[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 312-317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-25]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2005 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 312]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 71
RIN 3150-AG71
Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material; Withdrawal
of Subpart I
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule: withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing a
portion of a proposed rule (Subpart I, April 30, 2002; 67 FR 21390)
that would have allowed certificate holders for dual-purpose (storage
and transport) spent fuel casks, designated as Type B(DP) packages, to
make certain design changes to the transportation package without prior
NRC approval. The NRC is taking this action because it has received
significant comments regarding the cost and complexity to implement the
proposed change authority rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neelam Bhalla, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6843, e-mail
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On April 30, 2002 (67 FR 21390), the NRC published in the Federal
Register a proposed rule amending NRC's regulations on packaging and
transporting radioactive materials to make the regulations compatible
with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) standards. The
proposed final rule also proposed changes in fissile material exemption
requirements to address the unintended economic impact of NRC's
emergency final rule entitled, ``Fissile Material Shipments and
Exemptions'' and addressed a petition for rulemaking (PRM-73-12)
submitted by International Energy Consultants, Inc. The Commission also
identified eight additional issues for consideration in the 10 CFR Part
71 rulemaking process. One of these NRC-initiated issues was Issue 15,
adoption of change authority for dual-purpose package certificate
holders. The proposed rule addressing this issue, 10 CFR Subpart I--
Application for Type B(DP) Package Approval, would have created a new
type of package certification, Type B(DP). The proposed Subpart I would
also have authorized holders of Type B(DP) certificates to make changes
to the package design and procedures without NRC approval under certain
conditions.
NRC received substantial comments on the proposed rule, including
numerous comments on the proposed Subpart I. The comments on the
proposed Subpart I are presented below, with NRC's responses. On
January 26, 2004 (69 FR 3698), the NRC published in the Federal
Register a final rule amending 10 CFR Part 71. In that final rule, the
Commission did not reach a final decision on the issue of change
authority for dual-purpose package certificate holders. The NRC
determined that implementation of the proposed change authority rule
(Issue 15) could result in new regulatory burdens and significant
costs, and that certain changes were already authorized under the
current 10 CFR Part 71 regulations. The NRC further stated in the
Federal Register that additional stakeholder input was needed on the
values and impacts of the change authority rule before it could decide
whether to adopt a final rule providing change authority. Subsequently,
the NRC issued a discussion paper on March 15, 2004 (69 FR 12088), to
facilitate discussions of the change authority rule and held a public
workshop on April 15, 2004, with appropriate stakeholders to discuss
the same proposed rule. The workshop transcripts are available on the
NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov, under Current Rulemakings,
Final Rules and Policy Statements, Compatibility with IAEA
Transportation Safety Standards (TS-R-1) and Other Transportation
Safety Amendments Rulemaking Text and Other Documents (RIN 3150-AG71).
Information collected from the public workshop, as well as written
comments received from the stakeholders, were generally against
implementation of the change authority rule. The proposed 10 CFR 71.153
of Subpart I would require the applicant for a Type B(DP) package to
include two parts: (1) A current Part 71 application for a Type B(U)
package; and (2) the additional information specifically required for
the Type B(DP) packages, including, among other things, a safety
analysis report (SAR) that provides an analysis of potential accidents,
package response to these potential accidents, and consequences to the
public.
The major concern raised by the dual-purpose cask vendors and
industry representatives is that the second SAR specified in the
proposed Subpart I would impose a substantial cost and burden on them.
Unlike current Part 71 standards for Type B(U) packages that are
fundamentally route and mode independent, transport routes and
population distributions might be needed for the second SAR in order to
evaluate potential accidents, package response to these accidents, and
consequences to the public. In addition, the accident analyses would be
more complicated than the engineering examinations under the existing
Part 71 hypothetical accident conditions. The dual-purpose cask vendors
and industry representatives believe that it could require significant
expenditures on the part of the applicant to produce such an SAR. In
light of the public comments received, the Commission has reconsidered
the need for the change authority provided in proposed Subpart I of the
proposed rule and has determined to withdraw Subpart I of the proposed
rule for the reasons explained below.
