[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47745-47755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-18436]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 72

RIN 3150-AG93


Geological and Seismological Characteristics for Siting and 
Design of Dry Cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations and 
Monitored Retrievable Storage Installations

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend 
its licensing requirements for dry cask modes of storage of spent 
nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and power reactor-related 
Greater than Class C waste in an independent spent fuel storage 
installation (ISFSI) or in a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) monitored 
retrievable storage installation (MRS). These amendments would update 
the seismic siting and design criteria, including geologic, seismic, 
and earthquake engineering considerations. The proposed rule would 
allow NRC and its licensees to benefit from experience gained in the 
licensing of existing facilities and to incorporate the rapid 
advancements in the earth sciences and earthquake engineering. The 
proposed amendments would make the Part 72 regulations compatible with 
the 1996 revision to Part 100 that addressed uncertainties in seismic 
hazard analysis, and commensurate with the risk associated with an 
ISFSI or MRS.

DATES: The comment period expires October 7, 2002. Comments received 
after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the 
NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or 
before this date.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff.
    Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 
between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
    You may also provide electronic comments via the NRC's interactive 
rulemaking website at (http://ruleforum.llnl.gov). This site provides 
the capability to upload comments as files (any format), if your web 
browser supports that function. For information about the interactive 
rulemaking website, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher at (301) 415-5905, or 
e-mail [email protected].
    Certain documents related to this rulemaking, including comments 
received, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), Room 
O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. These same documents may 
also be viewed and downloaded electronically via the rulemaking 
website.
    The NRC maintains an Agencywide Document Access and Management 
System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public 
documents. These documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are 
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's 
PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith K. McDaniel, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: (301) 415-5252, e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
II. Objectives
III. Applicability
IV. Discussion
V. Related Regulatory Guide
VI. Discussion of Proposed Amendments by Section
VII. Specific Question for Public Comment
VIII. Criminal Penalties
IX. Agreement State Compatibility
X. Plain Language
XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards
XII. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
XIV. Regulatory Analysis
XV. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
XVI. Backfit Analysis

I. Background

    In 1980, the Commission added 10 CFR part 72 to its regulations to 
establish licensing requirements for the independent storage of spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) (45 FR 74693; 
November 12, 1980). In 1988, the Commission amended part 72 to provide 
for licensing the storage of spent nuclear fuel and HLW in an MRS (53 
FR 31651, August 19, 1988). Subpart E of part 72 contains siting 
evaluation factors that must be investigated and assessed with respect 
to the siting of an ISFSI or MRS, including a requirement for 
evaluation of geological and seismological characteristics. ISFSI and 
MRS facilities are designed and constructed for the interim storage of 
spent nuclear fuel that has aged for at least one year, and other 
solidified high-level radioactive materials that are pending shipment 
to a high-level radioactive waste repository or other disposal.
    The original regulations envisioned ISFSI and MRS facilities as 
spent fuel pools or single, massive dry storage structures. The 
regulations required seismic evaluations equivalent to those for a 
nuclear power plant (NPP) when the ISFSI or MRS is located west of the 
Rocky Mountain Front (west of approximately 104 deg. west longitude), 
referred to hereafter as western U.S., or in areas of known seismic 
activity east of the Rocky Mountain Front (east of approximately 
104 deg. west longitude), referred to hereafter as eastern U.S. A 
seismic design requirement, equivalent to the requirements for a NPP 
(appendix A to part 100) seemed appropriate for these types of 
facilities, given the potential accident scenarios. For those sites 
located in eastern U.S., and not in areas of known seismic activity, 
the regulations allowed for less stringent alternatives.
    For other types of ISFSI or MRS designs, the regulation required a 
site-specific investigation to establish site suitability commensurate 
with the specific requirements of the proposed ISFSI or MRS. The 
Commission explained that for ISFSIs that do not involve massive 
structures, such as dry storage casks and canisters, the required 
design earthquake ground motion (DE) will be determined on a case-by-
case basis until more experience is gained with the licensing of these 
types of units (45 FR 74697).
    For sites located in either the western U.S. or in areas of known 
seismic activity in the eastern U.S., the regulations in 10 CFR part 72 
currently require the use of the procedures in appendix A to part 100 
for determining

[[Page 47746]]

the design basis vibratory ground motion at a site. Appendix A requires 
the use of ``deterministic'' approaches in the development of a single 
set of earthquake sources. The applicant develops for each source a 
postulated earthquake to be used to determine the ground motion that 
can affect the site, locates the postulated earthquake according to 
prescribed rules, and then calculates ground motions at the site.
    Advances in the sciences of seismology and geology, along with the 
occurrence of some licensing issues not foreseen in the development of 
appendix A to part 100, have caused a number of difficulties in the 
application of this regulation to ISFSIs. Specific problematic areas 
include the following:
    1. Because the deterministic approach does not explicitly recognize 
uncertainties in geoscience parameters, probabilistic seismic hazard 
analysis (PSHA) methods were developed that allow explicit expressions 
for the uncertainty in ground motion estimates and provide a means for 
assessing sensitivity to various parameters. Yet appendix A to part 100 
does not allow this application.
    2. The limitations in data and geologic and seismic analyses and 
the rapid accumulation of knowledge in the geosciences have required 
considerable latitude in judgment. The inclusion of detailed geoscience 
assessments in appendix A has caused difficulties for applicants and 
the NRC staff by inhibiting the use of needed judgment and flexibility 
in applying basic principles to new situations; and
    3. Various sections of appendix A are subject to different 
interpretations. For example, there have been differences of opinion 
and differing interpretations among experts as to the largest 
earthquakes to be considered and ground motion models to be used, thus 
often making the licensing process less predictable.
    In 1996, the Commission amended 10 CFR parts 50 and 100 to update 
the criteria used in decisions regarding NPP siting, including geologic 
and seismic engineering considerations for future NPPs (61 FR 65157; 
December 11, 1996). The amendments added a new Sec. 100.23 requiring 
that the uncertainties associated with the determination of the safe 
shutdown earthquake ground motion (SSE) be addressed through an 
appropriate analysis, such as a PSHA or suitable sensitivity analyses 
in lieu of appendix A to part 100. This approach takes into account the 
problematic areas identified above in the earlier siting requirements 
and is based on developments in the field over the past two decades. 
Further, regulatory guides have been used to address implementation 
issues. For example, the Commission provided guidance for NPP license 
applicants in Regulatory Guide 1.165, ``Identification and 
Characterization of Seismic Sources and Determination of Safe Shutdown 
Earthquake Ground Motion,'' and Standard Review Plan NUREG-0800, 
``Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for 
Nuclear Power Reactors,'' Section 2.5.2, ``Vibratory Ground Motion,'' 
Revision 3. However, the Commission left appendix A to part 100 in 
place to preserve the licensing basis for existing plants and confined 
the applicability of Sec. 100.23 to new NPPs.
    With over 10 years of experience licensing dry cask storage (10 
specific licenses have been issued), the Commission is now proposing a 
conforming change to 10 CFR part 72 to require applicants, at some 
locations, to address uncertainties in seismic hazard analysis by using 
appropriate analyses, such as a PSHA or suitable sensitivity analyses, 
for determining the DE. The use of a probabilistic approach or suitable 
sensitivity analyses to siting parallels the change made to 10 CFR part 
100.
    In comparison with a NPP, an operating dry cask ISFSI or MRS 
facility, storing spent nuclear fuel, is a passive facility in which 
the primary activities are waste receipt, handling, and storage. An 
ISFSI or MRS facility does not have the variety and complexity of 
active systems necessary to support safe operations at a NPP. Further, 
the robust cask design required for non-seismic considerations (e.g., 
drop event, shielding), assure low probabilities of failure from 
seismic events. In the unlikely occurrence of a radiological release as 
a result of a seismic event, the radiological consequences to workers 
and the public are significantly lower than those that could arise at a 
NPP. This is because the conditions required for release and dispersal 
of significant quantities of radioactive material, such as high 
temperatures or pressures, are not present in an ISFSI or MRS. This is 
primarily due to the low heat-generation rate of spent fuel that has 
undergone more than one year of decay before storage in an ISFSI or 
MRS, and to the low inventory of volatile radioactive materials readily 
available for release to the environment. The long-lived nuclides 
present in spent fuel are tightly bound in the fuel materials and are 
not readily dispersible. Short-lived volatile nuclides, such as I-131, 
are no longer present in aged spent fuel. Furthermore, even if the 
short-lived nuclides were present during a fuel assembly rupture, the 
canister surrounding the fuel assemblies is designed to confine these 
nuclides. Hence, the Commission believes that the seismically induced 
risk from the operation of an ISFSI or MRS is less than at an operating 
NPP. Therefore, the Commission proposes to revise the DE requirements 
for ISFSI and MRS facilities from the current part 72 requirements, 
which are equivalent to the SSE for a NPP.

