[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 173 (Tuesday, September 8, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53691-53694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22053]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 173 / Tuesday, September 8, 2015 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 53691]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 72
[NRC-2015-0067]
RIN 3150-AJ58
List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International
HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No.
1040, Amendment No. 1
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 September 8, 2015, for the direct final rule that was
published in the Federal Register on June 23, 2015. This direct final
rule amended the NRC's spent fuel storage regulations by revising the
Holtec International, Inc. (Holtec), HI-STORM (Holtec International
Storage Module) Underground Maximum Capacity (UMAX) Canister Storage
System listing within the ``List of approved spent fuel storage casks''
to add Amendment No. 1 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1040.
Amendment No. 1 provides a seismically enhanced version of the HI-STORM
UMAX Canister Storage System, identified as the ``Most Severe
Earthquake (MSE)'' version that could be used in areas with higher
seismic demands than those analyzed previously. Amendment No. 1 also
includes minor physical design changes to help ensure structural
integrity of the amended system. These are the addition of a hold-down
system to the closure lid; replacing the fill material in the
interstitial spaces between the cavity enclosure containers (CECs)
surrounding the casks with 3000 psi concrete; strengthening the multi-
purpose canister (MPC) guides, and engineering the guides' nominal gap
with the MPC to be tighter than the original HI-STORM UMAX Canister
Storage System design.
DATES: Effective date: The effective date of September 8, 2015, for the
direct final rule published June 23, 2015 (80 FR 35829), is confirmed.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0067 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-2015-0067. 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].
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 June 23, 2015 (80 FR 35829), 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 Holtec HI-STORM UMAX
Canister Storage System listing within the ``List of approved spent
fuel storage casks'' to add Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1040. Amendment
No. 1 provides a seismically enhanced version of the HI-STORM UMAX
Canister Storage System, identified as the ``Most Severe Earthquake
(MSE)'' version that could be used in areas with higher seismic demands
than those analyzed previously. Amendment No. 1 also includes minor
physical design changes to help ensure structural integrity of the
amended system. These are the addition of a hold-down system to the
closure lid; replacing the fill material in the interstitial spaces
between the CECs surrounding the casks with 3000 psi concrete;
strengthening the MPC guides, and engineering the guides' nominal gap
with the MPC to be tighter than the original HI-STORM UMAX Canister
Storage System design.
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 September 8, 2015. The NRC received 10 comment submittals
on the companion proposed rule (80 FR 35872). Electronic copies of
these comments can be obtained from the Federal Rulemaking Web site,
http://www.regulations.gov, by searching for Docket ID NRC-2015-0067.
The comments are also available in ADAMS under Accession Nos.
ML15210A145, ML15210A150, ML15210A151, ML15210A155, ML15210A169,
ML15210A164, ML15210A166, ML15210A177, ML15210A181, and ML15210A184.
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 as defined in NUREG/BR-0053,
Revision 6, ``United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations
Handbook'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML052720461).
III. Public Comment Analysis
The NRC received 10 comment submittals on the proposed rule, many
raising multiple and overlapping issues. As explained in the June 23,
2015, direct final rule (80 FR 35829), the NRC would withdraw the
direct final rule only if it received a ``significant adverse
comment.'' This is a comment where the
[[Page 53692]]
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:
(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 Technical Specifications (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 by the NRC staff's safety evaluation report (SER)
(ADAMS Accession No. ML15070A149), or were beyond the scope of this
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 some of the comments in an effort to clarify
information about the 10 CFR part 72 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. Additionally, safety concerns about any NRC-regulated activity
may be reported to the NRC in accordance with the guidance posted on
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/allegations/safety-concern.html. This Web page provides information on
how to notify the NRC of emergency or non-emergency issues.
The NRC identified the following issues raised in the comments, and
the NRC's responses to these issues follow.
(1) Potential Supersonic Shear Earthquakes and Site Specific Seismic
Standards
Several commenters raised concerns regarding the ability of this
CoC system to withstand seismic events, particularly if the system were
to be used at specific sites with known seismic activity, such as San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). These commenters stated that
Holtec casks have not been tested for newly discovered potential
Supersonic Shear Earthquakes, which might result in a rupture after
Supersonic Shear Earthquake Events. According to the comments, cask
venting can be blocked after a tsunami leading to cask failure.
