ML19251A787
| ML19251A787 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1981 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19251A788 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-413, TASK-PINV, TASK-SE SECY-81-549, NUDOCS 8109300119 | |
| Download: ML19251A787 (26) | |
Text
m l
s %q%
l
?
l
!.!'O
}
$k
)
September 15, 1981
'%; ' w...../
POiJC ISSUE [_@4g i
(Nos. ion Vote)
! ' ef< j^
1 Y
f, e sc?
's
\\
T.a V.-
s 3-e; e x
~;,
,u () z!
For:
The Commissioners
=
p'
=
4 From:
William J. Dircks
/,
,\\'?
Executive Director for Operations N'
Subject:
INDEMNIFICATION OF LICENSEES STORING SPENT FUEL AT SITES OTHER THAN THE SITES WHERE THE FUEL WAS IRRADIATED
Purpose:
To obtain Commission approval for (1) publication of a notice of intent to modify a specific licensee's indemnity agreement to cover storage of spent fuel at a reactor site other than at the reactor site where the fuel was irradiated; (2) authorizing certain principal staff to act on future similar requests.
Catecory:
This paper covers a minor policy matter.
Background _:
SECY-78-607 discussed Duke Power Company's (Duke) indemnification request for storage of irradiated fuel from it:, Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3 reactors at the site of its McGuire Unit 1 reactor.
In response to this request the Commission sol' cited public comment on the proposed extension of Pric.e-Arderson coverage through the exercise of its discretionary authority under Section 170(a) of k
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, amended, in a FEDERAL REGISTER notice published on Janey 8,1979.
The Notice
=
Contact:
Ira Dinitz Extension 492-9884 B109300119 810915' CF SUBJ CF w
amidsammummelsunnaarmassessanw
-NN.
alst sought comment on the advisability of exte.iing Price-Andersen coverage to future situations involving the ~ rans:er of irradiated fuel to reactors other than those at which the fuel was irradiateo.
Sixteen comment letters wtre received (See Appendix "A")
The cements and staff rcsponses were discussed in SECY-80-468. Comments received from utilities, trade gro.as and law firms representing utility clients favored c...ending Price-Anderson coverage in the specific Duke request, and recommended extending coverage on a generic basis to all future storage of irradiate) fuel at distant rezctors either ur. der an operating or materials license.
Four comment letters from organizations and persnns opposed the Commissior.'s proposed actions, but addressed the policy quastion of shioping irradiated fuel betweca reactor. sites for purposes of storage rather than 'che issue of whether indemnity should be e,-: tended.
In SECY-80-468, the staff again discussed the issue of whether to extend indemnity covrcare under the McGuire indemnity agreement to the Oconte irradiated fuel to be stored at the McGuire reactor ceen tnough an operating license had not at the time been issued for McGuire. The staff recommended that the Commission modify the McCuire indemnity agreemer to provide indemnity coverage for the Oconee fuel storec
. the McGuire reactor and also require Duke to -
.de financial protection equal to the maximum insur vailable undet the primary and secondary insurance laye...
SECY-80-468 also noted, however, that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ( ASLD) was considering the issue of whether Duke should be 6.swed to trar rcr irradiated fuel from Oconee to McGuire. Although tnat ASLB denied Duke's request for the transfer, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (in a decision rendsred on August 10, 1981) reversed tha ASLB ir.itial decision and authorized the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to allow Duke to proceed with the transfer of the spenc fuel.
In SECY-78-607, the staff pointed out the Duke request had some similarity to a 1977 request by Carolina Power and Light Company (Carolina) to store spent fuel from its H.B. Robinson reactor in the pools at Brunswick Units 1 and 2 and to have that storage indemnified.
The Carolina request was discussed in SECY-77-403 and approved by the Commission at Policy Session 77-41 on agust 26, 1977.
In SECY-78-607 the staff also noted, however, one important
4 distinction between the Duke and Carolina requests. That distinction was that the McGuire reactor, the proposed storing reactor for Oconee fuel, did not have an operating license. The staff did state, however, that it would
~
recommend indemnification of the storage of Oconee fuel at McGuire if that storage wer
take place after the issuance of an operating lic.
Or McGuire Unit 1.
In the interim, McGuire has re e e an operating license.
Discussion:
Issue I Whether to extend indemnity to a licensee stotino irradiated fuel at a reactor other than where the fuel was irradiated.
