ML20029E543

Informs That Final Rule Entitled Storage of Spent Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Np Reactor Sites, Received Concurrence from NMSS & NRR & Has No Legal Objections

ML20029E543
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/08/1989
From:	Beckjord E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:	Jordan E Committee To Review Generic Requirements
Shared Package
ML20028G717	List: ML20028G716 ML20029E534 ML20029E543 ML20029E545
References
NUDOCS 9405190058
Download: ML20029E543 (75)

Text

-

t 4

l d,y flb t

f "Ecoq%

4 UNITED STATES e

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

E WASHING TON. D. C. 205S5

/

DEC " S 1989 i

MEMORANDUM FOR: Edward L. Jordan, Chairman Comittee to Review Generic Requirements j

FROM:

Eric S. Beckjord, Director

~

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research j

SUBJECT:

FINAL RULE ENTITLED, " STORAGE OF SPENT FUEL IN NRC-APPROYED STORAGE CASKS AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR SITES" i

}

Enclosed for review by the Comittee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) are 15 copies of the subject final rule.

Included are the Federal Register notice, the Congressional letter, and the draft Public Announcement (prepared by PA) for the final rule.

l J

The proposed rule on this subject was reviewed by CRGR at its meeting.on i

November 9, 1988. The CRGR requested a briefing on the accompanying certificate of compliance for the casks to be approved in the rule and the i

draft regulatnry guides, before providing a recommendation on the rulemaking.

j The Certificate of Compliance for the General Nuclear, Inc. Cask Model: Castor V/21 and draft Regulatory Guides 3.61, " Standard Format and Content for a Topical Safety Analysis Report for a Spent Fuel Dry Storage Cask," and 3.62, i

" Standard Format and Content for a Safety Analysis Report for Onsite Storage of Spent Fuel Casks," were reviewed by the CRGR at its meeting on December 14, 1988. The Comittee made four recommendations for consideration in the proposed rule and three for the certificate of compliance. Changes necessary to reflect CRGR recommendations were made in the proposed rule, which was published in the Federal Register on May 5, 1989 (54 FR 19379).

The NRC received 273 letters of coment on the proposed rule of which 237 were from individuals.

The staff has identified 50 specific comments, which are addressed in the enclosed Federal Register notice.

Revisions have been made inparagraph(b)(5)(111)off72.212andparagraph(b)off72.240asa j

result of public comments.

The other changes are editorial e.nd clarifying in nature. The rule is submitted in comparative text, compared to the proposed rule, to facilitate review.

The final rule will allow all power reactor licensees to store spent fuel at their reactor sites without additional site-specific approvals by the Comission. The Comission will rely on dry storage casks for confinement of radioactive material. The rule sets forth procedures and criteria for obtaining certification of cask designs.

Licensees will have to show that no changes are required in the reactor's technical specifications and that there are no unreviewed safety questions related to spent fuel storage under the 4

94o519005s 900g39 TIb b " * $

x

j.,..

2 DEC 8 Jggg i

general -license. Licensees will also have to show that spent fuel is stored i

in compliance with the cask's Certificate of Compliance. Alternatively these licensees could apply for specific licenses under Part 72.

The rule applies to all power reactor licensees, and will be implemented on i

notice to the Commission by any reactor licensee, that spent fuel will be stored on their reactor site under the general license. The Commission will rely on:

its inspection and enforcement authority to ensure that its regulations are met...Since the safety requirements of 10 CFR Part 72 are not being changed, no 1

adverse effect on occupational exposure, on public health and safety, or on the i

comon defense and securit;y is anticipated.

4 i

Resource burdens on NRC, reactor licensees, and cask vendors were discussed in the Preliminary Regulatory Analysis (RA), which 'was made available for pubite comment when the proposed rule was published.

No comments were received on j

the RA, which remains available for inspection in the Commission's Public i

Document Room. No changes are considered appropriate; thus, no separate 1

i RA has been prepared for the final rule. Total NRC resource requirements i

under this rule are estimated to be less.than-those that would be required for i

issuance of specific licenses. However, the.rulemaking contains conforming amendments to Part 170'to ensure that fuli costs related to activities under i

this rule are recovered by NRC.

Installation and operating cost to reactor licensees are estimated to be the same, whether the general license or a i

specific license is used. However, under this rulemaking licensing costs are i

eliminated. Cost to cask vendors-is expected to increa'se, because the NRC charge for approval of a topical report is currently limited to $20,000, and j

actual NRC cost is estimated to be between $250,000 and $300,000. Since amendments in this rule do not involve provisions that impose backfits, as j

defined in 10 CFR 109, no backfit analysis has been prepared.

The final rule has received concurrence from the Offices'of Nuclear Material I'

Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and Administration. The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objections.

Ori:'!r"d W d W Themis P. Speis i

i Eric S. Beckford, Director i

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i

f' i

Enclosures:

Comission Paper i

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE e

10ffe: RDB:DRA:RES RDB:DRA RDB:DRA:RES DRA:RES DRA:

S D /G ES S

INase:

• WPearson:cb *JTelford *SBahadur

• ZRosztoczy *BHorr s eis ES kjord iDate:

12/05/89 12/05/89 12/06/89 12/06/89-12/06/89 (2- (/89 g/{/89 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY T

~

!t i

3 Distribution:

[C R G R) subj-circ-chron Reading Files /SBahadur ESBeckjord TPSpeis DFRoss BMorris i

l ZRosztoczy l

JTelford rson Roberts, NMSS LRouse, NMSS STreby, OGC RFonner, OGC MLesar, ADM SGagner, GPA.

l JHolloway, ADM l

RDube, NRR l

i

~*

i l

i l

1 l

For:

The Comissioners l

From:

James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations

Subject:

FINAL RULE ENTITLED " STORAGE OF SPENT FUEL IN NRC-APPROVED STORAGE CASKS AT POWER REACTOR SITES" AND i

CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PARTS 50 AND 170 l

Purpose:

To obtain Comission approval of a final rule that would i

allow power reactor licensees to store spent fuel on i

their reactor sites under a general license.

Background:

SECY-89-084, dated March 3, 1989, discussed the proposed rule on this subject.

Following Commission approval, the i

proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on May 5, 1989 (54 FR 19379). The public coment period i

expired on June 19, 1989, but all coments were considered, even those that were received late.

1 Section 133 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) is the legal basis for issuance of this rule.

Section 133 states, "The Comission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing)of any technology approved by the Comission under 219(a [ sic.,shouldbe section 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian l

nuclear power reactor...."

Section 218(a) of the hTPA states, "The Secretary [of DOE] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for dry storage of spent fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing l

one or more technologies that the Comission [NRC] may, l

Contact:

W.R. Pearson, RES l

Telephone: 49-23764

l

/

The Commissioners 2

by rule, approve for use at sites of civilian nuclear i

power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, i

the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission...."

l Discussion:

The NRC received 273 coment letters from individuals, environmental groups, utilities, utility representatives, l

engineering groups, States, and a Federal agency. Among the comment letters were 237 from individuals, including several signed by more than one person. The coments included a " petition" addressed to the Comission, which was signed by 188 people who are opposed to the proposed rule and are specifically opposed to:

1

1) Storage at the Pilgrim nuclear power plant of spent i

fuel generated at other reactors,

2) Storage of spent fuel in casks outside the reactor

building,

3) Storage of spent fuel without a specific approval of the storage site, and

4) Storage of spent fuel without specific safeguards to prevent its theft.

Many coments discussed topics that were not the subject of this rulemaking, e.g., that generation of radioactive l

wastes should be stopped and that environmentally safe alternative sources of power should be developed. A 1

comon coment, which is specifically addressed in the i

Federal Register notice (Enclosure 1), was that the rule should not pemit transfer of spent fuel from one reactor site to another and that it should not permit spent fuel that was transferred from another reactor site to be stored under the general license. A majority of the comments that discussed the subject of spent fuel storage technology expressed a preference for dry storage in i

casks over wet storage.

Many of the letters contained coments that were similar in nature, which have been grouped, as appropriate, and addressed as single coments.

The staff has identified 50 coments, and the responses are in the Federal Register notice.

Specific topics that the staff believes may be of special interest to the Comission are discussed below:

1.

The most frequent coment, which was mentioned in 237 of the 272 letters, was that the proposed rule would eliminate public comment from "rulemakings" under the general license. Some comments, in particular one from the Union of Concerned Scientists, indicated that the

The Comissioners 3

proposed rule illegally subverts the statutory scheme for licensing nuclear power reactors.

In response to these coments, the staff points out that 1) the Atomic Energy Act requires a public hearing only for applications for construction permits and 2) this action is related to licensing storage of spent fuel and not to licensing the operation of power reactors.

Further, the intent of Subtitle B-Interim Storage Program of the NWPA in general, and section 218(a) in particular, appears to be that the Comission should expedite licensing of needed additional spent fuel storage capacity at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors.

2.

Some coments addressed the requirement in f 72.236(m) that casks should be designed to be compatible, to the extent practicable, with transportation and other activities related to the transfer of spent fuel to the Department of Energy (DOE).

In response to these coments, the staff points out that specific design criteria for spent fuel disposal will not be available until a repository design is approved.

However, cask designers should remain aware that the ultimate disposal of spent fuel will be by DOE and that they should adopt DOE criteria as they become available.

3.

Thirty coments were received regarding Comission approval of dry spent fuel storage in casks, twenty-one of which were favorable. Some comments questioned whether other technologies would be approved for use under a general license. Two comments indicated that the limited selection of only one technology provides an unfair competitive advantage to suppliers of that technology. The response points out that all other technologies being considered by the Comission for approval for use under a general license, which include dry storage of spent fuel in concrete modules, require site-specific approvals. Thus, these alternative technologies would require site-specific approvals or specific Part 72 licenses. One coment points out that modular spent fuel dry storage systems have been approved under topical safety analyses reports. The response to this coment points out that approval of a topical safety analysis report only allows license applicants to reference this report in a proceeding for a specific license.

Having considered all of the public coments, the staff recommends that a final rule be promulgated which would allow power reactor licensees to :; tore spent fuel on their sites under a general license.

Revisions have

i

/

l The Commissioners 4

i l

l been made to the proposed rule as a result of public and other coments, but they are mainly editorial and l

clarifying in nature.

l Coordination:

The Offices of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, l

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and Administration concur in i

this final rulemaking.

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this final rulemaking and has no legal objections.

(ACNW actions will be included before sending the paper to the EDO.)

Recommendations:

That the Comission:

1.

Approve for publication the amendments to 10 CFR Parts 50, 72 and 170.

(Enclosure 1) 2.

Note that:

l (1) This rulemaking contains a Comission finding that dry storage of spent fuel in NRC-approved casks provides adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment.

(2)

The Comission approves revisions to 10 CFR 170.31 that will ensure ful.1 cost recovery for reviews, approvals, and amendments related to cask design and for inspections at power reactor sites related to storage of spent fuel under the general license.

(3)

The Comission certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

(Statement contained in Enclosure 1, p. 29)

(4) The Comission finds that no significant environmental impact is expected as a result of this action; thus, no environmental impact statement need be prepared.

(Statement contained in Enclosure 1,

p. 28)

(5)

Congress will be informed of the Comission's action by letter.

(Enclosure 2)

(6) The final rule contains information requirements that are subject to review by the OfficeofManagementandBudget(0MB). The information requirements have been approved under OMB clearance number 3150-0132.

1

f The Commissioners 5

(7) The Office of Public Affairs has prepared.a public announcement for release when the final rule is published in the Federal Register.

(Enclosure 3)

(8) Copies of the Federal Register notice will be distributed to affected licensees, commenters, and other interested parties.

