[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8097-8100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3374]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-313/368, 72-1007]


In the Matter of Entergy Operations, Inc. (Arkansas Nuclear One); 
Sierra Nuclear Corporation; Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 
P(DD-95-03)

    Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, has taken action with regard to the 
Petition of July 5, 1994, by Dennis Dums, on behalf of the Wisconsin 
Citizen's Utility Board, requesting that the Chairman exercise his 
authority to: (1) Determine the applicability of 10 C.F.R. 72.48 to 10 
C.F.R. part 72 subparts K and L; (2) determine whether Entergy 
Operations, Inc. (Entergy) is in violation of any U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission regulations regarding use of 10 C.F.R. 72.48 to 
make modifications to the VSC-24 cask for use at Arkansas Nuclear One 
(ANO); (3) order ANO to cease using 10 C.F.R. 72.48 until NRC 
determines whether or not it is applicable; (4) order Sierra Nuclear 
Corporation to cease construction of VSC-24 casks for use at ANO that 
are being constructed based on ANO's 10 C.F.R. 72.48 evaluation. Notice 
of Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision under 10 C.F.R. 2.206, 
dated August 16, 1994, was published in the Federal Register on August 
24, 1994 (59 FR 43594).
    The Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
Safeguards has determined to grant in part and deny in part the actions 
requested by the Petition. The reasons for this decision are explained 
in the ``Director's Decision under 10 C.F.R. 2.206'' (DD-95-03), which 
is published below.
    A copy of the decision will be filed with the Office of the 
Secretary for the Commission in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.206(c) of 
the Commission's regulations. As provided by this regulation, the 
decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days 
after the date of issuance of the decision unless the Commission on its 
own motion institutes a review of the decision within that time.
    Copies of the Petition, dated July 5, 1994, and the Notice of 
Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 that 
was published in the Federal Register on August 24, 1994 (59 FR 43594), 
and other documents related to this Petition are available in the NRC 
Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower 
Level), Washington, DC 20555 and Local Public Document Room at the 
Tomlinson Library, Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas 
72801.


    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of January 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert M. Bernero,
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

Introduction

    By Petition dated July 5, 1994 (Petition), Dennis Dums, on behalf 
of the Wisconsin Citizen's Utility Board (Petitioner), filed a request 
pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206 that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC): (1) Determine the applicability of 10 C.F.R. 72.48 to 10 C.F.R. 
Part 72 Subparts K and L; (2) determine whether Entergy Operations, 
Inc. (Entergy) is in violation of any NRC regulations regarding use of 
10 C.F.R. 72.48 to make modifications to the VSC-24 cask for use at 
Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO); (3) order ANO to cease using 10 C.F.R. 
72.48 until NRC determines whether or not it is applicable; (4) order 
Sierra Nuclear Corporation (SNC) to cease construction of VSC-24 casks 
for use at ANO that are being constructed based on ANO's 10 C.F.R. 
72.48 evaluation.
    By letter to Mr. Dennis Dums, dated August 16, 1994, I acknowledged 
receipt of the Petition. Notice of receipt was published in the Federal 
Register on August 24, 1994 (59 FR 43594). For the reasons given below, 
I have now concluded that the Petitioner's request should be granted in 
part and denied in part.

Background

    The Petitioner submitted its July 5, 1994, request to NRC in 
connection with an earlier letter to NRC dated June 2, 1994, from 
Entergy, an NRC licensee under 10 CFR part 50, which operates ANO Units 
1 and 2 near Russellville, Arkansas. In its June 2 letter, Entergy had 
briefly described its plans for spent nuclear fuel storage at ANO, 
involving use of the VSC-24 dry cask, in accordance with the general 
license of 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart K. Entergy had also stated in the 
June 2 letter that its use of the VSC-24 would involve minor changes to 
the cask design. According to Entergy's July 2 letter, the specific 
changes involved lengthening the approximately eighteen foot VSC-24 by 
about 11 inches in order to accommodate the slightly longer ANO Unit 2 
fuel.
    The June 2 letter went on to advise NRC of Entergy's conclusions 
that section 72.48 of the Commission's regulations applied to the 
changes Entergy proposed to make to the cask for use at ANO. It was 
this statement by Entergy regarding the applicability of 72.48 that 
apparently prompted the Petition that is the subject of this decision.
    Section 72.48 of the Commission's regulations covers ``Changes, 
tests, and experiments'' that may be made by the ``holder of a license 
issued under this part'' without prior Commission 
[[Page 8098]] approval.\1\ Specifically with regard to its 
determination to use section 72.48, Entergy's June 2 letter contended 
that the minor changes proposed for the VSC-24 cask were covered by a 
``plain reading'' of the regulations. It argued the general license 
issued under 10 CFR part 72 was a license ``issued under this part,'' 
and that the minor changes to the VSC-24 by Entergy, as the license 
``holder,'' could therefore be made to address site-specific 
considerations ``as determined necessary'' by Entergy. It also 
contended its approach was consistent with the regulatory background of 
the general license, particularly the Commission's objective to provide 
for ``a regulatory framework allowing on-site spent fuel storage 
`without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional 
site-specific approvals by the Commission.' (55 FR 29181).'' Entergy 
Letter at 2.