Under the Price-Anderson Act (H 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (the Act)), financial protection and government indemnity are mandatory.for production and utilization facilities (e.g., reactors and repro:essing plants) licensed by the Commission. This financial protection and indemn4ty covers the " licensed activity" which encompasses not only possession and operation of a reactor facility itself, but also certain ancillary activities including (1) possession of the new fuel (containing special nuclear material) being stored on-site for use in the reactor and (2) on-site storage of irradiated fuel following irradiation at that reactor.
Pos:ession of irradiated fuel away from the facility (and net in the course of transportation from the facility) where it was irradiated is not considered to be a part of the ancillary activity of possession and operation of the facility. Accordingly, under the requirements of the Act, the Commission nead not require financial protection of, nor extend indemnity to, reactor (and other production and utilization facility) licensees who possess and store this irradiated fuel. Thus, no indemnity protection would be afforded irradiated fuel stored away from the facility where it is produced or used, unless the Commission exercised its discretionary authority under the Act to require licensees to maintain financial protection and to execute indemnity agreements with the Commission.
As ';tated above, the Commission exercised its discretionary authority to require financial protection and provide indemnity coverage for the storage of H.B. Robinson spent fuel at the Brunswick spent fuel pools. This exercise of discretionary authority resulted in treating spent fuel produced at one reactor site (Robinson) but stored at a
different reactor site (Brunswick) the same as spent fuel stored at the site of the reactor where it was prcduced.
Thus, Robinson irradiated fuel whether stored by itself in a Brunswick spent fuel pool or commingled with Drunswick irradiated fuel in the Brunswick spent fuel pool was covered by financial protection and indemnity The request by Duke to modify its McGuire operating license and indemnity agreement is similar in that the spent fuel proposed to be stored at a certain reactor was not produced at that reactor. The staff believed, and its recommendations to the Commission relative to the Robinson / Brunswick situation indicated, that it would not have beta desirable to have a situation where Robinson spent fuel stored in the Brunswick spent fuel pools was unindemnitied while at the same time spent fuel produced in Brunswick and stored there was indemnified.
If indemnity covetuge were not extended to the Robinson spent fuel stored at Brunswick and an accident occurred involving the fuel storage pool, it would have been virtually impossible to determine whether indemnified or unindemnified spent fuel caused any damage that may have occurred. The staff also stated its belief that the public perception of Price-Anderson is that all activities at an operating reactor are indemnified, and the public should not have to be concerned with the specific authority under the Act for indemnifying particular nuclear material at a reactor.
To the same degree, the arguments that were made in recommending that indemnity apply to the Robinson spent fuel stored at Brunswick should also apply to the Duke request. The staff believes that if the Commission were to decide to indemnify the storage of spent fuel from the Oconee facility at McGuire Unit 1, the def.inition of
" radioactive material" in the McGuire indemnity agreement should be modified pursuant to 10 CFR E 140.9. This is the same modification made in the Brunswick indemnity agreement. The staff also believes that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation should not issue an amendment to the McGuire OL to allow the storage of irradiated fuel from Oconee until the Commission decides whether or not to extend indemnity coverage to the Oconee irradiated fuel.
Issue 2 Whether the Commission should approve an exter.sion of indemity coveraae similtr to Duke's on a generic basis or consider each request on a case-by-case basis.
The request by Duke to store irradiated fuel at a reactor site away from the reactor at which the fuel was irradiated and to have the storage indemnified is the second such request the Commission has been asked to consider. While the staff presently is not aware of any other formal requests of a similar nature, they cannot be ruled out.
In its January 8,1979, Federal Register notice, the Commission also requested public comment on whether it should exercise its discretionary authority to extend indemrity coverage on a generic basis for irradiated fuel stored at reactor locations away from the reactor facility at which it was irradiated regardless of whether the storing reactor was licensed to operate. Most of those commenting on the Commission Notice indicated that they would favor such a generic extension of the Commission's discretionary authority. As noted earlier, the coments opposing the Commission's proposed action were based upon the commenters' opposition to the storage and transportation of rpent feel to sites other than where the fuel was irradiated rather than the indemnity actions that might be taken if such storage and transportation were authorized.
