[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 156 (Friday, August 15, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39308-39312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-15565]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 72
[NRC-2025-0064]
Interim Enforcement Policy for Enforcement Discretion for General
Licensee Adoption of Certificate of Compliance Holder-Generated Changes
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Policy statement; issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an
Interim Enforcement Policy (IEP) titled, ``Enforcement Discretion for
General Licensee Adoption of CoC Holder-Generated Changes.'' This IEP
allows enforcement discretion for certain general licensee violations
related to their adoption of a change generated by the Certificate of
Compliance holder.
DATES: The policy statement is effective on August 15, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0064 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may
obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of
the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2025-0064. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Helen Chang; telephone: 301-415-3228;
email: [email protected]. For technical questions contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or
by email to [email protected]. For the convenience of the reader,
instructions about obtaining materials referenced in
[[Page 39309]]
this document are provided in the ``Availability of Documents''
section.
NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies
of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an
appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to
[email protected] or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8
a.m. and 4 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerond A. George, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-3882, email:
[email protected], U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Certificate of Compliance (CoC or certificate) is the NRC
approved design for each dry cask storage system. Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 72.48, ``Changes, tests, and
experiments,'' establishes the conditions under which a general or
specific licensee, and a spent fuel storage cask certificate holder may
make changes to their independent spent fuel storage installation
(ISFSI) or monitored retrievable storage installation facility (MRS),
spent fuel storage cask design, or procedures, and under which they may
conduct tests or experiments, without prior NRC approval. In addition
to the 10 CFR 72.48 change review process, paragraph (b)(7) of 10 CFR
72.212, ``Conditions of general license issued under 10 CFR 72.210,''
also requires the general licensee to evaluate any changes to written
evaluations required by paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) of 10 CFR 72.212,
using the requirements of 10 CFR 72.48(c). Moreover, there are various
provisions in 10 CFR 72.212, such as paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(3),
(b)(5)(i), and (b)(11), that require general licensees to ensure they
use casks that conform to the terms, conditions and specifications of a
CoC listed in 10 CFR 72.214, ``List of approved spent fuel storage
casks.''
Therefore, if a general licensee wishes to adopt a change initiated
by the CoC holder under the CoC holder's 10 CFR 72.48 change authority,
the general licensee must perform a separate 10 CFR 72.48 review as
required by the regulations. Additionally, if a general licensee adopts
a CoC holder's change made under 10 CFR 72.48 and that change is later
determined to be noncompliant, the general licensee would also be in
noncompliance with provisions of 10 CFR 72.48 and 10 CFR 72.212.
The NRC is implementing a more efficient process in which the staff
addresses CoC holders' apparent violations of the 10 CFR 72.48 change
control process without pursuing an enforcement action against the
general licensee for an apparent violation that is strictly due to the
general licensee's adoption of a noncompliant change made under Sec.
72.48 by the CoC holder. The NRC is also implementing a more efficient
process for general licensees to review and adopt changes made by a CoC
holder, pursuant to the CoC holder's Sec. 72.48 change authority, as
long as the general licensee does not need to make any site-specific
technical changes. Accordingly, the staff is considering rulemaking,
including potential interpretation of the applicable regulations, and
revision of the implementation guidance.
II. Discussion
A. Rulemaking
The NRC published a final rule on October 4, 1999 (64 FR 53582)
that revised 10 CFR 72.48 to clarify the specific types of changes,
tests, and experiments conducted at a licensed facility or by a
certificate holder that require evaluation, and revised the criteria
that licensees and certificate holders must use to determine when NRC
approval is needed before such changes, tests, or experiments can be
implemented. The Commission approved the publication of the final rule
in SECY-99-130, ``Final Rule--Revisions to Requirements of 10 CFR parts
50 and 72 Concerning Changes, Tests, and Experiments.''
The preamble to the final rule for 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR 72.48
stated the following in Section O.1, ``Part 72 Changes,'' provided on
page 53601: ``The Commission envisioned that a general licensee who
wants to adopt a change to the design of a spent fuel storage cask it
possesses--which change was previously made to the generic design by
the certificate holder under the provisions of Sec. 72.48--would be
required to perform a separate evaluation under the provisions of Sec.