II. Objectives

    An ISFSI is designed, constructed, and operated under a part 72 
specific or general license. A part 72 specific license for an ISFSI is 
issued to a named person upon application filed under part 72 
regulations. A part 72 general license for an ISFSI is issued under 10 
CFR 72.210 to persons authorized to possess a NPP license under part 
50, without filing a part 72 license application. A general licensee is 
required to meet the conditions specified in Subpart K of part 72. An 
MRS may be designed, constructed, and operated by DOE under a part 72 
specific license.
    The proposed rule reflects changes that are intended to (1) benefit 
from the experience gained in applying the existing regulation and from 
research; and (2) provide needed regulatory flexibility to incorporate 
into licensing under part 72, state-of-the-art improvements in the 
geosciences and earthquake engineering.
    The objectives of this proposed rule are to:
    1. Require a new specific license applicant for a dry cask storage 
facility located in either the western U.S. or in areas of known 
seismic activity in the eastern U.S., and not co-located with a NPP, to 
address uncertainties in seismic hazard analysis by using appropriate 
analyses, such as a PSHA or suitable sensitivity analyses, for 
determining the DE. All other new specific license applicants for dry 
cask storage facilities would have the option of complying with the 
proposed requirement to use a PSHA or suitable sensitivity analyses to 
address uncertainties in seismic hazard analysis, or other options 
compatible with the existing regulation. (Sec. 72.103)
    2. Allow new ISFSI or MRS applicants to use a DE appropriate for 
and commensurate with the risk associated with an ISFSI or MRS 
(Sec. 72.103); and
    3. Require general licensees to evaluate that the designs of cask 
storage pads and areas adequately account for dynamic loads, in 
addition to static loads. (Sec. 72.212)

[[Page 47747]]

III. Applicability

    This section clarifies the applicability of the proposed new 
Sec. 72.103 for part 72 specific licensees, and modified 
Sec. 72.212(b)(2)(i)(B) for part 72 general licensees.

Applicability of Proposed Sec. 72.103

    (1) Applicants who apply on or after the effective date of the 
final rule, for a part 72 specific license for a dry cask storage ISFSI 
or MRS, located in either the western U.S. or in areas of known seismic 
activity in the eastern U.S., and not co-located with a NPP, would be 
required to address uncertainties in seismic hazard analysis by using 
appropriate analyses, such as a PSHA or suitable sensitivity analyses, 
for determining the DE.
    (2) Applicants who apply on or after the effective date of the 
final rule, for a part 72 specific license for a dry cask storage ISFSI 
or MRS, located in either the western U.S. or in areas of known seismic 
activity in the eastern U.S., and co-located with a NPP, would have the 
option of addressing uncertainties in seismic hazard analysis by using 
appropriate analyses, such as a PSHA or suitable sensitivity analyses, 
or using the existing design criteria for the NPP, for determining the 
DE. When the existing design criteria for the NPP are used for an ISFSI 
at a site with multiple NPPs, the criteria for the most recent NPP must 
be used.
    (3) Applicants who apply on or after the effective date of the 
final rule, for a part 72 specific license for a dry cask storage ISFSI 
or MRS, located in the eastern U.S., except in areas of known seismic 
activity, would have the option of addressing uncertainties in seismic 
hazard analysis by using appropriate analyses, such as a PSHA or 
suitable sensitivity analyses, or using the standardized DE described 
by an appropriate response spectrum anchored at 0.25 g (subject to the 
conditions in proposed Sec. 72.103(a)(1)), or using the existing design 
criteria for the most recent NPP (if applicable), for determining the 
DE.
    (4) The proposed Sec. 72.103 is not applicable to a general 
licensee at an existing NPP operating an ISFSI under a part 72 general 
license anywhere in the U.S.
    The proposed changes apply to the design basis of both a dry cask 
storage type ISFSI and MRS, because these facilities are similar in 
design. The Commission does not intend to revise the 10 CFR part 72 
geological and seismological criteria as they apply to wet modes of 
storage because applications for this means of storage are not expected 
and it is not cost-effective to allocate resources to develop the 
technical bases for such an expansion of the rulemaking. The Commission 
also does not intend to revise the 10 CFR part 72 geological and 
seismological criteria as they apply to dry modes of storage that do 
not use casks because of the lack of experience in licensing these 
facilities.

Applicability of Modified Sec. 72.212(b)(2)(i)(B)

    The proposed changes in Sec. 72.212(b)(2)(i)(B) regarding the 
evaluation of dynamic loads for the design of cask storage pads and 
areas would apply to all general licensees for an ISFSI.
    The applicability of the proposed Sec. 72.103 and modified 
Sec. 72.212(b)(2)(i)(B) is summarized in the table below.

                        Summary of Applicability
   [Design Earthquake Ground Motion for ISFSI or MRS Specific License
 Applicants for Dry Cask Modes of Storage on or after the Effective Date
                           of the Final Rule.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Site condition                    Specific license \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western U.S., or areas of known seismic  Must use PSHA or suitable
 activity in the eastern U.S., not co-    sensitivity analyses to
 located with NPP.                        account for uncertainties in
                                          seismic hazards
                                          evaluations.\2\
Western U.S., or areas of known seismic  PSHA or suitable sensitivity
 activity in the eastern U.S., and co-    analyses to account for
 located with NPP.                        uncertainties in seismic
                                          hazards evaluations,\2\ or
                                         existing NPP design criteria
                                          (multi-unit sites--use the
                                          most recent criteria).
Eastern U.S., and not in areas of known  PSHA or suitable sensitivity
 seismic activity.                        analyses to account for
                                          uncertainties in seismic
                                          hazards evaluations,\2\ or
                                         existing NPP design criteria,
                                          if applicable (multi-unit
                                          activity sites--use the most
                                          recent criteria), or
                                         an appropriate response
                                          spectrum anchored at 0.25g
                                          (subject to the conditions in
                                          proposed Sec.  72.103(a)(1)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Proposed Sec.  72.103 does not apply to general licensees. General
  licensees must satisfy the conditions given in 10 CFR 72.212.
\2\ Regardless of the results of the investigations, anywhere in the
  continental U.S., the DE must have a value for the horizontal ground
  motion of no less than 0.10 g with the appropriate response spectrum.