NRC Response
These comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking because
they are not specific to the amendment at issue in the rule, but
instead raise concerns with the general 10 CFR part 72 requirements and
process for certification of the CoC systems. This rule adds Amendment
No. 1 to the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, CoC No. 1040.
Applicants submitting CoC's for approval are required to document a
design bases for their CoC or amendment CoC, which includes seismic
parameters. Under 10 CFR 72.212(b)(6), general licensees (power
reactors seeking to use those CoC systems at their specific sites) are
required to conduct a review of the CoC's Final Safety Analysis Report
(FSAR) and the related NRC SER prior to use of the general license to
ensure that the reactor site parameters, including analyses of
earthquake intensity, are enveloped by the cask design bases considered
in these reports. This rulemaking makes no determination regarding the
acceptability of this amended system for use at any specific site. Nor
does this rule seek to change the existing generic nature of CoC
approvals or the technical qualifications outlined for CoC approval, as
currently envisioned in 10 CFR part 72. Commenters with concerns
regarding the existing 10 CFR part 72 regulations for technical review
and approval of CoC systems could consider filing a petition for
rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802.
(2) Wind Effect on Underground Cask Maximum Heat Load
Commenters stated that according to NUREG-2174 ``Impact of
Variation in Environmental Conditions on the Thermal Performance of Dry
Storage Casks'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML15054A207), low-speed wind
conditions increased the peak cladding temperature on underground
systems, and asked whether this was considered in the development of
the heat load limits of the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System.
NRC Response
The comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking because it is
not specific to the amendment at issue in the rule. The NRC evaluated
and approved the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System heat loads in
the initial CoC certification, and this is provided in its SER (ADAMS
Accession No. ML15093A510). The Amendment No. 1 application requested
no thermal changes that required NRC evaluation.
(3) MPC Seismic Evaluation
A commenter stated that the thin stainless steel MPC canisters are
subject to pitting and corrosion (particularly from marine environments
like chloride-induced stress corrosion cracking). According to the
comment, since cracks may initiate during the initial licensing period
in these canisters, cracking canisters should be included in the
seismic analysis for MPC's stored while in the HI-STORM UMAX Canister
Storage System since it would be of more concern in high risk seismic
areas as proposed for this UMAX Amendment.
NRC Response
The comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking because it is
not specific to the amendment at issue in the rule. The NRC has
evaluated the design of the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System and
has determined that the design is robust, and contains a number of
layers of acceptable confinement systems in compliance with 10 CFR part
72 requirements. Furthermore, the NRC has evaluated the susceptibility
to and effects of stress corrosion cracking and other corrosion
mechanisms on safety significant systems for spent nuclear fuel (SNF)
dry cask storage (DCS) systems during an initial certification period.
The NRC staff has determined that the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage
System, when used within the requirements of the proposed CoC, will
safely store SNF and prevent radiation releases and exposure consistent
with
[[Page 53693]]
regulatory requirements, including seismic requirements. This
evaluation is documented in the NRC staff's SERs (ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML15070A149 and ML14202A031).
(4) Transfer Cask
Commenters ask if the transfer casks were approved for storage of
an MPC in case of a failed MPC.
NRC Response
To the extent that this comment raises a concern with the
availability of a transfer cask, it raises an issue that was addressed
in the NRC's evaluation of this amendment and fails to cite any
specific information that would alter the NRC's conclusions. In this
case, the transfer cask utilized in the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage
System is described in the HI-STORM Flood/Wind (F/W) Multipurpose
Canister (MPC) Storage System FSAR (ADAMS Accession No. ML15177A336).
The HI-STORM UMAX transfer cask is authorized to transfer intact MPC's
in accordance with the CoC No. 1040 TSs.
(5) Failed Canister Remediation
A commenter asked if there is a plan to remediate a failed
canister.
NRC Response
The comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking because it is
not specific to the amendment at issue in the rule, but instead raises
a concern with the general 10 CFR part 72 requirement and process for
certification of the CoC systems. Implementing corrective actions in
the event of a failed MPC is the responsibility of the general licensee
and those corrective actions are not incorporated into CoC No. 1040.