    \1\In particular, section 72.48(a)(1) provides in pertinent part 
as follows:

    The holder of a license issued under this part may:
    (i) Make changes in the ISFSI [i.e., independent spent fuel 
storage installation] * * * described in the Safety Analysis Report 
* * *
    * * * without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed 
change * * * involves a change in the license conditions 
incorporated in the license, an unreviewed safety question, a 
significant increase in occupational exposure or a significant 
unreviewed environmental impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is the foregoing determination by Entergy with which the 
Petition takes issue.
    The Petition asserts as bases for its requests that: Entergy is 
currently pursuing spent fuel storage at ANO through use of 10 CFR 
Subparts K and L; ANO currently intends to utilize the VSC-24 
constructed by vendor SNC under an SAR submitted in October 1991, and 
safety evaluation report (SER), issued by the NRC in April 1993; and 
NRC response, dated January 31, 1994, to an October 13, 1993, public 
request for information, stated that Subparts K and L of 10 CFR Part 72 
are silent on cask SAR and certificate changes after the final rule; an 
ANO request for a rule exemption to 10 CFR 72.234(c) was granted by the 
NRC to allow for the fabrication of four VSC-24 casks to the longer 
length prior to NRC approval of SNC's June 14, 1993, submittal of 
Revision 1 to the 1991 VSC-24 Cask SAR; a February 14, 1994, memorandum 
to NRC Assistant General Counsel Treby requested a legal interpretation 
of the applicability of 10 CFR 72.48 to general licenses issued under 
10 CFR 72.210; a May 19, 1994, meeting was held regarding SNC's 
revisions to the VSC-24 SAR and the applicability of 10 CFR 72.48 to 
general license users, as well as a June 3, 1994, memorandum regarding 
this meeting which stated that ``the licensee can make its own 
interpretation of the regulations;'' and a letter dated June 2, 1994, 
from Entergy to the NRC which stated that Entergy has directed SNC to 
fabricate all fourteen planned casks with the increased length and that 
Entergy plans to continue to conduct evaluations in accordance with 10 
CFR 72.48.
    Entergy has not filed any comments with the NRC following 
publication of the Petition.

Discussion

    As the discussion that follows will set forth in detail, we have 
determined that ANO, as a general licensee under 10 C.F.R. 72.210, can 
make use of 10 CFR 72.48. This determination is based first on the 
words of 10 C.F.R. 72.48 itself which are fully consistent with use of 
the authority in that section by a general licensee. Second, the 
determination is based on regulatory policy considerations. These 
include the extensive NRC safety review at the time of cask approval, 
the limited nature of the subsequent changes permitted under 10 C.F.R. 
72.48, and the fact that NRC regulations in other contexts and over 
many years have permitted utilities such as ANO to make similar types 
of changes to nuclear facilities that involve safety issues previously 
reviewed by NRC.
    This approach is well suited to the 10 C.F.R. Part 72 general 
license framework, especially given the Congressional purpose 
underlying the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 that directed the NRC 
to establish a licensing framework for spent fuel storage technologies 
that can be approved by the Commission for use at reactor sites 
``without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional 
site-specific approvals by the Commission'' (55 FR 29181). Because 10 
C.F.R. 72.48 permits certain changes by a licensee without Commission 
approval, making it available to general licensee's will further this 
Congressional purpose.