IV. Discussion

    The Commission is proposing to amend certain sections of part 72 
dealing with seismic siting and design criteria for a dry cask ISFSI or 
MRS. The Commission intends to leave the present Sec. 72.102 in place 
to preserve the ISFSI licensing bases for applications before the 
effective date of the rule, and continue the present ISFSI or MRS 
licensing bases for applications for other than dry cask modes of 
storage. The Commission is proposing to change the heading of 
Sec. 72.102, add a new Sec. 72.103, and modify Sec. 72.212(b)(2)(i)(B).

A. Proposed Change to 10 CFR 72.102

    The heading of Sec. 72.102 would be changed to clarify that the 
present requirements are applicable to ISFSI or MRS licensees or 
license applicants before the effective date of the rule. The 
requirements of Sec. 72.102 that applied to ISFSI or MRS licensees or 
license applicants for other than dry cask modes of storage would 
continue to apply.

B. Proposed 10 CFR 72.103

    Proposed Sec. 72.103 describes the seismic requirements for new 
specific license applicants for dry cask storage at an ISFSI or MRS.
1. Remove Detailed Guidance From the Regulation
    Part 72 currently requires license applicants for an ISFSI or MRS, 
in the western U.S. or in other areas of know seismicity, to comply 
with appendix A to part 100. Appendix A contains both requirements and 
guidance on how to satisfy those requirements. For example, Section IV, 
``Required Investigations,'' of appendix A states that investigations 
are required for vibratory ground

[[Page 47748]]

motion, surface faulting, and seismically induced floods and water 
waves. Appendix A then provides detailed guidance on what constitutes 
an acceptable investigation. A similar situation exists in Section V, 
``Seismic and Geologic Design Bases,'' of appendix A to part 100.
    Geoscience assessments require considerable latitude in judgment 
because of (a) limitations in data; (b) current state-of-the-art of 
geologic and seismic analyses; (c) rapid accumulation of knowledge; and 
(d) evolution in geoscience concepts. The Commission recognized the 
need for latitude in judgment when it amended part 100 in 1996.
    However, specifying geoscience assessments in detail in a 
regulation has created difficulty for applicants and the NRC staff by 
inhibiting needed latitude in judgment. It has inhibited the 
flexibility needed in applying basic principles to new situations and 
the use of evolving methods of analyses (for instance, probabilistic) 
in the licensing process.
    The Commission proposes to add a new section in part 72 that would 
provide specific siting requirements for an ISFSI or MRS instead of 
referencing another part of the regulations (appendix A to part 100). 
The proposed regulation would also reduce the level of detail by 
placing only basic requirements in the rule and providing the details 
on methods acceptable for meeting the requirements in an accompanying 
guidance document. Thus, the proposed regulation contains requirements 
to:
    (i) Determine the geological, seismological, and engineering 
characteristics of the proposed site;
    (ii) Establish a DE; and
    (iii) Identify the uncertainties associated with these 
requirements. Detailed guidance on the procedures acceptable to the NRC 
for meeting the requirements would be provided in a draft regulatory 
guide being issued for public comment as DG-3021, ``Site Evaluations 
and Determination of Design Earthquake Ground Motion for Seismic Design 
of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations and Monitored 
Retrievable Storage Installations.''
2. Address Uncertainties and Use Probabilistic Methods
    The existing approach for determining a DE for an ISFSI or MRS, 
embodied in appendix A to part 100, relies on a ``deterministic'' 
approach. Using this deterministic approach, an applicant develops a 
single set of earthquake sources, develops for each source a postulated 
earthquake to be used as the source of ground motion that can affect 
the site, locates the postulated earthquake according to prescribed 
rules, and then calculates ground motions at the site.
    Although this approach has worked reasonably well for the past 
several decades in the sense that SSE for NPPs sited with this approach 
are judged to be suitably conservative, the approach has not explicitly 
recognized uncertainties in geosciences parameters. Because so little 
is known about earthquake phenomena (especially in the eastern U.S.), 
there have often been differences of opinion and differing 
interpretations among experts as to the largest earthquakes to be 
considered and ground-motion models to be used, often making the 
licensing process less predictable.
    Probabilistic methods that have been developed in the past 15 to 20 
years for evaluation of seismic safety of nuclear facilities allow 
explicit incorporation of different models for zonation, earthquake 
size, ground motion, and other parameters. The advantage of using these 
probabilistic methods is their ability to incorporate different models 
and data sets, thereby providing an explicit expression for the 
uncertainty in the ground motion estimates and a means of assessing 
sensitivity to various input parameters. The western and eastern U.S. 
have fundamentally different tectonic environments and histories of 
tectonic deformation. Consequently, application of these probabilistic 
methodologies has revealed the need to vary the fundamental PSHA 
methodology depending on the tectonic environment of the site.
    In 1996, when the Commission accepted the use of a PSHA methodology 
or suitable sensitivity analyses in Sec. 100.23, it recognized that the 
uncertainties in seismological and geological information must be 
formally evaluated and appropriately accommodated in the determination 
of the SSE for seismic design of NPPs. The Commission further 
recognized that the nature of uncertainty and the appropriate approach 
to account for it depends on the tectonic environment of the site and 
on properly characterizing parameters input to the PSHA or suitable 
sensitivity analyses. Consequently, methods other than probabilistic 
methods, such as sensitivity analyses, may be adequate for some sites 
to account for uncertainties. The Commission believes that certain new 
applicants for ISFSI or MRS licenses, as described in Section III, 
``Applicability,'' above, must use probabilistic methods or other 
sensitivity analyses to account for these uncertainties instead of 
using the appendix A to part 100. The Commission does not intend to 
require new ISFSI or MRS applicants that are co-located with a NPP to 
address uncertainties because the criteria used to evaluate existing 
NPPs are considered to be adequate for ISFSIs, in that the criteria 
have been determined to be safe for NPP licensing, and the seismically 
induced risk of an ISFSI or MRS is significantly lower than that of a 
NPP, as described in Section IV.
    The key elements of the Commission's proposed approach for seismic 
and geologic siting for ISFSI or MRS license review and approval 
consists of:
    a. Conducting site-specific and regional geoscience investigations;
    b. Setting the target exceedance probability commensurate with the 
level of risk associated with an ISFSI or MRS;
    c. Conducting PSHA and determining ground motion level 
corresponding to the target exceedance probability;
    d. Determining if other sources of information change the available 
probabilistic results or data for the site; and
    e. Determining site-specific spectral shape, and scaling this shape 
to the ground motion level determined above.
    In addition, the NRC staff will review the application using all 
available data including insights and information from previous 
licensing experience. Thus, the proposed approach requires thorough 
regional and site-specific geoscience investigations. Results of the 
regional and site-specific investigations must be considered in 
applying the probabilistic method. Two current probabilistic methods 
are the NRC-sponsored study conducted by Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory and the Electric Power Research Institute's seismic hazard 
study. These are essentially regional studies. The regional and site-
specific investigations provide detailed information to update the 
database of the hazard methodology to make the probabilistic analysis 
site-specific.
    Applicants must also incorporate local site geological factors, 
such as stratigraphy and topography, and account for site-specific 
geotechnical properties in establishing the DE. Guidelines to 
incorporate local site factors and advances in ground motion 
attenuation models, and to determine ground motion estimates, are 
outlined in NUREG-0800, Section 2.5.2.
    Methods acceptable to the NRC for implementing the proposed 
regulation related to the PSHA or suitable sensitivity analyses are 
described in DG-3021.