(9) The Commission approves the design of four spent fuel storage casks.

The Certificate of Compliance for these casks will be made available to the public in a.NUREG.

Scheduling:

If scheduled on the Commission agenda, it is recommended that this paper be considered at an open meeting.

6 James M. Taylor Executive Director

-for Operations

Enclosures:

1.

Federal Register Notice 2.

Draft Congressional Letter 3.

Draft Public Announcement N

/

l l

[7590-01]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

10 CFR Parts 50, 72, and 170 RIN:

3150-AC76 Storage of Spent Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Power Reactor Sites AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Final Rule

SUMMARY

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license on the site of any nuclear power reactor, provided the reactor licensee notifies the NRC and uses NRC-approved casks for storage.

The rule sets forth procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask design.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

[ Insert a date 30 days following publication in the Federal Register.]

10/27/89 1

_~

l*

/

I i

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

W. R. Pearson, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear-Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Telephone:

l l

(301) 492-3764.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

l t

Background

The Commission published the proposed rule on this subject in the Federal Register on May 5, 1989 (54 FR 19379).

The comment period expired on June 19, 1989, but all comments received were considered in this final rulemaking.

The-NRC received 273 comment letters from individuals, environmental groups, utilities, utility representatives, engineering groups, States, and a Federal agency.

Among the comment letters were 237 from individuals, including several signed by more than one person. Many commenters discussed topics that were not the subject of this rulemaking, e.g., that generation of radioactive wastes should be stopped and that environmentally safe alternative sources of power

(

should be developed.

l Included in the comments received was a " petition" addressed to the I

Commission, which was signed by 188 people, who are opposed to the proposed rule and who specifically oppose:

1.

Storage at the Pilgrim nuclear power plant of spent fuel generated at other reactors, 10/27/89 2

4 I1 e

1 l

2.

Storage of spent fuel in casks outside the reactor building, i

3.

Storage of spent fuel without the need for specific approval of the storage site, and i

i 4.

Storage of spent fuel without requiring any specific safeguards to 4

prevent its theft.

l 4

Many of the letters contained comments that were similar in nature. These-comments are grouped, as appropriate, and addressed as single comments. The i

j NRC staff has identified and responded to 50 separate comments.

Among the i

j comments that discussed technology,.the majority expressed a preference for-t spent fuel storage in dry casks over wet' storage.

i I

On August 19, 1988, the Commission promulgated a final rule revising 10 CFR-l Part 72 (53 FR 31651), which became effective on September 19, 1988.

Among the

~

changes made in that final rule was a renumbering of the sections.

These i

revised Section numbers are the ones referenced in this rulemaking.

Because l

many people interested in this rulemaking may not have a copy of the newly l

l j

revised Part 72, Sections referenced in this Supplemental Information Section 1

are followed by a bracketed Section number that refers to the corresponding Section number in the old rule (43 FR 74693, made effective on

).

November 12,1980).

A a

I 1

i

(

i i

4 1

2 10/27/89 3

i wp 3

-mr.

y-,-,

rw, v

.ey.-

w yw=

,-i,-,w-.,,-

i I

Analyses of Public Comments Specific comments and staff responses to them follow:

1.

Comments:

Elimination of public input from licensing of spent fuel storage at reactors under the general license was discussed in 237 letters of l

comment and 52 of the commenters were opposed to the rule for this reason.

Many of these comments were opposed to the NRC allowing dry cask storage without going through the formal procedure currently required for a license amendment, namely requiring public notification and comment.

One commenter stated that the proposed rule does not guarantee hearing rights mandated by the Atomic l

Energy Act, and, therefore, the proposed rule must be amended to provide for site-specific hearing rights before it can be lawfully adopted.

Another commenter stated that, by proposing to issue a general license before determining whether license modifications are required in order to allow the actual storage of spent fuel onsite, the NRC apparently intends to circumvent the requirement for public hearings on individual applications for permission to use dry cask storage.

This comment continued that this approach would violate the statutory scheme for licensing nuclear power plants, in which the NRC must approve all proposed license conditions before the license is issued.

This comment further stated that the NRC cannot lawfully issue a general license for actual onsite storage of the waste without also obtaining and reviewing the site-specific information that would allow it to find that the proposed modification to each plant's design and operation are in conformance with the Atomic Energy Act and the regulations.

Response

Section 189a(1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (the Act) 10/27/89 4

i states that "In any proceeding under this Act, for the granting, suspending, l

revoking, or amending of any license or construction permit..., the Commission shall grant.a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be j

affected by the proceeding, and shall admit any such person as party to such proceeding.

The Commission shall hold a hearing after thirty days notice and l

publication once in the Federal Register, on each application under Section 103 i

and 104b. for a construction permit for a facility, and on any application under Section 104c. for a construction permit for a testing facility....".

The l

Act does not require a public hearing in connection with issuance of a license, unless it is specifically requested by a person whose interests may be affected by the action.

The Act only requires a public hearing in connection with applications for a construction permit.

j This action is not concerned with licensing of nuclear power reactors.

Such actions are conducted under 10 CFR Part 50 and not under 10 CFR Part 72.

Spent fuel is currently stored on power reactor sites. in independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSI) under specific 10 CFR Part 72 licenses.

Licenses issued pursuant to Part 72 are single stage, i.e., no application for a l

constraction permit is required.

The Commis ion issues a notice of proposed action under S 2.105 in connection with each application for a specific license to store spent fuel.

If a hearing were requested, a notice of hearing would be issued under 9 2.104.

In the absence of a request for hearing, the Commission may issue a license without holding a public hearing.

Section 133 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), which is the legal basis for this rule, is mute as regards public notice.

Section 133 states that "The Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved under Section 219(a) [ sic., should be 10/27/89 5

a i

Section 218(a)] for use at any' civilian nuclear power reactor...." Section 218(a) of the NWPA states that "The Secretary [of DOE] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the Commission [NRC]

may, by rule, approve for use at the site of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission...." Section 218(a) directs that additional site-specific approvals should be minimized, which is interpreted to mean that a public notice is not required in that site-specific approvals would involve licensing actions and would require a public notice.

Section 131(a) of the NWPA states that "The Congress finds that (1) the persons owning and operating civilian nuclear power reactors have the primary responsibility for providing interim storage of spent nuclear fuel from such reactors, by maximizing to the extent' practical, the 2ffective use of existing storage facilities at the site of each civilian nuclear power reactor, and by I

adding new onsite storage capacity in a timely manner where practical; (2) the i

Federal Government has the responsibility to encourage and expedite the effective use of existing storage facilities and the addition of needed new storage capacity at the site of each civilian nuclear power reactor;.and...."

l Section 131 indicates that the Federal Government has the responsibility to encourage and expedite the addition of new spent fuel storage capacity at civilian nuclear power reactor sites.

Section 133 directs the Commission to establish procedures for licensing any technology approved under Section 218(a), and Section 218(a) directs that the Commission should approve storage technologies that do not, to the maximum extent practicable, require additional site-specific approvals.

Considering the language in these sections, the 10/27/89 6

l l

8

/

I Commission believes that the intent of Congress in the NWPA is to facilitate licensing of spent fuel storage on the sites of civilian nuclear power l

-reactors.

Thus, the Commission believes that no public notice need be required in licensing the technology being approved under this rulemaking.

l 2.

Comments:

The NRC apparently intends to exercise no systematic or mandatory review of applications to store spent fuel in dry casks, despite the numerous changes involved in the reactor's design and procedures.

This commenter further stated that the rule should provide _for mandatory submission and review by the NRC staff of technical documents required in S 72.212 and that these documents should be placed in the public document rooms for inspection by the public.

Response.

It appears that many commenters misinterpreted the intent of the j

general license, because these commenters indicated that they were "against dropping the requirement for licensing storage of spent fuel," The Commission is not dropping the requirement for licensing the storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI on nuclear power reactor sites.

Under Section 133 of the NWPA, the Commission is using the' regulations in Part 72 for licensing a technology, t

namely spent fuel storage in free-standing dry casks.

Currently if a reactor i

licensee wishes to store spent fuel on the reactor site, an application for a l

specific license under Part-72 must be submitted.

The NRC staff reviews and approves analyses in the Safety Anaysis Report (SAR) using site-specific parameters that.are contained in the. reactor's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).

Procedures similar to those used for issuance of specific licenses will be used by the NRC staff for storage of spent fuel under the general license.

A condition of the general license is that a reactor licensee must determine whether activities related to storage of spent fuel at the reactor 10/27/89 7

i site involve any unreviewed safety question or require changes in technical specifications.

This written determination becomes part of the reactor licensee's records.

Under 10 CFR 50.59, an unreviewed safety question is involved if (1) the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the SAR may be increased; or (2) if a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the SAR may be created; or (3) if the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification is reduced.

If the evaluation made under 10 CFR 50.59 reveals any unreviewed safety question or if use of a cask design requires any change in technical specifications, then casks of that design cannot be used to store spent fuel under the general license.

The reactor licensee must make those changes necessary to use the desired cask design, use a different cask design, or apply for a specific license under 10 CFR Part 72.

If the reactor licensee chooses to make changes to accommodate the d,esired cask design, e.g.,

revise technical specifications, an application for a license amendment may have to be submitted under 10 CFR 50.90.

3.

Comments.

It appears that a hearing would be mandated under the Act, as spent fuel storage under the general license would involve a license amendment.

The commenter argued that nuclear power reactor licenses contain a clause stating that the facility has been constructed and will operate i' accordance with the application and that the application includes the FSAR (10 CFR 50.34(b)).

If the FSAR does not describe cask storage of spent fuel, then a facility using cask storage would not be operating in accordance with the application and the license, necessitating a license amendment.

10/27/89 8

..u-a

.. ~

I s

Response, According to 10 CFR 50.34(b) each application for a license to j

operate a power reactor must include an FSAR.

The FSAR must include information that describes the facility, presents the design bases and limits on its operation, and presents a safety analysis of the structures, systems, and components of the reactor.

A power reactor is licensed to operate under the regulations in 10'CFR Part 50.

If spent fuel is stored in an ISFSI on a reactor site, this storage will be licensed under the regulations in 10 CFR l

Part 72.

The ISFSI may share utilities and services with the reactor for 1

activities re'ated to the storage of spent fuel, e.g.,

facilities for loading 1

spent fuel storage casks.

A power reactor FSAR will contain a description of cask loading and unloading, because reactor fuel (both fresh and spent) must be handled for operation of the reactor.

If no amendment of the operating license is necessary (e.g., there is no problem concerning heavy loads and there is no unreviewed safety question), then spent fuel may be stored under the general license.

4.

Comments.

The NRC should reconsider the indiscriminate storage on a reactor site of spent nuclear fuel that was generated at other reactor sites.

One commenter recognized that 10 CFR Part 50 permits transfer of spent fuel, but stated that there should be a restriction to permit only transfer of spent fuel from plant to plant within a utility-owned group of plants. Another commenter stated that storage of spent fuel from two or more reactors inevitably makes the host site a de facto regional repository, without the same benefit of review and discussion given the national site.

Another commenter suggested that the amount of spent fuel stored on a site should be limited to that amount produced by that site's reactor operations.

The major concern of these commenters appears to be that spent fuel from a number of reactors would be deliberately l

10/27/89 9

1-

d 1

i i

accumulated and stored at one reactor site under this general license.

j

Response

This rulemaking is not concerned with transfer or shipment of s

i spent fuel from one reactor to another.

As explained in the discussion of the proposed rule (54 FR 19379) transfer of spent fuel from one reactor site to l

another must be authorized by an amendment to the receiving reactor's operating license, which would be a licensing action conducted under the regulations'in 10 CFR Part 50.

