ML25260A068
| ML25260A068 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 09/16/2025 |
| From: | Blind A - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Dennis Galvin | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML25157A008 | List: |
| References | |
| OEDO-25-00290, EPID L-2025-CRS-0000 | |
| Download: ML25260A068 (0) | |
Text
September 16, 2025 of 1
13 10 CFR § 2.206 Petition UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION PETITION UNDER 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 Petitioner:
Alan Blind, 1000 West Shawnee Road, Baroda, Michigan, 49101 a.alan.blind@gmail.com 269-303-6396
Facility: Palisades Nuclear Plant, Covert, Michigan (Docket No. 50-255)
Licensee: Palisades Energy, LLC / Holtec Palisades, LLC Executive Summary Petitioner seeks enforcement action under 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 to address Holtecs current non-compliance with Commission-approved schedules for resolving Generic Safety Issue (GSI)-191. The controlling Commission policySECY-12-0093 (ML121310648), a Policy Issue (Notation Vote) requires licensee-specific resolution paths and Commission-approved
September 16, 2025 of 2
13 schedules, with the Director of NRR using appropriate regulatory tools to ensure those schedules are met. Contrary to these requirements, Holtecs December 11, 2024 submittal (ML24346A171) proposes milestones extending into 2Q 2026, beyond the SECY time bounds tied to refueling outage cycles, and it omits the SECY-required elements for a schedule change: (i) an explicit request for a Commission policy decision on schedule; (ii) justification for deviation from the 2017-2019 completion windows; (iii) a deterministic fallback tied to early outage holdpoints; (iv) interim defense-in-depth measures; and (v) documented staff-licensee alignment on analyses and milestones. NRC has not issued a written evaluation or response addressing these departures.
Petitioner previously submitted a § 2.206 petition raising concerns about Palisades GSI-191 compliance, which the Petition Review Board dismissed on April 7, 2025 (ML24309A276). That dismissal was procedural: the petition was characterized as anticipatory, overlapping with a pending hearing request and rulemaking petition, and framed as a challenge to the regulatory framework. The merits were never reached.
Similarly, Petitioners related § 2.309 hearing request was dismissed on procedural grounds, and none of the admitted contentions addressed GSI-191.
September 16, 2025 of 3
13 Material circumstances have since changed. Palisades is no longer in decommissioning status; NRC has approved the exemption, licensing actions, and conforming amendments returning the plant to operating status. Holtec has now submitted a GSI-191 schedule that extends well beyond Commission-approved deadlines, without the required elements SECY mandates for schedule changes. For these reasons, this petition is re-submitted with a narrow, plant-specific focus on enforcement of existing Commission policy, not on rulemaking or anticipatory challenges.
The relief requested is targeted: (1) a written NRC determination affirming SECY-12-0093s applicability to Palisades; (2) a staff evaluation of Holtecs 2026 schedule with either a SECY-conforming revision or elevation to the Commission; (3) enforceable deterministic fallback and interim defense-in-depth measures; and (4) a holdpoint on fuel load, startup, or continued operation pending approval of a compliant GSI-191 schedule. Granting this petition will restore transparency, ensure adherence to Commission direction, and safeguard compliance with 10 C.F.R. § 50.46(b)(5) long-term cooling requirements.
I. Introduction
September 16, 2025 of 4
13 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.206, Petitioner respectfully requests that the NRC take enforcement action to address Holtecs current non-compliance with Commission-approved Generic Safety Issue (GSI)-191 resolution schedules as directed in SECY-12-0093 (ML121310648).
This petition differs fundamentally from my prior § 2.206 petition dismissed on April 7, 2025 (ML24309A276). That dismissal was based on findings that the petition was (a) anticipatory, (b) duplicative of a hearing petition and PRM, and (c) a challenge to the NRCs regulatory framework.
