ML20195G391
| ML20195G391 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07200022 |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1999 |
| From: | Vincent J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195G360 | List: |
| References | |
| 97-732-02-ISFSI, 97-732-2-ISFSI, NUDOCS 9906160040 | |
| Download: ML20195G391 (15) | |
Text
W O6/11 '99.14:34 ID:LANIERFQX4500 FM:
PAGE 2
Am. -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCT. EAR REGUT.ATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety And 1.lcensing Board
? In the Matter of
)
)
PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE L.L.C.
)
Docket No. 72-22
)
(Private Fuel Storage Facility)
)
ASLDP No. 97-732-02-ISFSI DECLARATION OF JOHN A. VINCENT CITY OF PARSIPPANY -
)
) SS:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
)
John A. Vincent states as follows under penaltics of perjury:
1.
I am employed by GPU Nuclear as Senior Engineer Nuclear Fuel in Par.
sippany, New Jersey, and am the Chairman of PFS's Technology Committee. In my ca-pacity as Senior Engineer Nuclear Fuel, I am rt.sponsible for managing the external nu-clear fuel cycle activitics for the nuclear facilities of GPU Nuclear, including the trans-portation of xpent nuclear fuel. In this capacity I managed the GPU Nuclear spent fuel shipping campaign to return 224 spent fuel assemblics to the Oyster Crcck Nuclear Gen-erating Station from the Nuclear Fuel Services facility in West Valley, New York. As Chairman of PFS's Technology Committec, I am responsible for overseeing the activities of the Committee which focus on spent fuel storage and transportation technology, nu-clear fuct specifications and characterization, spent fuel transportation, dry transfer sys-tems, and storage space allocation and priority. My professional and educational experi-ence is summarized in the curriculum vitac attached as Exhibit I to this Declaration.
' 2.
As Chairman of PFS's Technology Committoo, and bawd on my previnun experience in transporting spent nuclear fuel, I have been actively involved in develop-ing, and am knowledgeable about, PFS's plans for the shipment of spent nuclear fact 9906160040 940611
~*
E %J06/11'*99 14:34 ID:LANIERFAX4500 FAX:
PQGE 3
~
g from the various originating reactors to the PFSF as well as PFS's plan for the operation of the intermodal Transfer Point ("lTP"). PFS has generally addressed both these issues in its response to the NRC's Request for Additional Information ("R Al") ITP-1, subrnit-ted under cover letter dated February 10,1999 Sn lixhibit 2 to this Declaration.
3.
PFS's current plan for the shipment of spent nuclear fuel to the PFSF :s
. generally described in its application and response to RAI ITP-1. Under the PFS plan, spent (bel would be shipped in NRC-cenified transponation casks from the originating reactor sites to the PFSF. The shipper will be the originating reactor licensec, who will 1
ship the spent fuel under the general license authority of10 C,F.R. 6 71.12. Ownership I
of, and title to, the spent fuct will remain with the originating reactor licensec throughout the shipment (as well as at the PFSF).
4.
The originating reactor licensees that ship spent fuct to the PFSF are
)
authorized by the general license in 10 C.F.R. { 71.12 to deliver the spent fuel to one or I
more caniers that would be authorized under 10 C.F.R. { 70.20a to transport the spent fuel to the PFSF. Under PFS's current plan for the shipment of spent nuclear fuel to the i
PFSF, the transportation of spent fuel casks from the originating reactor to the PFSF would be undertaken by one or more carriers authorized to possess and transport the transportation cask under 10 C.F.R. $ 70.20a. The carrier in possession of a spent fuel transponation cask would have actual custody and control of the cask, subJcct to NRC and DOT regulations governing the transportation of spent nuclear fuel. Under applica-ble NRC and DOT regulations, more than one carrier may be involved in transporting the cask from the originating reactor to the PFSF.
5.
The ITP will be an integral part of transporting the spent fuel to the PFSF I
under the second of two alternatives being considered by PFS for the transpon of spent nuclear fuct to do PFSF. Under this alternative, the spent fuel would be shipped by rail carrier to the ITP, and then transponed the remaining 25 miles to the PFSF on Skull Val-Icy Road by heavy haul.
i f
2
r---- gg g gs M : 34 ED:LANMRFCiX/1500 FAX:
PCE 4
o 6.