The transportation of the spent. fuel is subject to the regulations in 10 CFR Part 71.

Part 72 and, thus, this rulemaking is not

{

germane to spent fuel transfer procedures.

Congressional commitment to.a-permanent repository in the NWPA renders unnecessary consideration of whether storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reacto sites would create de facto regional repositories.

The NRC staff anticipates that, beginning in the early 1990s, there will be a significant need for additional spent fuel storage capacity at many nuclear power reactors.

This was a major. reason for initiating this rulemaking at this time.

Dry storage of spent fuel in casks under a general license would alleviate the necessity of transferring spent fuel from one reactor site to another.

5.

Comment.

The Commission should reconsider a petition for rulemaking submitted by the State of Wisconsin.

The petition requested that the NRC expand the scope of its regulations pertaining to spent fuel transport ~"to ensure that both the need for and the safety and environmental consequences of-proposed shipments have been considered in a public forum prior to approval of the shipment and route."

Response.

As explained in the response to comment number 4, this rulemaking does not apply to transportation of spent fuel.

Transportation of 10/27/89 10

o spent fuel is the subject of 10 CFR Part 71, under which this petition was handled.

There is no reason to reconsider this petition.

6.

Comment.

How would the rulemaking process for cask approvals be implemented?

Response.

The initial step would be taken by a cask vendor submitting j

an application for NRC approval of a cask design.

The NRC staff would review the cask SAR and other relevant documents.

If the cask design is approved, the NRC staff would initiate a rulemaking to amend 10 CFR 72.214 to add certification of the cask design.

The NRC staff would also revise the NUREG containing the Certificates of Compliance for all approved storage casks to add the new cask's Certificate of Compliance.

7.

Comment. The proposed 10 CFR 72.236(c) would establish a criterion that casks must be designed and fabricated so that subcriticality is maintained.

This seems to suggest that the actual fabrication takes place before cask approval.

Otherwise how could NRC find that the cask has been fabricated to maintain subcriticality?

Response.

Findings by the NRC staff concerning safety of cask design are based on analyses presented in the cask SAR.

In the case of criticality analyses, the SAR must include a description of the calculational and experimental methods used to determine nuclear critcality, including margins of safety and benchmarks, or justification and validation of calculational methods and neutron cross-section values used in the an? lysis.

Further, in order to obtain approval of a cask design, the vendor musT, demonstrate that casks will i

be designed and fabricated undar a quality assurance program approved by the

{

NRC.

The NRC staff will not inspect fabrication of each cask, but will ensure 10/27/89 11

~. -.. -

i o

I that each cask is fabricated under an NRC-approved quality assurance program.

Thus, there is reasonable assurance that the cask will be designed and f abricated to maintain spent fuel in a subtritical configuration in storage.

8.

Comment.

Each utility should be required to present a plan for inspecting the casks in the storage area.

Response.

Surveillance requirements for spent fuel storage casks and l

systems in the storage area are specified in the cask's Certificate of Compliance.

Periodic inspections for safety status and periodic radiation surveys are required by the certificate.

Further, licensees will have to keep records showing results of these inspections and surveys.

9.

Comments.

The 20 year limit on approval of cask designs seems unduly restrictive and was not supported by any discussion of safety or environmental i

issues in the preamble of the proposed rule.

One comment stated that unless there are overriding institutional issues or a defect in a cask model, which would preclude providing adequate protection of the environment or public health and safety, there would be no need to revoke or modify a Certificate of Compliance.

Three commenters suggested that the criteria for cask design reapproval should be limited to safety and environmental issues related to the storage period, since there may have been proprietary information involved in the initial approval that might not be available for reapproval.

Another commenter stated that the licensing period for spent fuel storage casks should be extended to at least equal the operating license of the reactor.

Another t

l commenter stated that since a 100 year period is being considered by the Commission in its waste confidence review, an extension should be considered for a cask certification period.

10/27/89 12

e i

l l

Response.

The procedure for reapproval of cask designs was not intended l-to repeat all of the analyses required for the original approval.

However, the Commission believes that the staff should review spent fuel storage cask designs periodically to consider any new information, either generic to spent j

fuel storage or specific to cask designs, that may have arisen since issuance I

i j

of the cask's Certificate of Compliance.

A 20 year reapproval period for cask l

designs was chosen because it corresponds to the 20 year license renewal period under Part 72.

10.

Comment.

It is conceivable that, after 20 years of storage, the regulations could force the transfer of spent fuel at the reactor to a new cask or a different cask design only because it better conforms to DOE's planning preference at the time.

If considerations such as safety risks and occupational i

l exposure from spent fuel transfer are not a significant factor, this potential i

uncertainty should be removed from the rule.

Response.

The Department of Energy (DOE) will be the ultimate receiver of spent fuel.

If a cask design were not compatible with DOE's design criteria for receipt of spent fuel, then measures would need to be taken so that spent fuel could be directly transferred offsite.

What these measures might be would depend on the cask design and DOE's capabilities.

i 11.

Comment:

The practice of permitting each vendor to not seek reapproval of the cask design after a 20 year period seems " fragile and irresponsible."

Response.

This comment is interpreted to mean that the Commission should require each cask vendor to submit an application for reapproval of their cask l

design.

The Commission's authority over corporate entities is limited to 11/13/89 13

1 l

licensing matters and it cannot control the economic status of spent fuel 1

storage cask manufacturers.

The NRC is not able to enforce matters not related i

to its licensing authority, i.e., that a cask vendor must submit an application for renewal of a storage cask design if the vendor is no longer in the business.

A cask vendor who remains in the business of manufacturing spent fuel storage casks is required to submit an application for renewal of a cask design.

Otherwise the cask's Certificate of Compliance would expire and that cask design l

could not be used to store spent fuel.

Users cannot use any cask that does not l

have a valid Certificate of Compliance.

If a cask vendor goes out of the business of supplying spent fuel storage casks, it would not_ invalidate NRC approval of the spent fuel storage casks that were manufactured by this vendor and remain in use.

That is the reason the Commission will permit general licensees or their representatives to apply for cask design reapproval.

The Commission will keep extensive historical records and conduct inspections related to spent fuel storage in casks.

Cask vendors are requested to notify t

i the Commission if they do not intend to submit an application for reapproval of a cask design.

Also, vendors are required under 10 CFR 72.234 to submit their composite record of casks manufactured and sold or leased to reactor licensees to the NRC if they permanently cease manufacture of casks under a Certificate of Compliance.

In any case, the cask design renewal procedure will be coordinated through historical records, inspections by NRC staff, and communications with cask vendors.

l 12.

Comments.

The requirement in proposed S 72.234(c) that cask fabrication 1

l cannot start prior to receipt of the Certificate of Compliance is unnecessarily restrictive.

The commenter indicated that a vendor should have the option of being able to start fabrication (taking the risk of building 11/13/89 14

a cask that may not ever be licensed) prior to NRC issuing the Certificate of Compliance.

Response.

The NRC does not have the authority to prevent anyone from fabricating spent fuel storage casks.

However, if a cask design is not approved and if a cask is not fabricated under an NRC approved quality assurance program, the cask cannot be used to store spent fuel under the general license.

13.

Comments.

Requiring a submittal for reapproval of cask design 3 years-before the expiration date of a Certificate of Compliance seems excessive.

Another commenter suggested that a procedure similar to that used for renewal of materials-type licenses could be used, which is that when a licensee submits an application for license renewal in proper form not less than 30 days prior to the expiration date of the license that the existing license does not expire until the application for renewal has been finally determined by the Commission.

Response.

Current regulations in 10 CFR Part 72 require that applications for license renewal be submitted 2 years prior to the expiration date of the license.

This was a major consideration in the proposed rule for setting the date for submittal of a cask design reapproval application.

The staff has reconsidered this requirement and believes that the period required for cask design reapproval can be reduced.

The final rule is being revised to incorporate language similar to that for other material license ;enewals, which would allow a Certificate of Compliance to continue in effect until the application for reapproval has been finally determined by the Commission.

11/13/89 15

14.

Comments.

No spent fuel dry storage should be' allowed at sites that'do not have fully operational State approved emergency preparedness plans. Another commenter stated that, for emergency response purposes and for proper inclusion in emergency planning, the utility must notify State and local governments simultaneously with the NRC when spent fuel storage is begun.

Another.commenter inquired whether or not States would be notified of spent fuel storage at the reactor site in order to minimize emergency response planning impacts.

Response.

The new 10 CFR 72.32 (c) [no Section in the old rule is applicable]

states that "For an ISFSI that is located on the site of a nuclear power reactor licensed for operation by the Commission, the emergency plan required by 10 CFR 50.47 shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of this section."

One condition of the general license is that the reactor licensee must review

~

the reactor emergency plan and modify it as necessary to cover dry cask storage and related activities.

If the emergency plan under 10 CFR 50.47 is in compliance 3

with the reactor's operating license, then it is in compliance with 10 CFR 72.32.

Notification of the State under the general license is not required.

However, the State may be notified by the reactor licensee.

15.

Comment. What extra information, beyond that currently required in safety analysis reports, will be required in topical safety analysis reports for cask certification?

Response.

Currently a Topical Safety Analysis Report (TSAR) is submitted to obtain spent fuel storage cask approval.

NRC procedures allow applicants and licensees to reference appropriate Sections of a TSAR in licensing proceedings, which reduces investigative and evaluation costs for them.

Under the proposed rule applications, including a Safety Analysis Report that is equivalent to a TSAR, will have to be submitted for cask design approvals.

There will not be any " extra" information required in an SAR as a result of this l

11/13/89 16 i

l

i l

rulemaking.

Guidance on the information to be submitted in an SAR for cask design approval is contained in Regulatory Guide 3.61, " Standard Format and Content for a Topical Safety Analysis Report for a Spent Fuel Dry Storage Cask."

16.

Comment.

Is full-scale or scale model testing required for cask certification?

l Response.

Full-scale testing is not required for spent fuel dry storage l

cask design approval.

However, testing of systems and components important to safety may be required, as appropriate.

l 17.

Comment.

Can the NRC provide examples of acceptable means for demonstrating that a cask will reasonably maintain confinement of radioactive material under normal, off-normal, and cccident conditions?

Response.

Approval of cask designs is based on evaluations described in each cask's SAR.

Analyses must show how radioactive Jnaterials will be confined through evaluations of the cask's systems, structures, and components, including an evaluation of designed margins of safety.

These analyses are made on an individual case basis considering each cask's design, materials of construction, cask sealing systems, fuel basket criticality considerations, and gamma and neutron shielding mechanisms.

Thus, specific examples are not appropriate.

18.

Comment.

The NRC should use this amendment to provide guidance or criteria on use of burnup credit in criticality analyses.

Response.

Evaluations of burnup credit are dependent on parameters such as fuel design, exposure, and characteristics.

These evaluations are best conducted on an individual case basis, since the variables evaluated are closely related to the individual case history of the spent fuel.

Thus, 11/13/89 17

e guidance on such evaluations would be more appropriately set forth in regulatory guides, rather than in regulations.

To date allowance for burnup credit has not been accepted in reviews conducted under 10 CFR Part 72.

Since this matter was not addressed in the proposed rule, the final rulemaking is not an appropriate mechanism for setting criteria for burnup credit for criticality analyses.

19.

Comment.

What will a current reactor licensee have to do to obtain a general license?