72.48 to determine the suitability of the change for itself.'' As
indicated by the rule and supported by the preamble, both the CoC
holder and general licensee are required to perform an evaluation when
implementing a change made by a CoC holder pursuant to Sec. 72.48.
The NRC staff may request that the Commission revise its
regulations or interpretation of existing regulations to establish that
CoC holders and general licensees have different obligations. The NRC
staff may seek this change because both entities have separate quality
assurance programs, and the NRC staff performs inspections of each
change control process on a regular basis, which would provide
reasonable assurance of safety and increase regulatory efficiency.
Specifically, the efficiency will be realized by streamlining the
inspections associated with the evaluation of the changes to focus (1)
on CoC holders and (2) on general licensees only to the extent the
general licensees make site-specific, technical changes.
B. Summary
This IEP allows staff to exercise enforcement discretion for
certain general licensee violations of 10 CFR 72.48 and 10 CFR 72.212
related to the general licensee's adoption of a CoC holder-generated
modification. This IEP also allows for better efficiency and
reliability of spent fuel storage cask inspection oversight, while
still providing adequate protection of public health and safety. The
NRC is issuing this IEP due to the NRC's operational experience with
its inspection and oversight of general licensees' adoption of CoC
holders' Sec. 72.48 changes. Certificate holders are NRC-regulated
entities that are required to (1) ensure their storage casks meet NRC
requirements and the Certificate of Compliance and (2) perform design
changes in accordance with Sec. 72.48; the NRC inspects their
processes. In addition, the NRC recognizes that a general licensee who
wants to adopt a change to the design of a spent fuel storage cask it
possesses--where the change was previously made by the certificate
holder under the provisions of Sec. 72.48--must perform a review of
that change for their site under a variety of other processes other
than Sec. 72.48, including those set forth in paragraphs (b)(5) and
(6) of Sec. 72.212, and in the general licensee quality assurance
program. The combination of these review and oversight processes,
together with other existing inspection and oversight processes,
provide confidence that the general licensee has appropriately
considered changes made by CoC holders and appropriately evaluated the
potential safety implications of implementing those
[[Page 39310]]
changes at its site. For these reasons, the NRC determined that this
IEP continues to provide adequate protection of public health and
safety while enabling the safe and secure use of civilian nuclear
energy technologies. This approach also aligns with the NRC's mission
statement and the Principles of Good Regulation.
Following issuance of the IEP, the NRC will explore a rulemaking
solution to eliminate the requirement that a GL must always perform a
10 CFR part 72.48 evaluation when adopting CoC holder-generated
changes. The NRC plans to review the regulations in 10 CFR part 72 and
guidance documents to determine whether rulemaking, including potential
interpretation of the applicable regulations, and/or revising guidance
is needed to clarify the requirements in 10 CFR part 72.
III. Summary of Public Comments on Draft Interim Enforcement Policy
The NRC published a draft version of the IEP in the Federal
Register on April 7, 2025 (90 FR 14917). The public comment period
closed on April 28, 2025. The NRC received public comment submissions
from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the Decommissioning Plant
Coalition (DPC). Both are generally supportive of prompt issuance of
the IEP. The NEI provided four comments (identified as comments 1-1
through 1-4). The DPC provided three comments (identified as comments
2-1 through 2-3). These comments are summarized in the following
paragraphs, including the NRC's resolution of the comments, and a
summary of how the NRC revised the IEP, as applicable.
In comment 1-1, the NEI commented that the IEP reaches the correct
conclusion about how 10 CFR 72.48 should be applied to general
licensees. The NEI agreed with the position articulated with the IEP's
method of addressing apparent violations of the 10 CFR 72.48 change
control process by a CoC holder, without pursuing separate enforcement
actions against general licensees for alleged violations of Sec. 72.48
that are due to the general licensee's adoption of a noncompliant
change made by the CoC holder.
The NRC agrees with comment 1-1. The NRC did not make any changes
to the final IEP based on this comment.