(Inder PFS's current plan, described in PFS's response to RAl ITP-1, PFS would operate the iTP as a common / contract carrier under a transportation services agreement with its utility customers. Alternatively, PFS would arrange for a third party common / contract carrier to provide auch services to its utility customers. See pFS RAI Response. ITP 1 at 2-3,6. PFS's current plans are for it to own the physical structures and equipment at the ITP in either event. In the latter case, where a third party com-mon / contract carrier were to operate the ITP, the third party may lease the ITP facilitics and equipment from PFS or otherwise contract with PFS for the operation of the ITP. Id2 at 5-6.
7 Should PFS choose the heavy-haul alternative for shipping spent fuel to the PFSF (which includes intermodal transfer at the ITP) under PFS's current plan it would lilo an uppropriate application to qualify as, and to meet the applicable requiro-ments for, a motor common or contract carrier with the Federal liighway Administration (FWHA). ks PFS RAI Response, ITP-1 at 3 4. An entity seeking approval 'o become a t
motor common or contract carrier orproperty files a " fitness application"with the FilWA,49 C.F.R. % 365.105, which the FilWA reviews in accordance with its sarcty lit-
)
ness and financial responsibility policies. 49 C.F.R. 6 365.109(a)(4), and determines whether the applicant is " fit, willing, and able to perform the involved operations and to comply with all applicable titatutory and regulatory pmvishms,' 49 C.F.R. 9 365.107. In order to comply with the safety litness requirements, an applicant must implement certain safety programs such as a system to ensure compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, a driver safety training program and a means to oversec driver qualification requirements, an alcohol and controlled substances testing program, and a system for preparing and maintaining an accident register. 49 C.F.R. Paits 350-399 In order to comply with financial responsibility requirements, an applicant must submit proof of surcty bonds l'or bodily injury, property damage, and cargo liability. which to carry radio-active materials requires providing a $5,000,000 surety bond. l'inally, an applicant must 1
submit a designation oflegal process agent. 49 C.I'.R. 9 365.109(a)(6).
3
N@ M:3@
ID:LQNIERFQX4500 FAX!
PQGE 5
e O
Should PFS choose the 1 TP/ heavy-haul alternative for shipping spent fuel 8.
to the PFSF, PFS would undertake all necessary steps to qualify as a motor carrier with the FHWA and would file un appropriate upplication and qualify as a carrier of hazardous materials with the Department of Transportation (DOT). which entails registration with DOT, payment of a nominal ($300) registration fee (49 C.F.R. 6107.601(a)), and com-pliance with DOT hazardous materials transportation requirements. 2ing PPS RAI Re-sponse, ITP-1 at 3-4. Beyond registration and applicable NRC requirements. these re-quirements include: 49 C.F.R. Pan 171. (reports of accidents / incidents): Part 172 (hazard warning label, placarding, marking, shipping papers, and emergency response informa-tion); Part 173 (compatibility, segregation, loading, and shipment handling requirements);
and Parts 172 Subpart H and 177 (employee training including general awareness, famili-arization training, function-specific training, safety training, and modal specific training).
9.
During intermodal transfer at the ITP, the spent fuel transportation cask will be under active shipping papers providing for the transit of the spent fuel from the originating reactor to the PFSP. No new shipping papers will be required for the inter-modal transfer. As discussed in the PFS response to RAI ITP-1, PFS (or a third party un-der etmtract operating the ITP) will verify at a minimum that any transportation cask ar-riving at the ITP in accompanied by active shipping papers and is still marked, labeled and placarded in compliance with DOT regulations. Ess PFS RAI Response, ITP-1 at 3-
'4.
10.