Response. As specified in proposed 6 72.212(b), a power reactor lcensee must (1) perform written evaluations showing that spent fuel storage will be in compliance with a cask's Certificate of Compliance and that there is no unreviewed safety question or change in technical specifications involved in activities at the reactor related to the storage of spent fuel under the general license, (2) provide adequate safeguards for the spent fuel in storage, (3) notify NRC prior to first storage of spent fuel and whenever a new cask is used under the general license, and (4) keep records for spent fuel storage and related activities.

20.

Comment.

Could the general license be used to store spent fuel beyond the term of the reactor operating license? Several utilities hold operating licenses at more than one site; thus, clarification is needed as to when an operating license is terminated and how licensees may use a general license.

Response.

A general license under this rulemaking is issued to power i

reactor licensees on a site-specific basis.

A licensee who holds reactor operating licenses at more than one site must notify NRC that spent fuel will be stored under a general license for each site involved.

A licensee who holds operating licenses for more than one reactor located on a single site need notify NRC only once.

11/13/89 18

s 4

Spent fuel can be stored on a site as long as there is a power reactor with a valid license.

This could be an amended license issued under 10 CFR 50.82, under which any reactor licensee may apply for termination of the operating license and to decommission the facility.

When the reactor is put into a condition in which it cannot operate, the operating license would be amended to permit the~ licensee to possess the byproduct, source, and special nuclear material remaining on the site.

Storage of spent fuel in dry casks under the general license could continue under the amended license, which is often called a " possession-only" license.

Decommissioning means to remove a facility from service, reduce the residual radioactivity to a level that permits termination of the license, and l

release of the site for unrestricted use.

Spent fuel stored under this general license must be removed before the site can be released for unrestricted use (i.e., decommissioned).

21.

Comments.

The proposed rule is unclear as to when the general license would terminate if a cask model has been reapproved by NRC following use of the cask for a period for up to 20 years.

One commenter also suggested that S 72.212(a)(2) be changed to read:

"The general license for the storage of spent fuel in each cask fabricated under a Certificate of Compliance shall terminate either 20 years after the date that the cask is first used by the licensee to store spent fuel, or, if the cask model is reapproved for storage of fuel for more than 20 years, at the conclusion of this newly-approved storage period, beginning on the date that the cask is first used by the licensee to l

store spent fuel."

Response.

The intent of proposed S 72.212(a)(2) is that spent fuel may be stored under a valid Certificate of Compliance for 20 years starting on the i

date the cask is first used for storage of spent fuel.

If a cask design is 11/13/89 19 r

- -, ~. - - - - -

I reapproved, the 20 year storage period begins anew, including casks of that i

design that remain in use.

The 20 year period will also apply to new casks put' into use after a Certificate of Compliance is reapproved.

If a particular cask's Certificate of Compliance expires, the speat fuel stored in casks of this design must be removed after a period not exceeding 20 years.

Revisions have been made to 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2) o more accurately reflect this intent.

22.

Comment.

The $150 application fee shown in S 70.31 should be included in the total fee for the license and not required to be submitted-at the time of the application.

Response.

The Federal Register notice for the proposed rule was in error in that it indicated a revision to S 70.31; the revision is actually being made to S 170.31. The application fee shown in revised S 170.31. is for applications that are submitted for NRC approval of cask designs (Certificates of Compliance) and for inspections related to spent fuel, storage under this general license.

There is no fee for the general license.

23.

Comment.

Cask vendors, some of which are small businesses, will be affected by the rule and should be considered in the Regulatory. Flexibility Act Certification statement.

Response.

The Preliminary Regulatory Analysis contained an analysis of potential impacts on cask vendors.

Fee.s for cask design approvals were previously limited to $20,000, but under this rulemaking the. NRC will recover full costs, which are estimated to be between $250,000 and $300,000.

No other significant. incremental impacts are anticipated, taecause the criteria for cask design approvals in this final rule are not significantly different from those currently required under Part 72.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification Section of the final rule has been revised to include cask vendors.

11/13/89 20

24.

Comment.

Some qualification is needed for the requirement in 6 72.212(b)(2) that a licensee perform written evaluations showing compliance with the cask's certificate for the anticipated total number of casks to be used for storage.

There is no certainty regarding when any spent fuel will be accepted by DOE, and this uncertainty should be clarified In the final rule.

l Response.

Each cask SAR includes an analysis of cask arrays, and licensees must consider these analyses in their selection of a cask model.

Multiple storage arrays may be used if additional spent fuel storage capacity is needed.

It was not intended that licensees be required to anticipate how 1

much storage capacity would be needed before DOE begins accepting spent fuel for storage or disposal.

Revisions to S 72.212(b)(2) have been made to clarify the intent.

i 25.

Comment.

Spent fuel should be required to be stored in the reactor fuel storage pool for a minimum of 5 years prior to dry cask storage.

Such a provision would place considerably less thermal stress on the storage casks.

Other commenters also questioned why this was not made a requirement.

Response.

It is likely that the spent fuel will be stored in the reactor fuel pool for at least 5 years before storage in a cask.

However, it is not necessary to make this a requirement, because casks can be designed to safely store spent fuel having a wide range of exposure.

The type, age, and amount l

of spent fuel to be stored in a cask will be analyzed in the cask's SAR.

Conditions in the SAR are incorporated into the Certificate of Compliance, and

(

licensees are required to store spent fuel in compliance with the cask's certificate.

26.

Comments.

The language in proposed 10 CFR 72.230 should be changed to reflect the condition that an application for approval of a storage cask must 11/13/89 21

l r

be made available to the public.

l Response.

The language in this Section parallels the language in S 72.20

[S 72.13] on which it is based, i.e., that " Applications and documents submitted to the Commission in connection with applications may be made available to the public in accordance with provisions of the regulations contained in Part 2 and Part 9 of this chapter."

27.

Comments. The proposed rule should be modified to include alternative storage technologies.

Two commenters indicated that the proposed rule approval of only one storage technology (i.e., spent fuel storage in dry. casks) provides i

an unfair competitive advantage to suppliers of these systems.

Response. The reasons for Commission approval of spent fuel storage in dry casks are discussed in the Federal Register notice for the proposed rule.

An important consideration is that free-standing casks, being very strong and massive structures, are independent of the effects of site-specific natural i

phenomena.

For instance, in a worst case scenario considering the effects of earthquakes, a cask could topple.

Forces from this accident would be well l

within a cask's design limits for safe confinement of radioactivity.

Importantly, site-specific approvals would not be required by the Commission, provided conditions in subpart K are met.

One storage system specifically i

mentioned in the comments is the NUHOMS system (registered trade mark by NUTECH Inc.), which consists of storing spent fuel sealed in canisters and storing the canisters in concrete modules.

Another system mentioned is the Modular Vault Dry Store (FW Energy Applications, Inc.), which consists of sealing the spent fuel in containers and storing the containers in racks set in concrete or earth for shielding.

A major reason that these spent fuel storage systems, which are i

11/13/89 22

I l

being considered by the Commission for use under a general license, are not being approved now is that they have components that are not independent of l

site specific parameters and, thus, require site specific approvals.

For instance the concrete storage modules used in the NUHOMS systems and the racks i

and concrete shielding required by the Modular Vault Dry Store system, which are structures and systems important to safety, are usually constructed in place and require individual case evaluations of. earthquake intensity and soil characteristics.

l

}

28.

Comment.

Paragraphs 5 and 6 of " Discussion" in the proposed rule Federal Register notice did not include NUHOMS topical safety analysis reports (TSAR),

although they have been approved by the staff.

Response.

Two topical safety analysis reports for NUHOMS systems have been reviewed and approved by the NRC staff.

Approval of a TSAR allows an applicant for a specific license under Part 72 to reference the document, instead of having to develop separate safety evaluations.

29.

Comments.

A licensee should be required to register use of casks prior to actual use of the cask, rather than within 30 days.

Another commenter stated that the Commission has not demonstrated that the requirement to report initial storage of spent fuel in a cask within 30 days is the least burdensome necessary to achieve the Commis'sion's objective.

This commenter suggested that this information could be reported at the annual inventory.

Response.

The purpose of the registration notice in S 72.212(b)(1)(ii) is to enable NRC staff from the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards to establish and maintain a record of the use of each cask.

If safety issues 11/13/89 23 -

~.

l arise during storage of spent fuel under the general license, they will be reported under S 72.216.

The purpose of the records related to spent fuel inventory, required under S 72.72 [S 72.51], is to enable NRC staff from the Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to inspect for compliance with safeguards regulations.

Use of the records submitted under S 72.212(b)(1)(iii) will enable the staff to take appropriate action in a timely manner on any issue that may arise.

30.

Comments.

The proposed rule requires that spent fuel storage cask designers give consideration to compatibility of cask designs with l

transportation and ultimate disposal by DOE.

Some commenters favored this consideration and others questioned its advisability, unless specific criteria I

could be provided.

Some commenters indicated that NRC should also address the lack of consistency between Parts 71 and 72.

l l

Response.

Specific design criteria for spent fuel disposal will not be available until a repository design is approved.

However, cask designers should remain aware that spent fuel ultimately will be received by DOE and that cask designs should adopt DOE criteria as it becomes available.

This does not mean that cask designs previously approved by NRC will have to be reapproved for this reason in order to continue to store spent fuel.

It is not necessary that storage casks be designed for transport of spent fuel (i.e., to meet requirements in Part 71), because the spent fuel can be unloaded and transferred into casks approved under Part 71.

However, in the interest of reducing radiation exposure, storage casks should be designed to be compatible with transportation and DOE design criteria.

Transportation compatibility will be attainable to the extent that cask designers can design I

l l

11/13/89 24

l I

l casks to avoid return of spent fuel from dry storage to reactor basins for j

transfer to another cask before moving it off-site for disposal.

1 31.

Comment.

Paragraph 72.238(a) should be revised to read "The criteria in S 72.236(a) through (i) and (m)."

Response.

Paragraph 72.236(m) states that, to the extent practicable in I

the design of c;.sks, consideration should be given to the compatibility of the dry storage cask systems and components with transportation and other activities related to the removal of the stored spent fuel from the reactor site for ultimate disposition by DOE.

Specific criteria for designing spent fuel storage casks for compatibility may not be available until the design for a high-level waste repository is complete.

Revision of 6 72.238(a) is not considered to be appropriate at this time, although requirements in proposed S 72.236(m) have been retained.

32.

Comment.

The environmental assessment fails to conform to the requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).

Response.

The Commission's regulations for implementing Section 102(2)

)

of NEPA in a manner consistent with NRC's domestic licensing and related l

regulatory authority under the Atomic Energy Act are set forth in 10 CFR Part 51.

The environmental assessment meets the criteria in 10 CFR 51.30 and, thus, meets the requirements of NEPA. There is no requirement in Part 51 for compliance with CEQ regulations.

l 33.

Comment. While the public notice provides a list of documents which contain current information, a supplemental environmental impact statement is required in order to inform the public as to the nature of the information and 11/13/89 25 i

i

to allow an opportunity for public comment.

Response.

The potential environmental impacts related to this rulemaking were analyzed in the environmental assessment, in rulemakings for previous revisions to Part 72, and in the Commission's waste confidence proceedings that resulted in publication of the Waste Confidence Decision in the Federal Register on August 31, 1984 (49 FR 34658).

In its waste confidence proceedings the Commission found that it has reasonable assurance that no significant environmental impacts will result from the storage of spent fuel for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of nuclear power reactor licenses.

As a result of its Waste Confidence Decision, the Commission revised its regulations in 10 CFR 51.23 to eliminate discussion of environmental impact of spent fuel storage in reactor storage pools or independent spent fuel storage installations i

for the period following the term of the license (49 FR 34688, 8/31/84).