In comment 1-2, the NEI commented that the approach for applying
Sec. 72.48 to general licensees described in the IEP is not new. As
the NEI explained in its comments on EGM 25-001, the NEI stated that
the position reflected in the IEP is the approach that has been
endorsed by the NRC, also reflected in the relevant NRC inspection
procedure, and consistently followed by the industry for the past 24
years. The NEI added that the IEP takes the position that the approach
prescribed in NEI 12-04 and Appendix B to NEI 96-07 for adoption of CoC
holder changes by general licensees--and which the NRC ``seeks to
implement'' under the IEP--is inconsistent with the requirements of
Sec. 72.48. Thus, the NEI concludes that the draft IEP seems to reach
the conclusion that the NRC has endorsed a method of compliance for
nearly two-and-a-half decades that, in fact, violates Sec. 72.48.
The NRC disagrees with comment 1-2 that the NRC endorsed a method
of compliance that violates Sec. 72.48. The NRC continues to endorse
the industry guidance for implementing Sec. 72.48 as provided in the
NRC's Guidance for Implementation of 10 CFR 72.48, ``Changes, Tests,
and Experiments,'' Regulatory Guide 3.72, Revision 1, and the NRC
continues to inspect in accordance with that endorsement. The NRC
disagrees that the endorsed guidance (or NRC's implementation of it)
removed general licensees' responsibility under Sec. 72.48 for
noncompliances that are due to the adoption of a noncompliant change
made by the CoC holder. The NRC did not make any changes to the final
IEP based on this comment.
In comment 1-3, the NEI commented that it endorsed continued
adherence to the approach provided in NEI 12-04, and that the position
in the IEP does not compel changes to Sec. 72.48. The NEI added that
the interpretation of the general licensee's responsibilities in this
situation provided in NEI 12-04 and endorsed by the NRC in Regulatory
Guide 3.72 is a reasonable interpretation of the text of Sec. 72.48
and is consistent with the overall general licensing framework
established in 10 CFR part 72. Further, the NEI added that the IEP
points to language in the preamble of the 1999 final rule promulgating
10 CFR 72.48 to support its interpretation, but, according to the NEI,
the Commission did not articulate what the ``separate evaluation'' a
general licensee was to use to ``determine the suitability of the [CoC
holder's] change for itself'' should entail. The NEI further commented
that the NRC endorsed Appendix B to NEI 96-07 in Regulatory Guide 3.72,
which appropriately provided the necessary clarity on this issue,
incorporating a rational approach that a general licensee's review of
changes incorporated by a CoC holder focused on the site-specific
impacts of such changes.
The NRC disagrees in part with comment 1-3. As noted above, the NRC
continues to endorse the industry guidance for implementing Sec. 72.48
as provided in Regulatory Guide 3.72, Revision 1. NRC agrees with the
NEI about the regulatory benefit of focusing a general licensee's
review of changes incorporated by a CoC holder on the site-specific
impacts of such changes; the NRC is pursuing the IEP in order to better
facilitate that approach. However, NRC disagrees that the endorsed
guidance and regulatory history supports the NEI's interpretation of
the current regulatory requirement. Nevertheless, the NEI's description
of the existing guidance highlights an opportunity for additional
clarity in this IEP. Therefore, the NRC updated paragraphs (4) and (5)
of the IEP to further clarify the general licensees' responsibilities
for complying with 10 CFR 72.212 (b)(5), (b)(6), and (b)(7), when
either initiating a change or adopting a CoC-holder change that leads
to a site-specific, technical change.
In comment 1-4, the NEI commented that the NRC's subsequent
endorsement of NEI 12-04 specifically addressed consistency with the
preamble of the 1999 final rule. The comment further asserts that the
NRC consistently interpreted the 10 CFR 72.48 regulation as allowing
the approach suggested as the desired resolution path in the IEP.
The NRC partially agrees with comment 1-4 that the NRC's
endorsement of NEI 12-04 addressed consistency with the preamble of the
1999 final rule. However, as noted above, the NRC disagrees that the
endorsement of industry guidance removed general licensees'
responsibility for noncompliances that are due to the adoption of a
noncompliant change made by the CoC holder. This is the subject of the
IEP. The NRC did not make any changes to the IEP based on this comment.