Further, as discussed in the PFS response to RAI ITP-1. PFS (or a third party under contract operating the ITP) will perform all operations at the ITP in compli-ance with applicable DOT and NRC regulations. PFS (or the third pany) would comply with applicabic DOT statutes and regulations pertaining to rail carriers or to motor carri-crs, as appropriate, and the related huntrdous materials transportation requirements. San PFS R Al Response, ITP-1 at 3-4. The operations at the ITP involving the transportation cask will be in compliance with the transportation cask's NRC Certificate of Compliance B
4
F;;.06/11 W 14135-
' ID:LANIERFAX4500 FAX:
PAGE 6
and, to the extent appropriate, all operations at the ITP will be in compliance with PFS's Commission-approved Part 71 quality assurance program.
I 1.
As discussed in the PFS response to R AI ITP-1, PFS (or a third pany un-der contract operating the ITP) will perform all operations at the ITP, as the carrier, in compliance with the physical protection requirements of 10 C.F.R. p 73.37, including the provision of escorts to maintain continuous surveillance of transportation casks at the ITP. _$g PFS RAl Response. ITP-1 at 4-5. These requirements have traditionally been readily met by shippers and carriers orcommercial apent nuclear fuel.
12.
As discussed in the PFS response to RAI ITP 1 PFS would not transport spent tuelear fuel or operate the ITP as a private canier because PFS will never take title to or own the spent nuclear fuel. Msg PFS RAI Response,ITP-1 at 6.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and currect.
1'xecuted on. lune 11,1999.
s n A. Vincent' Docunwnt #: 77%68 v.I 5
p-r
.e 4
VINCENT --
EXHIBIT 1 1
)
i
'O i
i Professional Biography John A. Vincent j
Mr. Vincent is a Senior Nuclear Fuel Engineer with GPU Nuclear.
Mr. Vincent began his nuclear power career in 1969 as nuclear I'
qualified submarine officer in the U.S. Navy nuclear power program
.where he' served aboard a fleet ballistic missile submarine.
I In May 1975, hejoined the General Public Utilities as a fuel cycle engineer responsible for nuclear fuel contract administration and budgeting. In 1982 he assumed responsibility for the management of GPU Nuclear's external fuel cycle activities for the Oyster Creek and Three Mile Island I nuclear power plants. He is currently responsible for the procurement activities for all front-end nuclear fuel cycle purchasing, as well as the management of nuclear fuel material inventories, and the budgeting of expenditures for these materials. In addition, he manages the storage, transport, and disposal activities for GPU Nuclear's spent nuclear fuel.
Mr. Vincent serves on the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Working Group with a particular interest in spent fuel transportation and dry storage related issues. The NEI nuclear waste program monitors the spent nuclear fuel sto' rage, transportation, and disposal activities 'of the federal waste management system established under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
He served as a member and chairman of the US DOE Independent Review Group (IRG) established by DOE to independently evaluate the DOE transportation Cask System Development Program. He is -
the company representative to the NUHOMS Owners Group (NUHOG) and is a past group chairman. He is also the chairman of the Technology Committee for the' Private Fuel Storage LLC.
Mr. Vincent received his B.S. Degree with Honors in Physics from the University of Arkansas in 1969.
C:\\MSW DOCS \\JAV_ BIO. DOC March 27,1998 l-
)
ie 9
I VINCENT --
i i
EXHIBIT 2
)
F.
I Prhute Fuel Storage,..
"<>na.. Ti: !.' n s
- i
- John D. Parkyn. Chairman onhe Boara' February 10,1999 Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE FACILITY PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, L.L.C.
DOCKET NO. 72-22fI'AC NO. L22462
Reference:
- 1) NRC Letter, Delligatti to Parkyn, Request for Additional Information, dated December 10,1998
- 2) NRC Letter, Delligatti to Parkyn, Request for Additional Information on License Application, dated April 1,1998
- 3) PFS Letter, Parkyn to Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated January 21,1999 Enclosed are the responses of Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. to the Requests for Additional Information (RAI) set forth in Reference #1. Also enclosed are the remaining responses to the first RAI transmitted by Reference #2. The timing for submittal of these latter responses was governed by the Staff's statement in Reference #1 that it would review the remaining first round RAI responses at the same time it reviews the responses to the second round RAI responses. As explained in our letter ofJanuary 21,1999 (Reference #3), we have taken that statement to mean that we should submit the remaining first round RAI responses when the second round RAI responses were submitted. The enclosed submittal reflects that understanding.