The current Part 71 licensing process provides a framework that
allows licensees flexibility to make certain non-safety related changes
without prior NRC approval. The licensee can maximize such flexibility
by writing Safety Analysis Reports that focus on the design features
necessary to meet the regulatory requirements of Part 71. Typically,
the NRC Certificate of Compliance (CoC) references design drawings,
specification of the authorized contents, operating procedures, and
maintenance commitments. These drawings and documents identify the
design and operational features that are important for the safe
performance of the package under normal and accident conditions.
Therefore, the drawings and documents need to be of sufficient detail
to identify the package accurately and to provide
[[Page 313]]
an adequate basis for its evaluation. However, when licensees include
features that do not contribute to the ability of the package to meet
the performance standards in Part 71 in drawings and documents, the
licensees limit their flexibility to make changes without prior NRC
approval. Furthermore, experience from the stakeholders has indicated
that many changes made to a dual-purpose cask under the provisions of
Sec. 72.48, may also be made without prior NRC approval in the current
regulatory structure of Part 71, without explicit change authority.
Implementation of the change authority in the proposed rule, on the
other hand, would result in new regulatory burdens and significant
costs for both stakeholders and NRC without a commensurate potential
benefit. The proposed rule would require the applicant to: perform an
independent analysis of potential transportation accidents specific to
that design and plans for use; project package responses to ``real
world'' transportation accidents; and determine the consequences to the
public from such accidents. It would also require the applicant to
perform a documented evaluation to demonstrate that ``changes'' would
not result in the increase of frequency and consequences of potential
``real world'' transportation accidents or the likelihood and
consequences of a malfunction of structures, systems, and components
(SSCs) important to safety; or raise the possibility of an unevaluated
accident or malfunction. Consequently, the applicant would need
information such as the transport routes and population distributions
along the transportation routes on which a specific design is intended
to be used. Since such information is not readily available, it could
require significant expenditures and efforts on the part of the
applicant to produce such information. Furthermore, as part of the
implementation of the proposed Subpart I, NRC would have to expend
significant resources to develop guidance documents on accident
analyses, SSCs important to safety, the change process, and reviews of
methodologies used in the design bases. Additionally, the staff
resources needed to review an application under the proposed Subpart I
would likely increase significantly with the need to perform reviews
and document staff findings in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for
these additional items.
Public Comments on the Change Authority of 10 CFR Part 71
Public Comments on the Proposed Rule, April 30, 2002. (Prior to the
April 15, 2004 Meeting/Workshop)
Issue 15. Change Authority for Dual-Purpose Package Certificate Holders
The following comments were submitted before the discussion paper
that was issued on March 15, 2004 (69 FR 12088), and the public
workshop that was held on April 15, 2004. Therefore, these commenters
did not have the benefit of the additional information that was
gathered in the discussion paper and the public workshop.
Comment. One commenter opposed NRC's proposal to ``harmonize''
transport and storage of spent nuclear fuel and fissile materials with
``a watered down international standard.'' The commenter said that the
Type B(DP) package as proposed does not provide an adequate level of
public protection from radiation hazards.
Response. The NRC acknowledges the commenter's opposition to the
proposed rule change. The NRC has decided to withdraw proposed Subpart
I for the reasons explained above.
Comment. An industry representative voiced support for the change
authority that was included in the proposed rule. The commenter added
that the quality assurance programs developed under Part 71 were
equivalent in effectiveness and caliber to the programs developed under
Part 72.
Five commenters expressed their support for the NRC's proposal, but
requested that the change authorization process be extended to all
packages licensed under Part 71. Two of these commenters suggested
reasons why licensees should be allowed to make minor changes
independent of the CoC holders.
