[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 112 (Friday, June 9, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36647-36649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14686]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 112 / Friday, June 9, 2000 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 36647]]



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 72

[Docket No. PRM-72-5]


Nuclear Energy Institute; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Notice of receipt.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received and 
requests public comment on a petition for rulemaking filed by the 
Nuclear Energy Institute. The petition has been docketed by the NRC and 
has been assigned Docket No. PRM-72-5. The petitioner is requesting 
that the NRC regulations governing storage of spent nuclear fuel be 
amended to establish a more efficient process for issuing and amending 
certificates of compliance (CoC) for dry cask storage of spent nuclear 
fuel under a general license. The petitioner believes the current NRC 
process of traditional notice and comment rulemaking is not appropriate 
for the routine task of maintaining a list of certified casks and that 
the burden of maintaining this listing in the regulations outweighs any 
benefit. The petitioner proposes that the list of CoCs be deleted from 
the regulations and that NRC should notice applications for new CoCs 
and amendments in the Federal Register for a 60-day comment period. The 
petitioner also proposes that amendments for existing CoCs that do not 
have the potential to have a significant impact on public health and 
safety be immediately effective upon publication of the amendment in 
the Federal Register.

DATES: Submit comments by August 23, 2000. Comments received after this 
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of 
consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or 
before this date.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications staff.
    Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 
between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
    You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking 
website through the NRC home page (http://ruleforum.llnl.gov). At this 
site, you may view the petition for rulemaking, this Federal Register 
notice of receipt, and any comments received by the NRC in response to 
this notice of receipt. Additionally, you may upload comments as files 
(any format), if your web browser supports that function. For 
information about the interactive rulemaking website, contact Ms. Carol 
Gallagher, (301) 415-5905 (e-mail: [email protected]).
    For a copy of the petition, write to David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules 
and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001. Documents related to this action are available for public 
inspection at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) located at the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Meyer, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555. Telephone: 301-415-7162 or Toll-Free: 1-800-368-5642 or E-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission received a petition for 
rulemaking dated April 18, 2000, submitted by the Nuclear Energy 
Institute (petitioner). The petitioner is requesting that the 
regulations in 10 CFR Part 72 governing storage of spent nuclear fuel 
in dry storage casks be amended. Specifically, the petitioner is 
requesting that the NRC establish a more efficient process for issuing 
new and amending existing certificates of compliance (COC) for dry cask 
storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license. The petitioner 
believes that the current process of traditional notice and comment 
rulemaking for issuing and amending CoCs is inefficient and that the 
burden of maintaining the list of approved dry storage casks in 
Sec. 72.214 outweighs any benefit.
    The petitioner has concluded that the listing of CoCs in 
Sec. 72.214 is not necessary and believes that removal of these 
requirements will have no impact. The petitioner requests that the 
regulations in 10 CFR Part 72 be amended by removing Sec. 72.214. 
Instead, the petitioner proposes that NRC notice applications for new 
CoCs and amendments to existing CoCs in the Federal Register for a 60-
day comment period. When the NRC determines that an amendment to an 
existing CoC does not have the potential to have a significant impact 
on public health and safety, the petitioner recommends that the 
amendment become immediately effective upon publication in the Federal 
Register. The petitioner recommends that initial applications and 
significant amendments would not become effective until the NRC has 
evaluated public comments and published its findings in the Federal 
Register.
    The NRC has determined that the petition meets the threshold 
sufficiency requirements for a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 
2.802. The petition has been docketed as PRM-72-5. The NRC is 
soliciting public comment on the petition for rulemaking.

Discussion of the Petition

    The petitioner notes that the NRC Spent Fuel Project Office staff 
is currently considering an alternative process to the NRC's current 
practice of listing and amending CoCs by rulemaking. The petitioner 
supports the NRC staff's efforts and encourages the NRC to 
expeditiously amend 10 CFR Part 72 to establish an efficient process 
for issuing new and amending existing CoCs for dry cask storage of 
spent nuclear fuel under a general license. The petitioner requests 
that the NRC consider a streamlined process proposed by the petitioner 
that focuses opportunities for public input on issues that have the 
potential to have a significant impact on public health and safety. The 
petitioner proposes that the NRC discontinue the use of traditional 
notice and comment rulemaking and that Sec. 72.214, the listing of 
CoCs, be repealed.
    The petitioner believes there is no benefit in using rulemaking for 
the ministerial act of maintaining a list of

