ML25231A049
| ML25231A049 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/2025 |
| From: | Blind A - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| References | |
| 90FR34019 00021, NRC-2025-0313 | |
| Download: ML25231A049 (1) | |
Text
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 8/19/25, 7:50 AM Received: August 18, 2025 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. meh-570m-09pz Comments Due: August 18, 2025 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2025-0313 Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, on behalf of Holtec Palisades, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant; License Amendment Request Comment On: NRC-2025-0313-0001 Holtec Palisades, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant; License Amendment Application Document: NRC-2025-0313-DRAFT-0021 Comment on FR Doc # 2025-13501 Submitter Information Name: Alan Blind Address:
Baroda, MI, 49101 Email:a.alan.blind@gmail.com Phone:269-303-6396 General Comment See attached file(s)
I oppose the NRC Staffs preliminary determination of no significant hazards consideration for Holtecs request to defer NFPA-805 License Condition Table S2-15 at the Palisades Nuclear Plant. This deferral is not administrative but changes a binding license condition in place since 1978. NRCs own enforcement history, including a 1996 civil penalty for delays in completing these same fire protection commitments, shows that such obligations have safety significance. Holtec is again seeking to extend deadlines for required modifications, and I urge the NRC to reject the no significant hazards finding, require full review under 10 CFR 50.92, and withhold final action until the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has reviewed the matter.
Attachments Comment Five 8/19/25, 7:51 AM NRC-2025-0313-DRAFT-0021.html file:///C:/Users/BHB1/Downloads/NRC-2025-0313-DRAFT-0021.html 1/1 SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Justin Poole, Susan Lent, Mary Neely Comment (21)
Publication Date:
7/18/2025 Citation: 90 FR 34019
To: Office of Administration ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff Via: https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID NRC-2025-0313
Subject:
Public Comment Opposing NRCs Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination for Holtecs License Amendment Request to Defer NFPA-805 Modifications Date: August 17, 2025
Dear NRC Staff,
This comment is submitted in response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) Federal Register Notice (FRN) soliciting public comment on the NRC Staffs preliminary determination that Holtecs June 24, 2025 License Amendment Request (LAR) to defer License Condition NFPA-805 Table S2-15 involves no significant hazards consideration (NSHC). I strongly disagree with this conclusion.
As the FRN explains, the NRC must consider public comments on whether the requested amendment presents a significant hazards consideration under 10 CFR § 50.92. I respectfully submit that Holtecs proposal is not administrative in nature as claimed, but instead directly alters a binding
license condition imposed since 1978 and repeatedly reinforced by subsequent licensing actions.
Regulatory and Enforcement History Demonstrates Substantive Safety Significance, Not an Administrative Only Matter
- 1. 1978 NRC Order - Fire Protection as a License Condition On September 1, 1978, the Commission issued an order modifying Provisional Operating License DPR-20 to add enforceable fire protection requirements:
Accordingly, Provisional Operating License No. DPR-20 is amended by adding as conditions of the license those items identified in the enclosures to the staffs safety evaluation The licensee shall incorporate the changes into the Technical Specifications by submittal of revised pages not later than February 1, 1979.
The order further specified:
Accordingly, Provisional Operating License No. DPR-20 is hereby amended by adding paragraph 3.E to read as follows:
E. The licensee may proceed with and is required to complete the
modifications identified in Paragraphs 3.1.1 through 3.1.23 of the NRC's Fire Protection Safety Evaluation (SE) on the facility dated September 1, 1978. These modifications shall be completed as specified in Table 3.1 of the SE in accordance with the schedule contained therein. In addition, the licensee shall submit the additional information identified in Table 3.2 of this SE in accordance with the schedule contained therein. In the event these dates for submittal cannot be met, the licensee shall submit a report, explaining the circumstances, together with a revised schedule.
(Order for Modification of License, September 1, 1978, ML020800287)
This 1978 order was topical: it required Palisades not only to make specific fire protection modifications but also to identify and incorporate the required strategies and plant components needed for fire protection.
The order established that compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R fire protection standards was not discretionary, but a binding license condition.
The original 1978 order would have encompassed all of todays license condition Table S2 fire protection requirements. With the issuance of the TMI Action Plan (NUREG-0737, 1980), Palisades licensing basis was
further expanded to include the requirement for reactor vessel head and pressurizer vent valves. These valves were required to be remotely operable from the control room and were explicitly marked as Technical Specifications Required in NUREG-0737, Item II.B.1. Their safety function was to ensure natural circulation cooling during a loss of forced flow or accident condition. As such, they became the additional obligations now codified as Table S2-15 in the current Palisades License Condition, supplementing the original Appendix R fire protection scope imposed in 1978.
- 2. 1996 Civil Penalty - Untimely and Ineffective Fire Protection Corrective Actions Following the 1978 license order and the addition of the NUREG-0737 vent valve requirements, NRC inspectors in 1996 identified that Palisades had failed to implement effective and timely corrective actions for the same Appendix R license condition modifications. NRC issued a $50,000 civil penalty to Consumers Power Company, then licensee of Palisades.
NRC Region III Administrator A. Bill Beach wrote:
Our review has indicated that your staffs corrective actions for those issues were not effective and were not implemented within a
time frame consistent with the potential safety significance of the deficiencies.
(NRC Press Release, NRC Staff Proposes $50,000 Fine Against Consumers Power Company for Fire Protection Violations at the Palisades Nuclear Plant, August 15, 1996, ML003705300)
Although issued nearly thirty years ago, for the very same fire protection modificationsnow codified as Table S2-13 and Table S2-15 in the current Palisades License Conditionthat Holtec seeks to further defer, this statement from NRC Region III Administrator A. Bill Beach demonstrates that delays in implementing fire protection commitments at Palisades have long been recognized by the NRC as matters of substantive safety significance, not merely administrative concerns.
Rebuttal to Holtecs Administrative Claim Holtecs June 24, 2025 LAR asserts:
The proposed change is administrative in nature The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents.
This claim is contradicted by the licensing and enforcement history above.
Each of these NRC actionsthe 1978 license condition order and the 1996 civil penaltydemonstrates that Palisades fire protection requirements are directly tied to accident mitigation and safe shutdown capability. Deferral of these obligations has repeatedly been treated by NRC as a substantive safety matter, not as an administrative scheduling adjustment.
Conclusion and Request Contrary to Holtecs assertion, the proposed deferral of Table S2-15 is not administrative. It seeks to alter a binding license condition that has existed since 1978, one for which NRC has already issued civil penalties when corrective actions lagged, and one subject to a high threshold of progress verification before further delays can be approved.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the NRC:
1.
Reject the Staffs preliminary finding of no significant hazards consideration for Holtecs proposed deferral of License Condition Table S2-15.
2.
Recognize that any further deferral of these obligations requires rigorous safety review under 10 CFR § 50.92 and cannot be approved as a mere administrative action.
3.
Withhold final action on this amendment request until the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has fully reviewed the related safety and legal issues raised in my concurrent 10 CFR § 2.309 Petition.
Sincerely, Alan Blind 1000 West Shawnee Road Baroda, MI 49101 a.alan.blind@gmail.com