ML25216A030
| ML25216A030 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 08/04/2025 |
| From: | Blind A - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57433, 50-255-LA-5 | |
| Download: ML25216A030 (0) | |
Text
50-255-LA-5 of 1
11 August 4, 2025 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of HOLTEC PALISADES, LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant)
Docket No. 50-255-LA-5 SUPPLEMENT TO PETITIONERS MOTION FOR PROCEDURAL RELIEF PURSUANT TO 10 CFR § 2.323 (Clari"cation and Revision of Requested Action Regarding Fuel Loading)
Submitted by:
Alan Blind, pro se petitioner August 4, 2025
50-255-LA-5 of 2
11 Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.323, I respectfully submit this supplement to my July 30, 2025 motion titled Petitioners Motion for Procedural Relief Pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.323. This supplemental "ling clari"es and revises the relief requested based on subsequent professional discussions with Holtecs legal counsel and additional consideration of NRC license conditions and operational de"nitions.
The intent of the original motion remains unchanged: to request that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) take procedural notice of Holtec Palisades, LLCs declared intent to initiate fuel loading on or after August 25, 2025, and to issue an advisory notice requesting that the NRC Sta withhold authorization for such fuel loading until the Board has ruled on my pending 10 CFR § 2.309 petition for hearing and the NRC Sta has completed its review of my related 10 CFR § 2.206 petition.
Revised Requested Action The original motion requested that the NRC Sta be advised not to authorize Holtec to receive or load fuel on or after August 25, 2025. I
50-255-LA-5 of 3
11 now revise this request to more precisely re"ect the operational threshold of concern:
Holtec should not be permitted to enter Mode 6 and load nuclear fuel into the Palisades reactor vessel on or after August 25, 2025, unless and until the ASLB has ruled on my 10 CFR § 2.309 petition for hearing and the NRC Sta has completed its review of my related 10 CFR § 2.206 petition including any ASLB actions related to same.
This revision acknowledges that the physical receipt of nuclear fuel at the site may occur in a no mode conditionan informal industry term with no regulatory consequenceand is not the regulatory action at issue.
Rather, my concern centers on entry into operational Mode 6 and fuel loading into the reactor vessel, which triggers enforceability of key licensing and safety requirements.
Basis for Clari"cation Fuel loading into the reactor vessel at Palisades marks entry into NRC-de"ned Mode 6, an operational mode that involves core alterations and
50-255-LA-5 of 4
11 direct management of reactivity. Mode 6 carries enforceable Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs) and is tied to multiple regulatory and license-based commitments. Most notably, Holtec remains subject to proposed license condition 2.C.(3)(c)(2), which reads:
The licensee shall implement the modi"cations to its facility, as described in Table S-2, Plant Modi"cations Committed, of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO) letter PNP 2019-028 dated May 28, 2019, to complete the transition to full compliance with 10 CFR 50.48(c) before the end of the refueling outage following the fourth full operating cycle after NRC approval. The licensee shall maintain appropriate compensatory measures in place until completion of these modi"cations.
Holtec, through its counsel, has asserted that compliance with this license condition is required only by the end of the upcoming refueling outage de"ned as Startupand is therefore not a prerequisite to entering Mode
- 6. I strongly disagree. Based on NRC precedent, license conditions and technical speci"cations must be satis"ed upon entry into the applicable modenot upon exit. This dispute concerning mode 6 entry conditions is not relevant to this motion.
50-255-LA-5 of 5
11 Status of the Mode 6 Compliance Dispute The dispute I described regarding whether License Condition 2.C.(3)(c)(2) must be satis"ed prior to entry into Mode 6 is not currently before this Licensing Board. That issue is the subject of a separate 10 CFR § 2.206 petition pending before the NRC Sta. I raise it here solely to provide the Board with background context and to formally document that I have taken separate regulatory action and consultations with opposing attorneys, to bring this issue to the NRCs attention.
As I see it, Holtec has two options for proceeding with Mode 6 entry and fuel loading:
1.
Complete the required Table S-2 "re protection modi"cations including S2-15before loading fuel, thereby complying with the current license condition; or 2.
Await "nal NRC Sta approval of its pending License Amendment Request (LAR), which seeks to defer the completion deadline for these modi"cations and associated license condition.