If the Commission chose to extend its indemnity authority on a generic basis, the mechanics for implementing this decision would be relatively straightforward. The definition of "racioactive material" in the standard form of indemnity agreement (in 10 CFR 140.92) executed by the NRC with large power reactor licensees could be modified to accomplish this.
Rather than recommending thet the Commission exercise its discretionary indemnity authority on a generic basis, the staff recomends that the Commission delegate to the EDO the authority to modify the storing reactor's indemnity agreement to indemnify this storage if approved by the Director, NRR. In any case, the Commission would be informed of any action taken to allow a check on the specific circumstances of the proposed storage to determine that it presents no new indemnity policy questions not already considered by the Commission in the Duke and earlier situations. The staff does not seek at this time a delegation of authority to grant or deny requests in those situations where the storing reactor is not licensed to operate. The staff believes that the Commission should decide these requests on a case-by-case basis.
s V 4 Recommendation: That the Commission:
(1) Approve publication of a FEDERAL REGISTER notice (Appendix "B") that would announce the Commission's intent to modify Duke's indemnity agreement at McGuire to extend indemnity coverage to Oconee irradiated fuel stored at the McGuire reactor.
(2) Agree to a policy authorizing the'EDO to handle similar requests on a case-by-case basis, with the Commission being informed of any action taken.
(3) Note that if the Commission decides to exercise its discretionary authority under section 170a. of the Act to permit Duke to store irradiated fuel from the Oconee reactors in the spent fuel pool at the McGuire Unit 1 reactor, the staff will proceed to issue the amendmert to the McGuire OL to permit this storage at the same tima the Federal Register notice ( Appendix "B") announcing tne Commission's intent to amend the McGuire indemnity agreement is being transmitted to the Federal Register for publication.
4 s
b I
4f 5
o/~f William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Appendix "A" - Abstracts of Comments and Staff Response Appendix "B" - Federal Register Notice Commissioners' comments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Wednesday, September 30, 1981.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Conmissioners NLT September 23, 1981, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations Exec Lega'i Director ASLBP Secretariat
t APPENDIX "A"
ABSTRACTS OF C0FP.ENTS AND STAFF RESPONSE l.
Steven R. McGee, Oglethorpe Power Corporation "We favor the exte[sion of Government indemnity to spent reactor fuel stored at a reactor site different than the one where it was We understand generated in the situations given in your discussion.
that the Commission has decided to exercise its discretionary statutory authority under the Price-Anderson Act to accomplish such a decision in this general policy question.
We believe that spent reactor fuel must be covered by Government indemnity in the event of a nuclear incident at a site where this spent fuel was stored."
STAFF RESPONSE _ None Charles R. Bardes, American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) 2.
~
"The Commission's proposed extension uf indemnity agreements entered into with Duke Power and Commonwealth Edison in order to extend indemnity and financial protection requirements to spent fuel created at one power reactor while stored at another power reactor site is in keeping with the purpose of the Price-Anderson legislation.
It appears to ANI to be appropriate that the Commission exercise its authority on a generic basis to extend indemnity coverage of spent fuel generated at one reactor but stored at the site of a APPENDIX "A"
2 second operating reactor upon the request of reactor licensees, and that authority to make such decisions be delegated except for special circumstances that may present themselves in individual applications for the extension of such indemnity."
STAFF RESPONSE None Anthony Z. Roisman, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
3.
"Regardless of the wisdom of Price-Andersen and the possible merit in the Commission requiring more complete coverage than Price-Anderson provides (i.e., without a limited liability), we believe that the premise upon which the need to exercise discretionary authority is based is incorrect.
The effort to create a distinction here, where none exists, provides impetus to the false premise that a utility has less connection with and responsibility for nuclear wastes which have left the immediate vicinity of the nuclear reactor which generated those wastes.
The Commission should not give support to that false premise by basing its action here on erroneous analysis."
STAFF RESPONSE _.
The staff believes that its position as stated in the Federal Register notice whereby possession of spent fuel away from the facility where it is generated is not a part of the ancillary APPENDIX "A" O
G
activity of possession and operation of the facility is the correct Therefore, possession of this spent fuel must be interpretation.
licensed under other provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, which authorize licenses for possession and use of the After being transferred special nuclear and byproduct material.
from the reactor site where it was generated to some other site this spent fuel would not be subject to the mandatory indemnity requirem~ents of the Act providing that the Commission require financi?.1 protection of and indemaify reactor licensees.