[[Page 47749]]

3. Revise the Design Earthquake Ground Motion
    The present DE is based on the requirements contained in 10 CFR 
part 100 for NPPs. In the Statement of Considerations accompanying the 
initial part 72 rulemaking, the Commission recognized that the design 
peak horizontal acceleration for structures, systems, and components 
(SSCs) need not be as high as for a NPP and should be determined on a 
``case-by-case'' basis until ``more experience is gained with licensing 
of these types of units'' (45 FR 74697; November 12, 1980). With over 
10 years of experience in licensing dry cask storage and with analyses 
demonstrating robust behavior of dry cask storage systems (DCSSs) in 
accident scenarios (10 specific licenses have been issued and 9 
locations use the general license provisions), the Commission now has a 
reasonable basis to consider lower and more appropriate DE parameters 
for a dry cask ISFSI or MRS. Therefore, the Commission proposes to 
reduce the DE for new ISFSI or MRS license applicants to be 
commensurate with the lower risk associated with these facilities.
    I. Factors that result in the lower radiological risk at an ISFSI 
or MRS compared to a NPP include the following:
    a. In comparison with a NPP, an operating ISFSI or MRS is a passive 
facility in which the primary activities are waste receipt, handling, 
and storage. An ISFSI or MRS does not have the variety and complexity 
of active systems necessary to support an operating NPP. After the 
spent fuel is in place, an ISFSI or MRS is essentially a static 
operation.
    b. During normal operations, the conditions required for the 
release and dispersal of significant quantities of radioactive 
materials are not present. There are no high temperatures or pressures 
present during normal operations or under design basis accident 
conditions to cause the release and dispersal of radioactive materials. 
This is primarily due to the low heat-generation rate of spent fuel 
that has undergone more than one year of decay before storage in an 
ISFSI or MRS, and to the low inventory of volatile radioactive 
materials readily available for release to the environment.
    c. The long-lived nuclides present in spent fuel are tightly bound 
in the fuel materials and are not readily dispersible. Short-lived 
volatile nuclides, such as I-131, are no longer present in aged spent 
fuel. Furthermore, even if the short-lived nuclides were present during 
a fuel assembly rupture, the canister surrounding the fuel assemblies 
would confine these nuclides. Therefore, the Commission believes that 
the seismically induced radiological risk associated with an ISFSI or 
MRS is significantly less than the risk associated with a NPP. Also, 
the Commission has stated that the use of risk-informed regulation is 
appropriate.
    d. The critical element for protection against radiation release is 
the sealed cask containing the spent fuel assemblies. The standards in 
part 72 subparts E ``Siting Evaluation Factors,'' and F ``General 
Design Criteria,'' ensure that the dry cask storage designs are very 
rugged and robust. The casks must maintain structural integrity during 
a variety of postulated non-seismic events, including cask drops, tip-
over, and wind driven missile impacts. These non-seismic events 
challenge cask integrity significantly more than seismic events. 
Therefore, the casks are expected to have substantial design margins to 
withstand forces from a seismic event greater than the design 
earthquake.
    e. During a seismic event at an ISFSI or MRS, a cask may slide if 
lateral seismic forces are greater than the frictional resistance 
between the cask and the concrete pad. The sliding and resulting 
displacements are computed by the applicant to demonstrate that the 
casks, which are spaced to satisfy the thermal criteria in part 72 
subpart F, are precluded from impacting other adjacent casks. 
Furthermore, the NRC staff guidance in reviewing cask designs is to 
show that public health and safety is maintained during a postulated 
DE. This can be demonstrated by showing that either casks are designed 
to prevent sliding or tip over during a seismic event, or the 
consequences of the calculated cask movements are acceptable. Even if 
the casks slide or tip over and then impact other casks or the pad 
during a seismic event significantly greater than the proposed DE, 
there are adequate design margins to ensure that the casks maintain 
their structural integrity.
    f. The combined probability of the occurrence of a seismic event 
and operational failure that leads to a radiological release is much 
smaller than the individual probabilities of either of these events. 
This is because the handling building and crane are used for only a 
fraction of the licensed period of an ISFSI or MRS and for only a few 
casks at a time. Additionally, dry cask ISFSIs are expected to handle 
only sealed casks and not individual fuel assemblies. Therefore, the 
risk of a potential release of radioactivity due to failure of the cask 
handling building and/or crane during a seismic event is small.
    II. Additional rationale for reducing the DE for new ISFSI or MRS 
license applicants include the following:
    a. Because the DE is a smooth broad-band spectrum, which envelops 
the controlling earthquake responses, the vibratory ground motion 
specified is conservative.
    b. The crane used for lifting the casks in the building is designed 
using the same industry codes as for a NPP (ACI 349, AISC N690, ANSI 
N14.6, and NUREG-0612), and has a safety factor of five (5) or greater 
for lifted loads using the ultimate strength of the materials. 
Therefore, the crane would perform satisfactorily during an earthquake 
much larger than the design earthquake.
    c. The determination of a DE for an ISFSI or MRS is consistent with 
the design approach used in DOE Standard DOE-STD-1020, ``Natural 
Phenomena Hazards Design Evaluation Criteria for Department of Energy 
Facilities,'' for similar type facilities.
    The present DE (equivalent to the SSE for a NPP) has a mean annual 
probability of exceedance of approximately 1.0E-04 (i.e., in any one 
year, the probability is one in ten thousand that the DE established 
for the site will be exceeded). DG-3021 recommends a mean annual 
probability of exceedance. The Commission is soliciting public comments 
on the appropriate mean annual probability of exceedance, as discussed 
in Section VII of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

C. Proposed Change to 10 CFR 72.212(b)(2)(i)(B)

    The Commission is proposing to modify Sec. 72.212(b)(2)(i)(B) to 
require that general licensees evaluate dynamic loads, in addition to 
static loads, in the design of cask storage pads and areas for ISFSIs 
to ensure that casks are not placed in unanalyzed conditions. During a 
seismic event, the cask storage pads and areas experience dynamic loads 
in addition to static loads. The dynamic loads depend on the 
interaction of the casks, cask storage pads, and areas. Consideration 
of the dynamic loads of the stored casks, in addition to the static 
loads, for the design of the cask storage pads and areas, would ensure 
that the cask storage pads and areas would perform satisfactorily 
during a seismic event.
    The proposed revision would also require consideration of potential 
amplification of earthquakes through soil-structure interaction, and 
soil liquefaction potential or other soil instability due to vibratory 
ground motion. Depending on the properties of

