309(c)
Submitted by: Alan Blind, Pro Se Petitioner Introduction and Procedural Context This supplemental petition is submitted in accordance with 10 CFR § 2.309(f) to add a second contention to my petition "led on July 30, 2025, which included one admissible contention challenging Holtecs June 24, 2025 License Amendment Request (LAR) to defer implementation of License Condition S2-15. This supplement introduces Contention Two, based on NRC sta correspondence with the Palisades licensee, between 2008 and 2009, governing enforcement discretion at Palisades showing the regulatory basis and conditions for NRC approval of its NFPA-805 transition, the transition Holtec is now, in 2025, requesting to extend.
50-255-LA-5 of 2
17 These documents, now cited in this supplemental petition, demonstrate that Holtecs current LARseeking an extension of the deadline to complete the NFPA-805 transition license conditionis procedurally incomplete and fails to meet previously established NRC requirements.
Speci"cally, NRC "re protection enforcement policy mandates that a licensee demonstrate substantial progress to qualify for continued enforcement discretion related to NFPA-805 "re protection modi"cations, as set forth in NRC correspondence and policy letters issued to Palisades between 2008 and 2009. These requirements remain in eect today; there is no record indicating that they have been rescinded or revised. They are part of the Palisades current licensing basis and are enforced through binding license conditions to complete Table S2. Holtecs LAR fails to acknowledge, address, or satisfy these requirements.
This new contention is timely and admissible under 10 CFR § 2.309(f)(2) and (c), as it is submitted within the allowable time frameno later than September 18, 2025as speci"ed in the NRCs Federal Register Notice for this proceeding.
Contention Two: Holtecs License Amendment Request is Procedurally De"cient Because It Fails to Provide the Documentation and Analysis Required to Demonstrate Substantial Progressa
50-255-LA-5 of 3
17 Prerequisite for Continued Enforcement Discretion Under NRC Policy and the Licensing Basis Requirements Governing the NFPA-805 Transition.
Basis for Contention Holtecs June 24, 2025 LAR (ML25175A275) requests deferral of License Conditions in Table S2, which implements Palisades "re protection commitments under the National Fire Protection Association Standard NFPA-805. This license condition and its predecessor actions have been under escalated NRC enforcement since 1996, and remain subject to a speci"c regulatory framework established in NRC correspondence dated December 9, 2008 (ML083260577) and May 2009(ML091550665).
Under this frameworkand as part of the plants continuing licensing basisthe NRC allowed Palisades to continue operating without completing all required 10 CFR 50, Appendix R modi"cations, based on Entergys commitment to transition to NFPA-805. However, the NRC made clear that continued enforcement discretion would only be granted if the licensee could demonstrate substantial progress, supported by detailed documentation. Speci"cally, in its \
50-255-LA-5 of 4
17 Palisades (ML083260577), the NRC identi"ed the following required elements be submitted with any schedule request:
A list of known "re protection non-compliances and the associated compensatory measures; Documentation demonstrating the feasibility and reliability of each Operator Manual Action (OMA);
A description of completed physical plant modi"cations that mitigate "re risk; and A milestone-based NFPA-805 transition status report showing progress on "re PRA, circuit analysis, and post-"re safe shutdown strategies.
Holtecs current License Amendment Request (LAR) includes none of the required documentation for the incomplete Table S2 items or for the proposed extension of time to complete them. It makes no reference to the NRCs 2008 Interim Enforcement Policy and fails to demonstrate that Holtec has made the substantial progress necessary to support continued enforcement discretion. In a public meeting with the NRC Restart Panel nearly a year ago, Holtec represented that all 22 Table S2 modi"cations would be completed (Slide 9, ML24212A345)a
50-255-LA-5 of 5
17 representation the NRC then cited in its public statements committing to veri"cation inspections (ML24291A244). Now that those circumstances have changed, Holtecs failure to submit an updated and documented demonstration of substantial progressas required under the NRCs own enforcement guidance for extensions of deferred implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix R modi"cationsconstitutes a material procedural de"ciency in its LAR.
Petitioner contends, Holtecs LAR is procedurally incomplete under 10 CFR § 50.90 and fails to satisfy the NRCs previous established submittal standards for extension of deferred enforcement discretion, and precedent as outlined above. Petitioner respectfully submits that the Licensing Board has authority under 10 CFR § 2.309 to evaluate whether the Holtec LAR, as "led, is legally and technically sucient to proceed. Absent the documentation required to support continued enforcement discretion, the LAR should be found inadmissible for further NRC sta approval unless and until Holtec submits a complete and conforming application..
