POLICY ISSUE

NOTATION VOTE

October 26, 2004 SECY-04-0199

FOR: The Commissioners

FROM: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE A LICENSE FOR THE

IDAHO SPENT FUEL FACILITY, UNDER 10 CFR PART 72

PURPOSE:

To request the Commission’s authorization to issue a license to the Foster Wheeler

Environmental Corporation (FWENC) for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) at the

Idaho Spent Fuel (ISF) Facility, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 72. 

SUMMARY:

In this paper, the staff discusses its review of the application submitted by FWENC to the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a license to store SNF from the U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE) at the proposed ISF Facility. The ISF Facility is an independent spent fuel

storage installation (ISFSI) to be located at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory (INEEL). The staff has completed its safety, security, and environmental reviews of

the license application, and has determined that: (i) there is reasonable assurance that the

activities authorized by the license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety

of the public; (ii) these activities will be conducted in compliance with the applicable regulations

of Title 10, Chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations; (iii) the issuance of the license will

not be inimical to the common defense and security; and (iv) the environmental impacts of the 

CONTACT: James R. Hall, NMSS/SFPO

 (301) 415-1336
The Commissioners 2

proposed action will be small and are acceptable. As specified in 10 CFR 72.46(d), the

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, shall not issue an initial license for

the construction and operation of an ISFSI located at a site other than a reactor site, unless

expressly authorized to do so by the Commission. The staff requests that the Commission

provide its authorization to proceed with the issuance of a license to FWENC for the proposed

ISF Facility.

BACKGROUND:

On November 19, 2001, FWENC submitted a license application to NRC, in accordance with

Part 72, to construct and operate an ISFSI, called the ISF Facility. The proposed ISF Facility

represents one element of a Settlement Agreement, dated October 17, 1995, among DOE, the

U.S. Navy, and the State of Idaho, regarding waste removal and environmental cleanup at the

INEEL. Under its contract with DOE, FWENC will be the sole licensee, and will design,

construct, and operate this facility. The ISF Facility will provide for the repackaging and interim

dry storage of specific types and quantities of SNF currently stored by DOE at the INEEL, in

preparation for eventual shipment to a high-level waste geologic repository. The proposed

facility will be located on the INEEL site, adjacent to existing DOE SNF storage facilities,

including the NRC-licensed ISFSI for the TMI-2 fuel debris.

Spent nuclear fuel at the INEEL is currently stored in above-ground facilities, including wet

storage pools, and in dry underground storage facilities. Most of the SNF at INEEL was

originally destined for reprocessing, and thus has been stored under conditions intended for

short-term storage. Although the SNF is safe in the current storage configurations, the

potential for degradation of the existing INEEL SNF storage facilities over time is of concern. 

The ISF Facility is designed to receive, repackage, and store certain SNF, currently in DOE’s

possession, that originated primarily from early commercial power reactors. The specific

material to be stored at the ISF Facility consists of SNF and associated radioactive material

from: (1) the Peach Bottom Unit 1 reactor (a decommissioned high-temperature gas-cooled

reactor, or HTGR); (2) the Shippingport Atomic Power Station (a decommissioned light-water

breeder reactor, or LWBR); and (3) various Training, Research, and Isotope reactors built by

General Atomics (TRIGA reactors). The SNF will be transferred from its current INEEL storage

locations to the ISF Facility and repackaged into new storage canisters, which will then be

placed into interim dry storage. The license for the ISF Facility would be granted for a period of

20 years, subject to renewal.

DISCUSSION:

ISF Facility Description

The proposed ISF Facility is designed for storage of three unique types of spent fuel and

associated components. These are spent fuel elements from the Peach Bottom Unit 1 HTGR;

reactor reflector modules and fuel rods from the Shippingport LWBR; and spent fuel elements

from TRIGA reactors. The Peach Bottom Unit 1 and Shippingport reactors ceased operations

in 1974 and 1982, respectively. All of the Peach Bottom Unit 1 and Shippingport spent fuel and

most of the TRIGA spent fuel to be stored at the proposed facility is currently in storage at the

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC), a complex of facilities at INEEL
The Commissioners 3

that is immediately adjacent to the ISF Facility site. Both INTEC and the ISF Facility are

approximately 13.6 kilometers (8.5 miles) from the nearest INEEL site boundary. 