[[Page 36648]]

certified casks and that the burden of maintaining the list in the 
regulations outweighs any benefit. The petitioner has concluded that 
the list of certified casks neither affords any additional authority on 
the CoC holder nor places additional weight on requirements that govern 
dry cask usage. The petitioner proposes that NRC notice applications 
for new CoCs and amendments to existing CoCs in the Federal Register 
for a 60-day comment period. For amendments to certified casks, 
applicants could propose that the requested amendment has no potential 
to adversely affect public health and safety. If NRC agreed with the 
applicant and found that no significant hazard exists, the amendment 
would be effective immediately upon publication in the Federal 
Register. The petitioner proposes that initial applications and other 
amendments would not become effective until the NRC evaluated public 
comments and published its findings in the Federal Register.
    The petitioner notes that by 2005, as many as 50 plants will 
require dry cask spent fuel storage to continue operating or to proceed 
through decommissioning. In the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as 
amended (NWPA), Congress conferred responsibility on the Federal 
Government to ``expedite the effective use of existing storage 
facilities and the addition of new needed storage capacity'' at 
civilian nuclear power facilities. The petitioner also notes that cask 
vendors must amend CoCs frequently to meet the growing need for dry 
cask storage and that, by 2001, the fuel discharged from operating 
plants will exceed the maximum licensed burnup limits of current casks. 
The petitioner contends that the current NRC practice of issuing CoCs 
and associated amendments by rulemaking is inadequate because it takes 
about 24 months to amend CoCs through the rulemaking process. The 
petitioner believes that with a 24-month response time, the 
unavailability of dry casks will impede plant operations and 
decommissioning at some point.
    The petitioner contends that NRC's practice of listing and amending 
cask CoCs by cask-specific rulemaking goes beyond Congress' intent in 
the NWPA. The petitioner believes that by issuing more than ten CoCs 
under 10 CFR Part 72, the NRC has fulfilled its legislative obligation 
and demonstrated that the regulations are sufficient to certify 
technologies for use as directed in the NWPA. The petitioner states 
that conducting cask-specific rulemakings wastes resources and requires 
constant reconsideration of the same technical issues. The petitioner 
believes that many CoC amendments do not involve new or novel technical 
issues and are only being reviewed to demonstrate that a certificate 
holder has complied with NRC requirements for cask certification.
    The petitioner recommends that NRC provide notice in the Federal 
Register and consider public comments before issuing CoCs for new casks 
and amendments to existing CoCs that potentially impact public health 
and safety. The petitioner states that proceeding in this manner would 
show that the NRC provides for public input and does not waste the 
agency's or the public's resources that could be directed toward 
actions on new casks and issues that may significantly affect public 
health and safety and away from actions that only demonstrate 
compliance with existing requirements and guidance. The petitioner also 
believes that the process for issuing and amending CoCs for spent fuel 
storage should be similar to that used for transportation CoCs under 10 
CFR Part 71. The petitioner states that it is illogical to certify 
casks used for the dual purpose of storage and transportation by two 
entirely different processes. The petitioner further states that the 
certification process for transportation CoCs has been effective since 
its inception over 20 years ago and that no reason exists for the 
process for certification of casks for storage to be any more demanding 
than that for certifying casks for transportation.
    The petitioner recommends that NRC consider an application process 
for new CoCs as follows: Submittal of application for new CoC; NRC 
prepares a draft Safety Evaluation Report (SER); the draft CoC and SER 
are noticed in the Federal Register for public comment; NRC publishes 
its findings in a Federal Register notice; and the CoC and SER are 
issued.
    The petitioner recommends the following process for amendments to 
existing CoCs. The change to the CoC is identified and developed by the 
CoC holder, and an evaluation under Sec. 72.48, ``Changes, tests, and 
experiments'' is performed to determine if prior NRC approval is 
needed. If NRC's approval is not required, the amendment may be 
implemented and the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) is updated. If prior 
NRC approval is required, the CoC holder performs a ``Significant 
Impact'' evaluation and submits the proposed amendment to the NRC. If 
the NRC agrees that the proposed amendment poses ``No Significant 
Impact,'' the amendment is published in the Federal Register and 
becomes immediately effective upon publication, the change is 
implemented, and the SAR is updated. If the NRC does not determine that 
the amendment poses no significant impact, the draft CoC is published 
in the Federal Register for a 60-day public comment period. After the 
comment period expires, the NRC publishes its findings in a Federal 
Register notice, the change is implemented, and the SAR is updated.
    The petitioner proposes that Sec. 72.214, ``List of approved spent 
fuel storage casks'' be deleted from the regulations. The petitioner 
also proposes that Sec. 72.238, ``Issuance of an NRC Certificate of 
Compliance'' be amended by inserting the following language after the 
existing codified text:

