[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 213 (Monday, November 4, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67219-67220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-28013]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 72-12 and 50-333; License No. DPR-59]


Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear 
Power Plant; Notice of Issuance of Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 
2.206

    Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC), has issued a Director's Decision with regard to a Petition dated 
February 21, 2002, filed by Mr. Timothy Judson of the Citizens 
Awareness Network, et al., hereinafter referred to as the 
``Petitioner.'' The Petition concerns the operation of Entergy's James 
A. FitzPatrick Interim Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). The 
Petitioner requested the following:
    1. That the NRC order Entergy to suspend the dry cask storage 
program at the FitzPatrick reactor.
    2. That the NRC require Entergy to:
    [sbull] Demonstrate that the proposed fuel storage program presents 
no increased risks to the national security or worker or public health 
and safety beyond what is contemplated in the Certificate of Compliance 
and General License, pursuant to Sec.  72.212(4)-(5);
    [sbull] Submit its proposed design changes for technical review in 
the form of a license amendment application and seek regulatory 
approval for them pursuant to Sec.  72.244;
    [sbull] Evaluate its use of the HI-TRAC 100 transfer cask for ALARA 
standards, per Sec.  50, Appendix I;
    [sbull] Provide more substantial physical and structural protection 
of the irradiated fuel and ISFSI to satisfy the requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  73.51, 73.55; and
    [sbull] Demonstrate the use of the HI-STORM 100 can satisfy these 
requirements at FitzPatrick, or demonstrate countervailing and 
compelling reasons to utilize the HI-STORM 100 at FitzPatrick, as 
opposed to any other casks certified by NRC.
    3. That all documents and information filed in relation to the 
selection of storage casks and the implementation of dry storage at 
FitzPatrick be put on the docket for public inspection.
    4. That the Petition Review Board (PRB) submit this Petition to the 
NRC's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for review of the Spent 
Fuel Project Office's compliance with regard to NRC regulations in 
terms of design changes, licensing, amendments, exemptions and ALARA in 
its permitting process relating to the use of dry cask storage at 
FitzPatrick. Additionally, that a review be conducted to determine 
whether NRC staff in the Spent Fuel Project Office are complicit or 
misguided in permitting design changes to these casks without 
submission of a license amendment.
    5. That the NRC conduct an investigation to determine whether 
Entergy has deliberately circumvented the appropriate technical and 
regulatory review required to protect worker and public health and 
safety and the environment.
    As the basis for the February 21, 2002, request, the Petitioner 
states several safety concerns related to the design changes associated 
with the HI-STORM 100 cask design, as well as safety concerns related 
to national security.
    The Petitioner addressed the PRB on March 29, 2002, in a telephone 
conference call to clarify the bases for the Petition. The meeting gave 
the Petitioner and the licensee an opportunity to provide additional 
information and to clarify issues raised in the Petition.
    The NRC sent a copy of the proposed Director's Decision to the 
Petitioner and to the licensee for comment on August 13, 2002. The 
Petitioner responded with comments on August 27, 2002, and the licensee 
responded on August 28, 2002. The comments and the NRC staff's response 
to them are Enclosures to the Director's Decision.
    The Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
Safeguards has determined that the safety concerns the Petitioner 
raised related to the modified HI-STORM 100 cask design at FitzPatrick 
were reviewed, and determined not to pose an immediate safety issue. 
Therefore, the request to require that an order be issued to Entergy to 
suspend the dry cask storage program at FitzPatrick was denied. In 
response to the Petitioner's request that Entergy submit an additional 
safety demonstration of the FitzPatrick storage facility, it was 
determined, through the NRC inspection program, that Entergy has 
demonstrated that the proposed fuel storage program presents no 
increased risks to the national security or worker or public health and 
safety beyond what is contemplated in the Certificate of Compliance and 
General License, pursuant to Sec.  72.212(4)-(5). The NRC denied the 
Petitioner's request that Entergy submit a license amendment, ALARA 
review, and various other safety evaluations and justifications to the 
NRC for review for the reasons noted in the detailed discussion in the 
Director's Decision. The Petitioner's request to require Entergy to 
provide more substantial physical and structural protection of the 
irradiated fuel and ISFSI was also denied, as existing security 
measures, including issuance of an NRC Order to Entergy on October, 16, 
2002, have been determined to be adequate. The Petitioner requested 
that all documents and information filed in relation to the selection 
of storage casks and the implementation of dry storage at FitzPatrick 
be put on the docket for public inspection. Documents and information 
filed in relation to the selection of storage casks and the 
implementation of dry storage at FitzPatrick were put on the docket for 
public inspection by letter dated May 10, 2002, and the additional 
information was released to the public at that time. The Petitioner's 
request that the PRB submit this Petition to the OIG for review of the 
SFPO was granted, as noted in the letter dated April 12, 2002. In 
response to the Petitioner's request to investigate whether Entergy 
deliberately circumvented the regulatory process, the NRC staff review 
of Entergy's 10 CFR 72.48 evaluation concluded that the proper 
regulatory process was followed by Entergy, and no further 
investigation was warranted. The reasons for these decisions are 
explained in the Director's Decision pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 (DD-02-
02), the complete text of which is available for inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room, located at One

[[Page 67220]]

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. The text is also accessible through the ADAMS Public Library 
on the NRC's Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (Public Electronic Reading 
Room).
    A copy of the Director's Decision will be filed with the Secretary 
of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 
2.206 of the Commission's regulations. As provided for by this 
regulation, the Director's Decision will constitute the final action of 
the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision, unless the 
Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the Director's 
Decision in that time.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of October 2002.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Martin J. Virgilio,
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 02-28013 Filed 11-1-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P