Another commenter stated that the changes allowed for shipping
packages licensed under Part 72 should also be allowed for those under
Part 71.
Response. As previously discussed, the proposed change is not being
implemented for either dual purpose casks or for other transportation
casks.
Comment. Seven commenters expressed disapproval of the proposed
change authority for dual purpose casks. One commenter stated that even
``minor'' design changes made by licensees and shippers could impact
the safety of casks and that all changes should be subject to full NRC
review. One commenter suggested that there would not be sufficient
experience based on the part of the CoC holders to implement the
responsibility effectively, and another commenter suggested that the
rule lacked specificity for adequate implementation and that the rule
change would be more effective if each design change were subject to
NRC independent inspection. One commenter asserted that the public has
a right to know if design changes are being made.
Response. The proposed change process is not being implemented for
the reasons previously explained.
Comment. One commenter expressed concern that transporting dual-
purpose containers is going to be complicated, especially in instances
when there is no available rail access.
Response. The NRC notes that this comment is beyond the scope of
this rulemaking.
Comment. Three commenters requested clarifications on various
aspects of the proposed change authority. One of these commenters asked
for clarification on what is meant by ``minimal changes'' with
potential safety consequences. The commenter also asked that NRC
include examples as well as seek, and consider, input from State
regulatory agencies when amending certificates of compliance.
Another commenter wanted to know if a certificate holder proposing
a minor change would still have to check with the NRC to see if the
change was permissible under the proposed change authority. The
commenter wanted to know if NRC would be notified before the changes
are made. The commenter requested clarification of the procedure for
changes under the proposed change authority. The commenter also
requested a more detailed explanation of what constitutes a minor
design change with no safety significance.
The last commenter wanted to know what types of changes could be
made to dual-purpose spent nuclear fuel casks intended for domestic
transport. This point was echoed by the first commenter who recommended
that NRC establish guidance for determining when a design or procedural
change that enhances one cask function might compromise the
effectiveness of the other. NRC should ensure that the
interrelationship between the storage and transportation effects of
cask changes are considered during the review of certificate amendment
requests. Furthermore, the first commenter stated that NRC should
consider issuing a single certificate of compliance instead of two.
Response. The proposed change process is not being implemented for
the reasons previously explained.
[[Page 314]]
Comment. One commenter noted that the eight criteria used to
determine if changes require NRC prior approval were extracted verbatim
from Parts 50 and 72 and placed into Part 71. The commenter suggested
that these criteria be customized before inclusion in Part 71.
Response. The eight criteria used to determine if changes require
prior NRC approval are effectively the same as those included in Parts
50 and 72. This motivated the staff to reevaluate how the proposed
change process could be implemented and led to the determination that
the proposed change process should not be added by this rulemaking as
previously discussed.
Comment. One commenter noted that a large number of highly
radioactive shipments could take place in dual-purpose containers and
that these shipments could be destined for a repository. The commenter
explained that even minor design changes would affect waste acceptance
at the repository.
Response. This comment deals with detailed transportation and
storage plans/designs that will need to be developed by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) in its effort to design, construct, and
operate a proposed high level waste repository site and is beyond the
scope of this rulemaking.
Comment. One commenter expressed support for the design change
authority being provided to CoC holders but recommended that the
ability to make changes to the transportation design aspects of a dual-
purpose package be provided to licensees who use the casks as well. The
basis for this recommendation is that the change process included in
Part 72 for storage facilities or casks allows licensees to make
changes to the storage design without prior NRC approval subject to
certain codified tests. Another commenter was concerned that the
proposed revisions to change authority would hinder the ability of Part
72 general and specific licensees to effectively manage and control
their Dry Cask Storage Program and ensure that changes made in
accordance with Part 72 do not impact the Part 71 certification of
spent fuel casks.
Response. The proposed change process is not being implemented for
the reasons previously explained.