Robert E. Uhrig. Florida Power & Light Company 4.
" Florida Power and Light Company fully supports Price-Anderson indemnification of spent nuclear fuel, whether it is stored at the irradiation site or at another storage facility.
The proposed extension is consistent with the nature of the fuel and provides continuity of protection."
STAFF RESPONSE.
None Carl Walske, Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.
5.
APPENDIX "A"
4 "We support use of HRC's discretionary authority to indemnify a.
spent fuel stored away from the generating reactor site...
Assuming acceptance of the proposed policy, it would appear to be a sour.d exercise of regulatory efficiency for this relatively uncomplicated and likely to recur situation to be handled by the Commission on a generic basis, with authority to be delegated, b.
"First, it is not apparent why extensicn of indemnity for away from recctor stored fuel is limited to storage at the site of another operating reactor.
Second, the notice does not expressly contemplate protection of the stored spent fuel during its eventual shipment following storage at the away from reactor site..."
STAFF RESPONSE.
Although the January 8 Federal Register notice addresses the issue of storing spent fuel at operating reactors, the Commission may very well consider both extending Price-Anderson authority to fuel stored at facilities other titan aperating reactors as well as the question of indemnifying the spent fuel being shipped from a storage facility.
Of course, if indemnity were extended to spent fuel stored at an operating reactor, this fuel would also be indemnified during its cventual shipment following storage at the operating reactor storage site.
~ ~ ~ ~
I
~~)PPE5Ddk~A'
5 6.
Mary Sinclair, Great Lakes Energy Alliance "To ship waste from one reactor to another will only postpone the The day when we have come to grips with the nuclear waste issue.
economic costs will increase because shuffling wastes from one reactor to another only means that the shipments will have to take place again and again as new dodges to the problem of nuclear waste are planned by the industry and the NRC.
Every spent fuel shipment will give a radiation dose to the population it passes as The truck drivers and handers will, of much as a half mile away.
course, get higher doses."
STAFF RESPONSE.
Since Mrs. Sinclair's comments address the policy question of shipping of spent fuel between reactor sites and not the issue of extending Government indemnity to the spent fuel, the staff has no comment.
John F. E;..erty, Texas Public Interest Research Group 7.
"Inde.=ity should be denied to utilities who seek to place spent fuel at other atomic plant locations.
The reasons relate to the dangers of having fuel which is someone else's responsibility on licensee's premises.
The new indemnity will:
APPENDIX "Aa
(a)
Encourage movement of hazardous materials which increases the possibility of disposal to the environment..,
(b) As a natural result of (a) increase the danger of accidents because of handling mishap.
(c) Create a second class of spe,nt fuel on some sites, to wit, some will be "ours" and some "theirs" when one utility or licensee has spent fuel from a different utility or licensee."
STAFF RESPONSE.
Before the Commission exercises its author.ity to extend Government indemnity to spent fuel stored at an operating reactor different than the one in which the fuel was produced, safety and environmental issues must first be addressed.
The extension of Government indemnity would not be made prior to a decision by an appropriate licensing board or other body to allow the spent fuel to be transferred. In any case, assuming a utility were to decide to transfer spent fuel to another operating reactor in accordance with the Commission's approval and it was decided not to indemni(y the spent fuel stored at a different reactor site, the transpor cae.on of the fuel would still be indemnified under an existing indemnity agreement.
APPENDIX "A"
~
7 By extending indemnity to all of the spent fuel stored at an operating reactor, whether or not the fuel was produced at that reactor, the problem envisioned by Mr. Doherty of identification of the spent fuel is eliminated.
This was one of very reasons that the Commission staff believed it desirable to recommend extension of indemnity in this situation.
8.
Joseph B. Knotts, Debevoise and Liberman
" Price-Anderson coverage should be extended to the proposed a.
storage of spent fuel from the Oconee Nuclear Station at the As the spent fuel pools of the McGuire Nuclear Station.
notice inviting comments suggests, members of the public are entitled to count on the protection Price-Anderson affords.
The public would be rightly confounded if artificial distinctions were made between batches of spent fuel in a single fuel pool because some came from a reactor other than the one with which the pool is associated.
