[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 197 (Thursday, October 11, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51823-51843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-25416]



[[Page 51823]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 30, 70, 72, and 150

[Docket No. PRM-72-2]
RIN 3150-AG33


Interim Storage for Greater Than Class C Waste

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its 
regulations to allow licensing for the interim storage of Greater than 
Class C (GTCC) waste in a manner that is consistent with current 
licensing for the interim storage of spent fuel and will maintain 
Federal jurisdiction for storage of reactor-related GTCC waste. The 
final rule will only apply to the interim storage of GTCC waste 
generated or used by commercial nuclear power plants. These amendments 
will also simplify and clarify the licensing process.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 13, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Haisfield [telephone (301) 415-
6196, e-mail [email protected]] of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Petition for Rulemaking

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission received a petition for 
rulemaking dated November 2, 1995, submitted by Portland General 
Electric Company. The petition was docketed as PRM-72-2 and published 
in the Federal Register, with a 75-day comment period, on February 1, 
1996 (61 FR 3619).
    The petitioner requested that the NRC amend 10 CFR part 72 to add 
the authority to store radioactive waste that exceeds the concentration 
limits of radionuclides established for Class C waste in 10 CFR 
61.55.\1\ This radioactive material is commonly referred to as 
``Greater than Class C'' waste or GTCC waste. GTCC waste is generally 
unsuitable for near-surface disposal as low-level waste (LLW), even 
though it is considered as LLW. Section 61.55(a)(2)(iv) requires that 
this type of waste be disposed of in a geologic repository unless 
approved for an alternative disposal method on a case-specific basis by 
the NRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 10 CFR 61.55, ``Waste Classification,'' the NRC codifies 
disposal requirements for three classes of low-level waste which are 
considered generally suitable for near-surface disposal. These are 
Class A, B, and C. Class C waste is required to meet the most 
rigorous disposal requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner is an NRC-licensed utility responsible for the 
Trojan Nuclear Plant (Trojan). In the petition, the petitioner 
anticipated that it would need to dispose of GTCC waste during 
decommissioning. The decommissioning plan discussed the transfer of 
spent reactor fuel being stored in the spent fuel pool, to an onsite 
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) licensed under 10 
CFR part 72. The petitioner requested that 10 CFR part 72 be revised to 
permit GTCC waste to be stored at the ISFSI pending transfer to a 
permanent disposal facility. The petitioner suggested that because the 
need to provide interim storage for GTCC waste is not specific to 
Trojan, but is generic, the regulations in 10 CFR part 72 should be 
amended to explicitly provide for storage of GTCC waste in a licensed 
ISFSI.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Granting the petition in this rulemaking is no longer needed 
for Trojan since its reactor vessel with internals (package) was 
shipped to the Hanford LLW site after the State of Washington 
defined this package as Class C waste. The NRC has concluded that 
this rulemaking will be useful for other reactor operators that need 
to store their GTCC waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner stated that storage of GTCC waste under 10 CFR part 
72 would ensure safe interim storage. This storage would provide for 
public health and safety and environmental protection as required for 
spent fuel located at an ISFSI or spent fuel and high-level waste 
stored at a Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation (MRS).
    The specific changes proposed in the petition would explicitly 
include interim storage of GTCC waste within the Purpose, Scope, and 
Definitions sections of 10 CFR part 72, thereby enabling licensees to 
manage GTCC waste generated or used by commercial nuclear power plants 
in a manner similar to that for spent nuclear fuel. The revised 
definitions would only apply to the interim storage of GTCC waste under 
the authority of 10 CFR part 72.
    With this final rule, the petition is granted in part and denied in 
part. This rule will grant the petitioner's request to authorize GTCC 
waste storage under a 10 CFR part 72 license, but as discussed later, 
uses a different approach.

Public Comments on the Petition

    The notice of receipt of the petition for rulemaking invited 
interested persons to submit written comments concerning the petition. 
The NRC received six comment letters. Five comment letters were 
received from nuclear facilities and one from the Nuclear Energy 
Institute (NEI). NEI provided another letter on this subject directly 
to the NRC Chairman on February 2, 1999, and the NRC responded on March 
25, 1999. The comments were reviewed and considered in the development 
of NRC's decision on this petition. These comments are available in the 
NRC Public Document Room.
    All six commenters supported the petition. Two of the commenters 
(Sacramento Municipal Utility District and Yankee Atomic Electric 
Company) are currently decommissioning their reactors.

Draft Rulemaking Plan

    As a result of the petition and the comment letters, the NRC 
developed a draft rulemaking plan to further consider the development 
of a rule that would meet the intent of the petition. In SECY-97-056, 
dated March 5, 1997, the NRC staff provided a draft rulemaking plan to 
the Commission outlining a rule that would modify 10 CFR part 72 to 
allow storage of material, which when disposed of would be classified 
as GTCC waste, under the authority of 10 CFR part 72 using the 
performance criteria of this part. As discussed in this draft 
rulemaking plan, licensees are currently authorized to store GTCC waste 
under the regulations in 10 CFR part 30 and/or part 70. Therefore, the 
draft rulemaking plan discussed adding an option to store GTCC waste 
under 10 CFR part 72 while maintaining the existing option to store 
this waste using the authority of 10 CFR parts 30 and 70. This plan was 
sent to the Agreement States for their comments on April 18, 1997. Five 
States provided comments--Illinois, Maine, New York, Texas, and Utah.
    The draft rulemaking plan described how an ISFSI or an MRS might be 
regulated by both the NRC and an Agreement State (this is discussed in 
more detail in the Discussion section). The draft rulemaking plan did 
not require that the licensing jurisdiction for GTCC waste remain with 
NRC, but did suggest that Agreement States could voluntarily relinquish 
their licensing authority for GTCC waste stored at an ISFSI. The draft 
rulemaking plan specifically requested Agreement State input relative 
to their likelihood of voluntarily relinquishing their authority for 
licensing when an ISFSI or an MRS is used for storing GTCC waste.
    One State supported the concept. Three States indicated that they 
were opposed to voluntarily relinquishing

[[Page 51824]]

their authority and preferred to maintain their licensing authority for 
GTCC waste. One doubted that inefficiencies would result from Agreement 
State jurisdiction over GTCC waste at a reactor site concurrent with 
NRC regulation of spent fuel remaining at the site. The commenter noted 
that similar situations already exist when LLW is stored at the site. A 
second noted that there ``* * * have been many instances where an 
agreement state and NRC have effectively collaborated in the regulation 
of a single facility.'' A third noted that the NRC recently informed 
the States that they could voluntarily relinquish their authority for 
sealed sources and devices and that it was ``* * * vehemently opposed 
to any rule that automatically usurps a State's licensing authority 
without the State's consent.''

Proposed Rule

    The NRC published the proposed rule, ``Interim Storage for Greater 
than Class C Waste'' in the Federal Register on June 16, 2000 (65 FR 
37712). The NRC received 18 comment letters on the proposed rule. These 
comments and responses are discussed in the ``Comments on the Proposed 
Rule'' section.

Discussion

    Current NRC regulations are silent on the acceptability of storing 
reactor-related GTCC waste co-located at an ISFSI or an MRS. Co-
location is the storage of spent fuel with other radioactive material 
in their respective separate containers. This situation has created 
confusion and uncertainty on the part of decommissioning reactor 
licensees and may create inefficiency and inconsistency in the way the 
NRC handles GTCC waste licensing matters.
    The NRC believes that decommissioning activities at commercial 
nuclear power plants will generate small volumes of GTCC waste relative 
to the amount of spent fuel that exists at these sites. GTCC waste 
exceeds the concentration limits of radionuclides established for Class 
C in Secs. 61.55(a)(3)(ii), 61.55(a)(4)(iii), or Sec. 61.55(a)(5)(ii). 
GTCC waste is not generally acceptable for near-surface disposal at 
licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. Currently 
there are no routine disposal options for GTCC waste.
    In general, reactor-related GTCC wastes can be grouped into two 
categories. The first, which is the more typical form, is activated 
metals components from nuclear reactors such as core shrouds, support 
plates, nozzles, core barrels, and in-core instrumentation. The second 
is process wastes such as filters and resins resulting from the 
operation and decommissioning of reactors. In addition, there may be a 
small amount of GTCC waste generated from other activities associated 
with the reactor's operation (e.g., reactor start-up sources). GTCC 
waste may consist of either byproduct material or special nuclear 
material.
    The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 gave 
the Federal Government (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) the primary 
responsibility for developing a national strategy for disposal of GTCC 
waste. The Act also gave the NRC the licensing responsibility for a 
disposal facility for GTCC waste. Until a disposal facility is 
licensed, there is a need for interim storage of GTCC waste.
    Currently, 10 CFR part 50 licensees (Domestic Licensing of 
Production and Utilization Facilities) are authorized to store all 
types of reactor-related radioactive materials, including material 
that, when disposed of, would be classified as GTCC waste. The GTCC 
waste portion is currently being stored either within the reactor 
vessel, in the spent fuel pool, or in a radioactive material storage 
area, pending development of a suitable permanent disposal facility.
    The authority to license the possession and storage of GTCC waste 
is contained within 10 CFR part 30 for byproduct material and in 10 CFR 
part 70 for special nuclear material. Under 10 CFR 50.52, the 
Commission may combine multiple licensable activities of an applicant 
that would otherwise be licensed individually in single licenses. Thus, 
the 10 CFR part 50 license authorizing operation of production and 
utilization facilities currently includes, within it, the authorization 
to possess byproduct and special nuclear material that would otherwise 
need to be separately licensed under 10 CFR parts 30 or 70.
    Under the current regulations, before the 10 CFR part 50 licensee 
can terminate its 10 CFR part 50 license, the licensee must transfer 
all of its spent fuel to another licensed facility; typically an ISFSI 
for storage or to a geologic repository for disposal. The ISFSI can be 
either at the reactor site under a specific 10 CFR part 72 license, or 
at an away-from-reactor site. The general license issued under 10 CFR 
72.210 would terminate when the 10 CFR part 50 license is terminated. 
Because the 10 CFR part 72 general license would be terminated 
coincident with the termination of the 10 CFR part 50 reactor license, 
the licensee must have a 10 CFR part 72 specific license in order to 
continue to store spent fuel in an ISFSI located at the reactor site. 
Under a 10 CFR part 50 license, a reactor licensee undergoing 
decommissioning can store GTCC waste at its site based on the authority 
of the 10 CFR parts 30 and 70 license conferred to reactor licensees. 
However, the 10 CFR parts 30 and 70 licenses incorporated within the 10 
CFR part 50 license are also terminated when the 10 CFR part 50 license 
is terminated. Consequently, termination of the 10 CFR part 50 license 
would require the licensee to either obtain a 10 CFR part 30 or 70 
license to store any reactor-related GTCC waste, or transfer the GTCC 
waste to a geologic repository for disposal.
    The NRC's current understanding of industry's approach to reactor 
decommissioning indicates that many reactor licensees currently 
undergoing decommissioning, as well as those considering future plans 
for decommissioning, may or may not pursue early termination of their 
10 CFR part 50 license, for a variety of reasons. Consequently, with 
retention of the 10 CFR part 50 license, licensees also will retain the 
10 CFR part 72 general license and their incorporated 10 CFR parts 30 
and 70 licenses (i.e., the authority to store reactor-related GTCC 
waste under the 10 CFR part 50 license). However, the NRC believes that 
some licensees may wish to have the option of early termination of 
their 10 CFR part 50 license (and thus the 10 CFR part 72 general 
license). In that case, the issue of storage of reactor-related GTCC 
waste under a 10 CFR part 72 specific license which was identified in 
the proposed rule is still valid. The NRC continues to believe that 
storing reactor related GTCC waste either under a 10 CFR part 50 
license or under a 10 CFR part 72 specific license provides an adequate 
level of protection of public health and safety. Accordingly, the NRC 
is issuing this final rule to provide reactor licensees with 
flexibility in selecting a regulatory approach to storing reactor-
related GTCC waste. This final rule maintains Federal jurisdiction over 
reactor-related GTCC waste under either approach.
    The changes in this rulemaking will allow 10 CFR part 72 specific 
licensees to co-locate reactor-related GTCC waste within an ISFSI or an 
MRS. Applicants for a specific license to store reactor-related GTCC 
waste will be required to provide a Safety Analysis Report (SAR) 
describing their programs that will (1) ensure that adequate protective 
measures are in place to ensure safe storage within the ISFSI or MRS, 
and (2)

[[Page 51825]]

ensure that the co-location of this radioactive material will not have 
an adverse effect on the safe storage of spent fuel and the operation 
of the ISFSI or MRS. Safe storage of GTCC waste will be governed by the 
provisions of 10 CFR parts 20 and 72 and applicable guidance that is 
being developed in conjunction with this rule. Based on an acceptable 
review of the SAR, the NRC would issue a 10 CFR part 72 specific 
license. Current 10 CFR part 72 specific license holders would be 
required to submit a similar application to amend their 10 CFR part 72 
licenses if they desire to store GTCC waste at their ISFSIs.
    In developing the rule, the NRC was cognizant of both potential DOE 
disposal criteria for GTCC waste (to preclude allowing a storage option 
that is unacceptable for disposal) and potential adverse interactions 
between spent fuel and various types of GTCC waste. The NRC believes 
that properly addressing potential adverse conditions from commingling 
spent fuel with certain types of GTCC waste presents significant safety 
and technical issues. In addition, because the DOE has not yet 
identified criteria for a disposal package, the NRC is concerned that 
storage of GTCC waste and spent fuel in the same container may be 
unacceptable for placement in the geologic repository. Therefore, the 
rule precludes the commingling of GTCC waste and spent fuel, except on 
a case-by-case basis, because the NRC desires to formulate regulations 
that both reduce radiological exposure and costs associated with 
repackaging the spent fuel and GTCC waste into two separate containers 
for disposal. Note that this in no way changes the current NRC and 
industry practice of allowing the commingling of spent fuel and certain 
specific components associated with, and integral to, spent fuel (e.g., 
burnable poison rod assemblies, control rod elements, and thimble 
plugs). See the responses to comments 3 and 10 in the Comments on the 
Proposed Rule section for more specific information. In support of this 
rulemaking, the NRC is developing Interim Staff Guidance for NRC staff 
and licensee use in utilizing 10 CFR part 72 storage criteria for 
various GTCC waste types.
    This rule also precludes storage of liquid GTCC waste under 10 CFR 
part 72. However, there are alternatives for a 10 CFR part 50 licensee 
that desires to terminate its license yet still possesses liquid GTCC 
waste. These alternatives include the licensee's submission of an 
application for a 10 CFR part 30 or 70 license, with the appropriate 
conditions for storage of liquid GTCC waste.

Request for Public Input on Specific Issues

    The Commission sought input from stakeholders on various technical 
topics associated with the storage of GTCC waste. The stakeholders 
input and NRC's responses are contained in the Comments on the Proposed 
Rule section. The Commission considered these comments in the 
development of the final rule.