Comment. Three commenters expressed support for the proposed change
authority. One of these commenters asserted that allowing the change
authority would allow for more attention to more significant safety
issues.
Response. These three commenters did not provide a basis for their
support of the proposed rule. The comments did not have the benefit of
the additional information in the discussion paper that clarified NRC's
view on the proposed rule and the April 15, 2004 workshop discussions.
Although these three comments were in support of the proposed change
authority, there were also significant concerns raised as indicated in
response to other comments. The NRC staff considered all the comments
and for the reasons described above, NRC determined that the proposed
change process should not be implemented in this rulemaking. The NRC
does not agree that the proposed change authority would have resulted
in more attention to significant safety issues because even if this
proposal were finalized, the existing standards of Part 71 would still
have been required to be demonstrated.
Comment. Two commenters suggested improvements on the procedures of
the change authority. One stated that the two-year submittal date for
application renewal is too long and instead suggested a 30-day
requirement. The other commenter stated that the proposed Sec.
71.175(d) change reporting requirements need to allow for a single
report to be filed by dual-purpose CoC holders to comply with the
requirements of Parts 71 and 72, to avoid unnecessary duplication of
reports. Both stated that the proposed submittal date of two years
before expiration for the renewal of a CoC or QA program is burdensome
and should have a submittal date of only 30 days before expiration, as
is required under Part 72. One commenter suggested that a CoC holder
should be permitted to submit [change process implementation summary]
report for both Part 71 and Part 72 designs as one package instead of
having to provide two separate reports.
Response. The NRC has chosen not to include the proposed change
process in the final rule for the reasons previously explained.
Comment. One commenter discussed 71/72 SAR's (Safety Analysis
Reports) for the change authority. The commenter stated that a single
71/72 SAR for generally certified dual-purpose systems should also be
permitted as an option for CoC holders. The commenter suggested that
the rule language should include provisions for submitting updated
transportation Final Safety Analysis Reports (FSARs) for casks already
certified and having an approved SAR. The commenter suggested that an
FSAR Rev. 0 be submitted to replace the last approved transportation
SAR within two years of the effective date of the final rule,
consistent with the proposed Sec. 71.177(c)(6). The commenter stated
that the requirement in proposed Sec. 71.177(c)(7) for an FSAR update
to be submitted within 90 days of issuance of an amendment of the CoC
is unnecessary and inconsistent with the requirements under Part 72 for
the dual-purpose spent fuel storage casks. The commenter stated that
this creates an unnecessary administrative burden on CoC holders by
requiring extra FSAR updates. The commenter said that this portion of
the proposed rule should be deleted.
Response. Regarding the suggestion to permit the submittal of a
single SAR for reflecting both the transportation and storage design
for a dual-purpose cask, the NRC staff notes that the SAR submittal
request is now moot based on the final rule language.
The NRC staff notes that because Subpart I is being eliminated from
the final rulemaking, the comment regarding the addition of a provision
in the rule language for submittal of SAR updates for those
transportation casks already certified is not applicable.
The last comment regarding the requirement for the submittal of an
updated FSAR within 90 days of an amendment to the transportation
certificate of compliance is not applicable.
Comment. One commenter expressed a number of concerns about the
proposed change process for dual purpose casks. The commenter
questioned the NRC position that the change process be implemented by
the CoC holder while the licensee would be most familiar with details
such as site-specific parameters affecting preparation, loading, and
shipment of Type B(DP) packages. The commenter also noted that it has
been unable to convince NRC that the level of required detail in the
FSAR is excessive and would, therefore, require excessive evaluations
with procedure changes that could only be addressed by the CoC holder
rather than the licensee who is implementing detailed procedures. The
commenter added that industry experience with storage procedures
clearly demonstrates that the proposed limitation on procedure
evaluation against the Part 71 FSAR by the licensee is unworkable.
Response. The proposed change process is not being implemented for
the reasons previously explained.