RAI reference material that includes proprietary data, safeguards information, or extensive calculations / reports will be submitted under separate covers. If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact me at (608) 787-1236 or our Project Director, John Donnell, at (303) 741-7009.
Sincerely, 4-d-John D. Parkyn, Chairman Private Fuel Storage JDP:cis Enclosures omumuwm me
F..
]
l-(:
l 9
INTERMODAL TRANSFER POINT ITP-1 Provide a detailed discussion of how shipments of spent fuel would be L
completed from the time they arrive at the intermodal transfer point (ITP) until they are received at ISFSI site. The discussion should include both the proposed options for rail and highway shipments, and address the 1
following items:
a)
PFS's role in completing the shipments once they've arrived at the
' ITP (e.g., common or contract carrier, freight forwarder, broker, etc.)
include a description of the specific activities conducted by e
PFS personnel at the ITP, and in-transit between the ITP and ISFSI site.
b)
The actions PFS needs to undertake to comply with Department of Transportation regulations for motor and/or rail carrier if PFS is i
acting as a contract or common carrier.
This includes both regulations for qualifying as a carrier, and for complying with carrier safety requirements for rail and/or highway.
c)
The responsibilities of PFS's shippers (utility customers) and carriers for providing physical protection under 10 C.F.R. Part 73.
1 The discussion, at a minimum, needs to address the e
following areas: shipment notifications, cask surveillance j
(escorts), communications (including two hour call-ins), and response arrangements with local law enforcement personnel.
j The discussion should also focus on how physical protection
.e requirements in these areas are implemented while spent fuel casks are in storage " incident to transit" at the ITP, as i
well as in transit between the ITP and ISFSI site.
d)
Responsibilities of PFS (if any), its shippers and carriers for preparing casks for shipment (e.g., marking and labeling of casks, I
placarding, shipping papers and declarations).
1 l
The discussion should focus on PFS's activities at the ITP, l
e and in transit between the ITP and ISFSI site.
PFSF Safety RAI No. 2, ITP-1 Page 1 of 6
'(e)
Ownership of ITP facilities and equipment, and agreements concerning the use of such facilities and equipment.
l (f)
The role of PFS, shippers and others in providing emergency response at the ITP, and in-transit between the ITP and ISFSI site.
(g)
Since the applicant will not take licensed possession of the spent fuel at the ITP, PFS should clarify whether it intends to act as either a common or contract carrier, broker, or freight forwarder in transporting spent fuel to the ISFSI site. Further, PFS should clarify whether it believes it could transport spent fuel as a private carrier from the ITP to the PFS site under the general license provisions to 10 C.F.R. 71.12, even though it does not take possession of the spent fuel until receipt at the ISFSI site. The information provided in response to this RAI is needed to assess PFS's role in the actual transport of spent fuel from the ITP to the ISFSI site. The results of this assessment would be used to determine if the ITP needs to be included in a license issued under Part 72, or whether activities at the ITP are covered under the Department of Transportation regulations for shipping hazardous materials.
RESPONSE
a)
Of the two transportation attematives discussed in the PFS application, heavy-haul is the only option that contemplates use of an intermodal transfer point (ITP). The heavy-haul option would require in-transit transfer of the shipping cask while in its transport cradle from the rail car to a heavy-haul vehicle for transport from the main rail line to the ISFSI. The cesk shipments using the rail option would not go through the ITP; rather the cask shipments would remain on the same rail car and move directly from the main rail line to the rail short line for delivery to the PFS.
While any properly qualified party can perform the intermodal transfer operations,' it is presently anticipated that PFS would perform such operations as a common / contract carrier under a transportation services agreement with the utility customers or PFS may arrange for a third party to perform such services for the utility customers. PFS or the third party would position the rail car under the site crane, and lift and attach the cask / transport cradle onto the heavy-haul vehicle at the ITP. Once road ready, the shipment would then be transported, without undue delay, along Skull Valley Road to the ISFSI where the receipt inspection process
' The training requirements for such qualification are included in 49 C.F.R. Part 172 Subpart H,174, and 177.
PFSF Safety RAI No. 2, ITP-1 Page 2 of 6
M.,
for storage would occur. Should a third party perform some or all of these l
services, PFS personnel would be available to provide any necessary support.
