ML24268A066
| ML24268A066 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/2024 |
| From: | Blind A - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 57120, 50-255-LA-3, ASLBP 24-986-01-LA-BD01, NRC-2024-0130 | |
| Download: ML24268A066 (0) | |
Text
September 23, 2024 Docket No. 50-255 of 1
11
Subject:
Supplemental Filing to Emphasize the Importance of Transparency in NRC and Holtecs Processes: The Need For a Public Hearing Docket No. 50-255; NRC-2024-0130
Dear Members of the Licensing Board,
This supplemental filing emphasizes the critical importance of transparency in the ongoing proceedings related to the proposed restart of the Palisades Nuclear Plant.
We, the petitioners, believe that the publics limited access to essential information regarding Holtecs and NRC staffs activities, processes, and decisions has become a key issue driving the need for a public hearing. This lack of transparency hinders meaningful public engagement and makes it difficult to assess the safety and regulatory compliance of the restart process. Therefore, we are seeking remedy from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP).
Moreover, this petition for a hearing has become necessary due to the persistent lack of transparency from both NRC staff and Holtec, despite our repeated but unsuccessful attempts to obtain complete responses to our inquiries. While we understand that the NRC must communicate through formal channels, accessible to the public, significant gaps in these communications remain, as reflected in our
September 23, 2024 Docket No. 50-255 of 2
11 unanswered questions. Our inquiries did not ask for details of ongoing NRC evaluations, but sought clarity on which elements of the "existing regulatory framework" the NRC is using for its current reviews and inspections, and how these elements were deemed appropriate and approved, or not, by the NRC General Counsel. Despite these gaps, the NRC has announced its ongoing review of Holtecs license submittals and has documented on-site work through inspection reports. Without clear and detailed communication from both the NRC and Holtec addressing our concerns, we are left with no choice but to formally request this hearing.
Argument for Transparency While Holtec may have a legally sound restart plan, and the NRC may have valid interpretations of regulatory guidelines, the public cannot make informed judgments about the risks, safeguards, or adequacy of the regulatory processes being followed without full transparency. The return of Palisades to operational status requires full visibility into both Holtecs proposals and return-to-service plans, as well as the specific NRC regulations governing staff reviews and on-site inspections.
September 23, 2024 Docket No. 50-255 of 3
11 The Publics Limited Access to Information Although the NRC offers opportunities for public involvement, they are often constrained by strict deadlines and complex procedures, such as the current deadline for requesting a public hearing. With limited information available by these deadlines, petitioners are forced to rely on incomplete, publicly available documents when deciding how to participate in NRC processes. Are we, as local homeowners, members of the public, and petitioners, expected to place blind faith in assurances that everything will be fine? The petitioners are not willing to take that risk.
Holtecs Request for Withholding Information: Lack of Transparency in Palisades Restart Plans and FSAR Development Process Note: See the full petition for the petitioners basis for ML23072A404, titled "Regulatory Path to Reauthorize Power Operations at the Palisades Nuclear Plant, to be in scope of the FRN invitation for public hearing request.
In reviewing Holtec Decommissioning Internationals (HDI) submittal to the NRC, ML23072A404, titled "Regulatory Path to Reauthorize Power Operations at the Palisades Nuclear Plant," it is apparent that Holtec has withheld important details
September 23, 2024 Docket No. 50-255 of 4
11 essential for public assessing the full impact of their proposed restart plan.
Specifically, in its description of its regulatory path assumptions, Holtec redacted what it identifies as the third key regulatory path assumption, under the justification of "proprietary information" in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390. While Holtec claims this information constitutes trade secrets or sensitive commercial data, its redaction significantly limits transparency at a time when public and petitioner scrutiny is most warranted. As an aside, it could be argued these redactions are not lawful, but that argument is not within the scope of this petition.
Transparency Issues Related to Petitioners Contention Four: NRC Allowing Holtec to Proceed with Work without NRC Approval Holtecs submittal (ML23072A404) states that HDI is currently only authorized to perform spent fuel management, decommissioning, and site maintenance activities authorized by the shutdown licensing basis. This suggests that the third regulatory assumption pertains to restoration activities. However, due to the redactions following this introduction statement, neither the public nor the petitioners can evaluate the nature of Holtecs third key regulatory element, for its impact on public health and safety.
September 23, 2024 Docket No. 50-255 of 5
11 Transparency Issues Related to Petitioners Contention Two: Holtec's Flawed Regulation to Submit the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)
Another example of limited transparency is Holtecs plan, ML23072A404, to restore the Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR) to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to support the reauthorization of power operations.
Holtec indicates that this will involve the reclassification of Systems, Structures, and Components (SSCs) to support reactor operations, which it plans to achieve under 10 CFR 50.59. However, portions of this discussion have been redacted, again withholding critical details of Holtecs proposed use of § 50.59 from public view.