[[Page 315]]
Public Comments from Meeting/Workshop April 15, 2004
Comment. One commenter noted that changes can be made under the
current Part 71, without coming to the NRC for approval if the changes
do not affect the drawings and contents listed in the certificate.
Consequently, the commenter suggested that making intelligent SAR
drawings and operations chapters appears to be a much better path for
going forward than the proposed change authority of Part 71. The
commenter also noted that the change authority for Type B(DP) packages
included in the proposed Subpart I would add a substantial amount of
work to a cask designer and license holder without a commensurate
potential benefit. The commenter pointed out that many users of Part 72
products wait until the last minute to buy their products and are under
the gun to get them loaded. Furthermore, Part 72 amendment is a
rulemaking process that takes a long time. Therefore, change authority
is essential for Part 72. The commenter suggested that time is not an
issue with Part 71 changes at the present time, or in the near future,
because of the lack of activities in spent fuel transportation. Thus,
there is time to deal with any discrepancies in the transport
certificates that the licensees pick up either in the course of design
changes or manufacturing.
Response. NRC acknowledges the commenter's opinion about the
proposed change authority of Part 71 which provides support for the
NRC's decision to withdraw the proposed Subpart I.
Comment. Four commenters voiced their support for the concept of
change authority. Two commenters suggested that the change
authorization process be extended to all packages licensed under Part
71. One commenter, who is an industry representative, suggested that
the change authority should be based on existing Part 71 criteria
rather than on a new supplemental set of Part 71 criteria. In a
subsequent letter, dated April 30, 2004, the industry representative
informed NRC that the industry does not endorse NRC's proposed change
process for Part 71 because the limited change ability, and the
required additional FSAR, as included in the proposed Subpart I, would
add significant cost and very little benefit to the industry. The
industry representative encouraged NRC to develop a change process for
Part 71 that is based on the existing regulatory safety criteria of
Part 71 and offered to work with NRC cooperatively, for such an effort.
Response. NRC acknowledges the commenter's support for the concept
of change authority; however, the proposed change process is not being
implemented as described above either for dual-purpose casks or for
other transportation casks.
Comment. One commenter voiced support for the cask-specific, mode-
specific, and route-specific approach to safety analysis included in
the proposed Subpart I. The commenter noted that the analysis is
presently one-sided, for dual-purpose casks, because licensees are
required to consider all potential accidents and their consequences for
storage; however, the likelihood and consequences are not considered
for transportation. The commenter viewed the proposed Subpart I, Sec.
71.153, which requires a probabilistic risk analysis for
transportation, to be the instrument to correct this imbalance. The
commenter suggested that this approach would not only be extremely
useful for emergency planning purposes, but also would be helpful in
avoiding populated areas, tunnels, high bridges, routes with high
accident rates, etc., or to demonstrate that dual-purpose casks can
withstand potential accidents along these routes. The commenter further
suggested that dual-purpose casks certified as a result of this
approach would greatly enhance public confidence in the nuclear
industry which, in turn, would also benefit the DOE as the owners and/
or shippers of these casks to Yucca Mountain.
Response. NRC acknowledges the commenter's support for the proposed
change authority of Part 71 and understands that an independent
accident analysis specific to designs could have public-confidence
benefits. However, NRC disagrees with the commenter that the analysis
is one-sided for dual-purpose casks. Dual-purpose casks must also meet
performance requirements specified in Part 71 for packaging and
transportation of radioactive material. Among the performance
requirements, dual-purpose casks must be capable of withstanding the
mechanical and thermal loading imposed by normal and accident
conditions and still meet specified acceptance criteria. These
conditions have been internationally accepted and have been shown to
encompass spent fuel casks performance in severe accidents. The safety
record associated with Part 71 for the domestic transportation of spent
fuel is exemplary--approximately 1,300 shipments of civilian fuel and
920,000 miles without an accidental radioactive release. Nonetheless,
NRC continually examines the transportation safety programs.