[[Page 47750]]

soil and structures, the free-field earthquake acceleration input loads 
may be amplified at the top of the storage pad. These amplified 
acceleration input values must be bound by the design bases seismic 
acceleration values for the cask, specified in the Certificate of 
Compliance. Liquefaction of the soil and instability during a vibratory 
motion due to an earthquake event may affect the cask stability.
    The proposed changes to Sec. 72.212 would not actually impose new 
burden on the general licensees because they currently need to consider 
dynamic loads to meet the requirements in Sec. 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A). 
Section 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A) requires that general licensees perform 
written evaluations to meet conditions set forth in the cask 
Certificate of Compliance (CoC). These CoCs require that dynamic loads, 
such as seismic and tornado loads, be evaluated to meet the cask design 
bases. Specific licensees are currently required, under 
Sec. 72.122(b)(2), to design ISFSIs to withstand the effects of dynamic 
loads, such as earthquakes and tornados.

V. Related Regulatory Guide

    The NRC is developing a new regulatory guide, a draft of which has 
been issued as developed DG-3021, ``Site Evaluations and Determination 
of Design Earthquake Ground Motion for Seismic Design of Independent 
Spent Fuel Storage Installations and Monitored Retrievable Storage 
Installations.'' This guide is being developed to provide license 
applicants with the necessary guidance for implementing the proposed 
regulation. DG-3021 is being developed to provide general guidance and 
recommendations, describes acceptable procedures and provides a list of 
references that present acceptable methodologies to identify and 
characterize capable tectonic sources and seismogenic sources. Section 
IV.B of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION describes the key elements.
    Requests for single copies of draft or active regulatory guides 
(which may be reproduced) or for placement on an automatic distribution 
list for single copies of future draft guides in specific divisions 
should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services 
Section, or by fax to (301) 415-2289; email [email protected]. 
Copies are available for inspection or copying for a fee from the NRC 
Public Document Room at 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
MD; the PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555; 
telephone (301) 415-4737 or 1-(800) 397-4209; fax (301) 415-3548; e-
mail [email protected].
    In the future editorial changes to NUREG-1536, ``Standard Review 
Plan for Dry Cask Storage Systems,'' and NUREG-1567, ``Standard Review 
Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Facilities,'' would be made. For 
example, the standard review plans would need to reference the proposed 
Sec. 72.103 and the effective version of the draft guide, DG-3021.

VI. Discussion of Proposed Amendments by Section

    This proposed rule would make the following changes to 10 CFR Part 
72:

Section 72.9  Information Collection Requirements: OMB Approval

    In Section 72.9, the list of sections where approved information 
collection requirements appear is amended to add Section 72.103.

Section 72.102  Geological and Seismological Characteristics. (Current 
Heading)

Section 72.102  Geological and Seismological Characteristics for 
Applications Before [insert Effective Date of the Rule] and 
Applications for Other than Dry Cask Modes of Storage. (Proposed New 
Heading)

    The heading of Sec. 72.102 is proposed to be revised because 
Sec. 72.103 is added for ISFSI or MRS applications after the effective 
date of the rule. Section 72.103 would only apply to dry cask modes of 
storage. Therefore, the heading of Sec. 72.102 is being modified to 
show the revised applicability of this section. The requirements of 
Sec. 72.102 would continue to apply for an ISFSI or MRS using wet modes 
of storage or dry modes of storage that do not use casks.
    The Commission does not intend for existing part 72 licensees to 
re-evaluate the geological and seismological characteristics for siting 
and design using the revised criteria in the proposed changes to the 
regulations. These existing facilities are considered safe because the 
criteria used in their evaluation have been determined to be safe for 
NPP licensing, and the seismically induced risk of an ISFSI or MRS is 
significantly lower than that of a NPP. The proposed change leaves the 
current Sec. 72.102 in place to preserve the licensing bases of present 
ISFSIs.

Section 72.103  Geological and Seismological Characteristics for 
Applications for Dry Cask Modes of Storage on or After [Insert 
Effective Date of the Rule].

    The trend towards dry cask storage has resulted in the need for 
applicants for new licenses to request exemptions from 
Sec. 72.102(f)(1), which requires that for sites evaluated under the 
criteria of appendix A to part 100, the DE must be equivalent to the 
SSE for a NPP. By making Sec. 72.102 applicable only to existing ISFSIs 
and by providing a new Sec. 72.103, the proposed rule is intended to 
preclude the need for exemption requests from new license applicants.
    The proposed requirements in Sec. 72.103 parallel the requirements 
in Sec. 72.102. However, new applicants for sites located in either the 
western U.S. or in the eastern U.S. in areas of known seismic activity, 
and not co-located with a NPP, for dry cask storage applications, on or 
after the effective date of this rule, would be required to address the 
uncertainties in seismic hazard analysis by using a PSHA or sensitivity 
analyses instead of using the deterministic methods of appendix A to 
part 100 without sensitivity analyses. Applicants located in either the 
western U.S. or in areas of known seismic activity in eastern U.S., and 
co-located with a NPP, have the option of using the proposed PSHA 
methodology or suitable sensitivity analyses for determining the DE, or 
using the existing design criteria for the NPP. This proposed change to 
require an understanding of the uncertainties in the determination of 
the DE would make the regulations compatible with 10 CFR 100.23 for 
NPPs and would allow the geological and seismological criteria for an 
ISFSI or MRS dry cask storage facilities to be risk-informed.
    Proposed Sec. 72.103(a)(1) would provide that sites located in 
eastern U.S. and not in areas of known seismic activity, would be 
acceptable if the results from onsite foundation and geological 
investigation, literature review, and regional geological 
reconnaissance show no unstable geological characteristics, soil 
stability problems, or potential for vibratory ground motion at the 
site in excess of an appropriate response spectrum anchored at 0.2 g. 
Section 72.103(a)(1) would parallel the requirements currently included 
in Sec. 72.102(a)(1).
    Proposed Sec. 72.103(a)(2) would provide that applicants conducting 
evaluations in accordance with Sec. 72.103(a)(1) may use a standardized 
DE described by an appropriate response spectrum anchored at 0.25 g.