50-255-LA-5 of 6
11 The matter before the Board in this motion is narrower and procedural: to preserve the status quo if Holtec pursues Option 2. Speci"cally, the motion seeks to ensure that Holtec does not proceed to load fueland thereby enter Mode 6before the ASLB has ruled on the admissibility of my 2.309 contentions, the NRC Sta has completed its 2.206 safety review and Holtecs LAR for extending the license condition has been approved by NRC sta.
Procedural Justi"cation This request does not ask the Board to prejudge the merits of Holtecs LAR or interpret the license condition required to enter Mode 6. It does not interfere with the NRC Stas technical review. Rather, it seeks limited procedural relief under 10 CFR § 2.319(l), which authorizes the Board to:
take any other action consistent with the Act, this chapter, and the regulations and policies of the Commission as may be necessary to prevent undue delay in the conduct of the proceeding.
The NRC Stas July 24, 2025 noti"cation to the Commission (ML25205A193) states that Holtec would not be authorized to receive or load fuel earlier than August 25, 2025. While likely intended to re"ect a
50-255-LA-5 of 7
11 projected readiness milestone, this phrasing introduces ambiguity as to whether Holtec may proceed with fuel loading on or shortly after that date even though the license amendment remains under review.
What I identify as regulatory ambiguity is now being reported as fact in public media narratives. For example:
The Detroit News reported:
Palisades' owner Holtec can now load fuel at the Covert Township plant, the NRC said.
News Channel 3 (Kalamazoo, MI) reported:
Holtec [will] begin loading fuel into its Palisades reactor immediately upon authorized completion of speci"c reviews, scheduled inspections, and licensing procedures.
These reports, based on NRC and Holtec public statements, give the impression that fuel loading will begin on or after August 25even though:
The NRC has not completed its review of Holtecs June 24, 2025 LAR to revise License Condition 2.C.(3)(c)(2), and
50-255-LA-5 of 8
11 The NRCs own estimate (ML25181A808) states that the sta expects to complete its LAR review by October 24, 2025, based on a 40-hour eort and internal process improvement targets.
Furthermore, the Federal Register Notice issued on July 19, 2025 sets a deadline of September 18, 2025 for submission of public hearing requests related to the LARcon"rming that the adjudicatory process remains open and active.
The Board is not being asked to prejudge the outcome of any licensing action but rather to advise the NRC Sta that adjudication is ongoing regarding matters directly related to the license condition Holtec seeks to revisematters that could be prematurely and irreversibly bypassed by Holtecs stated intent to load fuel, presumably before NRC Sta completes its safety review.
Accordingly, the revised request is that Holtec should not be permitted to enter Mode 6 and load nuclear fuel into the Palisades reactor vessel on or after August 25, 2025, unless and until the ASLB has ruled on my 10 CFR § 2.309 petition for hearing and the NRC Sta has completed its review of my related 10 CFR § 2.206 petition.
50-255-LA-5 of 9
11 Conclusion and Request for Non-Opposition This supplement clari"es that the motion is procedural, limited in scope, and intended to preserve the integrity of ongoing NRC processes. It does not ask the Board to take any "nal action on the LAR or on the license condition itself. Instead, it requests that the Board advise NRC Sta to maintain the status quo and withhold authorization of fuel loading until both the 2.309 and 2.206 matters are resolved.
I respectfully request that the Board accept this supplemental clari"cation and consider the revised requested action. I also ask that NRC Sta and Holtec state whether they oppose this request.
Respectfully submitted, Alan Blind, Pro Se Petitioner DECLARATION OF ALAN BLIND Pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.304(d)
I, Alan Blind, declare as follows:
50-255-LA-5 of 10 11 1.
I am the author of the document entitled:
Supplement to Petitioners Motion for Procedural Relief Pursuant to 10 CFR § 2.323 (Clari"cation and Revision of Requested Action Regarding Fuel Loading), dated August 4, 2025, submitted in the matter of Holtec Palisades, LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant), Docket No. 50-255-LA-5.
2.
I certify that the statements made and the facts set forth in that "ling are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
3.
I further certify that I engaged in verbal and email discussions with Holtecs legal counsel regarding the subject matter of this motion.
These discussions were held in good faith, in pursuit of resolving disputes and streamlining the adjudication process for this motion.
My representations of Holtecs stated position in the "ling re"ect my best eort to accurately and fairly characterize those communications.
4.
I understand that this declaration is submitted in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR § 2.304(d) and that false statements in this declaration may be subject to civil and criminal penalties.