"It appears that NRC has not formally reached the question of b.
extending Price-Anderson coverage during such period as spent fuel may be stored at a production or utilization facility under an appropriate materials license prior to the issuance At least from the of an operating license for the facility.
time cold (uairradiated) fuel is shipped to a reactor under APPENDIX "A"
.me,
construction for preoperational storage under a materials license, the present regulations (10 CFR Part 140) provide that financial protection must be maintained and that an indemnity agreement must be executed.
While storage of spent fuel is, an activity involving quite a low hazard potential, it is nonetheless, on a comparative basis, a more hazardous activity than is cold fuel storage.
Therefore, it would make more sense and better carry out the purposes of Price-Anderson to require coverage of spent fuel -
storage under a materials license at a facility under construction than to cover cold fuel while not covering spent fuel."
" Duke believes that it is appropriate for NRC to establish a c.
general policy with regard to indemnification of spent fuel at facilities other than the one at which such was used.
Because of the indefinite deferral of commercial reprocessing... it is quite possible that there will be a number of additional proposals for receipt and storage of spent fuel at facilities other than the one at which it was originally used.
It is appropriate for the Commission, rather than treating each of these on a case-by-case basis insofar as Price-Anderson coverage is concerned, to announce and implement a policy of general applicability."
APPENDIX "A"
~
~
'*"hemm
_g.
STAFF RESPONSE.
a.
fio comment.
Because the staff assumed that the McGuire operating license h&c would be issued before any spent fuel would be shipped to McGuire, the question of storing fuel under a materials license although examined was not fully considered.
This specific question, as well as whether it is appropriate for the Commission to establish a general policy of extending indemnity so spent fuel stored at an operating reactor other than the one at which the fuel was used should be indemnified,,is discussed in detail in the Commission paper.
APPENDIX "A"
9.
John J. Kearney, Edison Electric Institute "The Edison Electric Institute concurs with the decision of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to extend Government indemnity to spent reactor fuel stored at a reactor site different than the one where it was generated...
While the decision of NRC applies only to the two specific situations, HRC is encouraged to address the policy issued on a generic basis for extending the ruling to all similar situations and to any private spent fuel storage facility whether located contiguous with a power reactor, at reactor sites or a separate location.
The low level of risk for spent fuel storage facilities should be recognized and a reasonable level of financial protection specified."
STAFF RESPONSE.
None 10.
David Berick, Environmental Policy Institute "It is not clear to us that spent fuel tranfers to a second spent fuel would not be covered under Price-Anderson as the Commission has stated in the notice.
Spent fuel transfers appear to us to either represent a special operating condition warranting special licensing provisions including Price-Anderson changes, or they are merely ongoing reactor operations which do not require modification of licensing and indemnification requirements."
- -. - - - -.. ~. -
-.- -.. _ APP _EUDI X " A"
STAFF RESPONSE.
Possession of spent fuel away from the facility where it is generated, i.e., at a location where it is not used in connection with the operation of the facility, is not a part of the ancillary activity After being transferred of possession and operation of the facility.
from the reactor site where it was generated to some other site, this spent fuel would not be subject to the mandatory indemnity requirements of the Act which provide that the Commission require financial protection of and indemnity reactor (and other production and utilization facility) licensees.
Accordingly, no indemnity protection automatically would be afforded irradiated fuel stored To indemnify this away from the facility where it is irradiated.
spent fuel, the Commission must require such licensees to maintain financial protection and to be indemnified by exercising its dis-cretionary authority under i 170 of the Act.
11.
Gordon Pearce, San Diego Gas and Electric "We urge the Commission to exercise, on a generic basis, its dis-cretionary authority under the Price-Anderson Act to extend government indemity to storage of spent fuel at a reactor site different than that at which it was generated, including t-ansportation to and from such sites.
We also support approval of the specific requests of Commonwealth Edison Company and Duke Power Company."
.._ _ _AP P E N DI X. '.' A"
STAFF RESPONSE.
No'ne 12.
William J. Cahill, Jr., con Edison
" Con Edison believes that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (Commission) decision to extend government indemnity to spent reactor fuel stcred at a reactor site different than the one where it was generated in the two specific situations (Duke Power Company and Commonwealth Edison Company) is a proper exercise of the Commission's discretionary authority.