[[Page 47751]]

These requirements parallel the requirements currently included in 
Sec. 72.102(a)(2). Section 72.102(a)(2) provides an alternative to 
determine a site-specific DE using the criteria and level of 
investigations required by appendix A to part 100. Proposed 
Sec. 72.103(a)(2) would also provide, as an alternative, that a site-
specific DE may be determined by using the criteria and level of 
investigations in proposed Sec. 72.103(f). Section 72.103(f) is a new 
provision that would require certain new ISFSI or MRS license 
applicants to address uncertainties in seismic hazard analysis by using 
appropriate analyses, such as a PSHA or suitable sensitivity analyses, 
in determining the DE instead of the current deterministic approach in 
Appendix A to Part 100.
    Proposed Sec. 72.103(a)(2) would also provide that if an ISFSI or 
MRS is located at a NPP site, the existing geological and seismological 
design criteria for the NPP may be used instead of PSHA techniques or 
suitable sensitivity analysis because the risk due to a seismic event 
at an ISFSI or MRS is less than that of a NPP. If the existing design 
criteria for the NPP is used and the site has multiple NPPs, then the 
criteria for the most recent NPP must be used to ensure that the 
seismic design criteria used is based on the latest seismic hazard 
information at the site.
    Proposed Sec. 72.103(b) would provide that applicants for licenses 
for sites located in either the western U.S. or in the eastern U.S. in 
areas of known seismic activity, must investigate the geological, 
seismological, and engineering characteristics of the site using the 
PSHA techniques or suitable sensitivity analysis of proposed 
Sec. 72.103(f). If an ISFSI or MRS is located at a NPP site, the 
existing geological and seismological design criteria for the NPP may 
be used instead of PSHA techniques or suitable sensitivity analysis 
because the risk due to a seismic event at an ISFSI or MRS is less than 
that of a NPP. If the existing design criteria for the NPP is used and 
the site has multiple NPPs, then the criteria for the most recent NPP 
must be used to ensure that the seismic design criteria used is based 
on the latest seismic hazard information at the site.
    Proposed Sec. 72.103(c) is identical to Sec. 72.102(c). Proposed 
Sec. 72.103(c) would require that sites, other than bedrock sites, must 
be evaluated for the liquefaction potential or other soil instability 
due to vibratory ground motion. This is to ensure that ISFSI or MRS 
would be adequately supported on a stable foundation during a seismic 
event.
    Proposed Sec. 72.103(d) is identical to Sec. 72.102(d). Proposed 
Sec. 72.103(d) would require that site specific investigation and 
laboratory analysis must show that soil conditions are adequate for the 
proposed foundation loading. This is to ensure that ISFSI or MRS would 
be adequately supported on a stable foundation during a seismic event.
    Proposed Sec. 72.103(e) is identical to Sec. 72.102(e). Proposed 
Sec. 72.103(e) would require that in an evaluation of alternative 
sites, those which require a minimum of engineered provisions to 
correct site deficiencies are preferred, and that sites with unstable 
geologic characteristics should be avoided. This is to ensure that 
sites with minimum deficiencies are selected and that ISFSI or MRS 
would be adequately supported on a stable foundation during a seismic 
event.
    Proposed Sec. 72.103(f) would describe the steps required for 
seismic hazard analysis to determine the DE for use in the design of 
structures, systems, and components of an ISFSI or MRS. The proposed 
scope of site investigations to determine the geological, 
seismological, and engineering characteristics of a site and its 
environs is similar to Sec. 100.23 requirements. Unlike Sec. 72.102(f), 
which requires that for sites that have been evaluated under the 
criteria of appendix A to part 100 the DE must be equivalent to the SSE 
for a NPP, proposed Sec. 72.103(f) requires evaluating uncertainty in 
seismic hazard analysis by using a PSHA or suitable sensitivity 
analyses, similar to 10 CFR 100.23 requirements for a NPP.
    Proposed Sec. 72.103(f)(1) would require that the geological, 
seismological, and engineering characteristics of a site and its 
environs must be investigated in sufficient scope and detail to permit 
an adequate evaluation of the proposed site and to determine the DE. 
These requirements track existing requirements in Sec. 100.23(c).
    Proposed Secs. 72.103(f)(2)(i) through (iv) would specify criteria 
for determining the DE for the site, the potential for surface tectonic 
and nontectonic deformations, the design basis for seismically induced 
floods and water waves, and other design conditions. In particular, 
Sec. 72.103(f)(2)(i) would provide that a license applicant must 
address uncertainties in seismic hazard analysis by using appropriate 
analyses, such as, a PSHA or suitable sensitivity analyses, for 
determining the DE. Sections 72.103(f)(2)(ii) through (iv) track the 
corresponding requirements in Sec. 100.23(d).
    Finally, the proposed Sec. 72.103(f)(3) would provide that 
regardless of the results of the investigations anywhere in the 
continental U.S., the DE must have a value for the horizontal ground 
motion of no less than 0.10 g with the appropriate response spectrum. 
This provision would be identical to the requirement currently included 
in Sec. 72.102(f)(2).

Section 72.212  Conditions of General License Issued Under Sec. 72.210.

    Section 72.212(b)(2)(i)(B) would be revised to require general 
licensees to address the dynamic loads of the stored casks in addition 
to the static loads. The requirements would be changed because during a 
seismic event the cask experiences dynamic inertia loads in addition to 
the static loads, which are supported by the concrete pad. The dynamic 
loads depend on the interaction of the casks, the pad, and the 
foundation. Consideration of the dynamic loads, in addition to the 
static loads, of the stored casks would ensure that the pad would 
perform satisfactorily during a seismic event.
    The proposed new paragraph would also require consideration of 
potential amplification of earthquakes through soil-structure 
interaction, and soil liquefaction potential or other soil instability 
due to vibratory ground motion. Depending on the properties of soil and 
structures, the free-field earthquake acceleration input loads may be 
amplified at the top of the storage pad. These amplified acceleration 
input values must be bound by the design bases seismic acceleration 
values for the cask, specified in the Certificate of Compliance. 
Liquefaction of the soil and instability during a vibratory motion due 
to an earthquake event may affect the cask stability, and thus must be 
addressed.
    The proposed changes to Sec. 72.212 are intended to require that 
general licensees perform appropriate load evaluations of cask storage 
pads and areas to ensure that casks are not placed in an unanalyzed 
condition. Similar requirements currently exist in Sec. 72.102(c) for 
an ISFSI specific license and are proposed in Sec. 72.103(c).

VII. Specific Question for Public Comment

    The Commission welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposed 
rule and is especially interested in receiving comments on the 
following question:
    Discussion: The present mean annual probability of exceedance value 
for determining the DE for an ISFSI or MRS is approximately 1.0E-04 
(i.e., in any one year, the probability is one in ten thousand, which 
is the reciprocal of 1.0E-04, that the DE established for the

[[Page 47752]]

site will be exceeded). This value is based on nuclear plant 
requirements. The Commission is considering allowing for the use of a 
mean annual probability of exceedance value in the range of 5.0E-04 
(i.e., in any one year, the probability is one in two thousand that the 
DE established for the site will be exceeded) to 1.0E-04 for ISFSI or 
MRS applications. Draft Regulatory Guide DG-3021, ``Site Evaluations 
and Determination of Design Earthquake Ground Motion for Seismic Design 
of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations and Monitored 
Retrievable Storage Installations,'' listed in Section V, has been 
developed to provide guidelines that are acceptable to the NRC staff 
for determining the DE for an ISFSI or MRS. Currently, DG-3021 
recommends a mean annual probability of exceedance value of 5.0E-04 as 
an appropriate risk-informed value for the design of a dry cask storage 
ISFSI or MRS. However, the NRC staff is undertaking further analysis to 
support a specific value. An ISFSI or MRS license applicant would need 
to demonstrate that the use of a higher probability of exceedance value 
would not impose any undue radiological risk to public health and 
safety.
    Question: In view of this discussion and the discussion in Section 
IV.C., what is the appropriate mean annual probability of exceedance 
value to be used for the seismic design of an ISFSI or MRS and what is 
the justification for this probability?

