[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36467-36469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15607]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 72

[NRC-2014-0261]
RIN 3150-AJ50


List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International, 
Inc., MAGNASTOR[supreg] System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, 
Amendment No. 5

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is confirming the 
effective date of June 29, 2015, for the direct final rule that was 
published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2015. This direct final 
rule amended the NRC's spent fuel storage regulations by revising the 
NAC International, Inc., MAGNASTOR[supreg] System listing within the 
``List of approved spent fuel storage casks'' to include Amendment No. 
5 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1031. Amendment No. 5 makes 
numerous changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) including adding 
a new damaged fuel assembly, revising the maximum or minimum 
enrichments for three fuel assembly designs, adding four-zone 
preferential loading for pressurized-water reactor fuel assemblies and 
increasing the maximum dose rates in limiting condition for operation 
(LCO) 3.3.1, and other editorial changes to Appendices A and B of the 
TSs.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of June 29, 2015, for the 
direct final rule published April 15, 2015 (80 FR 20149), is confirmed.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0261 when contacting the 
NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may 
obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of 
the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0261. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; 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 obtain 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, 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 O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Solomon Sahle, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3781; email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Discussion

    On April 15, 2015 (80 FR 20149), the NRC published a direct final 
rule amending its regulations in Sec.  72.214 of Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) by revising the NAC International, 
Inc., MAGNASTOR[supreg] System listing within the ``List of approved 
spent fuel storage casks'' to include Amendment No. 5 to CoC No. 1031. 
Amendment No. 5 makes numerous changes to the TSs including adding a 
new damaged fuel assembly, revising the maximum or minimum enrichments 
for three fuel assembly designs, adding four-zone preferential loading 
for pressurized-water reactor fuel assemblies and increasing the 
maximum dose rates in LCO 3.3.1, and other editorial changes to 
Appendices A and B of the TSs.

II. Public Comments on the Companion Proposed Rule

    In the direct final rule, the NRC stated that if no significant 
adverse comments were received, the direct final rule would become 
effective on June 29, 2015. The NRC received two identical public 
comments from private citizens on the companion proposed rule (80 FR 
20171). Electronic copies of these comments can be obtained from the 
Federal rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov, by searching 
for Docket ID NRC-2014-0261. The comments also are available in ADAMS 
under Accession No. ML15147A691. For the reasons discussed in more 
detail in Section III, ``Public Comment Analysis,'' of this document, 
none of the comments received are considered significant adverse 
comments.

III. Public Comment Analysis

    The NRC received two identical comments from private citizens on 
the proposed rule. As explained in the April 15, 2015, direct final 
rule (80 FR 20149), the NRC would withdraw the direct final rule only 
if it received a ``significant adverse comment.'' This is a comment 
where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, 
including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or 
would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is 
adverse and significant if:
    (1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient 
to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For 
example, a substantive response is required when:

[[Page 36468]]

    (a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) 
its position or conduct additional analysis;
    (b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a 
substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
    (c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously 
addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
    (2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and 
it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable 
without incorporation of the change or addition.
    (3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than 
editorial) to the rule, CoC, or TSs.
    The NRC determined that none of the comments submitted on this 
direct final rule met any of these criteria. The comments either were 
already addressed in the NRC staff's safety evaluation report (SER) 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML14216A310), were beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking, or failed to provide a reason sufficient to require a 
substantive response in a notice-and-comment rulemaking. The NRC has 
not made any changes to the direct final rule as a result of the public 
comments. However, the NRC is taking this opportunity to respond to the 
individual comments to clarify information about the CoC rulemaking 
process.
    For rulemakings amending or revising a CoC, the scope of the 
rulemaking is limited to the specific changes requested by the 
applicant in the request for the amendment or amendment revision. 
Therefore, comments about the system, or spent fuel storage in general 
that are not applicable to the changes requested by the applicant are 
outside the scope of this rulemaking. Comments about details of the 
particular system that is the subject of the rulemaking, but that are 
not being addressed by the specific changes requested, have already 
been resolved in prior rulemakings. Persons who have questions or 
concerns about prior rulemakings and the resulting final rules may 
consider the NRC's process for petitions for rulemaking under 10 CFR 
2.802, ``Petition for rulemaking.'' Additionally, safety concerns about 
any NRC-regulated activity may be reported to the NRC in accordance 
with the guidance posted on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/allegations/safety-concern.html. This 
Web site provides information on how to notify the NRC of emergency or 
non-emergency issues.
    The NRC identified two overall issues raised in the two identical 
comments received, and the NRC's responses to these issues follow.

