[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12504-12505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05776]
========================================================================
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. 83, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2018 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 12504]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 72
[Docket No. PRM-72-8; NRC-2018-0017]
Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing, and request for
comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a
petition for rulemaking from Raymond Lutz and Citizens Oversight, Inc.
(the Petitioners), dated January 2, 2018, requesting that the NRC amend
its regulations regarding spent nuclear fuel storage systems. The
petition was docketed by the NRC on January 22, 2018, and has been
assigned Docket No. PRM-72-8. The NRC is examining the issues raised in
PRM-72-8 to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking.
The NRC is requesting public comment on this petition.
DATES: Submit comments by June 5, 2018. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is
able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before
this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0017. 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.
Email comments to: [email protected]. If you do
not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact
us at 301-415-1677.
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission at 301-415-1101.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal
workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Trussell, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6244, email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0017 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 website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0017.
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 this
document.
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.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0017 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. The Petitioners
The petition was filed by Raymond Lutz and Citizens Oversight Inc.
Raymond Lutz is the founder and president of Citizens Oversight, Inc.,
a nonprofit organization.
III. The Petition
The petitioners are requesting that the NRC revise part 72 of title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) regarding spent nuclear
fuel (SNF) stored in independent spent fuel storage installations
(ISFSIs) at nuclear power stations. The petitioners are concerned that
there is a mismatch between the NRC's 10 CFR part 72 regulations that
define requirements for ISFSIs and the current situation, which the
petitioners assert is that surface storage of spent nuclear fuel will
continue indefinitely. The petitioners observe that 10 CFR part 72 was
initially developed at a time when a repository was anticipated to be
available in 1998 and, therefore, this PRM would address concerns with
a much longer time frame for surface storage. The petitioners make 14
contentions that propose specific revisions to 10 CFR part 72 that
would address issues concerning the indefinite surface storage of spent
nuclear fuel in dry cask storage systems. In particular, the
petitioners request that 10 CFR part
[[Page 12505]]
72 be revised to require: a 1,000 year design life goal for spent
nuclear storage systems; estimates for the operating costs over the
design life; determination of the safety margins over the design life;
and time limited aging analyses demonstrating that structures, systems,
and components important to safety will continue to perform for the
design life. The petition may be found in ADAMS at Accession No.
ML18022B207.
IV. Discussion of the Petition
The petitioners request that the NRC amend its regulations in 10
CFR part 72 ``regarding spent nuclear fuel.'' The petitioners believe
that ``the actual situation has now changed, while the NRC regulations
have not changed sufficiently to respect the current reality'' of
ongoing storage at nuclear plants and that the NRC should use a
``Hardened, Extended-life, Local, Monitored Surface Storage'' (HELMS)
type of approach as further described in a white paper submitted with
the petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML18022B213).
The petitioners contend that there is a timeframe difference
between that of the useful life of an operating commercial nuclear
plant and the storage of SNF at those nuclear plants indefinitely. The
petitioners further contend that the ``license term and renewal periods
for the facility operating license and CoC are defined to be (up to) 40
years, and the design life is only implied as perhaps several multiples
of the licensing period.'' The petitioners' position is ``that the
design life should be explicitly defined as the initial 1,000 years.''
The HELMS approach would require that SNF containers be designed
for a 1,000-year life goal ``while still allowing a 40-year license
term.'' The petitioners provided a specific proposal for the HELMS
approach to assist their description; however, the petitioners
emphasized ``that the HELMS proposal does not rely on the adoption of
this specific proposal as long as the extended-life criterion is
satisfied.'' The petitioners stated that the 1,000-year design life
goal ``is likely NOT feasible without some monitoring and replacing
part of the system on regular intervals.''
V. Request Under Sec. 2.206 Seeking Enforcement Action
The petitioners also request enforcement action under Sec. 2.206
of the NRC's regulations. The petitioners assert a violation of Sec.
72.106, regarding the controlled area of an ISFSI or monitored
retrievable storage installation, and ask for enforcement-related
action, as appropriate; however, the petitioners have not provided
information to support this charge. The NRC considered the request for
review to determine whether the claim qualifies for enforcement-related
action. The petitioners' claim does not constitute a valid request for
action under Sec. 2.206. The petitioners do not specify the action
requested but leave it up to the NRC to determine (based on the limited
information provided on page 10 of the petition) whether enforcement is
warranted of a licensee's ISFSI or monitored retrievable storage
installation. Although the petitioners allege that a licensee has
violated the requirement, the petition does not provide the facts that
constitute the basis for taking enforcement action. Therefore, the
petitioners' claim does not meet the requirements for Sec. 2.206
enforcement action.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of March, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-05776 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P