Supporting Regulatory and Factual Basis
50-255-LA-5 of 6
17
- 1. NRC Enforcement Policy Requires Case-by-Case Documentation of Substantial Progress In 2008, the NRC approved an extension of enforcement discretion at Palisades only after Entergy (then the licensee) submitted a detailed submittal on November 25, 2008. The NRC wrote:
This revision states that an additional period of enforcement discretion may be granted on a case-by-case basis, if a licensee has made substantial progress in its transition eort.
NRC Letter to Palisades, ML083260577, p. 2 The same letter noted that an earlier submittal was rejected because:
The sta did not have sucient information to conclude that the progress made toward NFPA 805 transition for Palisades demonstrated substantial progress in that eort.
ML083260577, p. 2 This NRC rejection establishes that it is the NRCnot the licenseethat determines whether adequate progress has been made, based on the licensees submission of the required information outlined earlier.
50-255-LA-5 of 7
17 Holtecs 2025 LAR includes no reference to this policy or the required documentation to allow for NRC sta evaluation of adequate progress. It therefore fails to meet the standard for continued enforcement discretion.
- 2. NRCs 2009 Oversight Letter Reinforced the Obligation to Provide Transition Milestones In 2009, NRC sta documented ongoing monthly oversight and milestone tracking of Palisades NFPA-805 transition:
ENO made a commitment to conduct monthly teleconferences with the NRC sta to discuss progress on the Palisades NFPA 805 transition activities.
ML091550665, p. 2 The NRC enclosed a milestone chart detailing "re PRA progress, circuit analysis, safe shutdown strategy, and physical plant modi"cations. Holtec has provided no such update or equivalent information to show substantial progress in completing License Condition Table S-2.
Declaration Note: I served as Engineering Director and designated licensee representative at the Palisades Nuclear Plant during the
50-255-LA-5 of 8
17 period in which ongoing correspondence with the NRC addressed the requirements for continued enforcement discretion. I was directly involved in developing and submitting the documentation necessary to demonstrate Palisades compliance with the NRCs enforcement policy, including the required showings of substantial progress.
This statement is submitted as part of my declaration in support of this petition.
- 3. NRC Precedent Requires Timely Corrective Action When Safety Signi"cance Is Involved Palisades "re protection de"ciencies have been subject to NRC escalated enforcement since 1996, when Region III imposed a $50,000 civil penalty:
Our review has indicated that your stas corrective actions were not implemented within a time frame consistent with the potential safety signi"cance of the de"ciencies.
NRC Region III Civil Penalty Letter, ML003705300 This same rationale underpinned the imposition of License Condition Table S2 completion deadline, and as it stands today. Holtecs characterization of the deferral as administrative does not override the NRCs prior
50-255-LA-5 of 9
17 "ndings of not consistent with the potential safety signi"cance of the de"ciencies.. unless supported by a new, technically justi"ed safety basiswhich Holtec has not submitted.
- 4. The LAR Is Incomplete Under 10 CFR § 50.90 and NRC Regulatory Guidance Regulatory Guide 1.174, Rev. 3 (ML19342C905), states:
Once a license condition is imposed, it becomes part of the licensing basis and is legally binding on the licensee. Any modi"cation requires prior NRC approval through a license amendment under 10 CFR 50.90 or an exemption under 10 CFR 50.12.
Holtecs request to defer Table S2 deadline, is a request to modify a legally binding license condition. Yet the Holtec LAR does not include:
Any technical evaluation of the safety implications of further deferral; Any transition milestones or progress measures; Any reference to NRCs 2008 or 2009 guidance letters.
50-255-LA-5 of 10 17 Accordingly, the LAR is incomplete and and should be found by the ASLB to be not reviewable under NRC requirements.
Applicability of July 30, 2025 Petition Elements Petitioner incorporates by reference the procedural background, standing arguments, and Licensing Board jurisdictional authority described in the original and "rst petition submitted on July 30, 2025. Those elements apply equally to this supplemental "ling and to Contention Two. Petitioner has established standing based on proximity, professional expertise, and demonstrated interest in "re protection compliance at the Palisades Nuclear Plant, as previously detailed. In addition, Petitioner reiterates that the Licensing Board has authority under 10 CFR § 2.309 to consider whether Holtecs LAR meets applicable NRC procedural and technical standards. To avoid redundancy, these foundational arguments are not restated in full herein.