In addition, the Commission recently published in the Federal Register (54 FR 39767, 9/27/89, " Waste confidence decision review") a. review of its waste confidence decision and a proposed rule that would revise 10 CFR Part 51 accordingly (54 FR 39765, 9/27/89).

All of these documents were duly published in the Federal Register and were subject to public comment.

Thus, an environmental assessment, rather than an environmental impact statement, is considered suitable for this rulemaking.

34.

Comment.

1 The NRC has misrepresented the requirements of the NWPA.

The environmental assessment and finding of no significant environmental impact states that the NWPA directs the Commission to approve one or more technologies l

for use of spent fuel storage.

While the demonstration program is mandated, the adoption of one or more technologies is not.

Response.

Section 218(a) of the NWPA does does not direct the Commi3sion j

to approve any spent fuel storage technology.

However, the objective of the 11/13/89 26 l

l

=..-

l l

l demonstration program is clearly meant to provide the basis for Commission I

approval of one or more technologies for use at sites of civilian nuclear power l

reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals.

Section 133 of the NWPA directs that the Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 218(a).

Thus, the NRC has not misrepresented directives of the NWPA.

The environmental assessment explains this relationship in the section entitled "The Need for the Proposed Action."

l 35.

Comments.

The NRC failed to discuss the consequences of a failure of its assumptions.

The NRC states that the potential for corrosion of fuel cladding and reaction with the fuel is reduced "because an inert atmosphere is expected to be maintained" inside the casks.

Further, the NRC " anticipates that most spent fuel stored in the casks will be 5 years old or more." What are the.

consequences if the scenarios the NRC " anticipates" does not happen?

Response

The potential consequences from off-normal and accident conditions involving spent fuel storage are discussed in the Federal Register notice for the proposed rule.

Licensees are required to store spent fuel, under the general license, in accordance with the regulations in 10 CFR Part 72 and the cask's Certificate of Compliance.

Part 72 prohibits the storage of spent fuel that is less than 1 year old.

The certificate requires that the spent fuel be stored in accordance with the technical specifications developed in the safety analysis report.

These specifications set forth the age and maximum amount of spent fuel that can be stored in the cask and are determined from heat load analyses.

In general terms, the longer the spent fuel is aged, the greater the capacity of the cask.

Cask atmospheres would be required to be filled with an inert gas and provided with monitoring systems to detect leaks in the cask sealing system.

Oxidation of the fuel or fuel cladding could occur l'

11/13/89 27 l

i

(

l if the inert gas leaked out and was not replaced and the internal cask l

temperature increased sufficiently.

There still would not be any significant increase.in radioactivity, because any release of radioactive material from the fuel would remain confined within the cask.

If removal of the spent fuel were i

required, unloading procedures call for checking the cask's atmosphere before i

removing the lid and the radioactive material within the cask will be contained by f acility containment systems with no significant release to the environment.

Occupational radiation doses may be increased slightly, but would be controlled to be well within Part 20 limits.

l Improper loading of spent fuel aged for less than 5 years is readily detectable by spent fuel assembly ideatification, loading, and monitoring procedures.

Even if an improper fuel loading should occur, the results would be limited to a somewhat higher storage temperature and possibly a slight increase i

in the radiation from the cask.

Any significant increase in radiation would be detected through procedures for surveillance and ntonitoring of cask loading.

36.

Comments.

The criteria for locating storage cask sites, for ensuring 1

adequate cooling for casks, for evaluating the adequacy of radiation shielding, or for other aspects of cask designs in the proposed rule have not been assessed for environmental impact.

i Response. The technical criteria in 6 72.236 are those currently used by the staff for approval of cask designs.

As previously mentioned, the l

environmental impacts related to storage of spent fuel under Part 72 have been generically evaluated under two previous rulemakings and the Commission's waste confidence proceedings.

These potential impacts need not be evaluated again in the environmental assessment.

37.

Comment.

The environmental impact of decommissioning contaminated casks l

11/13/89 28 I

after the 20 year storage period has not been assessed.

Response.

The decommissioning of contaminated casks is discussed in the environmental assessment, which points out that decommissioning of dry cask spent fuel storage under a general license would be carried out as part of the power reactor site decommissioning plan.

Decommissioning would consist of removing the spent fuel from the site and decontaminating cask surfaces.

The i

decontamination could take place at the power reactor or at a DOE operated facility.

In either case, the decontamination solutions would be combined with other contaminated solutions, thus, environmental impacts from decommissioning j

l casks are expected to be very low.

The incremental costs associated with.

{

decommissioning casks are expected to represent a small fraction of the cost of l

decommissioning a nuclear power reactor.

l 38.

Comment.

The fire in the spent fuel storage pool subsequent to the major i

accident at Chernobyl has not been considered in the proposed rulemaking.

Response.

In the early stages of the Chernobyl accident there was a view developed that a fire occurred in the spent fuel pool at Chernobyl.

This view was based on fallout spectra observed in eastern Europe.

Subsequent studies showed that this view was in error.

Officials of the USSR have denied that a fire occurred in the spent fuel pool at Chernobyl.

39.

Comment.

The NRC has studied responses of loaded casks to a range of sabotage scenarios.

The four casks that are referenced in the' background information are all metal casks, and there is limited reference to concrete systems. Since the referenced study is classified, we do not have any indication that this study specifically addressed concrete dry storage systems with respect to small arms, fire, and explosives.

Response.

The referenced study did not specifically consider concrete 11/13/89 29 l

l r--

, + -

w,&

m---

..e

-t+s w p-vg e

--wv-r't--*r-'-"+'

e c-==

+-ke-w t

u--e+r

storage systems.

However, as discussed in the proposed rule, for any storage system the most significant consequences to public health and safety results from the fraction of radioactive material released as respirable particles.

The general conclusions of the study are not limited to a specific dry storage l

l system.

The requirements in this rule comprise a suoset of the protection requirements currently enforced at each reactor, and the NRC concludes that these requirements can be successfully imposed for spent fuel storage through a general license.

40.

Comments.

Safeguards requirements were either inadequate or too stringent.

One commenter stated that the safeguards system for the existing site cannot be considered adequate for the additional burden of spent fuel dry storage.

Unless a utility commits to the location of cask storage adjacent to the reactor building, the existing safeguards can be compromised and any cask storage area should be located greater than 100 meter.s from the nearest public access (roadway, park, beach, etc.).

Another commenter suggested that terrorism needs targets and that above ground storage of spent fuel provides terrorists with a most effective target.

It further stated that a small bomb dropped from a light plane or helicopter could spread the contents of an above ground cask over many states.

Another commenter stated that there is no reason why the licensee should be exempt from SS 73.55(h)(4)(iii)(A) and (5),

which require that guards interpose themselves between vital areas and any adversary, and respond using deadly force if necessary.

Another commenter l

stated that S 73.55 requirements are not needed for a spent fuel storage area that is a new protected area separate from the existing reactor protected area.

l This commenter further stated that the background material for this proposed rule indicates that requirements should be significantly reduced from S 73.55 requirements for storage areas within a new separate protected area and, 11/13/89 30

l specifically, that S 72.212 should specify the requirements instead of referencing exemptions from S 73.55.

Response.

As described in the Federal Register notice for the proposed rule (54 FR 19379), none of the information the staff has collected confirms the presence of an identifiable domestic threat to dry storage facilities.

l Despite the absence of an identifiable domestic threat, the NRC considered it l

prudent to study the response of loaded casks to a range of sabotage scenarios.

After considering various technical approaches to radiological sabotage, and experiments and calculations, the NRC concluded that radiological sabotage, to be successful, would have to be carried out using large quantities of explosives and that the consequences to public health and safety would be low.

More severe consequences are possible only if unconstrained sabotage resources or protracted loss of control of the storage area are allowed.

For that reason, protection requirements were proposed to provide for (1) early detection of malevolent moves against the storage site and (2) a m,eans to quickly summon response resources to ensure protection against protracted loss of cuntrol of the storage site.

Requiring licensees to apply security plans to spent fuel storage that are completely adequate under S 73.55 for protection of the reactor ensures that adequate safeguards are provided for the cask storage area without the need for additional NRC review and approval.

In addition, S 72.104 requires that spent fuel storage areas be at least 100 meters from the nearest boundary.

Given the lower consequences, exemptions were provided for those S 73.55 provisions not essential to early detection of malevolent acts and for summoning local law enforcement agencies or other response forces.

With the exception of one rule change (which is consistent with the intent of the proposed rule and is discussed in comment number 47), the NRC does not believe that these comments provide sufficient new information or rationale for changing the proposed rule.

11/13/89 31

1 41.

Comment.

Could the cask body be the protected area boundary?

b j

Response.

No, because that would not meet the requirements in S 73.55(c) for an isolation zone.

An isolation zone must be maintained adjacent to the i

physical barrier and must be of sufficient size to permit observation of the f

activities of people on either side of the barrier in the event of its j

penetration.

Thus, the cask body cannot be the physical barrier.

l l

42.

Comment.

Please clarify the requirement for a periodic inventory of the special nuclear material contained in the spent fuel, i

Response. This rulemaking does not change the current requirements for j

periodic. inventory of special nuclear material that must be conducted under i

S 72.72 [S 72.51].

Cask records must show the contents of the cask, including

~l j

special nuclear material content.

In lieu of periodically opening casks, a R

1

\\

licensee may use tamper seals to show the cask has not been opened.

If seals are broken, then the contents may have to be verified.

Cask records must also J

provide sufficient information for the NRC staff to be able.to trace the spent 4

j.

fuel stored in the cask to the original assembly or assemblies; thus, can f

j determine its usage history.

1 4

i j

43.

Comment.

The requirements for vital areas are delineated in other i

j paragraphs of $73.55, and all vital area requirements throughout S 73.55 should i

be exempted in 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5)(ii), not just S 73.55(c).

Response. We agree.

Proposed S 72.212(b)(5)(ii) states that storage of l

spent fuel under this general license need not be within a separate vital area.

i If spent fuel is not stored within a vital area, then regulations that pertain only to vital areas would not apply to that spent fuel storage area.

1 i

11/13/89 32 3

i

i 44.

Comment.

Paragraph 72.212(b)(5)(iii) should distinguish between the security requirements for an existing protected area that is expanded and a new j

i protected area.

In the case of a new protected area, S 73.55(h)(6) should not be required.

Instead, the requirement should be only an alarm assessment via l

CCTV, guard, or watchman, i

Response.

Proposed paragraph 72.212(b)(5)(iii) stated that the I

observational capability required by S 73.55(h)(6) may be provided by a guard or watchman in lieu of closed circuit television.

Since the rule already provides the relief requested, there is no reason for revision.

45.

Comment.

For purposes of this rule, if the licensee is exempt from S 73.55(h)(4)(iii)(A) and (5) (i.e., neutralize threat), then S 73.55(h)(3) requirements (i.e., armed responders) should also be exempted.

Response.

The general license presumes that the same physical security organization and program will be' applied to spent fue_l storage as are applied to prutection of the reactor at the site.

Paragraph 72.212(b)(5)(i) requires that the organization ar.d program be modified as necessary to ensure that there is no decrease in effectiveness.

Accordingly, additional personnel need to be added only if it is necessary to ensure that there is no decrease in effectiveness.

The rule does not require an independent application of S 73.55(h)(3), which sets minimum personnel levels, for the purposes of spent fuel storage.

1 46.

Comment.

The requirement in S 73.55(d)(1) that searches for firearms and explosives be accomplished by equipment designed for such detection should be deleted when a new protection area is added that is not contiguous with the existing protection area.

The only requirement in this case should be to perform a visual search for bulk explosives.

This is supported by the 11/13/89 33

j i

discussion in the Federal Register notice.

I Response.