Holtecs reliance on 10 CFR 50.59, which allows changes without prior NRC approval, is particularly concerning for the petitioners. Petitioners argue that 10 CFR 50.59 is not applicable to the plants current licensing basis and that its improper use could circumvent necessary regulatory reviews, risking public health and safety.
Holtecs and NRCs redaction of material related to 10 CFR 50.59 means that neither the public nor petitioners can fully evaluate how Holtec is using this
September 23, 2024 Docket No. 50-255 of 6
11 process to restore the FSAR. By concealing these details, Holtec limits stakeholders' ability to assess whether the reclassification of SSCs and other changes required for restart are being handled in compliance with NRC approved regulations.
A final note; The emergent need to evaluate Steam Generator tube plugging limits as assumed in FSAR accident safety analysis assumptions, brings this concern to the forefront. (See supplement submissions, ML24266A003, ML24266A002, ML24264A004).
Transparency Issues Related to Petitioners Contention Three: Holtecs Method for Updating the Quality Assurance Program Holtecs approach to revising its Quality Assurance Program Description (QAPD) without formal NRC review further exacerbates transparency concerns. During the March 20, 2023 meeting (ML23171B122), the NRC inquired whether Holtec planned to submit its revised QAPD for formal review. Holtec responded that it would make changes under 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3), which allows changes without prior NRC approval. The NRC did not insist on formal submission, leaving the
September 23, 2024 Docket No. 50-255 of 7
11 public and petitioners unable to verify whether Holtecs proposed QAPD update meets NRC approved regulations.
Given that the quality assurance program ensures safety-related activities comply with regulatory requirements, the absence of formal review raises serious questions about transparency and safety in the restart process.
NRC Public Meetings: Limited Opportunities for Meaningful Participation At NRC public meetings, petitioners and the public at large, are typically limited to brief, two-minute slots for asking questions, and the responses provided by the NRC Restart Panel tend to be vague or generalized. This is natural consequence of meeting time management. When we submit written questions, at the invitation of the NRC Restart Panel, the answers we receive are similarly brief and lack substance. The followup response from NRC staff, to petitioners further NRC inquiry, is to use the § 2.803 process. This forces petitioners into the complex legal process of § 2.803 requests for public hearings, which are include legal process barriers, making it difficult for the public to engage meaningfully.
All the questions and concerns outlined in the current § 2.803 petition were previously submitted to the NRC Restart Panel, who guided us to this legal
September 23, 2024 Docket No. 50-255 of 8
11 recourse. This underscores our need for a public hearing, as we have exhausted the NRC Restart Panel question process, and our substantive questions and concerns have been left unanswered.
Lack of Transparency Regarding Approval of the Regulatory Framework Petitioner concerns about transparency are further compounded by the NRCs public observation only, meetings with Holtec regarding the Regulatory Path to Reauthorize Power Operations. At the March 20, 2023 meeting (ML23107A121) and the May 24, 2023 meeting (ML23171B122), Holtec expressed no plans to submit their return-to-service plans for formal NRC review. Despite the NRC inquiring about formal submission, NRC staff did not insist on a formal regulatory process, creating an impression of implicit approval without adequate scrutiny.
Neither meeting clarified the NRCs criteria for approving Holtecs plans nor the specific regulatory framework governing their reviews. The public and petitioners remain uninformed about how the NRC is evaluating these significant safety and regulatory Holtec proposed NRC regulations and process.
Petitioners recognize the Holtec proposals are within the existing regulatory framework, however because there are other regulations and processes that could
September 23, 2024 Docket No. 50-255 of 9
11 equally be used, it necessary that NRC staff and General Counsel be the ones selecting and approving the applicable regulations and processes, not Holtec. NRC staff has provide zero transparency into there legal responsibilities for doing so.
Holtec and NRC Must Provide Full Transparency We, the petitioners, request that Holtec and the NRC provide full transparency regarding their plans and decision-making processes. We seek concrete evidence showing how public and petitioner concerns are being addressed, not vague assurances. Without full transparency, the public is left in the dark on critical safety and regulatory issues.
==
Conclusion:==
The Need for a Public Hearing Based on Transparency The petitioners believe that the continued lack of transparency justifies the need for a public hearing and adjuratory action. Our concerns are based on the limited information available through public NRC documents, Holtecs withholding from public disclosure of important proposals, and our understanding of NRC processes.
Petitioners respectfully request that this supplemental filing be added to the existing petition and considered by the Licensing Board in deciding on the need for
September 23, 2024 Docket No. 50-255
of 10 11 a public hearing. Transparency is critical to ensuring public safety and trust, and we ask that it guide the next steps in this process.
Sincerely, Alan Blind Representative for the Joint Petitioners
September 23, 2024 Docket No. 50-255
of 11 11 Declaration of Alan Blind in Support of Supplemental Filing on Transparency