Regulatory Action

    The NRC is amending 10 CFR parts 30, 70, 72, and 150. The changes 
to these parts are necessary to allow the interim storage of NRC-
licensed reactor-related GTCC waste within an ISFSI or an MRS and to 
require that the licensing responsibility for this waste remain under 
Federal jurisdiction. This action addresses only GTCC waste used or 
generated by a commercial power reactor licensed under 10 CFR part 50 
(i.e., not a research reactor) and does not include any other sources 
of GTCC waste, nor does it include other forms of LLW generated under a 
10 CFR part 50 license. Because reactor-related GTCC waste is initially 
under Federal jurisdiction while the reactor facility is operated and 
the ultimate disposal of GTCC waste also is under Federal jurisdiction, 
the NRC believes that the interim period between termination of a 
reactor license and ultimate disposal also should remain under Federal 
jurisdiction. GTCC waste could become eligible for disposal in a 
geologic repository in the future. Spent fuel can be stored in an ISFSI 
or an MRS pending ultimate disposal. This Federal jurisdiction is 
unlike the Federal or Agreement State jurisdiction for the storage of 
Class A, B, and C reactor-related LLW that are currently being disposed 
in LLW disposal sites regulated by Agreement States. In addition, the 
storage time for Class A, B, and C LLW is expected to be short in 
comparison to the relatively long-term interim storage of GTCC waste. 
Therefore, for efficiency and consistency of licensing, the NRC 
concludes that 10 CFR part 72 should also be modified to allow the 
storage of GTCC waste within these facilities under exclusive NRC 
jurisdiction. A regulatory scheme which would allow for Federal 
jurisdiction over the generation of the GTCC waste, followed by State 
jurisdiction for interim storage, followed again by Federal 
jurisdiction over the disposal of GTCC waste, is an inefficient 
approach, that could lead to inconsistent regulation. Moreover, it is 
inefficient for NRC to spend scarce resources to license and inspect an 
ISFSI that stores spent fuel and for a State to spend scarce resources 
to license and inspect the same ISFSI for co-located GTCC waste. The 
NRC requested Agreement State input on ways in which Agreement States, 
if permitted to take jurisdiction over reactor-related GTCC waste, 
would ensure consistency with a national regulatory scheme. Only two 
States responded to this request. Though both States asserted that 
their programs would be compatible with Federal regulations, neither 
said that their programs would be identical. Indeed, one State argued 
that each State program should be evaluated on its own. The States have 
rightly pointed out that States have already developed regulatory 
programs for Class A, B, C, and non-reactor GTCC waste that adequately 
protect health and safety. The issue, however, is whether a regulatory 
scheme that would call for back and forth federal jurisdiction over 
reactor-related GTCC waste, and multiple States' jurisdiction over the 
same waste in between, promotes a reasonably predictable and stable 
regulatory environment. In NRC's view, the better reading of the 
applicable statutes is that reactor-related GTCC waste deserves special 
treatment, especially because of Federal responsibility for disposal of 
such waste, and it should be set apart from other waste and be subject 
to exclusive Federal jurisdiction over the storage of reactor-related 
GTCC waste. 10 CFR parts 30, 70, and 150 require conforming changes.
    In the section, ``NRC to Maintain Authority for Reactor-Related 
GTCC Waste,'' the Commission provides the regulatory basis upon which 
the NRC has determined that jurisdiction for storage of reactor-related 
GTCC waste will remain with the NRC. (Also see comment number 15.)
    This final rule will allow storage of reactor-related GTCC waste 
under a 10 CFR part 72 specific license. The changes will modify 10 CFR 
part 72 to allow storage of GTCC waste under this part using the 
appropriate criteria of 10 CFR part 72. This will provide a more 
efficient means of implementing what is essentially already permitted 
by the regulations (storage of GTCC waste co-located at an ISFSI or an 
MRS). When storing GTCC waste within an ISFSI or MRS, the licensee or 
applicant must provide a description of its program that ensures the 
storage of the GTCC waste will not have an adverse effect on the ISFSI 
or MRS or on public health and safety and the environment.
    The rule will not eliminate the current availability of storing 
GTCC

[[Page 51826]]

waste under the authority of a 10 CFR part 30 or 70 license. However, 
neither 10 CFR parts 30 nor 70 include explicit criteria for storage of 
GTCC waste. Therefore, a licensing process conducted under 10 CFR parts 
30 or 70 regulations would be more resource intensive because the 
licensee would need to develop new proposed storage criteria. If the 
licensee decides to obtain a 10 CFR part 30 or 70 license, the NRC will 
still maintain Federal jurisdiction over the reactor-related GTCC waste 
stored under 10 CFR parts 30 and 70.
    Comparing these two approaches, the NRC recognizes that the 
licensing process will be simpler with less regulatory burden if all 
the radioactive waste to be stored at an ISFSI or MRS is stored under 
the authority of one 10 CFR part 72 license. The regulations in 10 CFR 
part 72 were developed specifically for storage of spent fuel at an 
ISFSI and spent fuel and high-level waste at an MRS. Appropriate 10 CFR 
part 72 criteria will be applied to GTCC waste storage. Under 10 CFR 
parts 30 and 70, GTCC waste criteria would need to be developed on a 
case-by-case basis to support licensing under these parts. Also, using 
10 CFR part 72 to store reactor-related GTCC waste would eliminate the 
need for multiple licenses for the storage of spent fuel and GTCC 
waste.
    The NRC has evaluated the technical issues arising from the 
commingling of spent fuel and reactor-related GTCC waste in the same 
storage container, and issues arising from the storage of reactor-
related liquid GTCC waste, under a 10 CFR part 72 specific license. 
This final rule will permit the co-locating of spent fuel and solid 
reactor-related GTCC waste in different casks and containers within an 
ISFSI or MRS. However, the rule will not permit the commingling of 
spent fuel and GTCC waste in the same storage cask except on a case by 
case basis. The rule does not change the current practice of storing 
specific components associated with, and integral to, the spent fuel 
with spent fuel. Additionally, the rule will not permit the storage of 
liquid reactor-related GTCC waste.
    Without this change, prior to termination of the 10 CFR part 50 
license, a licensee would need to obtain multiple licenses to continue 
to store spent fuel and GTCC waste--10 CFR part 72 for spent fuel and 
10 CFR part 30 or 70 (or both) for GTCC waste. Having one license for 
the ISFSI (or MRS) under 10 CFR part 72 will be simpler for both 
licensees and the NRC.
    The NRC believes that the concept proposed in the petition of 
storing GTCC waste under the provisions of 10 CFR part 72 is valid. 
However, the NRC also concludes that the method proposed by the 
petitioner, that is modifying the definition of spent fuel to include 
GTCC waste, could lead to confusion and inefficiency. If GTCC waste is 
defined as spent fuel, DOE would be required to dispose of this waste 
in a deep geologic repository and would not have the flexibility to 
explore potentially more efficient disposal plans. The proposal could 
also require that GTCC waste use limited disposal space meant for 
wastes that require more stringent confinement.
    Therefore, the NRC is adding a definition of GTCC waste within 
Sec. 72.3 that will be consistent with 10 CFR 61.55. The NRC has 
evaluated 10 CFR part 72 to determine which sections need to be 
modified to accommodate storage of separate containers of solid GTCC 
waste co-located with spent fuel within an ISFSI or an MRS. The 
majority of the changes to 10 CFR part 72 will simply add the term 
``GTCC waste'' to the appropriate sections and paragraphs (typically 
immediately after the terms ``spent fuel'' or ``high-level waste''). In 
support of this rulemaking, the NRC is developing Interim Staff 
Guidance for NRC staff and licensee use in applying 10 CFR part 72 
storage criteria for various GTCC waste types.
    The regulations in 10 CFR part 150 are being modified to be 
consistent with the changes in 10 CFR part 72. The change to 10 CFR 
part 150 (Exemptions and Continued Regulatory Authority in Agreement 
States and in Offshore Waters Under Section 274) will specify that any 
GTCC waste stored in an ISFSI or an MRS is under NRC jurisdiction. 10 
CFR part 150 also is being modified to indicate that licensing the 
storage of any GTCC waste that originates in, or is used by, a facility 
licensed under 10 CFR part 50 (a production or utilization facility) is 
the responsibility of the NRC.
    The NRC has made changes to the final rule based on public comments 
(see the Response to Public Comments section) and has also determined 
(not based on public comments) that additional sections within 10 CFR 
part 72 needed to be removed or modified.
    A public comment resulted in the recognition of the need to modify 
10 CFR parts 30 and 70 to provide exceptions to the requirements in 
these parts when the GTCC waste is being stored under the provisions of 
10 CFR part 72. Without these changes, licensees would need 10 CFR 
part(s) 30 and/or 70 licenses in addition to the 10 CFR part 72 
license. Other comments resulted in clarification of the preamble and 
Sec. 72.120 with regard to the commingling of material that is 
associated with spent fuel assemblies.
    In addition, during the review of comments, NRC staff identified 
the need for several clarifications in the final rule that are not 
specifically based on public comments. The clarifying changes that NRC 
made are: Sec. 72.2(a) regarding power reactor-related GTCC waste is 
being modified to clarify that GTCC waste does not have to be stored in 
a complex that is designed and constructed specifically for storage of 
spent fuel; the definition in Sec. 72.3 of ``spent fuel cask or cask'' 
in the proposed rule is being withdrawn to eliminate an unnecessary 
storage requirement; Sec. 72.6 is being revised to indicate clearly 
that reactor-related GTCC waste, if stored under 10 CFR part 72, can 
only be stored under the provisions of a 10 CFR part 72 specific 
license; Sec. 72.24(r) in the proposed rule is being removed for 
consistency with 10 CFR part 50's handling of radioactive material; 
Sec. 72.40(b) in the proposed rule is being revised to correct an error 
(the proposed rule inadvertently removed existing text instead of 
adding a new introductory sentence) and to remove reference to the 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, which no longer exists; and 
Secs. 72.72, 72.76, and 72.78 are being modified to clarify the 
reporting requirements for special nuclear material as specified in 10 
CFR 74.13(a)(1).
    In a previous final rulemaking, ``Clarification and Addition of 
Flexibility'' (65 FR 50606; August 21, 2000), changes were made to 10 
CFR part 72. Section 72.140(c)(2) is the only section that is changed 
in both the previous and current rulemaking. The changes to this 
section in the current rulemaking are consistent with the 
``Clarification'' rulemaking changes.
    The NRC will continue to recover costs for generic activities 
related to the storage of GTCC waste under 10 CFR part 72 by means of 
annual fees assessed to the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning 
class of licensees under 10 CFR part 171. Subsequent to issuing the 
final revision to 10 CFR part 72, 10 CFR part 170 will be amended to 
clarify that full cost fees will be assessed for amendments and 
inspections related to the storage of GTCC waste under 10 CFR part 72.

NRC to Maintain Authority for Reactor-Related GTCC Waste

    Under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), Agreement 
States possess regulatory authority over radioactive waste only where 
the Commission has relinquished its pre-existing authority. Section 274

[[Page 51827]]

agreements cannot be understood as a general matter to relinquish 
Commission authority over reactor-related GTCC waste. These wastes are 
integrally related to the operation of reactors, because these wastes 
consist for the most part of activated metal reactor components such as 
core shrouds, support plates, nozzles, core barrels, and in-core 
instrumentation. When, under the section 274 program, the Commission 
reaches agreements with States and relinquishes regulatory jurisdiction 
to them, the Commission specifically retains authority over the 
``operation'' of reactors, as required by an NRC rule promulgated 
nearly 40 years ago. See 10 CFR 150.15(a)(1). That rule defines 
``operation'' as follows:
    As used in this subparagraph, operation of a facility includes, 
but is not limited to (i) the storage and handling of radioactive 
wastes at the facility site by the person licensed to operate the 
facility; and (ii) the discharge of radioactive effluents from the 
facility site.

Id. (Emphasis added).

    In short, NRC concludes that a State entering a section 274 
Agreement with the NRC does not (and cannot) acquire regulatory 
authority over reactor-related GTCC waste. Contrary to the view of a 
commenting State, issuance of a final rule asserting ongoing NRC 
jurisdiction over reactor-related GTCC waste does not take back 
previously-granted State authority or terminate an NRC-State agreement 
without abiding by the process set out in section 274(j) of the AEA. 
Nothing in the AEA, in NRC rules, or in NRC agreements with any of the 
commenting States even mentions reactor-related GTCC waste, let alone 
discontinues NRC jurisdiction over it. Hence, the Commission's decision 
in this rulemaking to exercise ongoing jurisdiction over this form of 
waste does not violate any provision of law.
    Specifically, with regard to the storage of reactor-related GTCC 
waste, the NRC will continue Federal authority over the GTCC waste 
after termination of the 10 CFR part 50 license. Thus, under the option 
of obtaining 10 CFR part 30 and/or 70 licenses, the GTCC waste will 
remain under Federal authority. If the option of obtaining a specific 
license under 10 CFR part 72 is chosen, the GTCC waste will also remain 
under Federal authority. This licensing authority will be irrespective 
of the physical location of the storage facility (either on or off the 
originating reactor site).
    However, this rule does not affect the States' long-standing 
practice of exercising regulatory jurisdiction over non-GTCC low-level 
radioactive waste originally generated at reactors, or over GTCC waste 
generated by materials licensees regulated by Agreement States. 
However, under 10 CFR 72.128(b), any LLW generated by the ISFSI (or an 
MRS) must be treated and stored onsite awaiting transfer to a disposal 
site. The licensing authority for treatment and storage of ISFSI or MRS 
generated LLW would be under 10 CFR part 72, and therefore, reserved to 
the NRC.
    For a more detailed discussion of jurisdictional issues, please see 
the responses to comments 15, 16, and 17.

Comments on the Proposed Rule

    This analysis presents a summary of the comments received on the 
proposed rule, the NRC's response to the comments, and changes made to 
the final rule as a result of these comments.
    The NRC received 18 comment letters. Five were from Agreement 
States (South Carolina, Illinois, Utah, New York, and Maine), ten from 
industry (including the Portland General Electric Company, the 
petitioner, and the Nuclear Energy Institute), one from the Department 
of Energy (DOE), one from a private citizen, and one from a consulting 
firm.
    In general, none of the commenters were opposed to the idea of 
storing reactor-related GTCC waste in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage 
Installation licensed under the provisions of 10 CFR part 72. However, 
four of the Agreement State commenters were opposed to restricting the 
licensing authority solely to the NRC and believe that NRC is not 
correctly interpreting the Atomic Energy Act. Utah is opposed to 
applying NRC sole jurisdiction to ``away-from-reactor ISFSIs'' because 
the State believes it could likely end up with GTCC waste indefinitely 
stored within its borders with no disposal option. South Carolina and 
New York believe the NRC and the State can effectively collaborate in 
the regulation of a single facility. Maine believes the rulemaking 
should be reconsidered because it is not advisable to allow the 
commingling of spent fuel and GTCC waste. The industry, DOE, the 
private citizen, and the consulting firm all generally supported the 
rulemaking and some provided specific recommendations to improve the 
final rule.
    The NRC, in the proposed rule, invited comments on (1) six specific 
topics dealing with safety, technical or licensing issues for the 
storage of GTCC waste and (2) three specific questions for Agreement 
State consideration. The comments on the proposed rule are generally 
contained within four categories. The first category contains general 
comments, followed by comments on commingling GTCC waste and spent fuel 
(these are mostly the comments identified in number 1 above), followed 
by State issues (these are mostly the comments identified in number 2 
above), and then other comments.
A. General Comments on the Proposed Rule:
    1. Support of the proposed rule (or support of the comments 
submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)).
    Comment: Thirteen of the 18 commenters provided specific comments 
in support of the concept of the proposed rule to store GTCC waste in 
an ISFSI. One of the supportive commenters was NEI, representing the 
industry, and three commenters also endorsed NEI's comments. As an 
example, one commenter noted that it had been actively involved with 
NEI on this issue and fully endorsed NEI's comments on behalf of the 
industry. The commenter specifically agreed with NRC's proposal to 
retain regulatory authority over GTCC waste during the interim period 
between reactor shutdown and prior to disposal. The commenter noted 
that there is no benefit to public safety and there is only a burden 
placed upon public resources to have regulatory authority shift to 
State authorities during this time.
    Another industry commenter stated that it supports NRC's proposed 
rulemaking and encouraged the NRC to continue the development of a rule 
which is prudent, practical, reasonable and consistent to ensure that 
the interim storage for GTCC waste is fair and equitable to all 
involved stakeholders. The commenter noted that the proposed rulemaking 
will: (1) Clarify NRC's handling of GTCC licensing, (2) be simpler, (3) 
result in less regulatory burden on licensees, (4) continue to consider 
the need to protect public health and safety, and (5) allow these waste 
streams to be stored in an ISFSI or an MRS under the authority of one 
10 CFR part 72 license.
    Response: Since these comments support the rulemaking, no response 
is necessary.
    2. Flexibility.
    Comment: An industry commenter believes that flexibility to manage 
GTCC waste using other methods than 10 CFR part 72 is in the best 
interest of public safety. The commenter noted that GTCC waste has been 
approved, on a case-by-case basis, for disposal at licensed LLW 
disposal facilities and believes this practice should be allowed to 
continue.
    Response: This rulemaking concerns only the storage of GTCC waste. 
However, see the response to comment numbers 15 and 17 for additional