The NRC agrees that searches for firearms and explosives for the purposes of a general license under this rulemaking need not be conducted using equipment capable of detecting these devises.

Accordingly, the final rule is being revised to allow the use of physical pat-down searches, in lieu of detection equipment, for firearms and explosives searches.

l 47.

Comments.

Is the use of the word " defect" in S 72.216(b) consistent with the definition of " defect" in 10 CFR Part 21? What is the purpose of the reporting requirements in proposed S 50.72(b)(2)?

Response.

Proposed S 72.216(a) states that cask users must report defects with safety significance discovered in any spent fuel storage cask and any instance in which there is a significant reduction in the effectiveness of a cask's confinement system.

These reports would be made under the regulations in a proposed S 50.72(b)(2)(vii).

This information is necessary to inform the NRC staff of potential hazards to the public health and safety.

Proposed S 72.216(a) is not being revised to replace the word defect, because the definition of " defect" in 10 CFR Part 21 is compatible with the intent of these reporting requirement.

Proposed S 50.72(b)(2) is being revised to avoid an apparent duplication of reporting.

48.

Comment.

Proposed S 72.234(d)(3) requires a composite record for all casks to be maintained by the cask vendor "for the life of the cask."

It further states that the vendor would not necessarily be in a position to know how long the general license will be extended; thus, this provision should be clarified.

Response.

The intent of this Section is that cask vendors should maintain a record of all casks that are fabricated and sold or leased to power reactor 11/13/89 34

. - - - ~

i 0

licensees.

This record would be used by the NRC staff to confirm information supplied by cask users and to determine whether or not a cask vendor will 1

submit an application for cask design reapproval.

The commenter raises a valid point, so S 72.234(d)(3) has been revised to clarify this point.

49.

Comment.

The Commission has not demonstrated the practical utility of requiring cask fabrication initiation and completion dates to be included as part of the cask record in S 72.234(d)(2)(iv) and (v),

Response.

The purpose for including the initiation and completion fabrication dates in a cask record is to ensure that any safety problem that might arise related to fabrication procedures of a particular cask model can be traced and corrected in all casks of that model.

For instance, if a faulty batch of steel is fabricated into closure bolts, which could be discovered through quality assurance procedures, these fabrication dates would enable the staff to determine which specific casks were involved,.

Thus, corrective actions could be taken, if necessary, based on this information.

50.

Comments.

Although S 72.6(b) [S72.6] provides for issuance of a general license, S 72.6(c) might be interpreted to disallow storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI by a licensee under the general license, unless the holder of such a license also had a specific license for that purpose.

One commenter suggested that existing S 72.6(c) be revised or clarified to specifically provide for storage of spent fuel under a general license without the requirement for a specific license, as long as the provisions of subpart K are met.

Response.

Subpart K sets forth conditions under which the holder of a power reactor operating license may store spent fuel under the general license being promulgated under this rulemaking.

Conditions set forth in S 72.6

[S 72.6] are considered sufficient to allow storage of spent fuel under 11/13/89 35

~

, _ _.. ~. _. _..

the general license.

However, since the issue has been raised and there is confusion concerning the wording in S 72.6(c), it is being revised to specifically state that spent fuel may also be stored under a general license issued under subpart K.

l l

Having considered all comments received and other input, the Commission has determined that the following final rule should be promulgated.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact:

Availability l

l The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR l

Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a m.ajor Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and therefore an I

environmental impact statement is not required.

The rule is mainly administrative in nature and would not change safety requirements.

The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document i

l Room, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC.

l Paperwork Reduction Act Statement l

i This final rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection l

requirements contained in 10 CFR Part 72 under OMB clearance number 31E0-0132.

11/13/89 36 7

l l

4 4

i Regulatory Analysis The Commission prepared a preliminary regulatory analysis for the proposed rulemaking on this subject.

The analysis examined the benefits and impacts considered by the Commission.

The Commission requested public comments on the preliminary regulatory analysis, but no comments were received.

No changes to the regulatory analysis are considered necessary, so a separate regulatory analysis has not been prepared for the final rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)),

the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not have a significant ~ economic impact on a substantial number _ of small entities.

This final rule affects licensees owning nuclear power reactors.

The owners of nuclear power plants do not fall within the scope of'the definition of "small entities" set forth in Section 601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,15 U.S.C. 632, or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

This final rule also affects spent fuel storage cask vendors, who may or may not fall within the scope of small entities.

The Preliminary Regulatory

{

Analysis for the proposed rulemaking contained an analysis of potential impacts on spent fuel storage cask vendors.

The analysis showed that fees for a cask design approval were limited to $20,000.

Under the final rule, the NRC will recover full costs for spent fuel storage cask design approvals, which were-10/27/89 37

i estimated in the Regulatory Analysis to be between $250,000 and $300,000 per cask design.

No other significant incremental impacts are anticipated, because the criteria for cask design approvals in the final rule are not significantly different from those currently required.

l l

Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the 'atkfit rule, 10 CFR SG.109, does not i

apply to this final rule, and, thus, a backfit analysis is_not required, 1

because these amendments do not involve any provisions which woul.d impose j

l backfits as defined in S 50.109(a)(1).

List of Subjects Part 50:

Antitrust, Classified information, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Part 72:

Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel.

Part 170:

Byproduct material, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors; Penalty, Source material, Special nuclear material.

For reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as 10/27/89 38 l

7

-.=

I j

4 i

f amended, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 j

and 553, the NRC is adopting the following revisions to-10 CFR Part 72 and i

conforming amendments to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 170.

i 4

PART 72 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE l

1 0F SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL ANO HIGH-LEVEL RA0I0 ACTIVE WASTE 1.

The authority citation for Part 72 is revised to read as 'follows:

1 9

Authority:

Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63,'65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111,-2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282);

sec. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub.

L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, I

\\

10161, 10168).

Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L.

100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c)(d)).

Section 72.46 also issued under sec.189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239);

sec. 134, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154).

Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C.

10165(g)).

Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a),

141(h), Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10/27/89 39

10137(a), 10161(h)).

Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198).

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273);

SS 72.6, 72.22, 72.24, 72.26, 72.28(d), 72.30, 72.32, 72.44(a), (b)(1), (4),

(5), (c), (d)(1), (2), (e), (f), 72.48(a), 72.50(a), 72.52(b), 72.72(b), (c),

72.74(a), (b), 72.76, 72.78, 72.104, 72.106, 72.120, 72.122, 72.124, 72.126, 72.128, 72.130, 72.140(b), (c), 72.148, 72.154, 72.156, 72.160, 72.166, 72.168, 72.170, 72.172, 72.176, 72.180, 72.184, 72.186 are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); SS 72.10(a), (e), 72.22, 72.24, 72.26, 72.28, 72.30, 72.32, 72.44(a),(b)(1), (4), (5), (c), (d)(1), (2), (e),

(f), 72.48(a), 72.50(a), 72.52(b), 72.90(a)-(d), (f), 72.92, 72.94, 72.98, 72.100, 72.102(c), (d), (f), 72.104, 72.106, 72.120, 72.122, 72.124, 72.126, 72.128, 72.130, 72.140(b), (c), 72.142, 72.144, 72.146, 72.148, 72.150, 72.152, 72.154, 72.156, 72.158, 72.160, 72.162, 72.164, 72.166, 72.168, 72.170, 72.172, 72.176, 72.180, 72.182, 72.184, 72.186, 72.190, 72.192, 72.194 are issued under sec. 161i, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)); and SS 72.10(e),

72.11, 72.16, 72.22, 72.24, 72.26, 72.28, 72.30, 72.32, 72.44(b)(3), (c)(5),

(d)(3), (e), (f), 72.48(b), (c), 72.50(b), 72.54(a), (b), (c), 72.56, 72.70, 72.72, 72.74(a), (b), 72.76(a), 72.78(a), 72.80, 72.82, 72.92(b), 72.94(b),

72.140(b), (c), (d), 72.144(a), 72.146, 72.148, 72.150, 72.152, 72.154(a), (b),

72.156, 72.160, 72.162, 72.168, 72.170, 72.172, 72.174, 72.176, 72.180, 72.184, 72.186, 72.192, 72.212(b), 72.216, 72.218, 72.230, 72.234(e) and (g) are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

2.

In S 72.6, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:

S 72.6 License required; types of licenses.

10/27/89 40

l (c) Except as authorized in a specific license and in a general license 1

under subpart K issued by the Commission in accordance with the regulations in this part, no person may acquire, receive, or possess --

l 3.

In S 72.30, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

S 72.30 Decommissioning planning, including financing and recordkeeping.

I l

(b) The proposed decommissioning plan must also include a decommissioning l

funding plan containing information on how reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI or MRS.

This l

information must include a cost estimate for decommissioning and a description of the method of assuring funds for decommissioning from paragraph (c) of this section, including means of adjusting cost estimates and associated funding levels periodically over the life of the ISFSI or MRS.

l i

1 This draft is written in comparative text to show changes in this final rule from the proposed rule as published in the Federal Register (54 FR 19379, 5/5/89).

The comparative text will be removed prior to forwarding this notice to the Commission.

10/27/89 41 1

4.

New subpart K and L are added to read as follows:

Subpart K -. General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites Sec.

72.210.

General license issued.

i 72.212 -Conditions of general license. issued under 6 72.210.

72.214 List of' approved spent fuel storage casks.

l' l

72.216 Repcets.

72.218 Termination.of licenses.

72.220 Violations.

Subpart L - Approval of Spent Fuel Storpge Casks.

l 72.230 Procedures for spent fuel storage cask submittals.

L 72.232 Inspection and tests.

72.234 Conditions of approval.

72.236 Specific criteria for spent fuel storage cask approval.

72.238 Issuance of an NRC Certificate of Compliance.

72.240 Conditions for spent fuel storage cask reapproval.

j l

l 1

i l

10/27/89 42 Enclosure l' l

l

,. _, _ ~. _

Subpart K - General License for Storage of Spent Fuel i

at Power Reactor Sites l

S 72.210 General license issued.

A general license is hereby issued for the storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation at power reactor sites to persons authorized to operate nuclear power reactors under Part 50 of this chapter.

S 72.212 Conditions of general license issued under S 72.210.

t l

l (a)(1) [4he.] This general license is limited to storage of spent fuel in 1

l casks approved under the provisions of this part.

(2) The general license for the storage of rhnt fuel in each cask l

fabricated under a Certificate of Compliance shall terminate 20 years after the date that the cask is first used [by the gener2' '4ceasse] to store spent fuel, l

unless the cask model is reapproved, in which case the general license shall terminate [:n the rcvi;;d ccrtific:ti:n d tc.] 20 years after the cask's Certificate of Compliance is reapproved.

In the event that a cask vendor does not apply for a cask model reapproval under S 72.240 of this part, any cask l

user or user representative may apply for a cask design reapproval.

j l

If a Certificate of Compliance expires, casks of that design must be removed i

i from service after a storage period not to exceed 20 years.

l i

10/27/89 43

(b) The general licensee shall:

(1)(i) Notify the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under S 72.4 of this part at least 90 days prior to first storage of spent fuel under this [+he-] general license.

The notice may be in the form of a letter, but must contain the licensee's name, address, reactor license and docket number, and the name and means of contacting a person responsible for providing additional information concerning spent fuel storage under this general license.

A copy of the submittal must be sent to the administrator of the appropriate Nuclear-Regulatory Commission regional office listed in Appendix D to Part 20 of this i

chapter.

(ii) Register use of each cask with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission no l

later than 30 days after using the cask to store spent fuel.