(6) MPC Thickness
Commenters questioned the maximum MPC thickness allowed in this
amendment, noting that although the FSAR indicated 0.5'' as the maximum
thickness, Holtec has proposed using a thickness of 0.625 at San Onofre
(SONGS). The commenters raised concerns regarding the implications of
such a change outside of a license amendment where it could be properly
evaluated to determine if the change in limiting parameters will affect
seismic, thermal, weight, dimensions and other critical analyses.
NRC Response
The comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking because it is
not specific to the amendment at issue in the rule, but instead raises
concerns with the general 10 CFR part 72 requirements and process for
certification of the CoC systems. The nominal MPC thickness for the
canisters certified under CoC No. 1040, Amendment No. 1 is 0.5''. The
NRC has no knowledge of a Holtec proposal to increase the thickness of
an MPC to 0.625''. If presented with an amendment request to do so, the
NRC will evaluate it in accordance with 10 CFR part 72 requirements.
(7) Definition of ``Long-term''
Commenters requested the NRC require a definition of ``long-term''
in the FSAR.
NRC Response
The comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking because it is
not specific to the amendment at issue in the rule, but instead raises
general concerns regarding terminology. The definitions required by the
NRC to support the evaluation and approval of CoC No. 1040, Amendment
No. 1, are provided in Appendix A of the CoC, Technical Specifications
for the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System. ``Long-term'' is a
general descriptive term that is not required to support any regulatory
or technical evaluation, and thus is not required to be more formally
defined.
(8) Definition of Underground
Commenters requested the NRC define the term ``underground'' as
used in this system. The comments raised concerns that a structure that
is only partially underground, but covered on the side with an
``earthen berm,'' could still be considered ``underground'' for
compliance with this CoC.
NRC Response
The comments regarding the need to define the term ``underground''
as used in the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System are outside the
scope of this rulemaking because they are not specific to the amendment
at issue in the rule, but instead raise concerns with the general 10
CFR part 72 requirements and process for certification of CoC systems.
In this instance, Holtec has provided and analyzed specific structure
placement parameters, and the NRC has evaluated these parameters that
bound the placement of such a system in the ground. Pursuant to the
regulatory requirements in 10 CFR 72.212(b), any general licensee that
seeks to use this system must determine that the design and
construction of the system, structures, and components are bounded by
the conditions of the CoC by analyzing the generic parameters provided
and analyzed in the FSAR and SER to ensure that its site specific
parameters are enveloped by the cask design bases established in these
reports. The NRC is aware of the SONGS proposed configuration submitted
to the California Coastal Commission and is closely monitoring this
issue. The NRC will continue to ensure that the facility constructed at
SONGS meets the requirements of the CoC and TS of the specific DCS
system selected by Southern California Edison.
(9) Heat Load Charts
One commenter stated that the FSAR indicates that changes to
storage cell kW heat loads were made and requested that the NRC
determine if this was evaluated in the amendment request. The comment
also requested clarification on the placement configuration of SNF
assemblies in the MPC, as well as the rationale for the heat load
configuration.
NRC Response
This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking because it is
not specific to the amendment at issue in the rule, but instead raises
concerns with the general 10 CFR part 72 requirements and process for
certification of CoC systems. The comment is addressing revision bars
that are incorporated into the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System
FSAR, Revision 2 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14202A031). The tables
referenced in the comment were revised due to changes made during the
original HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System evaluation; 10 CFR
72.248(a)(1) requires that an updated FSAR reflecting any changes made
during the NRC review process be submitted within 90 days after an
approval of the cask design. The loading patterns were evaluated and
approved by the NRC staff in its initial SER (ADAMS Accession No.
ML15093A510). The Amendment No. 1 application required no further
changes to these tables requiring NRC evaluation.
(10) MPC Inspection
A commenter requested that the NRC clarify that the MPC leak test
inspection, that is used to verify the integrity of the confinement
boundary, is performed before the MPC is loaded with fuel.
NRC Response
This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking because it is
not specific to the amendment at issue in the rule, but instead raises
concerns with the general 10 CFR part 72 requirements and process for
certification of CoC systems. The HI-
[[Page 53694]]
STORM F/W MPC Canister System FSAR clearly identifies the purpose of
the MPC leak detection requirement as a post fabrication certification
test that is only required to be performed one time.