In the event that PFS does not act as a carrier, it may act as a broker, which arranges for transportation of cargo belonging to others without assuming responsibility or accepting possession of such cargo. Should PFS decide to act as a broker, it would be required to comply with the applicable requirements in 49 U.S.C. 913901,904,906(b)(registration j
and insurance requirements) and 49 U.S.C. 8514122 and 14123 (records 1
and financial reporting).
l l
b)
The transportation of casks from the main rail line to the ISFSI would be accomplished either by rail line or heavy-haul motor vehicle. PFS may contract directly with the utility customers for PFS to perform some or all of such transportation services or PFS may arrange for a third party to perform such services for the utility customers. To the extent that PFS j
acts as a carrier, PFS would comply with the applicable Department of Transportation (DOT) statutes and regulations pertaining to rail carriers or to motor carriers, as appropriate, and the related hazardous material transportation requirements. In any event, PFS will assist its utility customers with, 'and assure for its own part, compliance with these requirements for shipping hazardous materials.
If the rail option is chosen and PFS acts as a rail carrier for the utility customers, PFS would operate as a rail carrier that transports by either contract or common carriage (tariff). As such, PFS would meet the 4
applicable requirements of a rail carrier, which include, without limitation, i
the applicable requirements set forth in: 45 U.S.C. Chapters 2,8,9, and 11 (railway labor issues such as liability for injuries, retirement, and unemployment); 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IV (Part A) (rail requirements including i
rates,' licensing, operations, records, and finance); Su,btitle V (railroad programs including safety requirements and reporting); Subtitle X (bills of lading); and associated implementing regulations contained in 49 C.F.R.
Parts 200,1000 through 1300.
If the hsavy-haul option is chosen and PFS acts as a carrier for the utility j
custormrs, PFS would meet the requirements for motor carriers which apply to both inotor and common contract carriers, including, without limitation, the applicable requirements set forth in: 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IV Part B (motor carrier issues such as rate standards, tariffs, registration, service and operations, routing, and financial requirements); Subtitle VI The provisions of 49 U.S.C. I 10709 (permits camage by contract) would specifically apply to contract 2
carriage, but would not apply to common camage under a tariff.
PFSF Safety RAI No. 2, ITP-1 Page 3 of 6
]
i A
i (motor vehicle and driver requirements): Subtitle X (bills of lading) and associated implementing regulations contained in 49 C.F.R. Parts 300, j
1000,1090-1099,1200, and 1300. As of January 1,1996, the DOT l
regulations and statutes no longer distinguish between motor contract and motor common carriers. The Federal Highway Administration, however,
{
continues to register applicants as either motor common or motor contract
{
carriers. The distinction is that most motor common carriers must provide i
proof of cargo insurance while motor contract carriers are not required to do so.
Under either of the alternatives set forth above, PFS, if acting as a carrier, f
must comply with applicable DOT hazardous materials transportation j
requirements. These requirements are in addition to the NRC requirements for transporting spent nuclear fuel and include, without limitation, the following: 49 C.F.R. Part 107 (filing fees and registration);
Part 171 (reports of accidents / incidents); Part 172 (hazard warning label, placarding, marking, shipping papers, and emergency response information); Part 173 (compatibility, segregation, loading, and shipment j
handling requirements); and Parts 172 Subpart H,174, and 177 (employee training including general awareness, familiarization training, function-specific trairiing, safety training, and modal specific training).
c)
According to 49 C.F.R.