VIII. Criminal Penalties

    For the purpose of Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the 
Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR Part 72 under one or more of 
sections 161b, 161i, or 161o of the AEA. Willful violations of the rule 
would be subject to criminal enforcement.

IX. Agreement State Compatibility

    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), this rule is classified as Compatibility Category ``NRC.'' 
Compatibility is not required for Category ``NRC'' regulations. The NRC 
program elements in this category are those that relate directly to 
areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the AEA of 1954, as amended, 
or the provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 
Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to 
NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements via a 
mechanism that is consistent with the particular State's administrative 
procedure laws, but does not confer regulatory authority on the State.

X. Plain Language

    The Presidential Memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled ``Plain 
Language in Government Writing'' directed that the Government's writing 
be in plain language. The NRC requests comments on the proposed rule 
specifically with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the 
language used. Comments should be sent to the address listed under the 
heading ADDRESSES above.

XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards

    The National Technology Transfer Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) 
requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the 
use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. In this proposed rule, the NRC is presenting amendments to 
its regulations in 10 CFR part 72 for the geological and seismological 
criteria of a dry cask independent spent fuel storage facility, to make 
them commensurate with the risk of the facility. This action does not 
constitute the establishment of a standard that establishes generally-
applicable requirements.

XII. 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, not to prepare an environmental impact 
statement for this proposed rule because the Commission has concluded, 
based on an Environmental Assessment, that this proposed rule, if 
adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting 
the quality of the human environment.
    The Commission concluded that no significant environmental impact 
would result from this rulemaking. In comparison with a NPP, an 
operating ISFSI or MRS is a passive facility in which the primary 
activities are waste receipt, handling, and storage. An ISFSI or MRS 
does not have the variety and complexity of active systems necessary to 
support an operating NPP. Once the spent fuel is in place, an ISFSI or 
MRS is essentially a static operation and, during normal operations, 
the conditions required for the release and dispersal of significant 
quantities of radioactive materials are not present. There are no high 
temperatures or pressures present during normal operations or under 
design basis accident conditions to cause the release and dispersal of 
radioactive materials. This is primarily due to the low heat generation 
rate of spent fuel after it has decayed for more than one year before 
storage in an ISFSI or MRS and the low inventory of volatile 
radioactive materials readily available for release to the environs. 
The long-lived nuclides present in spent fuel are tightly bound in the 
fuel materials and are not readily dispersible. The short-lived 
volatile nuclides, such as I-131, are no longer present in aged spent 
fuel stored at an ISFSI or MRS. Furthermore, even if the short-lived 
nuclides were present during an event of a fuel assembly rupture, the 
canister surrounding the fuel assemblies would confine these nuclides. 
Therefore, the seismically induced radiological risk associated with an 
ISFSI or MRS is less than the risk associated with a NPP.
    The determination of this environmental assessment is that there 
will be no significant environmental impact due to the proposed changes 
because the same level of safety would be maintained by the new 
requirements, taking into account the lesser risk from an ISFSI or MRS. 
However, the general public should note that the NRC welcomes public 
participation. Comments on any aspect of the Environmental Assessment 
may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.
    The NRC has sent a copy of the Environmental Assessment and this 
proposed rule to every State Liaison Officer and requested their 
comments on the Environmental Assessment. The Environmental Assessment 
may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, O-1F21,11555 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, MD. Single copies of the Environmental Assessment are 
available from Keith K. McDaniel, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, telephone: (301) 415-5252, e-mail: [email protected].

XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that 
are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq). This proposed rule has been submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval of the information collection 
requirements.
    The burden to the public for these information collections is 
estimated to average 2,563 hours per response, including the time for 
reviewing

[[Page 47753]]

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
information collection. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is 
seeking public comment on the potential impact of the information 
collections contained in the proposed rule and on the following issues:

    1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the 
proper performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether 
the information will have practical utility?
    2. Is the estimate of burden accurate?
    3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 
of the information to be collected?
    4. How can the burden of the information collection be 
minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques?

    Send comments on any aspect of these proposed information 
collections, 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.Comments to OMB on the information 
collections or on the above issues should be submitted by August 21, 
2002. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is 
practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to 
comments received after this date.

Public Protection Notification

    The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to a request for information or an information collection 
requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid 
OMB control number.

XIV. Regulatory Analysis

    The Commission has prepared a draft Regulatory Analysis (RA) 
entitled: ``Regulatory Analysis of Geological and Seismological 
Characteristics for Design of Dry Cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage 
Installations.'' The RA examines the costs and benefits of the 
alternatives considered by the Commission.
    The Commission requests public comment on the RA. Comments may be 
submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading. The RA 
is available on the NRC rulemaking website at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov, and is also available for inspection at the NRC 
Public Document Room located at One White Flint North, Room O-1F21, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Single copies of the RA are 
available from Keith K. McDaniel, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, telephone: (301) 415-5252, e-mail: [email protected].

XV. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 
605(b)), the Commission certifies that this proposed rule will not, if 
promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. This proposed rule affects applicants for a part 72 
specific license, and general licensees on or after the effective date 
of the rule for an ISFSI or MRS. These companies do not generally fall 
within the scope of the definition of ``small entities'' set forth in 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set 
out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 
CFR part 121.

XVI. Backfit Analysis

    The Commission has determined that the backfit rule, Sec. 72.62, 
does not apply to the changes in Secs. 72.9, 72.102, and 72.103 because 
they do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as 
defined in Sec. 72.62(a).
    Section 72.212(b)(2)(i)(B) currently requires evaluations of static 
loads of the stored casks for design of the cask storage pads and areas 
(foundation). The proposed revisions to this section would require 
general licensees also to address the dynamic loads of the stored 
casks. During a seismic event, the cask storage pads and areas 
experience dynamic loads in addition to static loads. The dynamic loads 
depend on the interaction of the casks, cask storage pads, and areas. 
Consideration of the dynamic loads of the stored casks, in addition to 
the static loads, for the design of the cask storage pads and areas, 
would ensure that the cask storage pads and areas would perform 
satisfactorily during a seismic event.
    The proposed revision would also require consideration of potential 
amplification of earthquakes through soil-structure interaction, and 
soil liquefaction potential or other soil instability due to vibratory 
ground motion. Depending on the properties of soil and structures, the 
free-field earthquake acceleration input loads may be amplified at the 
top of the storage pad. These amplified acceleration input values must 
be bound by the design bases seismic acceleration values for the cask, 
specified in the Certificate of Compliance (CoC). The soil liquefaction 
and instability during a vibratory motion due to an earthquake event 
may affect the cask stability.
    The proposed changes to Sec. 72.212(b)(2)(i)(B) will impact 
procedures required to operate an ISFSI and; therefore, implicate the 
backfit rule. The proposed changes would require that general licensees 
perform appropriate analyses to assure that the cask seismic design 
bases bound the specific site seismic conditions, and that casks are 
not placed in an unanalyzed condition. Therefore, these proposed 
changes are necessary to assure adequate protection to occupational or 
public health and safety. Although the Commission is imposing this 
backfit because it is necessary to assure adequate protection to 
occupational or public health and safety, the proposed changes to 
Sec. 72.212 would not actually impose new burden on the general 
licensees because they currently need to consider dynamic loads to meet 
the requirements in Sec. 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A). Section 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A) 
requires that general licensees perform written evaluations to meet 
conditions set forth in the cask CoC. These CoCs require that dynamic 
loads, such as seismic and tornado loads, be evaluated to meet the cask 
design bases. Since the general licensees currently evaluate dynamic 
loads for evaluating the casks, pads and areas, the proposed changes to 
Sec. 72.212(b)(2)(i)(B) would not actually require any general 
licensees presently operating an ISFSI to re-perform any written 
evaluations previously undertaken.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72

    Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower 
training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, 
Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.