A. The Language of Section 72.48.

    An analysis of the pertinent NRC regulations regarding use of 10 
C.F.R. 72.48 by a general licensee shows that ANO's use of that 
authority is covered by the regulations. The relevant regulations and 
our analysis of them are given below.
    10 CFR 72.48(a)(1) provides as follows:
    The holder of a license issued under this part may: (i) Make 
changes in the ISFSI * * * described in the Safety Analysis Report, * * 
* (iii) * * * without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed 
change, test or experiment involves a change in the license conditions 
incorporated in the license, an unreviewed safety question, a 
significant increase in occupational exposure or a significant 
unreviewed environmental impact. (Emphasis added.)
    Further 10 CFR 72.210 provides as follows:
    A general license is hereby issued for the storage of spent fuel in 
an independent spent fuel storage installation at power reactor sites 
to persons authorized to possess or operate nuclear power reactors 
under Part 50 of this chapter. (Emphasis added.)
    In order to determine whether 10 C.F.R. 72.48 can be interpreted to 
cover the general license in section 72.210, the first question is 
whether the general licensee is ``the holder of a license issued under 
this part,'' as required for the application of 10 CFR 72.48. We think 
the language of Sec. 72.210 answers this question. The phrase ``[a] 
general license is hereby issued,'' leaves no doubt the general license 
is ``a license issued under this part.'' Because a general licensee is 
``the holder of a license issued under this part,'' Sec. 72.48(a)(1) 
therefore applies.
    The second question, in order to determine if 10 CFR 72.48 can be 
interpreted to apply to a general license, is whether changes to a 
certified cask by a general licensee can appropriately be termed 
``changes in the ISFSI * * * described in the Safety Analysis Report,'' 
as required for the application of 10 CFR 72.48. We think the language 
of Sec. 72.210 also resolves this issue. Specifically, the regulatory 
language of the general license authorizes ``storage * * * in an 
independent spent fuel storage installation * * * in casks approved 
under the provisions of this part.''\2\ (Emphasis added.) The ISFSI 
under the general license incorporates the NRC approved casks. Further 
the NRC's approved casks under the general license are ISFSI components 
described in a safety analysis report and, specifically, in the cask 
vendor safety analysis report (SAR).\3\ Therefore, changes to an NRC-
approved cask, used in an ISFSI, by the general licensee literally are 
``changes in the ISFSI * * * described in the Safety Analysis Report,'' 
and therefore are reasonably [[Page 8099]] covered by the words of 
section 72.48(a)(1).\4\

    \2\See 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2) (``This general license is limited to 
storage of spent fuel in casks approved under the provisions of this 
part.'')
    \3\See 10 CFR 72.230(a)(``A safety analysis report describing 
the proposed cask design and how the cask should be used to store 
spent fuel safely must be included with the application.'')
    \4\Commission policy already permits changes to a cask design 
approved by NRC in a site-specific licensing proceeding; this 
determination results in similar treatment for designs approved in 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regulatory Policy Considerations

    The foregoing analysis of the applicable regulations is fully 
supported by the policy underlying NRC's program for generic cask 
approvals. In particular, NRC generic approval of a cask certifies the 
cask for use under a range of environmental conditions sufficiently 
broad to encompass most sites within the United States, by using 
conservative requirements that make safety of an approved cask 
independent of the effects of site-specific phenomena. During the 
review of the SAR, NRC considers all credible accidents that could harm 
the cask. We analyze: drops, tipovers, lighting, floods, high and low 
temperatures, tornadoes, explosions, and other conditions. Using the 
safety analyses relied on by the NRC for the generic approval, a 
general licensee must thereafter establish that the cask is suitable 
for the environmental conditions of the licensee's site. However, use 
of the generically approved cask does not require additional NRC site-
specific approvals, provided the conditions in the general license and 
the cask certificate are met.
    The NRC's generic approval of a dry cask, without any site-specific 
approval, fulfills the express intent of the Congress. In the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act of 1982, Congress directed the government (NRC and the 
Department of Energy) to establish a program allowing the NRC to 
approve spent fuel storage technologies ``by rule * * * without, to the 
maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific 
approvals by the Commission.'' 42 U.S.C. 10198(a). If NRC were to 
require site-specific Commission approval of every change to an 
approved cask by a general licensee--even changes that did not involve 
any site-specific unreviewed environmental condition or safety issue--
then its action could be viewed as seriously undermining the statutory 
policy supporting general cask approvals without, to the maximum extent 
practicable, requiring additional NRC site-specific approvals.
    10 CFR 72.48 is limited to changes that do not involve ``a change 
in the license conditions incorporated in the license, an unreviewed 
safety question,\5\ a significant increase in occupational exposure or 
a significant unreviewed environmental impact.'' If the proposed change 
involves a generic change to the certificate of compliance or any of 
the certificate's conditions then an application must be filed with the 
Commission for approval for this generic change.