This registration may be accomplished by submitting a letter containing the following information: the licensee's name and address, the licensee's reactor license l

l and docket number, the name and title of a person resp _onsible [uh : n 5:

i j

centacted] for providing additional information concerning spent fuel storage under this general license, the cask certificate and [es] model number, and the cask identification number.

Submittals must be in accordance with the instructions contained in S 72.4 of this part.

A copy of each submittal must be sent to the administrator of the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission regional office listed in Appendix D to Part 20 of this chapter.

(iii) Fee.

Fees for inspections related to spent fuel storage under this general license are shown in S 170.31 of this chapter.

(2) Perform written evaluations showing that conditions set forth in the Certificate of Compliance are met. ['e-the anticipated total. umber cf ::;ks te be used fer cter ;c.] The licensee shall also show that cask storage pads and areas are' designed to adequately support the static load of the stored 10/27/89 44 l

f

casks.

Evaluations must show that the requirements of S 72.104 of this part are met.

A copy of this record must be retained until spent fuel is no longer stored under the general license issued under S 72.210 of this part.

l (3) Review the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) referenced in the Certificate of Compliance and the related NRC Safety Evaluation Report to determine whether or not [-W4] the [1-icerce's app' 44] reactor site parameters are enveloped by the cask design bases [ cap ei'itie:] considered in these reports.

f The results of this review should be documented in the evaluation made in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

(4) Pursuant to S 50.59 of this chapter, determine whether activities-related to storage of spent fuel under this general license involve any unreviewed safety question or change in the facility technical specifications.

(5) Protect the spent fuel against the design basis threat of radio-logical sabotage in accordance with the licensee's physical security plan i

approved in accordance with S 73.55 of this chapter with the following additional conditions and exceptions:

(i) The physical security organization and program must be modified as

^

necessary to assure that activities conducted under this general license do not decrease the effectiveness of the protection of vital equipment in accordance with 6 73.55 of this chapter.

(ii) Storage of spent fuel must be within a protected area, in accordance with S 73.55(c) of this chapter, but need not be within a separate vital area.

Existing protected areas may be expanded or new protected areas added for the purpose of storage of spent fuel in accordance with this general license.

(iii) For purposes of this general license, searches required by S 73.55(d)(1) of this chapter may be performed by physical pat-down searches of persons in lieu of firearms and explosives detection equipment.

10/27/89 45

(iv) Notwithstanding any requirements of the licensee's approved security plan, the observational capability required by S 73.55(h)(6) of this chapter may be provided by a guard or watchman in lieu of closed circuit television for protection of spent fuel under the provisions of this general license.

(v) For the purpose of this general license, the licensee is exempt from S 73.55(h)(4)(iii)(A) and (5) of this chapter.

(6) [Pursuar.t to th: ;m::tr : ' S 51 59 c'

+'4- + p+

,] Review the reactor emergency plan, quality assurance program, training program, and radiation protection program and modify them as necessary for storage of spent fuel and its related activities under this general license.

(7) Maintain a copy of the Certificate of Compliance and documents referenced in the certificate for each cask model used for storage of spent fuel, until use of the cask model is discontinued.

The licensee shall comply with the terms and conditions of the certificate.

(8)(i) Accurately maintain the record provided bp the cask supplier for each cask that shows, in addition to the information provided by-the cask vendor, the following:

[(A)

N: "9C Certi'icete e' Co p14 eace -% ;]

(A) The name and address of the cask vendor or lessor; (B) The listing of spent fuel stored in the cask; and (C) Any maintenance performed on the cask.

(ii) This record must include sufficient information to furnish I

documentary evidence that any testing and maintenance of the cask has been conducted under an NRC-approved quality assurance program.

(iii) In the event that a cask is sold, leased, loaned, or otherwise transferred to another registered user, this record must also be transferred to and must be accurately maintained by the new registered user.

This record must 10/27/89 46

be maintained by the current cask user during the period that the cask is used for storage of spent fuel and retained by the last user until decommissioning of the cask is complete.

(9) Conduct activities related to storage of spent fuel under this general license in accordance with written procedures.

(10) On reasonable notice make records available to the Commission for inspection.

l 6 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks.

The following casks [-h:.. beer re;iered 2nd :":'":ted by the C^-irriaa.

-and] are approved for storage of spent fuel under the conditions specified in their Certificates of Compliance, j

Certificate Number:

1000 l

SAR Submitted by:

General Nuclear Systems,'Inc.

SAR

Title:

Topical Safety Analysis ~ Report for the Castor V/21 Cask l

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Dry Storage) (TSAR) l Docket Number:

72-1000 Certification Expiration Date: [ Insert the month and day that the rule is made effective), 2010 Model Number:

CASTOR V/21 Certificate Number:

1001 SAR Submitted by:

Westinghouse Electric Corporation SAR

Title:

Topical Safety Analysis Report for the MC-10 Cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Dry Storage) 10/27/89 47 r

..,.,4._,

......- ~

4

=.,.

i I

l Docket Number:

72-1001 Certification Expiration Date: [ Insert same date as in certificate number 1000], 2010 Model Number:

MC-10 Certificate Number:

1002 SAR Submitted by:

Nuclear Assurance Corporation SAR

Title:

Topical Safety Analysis Report for the NAC Storage / Transportation Cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Dry Storage)

Docket Number:

72-1002 Certificate Expiration Date: [ Insert the same date as in certificate number 1000], 2010 Model Number:

NAC S/T Certificate Number:

1003 SAR Submitted by:

Nuclear Assurance Corporation SAR

Title:

Topical Safety Analysis Report for the NAC Storage /

Transportation Cask Containing Consolidated Fuel for Use at an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Dry Storage)

Docket Number:

72-1003 Certificate Expiration Date: [ Insert the same date as in certificate number 1000], 2010 Model Number:

NAC-C28 S/T 10/27/89 48

)

S 72.216 Reports.

(a) The general licensee shall make an initial report under S 50.72(b)(2)(vii) of this chapter of any:

(1) Defect [with cafety cigr 'icarce diccevered] in any spent fuel i

storage cask structure, system, or component important to safety; and (2) Instance in which there is a significant reduction in the effectiveness of any spent fuel storage cask confinement system during use.

(b) A written report, including a description of the means employed to repair any defects or damage and prevent recurrence, must be submitted in accordance with S 72.4 of this part within 30 days of the report submitted in paragraph (a) of this section.

A copy of the written report must be sent to the administrator of the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission regional office shown in Appendix 0 to Part 20 of this Chapter.

S 72.218 Termination of licenses.

(a) The notification regarding [ picr-ir.g] the program for the management of spent fuel at the reactor required by S 50.54(bb) of this chapter must include a plan for removal of the spent fuel stored under this general license from the reactor site.

The plan must show how the spent fuel will be managed before starting to decommission systems and components needed for moving, unloading, and shipping this spent fuel.

(b) Spent fuel previously stored under this general license may continue to be stored under this general license during decommissioning, after submission of an application for termination of the reactor operating license under S 50.82 of this chapter.

An application for termination of the reactor operating license submitted under S 50.82 of this chapter must [bewever]

10/27/89 49

~

i 1

contain a description of how the spent fuel stored under this general license will be removed from the reactor site.

[If the dcceamittioning olicrnative j

ccicct:d and:r S E0.S2 cf thiu

' huly ter c tend t j:nd 20 year u mp ;c: ;;

efter the ner-el ter cf the reccter cperating 'icence, the 'icen ce che't i nclude 4-the applicatier : di:::::icr cf i ncreecntal cr"4 rcr ent:1 4 p::t cf the exteaded spent fuel rte"=ga].

(c) The reactor licensee shall send a copy of submittals under S 72.218(a) and (b) of this part to the administrator of the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission regional office shown in Appendix 0 to Part 20 of this Chapter.

S 72.220 Violations.

Storage of spent fuel under this general license may be halted or terminated under S 72.84 of this part.

Subpart L - Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks S 72.230 Procedures for spent fuel storage cask submittals.

(a) An application for approval of a spent fuel storage cask design must be submitted in accordance with the instructions contained in S 72.4 of this part.

A safety analysis report describing the proposed cask design and how the cask should be used to store spent fuel safely must be included with the application.

l 10/27/89 50 i

)

4 (b) Casks that have been certified for transportation of spent fuel under 10 CFR Part 71 of this chapter may be approved for storage of spent fuel under i

i this subpart.

An application must be submitted in accordance with the t

instructions contained in S 72.4 of this part.

A copy of the Certificate of Compliance issued [by the NRC] for the cask under Part 71 of this chapter, and drawings and other documents referenced in the certificate, must be included with the application.

A safety analysis report showing that the cask is i

suitable for ' storage of spent fuel for 3 period of at least 20 years must also l

be included.

(c) Public inspection.

An application for the approval of a cask for storage of spent fuel may be made available for public inspection under S 72.20 of this part.

i (d) Fees.

Fees for review and evaluation related to issuance of a spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance [ia pectier.: rehted te ep^^.t ft:1

terage Oppr ;;d :::k:

0-cccte- "ter.] and [vaad5r] inspections related to [.e4] dry storage cask fabrications are those shown in S 170.31 of this chapter.

S 72.232 Inspection and tests.

1 (a) The applicant shall permit, and make provisions for, the Commission to inspect at reasonable times the premises and facilities at which a spent fuel storage cask is fabricated and tested.

(b) The applicant shall perform, and make provisions that permit the Commission to perform, tests that the Commission deems necessary or appropriate for the administration of the regulations in this part.

10/27/89 51

(c) The applicant shall submit a notification under S 72.4 of this part at least 45 days prior to starting fabrication of the first spent fuel storage

)

cask under a Certificate of Compliance.

S 72.234 Conditions of approval.

i (a) Design, fabrication, testing, and maintenance of a spent fuel storage cask must comply with the technical criteria in S 72.236 of this part.

(b) Design, fabrication, testing, and maintenance of spent fuel storage l

casks must be conducted under a quality assurance program that meets the requirements of Subpart G of this part.

(c) Cask fabrication must not start prior to receipt of the Certificate l

of Compliance for the cask model.

j (d)(1) The cask vendor shall ensure that a record is established and maintained for each cask fabricated under the NRC Certificate of Compliance.

(2) This record must include:

(i) The NRC Certificate of Compliance number; (ii) The cask model number; (iii) The cask identification number; (iv) Date fabrication was started; (v) Date fabrication was completed; (vi) Certification that the cask was designed,- fabricated, tested, and repaired in accordance with a quality assurance program accepted by NRC; (vii) Certification that inspections required by S 72.236(j) of this part were performed and found satisfactory; and (viii) The name and address of the cask user.

10/27/89 52 l

(3) The original of this record must be supplied to the cask user. A current copy of [the] a composite record of all casks manufactured under a l

Certificate of Compliance, showing the information in S 72.234(d)(2) above, must be [mt'Nd] initiated and maintained by the cask vendor for [the '4'c cf the " W] each cask manufactured.

If the cask vendor permanently ceases i

production of casks under a Certificate of Compliance, this composite record must be sent to the Commission using instructions in S 72.4 of this part.

(e) The composite record required by paragraph (d) of this section must be [e de] available to the Commission for inspection.

(f) The cask vendor shall Snsure that written procedures and appropriate tests are established [4ec] prior to use of the casks.

A copy of these procedures and tests must be provided to each cask user.

S 72.236 Specific criteria for spent fuel storage cask approval.

(a) Specifications must be provided for [concer i ng] the spent fuel to be stored in the cask, such as, but not limited to, type of spent fuel (i.e., BWR, PWR, both), enrichment of the unitradiated fuel, burn-up (i.e.,

megawatt-days /HTV), cooling time of the spent fuel prior to storage in the cask, maximum heat designed to be dissipated, maximum spent fuel loading limit, condition of the spent fuel (i.e., intact assembly or consolidated fuel rods),

and inerting atmosphere requirements.