Because both Contention One and Contention Two allege that Holtecs June 24, 2025 LAR fails to meet NRC submittal requirements under 10 CFR § 50.90 and applicable regulatory guidance, the requested actions are the same.
50-255-LA-5 of 11 17 Petitioner respectfully requests that the Licensing Board admit each contention and consider whether the Holtec LAR must be rejected or returned as incomplete, unless and until Holtec supplements its application with the necessary technical justi"cations, documentation, and regulatory support, outlined in contention one and contention two, required by NRC precedent and policy.
Conclusion and Request for Admission of Contention This supplemental petition provides a timely and well-supported basis for Contention Two, which is independent from, but complementary to, the July 30, Contention One.
Petitioner respectfully requests that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board admit this contention for hearing under 10 CFR § 2.309(f), and "nd that:
Holtecs LAR fails to meet the documentation burden required for continued enforcement discretion under the NRCs Interim Enforcement Policy;
50-255-LA-5 of 12 17 The NRC sta cannot lawfully approve the LAR unless Holtec supplements the application to include the progress reports, safety justi"cations, and milestone tracking that NRC has stated earlier, 2009 and not altered, as required for Palisades.
Petitioner further reserves the right to submit additional contentions if new material de"ciencies are identi"ed.
Declaration of Alan Blind, a.k.a. Arthur Alan Blind In Support of Supplemental Petition to Add Contention Two Regarding Holtecs License Amendment Request to Defer NFPA-805 Modi"cations (RCGVS Vent Valves, Table S2-15)
I, Alan Blind, declare under penalty of perjury that the statements contained in the accompanying Supplemental Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
As stated in my original July 30, 2025 declaration, I have more than 40 years of experience in the nuclear power industry, the majority of which was spent in executive-level roles involving oversight of plant safety, engineering programs, and NRC compliance at licensed nuclear power facilities.
50-255-LA-5 of 13 17 From 2006 to 2013, I served as Engineering Director at the Palisades Nuclear Plant, where I held direct responsibility for managing the plants transition to NFPA-805, including technical evaluations, license basis integration, and interactions with NRC sta. This included leading formal correspondence and meetings in support of Palisades request for extended enforcement discretion under the NRCs Interim Enforcement Policy for Fire Protection, ultimately resulting in NRCs approval \
letter dated December 9, 2008 (ML083260577).
Declaration in Support of Contention Two I was the designated licensee representative for Palisades during the time of ongoing correspondence with the NRC in 2008-2009 regarding the plants compliance with NRC enforcement policy and the demonstration of substantial progress required to receive continued enforcement discretion. I was directly involved in preparing and submitting the milestone reports, technical justi"cations, and supporting documentation requested by NRC sta to extend enforcement discretion for "re protection de"ciencies, including those captured in License Condition Table S2.
50-255-LA-5 of 14 17 The NRCs May 2009 letter (ML091550665), which documented Palisades monthly progress meetings and milestone tracking, re"ected the approach I helped lead and implement. The expectations for licensee documentation of transition progresssuch as circuit analysis, "re PRA updates, compensatory measures, and completed plant modi"cationswere clearly de"ned by NRC sta and accepted by myself for Entergy as the standard for ongoing enforcement discretion.
Holtecs current LAR, "led June 24, 2025, seeks to defer completion of the same licensing commitments originally subject to escalated enforcement and stand today. However, Holtec has provided none of the documentation previously required by NRC to justify continued enforcement discretion. Based on my direct experience with both the content and regulatory purpose of the NRCs prior approval letters, it is my professional conclusionnot merely a personal opinionthat these requirements remain in force today, and Holtecs LAR is procedurally incomplete as "led.
My prior declaration in support of Contention One remains fully in eect and is incorporated by reference. This updated declaration is submitted speci"cally in support of Contention Two, which challenges Holtecs
50-255-LA-5 of 16 17 system in accordance with 10 CFR § 2.305(c) and the Commissions rules for electronic "ling:
Oce of the Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: hearing.docket@nrc.gov Oce of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Via Electronic Filing System (E-Filing)
Counsel for Holtec Palisades, LLC / Palisades Energy, LLC (Service via EIE system to counsel of record as identi"ed in NRCs E-Filing system.)