    The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 
or the Director's designee will publish each initial application and 
each application for amendment in the Federal Register for a 60-day 
comment period. An application may include a proposed determination 
that the amendment proposed does not involve a ``significant impact 
consideration'' based on an analysis of the criteria listed below. 
Upon receipt of an application, the Director, or the Director's 
designee will make a determination of whether it agrees with the 
applicant's ``no significant impact considerations'' proposal. If 
the Director or the Director's designee agrees with the applicant's 
proposed determination, the amendment will be effective upon 
publication in the Federal Register prior to receipt and analysis of 
public comments.
    An amendment is considered to have the potential to pose a 
significant impact if subsequent use of the cask would:
    (a) Result in a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated;
    (b) Create the possibility for a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
    (c) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The petitioner has also submitted examples of amendments considered 
likely to involve significant impact considerations that it proposes 
for inclusion in a regulatory guidance document. These would be 
amendments that result in a significant increase in offsite doses and 
leakage across the confinement boundary, an increase in Keff above 0.95 
without compensatory changes, significant increases in mechanical 
stress beyond allowable limits in codes referenced in the NRC Standard 
Review Plans (SRPs), and cladding temperatures that significantly 
exceed SRP limits.
    Lastly, the petitioner has submitted examples of amendments it 
believes would not likely involve significant impact considerations 
that it proposes for inclusion in a regulatory guidance document. 
Examples include amendments that consist of:

[[Page 36649]]

    (1) An administrative change to technical specifications (TS) 
including a change to achieve consistency throughout the TS, correction 
of an error, or a change in nomenclature.
    (2) A TS change to ensure that no significant increase exists in 
the probability or consequences of analyzed accidents and does not 
significantly reduce safety margins such as an increase in the 
allowable leak rate compensated by an increase in fill gas quantity, an 
increase in the allowable handling height of the cask compensated by 
energy absorbing features, addition of a more reactive fuel design that 
could lead to Keff exceeding 0.95 compensated by an increase in areal 
poison density of fixed neutron poison sheets, and an increase in 
helium backfill pressure compensated by increased material properties 
to prevent components from exceeding code allowables.
    (3) A change in the TS that includes an additional limitation, such 
as a more stringent surveillance requirement.
    (4) A change that may result in some increase to the probability or 
consequences of a previously analyzed accident or may reduce the safety 
margin in some way, but where the results are within all acceptable 
criteria at the time of approval, such as an increase in Keff or 
offsite exposures beyond ``minimal.''
    (5) Replacing explicit limits on fuel assemblies, decay heat, and 
source terms with a table that incorporates limits and ensures that 
these limits are met by prescribing minimum cooling times for various 
combinations of enrichment versus burnup.
    (6) Substitution of another NRC-approved quality assurance program 
for fabrication of casks such as modifying Part 50, Appendix B for Part 
72.
    (7) A change to a CoC that consists of minor changes to storage 
operations that remain within regulatory requirements such as a 
reduction in the center-to-center cask spacing in the Independent Spent 
Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), a reduced storage cask temperature 
monitoring frequency, an increased time duration without transfer cask 
annulus cooling for canisters with fuel loading below a certain 
kilowatt level, or a reduction in the areal poison density in boral 
fixed poison sheets offset by an increase in the allowable percentage 
of the manufacturer's minimum assured boron content in criticality 
calculations.
    (8) An expansion of the cask capacity including the number of 
bundles, higher initial enrichment, or higher burnup bundles when 
certain conditions are satisfied.
    (9) Inclusion of a more recent NRC requirement than is contained in 
the licensee's CoC or site-specific license.
    (10) Inclusion of an exception or alternative approved by the NRC 
for another licensee.
    (11) Administrative improvements such as the use of generic 
organization position titles that clearly indicate position function as 
opposed to specific titles or use of generic organization charts to 
delineate functional responsibilities.

The Petitioner's Conclusions

    The petitioner has concluded that the NRC requirements governing 
storage of spent nuclear fuel in 10 CFR Part 72 should be amended to 
establish a more efficient process for issuing and amending CoCs for 
dry cask storage under a general license. The petitioner has also 
concluded that the current NRC process of traditional notice and 
comment rulemaking is not appropriate for the routine task of 
maintaining a list of certified casks and that the burden of 
maintaining this listing in the regulations outweighs any benefit. The 
petitioner requests that the list of CoCs be removed from the 
regulations and that the NRC notice applications for new CoCs and 
amendments to existing CoCs in the Federal Register for a 60-day 
comment period. The petitioner also requests that amendments for 
existing CoCs that have no potential to have a significant impact on 
public health and safety be immediately effective upon publication in 
the Federal Register.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of June, 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-14686 Filed 6-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P