In comment 2-1, the DPC commented that it is imperative the staff
perform a specific review of the regulation that led to the use of this
policy and any subsequent enforcement policies at ISFSIs under
Commission direction and produce a plan to change regulations governing
issues that have such negligible safety significance that led to its
use. The DPC further commented that this direction/commitment should be
included in the final IEP.
[[Page 39311]]
The NRC disagrees with comment 2-1 with respect to including a
commitment to explore rulemaking in the IEP, as the IEP is not the
appropriate document to reach a conclusion on pursuing rulemaking. The
NRC did not make any changes to the IEP based on this comment.
In comment 2-2, the DPC believes the NRC staff is communicating
that there needs to be a change to the current method of making
licensee changes to certificates of compliance and ISFSI operations.
The DPC recommended changing ISFSI regulations to mirror 10 CFR 50.59.
The NRC determined that comment 2-2 was outside the scope of the
IEP. The IEP establishes an enforcement policy concerning general
licensees' adoption of noncompliant changes made by CoC holders under
Sec. 72.48. A broader regulatory review of 10 CFR part 72 is beyond
the scope of this IEP. The NRC did not make any changes to the IEP
based on this comment.
In comment 2-3, the DPC commented that the underlying violations
that will be given discretion have minimal safety significance, and
suggested this may be a new interpretation of regulations and endorsed
industry guidance.
The NRC disagrees with comment 2-3. The NRC has not changed its
interpretation of the regulations or the endorsed industry guidance.
The IEP provides for an efficient approach for dispositioning a
specific set of noncompliant changes made under Sec. 72.48. The NRC
expects CoC holders and GLs to maintain current Sec. 72.48 processes
and quality assurance programs to correct nonconformances. The NRC did
not make any changes to the IEP based on this comment.
IV. Clarifications Made to the Final Interim Enforcement Policy
After the NRC published the aforementioned draft version of the IEP
in the Federal Register, because of public comments, it recognized that
the IEP needed more clarity for the responsibilities of general
licensees when initiating changes or when adopting CoC holder changes
made under 10 CFR 72.48 that lead to a site-specific, technical change.
The NRC updated paragraphs (4) and (5) of the IEP to further clarify
the general licensees' responsibilities for compliance with 10 CFR
72.212 (b)(5), (b)(6), and (b)(7), when either initiating a change or
adopting a CoC holder change that leads to a site-specific, technical
change.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
This policy statement does not contain any new or amended
collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing collections of information were
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), approval numbers
3150-0132 and 3150-0136.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting
or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
VI. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended by E.O 14215, provides
that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will
determine whether a regulatory action is significant as defined by E.O.
12866 and will review significant regulatory actions. OIRA has
determined that this action is not a significant regulatory under E.O.
12866.
VII. Congressional Review Act
This final rule is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget
has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional
Review Act.
VIII. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the following table are available to
interested persons as indicated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAMS Accession No./
Document Federal Register citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule: ``Changes, Tests, and 64 FR 53582
Experiments,'' October 4, 1999.
SECY-99-130, ``Revisions to Requirements of ML992810140
10 CFR Parts 50 and 72 Concerning Changes,
Tests, and Experiments,'' May 12, 1999.
Staff Requirements Affirmation Session, June ML003751724
22, 1999.
NEI 12-04, ``Guidelines for 10 CFR 72.48 ML18250A255
Implementation,'' Revision 2, September
2018.
NEI 96-07, Appendix B, ``Guidelines for 10 ML010670023
CFR 72.48 Implementation,'' March 5, 2001.
Regulatory Guide 3.72, ``Guidance for ML20220A185
Implementation of 10 CFR 72.48, Changes,
Tests, and Experiments,'' Revision 1,
September 2020.
Enforcement Guidance Memorandum (EGM) 25- ML24303A436
001, ``Enforcement Guidance for
Dispositioning Noncompliances Related to a
General Licensee's Use of Certain Non-
qualified Spent Fuel Casks,'' February 11,
2025.