Circumstances have changed materially:
Palisades is no longer a decommissioning facility. On July 24, 2025, NRC granted Holtec an exemption from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2),
approved the transfer of operating authority, and issued conforming amendments. Palisades is now an operating reactor under Renewed Facility Operating License DPR-20.
My prior § 2.309 hearing petition has been dismissed by the ASLB. That dismissal was on procedural grounds, not on the merits, and none of the admitted contentions addressed GSI-191.
With the dismissal, there is no longer an active adjudication in which
September 16, 2025 of 5
13 GSI-191 compliance issues are involved. This petition is therefore the appropriate and necessary vehicle for NRC enforcement action.
Holtec has filed a new GSI-191 schedule that extends to 2026 (ML24346A171), years beyond the Commission-approved deadlines in SECY-12-0093. This is a present-tense compliance issue, not a speculative future concern.
II. Basis for Petition A. SECY-12-0093 Is Binding Commission Policy SECY-12-0093 was issued as a POLICY ISSUE (Notation Vote), not a status report. It required:
That each licensee submit a plant-specific resolution option and implementation schedule by December 31, 2012.
That any risk-informed option include a deterministic fallback.
That the Director of NRR use the appropriate regulatory tools to ensure that safety is maintained and schedules are met.
September 16, 2025 of 6
13 Thus, the Commission itself made schedule compliance an enforceable policy requirement, not an informational suggestion.
B. SECY-12-0093 Requirements for Schedule Changesand Why Holtecs Letter Fails Them What SECY requires. SECY makes clear that any option selected requires a policy decision on schedule. It further requires:
Submission of schedules bounded by 2017-2019 deadlines tied to refueling outages, depending on the option selected.
A deterministic fallback if a risk-informed path proves non-viable, with completion by the third refueling outage.
Staff/licensee pre-application alignment on analyses, milestones, and fallback measures.
NRC Staff to evaluate all schedules and use the appropriate regulatory tools to ensure schedules are met, elevating matters to the Commission where exemptions or deviations are needed.
What Holtec submitted. Holtecs December 11, 2024 letter provides milestones stretching into 2Q 2026, without:
September 16, 2025 of 7
13 1.
An explicit request for a Commission policy decision on the extended schedule.
2.
Any justification for deviating from SECYs 2017-2019 completion windows.
3.
A deterministic fallback plan tied to early refueling outages.
4.
An explanation of interim defense-in-depth measures during the deferral.
5.
Documentation of Staff-licensee alignment consistent with SECY expectations.
Why NRC must respond. SECY directs NRR to use the appropriate regulatory tools to enforce schedule compliance. That necessarily requires a written staff evaluation and response whenever a licensee submits a schedule inconsistent with Commission-approved deadlines.
Where risk-informed paths rely on exemptions, SECY further requires Commission consultation before issuance. To date, NRC has not issued any public evaluation or response to Holtecs 2026 schedule, despite SECYs mandate.
C. NRC Staffs Non-Response and Mischaracterization
September 16, 2025 of 8
13 At the April 23, 2025 Palisades public meeting, NRC Palisades Restart Panel characterized SECY-12-0093 as merely informational. In a May 5, 2025 written follow-up, I requested clarification and asked that NRCs response be placed in ADAMS. To date, NRC has not responded. This non-response was appealed to the NRC Executive Director of Operations and the Region III Administrator.
This characterization is demonstrably flawed. At the very top of SECY-12-0093, the document is expressly designated: POLICY ISSUE (Notation Vote)
In NRC practice, a notation vote SECY is submitted to the Commissioners for formal policy decision-making. Each Commissioner
September 16, 2025 of 9
13 casts a vote, and the result becomes binding Commission direction, usually documented in a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM). By contrast, an Information SECY paper provides background to the Commission but does not request a decision and carries no binding effect.
Because SECY-12-0093 is a Policy Issue (Notation Vote), the requirements it contains including that any option selected requires a policy decision on schedule and that the Director of NRR use the appropriate regulatory tools to ensure that safety is maintained and schedules are met are binding Commission directives.
