[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 235 (Friday, December 8, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57819-57821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26508]
========================================================================
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2017 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 57819]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 72
[NRC-2017-0138]
RIN 3150-AK05
List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: TN Americas LLC,
Standardized NUHOMS[supreg] Horizontal Modular Storage System,
Certificate of Compliance No. 1004, Renewal of Initial Certificate and
Amendment Nos. 1 Through 11 and 13, Revision 1, and 14
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 December 11, 2017, for the direct final rule that was
published in the Federal Register on September 27, 2017. This direct
final rule amended the NRC's spent fuel storage regulations by revising
the Standardized NUHOMS[supreg] Horizontal Modular Storage System
(NUHOMS[supreg] System) listing within the ``List of approved spent
fuel storage casks'' to renew, for an additional 40-year period, the
initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11 and 13, Revision 1,
and Amendment No. 14 of Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1004. These
changes require, among other things, that all future amendments and
revisions to this CoC include evaluations of the impacts to aging
management activities (i.e., time-limited aging analyses (TLAAs) and
aging management programs (AMPs)) to ensure that they remain adequate
to timely identify any changes to spent fuel storage cask systems,
structures, and components (SSCs) within the scope of the renewal.
DATES: Effective date: The effective date of December 11, 2017, for the
direct final rule published September 27, 2017 (82 FR 44879), is
confirmed.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0138 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-2017-0138. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individuals 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 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: Christian Jacobs, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301-415-6825; email:
[email protected], or Robert D. MacDougall, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301-415-5175; email:
[email protected]. Both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Discussion
On September 27, 2017 (82 FR 44879), the NRC published a direct
final rule amending its spent fuel storage regulations in part 72 of
title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) by revising the
NUHOMS[supreg] System listing within the ``List of approved spent fuel
storage casks'' to renew, for an additional 40-year period, the initial
certificate and Amendment Nos. 1 through 11 and 13, Revision 1, and
Amendment No. 14 of CoC No. 1004. These changes require, among other
things, that all future amendments and revisions to this CoC include
evaluations of impacts on TLAAs and AMPs to ensure that they remain
adequate to timely identify any changes to spent fuel storage cask SSCs
within the scope of the renewal.
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 December 11, 2017. The NRC received one comment submission
on the companion proposed rule (82 FR 44971). An electronic copy of
this submission can be obtained from the Federal Rulemaking Web site,
http://www.regulations.gov, by searching for Docket ID NRC-2017-0138.
The comment submission also is available in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML17303A026. For the reasons discussed in more detail in Section III,
``Public Comment Analysis,'' of this document, none of the comments
contained in the submission are considered significant adverse
comments.
III. Public Comment Analysis
The NRC received one comment submission on the proposed rule from
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC). The submission contained
three comments styled as ``comment/questions.'' As explained in the
September 27, 2017, direct final rule, 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, challenges its underlying premise or approach,
or shows why it 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 57820]]
(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; or
(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than
editorial) to the rule, CoC, or technical specifications (TSs).
In this instance, the NRC determined that none of the comments
submitted on the proposed rule are significant adverse comments. The
comments either were already addressed by the NRC staff's safety
evaluation report (SER) (ADAMS Accession No. ML17131A121), or did not
oppose the rule. 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 comments in an effort to clarify
information about the direct final rule. The comments and the NRC's
responses follow.
Comment 1
The commenter questioned why the proposed renewal of CoC No. 1004
includes a timeframe of 180 days for each general licensee (GL) to
establish and implement its AMP procedures, which is shorter than the
timeframe of 300 days that was granted for the renewal of CoC No. 1007.
The commenter stated that the 180-day implementation period poses a
hardship upon GLs with older spent fuel storage systems.
NRC Response
This comment did not raise an issue that was previously unaddressed
by the NRC staff. During its review of the renewal application for CoC
No. 1004, the NRC staff considered the appropriate timeframe for
implementation of the AMP procedures. As stated in the SER, ``[t]he
timeframe [of 180 days] in the condition is to ensure operating
procedures are developed in a timely manner and is consistent with
conditions placed in specific licenses that have been renewed.''
Specifically, the 180-day timeframe was successfully used for the
renewals of the specific licenses under 10 CFR part 72 for the Prairie
Island and Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations
(ISFSIs).