[[Page 51828]]

information regarding GTCC waste disposal.
    3. Definition of spent fuel and GTCC waste.
    Comment: Two industry commenters believe the definition of GTCC 
waste should be changed. One commenter believes it should be defined as 
spent fuel, as recommended in the petition, and the other believes it 
should be defined as high-level waste. In either case, the commenters 
believe this change would simplify disposal.
    Three commenters, including DOE and NEI, note that the definition 
of spent fuel includes the special nuclear material, byproduct 
material, source material, and other radioactive materials associated 
with fuel assemblies (i.e., the non-fuel components associated with 
those fuel assemblies). See 10 CFR 72.3. Non-fuel components may be 
included as part of the spent fuel delivered for disposal under the 
``Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-
Level Radioactive Waste.'' See 10 CFR 961.11, Appendix E, B.2. The 
Standard Contract includes as non-fuel components, but is not limited 
to: control spiders, burnable poison rod assemblies, control rod 
elements, thimble plugs, fission chambers, primary and secondary 
neutron sources that are contained within the fuel assembly, and BWR 
channels that are an integral part of the fuel assembly. These same 
non-fuel components will ultimately be disposed of in the Federal 
repository in accordance with the Standard Contract. The commenters 
believe that the definition of reactor-related GTCC waste is unclear in 
that it might be seen to include those non-fuel components. The 
commenters believe that reactor-related GTCC waste should be limited to 
items such as reactor internals, filters, and resins.
    The commenters further state that the rule should clearly state 
that a licensing basis is being proposed for storage of both categories 
of material, spent fuel associated material and reactor-related GTCC 
waste in an ISFSI or an MRS under Federal jurisdiction. The commenters 
believe that without this clarification the rule could be 
misinterpreted to impose new requirements for licensees to demonstrate 
that non-fuel components also meet the radiological classification of 
GTCC waste as a condition of storage.
    Response: The NRC believes, at this time, that defining all GTCC 
waste as spent fuel or high-level waste for use in 10 CFR part 72 could 
lead to confusion and inefficiency. If GTCC waste is defined as spent 
fuel or high-level waste, DOE would be required to dispose of this 
waste in a deep geologic repository (e.g., Yucca Mountain) and would 
not have the flexibility to explore potentially more efficient disposal 
plans. This definition could also require that GTCC waste use limited 
disposal space meant for wastes that require more stringent 
confinement.
    The commenters noting that the definition of spent fuel in 10 CFR 
72.3 includes associated materials are correct. The NRC never intended 
to classify such material as GTCC waste. The proposed rule did not make 
it clear that, if this material were separated from the spent fuel, 
some of it might be GTCC waste. However, it is not deemed to be GTCC 
waste when it is placed within a spent fuel cask with the associated 
fuel assemblies. The NRC currently allows the storage of this material 
with spent fuel and this rulemaking will not make any change to this 
practice.
    Accordingly, the final rule is modified as follows: The NRC has 
clarified that the material associated with spent fuel assemblies is 
not GTCC waste and currently can and will continue to be allowed to be 
stored with spent fuel. The clarifications are being made within the 
preamble and Secs. 72.120(b), (c), and (e) have been modified to 
clarify what can and cannot be stored with spent fuel. In addition, the 
NRC is developing Interim Staff Guidance that will provide additional 
information for the NRC staff and licensees in determining which 
materials are associated with spent fuel.
    4. Proposed rule is premature.
    Comment: A State commenter believes that the rulemaking is 
premature and not within the spirit or letter of the Administrative 
Procedure Act because the proposed rule contains no separate design 
criteria for GTCC waste storage containers and reflects an expectation 
that the applicant will ensure that the co-location of GTCC waste does 
not adversely affect the safe storage of spent fuel and the operation 
of the ISFSI. The proposed rule solicited input on a number of issues, 
such as commingling, performance criteria, and the scope of material 
subject to the rule. Therefore, the commenter believes that the 
proposed rule is still in the beginning stages as there are significant 
decisions relating to technical, safety, and performance criteria yet 
to be made. In the commenter's view, the NRC should be soliciting 
comments on an explicit proposal. The commenter also believes that the 
NRC is seeking a way to make it financially more attractive for 
utilities to store GTCC waste after decommissioning and, in part, to 
solicit information from DOE on its GTCC disposal policies.
    Response: The Commission does not agree that this rulemaking is 
``premature and not within the spirit or the letter of the 
Administrative Procedure Act.'' In addition, this rulemaking responds 
to a petition for rulemaking submitted by Portland General Electric 
Company (PRM-72-2). The proposed rule provided a complete regulatory 
proposal and a set of questions for the purpose of soliciting 
additional information that would help form the basis for the final 
rule. We have received and reviewed all comments and thus have gained 
the additional information needed to finalize the Statement of 
Considerations and rule. Through this process, the public has had an 
adequate opportunity to respond.
    Based on public comments, the Commission has developed a final rule 
which is quite similar to the proposed rule. Changes made within the 
final rule clarify and correct inadvertent errors within the proposed 
rule, but do not make any fundamental changes in how the NRC proposed 
to license the storage of reactor-related GTCC waste in the proposed 
rule. The final rule addresses and responds to the issues raised by the 
commenters. The Commission does not anticipate any further rulemaking 
on the storage of reactor-related GTCC waste unless; (1) based on 
discussions with DOE and others, changes to the definition of GTCC 
waste are made, or (2) DOE develops disposal criteria for GTCC waste 
that would require corresponding changes.
    5. General license versus specific license.
    Comment: An industry commenter believes the wording in 10 CFR 
72.40(b) must be revised. As written, the application to convert a 
general license to a specific license for an existing ISFSI would be 
denied. As proposed, it would deny a license if construction on the 
facility begins before a finding approving issuance of the license with 
any appropriate conditions to protect environmental values. The ISFSI 
licensed under 10 CFR 72.210, a general license, is very likely to have 
been designed, constructed, and operated for years prior to the need to 
apply for a specific license. The commenter also believes the rule 
should clearly indicate which sections apply to a general license and 
which do not. The rule should provide for the storage of GTCC waste at 
an ISFSI for both general and specific licenses until the 10 CFR part 
50 license terminates.
    Response: This rulemaking relates to authorizing a 10 CFR part 72 
specific license holder, or applicant for a license, to store reactor-
related GTCC waste in an ISFSI or an MRS. The comments on transitioning 
from a 10 CFR part 72 general license to a 10 CFR

[[Page 51829]]

part 72 specific license are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. With 
regard to the commenter's request to indicate clearly which sections of 
10 CFR part 72 apply to general licensees and which apply to specific 
licensees, the NRC previously addressed this issue by adding a new 
Sec. 72.13 to 10 CFR part 72, in a final rule titled ``Clarification 
and Addition of Flexibility'' (65 FR 50606; August 21, 2000).
    The NRC disagrees with the commenter's suggestion to provide for 
the storage of GTCC waste under both 10 CFR part 72 general and 
specific licenses. As indicated in the proposed rule, because a 10 CFR 
part 72 general license is granted to a person holding a 10 CFR part 50 
license to possess or operate a power reactor and a 10 CFR part 50 
licensee would already be authorized (see Sec. 50.52) to possess 
radioactive material (including GTCC waste), there is no need for 
additional authority to possess and store reactor-related GTCC waste 
under the general license provisions of 10 CFR part 72. (See also 
response below).


    Note: In evaluating this comment, the NRC determined that 
portions of Sec. 72.40(b) were inadvertently omitted from the 
proposed rule. The text contained in the proposed rule was intended 
to be added to Sec. 72.40(b) instead of to replace this paragraph. 
Accordingly, the final rule is modified to contain the existing text 
with the modification from the proposed rule.


    6. General license.
    Comment: A consulting firm commented that the changes to 10 CFR 
72.6 extend the general license authorization for spent fuel in an 
ISFSI to include reactor-related GTCC waste. For clarity the proposed 
rule should include: (1) GTCC waste in the title of Subpart K, (2) the 
authorization for reactor-related GTCC waste in 10 CFR 72.210, (3) 
reactor-related GTCC waste in 10 CFR 72.212(a)(1) and (a)(2), (4) 
reactor-related GTCC waste in 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5)(ii), and (5) the 
authorization for reactor-related GTCC waste in 10 CFR 72.230(b).
    Response: The NRC agrees with the commenter that Sec. 72.6 of the 
proposed rule could be read as allowing the storage of reactor-related 
GTCC waste at an ISFSI under a general license. This was done 
inadvertently and was inconsistent with the overall intent of the 
proposed rule. Therefore, the NRC has revised Sec. 72.6 to indicate 
clearly that reactor-related GTCC waste only can be stored under the 
provisions of a specific license.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Not impacted by this rulemaking--10 CFR parts 30 and 70 do 
permit the storage of reactor-related GTCC waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Question from the proposed rule: If reactor licensees, after 
termination of their 10 CFR part 50 license, elect to store reactor-
related GTCC waste under the provisions of 10 CFR parts 30 and 70, is 
additional guidance needed to provide a more efficient licensing 
process?
    Comment: One State commenter believes that the same technical 
criteria should be developed and applied to storage of GTCC waste 
regardless of which licensing option a licensee selects.
    Of six industry commenters, some believe that additional guidance 
is needed while others do not believe additional guidance is needed. 
One commenter believes the NRC should spend its resources on 
legislative and regulatory changes that eliminate dual regulation and 
set one standard protecting public health and safety. Another commenter 
believes additional guidance should be provided regarding the steps to 
obtain a 10 CFR parts 30 and 70 license prior to termination of a 10 
CFR part 50 license. The guidance should be simple and include 
consideration of facility history, design, experience, and backfit 
costs of upgrading to newer regulations as a result of transfer to 10 
CFR parts 30 and 70 licenses.
    Response: The NRC does not believe that additional guidance 
specifically for 10 CFR parts 30 and 70 licenses is needed. However, if 
the NRC were to develop guidance for storage of reactor-related GTCC 
waste under a 10 CFR part 30 or 70 license, such guidance would be 
consistent with 10 CFR part 72. The NRC prefers that reactor-related 
GTCC waste be stored under the provisions of 10 CFR part 72. Therefore, 
to promote effectiveness and efficiency, the NRC is deferring 
development of any guidance for 10 CFR parts 30 and 70. However, any 
application for a 10 CFR part 30 or 70 license may use, to the extent 
appropriate (considering the case-by-case criteria the application 
would be proposing), the guidance developed for 10 CFR part 72 in 
submission of an application. In conjunction with this rule NRC staff 
is developing Interim Staff Guidance for storage of reactor-related 
GTCC waste under a 10 CFR part 72 specific license.
    8. Standard Review Plan revisions.
    Comment: An industry commenter believes that associated changes to 
the Standard Review Plan to clarify the regulations after their 
issuance should be given high priority.
    Response: In support of this rulemaking, the NRC is developing 
Interim Staff Guidance for NRC staff and licensee use in utilizing 10 
CFR part 72 storage criteria for various GTCC waste types. This 
guidance will be incorporated into the next revision of the Spent Fuel 
Project Office Standard Review Plans.
    9. Necessary changes to other 10 CFR Parts.
    Comment: An industry commenter believes additional changes are 
necessary to 10 CFR parts 30 and 70, (and 10 CFR part 40 for 
completeness) for licensees to take full advantage of the proposed 
changes to 10 CFR part 72. The regulations in 10 CFR parts 30 and 70 
need to identify exceptions in order to identify that 10 CFR part 72 
would address possession of GTCC waste for those licensees who utilize 
an ISFSI following termination of their 10 CFR part 50 licenses. The 
exception in 10 CFR 70.1(c) needs to be expanded to include GTCC waste. 
Similar changes to 10 CFR 30.1 (and 10 CFR 40.1 for completeness), 
which do not currently include exception language similar to 10 CFR 
70.1(c), also need to be made. The commenter believes that without 
these changes to 10 CFR part 30 and 70, specific licenses would 
continue to be required under these parts, as appropriate.
    Response: The NRC agrees in part with the commenter. Changes to 10 
CFR 30.11(b) and 10 CFR 70.1(c) are made to identify that 10 CFR part 
72 specific licensees who possess power reactor-related GTCC waste 
within an ISFSI will be exempt from the requirements in 10 CFR parts 30 
and 70, to the extent that its activities are licensed under the 
requirements of 10 CFR part 72. However, the NRC does not believe that 
changes are necessary to 10 CFR part 40 because there should be no need 
for a source material license at an ISFSI or an MRS.
    Accordingly, the final rule will revise 10 CFR 30.11 (b) and 10 CFR 
70.1(c) as follows:
    30.11(b) Any licensee's activities are exempt from the requirements 
of this part to the extent that its activities are licensed under the 
requirements of part 72 of this chapter.
    70.1(c) The regulations in part 72 of this chapter establish 
requirements, procedures, and criteria for the issuance of licenses to 
possess:
    (1) Spent fuel, power reactor-related Greater than Class C (GTCC) 
waste, and other radioactive materials associated with spent fuel 
storage in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), or
    (2) Spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, power reactor-related 
GTCC waste, and other radioactive materials associated with the storage 
in a monitored retrievable storage