173.22(c), the shipper is responsible for physical protection in compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 73. The utility customers, as shippers, would remain responsible for physical protection until the cask shipments are delivered to the ISFSt. It is presently anticipated that the utility customers would contract with PFS to perform these services. The activities which are required to be performed under 10 C.F.R. Part 73 include the following:
provide shipment pre-notification to NRC seek NRC approval of road and/or rail routes e
prepare contingency plans and procedures for coping with e
emergencies staff a communication center to continuously monitor shipment e
progress J
provide on-board continuous surveillance and communication activities while in transit or while stopped, including the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> call-ins, adjusting as necessary for transit through heavily populated areas maintain a written log of shipment events e
coordinate with local law enforcement agencies i
e minimize time in transit including avoiding maintenance stops e
protect safeguards information e
PFSF Safety RAI No. 2, ITP-1 Page 4 of 6
maintain appropriate records ensure personnel (security, escorts, and drivers) are properly e
. trained provide armed escort equipment for shipments provide immobilization devices on trucks notify appropriate state officials, including State Governors, prior to e
transport Specifically, consistent with the foregoing, as part of the transportation services agreement, it is anticipated that PFS would provide continuous security and escort services, notifications, communications, and coordination with local law enforcement as required by 10 C.F.R. 9 73.37.
PFS would establish and man an around-the-clock communication center to receive the two hours call-ins and otherwise coordinate and monitor the progress of utility customer spent fuel shipments to the PFS facility. PFS would provide the required escorts and security personnel during all phases of the transport. PFS would utilize a modified railroad passenger car at the end of the train to accommodate the security personnel, other escorts, communications equipment, and emergency response equipment. This car would have an unobstructed view of the cask cars at all time during transport. Under the heavy-haul option, PFS would provide the necessary escorts and escort vehicles for the transport from the ITP to the PFS facility.
Alternatively, PFS may arrange for a third party to perform some or all of these activities on behalf of the utility customers. Regardless of the party actually performing the service, such protection would be continuously provided for the entire transportation route including at the ITP and
' between the ITP and the ISFSt. In such case, PFS would assist its utility customer and assure for its own part the compliance with these requirements d)
The shipper (utility customer) is responsible for the placarding, preparing the shipping papers and declarations of shipment content, and verifying the marking and labeling of the cask shipment at the reactor site prior to its delivery the carrier. Should PFS contract with the utility customers to perform transportation services as a carrier, PFS would verify that the rail cars or heavy-haul vehicle is appropriately placarded, the shipping papers are in order, and would review the marking and labeling of the cask shipment.
e)
It is anticipated that the ITP facilities and equipment would be owned by PFS regardless of the person that actually operates the ITP facilities and equipment. As discussed in the Response to ITP-1(a), PFS may perform PFSF Safety RAI No. 2, ITP-1 Page 5 of 6
y i
the intermodal transfer operations or PFS may engage a third party to i
perform the intermodal transfer operations. In the latter case, the third party may lease the ITP facilities and equipment from PFS. - Agreements for such services would specify the rights, responsibilities (including regulatory compliance), and liability associated with the use of PFS transportation-related facilities and equipment.
f)
Overall responsibility for emergency response for the entire transportation route from the utility customer's site to the PFS site remains with the shipper (utility customer) as the person offering the material for shipment.
If the heavy-haul option is used, the operations at the ITP are included in the regular course of transportation. As discussed above, the utility may contract with PFS for these services and PFS may choose to engage a third party to provide some or all of those services. Should PFS perform these services, PFS would comply with applicable rules and regulations, including, without limitation, the rules and regulations requiring that the following activities be performed: assurance that shipping papers provide i
the required emergency response information including appropriate descriptive information about the shipment, identify any immediate precautions, and immediate accessibility to the information; providing and i
fa eden ncden to app opr a a tho i As stated in the NRC general policy statement on response to transportation accidents, the government of the State in which an incident occurs is responsible for assuming control of the accident scene from the initial on-site responders (who are usually local officials). PFS personnel 1
would be available to provide any necessary consultetion support to the State.
g)
Transportation of the spent fuel from the ITP to the ISFSI may be i
accomplished by either PFS or a third party under contract with the utility customers. 'Should PFS contract to provide all or a portion of such J
- transportation services, such services would be performed under a contract with the utility customers that is separate from the contract addressing storage of the spent nuclear fuel. Under such contract, PFS would act as a rail or motor carrier. In the event that PFS would not act as a carrier, but arrange for transportation services to be performed for the utility customers, PFS would possibly be classified as a broker. PFS would comply with the NRC and DOT regulations applicable to its status.
In any event, PFS would not transport spent fuel as a private carrier from the ITP to the PFS ISFSI site because PFS will never take title to, or own, the spent nuclear fuel.