NRC Enforcement Policy, August 12, 2025..... ML25224A097
Principles of Good Regulation, April 6, 1990 ML15083A026
Proposed Interim Enforcement Policy for 90 FR 14917
Comment, April 7, 2025.
Public Comment Submission #1, Rodney ML25118A058
McCullum on behalf of Nuclear Energy
Institute, April 25, 2025.
Public Comment Submission #2, Wayne A. ML25122A203
Norton on behalf of Decommissioning Plant
Coalition on PR-72, April 29, 2025.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of the Interim Enforcement Policy is attached.
Dated: August 13, 2025.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carrie Safford,
Secretary of the Commission.
[[Page 39312]]
Attachment--Interim Enforcement Policy--Section 9.4, Enforcement
Discretion for General Licensee Adoption of CoC Holder-Generated
Changes Under 10 CFR 72.48
Interim Enforcement Policy--Section 9.4, Enforcement Discretion for
General Licensee Adoption of CoC Holder-Generated Changes Under 10 CFR
72.48
9.4 Enforcement Discretion for General Licensee Adoption of
Certificate of Compliance Holder-Generated Changes Under 10 CFR
72.48
This section sets forth the Interim Enforcement Policy (IEP)
that the NRC will use to exercise discretion for the disposition of
violations involving a General Licensee's (GL's) adoption of a
Certificate of Compliance (CoC) holder-generated change made under
the CoC holder's change authority of Section 72.48 of title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ``Changes, tests, and
experiments.'' The current NRC regulations state:
10 CFR 72.212, ``Conditions of general license issued
under 10 CFR 72.210,'' in a number of regulatory provisions, such as
72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(3), 72.212(b)(5)(i), and 72.212(b)(11),
requires a GL to ensure it uses casks that conform to the terms,
conditions and specifications of a CoC listed in 10 CFR 72.214,
``List of approved spent fuel storage casks.''
10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) requires that the GL, before use
and before applying changes authorized by an amended CoC to a cask
loaded under the initial CoC or an earlier amended CoC, perform
written evaluations to establish that the storage cask, once loaded,
will conform to terms and conditions of the CoC.
10 CFR 72.212(b)(6) requires that the GL review, and
document the review of, the Safety Analysis Report referenced in the
CoC or amended CoC and the related NRC Safety Evaluation Report, to
determine whether or not the reactor site parameters are enveloped
by the cask design bases considered in these reports.
10 CFR 72.212(b)(7) requires the GL to evaluate any
changes to written evaluations required by paragraphs (b)(5) and (6)
of 10 CFR 72.212, using the requirements of 10 CFR 72.48(c).
10 CFR 72.48, as published on October 4, 1999 (64 FR
53582) and amended on February 26, 2001 (66 FR 11527), has
provisions under which general and specific licensees and CoC
holders may make changes to the facility or spent fuel storage cask
design as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report without
obtaining NRC review and approval. Change means a modification or
addition to, or removal from, the facility or spent fuel storage
cask design or procedures that affects a design function, method of
performing or controlling the function, or an evaluation that
demonstrates that intended functions will be accomplished.
Under the current NRC regulations, if a GL chooses to adopt a
change the CoC holder made pursuant to a CoC holder's change
authority under 10 CFR 72.48 (referred to herein as a ``CoC holder-
generated change''), a GL must perform a separate review using the
requirements of 10 CFR 72.48(c). This is in addition to the
requirement that the GL evaluate any additional resulting site-
specific, technical changes the GL makes to written evaluations
required by paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) of 10 CFR 72.212 using the
requirements of 10 CFR 72.48(c), when adopting the CoC holder's
change. Further, the GL is required, by various provisions of 10 CFR
72.212, to only use casks that conform to the terms, conditions and
specifications of a CoC listed in 10 CFR 72.214.
Accordingly, when a GL chooses to adopt a CoC holder-generated
change, and that change results in a non-conforming cask, there is a
violation of 10 CFR 72.48 and certain provisions of 10 CFR 72.212 by
the GL, in addition to a CoC holder violation of 10 CFR 72.48. And,
when a GL chooses to adopt a CoC holder-generated change without
performing a separate 10 CFR 72.48 analysis, the GL is in violation
of 10 CFR 72.48.