[[Page 51830]]

installation (MRS), and the terms and conditions under which the 
Commission will issue such licenses.
B. Commingling of GTCC Waste and Spent Fuel
    10. Question from the proposed rule: Should the storage of certain 
forms of GTCC waste and spent fuel in the same cask be prohibited? Or, 
should storage be permitted if performance criteria can be established? 
If so, what criteria should be used?
    Comment: A State commenter believes that commingling should be 
prohibited without firm criteria for each chemical type of GTCC waste 
and the particular cask design. Assurance of chemical compatibility and 
ultimate cask structural integrity must be established. Without DOE 
disposal criteria for multi-purpose casks, spent fuel may have to be 
handled more than once prior to disposal, and commingling will just 
complicate matters even more. The commenter believes that DOE should 
promptly promulgate disposal criteria. Another State commenter opposes 
any commingling of spent fuel and GTCC waste that contain resins which 
are composed of water and plastic because the high heat in spent fuel 
canisters can evaporate and build up pressure within a canister. A 
third State commenter urges the NRC to reconsider the proposed 
rulemaking as it believes that it is not advisable to allow commingling 
of spent fuel and GTCC waste at this time. The commenter noted that the 
incremental cost of additional GTCC waste canisters would be small 
relative to the total ISFSI costs and there would be a substantial risk 
by a licensee given the absence of criteria governing what constitutes 
an acceptable disposal package. Precluding commingling would also avoid 
technical issues when either moving the canisters or if re-licensing 
becomes necessary for spent fuel storage containers at the end of a 20-
year license.
    DOE supports the position that storage of commingled non-fuel 
bearing GTCC waste with spent fuel is acceptable under certain 
conditions. However, the DOE shares NRC's concern that commingled 
canisters may need to be opened and the GTCC waste separated prior to 
disposal. Therefore, any commingling decision needs to consider 
potential additional costs and radiological exposures associated with 
reopening a canister and removing the GTCC waste prior to acceptance by 
DOE of the spent fuel.
    All six industry commenters on this topic support commingling when 
justified through a safety analysis. For example, one commenter 
believes that commingling has significant advantages and noted that 
many decommissioning reactors will only have about 15 cubic feet of 
GTCC waste. The advantages are reduced costs and reduced waste volume 
due to the more efficient utilization of canister volume. However, the 
commenter noted that, without a clear and defined position from DOE 
that it will accept commingled canisters, the utilities would take 
significant risks to commingle because the casks may need to be opened 
and the waste separated. This could be a tremendous burden for 
decommissioned reactor licensees because they would no longer have the 
necessary facilities and personnel to reopen the cask and repackage the 
waste. However, one commenter noted that in DOE's, ``Viability 
Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain, Volume 2,'' dated 
December 1998, that it is DOE's design intention to open packages of 
commercial spent fuel received at Yucca Mountain. Therefore, DOE 
clearly has the opportunity to segregate the GTCC waste with little 
impact upon operations. The commenter also noted that commingling 
allows safer and more efficient management of GTCC waste. In some 
cases, during the first 20 years or more after reactor shutdown, GTCC 
waste, on a weight basis, can produce higher radiation doses than a 
spent fuel assembly. The GTCC waste could be placed in the center of a 
container and surrounded by spent fuel bundles to provide additional 
shielding.
    Response: In 10 CFR 72.3, other radioactive materials associated 
with fuel assemblies are defined as spent fuel and storage of such 
materials within an ISFSI is the industry standard practice. These non-
fuel components associated with fuel assemblies were designed for use 
inside the operating plant's reactor vessel with no risk to plant 
safety. The rule is not intended to change the previous guidance given 
on the storage of non-fuel components such as control rod elements, 
burnable poison rod assemblies, and thimble plugs. The NRC expectation 
is that these types of components will be stored and disposed of as 
part of the spent fuel assembly packages. The NRC recognizes that some 
of these components, if removed from fuel assemblies, could be 
classified as GTCC waste. The NRC's approach is to consider these non-
fuel components as spent fuel and not as GTCC waste if they are stored 
with the associated spent fuel. The NRC believes that appropriate 
interim storage for these non-fuel components should be with the 
associated spent fuel.
    However, with respect to GTCC waste which is not integral to spent 
fuel assemblies, the NRC has concluded that, in general, GTCC waste 
should not be stored in the same cask with spent fuel. The NRC believes 
that properly addressing potential adverse conditions from commingling 
spent fuel with certain types of GTCC waste presents significant safety 
and technical issues. In addition, because the DOE has not yet 
identified criteria for a disposal package, the NRC is concerned that 
storage of GTCC waste and spent fuel in the same container may be 
unacceptable for placement in the geologic repository. Therefore, the 
rule precludes the commingling of GTCC waste and spent fuel, except on 
a case-by-case basis, because the NRC desires to formulate regulations 
that both reduce radiological exposure and costs associated with 
repackaging the spent fuel and GTCC waste into two separate containers 
for disposal.
    The NRC would review and approve certain commingling on a case-by-
case basis for GTCC waste composed of solid metal components. This 
storage arrangement would be undertaken at the licensee's risk that 
segregation of this material may be required prior to transporting the 
spent fuel for final disposal. The NRC would expect that a licensee's 
decision to commingle solid metal components with spent fuel would 
consider economic factors regarding the possibility that future 
segregation may be required for transportation and final disposal 
within a high-level waste repository or at a separate GTCC waste 
disposal facility. The incremental cost of storing separate GTCC waste 
canisters might be a relatively small increase in the total ISFSI 
costs. However, when DOE does provide disposal criteria, the NRC 
expects to revise the regulations for storage of GTCC waste to be 
consistent with DOE disposal requirements, if necessary.
    The NRC agrees that resin and plastic material should not be 
commingled with spent fuel. Resins and plastic materials may contain 
organic compounds that may degrade under the thermal and radiolytic 
conditions present inside a spent fuel storage cask. The products of 
this decomposition may be corrosive and/or flammable (both solids and 
gases). As a result, these decomposition products might adversely 
affect the integrity of the spent fuel cladding. The NRC concludes, 
however, that resins and plastics that may be classified as GTCC waste 
can be safely stored at an ISFSI in a separate container as long as the 
material has been solidified.

[[Page 51831]]

    With respect to the comment that DOE intends to open packages at 
Yucca Mountain, the NRC specifically requested additional information 
from DOE on its current intentions with regard to disposal of GTCC 
waste. In response to the proposed rule, DOE did not provide 
information that causes the NRC to conclude that GTCC waste will be 
accepted for disposal at Yucca Mountain if this site should be selected 
as a repository. Therefore, after disposal criteria have been 
established by DOE, the NRC can revise its regulations and guidance, if 
necessary.
    11. Question from the proposed rule: Should the storage of 
explosive, pyrophoric, combustible, or chemically reactive GTCC waste 
be prohibited in either commingled or separate GTCC casks? Or should 
storage be permitted if performance criteria can be established? If so, 
what criteria should be used?
    Comment: The one State commenter believes its comment to question 
10 applies to questions 11 through 14; that is, to prohibit 
commingling. Also, if the waste is explosive, pyrophoric, combustible, 
or chemically reactive, it should not be stored, or stored in its own 
specially designed cask.
    Five industry commenters believe that with the proper conditions 
(e.g., limited capacity, relief devices, neutron absorbers, and the 
introduction of a moderator) these waste types can be safely stored 
but, as noted by one commenter, storage with these waste 
characteristics should only be allowed after appropriate conditioning 
to eliminate such characteristics. Also, storage should be allowed only 
if under worst-case conditions, an accident would not endanger public 
health and safety. Another commenter noted that it is highly unlikely 
that such material would be in reactor decommissioning GTCC waste.
    Response: The NRC has concluded that GTCC waste that is explosive, 
pyrophoric, combustible or chemically reactive should only be stored at 
an ISFSI or an MRS if this material is solidified and stabilized. For 
these types of materials, the licensee programs must ensure that an 
analysis is conducted to show that these materials can be safely stored 
for the full period of the ISFSI or MRS license. The NRC concludes that 
this type of material, once stabilized and solidified, should be stored 
within a separate container as noted in response to question 9. The 
expectation is that the licensee's programs would ensure the design 
criteria address accident conditions, pressure buildup, and special 
shielding requirements, and that released gases meet off-site 
radiological limits.
    12. Question from the proposed rule: Should the storage of GTCC 
that may generate or release gases via radiolytic or thermal 
decomposition, including flammable gases, be prohibited in either 
commingled or separate GTCC casks? Or should storage be permitted if 
performance criteria can be established? If so, what criteria should be 
used?
    Comment: One State commenter believes its comment to question 10 
applies to questions 11 through 14; that is, to prohibit commingling. 
The other State commenter opposes any commingling of spent fuel and 
GTCC waste that contain resins which are composed of water and plastic 
because the high heat in spent fuel canisters can cause evaporation and 
the build up of pressure within a canister. The commenter opposes any 
mixture of gas-generating materials within a storage container.
    Five industry commenters believe that with the proper conditions 
(e.g., quantities of gas released will not exceed safe limits) this 
waste type can be safely stored. Also, storage should be allowed only, 
if under worst-case conditions, an accident would not endanger public 
health and safety. Another commenter noted that it is highly unlikely 
that such material would be in reactor decommissioning GTCC waste.
    Response: The NRC has concluded that GTCC waste that may release 
gases via radiolytic or thermal decomposition, including flammable 
gases, should only be stored at an ISFSI if this material is solidified 
and stabilized to minimize these characteristics. For these types of 
materials, the licensee programs must ensure that an analysis is 
conducted to show that these materials can be safely stored for the 
full period of the ISFSI or MRS license. The NRC concludes that this 
type of material, once stabilized and solidified, should be stored 
within a separate container as noted in response to question 9. The 
expectation is that the licensee's programs would ensure the design 
criteria address accident conditions, pressure buildup, and that 
released gases meet off-site radiological limits.
    13. Question from the proposed rule: Should the storage of solid 
GTCC waste that may contain free liquid (e.g., dewatered resin) be 
prohibited in either commingled or separate GTCC casks? Or should 
storage be permitted if performance criteria can be established? If so, 
what criteria should be used?
    Comment: The one State commenter believes its comment to question 
10 applies to questions 11 through 14; that is, to prohibit 
commingling.
    Five industry commenters provided differing views: some believe 
that GTCC waste that may contain free liquids should not be commingled 
with spent fuel, while others believe that it should be allowed if 
supported by a Safety Analysis Report. One commenter noted that it is 
highly unlikely that such material would be in reactor decommissioning 
GTCC waste (i.e., dewatered resins from reactor plants are not GTCC 
waste).
    Response: The NRC has concluded that solid GTCC waste that contains 
free liquids should be treated to remove excess free liquids prior to 
storage at an ISFSI or an MRS. For this solidified material, the 
licensee's programs must ensure that an analysis is conducted to show 
that these materials can be safely stored for the full period of the 
ISFSI or MRS license. The NRC concludes that this type of material, 
once solidified, should be stored within a separate container as noted 
in response to question 9. The expectation is that the licensee's 
programs would ensure the design criteria address accident conditions, 
pressure buildup, and that released gases meet off-site radiological 
limits.
    14. Question from the proposed rule: Should the storage of liquid 
GTCC waste be prohibited in either commingled or separate GTCC casks? 
Or should storage be permitted if performance criteria can be 
established? If so, what criteria should be used?
    Comment: The one State commenter believes its comment to question 
10 applies to questions 11 through 14; that is, to prohibit 
commingling.
    Five industry commenters provided differing views: some believe 
that liquid GTCC waste should not be commingled with spent fuel, while 
others believe that it should be allowed if supported by a Safety 
Analysis Report. One commenter noted that it is highly unlikely that 
such material would be in reactor decommissioning GTCC waste.
    Response: The NRC has concluded that liquid GTCC waste should be 
solidified prior to storage at an ISFSI or an MRS. For this solidified 
material, the licensee's programs must ensure that an analysis is 
conducted to show that these materials can be safely stored for the 
full period of the ISFSI or MRS license. The NRC concludes that this 
type of material, once solidified, should be stored within a separate 
container as noted in response to question 9. The expectation is that 
the licensee's programs would ensure the design criteria address 
accident conditions, pressure buildup, and that release gases meet off-
site radiological limits.

[[Page 51832]]

C. Agreement State Issues (Including Specific Questions for Agreement 
States in the Proposed Rule):
    15. From the proposed rule: What is the position of the Agreement 
States on NRC assuming jurisdiction of storage of GTCC waste generated 
during the operation of a 10 CFR part 50 license after termination of 
the 10 CFR part 50 license?
    Comment: Only four of the 32 Agreement States responded to this 
question, but none supported the NRC's exercise of jurisdiction. The 
four States' reasons varied. The first State commenter, South Carolina, 
does not view favorably relinquishing what it regards as its 
jurisdiction over reactor-related GTCC waste because, in South 
Carolina's view, the waste is composed of radioactive materials which 
Agreement States can be authorized to regulate under the AEA. South 
Carolina also noted that, although the Low Level Radioactive Waste 
Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA) clearly makes the Federal 
government responsible for the disposal of GTCC waste, it is silent on 
the responsibility for the interim storage of this waste. Therefore, 
South Carolina believes that the States can have some jurisdiction over 
the management and storage of these wastes and other low-level waste at 
decommissioned 10 CFR part 50 facilities. South Carolina says that it 
may also want to have all GTCC waste stored at a central location 
rather than at numerous sites throughout the State. South Carolina also 
believes that the NRC and an Agreement State could effectively 
collaborate in the regulation of a single facility to avoid duplication 
of efforts and dual regulation. South Carolina believes that any GTCC 
waste storage facility constructed outside the restricted exclusion 
area of a reactor would be clearly subject to State jurisdiction. 
Further, South Carolina reports that, on a case-by-case basis, it 
allows temporary storage of selected GTCC waste (less than one percent 
above Class C limits) from 10 CFR part 50 licensees at its Barnwell 
low-level waste disposal facility prior to disposing of this waste and 
wants to maintain licensing authority for reactor-related GTCC waste in 
order to continue this practice.
    The second State commenter, Illinois, objects to what it sees as 
the NRC's disregard of the AEA of 1954, as amended, and of the 
Agreement between the NRC and the State of Illinois under section 274b 
of the AEA. Illinois noted that section 274b authorizes the NRC to 
discontinue, and an Agreement State to assume, regulatory authority 
over radioactive material, including byproduct material, source 
material, and special nuclear material in quantities not sufficient to 
form a critical mass, and Illinois believes that the NRC has 
relinquished its authority over these materials in its Agreement with 
Illinois. Further, section 274j of the AEA specifies the conditions 
under which the NRC can terminate or suspend all or part of an 
Agreement and reassert authority. Illinois also argues that neither of 
the two reasons the AEA gives for termination of an Agreement with an 
Agreement State--that the Agreement State has either failed to protect 
the public health and safety or failed to comply with requirements in 
section 274 of the AEA--is applicable to licensing the storage of GTCC 
waste, and neither reason is asserted in the proposed rule. Illinois 
says that the AEA provides the NRC with no authority to unilaterally 
modify Agreements with Agreement States, either by administrative fiat 
or by rule. Illinois disputes that the requirement, in section 274c of 
the AEA, that forbids NRC discontinuance of its authority to license 
the construction and operation of production and utilization facilities 
provides NRC with the authority ``to dictate that Agreement States no 
longer have authority to license storage of GTCC waste at a facility 
that is no longer licensed as a production or utilization facility.''
    The third State commenter, Utah, does not believe that the NRC 
should ``usurp'' State authority for licensing GTCC waste under 10 CFR 
parts 30, 70, or 72, once a reactor is decommissioned. The State says 
there are other areas in which jurisdiction over AEA materials may be 
either State or Federal. The State believes that, after 
decommissioning, and especially where spent fuel is shipped offsite, 
the State should have a significant regulatory presence. (The commenter 
also believes that only the NRC should license GTCC waste storage 
casks.)
    The fourth State commenter, New York, does not support what it 
calls the ``carte blanche'' relinquishment of its regulatory authority. 
New York believes that it has effectively collaborated with the NRC in 
the regulation of single facilities and is not aware of any problems. 
New York believes that cooperative effort can minimize duplication and 
maximize the value of limited resources while still allowing both 
regulatory entities to retain their current regulatory authority. New 
York believes relinquishment could be considered on a case-by-case 
basis where regulatory duplication could not be minimized or a 
Memorandum of Understanding could not be developed to resolve 
problematic issues.
    Response: Until this rulemaking, which opens a clear path to 
storage of reactor-related GTCC waste co-located with spent fuel in an 
ISFSI or an MRS after termination of a 10 CFR part 50 license, the 
Commission has not had occasion to examine systematically the interplay 
between NRC and Agreement State jurisdiction over reactor-related GTCC 
waste. The LLRWPAA assigns to the Federal government the ultimate 
responsibility for disposal of GTCC waste, but no statute or regulation 
has explicitly addressed the storage of such waste. After considering 
all comments received during the rulemaking, and after examining 
carefully the underlying regulatory and statutory scheme, the 
Commission concludes that the NRC should retain regulatory jurisdiction 
over reactor-related GTCC waste after termination of a reactor's 10 CFR 
part 50 license.
    The Commission's position follows directly from the existing 
Agreements the NRC and the States have entered into under section 274 
of the AEA, and it is consistent with other law and with sound policy. 
Under section 274, Agreement States possess regulatory authority over 
radioactive waste only where the Commission has relinquished its 
preexisting authority. No Agreement explicitly mentions reactor-related 
GTCC waste, and though some Agreement States have programs for storage 
and disposal of non-reactor-related GTCC waste--programs that have been 
found compatible with the NRC's own program for regulating such 
wastes--section 274 Agreements cannot be understood as a general matter 
to relinquish Commission authority over reactor-related GTCC waste. 
These wastes are integrally related to the operation of reactors 
because these wastes consist for the most part of activated metal 
reactor components such as core shrouds, support plates, nozzles, core 
barrels, and in-core instrumentation. The Commission has reserved to 
itself matters integral to the operation of reactors. Thus, when, under 
the section 274 program, the Commission reaches Agreements with States 
and relinquishes regulatory jurisdiction to them, the Commission 
specifically retains authority over the ``operation'' of reactors, as 
required by an NRC rule promulgated nearly 40 years ago. Section 
150.15(a)(1) of 10 CFR defines ``operation'' as follows:

    As used in this subparagraph, operation of a facility includes, 
but is not limited to (i) the storage and handling of radioactive 
wastes at the facility site by the person licensed to

[[Page 51833]]

operate the facility; and (ii) the discharge of radioactive 
effluents from the facility site.