Furthermore, the Type B(DP) package approval in the proposed rule
presented only an option for transportation. That is, other Type B
packages would still be permitted for spent fuel transportation, and
those packages would not require the mode and route specific accident
analysis in proposed Subpart I. As for comments regarding emergency
planning and avoiding populated areas, tunnels, high bridges, routes
with high accident rates, etc., the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) regulates routing for hazardous material transportation,
including radioactive materials.
Comment. One commenter requested that the decision for the final
rule regarding Part 71 change authority for dual-purpose package
certificate holders be delayed for a period of six to nine months. The
commenter cited the likely influences, regarding the cask selection
choices, by: (1) The DOE Yucca Mountain transportation plan; (2) final
status of the license for the Private Fuel Storage facility in Utah;
and (3) the staff recommendations regarding the NRC package performance
study (PPS), as reasons for the request.
Response. NRC acknowledges the request for delaying the final rule
regarding the change authority of Part 71; however, potential cask
selection choices would not impact the Commission's decision to
withdraw the proposed rule.
Comment. One commenter wanted to know if all dual-purpose casks
have to have a Type B(DP) approval, or whether they still can get a
Type B(U) approval? The commenter also wanted to know if someone does
get a Type B(DP) approval, could another person with basically the same
design get a Type B(U) approval?
Response. No responses to the commenters questions are needed given
NRC's decision to withdraw the Type B(DP) approval process.
Comment. Two commenters noted that there is a great deal of
flexibility in the current Part 71 and wondered if NRC is planning to
put out additional guidance to alert the designers to the flexibility
that is available.
Response. NRC acknowledges the commenters' recommendation regarding
the current flexibility in Part 71 and agrees with the potential
benefit of guidance on flexibility and making changes for Type B
packages under Part 71. NRC understands that it would be helpful to
describe and articulate the way that applications should be prepared to
allow this flexibility. This includes identifying areas of flexibility,
[[Page 316]]
the kinds of things that are flexible, where we have seen problems, and
where there are areas of over-commitment in the applications. Although
no decision has been made on the method of communication to be used to
inform the stakeholders about the flexibility that is currently
available under Part 71, the staff would like to point out that several
existing documents provide some of this guidance. Regulatory Guide 7.9,
``Standard Format and Content of Part 71 Applications for Approval of
Packaging for Radioactive Material,'' NUREG/CR-5502, ``Engineering
Drawings for 10 CFR Part 71 Package Approvals,'' and NUREG/CR-4775,
``Guide for Preparing Operating Procedures for Shipping Packages,'' are
three examples that provide guidelines for preparing applications for
package approval under the current Part 71.
Comment. One commenter expressed concern that having to do a second
safety analysis report, as proposed in Subpart I, to set up a whole set
of criteria and identify another set of accident scenarios,
probabilities, and consequence analyses, etc., is going to be very
burdensome on the front end. The commenter cautioned that a lot more
questions will be raised, rather than answered, if the industry goes
down the path of having everyone develop their own accident scenarios,
probabilities, and consequence assessments. The commenter suggested
that the cost associated with doing a second SAR may be more expensive
than doing an SAR under the current Part 71, because the regulations
under the current Part 71 are very well defined and the industry knows
exactly what it has to address. The commenter further suggested that it
will take a lot of license amendments, under the current Part 71, to
get a payback on the additional cost for second SAR approval.
Response. NRC acknowledges the commenter's information about
potential burdens and costs that the proposed rule could impose on
stakeholders.
Comment. One commenter suggested that the change authority included
in the proposed Subpart I would not benefit existing packages; however,
it might benefit new applications because they can build in enough
flexibility in the drawings of the new applications. The commenter also
called for an industry forum to develop a set of accident scenarios
that will be binding for everybody.
Response. The NRC has decided to withdraw the proposed rule for the
reasons previously explained.