Absent this IEP, these requirements could lead to enforcement
actions being issued against both the GL's 10 CFR 72.48 program (as
well as certain 10 CFR 72.212 violations) and CoC holder's 10 CFR
72.48 program for changes that originated with the CoC holder. The
NRC has concluded that this enforcement approach would be
inconsistent with efficiency, which is one of the NRC's Principles
of Good Regulation, and NRC's mission of efficient and reliable
oversight.
The NRC staff will review the regulations in 10 CFR part 72,
``Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent
Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related
Greater Than Class C Waste,'' and guidance documents to determine
what changes are needed to focus requirements on the entity that
initiated the change. Until such time as regulatory changes are
developed, the Interim Enforcement Policy will be:
(1) The NRC will exercise enforcement discretion and not issue
an enforcement action to a GL, for a noncompliance with the
requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and (d)(1) of 10 CFR 72.48
and with provisions of 10 CFR 72.212 that require GLs to ensure use
of casks that conform to the terms, conditions and specifications of
a CoC listed in 10 CFR 72.214, when the noncompliance results from a
CoC holder's failure to comply with 10 CFR 72.48 for a CoC holder-
generated change. In granting this discretion, the GL will be
expected to come into compliance with the 10 CFR 72.212 provisions
that require each cask to conform to the terms, conditions, and
specifications of a CoC or an amended CoC listed in Sec. 72.214
using established processes after NRC disposition of the
noncompliance for a CoC holder-generated change. The NRC staff will
monitor the GL's actions to determine if additional regulatory
actions will be necessary.
(2) The NRC will exercise enforcement discretion and not issue
an enforcement action to the GL for failure to perform a 10 CFR
72.48 screening and/or evaluation when the GL adopts a CoC holder-
generated change. Enforcement discretion does not apply to CoC
holder-generated changes that result in the GL making a change to
the site-specific, technical aspects of the GL's 10 CFR 72.212
report.
(3) When the GL adopts a CoC holder-generated change and the
accompanying 10 CFR 72.48 screening and/or evaluation that was
performed by the CoC holder, the GL does not have to perform a
separate 10 CFR 72.48 evaluation of CoC holder-generated changes.
The GL only needs to review the CoC holder's change for
applicability to their spent fuel storage cask and for impact on the
site-specific, technical evaluations and analyses described in the
10 CFR 72.212 report, and site programs and procedures. The NRC's
inspections of the GL and enforcement actions against the GL will
focus on the GL's assessment for the site-specific applicability of
the CoC holder-generated change to its spent fuel storage cask.
(4) The GL is responsible for performing written evaluations to
establish that the storage cask conforms to terms and conditions of
the CoC, in accordance with paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) of 10 CFR
72.212. If the GL chooses to adopt a CoC holder-generated change,
the GL does not need to follow the requirements of 10 CFR
72.212(b)(7) unless the GL determines that site-specific, technical
changes are needed to the GL's written evaluations required by
paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) of 10 CFR 72.212. Additionally, the GL
is responsible for ensuring compliance with applicable requirements
of Appendix B to 10 CFR part 50, ``Quality Assurance Criteria for
Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants,'' and Subpart G
to 10 CFR part 72, ``Quality Assurance''; and the GL is responsible
for ensuring compliance with 10 CFR 72.48 when making GL-initiated
changes.
(5) NRC enforcement actions will focus on the entity that
initiated the change. The CoC holder will be accountable for a
noncompliance identified within CoC holder-generated 10 CFR 72.48
screenings and/or evaluations of a change made pursuant to the CoC
holder's 10 CFR 72.48 change authority. The GL will be accountable
for any noncompliance identified either with GL-initiated changes
made under 10 CFR 72.48 or with any site-specific, technical changes
required by paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) of 10 CFR 72.212.
An enforcement panel is not required to disposition a
noncompliance using this discretion; however, each time discretion
is granted, an enforcement action number will be assigned to
document the use of discretion under this IEP.
This IEP will remain in place until the underlying regulatory
issue is dispositioned through rulemaking or other regulatory
action.
[FR Doc. 2025-15565 Filed 8-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P