Id. (Emphasis added.)

    In short, a State entering a section 274 Agreement with the NRC 
does not, and cannot, acquire regulatory authority over reactor-related 
GTCC waste. Thus, the Commission's assertion of ongoing NRC 
jurisdiction over reactor-related GTCC waste does not take back 
previously-granted State authority or terminate an NRC-State 
Agreement.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission's action today serves to preserve NRC 
jurisdiction over reactor-related GTCC waste both at the facility 
site, which is where most such waste now resides, and at other 
locations. Although Sec. 150.15(a)(1)(i) refers only to waste ``at 
the facility site,'' that language is not confining because of the 
``is-not-limited-to'' preamble. Our conclusion that such waste 
should be subject to exclusive NRC jurisdiction is reinforced by 
considering Sections 274(c)(1) and (4) of the AEA and by Sections 
3(b)(1)(d) and 3(b)(2) of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy 
Amendments Act, discussed subsequently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The approach just outlined is consistent with the AEA. Section 274 
itself requires continued Commission authority over basic reactor 
operation even after entry of Agreements. See AEA, section 274(c)(1). 
Section 274 also contemplates continued Commission authority over 
``disposal'' of certain types of waste material ``because of the 
hazards or potential hazards thereof.'' See AEA, section 274(c)(4). The 
final rule the Commission issues today is consistent with these 
statutory provisions, because the GTCC waste over which the rule 
retains Commission jurisdiction was used by or generated at operating 
reactors and can reasonably be regarded as waste whose ``potential 
hazards'' warrant ultimate disposal under NRC supervision.
    This conclusion is strongly reinforced by more recent statutory 
enactments specifically dealing with the handling of radioactive 
wastes. The Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act assigns 
to the Federal government the ultimate responsibility for disposal of 
GTCC waste, and to the NRC the responsibility for regulating the 
disposal of GTCC waste generated by NRC licensees. See sections 
3(b)(1)(D) and 3(b)(2) of the LLRWPAA.\5\ The two principal facts 
behind these sections were that most States did not want to be 
ultimately responsible for the disposal of GTCC waste, and that the 
States did not want the GTCC waste buried in DOE's existing unlicensed 
low-level waste burial sites. Nonetheless, these sections have been 
read broadly enough to permit disposal of GTCC waste in facilities run 
by States or private entities--as long as the Federal government was 
satisfied that the disposal provided adequate protection of public 
health and safety--and to permit compatible Agreement State regulation 
of some GTCC waste stored and disposed of in a State or private 
facility. See, e.g., 54 FR 22578, 22579 (May 25, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section 3(b)(1)(D) says, ``The Federal Government shall be 
responsible for the disposal of * * * any * * * low-level 
radioactive waste with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed 
the limits established by the Commission for class C radioactive 
waste * * *.'' Section 3(b)(2) says, ``All radioactive waste 
designated a Federal responsibility pursuant to subparagraph 
(b)(1)(D) that results from activities licensed by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission * * * shall be disposed of in a facility 
licensed by the * * * Commission * * *.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the same statutory language cannot be read so broadly as 
to empower States to regulate storage and disposal of any and all GTCC 
waste. That is clearly the case with disposal. Indeed, the language of 
these two sections could more reasonably be read to prohibit the States 
from any regulation of disposal of reactor-related GTCC waste 
whatsoever. As for storage, these sections cannot be interpreted as 
allowing to Agreement States blanket and unlimited authority over 
storage of GTCC waste. Because the NRC indisputably has jurisdiction 
over GTCC waste while a reactor licensed under 10 CFR Part 50 is being 
operated and similarly has jurisdiction over its disposal, it is 
reasonable for the NRC to retain regulatory authority over GTCC waste 
during the interim period--i.e., between the time when the reactor is 
shut down and the time the GTCC waste goes to disposal. This is 
especially the case when, as many reactor owners contemplate, the GTCC 
waste could be stored along with NRC-regulated spent fuel in an NRC-
regulated ISFSI or MRS. Low-level radioactive waste not exceeding the 
Class C limits is different, because no statute assigns the Federal 
government ultimate responsibility for disposal, or the NRC explicit 
responsibility for regulating disposal of such waste. Thus, issuance of 
this final rule does not affect the States' long-standing practice of 
exercising regulatory jurisdiction over non-GTCC low-level radioactive 
waste originally generated at reactors, or over GTCC waste generated by 
materials licensees regulated by Agreement States.
    The alternative to NRC jurisdiction over reactor-related GTCC waste 
stored onsite or in an ISFSI or MRS is a regulatory scheme that calls 
for not one shift of regulatory authority, as in the case of Class A, 
B, or C low-level reactor waste, but two shifts of regulatory 
authority, one at plant shutdown, and the other at disposal. It is 
difficult to see the practical sense in this, let alone a practical 
necessity.
    The NRC agrees that States can work well with the NRC, and although 
the NRC is retaining regulatory authority over the storage and disposal 
of reactor-related GTCC waste, there are a number of ways States may 
participate in NRC regulation, as the States know from experience. For 
example, the Commission will continue to adhere to its Policy 
Statement, ``Cooperation with States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plant 
and Other NuclearProduction or Utilization Facilities'' (57 FR 6462; 
February 25, 1992), which allows States to develop specific 
arrangements, such as exchange of information, State observation of NRC 
inspection activities, and placement of State resident engineers at 
nuclear power plants. Nonetheless, that the NRC and an Agreement State 
can work well together does not prove that they both should have 
regulatory authority at an NRC-regulated ISFSI that contains a cask 
with spent fuel, regulated by the NRC, co-located with reactor-related 
GTCC waste.
    16. From the proposed rule: What controls and regulatory frameworks 
would the Agreement States envision, assuming they have jurisdiction 
over GTCC waste generated during the operation under a 10 CFR Part 50 
license after termination of the 10 CFR part 50 license? How would the 
Agreement States plan to ensure consistency with a national regulatory 
scheme?
    Comment: Only two States responded. The first said that it cannot 
say what other Agreement States could do, and that each State should be 
evaluated on its own. But this State nevertheless claimed that GTCC 
waste is similar to Class B and C waste, which States have regulated 
for years. The State believes it has the experience and capability 
needed to establish the controls and regulatory framework comparable to 
NRC standards. It therefore believes that it is capable of 
administering 10 CFR part 72 standards. The second State argued that 
consistency with a national regulatory scheme for storage of GTCC waste 
would be ensured in the same manner in which the consistency of other 
Agreement State regulation in other areas is ensured. The second State 
envisions establishing controls and a regulatory framework that are 
compatible with the NRC's for this type of waste storage.
    Response: With so few responses, the NRC cannot form a clear 
picture of how the Agreement States would regulate storage of reactor-
related GTCC waste so as to ensure consistency with a national program 
for regulating such waste. As we note in the response to the next

[[Page 51834]]

question, some State regulation of the storage and disposal of some 
marginally reactor-related GTCC waste has already occurred in a way 
that is consistent with a coherent national program that protects 
public health and safety. But the question here is whether such a 
program can be established that would permit State regulation of all 
GTCC waste as a general matter, no matter what the activity level, no 
matter how integrally related to reactor operation, and no matter 
whether stored with spent fuel or not. It is certainly true, as one of 
the States said, that the NRC has authority under section 274 of the 
AEA to take steps that help assure that State programs are 
``compatible'' with the NRC's own programs. Indeed, it is the NRC's 
responsibility to work to ensure such compatibility. Nonetheless, only 
the Agreement States can establish and maintain compatible programs. 
The NRC can only assess the degree of compatibility and protection of 
health and safety, through the Integrated Materials Performance 
Evaluation Program, and take the steps necessary to seek to ensure 
compatibility and protection of health and safety where it is missing. 
Under circumstances in which the NRC must exercise jurisdiction of GTCC 
waste during reactor operations and at the time of disposal, the NRC 
does not have a strong practical justification for allowing States to 
exercise jurisdiction over storage in the interim period before 
disposal. At this time, it is unclear whether a consistent national 
regulatory scheme could be established and maintained if States 
exercised jurisdiction over storage of all such wastes.
    17. From the proposed rule: The NRC staff is not aware of any 
current Agreement State license for the storage of reactor-related GTCC 
waste. Are there any such licenses within your State or are you aware 
of any such Agreement State licenses?
    Comment: Two States commented. Illinois reports that it does not 
have any reactor-related GTCC waste under license. South Carolina 
reports that it allows temporary storage of some approved GTCC waste 
from 10 CFR part 50 licensees (less than 1 percent above Class C 
limits) while awaiting disposal at its licensed Barnwell low-level 
waste facility. South Carolina also licenses the partially 
decommissioned Carolinas-Virginia Nuclear Power Associates (CVNPA) 
reactor, a commercial test reactor sponsored by a consortium of power 
companies. This reactor was formerly licensed by the Atomic Energy 
Commission (AEC), but its AEC 10 CFR part 50 license was terminated 
after the reactor was shut down and placed in a SAFSTOR decommissioned 
status. Concurrent with the termination of the facility license, the 
AEC issued a Byproduct Material License which authorized CVNPA to 
possess and store the byproduct material in the remaining structures 
and dismantled parts. In 1969, the AEC transferred this Byproduct 
Material License to South Carolina. The site is currently undergoing 
complete decommissioning and dismantlement. South Carolina states that 
``(a)lthough waste classification of the irradiated reactor components 
(is) not complete, it is likely there will be some GTCC waste that may 
require licensure by the State for interim storage, or may be 
transferred to one of their parent 10 CFR part 50 licensees for 
storage.''
    Response: We note that South Carolina currently regulates storage 
and disposal of some reactor-related GTCC waste at its Barnwell low-
level waste disposal facility. It is South Carolina's practice, as 
noted in its comment, to accept for storage and disposal at Barnwell 
only reactor-related waste that is less than 1 percent above the NRC's 
limits for Class C low-level waste on a case-by-case basis. There is no 
significant difference between the way such waste should be handled and 
the way South Carolina handles Class C low-level waste. Thus the 
Commission does not seek any change in South Carolina's practice. 
Moreover, there is no question that the States will continue to 
exercise their current jurisdiction over low-level waste other than 
GTCC waste, and over GTCC waste that is not reactor-related. With 
respect to the CVNPA site, if it turns out that some reactor-related 
GTCC waste results from the further characterization and 
decommissioning work planned for this site, South Carolina will need to 
consult with the NRC as to the appropriate management of this waste.
D. Other Comments
    18. Blending GTCC waste within the reactor vessel.
    Comment: The private citizen commenter believes that the NRC is not 
following ALARA principles by requiring that small quantities of GTCC 
waste be segregated from other low-level waste within the reactor 
vessel. If GTCC waste were left within the reactor vessel and blended 
with the lower activity material within the vessel, it could be safely 
disposed of as low level waste. The collective dose to segregate the 
GTCC waste versus burial of the reactor vessel, averaged to be below 
Class C, would be significantly less. Therefore, the NRC should develop 
additional rulemaking and/or guidance on the blending of reactor 
internals to reduce worker dose.
    Response: This rulemaking is designed to add flexibility for the 
storage of GTCC waste and has not eliminated any current option that 
licensees may wish to use to store GTCC waste. If the licensee desires 
to dispose of the reactor vessel, the NRC and appropriate Agreement 
States will review this on a case-by-case basis. The regulatory process 
and review could be similar to that used by the NRC and Washington 
State in approving Portland General Electric Company's (i.e., the 
Trojan nuclear facility) transportation and disposal of its reactor 
vessel at a LLW facility. The NRC expects the licensee will consider 
ALARA principles in determining the best disposal option.
    19. Away from reactor storage.
    Comment: The State of Utah is greatly concerned, and adamantly 
opposes, the storage of GTCC waste at away-from-reactor ISFSIs, 
including something such as the proposed Private Fuel Storage facility 
for spent fuel. The commenter believes that there is the potential that 
most of the nation's spent nuclear fuel and GTCC waste could be shipped 
to Utah and that, once there, it will never leave the State. The 
commenter noted that there are no long term GTCC waste disposal plans. 
The commenter believes that the NRC must restrict storage to at-reactor 
ISFSIs and not allow GTCC waste to be shipped across the country 
unless, and until, decisive plans have been made for the permanent 
disposition of GTCC waste. The commenter noted from DOE documents that 
DOE anticipates that GTCC waste will remain at the reactor site until a 
disposal option becomes available, and that currently the disposal 
option is not known. The proposed rule does not address the disposition 
of the waste at the end of a 10 CFR Part 72 ISFSI license. The 
commenter believes there is a significant volume of GTCC waste that 
could be shipped away from the reactor site and the NRC is silent on 
the transportation of GTCC waste. There is no discussion about 
transportation containers or the exposure level and the population at 
risk from transportation.
    The commenter believes that NRC needs to prepare a programmatic or 
generic environmental impact statement (EIS) for the transportation of 
GTCC waste since this could be a significant departure from the current 
regulatory scheme and a significant federal action affecting the 
quality of the human environment. If the proposed Private Fuel Storage 
ISFSI on the Skull Valley

[[Page 51835]]