(b) Design bases and design criteria must be provided for structures [al],

l

[ members] systems, and components important to safety.

(c) The cask must be designed and fabricated so that the spent fuel is maintained in a subcritical condition under credible conditions.

10/27/89 53

(d) Radiation shielding and confinement features must be provided to the extent required to meet the requirements in SS 72.104 and 72.106 of this part.

(e) The cask must be designed to provide redundant sealing of confinement i

systems.

(f) The cask must be designed to provide adequate heat removal capacity without active cooling systems.

i (g) The cask must be designed to store the spent fuel safely for a minimum of 20 years and permit maintenance as required.

(h) The cask must be compatible with wet or dry spent fuel loading tad unloading facilities-(i) The cask must be designed to facilitate decontamination to the extent i

1 practicable.

(j) The cask must be inspected to ascertain that there are no cracks, pinholes, uncontrolled voids, or other defects that could significantly reduce I

their confinement effectiveness.

(k) The cask must be conspicuously and durably marked with (1) A model number; (2) A unique identification number; and (3) An empty weight.

(1) The cask and its systems important to safety must be evaluated, by subjecting a sample or scale model to tests appropriate to the part being tested, or by other means acceptable to the Commission, demonstrating that they will reasonably maintain confinement of radioactive material under normal, off-normal, and accident conditions.

(m) To the extent practicable, in the design of dry [ pcnt fuc1] storage casks, consideration should be given to [4he] compatibility [cf the dry ster 2;c ca:P cyctems, end cc penent:] with transportation, [2^d Other 2ct!"iticc]

10/27/89 54

.. ~. -.-.

[r^10ted to thc] removal of the stored spent fuel from a reactor site, and

[4ec] ultimate disposition by the Department of Energy.

i I

5 72.238 Issuance of an NRC Certificate of Compliance.

A Certificate of Compliance for a cask model will be issued by NRC on a finding that (a) The criteria in S 72.236(a) through (i) of this part are met; and (b) The applicant certifies that each cask will be fabricated, inspected, I

and tested in accordance with S 72.236(j) and (1) of this part.

S 72.240 Conditions for spent fuel storage cask reapproval.

(a) The holder of a cask [medel] Certificate of Compliance, a user of a

~

cask [med+4] approved by NRC, [.and.] or the representative of a cask user may apply for a cask model reapproval.

(b) In any case in which an application for reapproval of a cask model is submitted not less than 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Certificate of Compliance, the existing Certificate of Compliance shall not expire until the application for renewal has been finally determined by the Commission. [:uct 5: ;ubritted 3 y: r: prier to the d;t: th:t the Certific:t:

l cf Cc p'innce fer th:t cdel e*p4--s.].

The application must be accompanied by l

a safety analysis report (SAR).

The new SAR may reference the SAR originally I

submitted for the cask model approval.

l (c) A cask model will be reapproved if conditions in S 72.238 of this part are met, including demonstration that storage of spent fuel has not 10/27/89 55

4 significantly adversely affected structures, systems, and components important to safety.

PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 5.

The authority citation of Part 50 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282);

secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851).

Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 1D1, 185, 68 Stat. 936, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235).

Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 (U.S.C.

5844).

Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239).

Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).

Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234).

Section 50.103 also under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).

Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

10/27/89 56 l

. = - -

r 4

For the purposes of sec. 223, Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); SS 50.10(a), (b), and (c), 50.44, 50.46, 50.48, 50.54, and 50,80(a) are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); SS 50.10(b) and (c), and 50.54 are issued under sec. 161i, 68 Stat 949, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2201(i)); and SS 50.9, 50.55(e), 50.59(b), 50.70, 50.71, 50.72, 50.73, 50.78 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

I l

l 6.

In S 50.72, a new paragraph is added to read as follows:

l l

6 50.72 Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors.

~

(b) a a

m (2) ***

(vii) Any instance that is required to be reported under S 72.216 of this chapter.

[ia "hich 2 cign 'icant defect 4-cy;ter er cc penent i

importart t: : fety i; disccvered in, er (S) any #,ctance n ubich there i i

siga4+icant reductier - the cer#4 nement cycter effectivenc;; cf any cc;k u;cd

-tc ;tcrc ;p;nt fucl under S '?.210 cf thic chapte :]

x 10/27/89 57

PART 170 - FEES FOR FACILITIES AND MATERIALS LICENSES AND OTHER REGULATORY SERVICES UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT l

OF 1954, AS AMENDED 7.

The authority citation for Part 170 continues to read as follows:

1 AUTHORITY:

31 U.S.C. 9701, 96 Stat. 1051; sec. 301, Pub. L.92-314, 86 Stat. 222 (42 U.S.C. 2201w); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C.

5841).

8.

In S 170.31, a new category 13 is added and footnotes 1(b), (c), and (d) are amended to read as follows:

6 170.31 Schedule of fees for materials licenses and other regulatory services, including inspections.

A Categoryofmatgrialslicenses Fee,3 2

and type of fee

13. A.

Spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance Application

$150 Approvals Full Cost 10/27/89 58

Amendments, Revisions and Supplements Full Cost Reapproval Full Cost B. Inspections related to spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance Routine Full Cost Nonroutine Full Cost C.

Inspections related to storage-of spent fuel under S 72.210 of Part 72 of this chapter Routine Full Cost Nonroutine Full Cost 1 Types of fees (b) License and approval fees - For new licenses and approvals issued in fee Categories 1A, [and] 1B, 2A, 4A, 5B, 10,A, 108, 11, 12, and 13A the recipient shall pay the license or approval fee as determined by the Commission i

in accordance with 6 170.12(b), (e), and (f).

(c) Renewal and reapproval fees - Applications for renewal of materials licenses and approvals must be accompanied by the prescribed renewal fee for each category, except that applications for renewal of licenses and approvals in-fee Categories 1A, [and] 1B, 2A, 4A, 58, 10A, 108, 11, 12, and 13A must be accompanied by an application fee of $150, with the balance due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with the procedures specified in S 170.12(d).

(d) Amendment fees - Applications for amendments must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for each license affected.

An application for an amendment to a. license or approval classified in more than one category must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for the category affected by the 10/27/89 59

amendment unless the amendment is applicable to two or more fee categories in which case the amendment fee for the highest fee category would apply, except that applications for amendment of licenses and approvals in fee Categories 1A, [and) 1B, 2A, 4A, SB, 10A, 108, 11, 12, and 13A must be accompanied by an application fee of $150 with the balance due upon notification by the Commission in accordance with S 170.12(c).

An application for amendment to a materials license or approval that would place the license or approval in a higher fee category or add a new fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee for the new

)

category.

j An application for amendment to a license or approval that would reduce the scope of a licensee's program to a lower fee category must be accompanied by the prescribed amendment fee for the lower fee category.

Applications to terminate licenses authorizing small materials programs, i

I when no dismantling or decontamination procedure is required, shall not be subject to fees.

j Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of

, 1990.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.

10/27/89 60

Document Name:

RM112 FINAL /

Requestor's ID:

PEARSON Author's Name:

WPEARSON Document Comunents:

7/24/89 rg storage of Spent nuclear fuel a

e e

f l

1 i

l l

l t

i i

e i

l I

Draft Congressional Letter

l IDENTICAL LETTERS T0:

Chairman John B. Breaux, Senate Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation i

cc: Alan K. Simpson Chairman Philip R. Sharp, House Subcomittee on Energy and Power cc:

Carlos J. Moorhead The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chaiman Subcomittee on Energy and the Environment Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Enclosed for the information of the Subcomittee on ----- is a copy of the Federal Register notice of a final rule that will permit nuclear power reactor licensees to store spent fuel on their reactor sites without site-specific appmvals by the Comission. The rule is based on directives contained in Sections 133 and 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended.

The proposed rule on this subject was published in the Federal Register on May 5, 1989 (54 FR 19379). The NRC received 273 letters of comment, 237 of which were fmm individuals. The NRC staff has identified 50 separate topics, which are responded to in the Federal Register notice. Revisions, mainly clarifying and editorial, have been made in the final rule as.a result of the comments received.

Sincerely, Eric S. Beckjord, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Enclosure:

Federal Register notice of a final rule (SLCS) cc:

Representative James V. Hansen

.~..-.

l

\\

Draft Public Announcement

DRAFT To obtain NRC approval of a dry storage cask, an applicant (manufacturer) must submit a safety analysis report describing the proposed cask and how it should be used to store spent fuel safely. The applicant must make provisions for the NRC to inspect the premises and facilities where a spent fuel storage cask is fabricated and tested.

In addition, the applicant must perform, and make provisions to allow the NRC to perfonn tests that the-NRC decides are n:cessary.

Design, fabrication, testing, maintenance and use of a spent fuel storage cask will have to cosply with technical criteria in the Consission's regulations and be conducted under a quality assurance program that meets the NRC's requirements. Cask approval will expire 20 years' after issuance of a Certificate of Compliance unless the cask design is reapproved.

Four dry storage casks that have been reviewed and evaluated by the NRC are being approved for spent fuel storage without site-specific approvals:-

the Model CASTOR V/21, by General Nuclear Systems, Inc., Columbia, SC; Model MC-10, by Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Pittsburgh, Penn.; Model NAC S/T-by Nuclear Assurance Corporation, Norcross, Ga.; and Model NhC-C28 S/T, also by Nuclear Assurance Corporation.

The rule notes that, to the extent practicable, in:the design of dry storage casks, consideration should be given to compatibility with transportation, removal of the stored spent fuel from the reactor site, and ultimate disposition by the Department of Energy.

-~

DRAFT A pdposed rule on this subject was published in the Federal Register for public coment on May 5,1989.

In response to comments received, the Commission has revised the procedures for reapproval of the cask when its 20-year certification period expires. Under the final rule, if an application for reapproval of a cask model is submitted not less than 30 days before the Gxpiration date of the certificate of Compliance, the existing certificate will not expire until the Commission takes final action on the applic,ation for

~

reapproval.

Several commenters on the proposed rule were concerned about the storagd.

of spent fuel at one reactor site that was generated at other reactor sites.

However, the general license authorized by this regulat' ion is not related to the transfer or shipment of spent fuel from one reactor to another. Such transfers must be authorized under a specific amendment to the receiving reactor's operating license and would be a licensing action that would involve an opportunity for a public hearing.

l Other changes to the proposed rule are described in a Federal Register notice published on 2

1

a

'Ji-4 mwt mA.

-.saa--e t+

m.insu

+

a

-f.a

..--=-=+e-Je+We~

-ime-DRAFT NRC AMENDS REGULATIONS ON SPENT FUEL STORAGE

~

1 i

The Nuclear Regulatory Cosnission is amending its regulations to j

authorize nuclear power plant licensees to store spent fuel on reactor sites in NRC-approved dry storage casks under a general license, without submittir.g an application for a specific license to store the fuel.

The rule also sets out criteria and procedures for obtaining NRC approval of the casks to be used for the spent fuel storage.

On-site spent fuel storage can continue after the ' reactor shuts down permanently, but the. licensee will have to indicate in its application for reactor license termination how the spent fuel will.be removed from storage and shipped off-site prior to decommissioning, or release of the site for unrestricted use.

The nuclear reactor licensee will have to ensure, through written evaluations, that there are no unreviewed safety questions oI changes needed.

in association with the use of the casks for storage of spent fyel at the particular reactor site. The licensee will also have to show compliance with conditions of the cask's Certificate of Compliance and-develop operating procedures for use of the dry storage casks.

~~

-, -.