Further evidence of this contradiction comes from the October 24, 2024 NRC meeting titled Meeting with Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Regarding Generic Safety Issue 191 Closure Plan to Support Potential Reauthorization of Power Operations at Palisades Nuclear Plant (EPID L-2024-LRM-0019). At that meeting, NRC staff member Steve Smith, in response to a question from me on what NRC guidance is used for evaluating GSI-191 schedule extension requests, confirmed that SECY-12-0093 is the applicable guidance for evaluating Holtecs closure plan. This acknowledgment directly contradicts the April 23, 2025
September 16, 2025 of 10 13 assertion from the Palisades Restart Panel, that SECY-12-0093 is merely informational.
NRCs failure to respond to my written follow-up, combined with its conflicting public statements, leaves the public without assurance that enforceable Commission policy is being followed.
III. Details; Response to Prior 2.206 Petition Review Board Dismissal
- Grounds,
- 1. Anticipatory Challenge (MD 8.11 § II.A.2(d)(v))
Then: Petition dismissed as speculative about what NRC might approve.
Now: NRC has already approved restart licensing actions, and Holtec has submitted an out-of-compliance schedule. This is a current, concrete compliance issue.
- 2. Duplicative of a § 2.309 Hearing Petition Then: Dismissed as duplicative of ongoing adjudication.
September 16, 2025 of 11 13 Now: My prior § 2.309 hearing petition was dismissed on procedural grounds; the merits were not considered, and none of the contentions addressed GSI-191.
- 3. Duplicative of a Petition for Rulemaking (MD 8.11 § II.A.2(d)(vii))
Then: Dismissed because I also filed a PRM.
Now: My PRM seeks a general rule for restart frameworks. This 2.206 addresses a plant-specific enforcement failure under existing Commission policy. They are not duplicative.
- 4. Challenge to NRC Framework Then: NRC said I was challenging its regulatory framework.
Now: I am not asking NRC to create new rules. I am asking NRC to enforce the Commissions existing decision in SECY-12-0093.
- 5. No Imminent Safety Concern While not an imminent accident, failure to complete GSI-191 testing jeopardizes compliance with 10 CFR 50.46(b)(5) long-term cooling a compliance backfit explicitly affirmed in SECY-12-0093.
September 16, 2025 of 12 13 Lack of enforcement increases the risk of sump strainer blockage during a LOCA.
IV. Requested Enforcement Actions Petitioner respectfully requests that NRC:
1.
Issue a written determination, placed in ADAMS, affirming that SECY-12-0093 remains the controlling Commission policy for Palisades GSI-191 resolution.
2.
Notify Holtec that its December 11, 2024 schedule (ML24346A171) is inconsistent with SECY-12-0093 deadlines, and require either:
- a. A SECY-compliant schedule, or
- b. Elevation of the deviation to the Commission for approval.
3.
Require Holtec to maintain a deterministic fallback path consistent with SECY-12-0093.
4.
Direct the NRR Director to issue a written staff evaluation determining whether Holtecs December 11, 2024 GSI-191 schedule complies with SECY-12-0093, and, if not, require corrective action or Commission review.
September 16, 2025 of 13 13 5.
Direct that fuel loading, startup, or continued operations at Palisades may not proceed until NRC has approved a compliant GSI-191 resolution schedule.
V. Conclusion The NRCs prior dismissal letter (April 7, 2025) no longer applies. Palisades is now an operating plant, not in decommissioning; no adjudication is pending; and SECY-12-0093 establishes enforceable Commission policy that Holtecs current schedule violates. NRCs failure to respond to public questions and its mischaracterization of SECY-12-0093 as informational underscore the need for Staff evaluation and Commission-level decision-making on schedule compliance. Enforcement under § 2.206 is therefore both necessary and urgent.
Respectfully submitted, Alan Blind