Goshute Indian reservation in Utah becomes the prime location for GTCC 
waste storage, the proposed rule would permit the mass movement of GTCC 
waste across the country. In this respect, the NRC cannot rely on its 
``waste confidence rule'' because the waste confidence rule only 
applies to spent fuel. The NRC does not address the final disposition 
of GTCC waste. In fact, the NRC decommissioning rule under 10 CFR part 
72 only requires the applicant to propose and fund a decommissioning 
plan after removal of GTCC waste which may never occur. The commenter 
noted that no EIS had ever been prepared on the transportation of GTCC 
waste which may be long-lived and can contain millions of curies of 
radioactivity. The commenter believes particular attention is needed 
for GTCC waste resins and an evaluation of the hazard of an accident 
involving a long-duration fire. Resins contain water and plastic which 
would evaporate and melt unlike activated metals. The commenter 
believes NRC cannot rely on RADTRAN, a transportation model, because 
GTCC waste resins are composed of elements that RADTRAN does not 
address (e.g., ion exchange resins). Moreover, the NRC cannot rely on 
an EIS conducted for a site specific ISFSI that only addresses storage 
of spent fuel.
    The State of Utah also believes that NRC has not thought through 
issues related to insurance requirements, liability for harm resulting 
from GTCC waste, and complexities of waste ownership. Utah maintains 
that a void will occur in insurance coverage for GTCC waste at an away-
from-reactor ISFSI; the generating facility would no longer cover that 
waste, and the Price-Anderson Act would not cover transportation 
incidents to and from the ISFSI because GTCC waste is not high level 
waste. Utah also noted as negatives that 10 CFR part 72 fails to 
require on-site property insurance; multiple owners of the mix of GTCC 
waste at an away-from-reactor ISFSI will complicate assigning liability 
and after decommissioning of a reactor site, the ``deep-pocket'' 
utility ceases to be an ``owner,'' thus shedding responsibility for the 
GTCC waste. Also, the State expresses concern that after an accident, 
it may need to take action in order to protect public health and 
safety, even though it lacks regulatory authority.
    Response: The NRC finds that most of these comments are not germane 
to this rulemaking, which provides general standards for the storage of 
reactor-related GTCC wastes. Issues associated with an away-from-
reactor ISFSI can appropriately be addressed in a specific licensing 
action concerning such a facility. In any event, the NRC disagrees with 
the comments. The comments generally stated that GTCC waste should not 
be shipped to an away-from-reactor ISFSI site due to lack of analysis 
regarding transportation containers or the exposure level and the 
population at risk from transportation. The transportation of 
radioactive material, which includes GTCC waste, was previously 
analyzed by the NRC in NUREG 0170, ``Final Environmental Statement on 
the Transportation of Radioactive Materials by Air and Other Modes.'' 
This EIS covered the transport of all types of radioactive material by 
all transport modes (including GTCC waste). Transportation of GTCC 
waste and other Type B quantities of radioactive material (i.e., spent 
fuel) is governed by the NRC regulations in 10 CFR part 71 and the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations in 49 CFR part 173. The 
NRC believes that NUREG-0170 bounds the environmental impact from the 
shipment of GTCC waste and this waste can be safely shipped in 
compliance with these regulations.
    With respect to the comment on insurance and liability, under 
existing law, there is no cause for a void in insurance coverage for 
GTCC waste at an away-from-reactor ISFSI even though 10 CFR part 72 
does not provide specific insurance or indemnity requirements for an 
away-from-reactor facility. Licensing actions to permit away-from-
reactor storage may be made subject to license conditions requiring the 
maintenance of appropriate amounts of liability insurance up to $200 
million. ($200 million is the maximum insurance currently commercially 
available to cover offsite public liability and is the amount required 
for large power reactors.) In addition, there may be appropriate 
commitments, confirmed by license conditions, for insurance to cover 
onsite damages.
    The Price-Anderson Act (Atomic Energy Act section 170, 42 U.S.C. 
2210 & 2014 (related definitions)) requires indemnification for 10 CFR 
Part 50 facilities. The Act also gives the Commission discretionary 
authority to extend indemnity coverage to activities undertaken by 
three types of materials licensees. See 42 U.S.C. and 42 U.S.C. 2210 a. 
Thus, the Commission can indemnify away-from-reactor ISFSIs in the 
event the Commission were to find that the risks of offsite damage are 
so large as to be uninsurable or that the public interest requires it. 
Moreover, the Price-Anderson Act does not restrict its coverage of 
reactor waste to spent fuel. Thus, were the Commission to use its 
discretion to cover away-from-reactor ISFSIs, all transportation to and 
from them would be covered. However, even lacking such a discretionary 
designation, transportation of GTCC waste to the ISFSI would, in any 
event, be covered by the generator's Price-Anderson coverage. Likewise, 
if the final transportation were to be to an indemnified facility, such 
as a DOE facility, that transportation would be covered by Price-
Anderson. See e.g. Atomic Energy Act, section 170n(1)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 
2210n(1)(B).
    In addition, to address any perceived problem from the multiplicity 
of customers, 10 CFR part 72 license conditions can require terms in 
service agreements by which allocation of liability might be made among 
customers. Where needed, additional financial assurances could be 
provided. Also, Sec. 72.30's provisions for ``Financial assurance and 
recordkeeping for decommissioning'' includes a requirement that the 
decommissioning plan have a funding plan that contains information on 
how reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available 
to decommission the ISFSI or MRS.
    Finally, the State's possible need in an emergency ``to take action 
even though it is not the regulator of the GTCC waste'' is no different 
from the circumstance in an emergency resulting from a nuclear power 
plant or other federally regulated facility that uses radioactive 
materials. There are like requirements imposed on the 10 CFR part 72 
licensee for notification and requests for offsite assistance. See 
Sec. 72.32. The Commission is confident that a partnership of Federal, 
State, local, and Tribal governments will act to protect the public 
health and safety and the environment in the event of an emergency.
    20. The definition of the term ``cask.''
    Comment: One commenter believes that the NRC needs to be clearer 
when using the term cask as it is defined and used in 10 CFR 
72.121(a)(2) and 72.230(b). Reference is made to ``casks that have been 
certified * * * under part 71,'' but cask is not defined in either 10 
CFR part 71 or the transportation regulations in Title 49. The term 
cask is commonly used throughout the nuclear power industry to refer to 
one or more types of transport packaging, but it is also generally 
accepted that the correct term is ``packaging'' rather than ``cask.'' 
Spent fuel dry storage has extended the application of the term cask, 
yet it is not formally defined in either Title 10 or Title 49. The 
commenter noted that the proposed rule included a definition for the 
terms ``spent fuel storage cask or

[[Page 51836]]

cask,'' but believes that the definition may raise more questions than 
it resolves because it focuses on a container and not a package. The 
term container is not defined in either Title 10 or Title 49, resulting 
in a new definition which is based on an undefined term. Does cask 
refer to (1) a package, (2) packaging, or (3) something else? This is 
particularly important when referring to ``casks that have been 
certified * * * under part 71,'' which would suggest a specific package 
or packaging. The commenter believes that Title 10 should avoid any 
term related to transportation which would create an inconsistency with 
Title 49. The commenter proposes several alternative solutions based on 
the intended meaning of cask to maintain consistency with Title 49 and 
believes the term should be reviewed by the Department of 
Transportation and incorporated into 49 CFR 171.8 during the next 
revision.
    Response: The commenter requested that the NRC modify the 
definition of the term ``cask'' as used in 10 CFR 72.121(a)(2) to 
better correlate this term to the term packaging and packages used in 
10 CFR part 71. The NRC believes the commenter's reference should have 
been to 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2) which discusses the use of casks certified 
under 10 CFR part 72. The NRC concludes, however, that the definition 
of the term cask should not be changed. The general term cask as used 
in 10 CFR part 72 is intended to speak to the cask design 
characteristics, such as criticality, shielding, thermal loading, and 
structural integrity and not all the components of a typical 
transportation packaging, such as an impact limiter. Because there is 
not a good correlation between the 10 CFR part 72 cask definition and 
10 CFR part 71 packaging and packages, an attempt to relate the terms 
might cause confusion. As indicated by the commenter, it is very 
important that terms used in 10 CFR part 71 and DOT regulations are 
consistent. In the proposed rule the only change intended for the term 
spent fuel storage cask or cask was to allow the storage of reactor-
related GTCC waste within a cask. Attempting to change these terms 
within NRC regulations would require corresponding changes in DOT 
regulations, which is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
    However, in evaluating this comment, the NRC believes that changing 
the definition of ``spent fuel storage cask or cask'' to include GTCC 
waste was unintended. Adding GTCC waste to this definition would 
require that this waste type be stored in a ``spent fuel storage 
cask.'' The NRC did not intend for the requirements in 10 CFR part 72 
to be as prescriptive as could be implied in the proposed rule.
    Accordingly, the final rule removes the change in the proposed rule 
to Sec. 72.3 dealing with the definition of ``spent fuel storage cask 
or cask.''

Section-by-Section Analysis

    The following section is provided to assist the reader in 
understanding the specific changes made to each section or paragraph in 
10 CFR parts 30, 70, 72, and 150. For clarity of content in reading a 
section, much of that particular section may be repeated, although only 
a minor change is being made. This section should allow the reader to 
effectively review the specific changes without reviewing existing 
material that has been included for content, but has not been 
significantly changed.
    Section 30.11(b) is a new paragraph (in the existing CFR it is 
noted as reserved) to exempt a licensee from the requirements of 10 CFR 
part 30, to the extent that its activities are licensed under the 
requirements of 10 CFR part 72.
    Section 70.1(c) is being revised to exempt a licensee from the 
requirements of 10 CFR part 70 when power reactor-related GTCC waste is 
being stored under the requirements of 10 CFR part 72.
    The title to 10 CFR part 72 is being revised to include GTCC waste.
    The following sections or paragraphs are being revised to specify 
the inclusion of GTCC waste, for clarity, or for completeness: 
Secs. 72.1, 72.2(a) and (c), 72.8, 72.16(d), 72.22(e)(3), 72.24 
introductory text and (i), 72.28(d), 72.30(a), 72.44(b)(4), (c)(3)(i), 
(c)(5), (d) and (g)(2), 72.52(b)(2), (c), and (e), 72.54(c)(1), 
72.60(c), 72.72(a), (b), and (d), 72.75(b), (c), (d)(1)(iv), and 
(d)(2)(ii)(L), 72.80(g), 72.82(a) and (b), 72.106(b), 72.108 title and 
text, 72.122(b)(2), (h)(2), (h)(5), (i), and (l), 72.128 title and (a), 
and 72.140(c)(2). Also, Secs. 72.72, 72.76, and 72.78 have been 
modified to clarify the reporting requirements for special nuclear 
material as specified in 10 CFR 74.13(a)(1).
    Section 72.3: The definition for GTCC waste is being added to 10 
CFR part 72 and the definitions of Design capacity, Independent spent 
fuel storage installation or ISFSI, Monitored Retrievable Storage 
Installation or MRS, and Structures, systems, and components important 
to safety, are being revised to specify the inclusion of GTCC waste.
    Section 72.6: This section has been revised to clearly indicate 
that reactor-related GTCC waste only can be stored under the provisions 
of a 10 CFR part 72 specific license.
    Section 72.40(b): This section has been modified for clarity and by 
adding a new introductory sentence that would include reactor-related 
GTCC waste. Also, reference to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 
Board has been removed since this board no longer exists.
    Sections 72.72(a), 72.76(a), and 72.78(a): These sections have been 
modified to clarify the reporting requirements for special nuclear 
material as specified in 10 CFR 74.13(a)(1).
    Section 72.120: This section has been modified for clarity and to 
provide some general considerations for the storage of GTCC waste 
within an ISFSI or an MRS.
    Section 150.15(a)(7)(i) and (ii): Essentially repeats the text of 
the existing paragraphs with amendments for consistency with the new 
Sec. 150.15(a)(7)(iii).
    Section 150.15(a)(7)(iii): This new paragraph will specify that the 
storage of reactor-related GTCC waste within an ISFSI or an MRS 
licensed pursuant to 10 CFR part 50 and/or part 72 is exempt from 
Agreement State authority.
    Paragraph 150.15(a)(8): This new paragraph will specify that the 
storage of reactor-related GTCC waste licensed under 10 CFR part 30 
and/or part 70 is exempt from Agreement State authority.
    In the NRC's final rule, ``Clarification and Addition of 
Flexibility'' (65 FR 50606; August 21, 2000), changes have been made to 
10 CFR part 72. Section 72.140(c)(2) is the only section that is being 
changed in both rules and this rulemaking is consistent with the 
``Clarification'' rulemaking changes.

Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations

    Under the ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of 
Agreement State Programs'' approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, 
and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 
46517), Sec. 70.1(c), 10 CFR part 72 and Sec. 150.15 continue to be 
classified as compatibility Category ``NRC.'' Section 30.11(b) is also 
classified as Category ``NRC.'' Previously, this subsection was 
reserved and classified as Category ``D,'' not required for purposes of 
compatibility. The NRC program elements in Category ``NRC'' are those 
that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or provisions of Title 10 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations.
    Because the Commission was particularly interested in the position 
of

[[Page 51837]]

the Agreement States on certain issues, three questions were identified 
in the proposed rule for Agreement State input. Five of the 32 
Agreement States commented on the proposed rule (four on the three 
questions). The comments and responses on the specific Agreement State 
questions are found on the Comments in the Proposed Rule section, 
comment numbers 15, 16, and 17.

Voluntary Consensus Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. 
L. 104-113, requires that agencies use technical standards that are 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies unless the 
use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. In this rule, the NRC is presenting amendments to its 
regulations that would allow the licensing of interim storage of GTCC 
waste. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard 
that establishes generally-applicable requirements and the use of a 
voluntary consensus standard is not applicable.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability

    The Commission has determined under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 
subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, that this rule is not a major Federal 
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, 
and therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The 
rule will provide reactor licensees an additional option of storing 
GTCC waste under a 10 CFR part 72 license using spent fuel storage 
criteria of that part. Storage of GTCC waste at an ISFSI or an MRS 
would be in a passive mode with no human intervention needed for safe 
storage. The Environmental Assessment determined that there is no 
significant environmental impact as a result of these changes.
    The Environmental Assessment and finding of no significant impact 
on which this determination is based are available for inspection at 
the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. 
Single copies of the Environmental Assessment and the finding of no 
significant impact are available from Mark Haisfield, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6196.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This final rule amends information collection requirements 
contained in 10 CFR part 72 that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These requirements were approved 
by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0132. The 
proposed changes to 10 CFR part(s) 30, 70, and 150 do not contain a new 
or amended information collection requirement. Existing requirements 
were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval 
number(s) 3150-0017, 3150-0009, and 3150-0032.
    The burden to the public for this information collection is 
estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
information collection. Send comments on any aspect of this information 
collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the 
Records Management Branch (T-6 E6), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail at 
[email protected]; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0132), Office of Management and 
Budget, Washington DC 20503.

Public Protection Notification

    If a means used to impose an information collection does not 
display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct 
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information 
collection.

Regulatory Analysis

    The Commission has prepared a final Regulatory Analysis on this 
regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the 
alternatives considered by the Commission. The analysis is available 
for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD. Single copies of the Regulatory Analysis are available 
from Mark Haisfield, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
telephone (301) 415-6196.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 
605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small 
entities. The amendments will apply to reactor licensees, ISFSI 
licensees, certificate holders, applicants for a Certificate of 
Compliance, and DOE. The majority, if not all, of these licensees would 
not qualify as small entities under the NRC's size standards (10 CFR 
2.810).

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a 
major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.