The ISF Facility will be designed and licensed to store these spent fuel elements and

associated materials in specified quantities. The Shippingport rods and modules will comprise

85.9 percent by weight of the total heavy metal inventory; the Peach Bottom elements,

12.7 percent; and the TRIGA fuel elements, 1.4 percent. When the ISF Facility becomes

operational, DOE will transfer the SNF from its current storage locations at INTEC to the ISF

Facility, using DOE-owned transfer casks. A small amount of the TRIGA spent fuel to be stored

at the ISF Facility is currently stored offsite and will be transported to INTEC by DOE, under

separate authority. As part of its review, the staff has specifically evaluated the DOE transfer

casks for movement of SNF within the ISF Facility boundary, under this Part 72 license. 

Transfer of the SNF from the INTEC facilities to the ISF Facility gate will be conducted under

DOE authority. Each transfer of SNF will occur over a distance of approximately 460 meters

(500 yards) and will take place completely within the boundaries of the INEEL site. Once

received at the ISF Facility, FWENC will repackage the SNF and place it in interim dry storage. 

The ISF Facility is a fully enclosed building complex consisting of three principal areas: (i) the

cask receipt area; (ii) the transfer area; and (iii) the storage area. A common transfer tunnel will

provide connections between these three areas of the ISF Facility. In the ISF Facility cask

receipt area, a loaded transfer cask will be removed from the transport trailer and placed onto

the cask trolley. The cask trolley will be moved to the transfer area, where the SNF will be

unloaded from its existing containers and repackaged into specially designed ISF canisters. 

The ISF canisters are made of stainless steel and provide the primary confinement system for

the SNF. After the SNF transfer is completed, the ISF canisters will be filled with an inert gas,

sealed, and moved to the storage area for interim dry storage. The loaded and sealed ISF

canisters are to be stored in 246 individual metal storage tubes in a passively cooled concrete

vault. After each ISF canister is placed vertically into its metal storage tube, a shield plug is

installed and the metal storage tube is sealed with a cover plate with dual metallic seal rings. 

The metal storage tubes with cover plates will provide a redundant, outer confinement barrier

for the SNF. The storage tubes are also filled with an inert gas to reduce potential corrosion of

the ISF canisters during storage.

The ISF Facility transfer area incorporates a unique fuel packaging area where the SNF is

remotely handled using specially designed fuel handling tools. These include a fuel handling

machine with a single failure-proof hoist, a closed circuit television system, a power manipulator

system, and separate master/slave manipulators to perform any remote manual operations. 

The floor, walls, and ceiling of the fuel packaging area are made of reinforced concrete having

a minimum thickness of 0.91 meters (3 feet). The SNF will be removed from its current DOE

containers and repackaged into ISF canisters within this enclosed shielded area, which is

designed to confine and limit the potential spread of radioactive material. 

Staff Review and Conclusions

FWENC provided the following information in its application for a Part 72 license for the ISF

Facility: (a) a Safety Analysis Report (SAR); (b) a seismic design exemption request; (c) an

operator training and certification plan; (d) a proposed decommissioning plan; (e) proposed

Technical Specifications; (f) an Emergency Plan; (g) a Safeguards and Physical Security Plan;

and (h) an Environmental Report. FWENC supplemented the application through: (a) its
The Commissioners 4

responses to the staff’s requests for additional information (submitted in January and

August 2003); (b) revisions to the SAR (submitted in November 2002, and March and

November 2003); and (c) other correspondence, including an exemption request from certain

decommissioning funding requirements. The comprehensive information submitted by the

applicant extensively described the design of the proposed facility, the programs to be

implemented to ensure safe and secure operation, the organizational responsibilities, and the

financial arrangements.

The NRC staff performed its safety, technical, and environmental reviews of the application with

assistance from the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses. These reviews were

conducted in accordance with the “Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Facilities

(NUREG-1567),” the “Standard Review Plan for Dry Cask Storage Systems (NUREG–1536),”

and the “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS

Programs (NUREG-1748).”

On July 29, 2004, the staff issued its preliminary Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for the

ISF Facility. In the preliminary SER, the staff documented its findings regarding FWENC’s

application for a Part 72 license, except for those findings related to its reviews of the

Safeguards and Physical Security Plan and the Environmental Report, which were

addressed separately. 