In addition, con Edison believes that the Commission should exercise its authority -on a gener'ic basis to extend indemnity coverage to all spent fuel generated at one reactor but stored at the site of another reactor upon the issuance of Commission approval of the transfer of spent Con Edison respectfully suggests that the Commission should fuel.
also give consideration to extending indemnity coverage to all licensed storage facilities, wiiether or not. at a reactor site."
STAFF RESPONSE.
None Maurice Axelrad, Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll 13.
"We urge the Commission to extend coverage under the Price-Anderson Act not only in the two instances requested by Duke Power Company and Commonwealth Edison Company but also on a generic basis to all
~
APPENDIX "A"
~
other instances involying approved storage of spent reactor fuel at a site other than where it has been generated.
We urge that the Commission similarly provide for the applicability of Government indemnification as soon as spent fuel is received at a reactor site, whether onder an operating license or a materials license."
STAFF RESPONSE.
Although the January 8,1979 Federal Register notice addresses the specific issue of storing spent fuel at operating reactors, the Commission paper also considers.the questions of extending Price-Anderson authority to fuel stored at facilities other than operating reactors, indemnifying the spent fuel being shipped from a storage facility, and extending indemnity to fuel stored at a reactor site whether or not an operating license has been issued.
14.
Hubert H. Nexon, Commonwealth Edison Company "We strongly urge, therefore, that the Commission exercise its We authority on a generic basis to extend the indemnity coverage.
further endorse the Commission's plan to rely upon any such generic policy decision in considering modifications to specific indemnity Since the propoced policy has been noticed for comment, agreements.
the Commission has clear authority to make its determinations binding in particular proceedings."
- - - - - - - -APPENDIX
"_A"_.. ___ _
O O
_14 STAFF RESPONSE.
None 15.
E. E. Van Brunt, Jr,., Arizona Public Service Company
~
"We support the Commission's proposed action to extend Price-Anderson indemnity protection to spent fuel stored at a reactor site different than the one where it was generated in each of the two specific situations cited in the Commission's published notice (44 FR 1751)... We are also of the opinion that the considerations favoring the amendment of the Duke and Commonwealth indemnity agreements apply equally to the question whether the Commission should, on a generic basis, extend indemnity coverage to spent fuel generated at one ' reactor but stored at the site of another operating Since any storage of fuel not generated at that site can reactor.
only occur in conformance with licensing restrictions, the presence of the fuel will not result in risks significantiy different from those covered in the basic indemnity agreement for the facility."
STAFF RESPONSE.
None 16.
T. M. Anderson, Westinghouse Electric Corporation
" Westinghouse strongly endorses the Commission's decision to provide Price-Anderson indemnity protection for spent reactor fuel to be stored at a reactor site other than the one at which it was generated.-
APPENDIX "A"
Furthermore, the need for storing the spent fuel 'at another reactor location stems ', rom unresolved issues beyond the control of utilities
- who are operating nuclear reactors and requiring action by the federal government for their resolution.
We do not take issue with the Commission on its strict interpretation of the Act cnd Commission regulations except to say that in light of the legislative intent we believe the Act can be reasonably interpreted to mandate indemnification for spent fuel stored at another reactor site where both sites are As we read the Act, the responsib.lity of the same licensee.
i indemnification of the kicensee for liability which might arise from or in connection with all of his licensed facilities and activities is mandated.
STAFF RESPONSE _.
None.
APPDIDIX "A"
+
m APPENDIX "B" I
APPENDIX "B"
[7590-10]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NOS. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287, AND 50-369.
DUKE POWER COMPANY (OCONEE UNIT NOS. 1, 2, AND 3; MCGUIRE UNIT NO. 1)
INTENT TO MODIFY INDEMNITY AGREEMENT NO. B-83 Duke Power Company has requested that the Commission authorize the storage of reactor fuel irradiated at Oconee Unit 1, 2 and 3 reactors at McGuire Unit I reactor and that Duke be indemnified for the storage of such fuel at McGuire. The Commission published the Duke requests and relevant background information in previous Federal Register notices (43 FR 32905, July 28,1978, and 44 FR 1751, January 8,1979).