The 180-day timeframe is also consistent with the guidance in
NUREG-1927, Rev. 1, ``Standard Review Plan for Renewal of Spent Fuel
Dry Cask Storage System Licenses and Certificates of Compliance.'' The
commenter points to a statement in the NUREG that ``the development of
the infrastructure for AMP implementation generally should be no later
than one year,'' from the date of renewal; however, this does not
preclude a shorter timeframe. The cask vendor, TN Americas LLC (TN), is
preparing the AMP procedures for the GLs as an update to TN's Final
Safety Analysis Report, and plans to provide these procedures within 90
days after the effective date of the renewal. This will allow at least
an additional 90 days for the affected GLs to implement the procedures.
Accordingly, the comment has not caused the NRC to reevaluate its
position that a timeframe of 180 days is sufficient for AMP
implementation.
The comment questions why the AMP implementation timeframe for the
renewed NUHOMS[supreg] CoC is shorter than that for the renewal of CoC
No. 1007 for the EnergySolutions\TM\ Corporation's VSC-24 Ventilated
Storage Cask System (82 FR 31433). During the NRC's review of the CoC
No. 1007 renewal application, the cask vendor requested that the NRC
consider an implementation timeframe of 300 days instead of 180 days
after the effective date of the renewal. In that case, the NRC
determined that the additional time for implementation was reasonable
because CoC No. 1007 was the first CoC to go through the CoC renewal
process for GLs. During its review of the renewal application for CoC
No. 1004, the NRC staff was aware that the renewed CoC No. 1007, as the
first-of-its-kind GL CoC renewal, included more time for AMP
implementation. The staff determined that the special circumstances
considered for CoC No. 1007 were not present for CoC No. 1004.
Accordingly, this comment does not raise a relevant issue that was not
previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
This comment does not meet the criteria for consideration as a
significant adverse comment. The comment did not cause the NRC staff to
reevaluate or reconsider its position or conduct additional analysis.
Nor did the comment cause the NRC staff to make any change to the rule,
CoC, or TSs. To the extent that the comment can be interpreted as
requesting a change to the rule, i.e., a longer timeframe for
implementation of the AMP procedures, the comment does not show that
the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of
the change.
Comment 2
The commenter questioned whether the words ``implement these
written procedures within 180 days'' mean that all required AMP
inspections must be performed and the results reported within 180 days.
NRC Response
The answer to the commenter's question is no. Implementing the
written procedures does not mean that an affected GL must perform all
the SSC inspections required by its AMP and report the results of its
inspections within the 180-day implementation period.
This comment does not meet the criteria for consideration as a
significant adverse comment. The comment does not oppose the rule, and
it did not cause the NRC staff to reevaluate or reconsider its position
or conduct additional analysis. Nor did the comment cause the NRC staff
to make any change to the rule, CoC, or TSs.
Comment 3
The commenter asked if the language in the revised TSs that
``[e]ach general licensee shall have a program to establish, implement,
and maintain written procedures . . .'' applies to all GLs, including
those that have only recently begun loading casks under CoC No. 1004.
The commenter further asked if a site that began loading casks in 2014
would be required to have the ISFSI AMP procedure in place after 180
days.
NRC Response
Under the renewed CoC, each GL using NUHOMS[supreg] systems will be
required to have a program with approved written AMP procedures in
place within 180 days after the effective date of the renewal, or 180
days after the 20th anniversary of the loading of the first dry storage
system at its site, whichever is later. Thus, if a particular ISFSI has
casks that were loaded in 2014, these casks would not be required to
have AMP procedures in place until 2034 at the earliest.
This comment does not meet the criteria for consideration as a
significant adverse comment. The comment did not oppose the rule, and
it did not cause the NRC staff to reevaluate or reconsider its position
or conduct additional analysis. Nor did the comment cause the NRC staff
to make any change to the rule, CoC, or TSs.
Therefore, because no significant adverse comments were received,
this direct final rule will become effective as
[[Page 57821]]
scheduled on December 11, 2017. The final CoC, TS, and SER can be
viewed in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17338A091.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of December 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Cindy K. Bladey,
Chief, Regulatory Analysis and Rulemaking Support Branch, Division of
Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2017-26508 Filed 12-7-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P