    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 proposing to 
adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72.

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

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


[[Page 47754]]


    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. 2951 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).

    2. In Sec. 72.9, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 72.9  Information collection requirements: OMB approval.

* * * * *
    (b) The approved information collection requirements contained in 
this part appear in Secs. 72.7, 72.11, 72.16, 72.22 through 72.34, 
72.42, 72.44, 72.48 through 72.56, 72.62, 72.70, through 72.82, 72.90, 
72.92, 72.94, 72.98, 72.100, 72.102, 72.103, 72.104, 72.108, 72.120, 
72.126, 72.140 through 72.176, 72.180 through 72.186, 72.192, 72.206, 
72.212, 72.216, 72.218, 72.230, 72.232, 72.234, 72.236, 72.240, 72.242, 
72.244, 72.248.
    3. The heading of Sec. 72.102 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 72.102  Geological and seismological characteristics for 
applications before [insert Effective Date of the Rule] and 
applications for other than dry cask modes of storage.

* * * * *
    4. A new Sec. 72.103 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 72.103  Geological and seismological characteristics for 
applications for dry cask modes of storage on or after [insert 
Effective Date of the Rule].

    (a)(1) East of the Rocky Mountain Front (east of approximately 104o 
west longitude), except in areas of known seismic activity including 
but not limited to the regions around New Madrid, MO, Charleston, SC, 
Attica, NY will be acceptable if the results from onsite foundation and 
geological investigation, literature review, and regional geological 
reconnaissance show no unstable geological characteristics, soil 
stability problems, or potential for vibratory ground motion at the 
site in excess of an appropriate response spectrum anchored at 0.2 g.
    (2) For those sites that have been evaluated under paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section that are east of the Rocky Mountain Front, and that are 
not in areas of known seismic activity, a standardized design 
earthquake ground motion (DE) described by an appropriate response 
spectrum anchored at 0.25 g may be used. Alternatively, a site-specific 
DE may be determined by using the criteria and level of investigations 
required by paragraph (f) of this section. For a site with a co-located 
nuclear power plant (NPP), the existing geological and seismological 
design criteria for the NPP may be used. If the existing design 
criteria for the NPP is used and the site has multiple NPPs, then the 
criteria for the most recent NPP must be used.
    (b) West of the Rocky Mountain Front (west of approximately 104o 
west longitude), and in other areas of known potential seismic activity 
east of the Rocky Mountain Front, seismicity must be evaluated by the 
techniques presented in paragraph (f) of this section. Sites that lie 
within the range of strong near-field ground motion from historical 
earthquakes on large capable faults should be avoided. If an ISFSI or 
MRS is located on a NPP site, the existing geological and seismological 
design criteria for the NPP may be used. If the existing design 
criteria for the NPP is used and the site has multiple NPPs, then the 
criteria for the most recent NPP must be used.
    (c) Sites other than bedrock sites must be evaluated for their 
liquefaction potential or other soil instability due to vibratory 
ground motion.
    (d) Site-specific investigations and laboratory analyses must show 
that soil conditions are adequate for the proposed foundation loading.
    (e) In an evaluation of alternative sites, those which require a 
minimum of engineered provisions to correct site deficiencies are 
preferred. Sites with unstable geologic characteristics should be 
avoided.
    (f) The DE for use in the design of structures, systems, and 
components must be determined as follows:
    (1) Geological, seismological, and engineering characteristics. The 
geological, seismological, and engineering characteristics of a site 
and its environs must be investigated in sufficient scope and detail to 
permit an adequate evaluation of the proposed site, to provide 
sufficient information to support evaluations performed to arrive at 
estimates of the DE, and to permit adequate engineering solutions to 
actual or potential geologic and seismic effects at the proposed site. 
The size of the region to be investigated and the type of data 
pertinent to the investigations must be determined based on the nature 
of the region surrounding the proposed site. Data on the vibratory 
ground motion, tectonic surface deformation, nontectonic deformation, 
earthquake recurrence rates, fault geometry and slip rates, site 
foundation material, and seismically induced floods and water waves 
must be obtained by reviewing pertinent literature and carrying out 
field investigations. However, each applicant shall investigate all 
geologic and seismic factors (for example, volcanic activity) that may 
affect the design and operation of the proposed ISFSI or MRS facility 
irrespective of whether these factors are explicitly included in this 
section.
    (2) Geologic and seismic siting factors. The geologic and seismic 
siting factors considered for design must include a determination of 
the DE for the site, the potential for surface tectonic and nontectonic 
deformations, the design bases for seismically induced floods and water 
waves, and other design conditions as stated in paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of 
this section.
    (i) Determination of the Design Earthquake Ground Motion (DE). The 
DE for the site is characterized by both horizontal and vertical free-
field ground motion response spectra at the free ground surface. In 
view of the limited data available on vibratory ground motions for 
strong earthquakes, it usually will be appropriate that the design 
response spectra be smoothed spectra. The DE for the site is determined 
considering the results of the investigations required by paragraph 
(f)(1) of this section. Uncertainties are inherent in these estimates 
and must be addressed through an appropriate analysis, such as a 
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) or suitable sensitivity 
analyses.
    (ii) Determination of the potential for surface tectonic and 
nontectonic deformations. Sufficient geological, seismological, and 
geophysical data must be provided to clearly establish if there is a 
potential for surface deformation.
    (iii) Determination of design bases for seismically induced floods 
and water waves. The size of seismically induced floods and water waves 
that could affect

[[Page 47755]]

a site from either locally or distantly generated seismic activity must 
be determined.
    (iv) Determination of siting factors for other design conditions. 
Siting factors for other design conditions that must be evaluated 
include soil and rock stability, liquefaction potential, and natural 
and artificial slope stability. Each applicant shall evaluate all 
siting factors and potential causes of failure, such as, the physical 
properties of the materials underlying the site, ground disruption, and 
the effects of vibratory ground motion that may affect the design and 
operation of the proposed ISFSI or MRS.
    (3) Regardless of the results of the investigations anywhere in the 
continental U.S., the DE must have a value for the horizontal ground 
motion of no less than 0.10 g with the appropriate response spectrum.
    5. In Sec. 72.212, paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 72.212  Conditions of general license issued under Sec. 72.210.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) cask storage pads and areas have been designed to adequately 
support the static and dynamic loads of the stored casks, considering 
potential amplification of earthquakes through soil-structure 
interaction, and soil liquefaction potential or other soil instability 
due to vibratory ground motion; and
* * * * *

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of July, 2002.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary for the Commission.
[FR Doc. 02-18436 Filed 7-19-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P