Backfit Analysis

    The NRC has determined that the backfit requirements, 10 CFR 50.109 
and 72.62, do not apply to this rule, and therefore, a backfit analysis 
is not required because these amendments do not involve any provisions 
that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1) or 
72.62(a). This rule will not require licensees to use 10 CFR part 72 to 
store GTCC waste. It provides a practical option with criteria that 
licensees may use. It does not preclude, or change, use of 10 CFR parts 
30 and 70 as a licensing mechanism to store GTCC waste. The NRC 
anticipates that storage of GTCC waste licensed under 10 CFR part 72 
can simplify the licensing process, for both licensees and the NRC, 
with no significant impact to public health and safety or the 
environment.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 30

    Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Government contracts, 
Intergovernmental relations, Isotopes, Nuclear materials, Radiation 
protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 70

    Criminal penalties, Hazardous materials transportation, Material 
control and accounting, Nuclear materials, Packaging and containers, 
Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Scientific equipment, Security measures, Special nuclear material.

10 CFR Part 72

    Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, 
Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel.

[[Page 51838]]

10 CFR Part 150

    Criminal penalties, Hazardous materials transportation, 
Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materials, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Source material, Special 
nuclear material.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of 
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization 
Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is adopting the 
following amendments to 10 CFR parts 30, 70, 72 and 150.

PART 30--RULES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY TO DOMESTIC LICENSING OF 
BYPRODUCT MATERIAL

    1. The authority citation for part 30 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 81, 82, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat. 935, 948, 
953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 2111, 2112, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); secs. 201, as 
amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 
5841, 5842, 5846).
    Section 30.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 
2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123, (42 
U.S.C. 5851). Section 30.34(b) also issued under sec.184, 68 Stat. 
954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 30.61 also issued under 
sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).


    2. In Sec. 30.11 a new paragraph (b) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 30.11  Specific exemptions.

* * * * *
    (b) Any licensee's activities are exempt from the requirements of 
this part to the extent that its activities are licensed under the 
requirements of part 72 of this chapter.
* * * * *

PART 70--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL

    3. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 948, 
953, 954, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 
2071, 2073, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2282, 2297f); secs. 201, as amended, 
202, 204, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1245, 1246 (42 
U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5845, 5846). Sec. 193, 104 Stat. 2835 as amended 
by Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-49 (42 U.S.C. 2243).
    Sections 70.1(c) and 70.20a(b) also issued under secs. 135, 141, 
Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). 
Section 70.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 70.21(g) also issued under sec. 122, 
68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 70.31 also issued under sec. 
57d, Pub. L. 93-377, 88 Stat. 475 (42 U.S.C. 2077). Sections 70.36 
and 70.44 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 2234). Section 70.81 also issued under secs. 186, 187, 68 
Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237). Section 70.82 also issued under 
sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).


    4. In Sec. 70.1 paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 70.1  Purpose.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Spent fuel, power reactor-related Greater than Class C (GTCC) 
waste, and other radioactive materials associated with spent fuel 
storage in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), or
    (2) Spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, power reactor-related 
GTCC waste, and other radioactive materials associated with the storage 
in a monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS), and the terms 
and conditions under which the Commission will issue such licenses.
* * * * *

    5. The heading of part 72 is revised to read as follows:

PART 72--LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF 
SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR-
RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE

    6. The authority citation for Part 72 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 
184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 
954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 
2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 
688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 
Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); 
Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 295 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, 
sec 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 
83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, 
Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 
100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 
10157, 10161, 10168).
    Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), 
Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 
10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 
955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 
U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. 
L. 100-203; 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also 
issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97-
425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2224 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 
10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 
133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 
(42 U.S.C. 10198).


    7. Section 72.1 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 72.1  Purpose.

    The regulations in this part establish requirements, procedures, 
and criteria for the issuance of licenses to receive, transfer, and 
possess power reactor spent fuel, power reactor-related Greater than 
Class C (GTCC) waste, and other radioactive materials associated with 
spent fuel storage in an independent spent fuel storage installation 
(ISFSI) and the terms and conditions under which the Commission will 
issue these licenses. The regulations in this part also establish 
requirements, procedures, and criteria for the issuance of licenses to 
the Department of Energy (DOE) to receive, transfer, package, and 
possess power reactor spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, power 
reactor-related GTCC waste, and other radioactive materials associated 
with the storage of these materials in a monitored retrievable storage 
installation (MRS). The term Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation 
or MRS, as defined in Sec. 72.3, is derived from the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act (NWPA) and includes any installation that meets this 
definition. The regulations in this part also establish requirements, 
procedures, and criteria for the issuance of Certificates of Compliance 
approving spent fuel storage cask designs.

    8 In Sec. 72.2 paragraphs (a) and (c) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 72.2  Scope.

    (a) Except as provided in Sec. 72.6(b), licenses issued under this 
part are limited to the receipt, transfer, packaging, and possession 
of:
    (1) Power reactor spent fuel to be stored in a complex that is 
designed and constructed specifically for storage of power reactor 
spent fuel aged for at least one year, other radioactive materials 
associated with spent fuel storage, and power reactor-related GTCC 
waste in a solid form in an independent spent fuel storage installation 
(ISFSI); or
    (2) Power reactor spent fuel to be stored in a monitored 
retrievable storage installation (MRS) owned by DOE that is designed 
and constructed specifically for the storage of spent fuel aged for at 
least one year, high-level radioactive waste that is in a solid form, 
other radioactive materials associated with storage of these materials, 
and power reactor-related GTCC waste that is in a solid form.
* * * * *

[[Page 51839]]

    (c) The requirements of this regulation are applicable, as 
appropriate, to both wet and dry modes of storage of--
    (1) Spent fuel and solid reactor-related GTCC waste in an 
independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI); and
    (2) Spent fuel, solid high-level radioactive waste, and solid 
reactor-related GTCC waste in a monitored retrievable storage 
installation (MRS).
* * * * *

    9. Section 72.3 is amended by adding a definition, in its proper 
alphabetic order, of the term Greater than Class C waste, and revising 
the definitions of Design capacity, Independent spent fuel storage 
installation or ISFSI, Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation or 
MRS, and Structures, systems, and components important to safety, to 
read as follows:


Sec. 72.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Design capacity means the quantity of spent fuel, high-level 
radioactive waste, or reactor-related GTCC waste, the maximum burn up 
of the spent fuel in MWD/MTU, the terabequerel (curie) content of the 
waste, and the total heat generation in Watts (btu/hour) that the 
storage installation is designed to accommodate.
* * * * *
    Greater than Class C waste or GTCC waste means low-level 
radioactive waste that exceeds the concentration limits of 
radionuclides established for Class C waste in Sec. 61.55 of this 
chapter.
* * * * *
    Independent spent fuel storage installation or ISFSI means a 
complex designed and constructed for the interim storage of spent 
nuclear fuel, solid reactor-related GTCC waste, and other radioactive 
materials associated with spent fuel and reactor-related GTCC waste 
storage. An ISFSI which is located on the site of another facility 
licensed under this part or a facility licensed under part 50 of this 
chapter and which shares common utilities and services with that 
facility or is physically connected with that other facility may still 
be considered independent.
* * * * *
    Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation or MRS means a complex 
designed, constructed, and operated by DOE for the receipt, transfer, 
handling, packaging, possession, safeguarding, and storage of spent 
nuclear fuel aged for at least one year, solidified high-level 
radioactive waste resulting from civilian nuclear activities, and solid 
reactor-related GTCC waste, pending shipment to a HLW repository or 
other disposal.
* * * * *
    Structures, systems, and components important to safety means those 
features of the ISFSI, MRS, and spent fuel storage cask whose functions 
are--
    (1) To maintain the conditions required to store spent fuel, high-
level radioactive waste, or reactor-related GTCC waste safely;
    (2) To prevent damage to the spent fuel, the high-level radioactive 
waste, or reactor-related GTCC waste container during handling and 
storage; or
    (3) To provide reasonable assurance that spent fuel, high-level 
radioactive waste, or reactor-related GTCC waste can be received, 
handled, packaged, stored, and retrieved without undue risk to the 
health and safety of the public.
* * * * *

    10. Section 72.6 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 72.6  License required; types of licenses.

    (a) Licenses for the receipt, handling, storage, and transfer of 
spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste are of two types: general 
and specific. Licenses for the receipt, handling, storage, and transfer 
of reactor-related GTCC are specific licenses. Any general license 
provided in this part is effective without the filing of an application 
with the Commission or the issuance of a licensing document to a 
particular person. A specific license is issued to a named person upon 
application filed pursuant to regulations in this part.
    (b) A general license is hereby issued to receive title to and own 
spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, or reactor-related GTCC waste 
without regard to quantity. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
chapter, a general licensee under this paragraph is not authorized to 
acquire, deliver, receive, possess, use, or transfer spent fuel, high-
level radioactive waste, or reactor-related GTCC waste except as 
authorized in a specific license.
    (c) Except as authorized in a specific license and in a general 
license under subpart K of this part issued by the Commission in 
accordance with the regulations in this part, no person may acquire, 
receive, or possess--
    (1) Spent fuel for the purpose of storage in an ISFSI; or
    (2) Spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, or radioactive 
material associated with high-level radioactive waste for the purpose 
of storage in an MRS.

    11. Section 72.8 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 72.8  Denial of licensing by Agreement States.

    Agreement States may not issue licenses covering the storage of 
spent fuel and reactor-related GTCC waste in an ISFSI or the storage of 
spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and reactor-related GTCC 
waste in an MRS.

    12. Section 72.16 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 72.16  Filing of application for specific license.

* * * * *
    (d) Fees. The application, amendment, and renewal fees applicable 
to a license covering an ISFSI are those shown in Sec. 170.31 of this 
chapter.
* * * * *

    13. Section 72.22 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(3) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 72.22  Contents of application: General and financial information.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) Estimated decommissioning costs, and the necessary financial 
arrangements to provide reasonable assurance before licensing, that 
decommissioning will be carried out after the removal of spent fuel, 
high-level radioactive waste, and/or reactor-related GTCC waste from 
storage.
    14. Section 72.24 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec. 72.24  Contents of application: Technical information.

    Each application for a license under this part must include a 
Safety Analysis Report describing the proposed ISFSI or MRS for the 
receipt, handling, packaging, and storage of spent fuel, high-level 
radioactive waste, and/or reactor-related GTCC waste as appropriate, 
including how the ISFSI or MRS will be operated. The minimum 
information to be included in this report must consist of the 
following:
* * * * *
    (i) If the proposed ISFSI or MRS incorporates structures, systems, 
or components important to safety whose functional adequacy or 
reliability have not been demonstrated by prior use for that purpose or 
cannot be demonstrated by reference to performance data in related 
applications or to widely accepted engineering principles, an 
identification of these structures, systems, or components along with a 
schedule showing how safety questions will be resolved prior to the 
initial receipt of spent fuel, high-level

[[Page 51840]]

radioactive waste, and/or reactor-related GTCC waste as appropriate for 
storage at the ISFSI or MRS.
* * * * *

    15. Section 72.28 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 72.28  Contents of application: Applicant's technical 
qualifications.

* * * * *
    (d) A commitment by the applicant to have and maintain an adequate 
complement of trained and certified installation personnel prior to the 
receipt of spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and/or reactor-
related GTCC waste as appropriate for storage.

    16. Section 72.30 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 72.30  Financial assurance and recordkeeping for decommissioning.

    (a) Each application under this part must include a proposed 
decommissioning plan that contains sufficient information on proposed 
practices and procedures for the decontamination of the site and 
facilities and for disposal of residual radioactive materials after all 
spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and reactor-related GTCC 
waste have been removed, in order to provide reasonable assurance that 
the decontamination and decommissioning of the ISFSI or MRS at the end 
of its useful life will provide adequate protection to the health and 
safety of the public. This plan must identify and discuss those design 
features of the ISFSI or MRS that facilitate its decontamination and 
decommissioning at the end of its useful life.
* * * * *

    17. Section 72.40 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 72.40  Issuance of license.

* * * * *
    (b) A license to store spent fuel and reactor-related GTCC waste in 
the proposed ISFSI or to store spent fuel, high-level radioactive 
waste, and reactor-related GTCC waste in the proposed MRS may be denied 
if construction on the proposed facility begins before a finding 
approving issuance of the proposed license with any appropriate 
conditions to protect environmental values. Grounds for denial may be 
the commencement of construction prior to a finding by the Director, 
Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards or designee or a 
finding after a public hearing by the presiding officer, Atomic Safety 
and Licensing Board, or the Commission acting as a collegial body, as 
appropriate, that the action called for is the issuance of the proposed 
license with any appropriate conditions to protect environmental 
values. This finding is to be made on the basis of information filed 
and evaluations made pursuant to subpart A of part 51 of this chapter 
or in the case of an MRS on the basis of evaluations made pursuant to 
sections 141(c) and (d) or 148(a) and (c) of NWPA (96 Stat. 2242, 2243, 
42 U.S.C. 10161(c), (d); 101 Stat. 1330-235, 1330-236, 42 U.S.C. 
10168(a), (c)), as appropriate, and after weighing the environmental, 
economic, technical and other benefits against environmental costs and 
considering available alternatives.
* * * * *

    18. Section 72.44 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4), 
(c)(3)(i), (c)(5), the introductory text of paragraph (d), and (g)(2) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 72.44  License conditions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) The licensee shall have an NRC-approved program in effect that 
covers the training and certification of personnel that meets the 
requirements of subpart I before the licensee may receive spent fuel 
and/or reactor-related GTCC waste for storage at an ISFSI or the 
receipt of spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and/or reactor-
related GTCC waste for storage at an MRS.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Inspection and monitoring of spent fuel, high-level radioactive 
waste, or reactor-related GTCC waste in storage;
* * * * *
    (5) Administrative controls. Administrative controls include the 
organization and management procedures, recordkeeping, review and 
audit, and reporting requirements necessary to assure that the 
operations involved in the storage of spent fuel and reactor-related 
GTCC waste in an ISFSI and the storage of spent fuel, high-level 
radioactive waste, and reactor-related GTCC waste in an MRS are 
performed in a safe manner.
    (d) Each license authorizing the receipt, handling, and storage of 
spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and/or reactor-related GTCC 
waste under this part must include technical specifications that, in 
addition to stating the limits on the release of radioactive materials 
for compliance with limits of part 20 of this chapter and the ``as low 
as is reasonably achievable'' objectives for effluents, require that:
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) Construction of the MRS or acceptance of spent nuclear fuel, 
high-level radioactive waste, and/or reactor-related GTCC waste at the 
MRS is prohibited during such time as the repository license is revoked 
by the Commission or construction of the repository ceases.
* * * * *

    19. Section 72.52 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2), (c), 
and (e) to read as follows:


Sec. 72.52  Creditor regulations.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) That no creditor so secured may take possession of the spent 
fuel and/or reactor-related GTCC waste under the provisions of this 
section before--
    (i) The Commission issues a license authorizing possession; or
    (ii) The license is transferred.
    (c) Any creditor so secured may apply for transfer of the license 
covering spent fuel and/or reactor-related GTCC waste by filing an 
application for transfer of the license under Sec. 72.50(b). The 
Commission will act upon the application under Sec. 72.50(c).
* * * * *
    (e) As used in this section, ``creditor'' includes, without implied 
limitation--
    (1) The trustee under any mortgage, pledge, or lien on spent fuel 
and/or reactor-related GTCC waste in storage made to secure any 
creditor;
    (2) Any trustee or receiver of spent fuel and/or reactor-related 
GTCC waste appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction in any action 
brought for the benefit of any creditor secured by a mortgage, pledge, 
or lien;
    (3) Any purchaser of the spent fuel and/or reactor-related GTCC 
waste at the sale thereof upon foreclosure of the mortgage, pledge, or 
lien or upon exercise of any power of sale contained therein; or
    (4) Any assignee of any such purchaser.

