[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 138 (Friday, July 18, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41935-41938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16965]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 72
[Docket Nos. PRM-72-7; NRC-2012-0266; NRC-2014-0067]
Spent Fuel Cask Certificate of Compliance Format and Content
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; consideration in the rulemaking
process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will consider in
its rulemaking process six issues raised in a petition for rulemaking
(PRM), PRM-72-7, submitted by Anthony Pietrangelo, on behalf of the
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI or the petitioner). The petitioner
requests that the NRC amend its regulations to improve the efficiency
of the licensing and oversight of spent fuel dry cask storage.
DATES: The docket for the petition for rulemaking, PRM-72-7, is closed
on July 18, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Further NRC action on the issues raised by this petition can
be found on the Federal rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID: NRC-2014-0067, which is
the identification for the future rulemaking.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0266 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this petition. You can
access publicly available documents related to the petition using the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to: http://www.regulations.gov and search on the petition Docket ID NRC-2012-0266.
Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-
287-3422; email: [email protected]. For technical questions,
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at:
1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected].
The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith McDaniel, Office of Federal and
State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-
5252; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. The Petition
II. Public Comments on the Petition
III. NRC Analysis
IV. Determination of Petition
I. The Petition
On October 3, 2012, the NRC received a PRM filed by NEI (ADAMS
Accession No. ML12299A380). The NEI is a nuclear energy organization
that works on matters affecting the nuclear energy industry. The
petitioner requests that the NRC amend part 72 of Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ``Licensing Requirements for the
Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive
Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C Waste,'' to add a new
rule governing spent fuel storage cask certificate of compliance (CoC)
format and content, extend the applicability of the backfit rule to CoC
holders, and make other changes. The petitioner states that these
changes are needed improvements based on experience and risk insights
gained since the 10 CFR part 72 regulations were developed in the 1980s
and modified in 1990. The petitioner also claims that the proposed
changes would improve regulatory efficiency and effectiveness, as well
as serve an important safety function by allowing both industry and NRC
resources to be focused on safety-significant information. The
petitioner states that more efficient and effective NRC oversight of
dry cask storage will improve implementation of dry cask storage
requirements. Furthermore, the petitioner claims these proposed changes
offer a holistic approach to regulatory improvements and result in a
more risk-informed regulatory framework.
The NRC published a notice of receipt of the petition and request
for public comment in the Federal Register (FR) on February 5, 2013 (78
FR 8050). After analyzing the issues raised in the petition and
reviewing the public comments, the NRC concludes that the issues are
appropriate for rulemaking consideration.
II. Public Comments on the Petition
The notice of receipt of the PRM requested that interested persons
submit comments to the NRC. The comment period closed on April 22,
2013. The NRC received five comment letters (ADAMS Accession No.
ML14134A072). Four letters were from members or representatives of the
nuclear industry and one letter was from four U.S. Senators. The public
comments supported NEI's claim that greater efficiencies were needed in
the 10 CFR
[[Page 41936]]
part 72 licensing process and generally supported the issues raised in
the petition.
All five comment letters emphasized creating specific criteria for
the format and content included in spent fuel storage cask CoCs and
technical specifications. One comment letter suggested that this change
would make storage cask licensing consistent with power reactor
licensing and improve regulatory efficiency. Three comment letters
stated that the proposed changes would create a more risk-informed
regulatory framework that may reduce a possible backlog of cask license
amendment reviews in the future, if, as the commenters expect, the
number of loaded casks doubles in the next 10 years.
One comment letter stated that the proposed changes could improve
nuclear safety by focusing the CoC and technical specifications on
safety significant issues. Four comment letters stated that the
proposed changes would make dry cask licensing consistent with the
Commission's Policy Statement on Technical Specifications Improvements
for Nuclear Power Reactors (58 FR 39132; July 22, 1993). Finally, three
comment letters supported applying backfit protection to CoC holders to
create needed regulatory consistency between part 72 licensees and CoC
holders.
The NRC considered the public comments in its analysis of the
petition.