(11) Assumption of No Fuel Cladding Degradation After Dry Storage Is
Not Substantiated
Some commenters raised an issue with Holtec's claim that there is
no credible mechanism for gross fuel cladding degradation of fuel
classified as undamaged during storage in the HI-STORM UMAX Canister
Storage System.
NRC Response
These comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking because
they are not specific to the amendment at issue in the rule. Instead,
these comments raise issues that would be addressed during any renewal
application review. The NRC has determined that fuel cladding
degradation is not an issue during the initial 20-year certification
period, but instead, is an issue that would have to be addressed if a
CoC holder requested renewal of the CoC for a period beyond the initial
20 years. If a renewal application is filed, NRC regulations require
that the application include programs to manage the effects of aging,
including necessary monitoring and inspection programs. Those programs
would have to be reviewed and determined acceptable by the NRC before
any CoC renewal is approved.
(12) Vertical Ventilated Module Needs Substantiation for Expected
Lifespan
Commenters questioned Holtec's claims of a design life of 60 years,
a service life of 100 years and a licensed life of 40 years. Since no
substantiation was provided for these claims, the commenters requested
the claims be removed from the FSAR.
NRC Response
This issue is outside of the scope of this rulemaking because the
term of a certificate is determined in the original certification, not
in amendments to that certification. This rulemaking seeks to add
Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1040. In this case, the UMAX CoC was
approved on March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12073), for an initial 20-year term.
This 20-year term will also apply to Amendment No. 1. Use of this
system beyond the expiration date of 20 years would require an
evaluation of a renewal application for this CoC which would be
addressed in a subsequent rulemaking process.
(13) Concrete Inspection and Inspection Limitations
Some commenters questioned whether the HI-STORM UMAX Canister
Storage System design provided a safe and accessible method to perform
inspections within the license period given that high seismic risk
areas are more likely to cause cracking or other structural changes,
and indicated that such an evaluation should be part of the NRC's
review process.
NRC Response
This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking because it is
not specific to the amendment at issue in the rule, but instead raises
concerns with the general 10 CFR part 72 requirements and process for
certification of CoC systems. The NRC has determined that concrete
degradation is not an issue requiring inspection during the initial 20-
year certification period, but instead, is an issue that would have to
be addressed if a CoC holder requested renewal of the CoC for a period
beyond the initial 20 years. If a renewal application is filed, NRC
regulations require that the application include programs to manage the
effects of aging, including necessary monitoring and inspection
programs. Those programs would have to be reviewed and determined
acceptable by the NRC before any CoC renewal is approved.
(14) High Burnup Fuel
Commenters also raised questions regarding the long-term
acceptability of the extended storage of high burnup fuel (HBF).
NRC Response
To the extent these comments raise issues about the storage of HBF
in the CoC for the first 20 years, these comments are outside the scope
of this rulemaking. The NRC has evaluated the acceptability of storage
of HBF for the initial 20-year certification term for the HI-STORM UMAX
Canister Storage System during its review of the initial certificate.
As documented in the NRC staff's SER under Docket ID NRC-2014-0120, the
NRC staff has determined that the use of the HI-STORM UMAX Canister
Storage System, including storage of HBF, will be conducted in
compliance with the applicable regulations of 10 CFR part 72, and the
CoC should be approved for the initial 20-year term. This amendment
does not impact the analysis conducted by the NRC staff during the
initial certification of this system.
Additionally, to the extent these comments raise concerns regarding
the storage of HBF beyond the initial term of 20 years, the comments
are also outside the scope of this rulemaking. A request to store HBF
beyond the initial 20 years provided in the certification of this
system will require the applicant to submit a license renewal
application with the inclusion of Aging Management Programs addressing
HBF. In that regard, a demonstration project is being planned by the
U.S. Department of Energy to provide confirmatory data on the
performance of HBF in DCS. The NRC plans to evaluate the data obtained
from the project to confirm the accuracy of current models that are
relied upon for authorizing the storage of HBF for extended storage
periods beyond the initial 20-year certification term.
The NRC staff has concluded that the comments received on the
companion proposed rule for the Holtec HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage
System, CoC No. 1040, Amendment No. 1, are not significant adverse
comments as defined in NUREG/BR-0053, Revision 6, ``United States
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations Handbook.'' Therefore, this
rule will become effective as scheduled.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of September, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Cindy Bladey,
Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of
Administrative Services, Office of Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-22053 Filed 9-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P