In the January 1979 notice, the Commission requested public comments on its proposal to exercise its discretionary authority under Section 170(a) of the Atomic Ene'rgy Act of 1954, as amended, to extend Price-Anderson coverage in accord with the Duke request.]/ That notice stated that the Commission was making no judgment as to the merits of the particular storage request (which was at the time pending before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board), but was instead seeking comment on the idemnification request described above. The Commission also requested public comment on the generic issue of whether it should approve a general extension of Price-Anderson coverage to future requests for transfer and storage of irradiated fuel at reactors other than those at which the fuel was irradiated.
-1/ The notice also requested comments on a similar request by Commonwealth Edison Company.
However, Commonwealth Edison subsequently requested the Commission not to act on its request.
APPENDIX "B"
_2_
Sixteen responses to the notice were received.
The twelve comment letters received from utilities, trade groups, and law firms representing utility clients generally favored extending Price-Anderson coverage to the specific Duke situation, and also favored extending indemnity coverage on a generic basis to all future storage of irradiated fuel at distant reactors. The four comments received from organizations and persons opposing the Commission's proposed actions addressed the policy question of shipping irradiated fuel between reactor sites for purposes of storage rather than the issue of whether indemnity should be extended to the storage. As the notice clearly stated, the extension of indemnification would only be authorized if and when other required licensing actions authorizing such shipment were approved pursuant to Commission licensing procedures.
In its request to the Commission to authorize the storage of Oconee-irradiated fuel at its McGuire Unit i reactor, Duke Power sought an amendment to its Part 70 materials license No. SNM-1773 to permit the receipt and storage of Oconee-irradiated fuel at the McGuire spent fuel pool. That materials license authorized Duke to receive and store only unirradiated fuel at the McGuire site.
Duke also sought indemnification for the Oconee fuel to be stored at McGuire. The NRC originally addressed the indemnity question en the assumption that indemnity would be extended under the provisions of the McGuire operating license, which the staff APPENDIX "B"
. expected would be issued prior to the need to ship any irradiated fuel from Oconee to McGui-e. Subsequent to that time, it appeared that an operating license for McGuire would not be issued prior to the completion of the separate licensing action in which authority to make these shipments was sought.
It was for this reason that the Commission considered amending materials license SdM-1773, which only authorized the storage of unirradiated fuel at McCaire.
In the interim, however, an operating license has been israed for McGuire Unit 1, and the Commission has approved a modification to that license to allow Duke to receive and store Oconee irradiated fuel at the McGuire spent fuel pool.
The Commission has decided to exercise its discretionary authority under Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and intends to redify Duke's indemnity agreement at the McGuire facility to permit the storage of Oconee-irradiated fuel at McGuire.
As required in 10 CFR 140.9, the Commission is publishing this notice of intent to amend Indemnity Agreement B-83 covering the McGuire Unit No.1 to allow indemnity coverage for the on-site storage at that facility of irradiated fcel from Oconee Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
The amendment would redefine the term "the radioactive material" in Article I, paragraph 9 in the McGuire indemnity agreement B-83 to read as follows:
"'The radioactive material' means source, special nuclear and byproduct material which (1) is used, was used or will be used APPENDIX "B"
. in, or is irradiated, was irradiated or will be irradiated by, the nuclear reactor licensed under NoF-9 or (2) was used in, or was irradiated in the nuclear reactors licensed under DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55 and subsequently is transported to the site of the nuclear reactor licensed under NPF-9 for the purposes of storage or (3) which is produced as the result of operation of the nuclear reactor licensed under NPF-9."
Any person whose interest may be affected by this amendment may file a request for a hearing in the form of a petition for leave to intervene with respect to the issuance of this amendment to the subject facility indemnity agreement.
In response to this notice, the Commission will only consider comments pertaining to the implementation of the Commission's policy decision through the language proposed to modify the indemnity agreement.
Comments addressing the policy issues set forth in this notice will not be entertained.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wcshington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Section, by [15 days after publication in the Federal Reoister).
Such petitions should be filed in accordance with the provisions of 52.714 of the Commission's " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings,"
A copy of the petitions and/or request for a hearing should also De sent to the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P
Commission, Washington, DC 20555 and to Debevoise & Libe rman,1200 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, counsel for the licensee.
APPENDIX "B"
e
. The Commission has determined that the issuance of this amendment will not result in any significant environmental impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d) neither an environmental impact statement nor a negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need be prepared in connection with issuance of this amendment.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations Dated at Bethesda, MD this day of 1981.
APPENDIX "B"