    \5\Under 10 CFR 72.48, a proposed change involves an unreviewed 
safety question if:
    (i) the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an 
accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously 
evaluated in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) may be increased;
    (ii) the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a 
different type than any evaluated previously in the SAR may be 
created; or
    (iii) the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any 
technical specification is reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The general licensee must also satisfy other requirements under 
section 72.48. For example, 10 CFR 72.48 requires that a licensee must 
permanently ``maintain records of changes in the ISFSI'' which 
``include a written safety evaluation that provides the bases for the 
determination that the change * * * does not involve an unreviewed 
safety question.'' The NRC may examine these records during an 
inspection and take appropriate action if the changes made by the 
licensee do not comply with the regulations. Additionally, 10 CFR 72.48 
requires that the licensee must annually furnish the NRC a report 
containing a brief description of the changes.
    The decision whether a proposed change involves an unreviewed 
safety question is made initially by the licensee but can be reviewed 
by the NRC. If the NRC disagrees with the licensee's decision, the 
agency may, upon review, take appropriate enforcement action. To 
facilitate review of a licensee's decision during subsequent 
inspections, the NRC promulgated the record keeping and reporting 
requirements described above, thus requiring the licensee to maintain 
records related to the licensee's decision under 10 CFR 72.48.
    There is a similar rule under 10 CFR Part 50 for production and 
utilization facilities. 10 CFR 50.59 allows utilities to make changes 
to their power plants under circumstances comparable to those 
circumstances covered by 72.48. In particular, 10 CFR 50.59 
specifically allows a reactor licensee to modify its facility without 
prior NRC approval unless the modification involves a change in the 
technical specifications incorporated in the facility license or 
involves an unreviewed safety question. The definition and criteria in 
10 CFR 50.59 for identifying whether a proposed change involves an 
unreviewed safety question are identical to those in 10 CFR 72.48. If 
the proposed change does involve either an unreviewed safety question 
or a change in the technical specifications, then the licensee must 
apply for an amendment to its license. For decades the NRC has allowed 
its licensees in the first instance to review proposed changes in their 
facilities to determine whether changes in technical specifications are 
involved or unreviewed safety questions are presented. The NRC would 
not be sensibly allocating its limited resources if the agency itself 
were to expressly review and approve every single facility change, 
whether or not it raises an unreviewed safety question. Rather, NRC 
retains an oversight function for enforcement purposes, supported by 
requirements for licensees to retain and preserve all records of 50.59 
changes, just as they must retain all records of 72.48 changes. See 
Kelley v. Selin, No. 93-3613, Slip opinion at 11 (6th Cir., Jan. 11, 
1995) (``* * * NRC's historical method of regulation * * * has long 
allowed licensees to make initial determinations about changes to their 
facilities and has enabled the agency to retain its enforcement power. 
10 CFR 50.59.'')
    Thus, for all of the foregoing reasons, we have determined that 
ANO, and any other general licensee under Subpart K, can make use of 
the authority in 10 CFR 72.48 to make changes that comply with the 
requirements of that section. We accordingly have no basis and 
therefore are declining to take enforcement action against ANO at this 
time. However, in our continuing regulatory oversight of ANO and other 
general licensees, we reserve the right to review any change made under 
10 CFR 72.48 and take appropriate followup action.

Conclusion

    Based on a review of the regulations and taking into account the 
relevant policy considerations, NRC staff has determined that 10 CFR 
72.48 can be used by all Part 72 licensees. Therefore, the Petitioner's 
request to (1) determine the applicability of 10 CFR 72.48 to 10 CFR 
Part 72, Subparts K and L; and (2) determine whether Entergy is in 
violation of any NRC regulations regarding use of 10 CFR 72.48 has been 
granted. Further, in light of the foregoing determination that Entergy 
can make use of 10 CFR 72.48, the Petitioner's request to (3) order ANO 
to cease using 10 CFR 72.48 until NRC determines whether or not it is 
applicable, and (4) order Sierra Nuclear Corporation to cease 
construction of VSC-24 casks for use at ANO has therefore been denied.

    [[Page 8100]] Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of 
January 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert M. Bernero,
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety, and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 95-3374 Filed 2-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M