Issue 1: Increased Dose Rate Around the Storage Cask

    The commenter stated that it is unacceptable and unnecessary to 
increase dry cask exposure. The commenter stated that the exposure 
should be decreasing instead of increasing by 26 percent. By 
referencing a Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) report, 
the commenter stated that 120 mrem per hour gives whoever or whatever 
is around the dry cask for 1 year over 100 percent chance of cancer or 
leukemia. The commenter also stated that it is impossible to have 450 
mrem per hour on top of the dry cask without a similar dose surrounding 
it; and that such dose does not meet as low as is reasonably achievable 
requirements and impacts not just people, but animals, too. The 
commenter suggested counting all casks together in determining dose, 
rather than just using a single cask, as indicated in Revision 1 of 
NUREG-1536, ``Standard Review Plan for Dry Cask Storage Systems'' 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML101040620). The commenter noted that variations 
in cask emissions always appear to add up to the required dose at the 
fence line.
NRC Response
    These comments are not within the scope of this specific 
rulemaking. This rulemaking is limited to the addition of Amendment No. 
5 to CoC No. 1031 for the MAGNASTOR[supreg] System. This rulemaking 
does not propose any change in the standards for approval of a CoC or 
to the guidance documents (such as NUREG-1536) that are used to guide 
review of the CoC applications. The regulations in 10 CFR part 72 for 
approval of a CoC require the applicant to demonstrate that storage of 
spent fuel will not result in an annual dose beyond the established 
regulatory limits for an individual located beyond the site boundary. 
(See 10 CFR 72.104). Therefore, even though the changes included in 
Amendment No. 5 increase the dose rate on the surface of the canister, 
the amendment was found to be in compliance with 10 CFR part 72 
because, as documented in Section 5.0 of the NRC staff's SER (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML14216A310), the certificate holder demonstrated that 
the potential dose at the site boundary would remain below regulatory 
limits.
    Moreover, storage casks that will be loaded or stored under 
Amendment No. 5 to the MAGNASTOR[supreg] System are only authorized for 
use under a general license to power reactor licensees. These licensees 
are subject to a number of other regulatory requirements that limit 
exposure from the spent fuel in the casks through regulations that 
directly limit access to the casks and limit dose to workers or members 
of the public located on site at a nuclear power plant. (See 10 CFR 
parts 20 and 73). Therefore, any general licensee that uses this cask 
system is subject to additional regulatory requirements that ensure 
dose rates to individuals on site remain within regulatory limits. 
Those additional regulatory requirements that apply to the general 
licensee are not, however, part of this rulemaking, but are beyond its 
scope.

Issue 2: Bollards and Earthquake Protection

    The commenter stated that replacing real earthquake-proof 
engineering with bollards is not acceptable, as they might puncture 
holes in the dry casks. The commenter suggested developing other ways 
to earthquake-proof already filled casks such as anchors, dampers, or 
other means. The commenter also suggested making all new casks 
earthquake-proof, for the maximum earthquake anywhere.
NRC Response
    The safety issue regarding the use of bollards was addressed by the 
NRC staff in its SER, and the commenter does not raise any additional 
information that would alter the staff's determination that Amendment 
No. 5 to the MAGNASTOR[supreg] System, when used within the 
requirements of the proposed CoC, will safely store spent fuel. 
Amendment No. 5 includes a specific TS to address this issue, TS 
4.3.1(i) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14216A257), which requires a general 
licensee using the system under this amendment to evaluate the impact 
of the bollards on the storage cask using that site's design-basis 
earthquake. The TS requires the licensee's analysis to demonstrate that 
any damage to the storage cask from the bollards when analyzed using 
the site's specific design-basis earthquake, is bounded by the 
applicant's analysis of a non-mechanistic tipover event contained in 
the final safety analysis report. (See Section 3 of the NRC staff's SER 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML14216A310)).
    As to the general comments raising concerns with the regulatory 
requirements and process in 10 CFR part 72 for evaluating seismic 
issues in the CoC application, those comments are beyond the scope of 
this rulemaking which is limited to the addition of Amendment No. 5 to 
CoC No. 1031 for the MAGNASTOR[supreg] System. Persons who have 
questions or concerns about prior rulemakings and the resulting final

[[Page 36469]]

rules may consider the NRC's process for petitions for rulemaking under 
10 CFR 2.802.
    Therefore, the NRC staff has concluded that the comments received 
on the companion proposed rule for Amendment No. 5 to CoC No. 1031 for 
the MAGNASTOR[supreg] System are not significant adverse comments as 
defined in NUREG/BR-0053, Revision 6, ``United States Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission Regulations Handbook'' (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML052720461). Therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of June, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Cindy Bladey,
Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of 
Administrative Services, Office of Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-15607 Filed 6-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P