[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 31, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39539-39540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-19024]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-309]


Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company; Maine Yankee Atomic Power 
Station; Exemption

1.0  Background

    Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (MYAPC or the licensee) is the 
holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-36, which authorizes 
possession of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station (MYAPS). The license 
provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all 
rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC or the Commission) now or hereafter in effect. The 
facility is a pressurized-water reactor (PWR) located on the licensee's 
site in Lincoln County, Maine.
    On August 7, 1997, the licensee submitted written certifications to 
the Commission that it had decided to permanently cease operations at 
MYAPS and that all fuel had been permanently removed from the reactor. 
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), ``Termination of license,'' upon 
docketing of the certifications contained in the letter of August 7, 
1997, the facility operating license no longer authorizes MYAPC to 
operate the reactor or to place fuel in the reactor vessel. The MYAPS 
spent nuclear fuel is currently being stored in the spent fuel pool, 
which is protected by a physical protection system meeting the 
requirements of 10 CFR 73.55, ``Requirements for physical protection of 
licensed activities in nuclear power reactors against radiological 
sabotage,'' with exemptions as previously issued by the NRC. To 
complete the plant site decommissioning process, the spent fuel will be 
removed from the spent fuel pool and transferred to an onsite 
independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) for interim 
storage.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR part 72, ``Licensing Requirements for the 
Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive 
Waste,'' an ISFSI may be licensed either under a general or a specific 
license. Under a general license, a licensee can construct and operate 
an ISFSI in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212, 
``Conditions of general license issued under Sec. 72.210[,``General 
license issued''],'' without staff approval. Pursuant to 10 CFR 
72.212(b)(5), a licensee must protect the spent fuel at the ISFSI 
against the design basis threat (DBT) of radiological sabotage in 
accordance with the same

[[Page 39540]]

provisions and requirements as are set forth in the licensee's 10 CFR 
73.55 physical security plan, with additional conditions and 
exceptions.
    Alternatively, an ISFSI can be constructed under a 10 CFR part 72-
specific license, which requires a licensee to develop a detailed 
security plan in accordance with 10 CFR 73.51, ``Requirements for the 
physical protection of stored spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste.'' The design objective of 10 CFR 73.51 is to protect 
against a loss of control of the facility that could be sufficient to 
cause radiation exposure exceeding the dose as described in 10 CFR 
72.106, ``Controlled area of an ISFSI or MRS [monitored retrievable 
storage].''
    In an August 21, 2000, Federal Register notice (FRN) (65 FR 50606), 
the Commission clarified portions of 10 CFR Part 72, stating that the 
requirements of 10 CFR 72.106 apply to ISFSIs with either general or 
specific licenses. The offsite dose limits of 10 CFR 72.106 are defined 
such that any individual on or beyond the nearest boundary of the 
controlled area may not receive from any design basis accident the more 
limiting of a total effective dose equivalent of 0.05 Sv (5 rem) or the 
sum of the deep-dose equivalent and the committed dose equivalent to 
any individual organ or tissue of 0.5 Sv (50 rem).

2.0  Request

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5), licensees who store their spent 
fuel under the provisions of 10 CFR part 72, Subpart K, ``General 
License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites,'' as MYAPC 
proposes to do, are required to ``Protect the spent fuel against the 
design basis threat of radiological sabotage in accordance with the 
same provisions and requirements as are set forth * * *'' in 10 CFR 
73.55.
    By letter dated January 4, 2001, as supplemented by letters dated 
March 12 and April 4, 2001, the licensee requested an exemption from 
the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) to ``Protect the spent fuel [in 
the MYAPS ISFSI currently under construction] against the design basis 
threat of radiological sabotage, in accordance with the same provisions 
and requirements as are set forth * * *'' in 10 CFR 73.55. MYAPC 
proposed alternative approaches to meet the provisions of portions of 
10 CFR 73.55(b) through (h) related to the security organization, 
physical barriers, access requirements, detection aids, communications, 
and response requirements. By this same correspondence, the licensee 
also requested a license amendment that would revise its license to 
reference the revisions of the Physical Security Plan, Guard Training 
and Qualification Plan, and Safeguards Contingency Plan, provided in 
its supplemental letter dated March 12, 2001, and made available a copy 
of the MYAPC plans to assist the staff in its review of the exemption 
and amendment requests.

3.0  Discussion

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, ``Specific exemptions,'' and 10 CFR 73.5, 
``Specific exemptions,'' the Commission may, upon application by any 
interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the 
requirements of the regulations that it determines are authorized by 
law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and 
security and are otherwise in the public interest. Pursuant to 10 CFR 
73.55(a), the Commission may authorize a licensee to provide measures 
for protection against radiological sabotage other than those specified 
in the regulations if the licensee demonstrates that the measures have 
the same high assurance objective as specified in 10 CFR 73.55(a) and 
that the overall level of system performance provides protection 
against radiological sabotage equivalent to that which could be 
provided by paragraphs (b) through (h) of 10 CFR 73.55.
    In its submittal, MYAPC requested an exemption from the provisions 
of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) for protecting the spent fuel against the DBT of 
radiological sabotage. The staff concluded that MYAPC has not justified 
an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5), that 
licensees with general licenses protect the spent fuel against the DBT 
of radiological sabotage. The staff has reviewed the proposed MYAPC 
ISFSI and Fuel in Transit (FIT) Physical Protection Programs against 
the requirements of each section of 10 CFR 73.55 that 10 CFR 
72.212(b)(5) references to determine whether the alternative measures 
that MYAPC proposed should be authorized pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55(a), 
or whether specific exemptions should be granted from the requirements 
of these regulations. As part of its review, the staff evaluated the 
offsite dose that would result from unimpeded access by the DBT of 
radiological sabotage without protracted loss of control of the 
facility. On the basis of MYAPC's plan in the ISFSI Physical Protection 
Program to maintain the boundary of its controlled area at a minimum of 
300 meters from the dry cask storage installation and provisions in the 
ISFSI Physical Protection Program that provide the capability to summon 
off-site local law-enforcement agency response forces to preclude a 
protracted loss of control of the facility, the staff concluded that 
the DBT of radiological sabotage would result in an offsite dose well 
below the 10 CFR 72.106(b) limits. The staff therefore concluded that 
the alternative measures proposed by MYAPC are authorized pursuant to 
10 CFR 73.55(a), with one exception. With regard to the requirements of 
10 CFR 73.55(d)(5), the staff concluded that the measures proposed by 
MYAPC did not meet the criteria of 10 CFR 73.55(a) to be authorized as 
alternative measures. However, the staff concluded that pursuant to 10 
CFR 72.7 and 10 CFR 73.5, the proposed alternatives to the requirements 
of 10 CFR 73.55(d)(5) that MYAPC requested could be granted as an 
exemption. A detailed discussion of the staff's evaluation is contained 
in the safety evaluation supporting these findings dated July 25, 2001.

4.0  Conclusion

    Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 
72.7 and 10 CFR 73.5, exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 
73.55(d)(5) related to access requirements is authorized by law, will 
not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and 
are otherwise in the public interest.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, ``Finding of no significant impact,'' the 
Commission has previously determined that the granting of this 
exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the 
human environment (66 FR 31699, dated June 12, 2001).
    This exemption is effective upon issuance.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of July 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John A. Zwolinski,
Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-19024 Filed 7-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P