    20. Section 72.54 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 72.54  Expiration and termination of licenses and decommissioning 
of sites and separate buildings or outdoor areas.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Limit actions involving spent fuel, reactor-related GTCC waste, 
or other licensed material to those related to decommissioning; and
* * * * *

[[Page 51841]]


    21. Section 72.60 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 72.60  Modification, revocation, and suspension of license.

* * * * *
    (c) Upon revocation of a license, the Commission may immediately 
cause the retaking of possession of all special nuclear material 
contained in spent fuel and/or reactor-related GTCC waste held by the 
licensee. In cases found by the Commission to be of extreme importance 
to the national defense and security or to the health and safety of the 
public, the Commission may cause the taking of possession of any 
special nuclear material contained in spent fuel and/or reactor-related 
GTCC waste held by the licensee before following any of the procedures 
provided under sections 551-558 of title 5 of the United States Code.

    22. Section 72.72 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and 
(d) to read as follows:


Sec. 72.72  Material balance, inventory, and records requirements for 
stored materials.

    (a) Each licensee shall keep records showing the receipt, inventory 
(including location), disposal, acquisition, and transfer of all 
special nuclear material with quantities as specified in 
Sec. 74.13(a)(1). The records must include as a minimum the name of 
shipper of the material to the ISFSI or MRS, the estimated quantity of 
radioactive material per item (including special nuclear material in 
spent fuel and reactor-related GTCC waste), item identification and 
seal number, storage location, onsite movements of each fuel assembly 
or storage canister, and ultimate disposal. These records for spent 
fuel and reactor-related GTCC waste at an ISFSI or for spent fuel, 
high-level radioactive waste, and reactor-related GTCC waste at an MRS 
must be retained for as long as the material is stored and for a period 
of five years after the material is disposed of or transferred out of 
the ISFSI or MRS.
    (b) Each licensee shall conduct a physical inventory of all spent 
fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and reactor-related GTCC waste 
containing special nuclear material meeting the requirements in 
paragraph (a) of this section at intervals not to exceed 12 months 
unless otherwise directed by the Commission. The licensee shall retain 
a copy of the current inventory as a record until the Commission 
terminates the license.
* * * * *
    (d) Records of spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and 
reactor-related GTCC waste containing special nuclear material meeting 
the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section must be kept in 
duplicate. The duplicate set of records must be kept at a separate 
location sufficiently remote from the original records that a single 
event would not destroy both sets of records. Records of spent fuel or 
reactor-related GTCC waste containing special nuclear material 
transferred out of an ISFSI or of spent fuel, high-level radioactive 
waste, or reactor-related GTCC waste containing special nuclear 
material transferred out of an MRS must be preserved for a period of 
five years after the date of transfer.

    23. Section 72.75 is amended by revising the introductory text of 
paragraphs (b) and (c), paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(6), (d)(1)(iv), 
and (d)(2)(ii)(L) to read as follows:


Sec. 72.75  Reporting requirements for specific events and conditions.

* * * * *
    (b) Non-emergency notifications: Four-hour reports. Each licensee 
shall notify the NRC as soon as possible but not later than 4 hours 
after the discovery of any of the following events or conditions 
involving spent fuel, HLW, or reactor-related GTCC waste:
* * * * *
    (2) A defect in any storage structure, system, or component which 
is important to safety.
    (3) A significant reduction in the effectiveness of any storage 
confinement system during use.
* * * * *
    (6) An unplanned fire or explosion damaging any spent fuel, HLW, 
and/or reactor-related GTCC waste, or any device, container, or 
equipment containing spent fuel, HLW, and/or reactor-related GTCC waste 
when the damage affects the integrity of the material or its container.
    (c) Non-emergency notifications: Twenty-four hour reports. Each 
licensee shall notify the NRC within 24 hours after the discovery of 
any of the following events involving spent fuel, HLW, or reactor-
related GTCC waste:
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) The quantities, and chemical and physical forms of the spent 
fuel, HLW, or reactor-related GTCC waste involved; and
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (L) The quantities, and chemical and physical forms of the spent 
fuel, HLW, or reactor-related GTCC waste involved;
* * * * *

    24. Section 72.76 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 72.76  Material status reports.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each 
licensee shall complete, in computer-readable format, and submit to the 
Commission a material status report in accordance with instructions 
(NUREG/BR-0007 and NMMSS Report D-24 ``Personal Computer Data Input for 
NRC Licensees''). Copies of these instructions may be obtained from the 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and 
Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001. These reports provide 
information concerning the special nuclear material possessed, 
received, transferred, disposed of, or lost by the licensee. Material 
status reports must be made as of March 31 and September 30 of each 
year and filed within 30 days after the end of the period covered by 
the report. The Commission may, when good cause is shown, permit a 
licensee to submit material status reports at other times. The 
Commission's copy of this report must be submitted to the address 
specified in the instructions. These prescribed computer-readable forms 
replace the DOE/NRC Form 742 which has been previously submitted in 
paper form.
* * * * *

    25. Section 72.78 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 72.78  Nuclear material transfer reports.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever 
the licensee transfers or receives special nuclear material, the 
licensee shall complete in computer-readable format a Nuclear Material 
Transaction Report in accordance with instructions (NUREG/BR-0006 and 
NMMSS Report D-24, ``Personal Computer Data Input for NRC Licensees''). 
Copies of these instructions may be obtained from the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001. Each ISFSI licensee who receives spent fuel 
from a foreign source shall complete both the supplier's and receiver's 
portion of the Nuclear Material Transaction Report, verify the identity 
of the spent fuel, and indicate the results on the receiver's portion 
of the form. These prescribed computer-readable forms replace the DOE/
NRC Form 741 which has been previously submitted in paper form.
* * * * *

    26. Section 72.80 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:

[[Page 51842]]

Sec. 72.80  Other records and reports.

* * * * *
    (g) Each specific licensee shall notify the Commission, in 
accordance with Sec. 72.4, of its readiness to begin operation at least 
90 days prior to the first storage of spent fuel, high-level waste, or 
reactor-related GTCC waste in an ISFSI or an MRS.

    27. Section 72.82 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 72.82  Inspections and tests.

    (a) Each licensee under this part shall permit duly authorized 
representatives of the Commission to inspect its records, premises, and 
activities and of spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, or reactor-
related GTCC waste in its possession related to the specific license as 
may be necessary to meet the objectives of the Act, including section 
105 of the Act.
    (b) Each licensee under this part shall make available to the 
Commission for inspection, upon reasonable notice, records kept by the 
licensee pertaining to its receipt, possession, packaging, or transfer 
of spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, or reactor-related GTCC 
waste.
* * * * *

    28. Section 72.106 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 72.106  Controlled area of an ISFSI or an MRS.

* * * * *
    (b) Any individual located on or beyond the nearest boundary of the 
controlled area may not receive from any design basis accident the more 
limiting of a total effective dose equivalent of 0.05 Sv (5 rem), or 
the sum of the deep-dose equivalent and the committed dose equivalent 
to any individual organ or tissue (other than the lens of the eye) of 
0.5 Sv (50 rem). The lens dose equivalent may not exceed 0.15 Sv (15 
rem) and the shallow dose equivalent to skin or any extremity may not 
exceed 0.5 Sv (50 rem). The minimum distance from the spent fuel, high-
level radioactive waste, or reactor-related GTCC waste handling and 
storage facilities to the nearest boundary of the controlled area must 
be at least 100 meters.
* * * * *

    29. Section 72.108 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 72.108  Spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, or reactor-
related Greater than Class C waste transportation.

    The proposed ISFSI or MRS must be evaluated with respect to the 
potential impact on the environment of the transportation of spent 
fuel, high-level radioactive waste, or reactor-related GTCC waste 
within the region.

    30. Section 72.120 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 72.120  General considerations.

    (a) As required by Sec. 72.24, an application to store spent fuel 
or reactor-related GTCC waste in an ISFSI or to store spent fuel, high-
level radioactive waste, or reactor-related GTCC waste in an MRS must 
include the design criteria for the proposed storage installation. 
These design criteria establish the design, fabrication, construction, 
testing, maintenance and performance requirements for structures, 
systems, and components important to safety as defined in Sec. 72.3. 
The general design criteria identified in this subpart establish 
minimum requirements for the design criteria for an ISFSI or an MRS. 
Any omissions in these general design criteria do not relieve the 
applicant from the requirement of providing the necessary safety 
features in the design of the ISFSI or MRS.
    (b) The ISFSI must be designed to store spent fuel and/or solid 
reactor-related GTCC waste.
    (1) Reactor-related GTCC waste may not be stored in a cask that 
also contains spent fuel. This restriction does not include radioactive 
materials that are associated with fuel assemblies (e.g., control rod 
blades or assemblies, thimble plugs, burnable poison rod assemblies, or 
fuel channels);
    (2) Liquid reactor-related GTCC wastes may not be received or 
stored in an ISFSI; and
    (3) If the ISFSI is a water-pool type facility, the reactor-related 
GTCC waste must be in a durable solid form with demonstrable leach 
resistance.
    (c) The MRS must be designed to store spent fuel, solid high-level 
radioactive waste, and/or solid reactor-related GTCC waste.
    (1) Reactor-related GTCC waste may not be stored in a cask that 
also contains spent fuel. This restriction does not include radioactive 
materials associated with fuel assemblies (e.g., control rod blades or 
assemblies, thimble plugs, burnable poison rod assemblies, or fuel 
channels);
    (2) Liquid high-level radioactive wastes or liquid reactor-related 
GTCC wastes may not be received or stored in an MRS; and
    (3) If the MRS is a water-pool type facility, the high-level waste 
and reactor-related GTCC waste must be in a durable solid form with 
demonstrable leach resistance.
    (d) The ISFSI or MRS must be designed, made of materials, and 
constructed to ensure that there will be no significant chemical, 
galvanic, or other reactions between or among the storage system 
components, spent fuel, reactor-related GTCC waste, and/or high level 
waste including possible reaction with water during wet loading and 
unloading operations or during storage in a water-pool type ISFSI or 
MRS. The behavior of materials under irradiation and thermal conditions 
must be taken into account.
    (e) The NRC may authorize exceptions, on a case-by-case basis, to 
the restrictions in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section regarding 
the commingling of spent fuel and reactor-related GTCC waste in the 
same cask.

    31. Section 72.122 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2), 
(h)(2), (h)(5), (i) and (l) to read as follows:


Sec. 72.122  Overall requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2)(i) Structures, systems, and components important to safety must 
be designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena such as 
earthquakes, tornadoes, lightning, hurricanes, floods, tsunami, and 
seiches, without impairing their capability to perform their intended 
design functions. The design bases for these structures, systems, and 
components must reflect:
    (A) Appropriate consideration of the most severe of the natural 
phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area, with appropriate 
margins to take into account the limitations of the data and the period 
of time in which the data have accumulated, and
    (B) Appropriate combinations of the effects of normal and accident 
conditions and the effects of natural phenomena.
    (ii) The ISFSI or MRS also should be designed to prevent massive 
collapse of building structures or the dropping of heavy objects as a 
result of building structural failure on the spent fuel, high-level 
radioactive waste, or reactor-related GTCC waste or on to structures, 
systems, and components important to safety.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) For underwater storage of spent fuel, high-level radioactive 
waste, or reactor-related GTCC waste in which the pool water serves as 
a shield and a confinement medium for radioactive materials, systems 
for maintaining water purity and the pool water level must be designed 
so that any abnormal operations or failure in those systems from any 
cause will not cause the water

[[Page 51843]]

level to fall below safe limits. The design must preclude installations 
of drains, permanently connected systems, and other features that 
could, by abnormal operations or failure, cause a significant loss of 
water. Pool water level equipment must be provided to alarm in a 
continuously manned location if the water level in the storage pools 
falls below a predetermined level.
* * * * *
    (5) The high-level radioactive waste and reactor-related GTCC waste 
must be packaged in a manner that allows handling and retrievability 
without the release of radioactive materials to the environment or 
radiation exposures in excess of part 20 limits. The package must be 
designed to confine the high-level radioactive waste for the duration 
of the license.
    (i) Instrumentation and control systems. Instrumentation and 
control systems for wet spent fuel and reactor-related GTCC waste 
storage must be provided to monitor systems that are important to 
safety over anticipated ranges for normal operation and off-normal 
operation. Those instruments and control systems that must remain 
operational under accident conditions must be identified in the Safety 
Analysis Report. Instrumentation systems for dry storage casks must be 
provided in accordance with cask design requirements to monitor 
conditions that are important to safety over anticipated ranges for 
normal conditions and off-normal conditions. Systems that are required 
under accident conditions must be identified in the Safety Analysis 
Report.
* * * * *
    (l) Retrievability. Storage systems must be designed to allow ready 
retrieval of spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and reactor-
related GTCC waste for further processing or disposal.
    32. Section 72.128 is amended by revising the heading and the 
introductory text of paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec. 72.128  Criteria for spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, 
reactor-related Greater than Class C waste, and other radioactive waste 
storage and handling.

    (a) Spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and reactor-related 
GTCC waste storage and handling systems. Spent fuel storage, high-level 
radioactive waste storage, reactor-related GTCC waste storage and other 
systems that might contain or handle radioactive materials associated 
with spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, or reactor-related GTCC 
waste, must be designed to ensure adequate safety under normal and 
accident conditions. These systems must be designed with--
* * * * *

    33. Section 72.140 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 72.140  Quality assurance requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Each licensee shall obtain Commission approval of its quality 
assurance program prior to receipt of spent fuel and/or reactor-related 
GTCC waste at the ISFSI or spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, 
and/or reactor-related GTCC waste at the MRS. Each licensee or 
applicant for a specific license shall obtain Commission approval of 
its quality assurance program before commencing fabrication or testing 
of a spent fuel storage cask.
* * * * *

PART 150--EXEMPTIONS AND CONTINUED REGULATORY AUTHORITY IN 
AGREEMENT STATES AND IN OFFSHORE WATERS UNDER SECTION 274

    34. The authority citation for part 150 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, sec. 274, 73 
Stat. 688 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2021); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 5841).
    Sections 150.3, 150.15, 150.15a, 150.31, 150.32 also issued 
under secs. 11e(2), 81, 68 Stat. 923, 935, as amended, secs. 83, 84, 
92 Stat. 3033, 3039 (42 U.S.C. 2014e(2), 2111, 2113, 2114). Section 
150.14 also issued under sec. 53, 68 Stat. 930, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 2073). Section 150.15 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. 
L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section 
150.17a also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). 
Section 150.30 also issued under sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444 (42 U.S.C. 
2282).


    35. Section 150.15 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(7) and 
adding a new paragraph (a)(8) to read as follows:


Sec. 150.15  Persons not exempt.

    (a) * * *
    (7) The storage of:
    (i) Spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation 
(ISFSI) licensed under part 72 of this chapter,
    (ii) Spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a monitored 
retrievable storage installation (MRS) licensed under part 72 of this 
chapter, or
    (iii) Greater than Class C waste, as defined in part 72 of this 
chapter, in an ISFSI or an MRS licensed under part 72 of this chapter; 
the GTCC waste must originate in, or be used by, a facility licensed 
under part 50 of this chapter.
    (8) Greater than Class C waste, as defined in part 72 of this 
chapter, that originates in, or is used by, a facility licensed under 
part 50 of this chapter and is licensed under part 30 and/or part 70 of 
this chapter.
* * * * *

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of October, 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 01-25416 Filed 10-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P