ML080640199
| ML080640199 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 02/20/2008 |
| From: | Weber T Arizona Public Service Co |
| To: | Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch |
| References | |
| 102-05814-TNW/GAM, 73FR2281 00001 | |
| Download: ML080640199 (4) | |
Text
Thomas N.Weber Mail Station 7636 Palo Verde Nuclear Department Leader, Tel. 623-393-5764 P0 Box 52034 Generating Station Regulatory Affairs Fax 623-393-5442 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034 102-0581 4-TN W/GAM February 20, 2008 Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, D Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, iT U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T6-D59, Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Sir:
Subject:
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)
Units 1, 2, & 3 and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)
Docket Nos. STN 50-528/529/530 and 72-44 Comments on Proposed NRC Regulatory Information Summary, "Implementation of Certificate of Compliance Amendments to Previously Loaded Spent Fuel Storage Casks" (73 FR 2281,
'January 14, 2008)
By publication in the January 14, 2008 Federal Register (73 FR 2281), the NRC issued for public comment a proposed regulatory information summary (RIS), "Implementation of Certificate of Compliance Amendments to Previously Loaded Spent Fuel Storage Casks." As an ISFSI general licensee, Arizona Public Service Company (APS) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed RIS.
In general, APS is concerned that the proposed RIS, as written, would establish a new 10 CFR Part 72 regulatory change process that:
- 1. would be inconsistent with the current dry cask Certificate of Compliance (CoC) change processes specified in 10 CFR Part 72;
- 2. has not been reviewed and approved through the appropriate and required NRC regulatory process;
- 3. would have unintended consequences by creating inconsistencies and conflicts with other Part 72 regulations such as CoC renewal; and
- 4. would result in the significant expenditure of NRC and licensee resources with no safety benefit.
A member of the STARS (Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing) Alliance
&A$i~Callaway oComache Peak C1Diablo Canyon c1Palo Verde a South Texas Project ElWolf Creek v - il e /
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Comments on Proposed NRC Regulatory Information Summary Regarding Dry Cask Storage Certificate Amendments Page 2 As described on the NRC Web site, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act mandated that the use of dry cask storage technologies be permitted under a general license; therefore, in 1990, 10 CIFR Part 72 was modified to incorporate these provisions. The attributes of general licensing for an independent spent fuel storage installation are as follows:
" General licensing provisions specified in 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart K;
" Limited to 10 CFR Part 50 reactor licensees;
- Effective without filing an application or issuance of licensing document;
" Not transferrable unless the 10 CFR Part 50 reactor license is transferred;
- Authorized for use of only NRC-certified casks;
" Reactor licensee is responsible for assuring generically-approved cask design and site requirements are compatible; and
- Relies on extending reactor licensee experience, qualifications, and programs to ISESI activities.
The ISFSI general license provision is being used by at least 30 sites, as shown on the NRC Web site, and the provision to use an NRC-approved cask design without NRC site-specific approval has not been questioned. The comprehensive and detailed NRC inspection process verifies licensee compliance with the regulations.
It is reasonable to conclude that the authors of the 10 CFR Part 72 ISFSI general license provisions anticipated that general licensees may want or need to make changes to their facilities or procedures that would require changes to the dry cask CoC during the time that spent fuel is stored under the ISFSI general license. That conclusion is supported by (1) the provision in 10 CIFR 72.212(b)(2)(ii) to evaluate any changes to the 72.212 evaluations using the requirements of 72.48(c), and (2) the provision in 72.48(c)(1 )(ii) and 72.48(c)(2) for a general licensee to request that the certificate holder obtain a CoC amendment pursuant to 72.244 prior to implementing a change that requires a CoC amendment.
APS believes that the regulatory process currently provided in 10 CFR Part 72 and used by ISFSI general licensees to obtain prior NRC approval when dry cask CoC changes are required for proposed changes to the ISFSI facility or procedures is clear and is sufficient to ensure safety without the need for a new requirement for an additional site-specific exemption as proposed in the draft RIS. The current process requires the CoC holder to provide an evaluation showing that the proposed CoC amendment changes are safe. The NRC review of the CoC amendment request verifies that the proposed
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Comments on Proposed NRC Regulatory Information Summary Regarding Dry Cask Storage Certificate Amendments Page 3 changes are safe. The NRC documents this review and any supporting assumptions in the safety evaluation issued with the approved CoC amendment. The general licensee's compliance with the changes approved in the CoC amendment and the assumptions in the associated NRC safety evaluation are documented in the updated site 72.212 evaluation. NRC inspections verify licensee compliance with the regulations.