As documented in the preliminary SER, the staff’s evaluation included: (i) the characteristics of

the ISF Facility site; (ii) facility operations and operating systems; (iii) the design and design

criteria for the ISF Facility and its structures, systems, and components important to safety;

(iv) programs that support protection of public health and safety and worker health and safety;

(v) the impact of potential off-normal and accident events on structures, systems, and

components important to safety; (vi) the financial qualifications of the applicant and the

decommissioning funding assurance exemption request; (vii) the proposed

technical specifications; (viii) the emergency plan; (ix) the seismic design exemption request;

(x) the applicant’s training and qualifications; and (xi) the quality assurance program. 

The staff made the following findings in the preliminary SER, corresponding to the areas of

evaluation identified above:

(i) The applicant’s SAR provides an acceptable description and safety assessment

of the ISF Facility site, and the proposed site complies with the siting evaluation

factors identified in Part 72, Subpart E, subject to the granting of an exemption to

10 CFR 72.102(f), regarding the determination of the design earthquake, as

discussed in item (ix) below.

(ii) Potential interactions between the ISF Facility and nearby DOE facilities have

been acceptably evaluated and the staff has determined that the proposed

facility would not pose an undue risk to the safe operation of these nearby

facilities. The proposed operating procedures to protect health and minimize

danger to life and property are adequate, and facility operations can be

conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public. The design

of the ISF Facility, the operating procedures, and the schedule for operations

provide acceptable controls for security, monitoring, and surveillance during all

transfer, handling, and storage operations.
The Commissioners 5

(iii) The SAR appropriately specifies the design criteria for the structures, systems,

and components important to safety. The ISF Facility structures, systems, and

components important to safety will be designed to quality standards

commensurate with their functions. Appropriate structural load combinations for

normal and accident conditions, including the effects of natural phenomena,

have been considered.

(iv) The design and operation of the ISF Facility acceptably incorporates “as low as

reasonably achievable” concepts to minimize occupational radiation exposure. 

Operating features and procedures, including the radiological protection

program, alarm systems, and direct-radiation monitoring programs, will ensure

that radiation doses to individual members of the public, from normal operation

and postulated accidents, will be below NRC regulatory limits. 

(v) The proposed ISF Facility will be designed, constructed, and operated so that

during all normal activities, off-normal events, and credible accidents, public

health and safety will be adequately protected. The proposed ISF Facility will

maintain subcriticality, confinement, and sufficient shielding of the SNF for all

credible off-normal and accident scenarios.

(vi) FWENC has submitted acceptable estimates of the costs, and has provided

reasonable assurance that funds will be available for construction, operation, and

decommissioning of the facility. FWENC will obtain sufficient funds for the

licensing, construction, and operation of the ISF Facility through its contractual

agreement with DOE. DOE has also provided a Statement of Intent to FWENC

confirming that the Department will make a timely request to the U.S. Congress

for funds to decommission the facility. The staff determined that an exemption to

Section 72.30(c) is warranted in this case, to allow DOE to provide a

commitment to obtain the decommissioning funding for this facility, even though

FWENC will be the licensee.

(vii) The SAR provides acceptable technical specifications for the facility, which

include appropriate specifications for functional and operating limits, monitoring

instruments, limiting control settings, limiting conditions, surveillance

requirements, design features, and administrative controls. 

(viii) The ISF Facility Emergency Plan is acceptable. The plan appropriately

describes the applicant’s program for responding to onsite emergencies and for

seeking offsite assistance if needed. The staff determined that FWENC had

acceptably coordinated the ISF Facility Emergency Plan with DOE’s INEEL sitewide emergency plan, to ensure that all required emergency actions can be

performed, as necessary.

(ix) FWENC has submitted an acceptable probabilistic seismic hazards analysis

(PSHA) to determine the design earthquake for the ISF Facility, and the granting

of an exemption to 10 CFR 72.102(f) is warranted. This exemption would be

similar to that previously granted for the TMI-2 ISFSI, which is located in close

proximity to the proposed ISF Facility. The PSHA methodology used by

FWENC would be an acceptable approach to meeting the new geological and
The Commissioners 6

seismological evaluation requirements of 10 CFR 72.103, added in

October 2003. However, the application preceded the rule change; therefore,

the new rule does not apply and an exemption is necessary.