Comment. Two commenters noted that, based on their respective
experience in Part 72, the percentage of changes made, under Sec.
72.48, that require a corresponding change to the Part 71 Certificate
of Compliance, will be very low.
Response. NRC acknowledges the commenter's experience about changes
that were made, under Sec. 72.48, for dual-purpose casks, that would
still require a Part 71 Certificate amendment.
Comment. One commenter wanted to know whether changes can be made,
under the regular Part 71 approval, without coming to NRC for
amendments, if the same changes were first made under the change
authority of Part 71, for Type (DP) packages.
Response. This comment is now moot, given NRC's decision to
withdraw the proposed Subpart I.
Comment. One commenter used an example of minor design change to
illustrate what would happen under the current Part 71 and what it
might look like under the proposed Subpart I. Based on the scenario
discussed, the commenter predicted that no one will be using the
proposed Subpart I because a minor design change does not appear be a
particularly time-consuming or costly operation under the current Part
71, as compared to the proposed Subpart I.
Response. NRC acknowledges the comparison about making design
changes under the current Part 71, and the proposed Subpart I.
Comment. One commenter suggested that a well developed full-scale
cask testing program would address cask performance issues and
eliminates the need to do a very detailed SAR, as proposed in Subpart
I.
Response. NRC acknowledges the recommendation of using full-scale
tests for certification, however, Part 71 does not require full-scale
tests for certification. It is the applicant's decision as to whether
to use full-scale tests, scale model tests, or analyses, for
certification. Therefore, this comment is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.
Comment. One commenter wanted to know whether separate certificates
are required for a common design with different sizes and weights.
Response. Under the current Part 71, variations in design like that
are handled under a single certificate. They would be evaluated by
looking at bounding configurations.
Comment. Four commenters suggested that the proposed Subpart I will
not work unless NRC were to provide detailed guidance, developed in
consultation with affected stakeholders, on the methods, data, and
assumptions to be used in such safety analyses. NRC should not expect
individual applicants to have to take that responsibility. One
commenter suggested the NRC Modal Study and another suggested NUREG/CR
6672, ``Reexamination of Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates,'' as good
representative models of the types of accident analyses that the
applicants may want to consider. One commenter cautioned that the
standardized accident analysis may not be applicable to an applicant
who only uses casks for localized shipments.
Response. NRC understands that it is ineffective, inefficient, and
possibly confusing to have many different groups and entities creating
accident analyses, predicting transport accident probabilities for
individual designs. This supports NRC's decision to withdraw the
proposed Subpart I.
Comment. Two commenters noted that the change authority would not
benefit them during the next few years because the spent fuel
transportation program is not active at the present time nor expected
to be, in the near future. Consequently, most of the current Part 71
amendment requests, rather than dealing with design changes, are
dealing with upgrade contents and adding contents to the existing
packages, which would not be benefitted by the change authority.
Response. NRC acknowledges the commenter's opinion that the
proposed change authority of Subpart I lacked near-term benefit.
Comment. One commenter, associated with several utilities that
store fuel in dry casks at this time, expressed disapproval of paying
for the implementation of the change authority without seeing any
benefit to the utilities. The same commenter also questioned about
paying for the implementation of the change authority while the benefit
goes to the public relations for Yucca Mountain Project, as suggested
by another commenter.
Response. No response to the commenter is needed, given NRC's
decision to withdraw the proposed Subpart I.
Comment. One commenter noted that the greatest cost for preparation
of a SAR associated with the proposed Subpart I would likely occur for
the first cask analyzed under the new requirements. The commenter
suggested that such cost might appropriately be borne by NRC as part of
the PPS. The commenter also suggested that, for those casks to be used
for shipments to Yucca Mountain, the cost might appropriately be borne
by DOE.
Response. No response to the commenter is needed, given NRC's
[[Page 317]]
decision to withdraw the proposed Subpart I.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of December, 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-25 Filed 1-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P