III. NRC Analysis
Issue 1: Add a New Rule for CoC Format and Content
The petitioner requests that 10 CFR part 72, subpart L, ``Approval
of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,'' be amended to provide specific criteria
for the format and content of the CoC for a spent fuel storage cask.
The petitioner states that this change would improve regulatory clarity
and stability by assuring that the level of detail in CoCs is
consistent and risk-informed. The petitioner asserts that defining CoC
format and content can only be effective if included as a regulation,
rather than guidance.
The petitioner asserts that the changes recommended by the
petitioner related to the format will improve ease of use and ensure
that there is clarity with respect to the division of responsibilities
between CoC holders and licensees in implementing the CoC, which will
enhance compliance and NRC oversight. The petitioner states that the
additions related to the content will ensure that there is clarity for
applicants and certificate holders with respect to the appropriate
information to be included in the draft CoC (part of the application),
which will improve efficiencies by focusing on the safety significant
aspects of cask use.
This will also reduce the number of unnecessary CoC amendments by
eliminating the need for NRC review of information that the petitioner
believes need not be included in many CoCs.
NRC Response to Issue 1
The NRC accepts Issue 1 for consideration in the rulemaking
process. The NRC agrees that adding specific criteria for CoC format
and content to its regulations could promote consistency. The NRC also
agrees that a change may promote efficiency in the oversight of dry
storage, including licensing reviews. However, the NRC does not agree
with the comment that a significant increase in expected cask loadings
(e.g., doubling over the next decade) necessarily correlates to an
equivalent increase in the NRC staff's review work.
The requirements in 10 CFR part 72, subpart L, apply to approval of
spent fuel storage casks. While the NRC issued guidance in NUREG-1745,
``Standard Format and Content for Technical Specifications for 10 CFR
part 72 Cask Certificates of Compliance,'' dated June 2001 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML011940387), there are currently no specific
requirements for the format or content of the CoC. The CoC includes the
certificate and the associated technical specifications (usually an
appendix to the certificate). These documents together constitute the
approved system and procedures for spent fuel storage casks.
The petitioner claims its request is similar to the requirements in
10 CFR 50.36, ``Technical Specifications,'' for reactors. The NRC staff
notes that 10 CFR 50.36 contains requirements for the content, but not
format, of technical specifications, and that format for reactor
technical specifications is addressed by the NRC in associated
guidance, and not by rule.\1\ Furthermore, 10 CFR 50.50 states that the
Commission will issue a license in such form and containing such
conditions including technical specifications, as it deems appropriate.
An analogous approach may be appropriate for 10 CFR part 72 as well.
This will be evaluated further in the rulemaking process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See NUREG-1430, Vols. 1 and 2, Rev. 4, ``Standard Technical
Specifications--Babcock and Wilcox Plants'' (ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML12100A177 and ML12100A178); NUREG-1431, Vols. 1 and 2, Rev. 4,
``Standard Technical Specifications--Westinghouse Plants'' (ADAMS
Accession Nos. ML12100A222 and ML12100A228); NUREG-1432, Vols. 1 and
2, Rev. 4, ``Standard Technical Specifications--Combustion
Engineering Plants'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML12102A165 and
ML12102A169); NUREG-1433, Vols. 1 and 2, Rev. 4, ``Standard
Technical Specifications--General Electric Plants (BWR/4)'' (ADAMS
Accession Nos. ML12104A192 and ML12104A193); and NUREG-1434, Vols. 1
and 2, Rev. 4, ``Standard Technical Specifications--General Electric
Plants (BWR/6)'' (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML12104A195 and ML12104A196).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the NRC determines in the rulemaking process that standardized
format and content requirements should be developed for 10 CFR part 72,
subpart L, the NRC may also consider development of similar regulations
for subpart C, ``Issuance and Conditions of License.'' Specific
licenses issued under 10 CFR part 72 also use technical specifications
as part of their licensing basis.
Finally, the rulemaking process may consider whether existing CoCs
and amendments should be revised to meet any new regulations on content
or format.
Issue 2: Add Backfit Protection to CoC Holders
The petitioner requests that 10 CFR 72.62 be modified so that
backfit protection is applicable to CoC holders in addition to
licensees. The petition states that this change would improve
consistency between the way in which specific and general part 72
licensees, and CoC holders, are regulated, and that this revision would
ensure that changes to CoCs are imposed only after an adequate
justification has been developed.
NRC Response to Issue 2
The NRC accepts Issue 2 for consideration in the rulemaking
process. The petitioner raises regulatory stability and predictability
concerns with respect to CoC holders. The NRC notes that the
application of backfit protection may require revisiting the current
NRC practice of issuing each CoC amendment as a stand-alone CoC.
As part of the NRC's consideration of these concerns, the NRC may
review the various approaches for addressing regulatory stability and
predictability that the NRC has adopted in its regulations, including
approaches such as those in 10 CFR 72.62, ``Backfitting,'' and 10 CFR
52.63, ``Finality of Standard Design Certifications.''
Issue 3: Delete the Requirement for the Review of the Cask SER
The petitioner requests that 10 CFR part 72, subpart K, ``General
License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites,'' be amended
to remove the requirement in 10 CFR 72.212(b)(6) for general licensees
to perform a review of
[[Page 41937]]
the NRC's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for the CoC or amended CoC
prior to use by a general licensee. The petition asserts that this
change would conform with a previous NRC position and would eliminate
an unnecessary requirement. The petitioner further states that review
of the SER is extraneous, as the SER will not contain any new
requirements or commitments that are not already contained in the CoC
and the Final Safety Analysis Report associated with an NRC approved
cask design.
NRC Response to Issue 3
The NRC accepts Issue 3 for consideration in the rulemaking
process. In 10 CFR 72.212(b)(6), general licensees are required to
determine whether or not the reactor site parameters are enveloped by
the cask design bases considered in the Safety Analysis Report
referenced in the CoC or amended CoC and the related NRC SER.
The CoC and associated technical specifications constitute the
system requirements for approved spent fuel storage systems. The CoC
holder's Safety Analysis Report provides more detail about the system,
guidance for system use, and procedures not included in the technical
specifications. The NRC staff's SER describes the staff's review,
conclusions on the adequacy of the cask design, and bases for those
conclusions. This information may be useful to a general licensee in
evaluating the use of an approved cask design at its site. Whether or
not review of the SER is required, the general licensee is obligated to
ensure that the dry storage system, as used at their site, is in
conformance with the CoC, and that dry storage at their site complies
with the regulations. Therefore, the NRC staff accepts Issue 3 for
consideration in the rulemaking process.
Issue 4: Programs and Plans
The petition requests that 10 CFR part 72, subpart K, be amended to
clarify the requirement to review various plans and programs that are
governed by other regulations. Section 72.212(b)(10) requires that
general licensees perform a review of the emergency plan, quality
assurance program, training program, and radiation protection program,
to determine if their effectiveness is decreased and, if so, prepare
the necessary changes and seek and obtain the necessary approvals. The
petitioner claims that the current rule may be interpreted as imposing
change control requirements for these programs that are different than
the existing change control requirements in other parts of the
regulations. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that this change would
remove ambiguity and duplication, and improve clarity by only directing
the general licensee to the appropriate change control requirements.
NRC Response to Issue 4
The NRC accepts Issue 4 for consideration in the rulemaking
process. General licensees have emergency plans, quality assurance
programs, training programs, and radiation protection programs that may
need to be changed in order to use a spent fuel storage cask. For Issue
4, the petition specifically requests that 10 CFR 72.212(b)(10) be
modified to clarify the general licensee review requirements for these
programs. The purpose of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(10) is to ensure that such
changes are identified and made. While the NRC does not believe that
the current rule alters existing change control requirements for the
programs listed in 10 CFR 72.212(b)(10), it does recognize the standard
for the evaluation in this section may not be applicable for certain
programs' change control processes and that the rule could be
clarified. Therefore, the NRC agrees to consider if and how 10 CFR
72.212(b)(10) could more clearly state the relationship between the
scope of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(10) reviews and other reviews for the same
programs.
As part of the NRC's consideration, the NRC may also evaluate
whether other programs and plans should be encompassed by 10 CFR
72.212(b)(10).
Issue 5: Revise the Requirement for Cask Marking
The petitioner requests that 10 CFR part 72, subpart L, be amended
to remove the requirement in 10 CFR 72.236(k)(3) to mark the empty
weight on each storage cask. The petitioner states that marking the
empty weight on the cask results in increased time and cost for cask
fabrication activities and serves no useful purpose.
NRC Response to Issue 5
The NRC accepts Issue 5 for consideration in the rulemaking
process. While the NRC does not agree that the cask marking requirement
serves no useful purpose, the NRC agrees that it is appropriate to
consider the petitioner's request because the requirement may be
limited in its usefulness. For operations covered under 10 CFR part 72,
the loaded weight is more relevant than the empty cask weight.
This issue will be more fully evaluated during the rulemaking
process which will ensure that appropriate safety and transportation
compatibility requirements in the rule, including markings for
transportation packages and records of the empty weight, remain
adequate.
Issue 6: Criticality Monitoring
The petitioner requests that 10 CFR 72.124(c) be modified to expand
the scope of activities for which criticality monitoring is not
required. Specifically, the petitioner requests that 10 CFR 72.124(c)
be amended to clarify that criticality monitoring is not required for
cask loading, preparation, onsite transport, and storage operations for
dry storage operations governed by a 10 CFR part 72 license. The
petitioner states that this change is consistent with NRC guidance and
with other NRC regulations.
NRC Response to Issue 6
The NRC accepts Issue 6 for consideration in the rulemaking
process. The NRC staff notes that the criticality monitoring
requirements in 10 CFR 72.124(c) have caused confusion in the past, and
that clarifying changes may be appropriate. A change to this part of
the requirements may also impact other aspects of 10 CFR part 72
criticality safety requirements; this would need to be considered in
the rulemaking process. For example, the petitioner notes that power
reactor licensees may rely on a demonstration of subcriticality per the
requirements in 10 CFR 50.68, ``Criticality Accident Requirements,'' in
lieu of providing criticality monitoring. Although the NRC staff may
consider analogous requirements for casks in rulemaking, the staff
notes that criticality analyses for casks include operational
assumptions that may not support complete elimination of monitoring
requirements. Additionally, the scope of the rule includes site-
specific independent spent fuel storage installations and monitored
retrievable storage installations, which may store particular spent
fuel types and other forms of high-level radioactive waste that differ
from the commercial light-water power reactor spent fuel discussed by
the petitioner. These differences may dictate different criticality
monitoring needs.
Therefore, the NRC believes that the scope of the NRC consideration
of the petitioner's request should include: (1) The need, if any, to
modify other criticality safety requirements in 10 CFR 72.124 as a
result of sole reliance on bounding criticality analyses instead of
criticality monitoring, and (2) the different storage facilities that
may be
[[Page 41938]]
licensed under 10 CFR part 72 and the different fuel types and high-
level radioactive wastes that may be stored at those facilities.
IV. Determination of Petition
The NRC has reviewed the petition and related public comments.
Based on its review, the NRC believes that the six issues raised in the
petition should be considered in the rulemaking process.
Further NRC action on the issues raised in PRM-72-7 can be
monitored on the Federal rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov, by searching on Docket ID NRC-2014-0067, which is
the identification for the future rulemaking. In addition, the Federal
rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or
additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe for alerts: (1)
Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2014-0067); (2) click the ``Sign up
for Email Alerts'' link; and (3) enter your email address and select
how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or
monthly). The NRC tracks all rulemaking actions on its Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/rulemaking-ruleforum/.
For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC will consider this
petition in its rulemaking process. The docket for the petition, PRM-
72-7, is closed.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of June, 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Darren B. Ash,
Acting Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2014-16965 Filed 7-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P