(x) The applicant’s personnel training and certification program complies with

10 CFR Part 72, Subpart I. FWENC’s program for selection, training, and

retraining of operating personnel will provide adequately trained operations and

supervisory staffs, acceptable documentation, and appropriate records of

training. The personnel qualification requirements and training program

commitments described by the applicant in the SAR are acceptable.

(xi) The ISF Facility Quality Program Plan complies with the requirements of

10 CFR Part 72, Subpart G. This finding was transmitted to FWENC in a letter

dated August 5, 2004.

The staff reviewed the proposed safeguards and physical protection plan for the ISF Facility

against the existing requirements for ISFSI security (10 CFR Part 72, Subpart H and

10 CFR 73.51). Of note, the applicant proposed to rely on the existing DOE security resources

at the adjacent INTEC complex as an alternative to certain requirements. The applicant

described the coordination of security resources and the integration of the ISF security plan with

existing DOE resources for the TMI-2 ISFSI and other INEEL facilities. Based on its review, the

staff concluded that the licensee’s application meets existing requirements. The staff’s

approval was documented in its security evaluation dated September 16, 2004.

The staff plans to develop additional security measures (ASMs), as appropriate, to be issued to

the licensee subsequent to issuance of the Part 72 license (but well in advance of facility

operation), consistent with Commission direction and previous staff practice. In determining

the appropriate ASMs for the ISF Facility, the staff will consider those Interim Compensatory

Measures that have been issued to other licensed facilities whose operation (including handling

of spent fuel assemblies) is similar to the proposed ISF Facility. In the event that the staff

identifies any new policy issues regarding the imposition of ASMs for this facility, the staff will

advise the Commission of those issues before the issuance of any such additional security

measures.

The staff also reviewed the applicant’s Environmental Report, and has prepared and issued a

final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for this action (“Environmental Impact Statement

for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility at the Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory in Butte County, Idaho,” NUREG-1773, Final Report, January 2004). 

The FEIS complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); the NRC regulations for

implementing NEPA; and the guidance provided by the Council on Environmental Quality

regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA. The staff has determined that no

significant environmental impacts will be generated as a result of construction and operation of

the proposed ISF Facility.

A Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing for this action was issued on June 27, 2002, but no

requests for a hearing were received. Stakeholder comments regarding this action were

solicited through the issuance of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement in June 2003. More

than 90 written comments were received and were addressed by the staff in the FEIS. The
The Commissioners 7

FEIS also documented the staff’s consultations with the U.S. Department of the Interior and the

Idaho State Historical Society.

The staff will prepare a communications plan for this licensing action, which will include a press

release to be issued at an appropriate time following the Commission’s action on the staff’s

request. 

RECOMMENDATION:

The staff recommends that the Commission authorize the issuance of a license for the ISF

Facility to FWENC in accordance with the provisions of Part 72.

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objections.

/RA Martin J. Virgilio Acting For/

Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director

 for Operations
The Commissioners 7

FEIS also documented the staff’s consultations with the U.S. Department of the Interior and the

Idaho State Historical Society.

The staff will prepare a communications plan for this licensing action, which will include a press

release to be issued at an appropriate time following the Commission’s action on the staff’s

request.

RECOMMENDATION:

The staff recommends that the Commission authorize the issuance of a license for the ISF

Facility to FWENC in accordance with the provisions of Part 72.

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objections. 

/RA Martin J. Virgilio Acting For/

Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director

 for Operations

ML042730592 * see previous concurrence

OFC: Tech. Editor SFPO E SFPO SFPO

NAME: EKraus* JRHall* EZiegler* JMonninger*

DATE: 09/17/04 09/22 /04 09/23/04 09/23/04

OFC: NSIR OGC SFPO SFPO

NAME: JShea* STreby LCamper* EWBrach*

DATE: 09/23/04 09/28 /04 09/27/04 09/27/04

OFC: NMSS DEDMRS EDO

NAME: JRStrosnider MJVirgilio LAReyes

DATE: 10/22/04 10/26/04 10/26/04

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY