ML19256A750
| ML19256A750 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden, Oconee, Quad Cities, McGuire, 05000000, 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1978 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901160062 | |
| Download: ML19256A750 (9) | |
Text
,u 7590-01 LI7o-17t.O k PUBLIC D g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7 ROO.V
~~ ~
fo-A37 4 a{
[10CFRPart140]
g FINANCIAL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
+
e AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS
- J
$.h Indemnification of' Spent Reactor Fuel df Stored at a Reactor Site Different Than the 9 One Where It.Was Generated p
4 AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Comission ACTION:
Request for public comment on Commission's decision to exercise its discretionary statutory authority and extend government indemnity to storage of spent fuel in two specific situations *!
and for public comment on the general policy question raised by such extension.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has decided to exercise its discretionary statutory authority under the Price-Anderson Act and extend government indemnity to spent reactor fuel stored at a reactor site different than the one where it was generated.
. Absent this action by the Commission, this sp)nt reactor fuel would not have been covered by government indemnity in the event of a nuclear incident at the site where this spent fuel was stored.
"/
Duke Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-270, 50-287, and h Cor:rnonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. 50-237, 50-249, 50-254, and 50-255.
7 9 01 16 0 0 Co ?-
-].
spent fuel at the cistant reactor locations.
The Commissior, consicered a similar request by Carolina Power and Light Company in August,1977.
(See notices in the September 6,1977 daily edition of the FEDERAL
~
REGISTER at 42 F. R. 44615 44617.)
Because the issue of receipt and storage of Oconee spent fuel at McGuire is before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the Commission is not proposing either approval or disapproval of the requests for the described fuel storage at this time.
In this nctice, the Commission is seeking public comment on both the specific requests for indemnification described above and also the generic issue of indemnification of spent fuel generated at one reactor but stored at another.
If indemnification were to be approved as requested by Commonwealth Edison and Duke, it would only be when and if the requested fuel storage were approved pursuant to Commission licensing procedures.
Under the price-Anderson Act (f 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amencec, (the Act)), financial protecti-on and government indemnity are mancatory for production and utili:ation facilities, such as reactors, licensed under i 103 and i 104 of the Act.
This financial protection and indemnity covers the " licensed activity" which encompasses not only cessession and operation of the reactor facility itself ou also certain ma
~$-
under i 170 of the Act.
This exercise of discretionary authority would result in treating spent fuel produced at one reactor site but stored at a different reactor site the same as spent fuel stored at the site of the reacter where it was produced.
Thus, irradiated fuel generated by a reactor at one site whether stored by itself in the spent fuel pool of a reactor at a different site or commingled with the second reactor's irradiated fuel in that reactor's spent fuel pool would be covered by financial protection and indemnity.
Duke Power Company has requested Commission authorization to store spent fuel generated by Oconee reactor Units 1, 2, and 3 at McGuire Unit 1.
Pursuant to this request, on July 28, 1978 (43 F. R 32905), the tiRC cublished a notice of opportunity for public participation with respec:
to the application for amendment to Materials License fio. SNM-1773 (issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 70) to authori:e the receip; and storage of Oconee spent fuel at McGuire.
petitions to intervene and recuests for nearing were received.
According to Duke's current projection of the predictec fuel burnup rates at Oconae, the firs: shipment of spent fuel to McGuire must cccur in March 1979 if Duke is to maintain its desirec full core discharge casa:ility a: the Oconee sta: ion.
An ocerating license cecisicr.,,cwe.er,
_y_
the second reactor and stored at the same site,,oi.c ce indemnified.
If indemnity coverage were not extended to the spent fuel generated by the first reactor but stored at the site of a second reactor and if an accident occurred involving the fuel storage pool it would be virtually impossible to determine whether indemnified or unindemnified spent fuel caused the damages.
The Commission's decision to exercise, or no to exercise, its discretionary authority (pursuant to section 170 of the Act) to require financial protection and government indemnity to be maintained by Duke Power Company and Cc=monwealth Edison Company in the situations discussed in this notice involves a policy question.
The Commission desires public comment on its proposed action to extend indemnity protec icn in the two situations discussed in this notice.
In addition, the Commission desires public comment en whether it shcuic exercise its autnority on a generic basis :: extenc incemnity c:verage
- c s ent fuel generated at one reac:cr but s:Orec a: the si:e of a second operating reactor upon the reques of reactor licensees.
The Commission believes that such a decision would be consistent with the specific actions requested by Duke and Commonweal:n.
Having esta lishec
=m a
-y.
.available for examination in the Co=issicr.'s Fa::lic Cocument Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D. C.
(Authority:
5 U.S.L. 552; Pub. L.83-703, 68 Stat. 919, as amended by Pub. L.85-256, 71 Stat. 576, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2210).
Dated at Washincton, D.C.
this 29th day of Dece-be-1978.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
Samuel J. Chi,h
~
Secretary of : e Cc=ission 9
.