The draft RIS states that the NRC's practice is to consider each CoC amendment as a new design basis, and that each CoC amendment is considered a separate and distinct CoC, accompanied by its own certificate (setting forth terms, conditions, and specifications) and safety evaluation report. However, this practice is not consistent with the approach used by the NRC for operating license amendments, site-specific ISFSI license amendments, or past dry cask CoC amendments. In those amendments, only the changes being made by the amendments constitute the new design basis, and not the entire license or CoC. The NRC safety evaluations issued with CoC amendments appropriately only discuss the changes in that amendment, and not the entire, unchanged portions of the CoC.
Further, the practice of considering each CoC amendment to be a separate and distinct CoC is in conflict with the CoC expiration dates in 72.214 and the CoC renewal requirements in 72.240. As shown in 72.214, the expiration date of each CoC is 20 years from initial CoC issuance, not 20 years from each CoC amendment issuance.
The proposed position in the draft RIS would imply that each CoC amendment would need to be renewed 20 years from each amendment issuance date, and that each general licensee would need to obtain a site-specific exemption to use any renewed CoC and CoC amendment.
The proposed NRC position in the draft RIS would result in the significant expenditure of NRC and licensee resources with no safety benefit. Typically, the changes that general licensees seek for previously loaded casks are minor changes to the monitoring requirements or the maintenance requirements for casks that are at the ISESI. As described above, these changes (1) are shown to be safe in the CoC holder's amendment request, (2) are verified to be safe in the NRC's safety evaluation, (3) are implemented safely by the general licensee's compliance with the CoC amendment and the safety evaluation, and (3) are verified as being implemented safely by the NRC's inspection process. Adding a new requirement for each general licensee to obtain prior site-specific NRC approval in order to implement minor changes to the dry cask monitoring requirements or maintenance requirements that have been approved by the NRC in a CoC amendment would provide no safety benefit.
The proposed position in the draft RIS would be expected to result in many exemption requests from ISFSI general licensees to allow loaded casks of a single design (same certificate and model number) to be stored (monitored and maintained) in accordance
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Comments on Proposed NRC Regulatory Information Summary Regard ing Dry Cask Storage Certificate Amendments Page 4 with the most recent NRC-approved CoC amendment in order to reduce the potential for human performance and document management errors. Monitoring and maintaining sets of loaded casks of a single design (same certificate and model number) at one ISFSI using different NRC-approved CoC amendment requirements for monitoring and maintenance would provide no safety benefit but would contribute to confusion and potential human performance and document management errors. Examples of loaded cask monitoring and maintenance changes in CoC amendments could include enhancements to the temperature monitoring surveillance requirements and enhancements to the concrete outer pack inspection requirements.
Each time a new NRC-approved CoC amendment is issued, the proposed NRC position would result in the need for each general licensee to submit another site-specific exemption request in order to allow all loaded casks of a single design to be stored in accordance with the most recent NRC-approved CoC amendment. As shown above, this expenditure of NRC and licensee resources would provide no safety benefit and is inconsistent with the current 10 CFR Part 72 regulations and the intent of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act ISFSI general license provision.
Enhancements to the dry cask CoC amendment process that would appear to resolve the NRC concerns identified in the draft RIS would be for CoC holders to explicitly state in their CoC amendment requests that the proposed changes are intended to be applicable to previously loaded casks of that same certificate and model number, and for the NRC to explicitly state in their safety evaluations approving CoC amendments that the approved changes can be applied to previously loaded casks of that same certificate and model number. These enhancements would also make it easier for general licensees to perform their 72.212 evaluation updates when evaluating the use of cask storage and maintenance changes in NRC-approved CoC amendments to previously loaded casks.
No commitments are being made to the NRC by this letter. Should you have any questions, please contact Glenn A. Michael at (623) 393-5750.
Sincerely, cc: E. E. Collins Jr. NRC Region IV Regional Administrator M. T. Markley NRC NRR Project Manager G. G. Warnick NRC Senior Resident Inspector for PVNGS E. W. Brach Director, Spent Fuel Project Office (Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation)