ML20211N469

Forwards for Info,Two Fr Notices Published on 990903 Which May Be Relevant to Issues Raised in Proceeding Re Final Rule, List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks (HI-STAR 100) Addition

ML20211N469
Person / Time
Site:	07200022
Issue date:	09/09/1999
From:	Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Bollwerk G, Kline J, Lam P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20211N474	List: ML20211N469 ML20211N482
References
CON-#399-20808, FRN-64FR48259, FRN-64FR48496 ISFSI, NUDOCS 9909130002
Download: ML20211N469 (31)

Text

" 'o uq UNITED STATES 0

t

[

g o NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 5 a DOCKETED September 9,1999 USHRC

. OFFICE of THE .<  ?) SEP 10 A9 :45 GENERAL COUNSEL _

G. Paul Bollwerk, Ill, Chairman - Dr. Peter S. Lam ~

OFW -

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge quio .

, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licenditig Board >

g U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Kline

l. Administrative Judge l

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

Washington, DC 20555 in the Matter of Private Fuel Storage L.L.C.

(Independent Spent Fuel Storage installation)

' Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI

Dear Administrative Judges:

- Attached for your information are two Federal Register notices published on September 3,1999, which may be relevant to issues raised in this proceeding: (1) Final Rule, " List of Approved 1 i

Spent Fuel Storage Casks: (HI-STAR 100) Addition," 64 Fed. Reg. 48259 (Sept. 3,1999); and (2) Final Rule, " Changes to Requirements for Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses," 64 Fed. Reg. 48496 (Sept. 3,1999). ,

The first Notice adds the.HI-STAR 100 cask system to the list of approved spent fuel storage casks under 10 C.F.R. Part 72, and responds to comments received in that rulemaking proceeding. The second Notice modifies the Commission's generic determination concoming i the cumulative environmental impacts of the transportation of nuclear waste and spent fuel to and from a nuclear reactor, to include spent fuel having a higher bumup and higher enrichment than is indicated in 10 C.F.R. Part 51 Table S-4.

Inasmuch as the Notices are publicly available by electronic means and paper copies are enclosed herewith, an additional electronic copy is not being provided at this time.

Sincerely, dA10t. b I Sherwin E. Turk Counselfor NRC Staff cc w/ Encl.: Service List 9909130002 990909 PDR ADOCK 07 22 U]

u -

FedIral Regist:r/Vgl. 64 No,'171/ Friday, September 3,1999/Rul:s and Regulations 48259 thne infrastructurn and policiw are kw York Animalimport Centerin Authertry:7 U.S.C.1s22; 19 U.S.C.1306:

adequate for disease control. hwburgh, NY, et a cost of 21 U.S.C. t02-105, tu, nea.134a. t34b.

The commentus also said that sporoximately 85,296 per horse. tsec.1 sad. 2sof,2se, and 2 see: 31 U.s.C.

infonnation supplied by foreign regions in 1998, the United States imported e7ot: 7 CPR 2.22,2.00 and 371.2(d).

abould be made available to the public 41,876 horses, valued at $206 million: 2.In 6 93.308, paragraph (a)(2)is for review. mone of thee horses were imported into revised to read as follows:

Currently,when a region requests the United Stata from Morocxio.

permission to export animals and Removing the requirement for a 80-day eet. sos cuarensene requieemeens animal products to the United Stctes, quarantine for horses from Morocco will (a) * *

• the supporting documentation supplied make the importation of horses less (2) Horses intended for importation by the region is published by APHIS on expensive and logistically easier. As a from ons APHIS considers to be the Internet at http:# result, we anticipate that U.S. importers af with African horse sickness www. aphis.usda. gov /vs/res- of competition and breeding horses may enter the United States only at the request.html. This Internet address can might 6egin importing horses from port of New York, and must be be accessed by the public. To request Morecco. Since the value of Morocco's quarantined at the New York Animal additional information, the individual exports of purebred horses in 1997 was import Center in NewburSh .New York, listed under Fon FumvHan woRMAfl0N approximately $44,000, we do not for at last 60 days. This restriction also CONTACT may be contacted. expect that the number of horses applies to horow that have stoppedin Thwefore, for the rusons given in the exported to the United States willbe or transited a region considered affected proposed rule and in this document, we significant. Furthennore, most horses with African horse sickness. APHIS are adopting the proposed rule as a final imported from Morocco willprobably considers the following regions to be rule, without change. be in the United States'en a temporary affected with African horse sickness: All l

. basis for particular events, such as for the regions en the continent of Africa, Effective Date races or brooding, and then transported except Morocco: Oman; Qatar: Saudi This is a substantive rule that relieves back to Morocco. For these reasons, we Arabia; and the Yemen Arab Republic.

restrictions and, pursuant to the anticipate the overall economic effect on . . . . .

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made U.S. entities will be mint ==t. Done in washington. DC, this soth day of effectiva less than 30 days after Under thwe circumstances,th* August 1999.

publication in the Federal Register. Administrator of the Animal and Plant g g g,4 ,g, This rule relieves restrictions that Health laspection Service has Admweentor, AnimalandMant require horses imported from Morocco determined that this action will not AunfiInspecuan serwee.

Neah 1 to enter the United States only at the have a significant economic impact on (FR Doc. 99-230to Filed 9-2 99; 8:45 aml port of New i ork and be quarantined at a substantial number of small entitles. ""*"**"*"*'*

the New York AnimalImport Centw in Newburgh. NY. for at least 60 days. This Encutiw W 12988 rule allows horses from Morocco to be This final rule has been reviewed shipped to and quarantined at ports under Executit e Order 12988. Civil NUCLEAR REGULATORY designated in S 93.303, and reduces the Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts COMMISSION

. quarantine period to an average of 3 all State and locallaws and regulations days 1o meet the quarantine and testing that are inconsistent with this rule:(2) 10 CPR Port 72 requirements specified in $ 93.308. has no retroactive effect; and (3) does Therefore,the Administrator of the not require administrative proceedings RIN 310MG17 ce h s d tIrm r d th tTi e ch thi g should be effective 15 days after the Paperwork Reduction Act date of publication in the Federal AGENCv: Nuclear Regulatory

,g.gg ,

Commisaba.

Regista. Information collection or recordkeeping Executive Order 12866 and Regulator 7 requirements under the Paperwork AcTlow: Final mle.

Flexibility Act Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory This rule has been reviewed under er se91 rhmission (NRC)is amending its Executive Order 12866. This rule has List of subjects in e CFR Part 33 regulations to add the Holtec been determined to be not significant for International H1-STAR 100 cask system Animal diseases, imports, Livestock, purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, Poultry and oultry products, i therefore, has not been reviewed by the to g theMs M l.g.st of approved dowstb spent fuel Quarantine, eporting and en holdws of power ructcv opvating Office of Mana$ement This rule and Budget.

wil recognize Morocco as recgr , reg

_ ding 9 CFR licenses to store spent fuelin thi:

free of AHS. This action will allow approved cask system under a geneal horses from Morocco to be shipped to Pm 93 u idows.- license.

and quarantined at ports designated in PART 83--4MPORTATION OF CERTAIN EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is 5 93.303 and will reduce the quarantine ANIMALS, DIRDS, AND POULTRY. effective on October 4,1999.

and testing penod to an average of 3 AND CERTAIN ANIMAL, DIRD, AND p0R FURTMER INFORMaTION CONTACT: Stan days to meet quarantine requirements POULTRY PRODUCTS: Turel, telephone (301) 415-6234, e-nail specified in 693.308. ' REOUIREMENTS FOR MEANS OF sptenrc. ov of the Office of Nuclear U.S. importers of competition and . CONVEYANCE AND SHIPMNG Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

breeding horses from Morocco will be CONTAINERS Nuclear RegulatoTYC ommission' affected by this rule. These importers Washington, DC 2055M001.

will no longer be required to quarantine 1.The authority citation for part 93 horses from Morocco for 60 days at the continues to road as follows: SUPPLEMENTARY IN*ORMATION:

i -

48260 Federal Register / Vel. 64 N2.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/ Rules and Regulations Background Approved Contents and Design a fee gt the NRC Public Document Features, for the Holtec Intemational . Room. 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Section 218(a) of the Nuclear waste H1-STAR 100 cask stem.The staff has Level). Washington, DC. E Policy Act of 1982, as amended s

e bli re t tit e of t SA the Suzam$

g PC lic Corninents on the ff l Usting of this cask design in to CFR '

demonstration program, in cooperation. The NRC received nine comment rivate sector, for the dry 72.214. L The title of the SAR has ben revised letters on the proposed rule.The with storage theo fspent nuclear fuel at civilian nudear reacto ower sites,with the to delete the revision number so that in commenters included the afmember ofpl 'l the final rule the title of the SAR is "HI- State of Utah, an individua STAR 100 Cask System Topical Safety the public, industry npresentatives, and l hh'8' ,'that th uc$ ear Analysis Report."This revision severalutilitios. Copies of the public -

L Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, conforms the title to the uirements of comments are available for review in the approve for use at the sites of civilian new to CFR 72.248, rece y approved NRC Public Document Room 2120 L nuclear power reactors without, to the Stnet NW (Lower 1.evel), Washington, j by the Commission.

maximum extent practicable, the need The proposed CoC has been avised to DC 20003-1527.

for additional site-specific approvals by uirements for makin  :,

clarify Corninents on N Hnal Rule the Commission." Section 133 of the changesthe to he CoCby specifymgtbt osed rule, the NRC NWPA states,in part, *[tlhe As part of the the CoC holder must submit an c comment on the i

Commission shall, by rule, establish staff requested application for an amendment to the use of a direct al rulemaking process procedures for the licensing of any certificate if a change to the CoC, technology approved by the including its appendices,is desired. for future amendments to the list of This revision conforms the change . approved spent fuel storage casks in 10 Comtmssion under Section 218(a) for CFR 72.214. The direct final rulemaking use at the site of any civilian nuclear process to that speci5ed in to CFR 72.48, as recently approved by the process is used by Federal agencies, Power reactor." including the Environmental Protection To implement this mandate, the NRC Commission. The CoC has also been approved dry storage of spent nuclear revised to delete the proposed Agency (EPA) and the NRC, to expedite rulemaking where the agency believes fuelin NRC. approved casks under a exemption from the requirements of to general beense, publishing a final rule CFR 72.124(b) because a recent that the rule is concontroversial and in 10 CFR Part 72 entitled " General amendment of thh regulation makes the significant adverse comments will not be received. Use of this technique in J License for Storage of Spent Fuel at exemption unnecessary (64 FR 33178;

• Power Reactor Sites" (55 FR 29181; July June 22,1999). In addition, other minor, appropriate circumstances has been 18,1990). This rule also established a nontechnical, changes have been made endorsed by the Arlministrative new Subpart L within to CFR Part 72 ' to CoC 1008 to ensure consistency with Conference of the United States (60 FR entitled " Approval of Spent Fuel NRC's new standard format and content 43110; August 18,1995). Under the direct final rulemaking procedure, the Storage Casks," containing procedures for CoCa. Finally, extensive comments and criteria for obtaining NRC approval were received from Holtec International NRC would publish the proposed and other industry organiaations amendment to the to CFR 72.214 list as of dry storage cask designs. both a proposed and a final rule in the suggerting changes to the TSs and the Discussion Federal Register simultaneously. A Approved Contents and Design direct final rule normally becomes This rule will add the Holtec Features. Some of these were editorial effective 75 days after publication in the International HI-STAR 100 to the list of in nature, others provided clarification and consistency, and some reflected Federal Register unless the NRC I NRC approved casks for spent fuel storage in 10 CFR 72.214. Following the final refinements in the cask design. receives sign!!icant adverse comments on the direct final rule within 30 days procedures specified in to CFR 72.230 . Staff agrees with many of these of Subpart L. Holtec International suggested changes and hu facorporated after publication. If significant adverse them into the final documents, as comments are received, the NRC submitted an application for NRC approval together with the Safety appropriate. publishes a document that withdraws Analysis Report (SAR) entitled "H1- The NRC finds that the Paltec the direct final rule.The NRC then STAR 100 Cask System Topical Safety International Hl-STAR 100 cask system, addresses the comments received as comments on the proposed rule and Analysis Report (SAR), Revision 8." The as designed and when fabricated and

" the conditions subsequently issues a final rule.

NRC evaluated the Holtec International used in ac--^-- One commenter supported use of the 6- submittal and issued a preliminary speciSed in its CoC, meets the requirements of to CFR Part 72. Thus, direct final rule process for future Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and a use of the Holtec International H1-STAR revisions to the listing in to CFR 72.214.

proposed Certificate of Compliance stating that it was imperative that the (CoCl for the Holtec International HI- 100 cask system, as approved by the NRC, will provide adequate protection regulatory process be streamlined when STAR 200 cask system. The NRC there is no adverse safety concern. Two published a proposed rule in the of public health and safety and the environment. With this final rule, the commenters were opposed to use of a

Federal Register (64 FR 1542; January direct final rule process stating that a 11,1999) to add the HI-STAR 100 cask NRC is approving the use of the Holtec

[ International HI-STAR 200 cask system direct final rule would diminish the system to the listing in 10 CFR 72.214.

The comment period ended on March under the generallicense in to CFR Part public role in commenting on the 72, Subpart K, by holders of power approval of spent nuclear fuel casks and 29,1999. Nine comment letters were

! received on the proposed rule. reactor operating licenses under 10 CFR theseby the public's ability to affect the outcome of rulemaking procedures. One Based on NRC review and analysis of Part 50. Simultaneously,the NRC is public comments, the staff has issuing a final SER and CoC that will be of these commenters believed that, effective on October 4,1999. Single given past problems with the casks, f modified, as appropriate,its proposed CoC,includingits appendices the copies of the CoC and SER are available future approval should be subject to N for public inspection and/or copying for adequate and rigorous public scrutiny.

t Technical Specifications (TSs), and the r.

b

Fediral Register /Vol. 64, No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/ Rules and Regulations 48261 2 =

. Those opposed also believed that 30 grouped as well as some of the Clodding Integrity days (as would be allowed in a direct , comments on the drawings in the SAR. Comment No. 4:One commenter l i

final rule process) is not sufficient time To the extent possible, all of the noted that Holtec's conclusion that fuel comments on a particular subject are rod integrity will be maintained under I to prepare comments that may be significantly adverse so as to cause the grouped together, The listing of the all accident conditions is based on the NRC to withdraw the published final Holtec International HI-STAR 100 cask fact that the HI-STAR 200 system is rule The two commenters did not system within 10 CFR 72.214," List of desi ed to withstand a maximum beheve that an addition to or revision of approved spent fuel storsge casks," has dec ration of 60 while a Lawrence i l

I ' the hsting is likely to be either not been changed as a result of the Livermore Nationak, Laboratory Report i concontroversial or routine as public comments. A nview of the (UCID-21246, Dynamic Impact Effects d evidenced by the number of comments comments and the NRC staffs responas on Spent Fue1 Assemblies, Chum Witt, ,

they had on the Holtec H1 STAR 100 fonow: Schwartz (October 20,1987))(LLNL I r

General Comment, Report) abows that the most vulnerable j in bIr isignificant adverse fuel can withstand a deceleration of 63 comrnents were received on the NRC,s Comment No. 2:One commenter in t i

proposed listing of the Holtec asked a number of questions about the hop)he . The most commenter adverse believesorientatio that International H1 STAR 200 cask system process for review and approval of spent Holtec and the NRC staff have not which are dmribed in subsequent fuel storage cask designs, and sugguted demonstrated a reasonable assurance

' " changes to the process, that the cladding will maintain its I Yo p ea u at th i]ct l Response:The NRC finds thwe integrity because Holtec's anal sis does approach can be implemented at this comments to be beyond the scope of the not take into account the possi le eme for additions to the cask listing. current rulemaking which is focused increase in rate of nxidation of cladding The NRC will ter.ssess this issue in the solely on whether to place a particular of high burnup fuel, and oxidation may future after experience with more new cask design, the Holtec International

• cause the cladding to become effectively hstin s to to CR 72.214 has been HI-STAR 200 cask system, on the to thinner, decnaaing its structural gained However,with respect to CFR 72.214 list. integrity and lowering the "g" impact a=endments to existing Cots, the NRC force at which fuel cladding will shatter.

anticipates that, except in unusual . Comment No. 2:One commenter With rupect to a possible incease in cases, the direct final rulemaking stated that the cask should be built and rate of oxidation of cladding, Holtec has ~

tested before use at reactors, including process can be used because the cask not factored the information in design and analysis will have gone the loading and unloading proceduns.

Information Notice (IN) 98-29.

through the pub'lic comment process for The commenter objected to the use of " Predicted increase in Fuel Rod I the initial CoC listing and the revision computer modeling and analysis, Cladding Oxidation"(Au st 3,1998) will be limited to the subject of the Response:The NRC disagrees with the into hs calculadonsae ear amendment. Unless the NRC has reason comment.The HI-STAR 100 Storage U oM 98-29,in de to believe that a particular amendment Cask System Design has been reviewed imp C*dOD,s view,is that the lift heigh commenter will be controversial, the NRC plans to by the NRC. The basis of the safety of 6e WSTAR 100 cas mm&

use a direct final rule for amendments review and findings are clearly nduced to lower the 's,} impact for to the cask systems in the 10 CFR 72.214 identified in the SER and CoC.Tutbg **"'""#

listing The NRC disagrees that use of is normally required when the analytic " O

• dI"fe,A ' ' Effe cts of Changing the direct final rulemaking procedure methods have not been validated or (r vided a tabariables in Dynami will limit the public's ability to affect the outcome of the rulemaking. Receipt assured'to conservative.I be place akpropriate and/or Spent Fuel Assemblies, which the of te ' .the c mmenter beheves shows that the of a significant adverse comment will NRC staff finds acce table ytic maximum ,'E , impact force, that high cause the direct final rule to be conclusions that are ased on sound burnup fuel with oxidized cladding can withdrawn and the comment to be engineering methods and practices. NRC withstand, e osches 45 g.

considered as though received in accepts the use of computer modeling "P#"* * *

• E""

• response to a proposed rule. Further, the codes to analyze cask performance. The *

' p er codes st a g co may t ft wh t submi a *[# I o*$ "e'd a

comment on an amendment to the CoC for a listed cask since most issues addressed in the SER and To leal SAR.

The NRC staff has reviewed t e analyses I" *"** "

f" " '"'

related to the cask design will have been performed by HOl.TEC and found them [ d b to n' f

[R, 1 ce e e on 0 72 214 a o e o0

- These models are based on sound is considered to be a high burn up fuel.

Comments on the Holtec International engineering sciences and processes. However, the Holtec H1-STAR 100 H3-STAR 200 Cask System Comment No. 3:One commenter Storage Cask System is not authorized to The comments and responses have requested that a troubleshooting manual contain fuel with a burn up exceeding be repared that includes information 45.000 MWD /MTU. Fuel cooling and been grouped into five areas: general on ow many of what type cask are the average burn up approved for the comment s, cla dding integrity, health loaded, where and how long they have HI-STAR 100 Storage Cask System is:

I impacts, sabotaFe events, thermal been loaded, and on problems that have (a) for MPC-24 PWR assemblies.the l requirements. and miscellaneous items. occurred, and the solutions. The fuel burn up is limited to 42,100 MWD /

Several of the commenters provided commenter is seeking basic information MTU; and (b) for MPC-.68 BWR specific comments on the draft CoC.the that is periodically updated. assemblies, the fuel burn up is limited NRC staff's preliminary SER. the TSs. to 37.600 MWD /MTU. Therefore, the and the applicant's To'pical SAR. Some Response:This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. potential for significant amounts of of the editorial comments have been

Glw thtrdJ UegBet:rFWel, 64, No.171/ Friday, S:ptember 3.1999/ Rules and Regulations -

o addised cl:dding is tot a c ncern for cladding behaww as a rigid rod.Thus, the fullrods are a:nmechanically i the Hi-STAR 100 St- 3 Cask System, Haltec m: rely used a st tic calculation ruptured and that the gasis and i

• and the tabl2 provided the forimpact analysis versus a dynamic particulates in the fuel rod gap betwwn commenter regarding the consequences calculation.This assumption is i*

the cladding and fuel pellet are pleased of signiBeantly oxidiwd bl cladding is incorrect,in the view ofb -. . .ter. to the multi purpose canister (MPC) '

not relevant to the approved contents of Instead of a homogenous, d rod, the envity and then to the external .

this cask design. Anelrod consists of fuel ets stacked environment. The accident analysis in Comment No. 5:b same commenter hke coins within thin ing. In any the Baal version increased the amount stated that Holtec's SAR for the HI- impact scenario, the fuel assembly acts of radioactivity to the MPC cavity by 5 STAR 100 storage cask relies upon the as a dynamic stem with the fuel orders of magnitude in accordance with LLNL report for its estimate of 's

• impacting t aside of b cladding and NUREG-1536, and would have placed I impact force bt will damage 1uel creating a greater likelihood of cladding doses at too m over the EPA's limit of cladding but bt b LLNL pport falls rupture. Holtee has not shown that the 5 rom. An assumed small leakage rate by to take into accourt the increased assumption of a rigid rodis the applicant reduced the amount -

brittleness of irradiated bl assemblies. conservative. b thinner cladding due released from the cask cavity to the Because the irradiated bl assemblies to the inmensed oxidation serves to environment by more than 5 orders of

• may have been embrittled, they would compound this e5ect becauw a smauer magnitude. This daign basis accident 1

also be less resistant to impact. During "g" force would be required to rupture no longer represents a loss-of-the courn of a bl enembly's life, the assembly. confinement barria accident as subatomic particle bombardment. Response:b NRC disagrees with the orlyinauy descrbd.  ;

including neutron flux, signiScantly comment, b assertion that the fuel rod g Response:b NRC disagrees with the .

decrease b asambly's ductility and consists of bl pellets stacked like coins comment.The hypothetical accident increases the asambly's yield stress, within thin tubingis incorrect for dose calculation is appropriste. As thereby embrittling b fuel assembly. irradiated fuels. b fuel pellets are discussed in laterim Staff Guidance The to-STAR 100 design cannot rely densely packed inside the bl tubing. QSG)-5, Rev. t. " Normal, Off-Normal, i en LLNL's analysis, in the commenter's and b e5ects ofirradiation willbond and Hypothetical Accident Dose 6

view, because the LLNL analysis does the peDets to each other and to the fuel Estimate Calculations for the Whole '

not account for irradiation and cladding. Samples ofirradiated fuel Body. Thyroid, and Skin," the I embrittlement, which lower the impact rods have shown that it is indeed nearly hypothetical accident assumes too i l resistance of the bl assemblin. hse imponible to separate the fuel pellets percent bl rod failure within the MPC l facts are significant when coupled with and b cladding. cavity and please of radioactivity based the inenased oxidation rate nported in Itisinconect to assume the fuelrod on factors from NUREG/CR-4487.N IN 98-29 because increased oxidation acts as a dynamic system with the fuel applicant demonstrated that the &

could tangentially cause an increase in peUets impacting the inside of the fuel STAR 100 confinement boundary (MPC) cladding embrittlement. Thus, IN 96-29 rod cladding during an accident drop tomains intact from all credible ,

compounds the LLNL's error in event. b fuelpenets am densely accidents. Therefore, there is not a disregarding the brittle characteristics of packed inside the fuel tube and, for medible loss-of conSnement-barriw 1rradiated fuel cladding. trradiated fuels, the fuel pellets are accident for the HI-STAR 100. The Response:The NRC disagrees with the bonded together and to the clad hypothetical accidentleakageis '

comment.b LLNL Report, as refwred b LLNL Report discussed above conservatively assumed to be equal to to, considers the effects of irradiation on conswvatively neglected the that assumed for normal condition '

cladding Table 3 of the report contributions of the fuel penets to bl leakage with corrections for accident delineates irradiated cladding rod rigidity. Rather, the report only pressures and temperatures. The normal longitudinal tensile tests on coupon consides the cladding for calculating condition leak rateis spectSed in TS specimens. These test specimens were b allowable 3 load. It is true that the 2.1.1.

machined from b cladding. N effects LLNL Report used static calculations to b NRC believes that thereis ofirradiation will increase the Young's derive b allowable g load uivalent reasonable assurance that b modulus and yield strus but decrease to the dynamicimpactlos . During confinement design is adequately

.the ductility of the cladding. Figure 5 of an accident drop event, the 1 rigorous and will remain intact under the report shows that the total assemblyis subjected to dynamic the normal and accident conditions elongation values for zircaloy do not impact loading and the equivalent static identiSed by the applicant. Therefore, change significantly with strain rate and g-load is determined by a dynamic the design basis change has been found .

that the ductility appears to be analysis. The equivalent static g-load is to be consavative and meets applicable independent of the level of the g- then shown to be lower than the regulations.

loading. Further, Figure 5 of the report allowable g-load to ensure h bl Comment No. 8:One commenter shows that the yield strength is . cladding integrity is maintained. The requested the critwie for an intact bl consistently lower than the tensile approach is well established and assembly, the number of pinhole leaks, strength which suggests that signiScant acceptable. brefon, the NRC staff has blisters, hairline cracks, and aud. b margin exists between yielding of the found Holtee's accident analysis to be commenter asked if a visual inspection cladding and gross rupture.The conswvative as nflected in SER Chapte is required and stated that just allowable "g" impact force calculation it and is therefore acceptable. performing visual exam was inadequate.

in the report is based on the yield stress. Comment No. 7:One commentw Rwponse: As proof that the fuel to be Thus, the approach that is used in the stated that b calculated health impacts loaded is undamaged, the NRC will LLNL Report and reflected in the SAR under h etical accident conditions accept, as a minimum, a review of the is conservative and acceptable. discusse in Chapter 7 of Holtec's & records to veify that the blis Comment No. 6:The same commenter STAR 100 SAR are not too percent undamaged, followed by an external stated that Holtec's calculations rely conservative. Holtec's original visual examination of b fuel assembly upon the LLNL report's erroneous hypothetical dwign basis accident before loading to identify any obvious assumption that the fuel within the condition assumed that 100 percent of damage. For fuel assemblies where

Federd Regist:r /Vcl. 64, No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/RulIs and Regulations 48263

~~ -

reactor nc:rds are not availabla,the regul'eti ns.Further,the comm:nter analysis and abzuld have included an level of proof will be evaluated on a stated that NRC's methodology for "asK" (Kr-85) dose calculation to tha calculating the potential dose to skin. l o case by-case basis.The purpose of this children is deficient. Response:The NRC s (

demonstration is to provide nasonable Response:The NRC disagrees with the applicant should have7o"e n off- a. T ad assurance that the fuel is undamaged or tbst damaged fuelloaded in a storage or comments.While Holtec did not normal condition confinement analysis; transportation caskis confined specifically calcadate potential radiation however,the off normal case dose is dose to children,the international approximately a factor of to greater than (canned) The criteria for intact community and the Federal agencies normal dose.The Holtec normal assembly are defined in TS Section 1.1 table doses b as being fuel assemblies without known the(including EPApublic overall annual and donthe NRC) lu' nit, ape that when condition the factorresults of to is show app accefied fo or suspected cladding defects greater than pinhole leaks or hairhne cracks from all sources, should be 1 mSv (100 nonnal conditions and have been found and which can be handled by normal mrem) which is protective of all acceptable as nflected in the SER. No by individuals.The purpose of the public additional action is necessary to meet means. Partial fuel assemblies (fuel assemblies from which fuel rods are dose limit is to limit the lifetime risk applicable NRC regulations. l missing) shall not be classiBed as intact from radiation to a member of the Comment No. 23:One commenter fuel assembhes unless dummy fuel rods general public. Variation of the are used to displace an amount of water sensitivity to radiation with age and stated specific sitethat thetolicensees' doses nbor the pu lic should greater than or equal to that displaced gender to built into the standards which be included in the PDR.

by the original fuel rods. are band on a lifetime exposure. A Response:The dose for a site-specific lifetime exposure includes all stages of locationis beyond the scope of this

• Rodiation Protection life, from birth to old age. For ease of nun an mquimd to ruIemakin . ,

Comment No. 9:One commenter implementation, the radiation snee u nsM n in to CFR Part stated that Holtec calculated the standards.that an developed from the

• lifetime risk, limit the annual exposum Comment No. H:One commenter

. radiation dose to an adult 100 meters from the accident due solely to . that an individual may receive. asked for a definition of inflatable inhalation of the passing cloud without annulus seal.The commenter further censidering other relevant pathways, ConseIuently, limit o O.25 mSv (25 themrem),

unrestricted a small mioase questioned the checks and criteria for such as direct radiation from cesium fraction of the annual public dose limit, surface e stamination.

and cobalt-60 deposited on the ground, is protective of children as well as other Response

The inflatable annulus  ;

resuspension of deposited age groups because the variation of which is discussed in Sections 1.2.2.1.

d sensitivity with age and gender was radionuclides, ingestion of 8.1, and 10.1.4 of the SAR,is designed contaminated food and water, and accounted for in the selection of the to pavent radionuclide contamination incidental soil ingestion, and does not lifetime risk limit, from which the of the exterior MPC while the cask is

) annual public dose limit was derived.

reflect 10 CFR 72.24(m). submerged in a contaminated spent fueli Response:The NRC agrees that Holtec The NRC continues to believe that the Pool. The space between the MPC and calculated the radiation dose to en adult existing regulations and approved overpack is filled with clean water and 100 meters from the accident due solely methodologies adequately address is sealed at the top of the MPC with the ,

to inhalation of the passing cloud and public health and safety. The issue of inDatable annulus seal. After the sealis l did not consider direct radiation and dose rates to children was addressed in removed, the upper accessible portion .

ingestion The NRC staff considers the May 21,1991 Federal Register of the MPC is examined for inhalation to be the principal pathway notice (56 FR 23387). contamination to verify that the seal j for radiation dose to the public, and Comment No. 22:One commenter remained intact during underwater Holtec has followed NRC staff guidance asked if the streaming dose rates have loading. NRC found the seal description in making conservative assumptions been measured and if not, will they be measured on the first cask loading? and operation to be acceptable. Each regarding the source term and duration of the release. In SER Chapter 10,the Response:There is no NRC regulatory generallicensee will develop site-requirement to measure streaming dose specific operating procedures that NRC staff found that the radiation rates at the first cask loading. Further, address the use of the inflatable annulE shielding and confinement features of the cask design are suff cient to meet the the applicant did not provide operatemeatund the Hl-STARseal.100Ecch undergenera a to dose rates from cask streaming in its radiation protection requirements of to CFR Part 20,10 CFR 72.104, and to CFR application because it was notprogram required. CFR Part 20 radiologic The applicant did provide calculated 72.106. Section 72.106 addresses streaming dose rates in the SAR Comment No. 25:One commenter postaccident dose limits. suggested that there should be criteria When a general licensee uses the cask shielding analysis. The HI-STAR 100 for the distance of dose measuring design. It will review its emergency plan system is designed to eliminate mechanism from the cask and personnd for effectiveness in accordance with to significant streaming paths, and each user is required to operate the H1-STAR during loading and unloading CFR 72.212. This review will consider 100 under a 10 CFR Part 20 radiological Response:NRC disagrees with this interdiction and remedial actions to

• monitor releases and pathways based on program. NRC has reasonable assurance suggestion bec not specifically require these criteria fa that the general licensee's radiological the chosen site conditions and the dose measurement. Each general location. Therefore, the pathways protection and ALARA program will licensee is required to operate the HI-identified by the commenter will be detect and mitigate exposures from any significant or unexpected ndiation STAR too under a to CFR Part 20 addressed in the general licensee's site radiological program and must develog fields for each cask loading.

specif c review. Comment No. 22:One commenter site-specific operating procedures that Comment No. 20: One commenter stated that the applicant should have include radiological protection dose stated that Holtee has not specifically surveys that rnust be conducted during calculated potential radiation dose to performed a specific analysis for off-normal conditions for confinement loading and unloadinE operations.

children, and this does.not meet NRC

, 48264 Fed:ral Regist:r/Vd. 64, No. 01/ Friday, September 3,1999/ Rules and Regulatiens 1 Sabotage Events similar in design featums 13 ensure the th3 amrunt of detailin its '

detection and asmssm:nt cf nonproprietary versi n cfits analys:s. ,

Comment No. 26:One commenter unauthorized activities. Alarm Response:The NRC disagrees with the stated that the current sabotage desian comment. In Section 4.4.1.1.7 of the annunciations at the generallicense basis is not a bounding accident and SAR Holtec addassed the heat transfer (

that the NRC shov!d consider the effect ISFSI are monitored by the alarm interaction between the overpacks for a stations at the reactor site. Response to of a sabotage event with an anti-tank intrusion alarms is eequired. Each ISFSI cask array at anISFSI site. No forced missile. There is a lack of a is periodically inspected by NRC, and convection was assumed (e.g. stagnant ,

comprehensive assessment of the risks the licensee conducts periodic petrols smbient conditions which would '

of sabotage and terrorism against maximize the interaction heat effect).

nuclear waste facilities and shipments, and surveillances to ensun that the Physical protection systems are The applicant further adjusted the heat The NRC staff could impose additional operating within their design limits. It is transfer in accordance with ANSYS '

conditions on dry storage casks and the ISTSIlicensee who is naponsible for methodology and applied it in the f ladependent Spent Fuel Storage calculations. Further, in SER Section , i Protecting spent fuel in the casks from j Installations (ISFSis), e g., the CoC 4.5.2.1, the NRC staff noted that the sabotage rather than the certificate could require that an ISFSI be designed holder. Comments on the spec 15c applicant considad in its temperature , f I

with an earthen berm to remove the transportation aspects of the cask calculations that multi purpose cask line-of sight. system and existing ngulations baskets were loaded at design basis l' The commenter stated that since the specifying what type of sabotage events mvimum heat loads, and systems were early 1980s,the NRC has relied on and must be considered are beyond the considered to be arranged in an ISFSI poorly interpreted an outdated set of scope of this rulemaking. array and subjected to design basis L experiments carried out by Sandia normal ambient conditions with  !  !

National Laboratory and Battelle Comment No. 27:One commenter ,

I Columbus Laboratories that measured asked whether an evaluation for a truck insulation. The NRC staff concluded in l bomb sabotage event has been the SER that it has reasonable assurance 6 that the spent fuel cladding will be j the release of radioactive materials as a result of cask sebotage. The NRC has conducted. l never estimated the economic and safety Response:The staff has evaluated the protected against degradation by '

j effects of a truck bomb located adjacent maintaining the clad temperature below implications of a sabotage event at a to storage casks. Spent fuel in the ISFSI maximum allowable limits.

fixed storage facility. Following the publication of these Sandia study is requind tote protected against Miseenaneous1tems

~

results, the NRC proposed elimination radiological sabotage using provisions Comment No. 29: One commenter ,

of a number of safety requirements for and requirements as specified in to CFR asked why a coating without zine was  !

72.212(b)(5). Each utility licensed to I shipments of spent fuel. At least 32 not required for the VSC-24 cask parties submitted more than 100 pages have an ISFSI at its nector site is of comments in response to the notice, required to develop physical protection design.The commenter further questioned why NRC allowed coatings to which the NRC never publicly plans and install a physical protection to be applied to casks because it will responded. The NRC suspended action system that provides high assurance create problems for future DOE waste on the rulemaking but inappropriately against unauthorized activitin that  !

could constitute an unmasonable risk to disposal continues to use the unrevised Response:NRC regulations do not conclusions in the proposed rule as a the public health and safety.The prohibit the use of coatings in a cask basis for its policies on terrorism and physical protection systems at an ISFSI design. An applicant must provide sabotage of nuclear shipments, and its associated reactor are similar in information in its safety analysis report Response:The NRC disagrees with the design to ensure the detection and to support use of coatings.The comment.The NRC reviewed potential assessment of unauthorized activities.

apphcant should describe the near and issues related to possible radiological Response to intrusion alarms is long term effects of the coatings on sabotage of storage casks at reactor site required. Each ISFSI is periodically inspected by NRC, and the licensee systems important to safety including i

ISFSis in the 1990 rulemaking that the benefits and potentialimpacts of added subparts K and L to 10 CFR Part conducts periodic patrols and I surveillances to ensure that security coating use. Based on the applicant's I 72 (55 FR 29181: July 18,1990). NRC analysis, the NRC reviews and assesses systems are operating within their re ations in to CFR Part 72 establish ysical protection requirements inherent for an design limits. The NRC believes that the the use and adequacy nature of the epent fuel and the Specific comments relating directly to FSIlocated within the owner. VSC-24 an beyond the scope of this controlled area of a heensed power spent fuel storage cask provides adequate protection against a vehicle rulemaking.

reactor site. Spent fuel in the ISFSlis Comment No. 20:One commenter bomb, and hu concluded that there are required to be protected against asked why the current HI STAR 100 is no safety concerns outside the radiological sabotage using provisions not an ASME str,mped component.

and requirements as specified in to CFR controlled area. Response:NRC regulations do not 72.212(b)(5). Further, specific Thermd Reptements aquire an ASME stamp for a cask.The performance criteria are specified in to design and fabrication requirements for CFR Part 73. Each utility licensed to Comment No.18:One commenter stated that the CoC temperature limits a certified dry cask storage system are have an ISFS! at its reactor site is required to develop physical protection for the storage cask are deficient NRC staff'sbecause described Standard Review Plan, in to CFR plans and install svstems that provide they do not take into account a minimum pitch or center-to-center NUREG 1536. " Standard Review Plan high assurance against unauthorized for Dry Cask Storage Systems."

activities that could constitute an distance between casks to be stored in the ISFSI. Further Holtee has not Applicant submitta's are reviewed to unreasonable risk to the sbhc health the criteria in the Standard Review Plan.

and safety. performed rigorous calculations to Cask fabrication activities are inspected The physical protection systems at an support the assigned pitch of 12 foot or 4 foot spacing between casks based on by the licensees and the NRC staff to ISFS! and its associated reactor are

48265 Federrl Regist:r/Ybl. 64, f4o.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/Rul:s and Regulations

^*

1 =

Comment No. 23:One commenter Response:The tipover, and drops, and ,

ensure that components am fabricated horiznntal drop analyses form part of as designed. asked how the pnpossession or the structural design basis for the HI-Comment No. 22:One commenter anodization of aluminum surfaces is a STAR 100 cask design. Holtec described asked a number of questions related to checked and what the criteria were for the Boral and NS-4-FR concerning (1) the inspection. drops and tipover analyses in SAR Response:The NRC disagrees that an Section 3.4.9. The NRC's evaluation of Whether it has been used "over time" in the vendor's analyses is described in a enk. (2) the amount of" creep or inspection is necessary.The only slump" that has occurnd over time,(3) aluminum und in the MPC-24 or MPC- SER Sections 3.2.3.1 and 3.2.3.2. The 68 is for the Boral neutron absorbers. NRC found the results of these analyses how the testing is conducted, and (4) to be satisfactory in that the calculated Aluminum forms a very thin, adherent how the Boral content is tested in the stnsses were within the allowable panels. The commenter further asked if film of aluminum oxide whenever a criteria of the Amwican Society of fabrication is inspected and why no fmsh cut surface is exposed to air or surveillance or monitoring program is water, becoming thicker with increasing Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code.

temperatures and in the pasence of Before using the HI STAR too casks. the required to check the Boral content.

Response:The questions and water (Source:" Corrosion Resistance of generallicensee must evaluate the comments on the Boral neutron absorber Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys," foundation materials to ensure that the site characteristics are encompassed by are addressed in Sections 6.4.2 and 9.1.4 Metals Handbook, Desk Edition, of the SER and Sections 1.2.1.3.1, 6.3.2. American Society for Metals,1985). the design bases of the approved cask."

Thus, no inspection or acceptance The events listed in the comment are and 9.1.5.3 of the SAR. The NRC among the site specine considerations I routinely accepts the use of Boral as a criteria are necessary.

Comment No. 24:One commenter that must be evaluated by the licensee neutron absorber for storage cask

. mquested clariBeation on whether the using the cask.

applications, and it has been used in Comment No. 27:One commenter casks. NRC has approved both storage helium will be pure and not mixed with asked whethw the design has been and transportation cask designs that use krypton or xenon that would have an evaluated for a seismic event during effect on internal pmssure or Boral. Section 1.2.1.3.1 of the SAR describes the historical applications and temperature. The commenter also asked loading and unloading.

whether the helium had to be dry. Response:The HI. STAR 100 casks can service experience of Boral.This only be wet load.d and unloaded inside Response:Only pure helium willbe information indicates that Boral has used to backfill the cask; no krypton or the fuel handling facility. Generally, been used since the 1950's and used in thne activities take place in a baskets since the1960's. Several utilities xenon gasses willbe added during sted under-water cask loading pit backfill. Technical Specification Table have also used Boral for nuclear 2-1 Footnote 1. speciSes that helium w would limit cask movement applications such as spent fuel storage during a seismic event. The cask will be r rocks. Based on industry experience, no used for backfill of MPC shall have a credible mechanism for " creep or purity ofit99.995% Acceptable helium su orted for a seismic event during ,

purity for dry spent fuel storage was ' and unloadiug. Genwal slump" of Boralin the cask has been ure ducriptions for thue deEned by R. W. Knoll et al. at PaciSc identified. Northwest laboratory (PNI.)in operations are summarized in Sections Sections 2.2.1.3.1 and 9.1.5.3 of the SAR describe the testing proceduns for " Evaluation of Cover Gas Impurities and 3.1 and 8.3 of the SAR. Detailed lo Their Effects on the Dry Storage of LWR and unloading procedums are Boral. Boral will be manufactured and developed and evaluated on a site-tested under the control and Spent Fuel," PNL-6365, November surveillance of a quality assurance and 1987. Helium purity is addressed in specific basis by the licensee using the quality control program that conforms to SAR Section 8.1.4, MPC Fuelloading, cask.

Step 28, and SER Section 8.1.3. Comment No. 28:One commenter the requirements of 10 CFR Part 72. questioned whether the method for Subpart G. A statistical sample of each Comment No. 25:One commenter asked whethe leakage of gases, cooling has been tested with a real cask.

manufactured lot of Boral is tested by Response:The NRC ations and the manufacturer using wet chemistry volatiles, fuel fines, and crud was guidance in the Stand Review Plan procedures and/or neutron attenuation considered credible and whethw the analysis addressed this concern. require the review and approval of the '

techniques. dwign criteria. No testing is required for The Boralis designed to remaio Response:The applicant has effective in the HI-STAR 100 system for calculated the postulated annual dose at approval of the design under th current rule. The cask user is required 100 meters assuming a realistic leakage a storage period greater than 20 years to perform pnopwational tuting to and there are no credible means to lose rate consistent with ANSI N14.5 Standard " leakage Tuts on Packages determine the eBectiveness of the the Boral. Further, the NRC accepts the for Shipment for Radioactive Materials" cooling methods.

use of NS-4-FR as a neutron absorber Comment No. 29:One commenter for storage cask applications, and it has (1997) and has reflected the results in been used in other casks. Therefore, SAR Chapter 7. The applicant's analysis questioned whether the manufacturer's addresses the commenter's concern, and literature for the "high emissivity" pain; surveillance and monitoring are not on the overpack had been evaluated an9 needed, the calculated dose had been found to tested, how the tuting was done, and be within regulatory guidelines (limits)

Comment No. 22: One commenter what the nsults were. The commenter and acceptable to the NRC staff.

provided a discussion on the VSC-24 Comment No. 26:One commenter was also questioned whether/how the design The issues included materials, concerned that the cask could drop or painted components were safely stored.

the use of continEs, the use of March The commenter further stated that the Metalfab as a fabricator, calculations tip over in the loading area of the plant '

and whether this has been evaluated. paint on the surfaces of the overpack being performed when problems are should be a speciSed paint, not just a being solved, testing of soils and pads, The commenter was also concerned about a drop or tip over during transfer requirement of "an emissivity of no I and cask handling temperatures. than 0.85."

from the pad or during transport and Response:These comments are Response:The manufactun and bevond the scope of the current that all of the analysis seemed to be for the pad. application of high-emissivity paints is rufemaking.

I 1

, 48266 Federal Regist:r/Vcl. 64, No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/ Rules and Regulations not a n:w techn: logy. Several multiple casks and skynhine, are analyses, conditions of the CoC, and manufacturers provide paints with discussed in Sections 5.4.3 sad 10.4.1 of obr requirements in Parts 20 and 72,

.. specified emissivity ratings. Thermal the SAR. NRC found the dose wtimates b NRC has detemined that minimum tuts an requind to conarm b heat to be acceptable. As required in to CFR enrichment is not warranted as an transfer capabilities of the inner and 72.212.each generallicensee will additional operating control for the HI-intumediate shells and radial channels. pwform a site-speciSc dose evaluation STAR 100. Specine reasons for this Annual cask inspection will check the to demonstrate compliance with Part 72 detwmination include the following: (1) exterior surface conditions at which radiological mquirements. b general b enrichments bound a significant time the paint will be examined and licenm willidentify anISFSI portion of spent fuel, and the source touched up in local areas as necusary. configuration and may elect to use terms a calculated for burnups

/ The NRC does not believe that additional engineered featums of its signiBeantly higher than those allowed I identifying a specific brand name of choosing. such as shield walls, a domed in b CoC:(2) b radiological source paint is required.There are several cover, or berms, to ensure compliance terms are adequately controlled in the suppliers who manufactum paints with with radiological mquirements. Section CoC by limits on maximum burnup, i the specified emissivity.b NRC has 2.4.7 of Appendix B to the CoC requires minimum cooling time, maximum i reviewed the applicant's analysis and that any such engineered feature be initial uranium loading, and maximum found that painu with nn emissivity considad important to safety and decay but: (3) dose rates are controlled greater than 0.85 are acceptable. evaluated to determine the applicable in the CoC by speciEc dose limits for the j Comment No. 30:One commenter quality assurance category. top and side of the cask that m based questioned the drain down time and Comment No. 32:One commenter on valuw calculated in the shielding asked how frequently b water is quwtioned what the critwis wm for the analysis; (4) nch general licensee will checked. The commenter requested polyester resin " poured" into radial puform a site-specine dose evaluation information on what happens if the channels.how they were tuted, to demonstrate compliance with Part 72 MPC can't be vacuum dried successfuDy handled and inspected, and whether radiological requirements: and (5) each and when the fuel needs to be put back they had been twted in a real cask. b general licensee will opmte the ISFSI l in the spent fuel pool. commenter questioned whether a under a Part 20 radiological protection Response:The drain down time is not " pound" neutron shield was really safe program spec 15ed in the TSs but is and whether uncontrolled volds caused NRC agrew with the comment that the l vacuum drying procedure.part The TSs stateofa the problem with occupational dose preliminary SER tem of" low that the vacuum drying must be requinments.The commenter stated probability" may not provide deBnite 1 completed within 7 days. bre is not that poured neutron shields should not criteria for general license cask uses l a specific procedure in the application be used. regarding limitations on minimum to monitor the water content; however. Response:The NRC has reviewed enrichment. brefore Chapter 5 of the that will be addressed by the cask use Holtec's application that described the SER has been revised to clarify that on a site-specific basis and is beyond neutron shielding to be used to meet the minimum enrichment is not an -

j the scope of this rulemaking. lf the requinments of to CFR 72.104 and operating control for the HI-STAR 100. i drying process is unsuccessful and the 72.106. The NRC found the Holtec Comment No. 34:One commenter i TS requirements cannot be met within approach acceptable.b methods for asked what has been considered as  !

30 days. the fuel assemblies must be testin , handling,and credible ways to lose the Exod neutron i moved from the cask and be placed in ation of b shielding are and poisons. I the spent fuel pool. b scope of this rulemaking. Howetver. Response:b NRC staff does not l Comment No. 32:One commenter pound neutron shielding has been conside the loss of fixed neutron I requested information on b cask successfuDy used in other cask designs. noisons to be credible after they are l storage array on the pad and the Comment No. 33:One commenter installed into the cask because the l radiation affect from other casks in a full stated that appropriate limits for burnup poisons are fixedin place and  !

cask array. The commenter further should be speci8ed in b CoC.The contained.

requested information on how the commenter is concerned that the SAR Comment No. 35:A commenter '

i applicant / certificate holder / licensee analysis assumed sign 1Beantly higher questioned how b welds of b MPC will examine and/or test the HI STAR burnups than allowed and significantly lid and closure ring are tested and asked  :

100 r.nd who was actually nsponsible higherinitialuraniumloading than ' for the acceptance criteria. I for the test. The commenter questioned speci6ed in the table. . Response:Information on the welds is whether a domed cask cover would be Response:Burnup, tooling time, contained in SAR Tablu 9.1.1,9.1.2.

better for runoff and sky shine concerns. initial uranium loading, and initial

• and 9.1.3.

Response:The applicant performed a enrichment are parameters that affect Comment No. 36:One commenter shielding analysis that included a three- the total source term (radioactivity) of asked whether shim: are used and by three cask array (square) model to spent fuel. The applicant's source term stated that shims or gaps were not simulste the average dose contribution analysis assumed higher uranium acceptable.

- from the center cask which is partially loadings and higher burnups than those Response:bre are no shims used in shielded by the surrounding periphery speciSed in TSs of the CoC. Therefore, the closure weld of the HI-STAR 200 casks. This value is applied in an offsite b radiological source term is casks. b only shims used are located dose formula used to estimate offsite conservative nlative to the allowed between the canister and the overpack doses from every cask in the array. The burnups and uranium loadings, at basket support locations to provide center to-center cask pitch was assumed As discussed in Section 5.2.1 of the additional support for the basket

".l supports.The actualthickness of the to be 12 feet in the shielding analyses. preliminary SER. for the same level of Testing of the actual as installed burnup neutron source terms typically shim will depand on the gaps between configuration will be performed by the increase u initial enrichment decreases. the cask and the inside cavity of the cask user and will be evaluated at that Therefore, the source term analysis overpack at b basket support time. Offsite dose estimates for a typical employed lower than-average locations. Gaps between separate ISFSI array, including the affects of enrichment valun. Based on the SAR components such as the cask and the 2

W

Feder:1 Registir/Vol. 64, No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/Ruhs and Regulations 48267 e overpack are unavoidable and are CommInt N3. 42:One commenter recalculated

, . oecessary to ensure that there will be no disagreed with allowing the use of a build up exceeds desip pressure, the the[sc will rupture 2

physicalinterferences and to allow free penetrant test in' lieu of volumetric relieve the pressua.The rupture disc is thermal expansions. ' examination on sustenitic stainless tuted and certified by the manufacturer.

Comment No. 37:One commenter eteels because flaws in these are "not There is no regulatory .r equirement for stated that all welds should be expected" to exceed the thickness of the the nplacement of rupture discs. The J monitored unless they have been tested. weld head. Tb commenter believes that SAR has arbitrarily set a replacement Response:NRC accepts welded volumetric welds should be required schedule for every 5 years to assure closure of casks. The regulations do not because if you don't know for sun the functionality.

require monitoring or testing of welds real size ofthe actual weld, how can Comment No. 45:One commenter because there are no expected you accept a certain fisw sizef The asked if the casks an checked in winter degradation mechanisms identified commenter asked how the permanent for ice and snow loads or ice around the during the cask usage life. However, record is kept and stated that black and base and if the pads will be kept clean.

both the fabncator and cask user will white photographs should be used as a Response: Casks an designed for the examme and inspect all welds as worst ice and snowloads possible. Ice appropriate. permanent Response:NRC record' disagrees with this build ups around the cask bue are not Cornment No. 38:One commenter comment. The NRC position on allowed, and the pad will be kept clean'

'. stated that the detailed loading and inspection of closum welds is contained Site-specific procedures will address unloading procedures developed by in ISG-4, " Cask Closure Weld thue items each cask user should be put in the. inspections." Actual cask welds are Comment No. 46:One commenter PDR. examined in gecordance with site- st d if tb ' al '

Response: Loading and unloading speci6c proceduns that are beyond the t to procedures are site-specificissues not required for design approval and are scope of rulemaking for the Hi-STAR too system. Nondestructive

["r's[i e crash wfth a

,c3 or full cask arra conducted and wbtbr thm is a sti ulation P as to bevond the scope of this rulemaking. Examination (NDE) methods are I" "*

Comment No. 39: One commenter speci5ed in accordance with Section III "I" ,8,3 had in an area where plan 7 I' asked how long before an ultrasonic " Rules for Construction of Nuclear Response:Before using the ID-STAR testing examination is conducted should Power Plant Components," and Section 1 cas e ser Ucensee must  !

the equipment be calibrated. V " Nondestructive Examination," of the evaluate tb site to determine whether Response Comments on the site- ASME Code and are already described j r n t tb chosen site parameters are specific examination techniques and in SAR Tables 9.1.1,9.1.2, and 9.1.3. A envel Ped by the design bues of the l associated calibration are beyond the permanent record of completed welds appr ved cask as required by to CFR scope of rulemaking for the ID-STAR will be made using video, photographic, 72.212(b)(3).The licensee s site ,

100 system. or other means that can rovide a Coinment No. 40: One commenter was retrievable record of wefd integrity.evaluation As should consider the effects of i nearby transportation and military I concerned over the possibility that the per accepted industry practice, the a cask s inhmt bolts could rust and crack over time or record is typicall in color format,in actidtie:SennaHy,d design will withstan tornado missiles l

become brittle and crack because water, order to capture i e red dye typicaDy and collision forcesim osed bylight i ice, and frost could get into the bolt used for PT examinations.

holes over the vears. Comment No. 43:One commenter geral aviation aircr 04,1500-2000 j believed that the marking material for pounds) that constitute,the majority of l Response: Tfie NRC disagrees with l this concern over the integrity of the the casks should be designated and that aircraft in operation today. The events listed in the comment are among the bolting material The 54.1% inch- the mark needed to be permanent.

Response:NRC agrees with the site-specific considerations that must be l diameter. closure plate bolts are made comment.The storage marking evaluated and are beyond the scope of i from ASME SB-637-N07718 material this rulemaking.

per SAR BM-1476. N07718, a nickel- nameplate is made from a 4 inch by 10 chromium alloy. does not become brittle inch,14-gauge Type 304 stainless steel Comment No. 47:One commenter j questioned why Holtec stated that the at colder temperatures N07718 is a high sheet and welded to the outside of the

}D-STAR 100 Overpack. lettering will PD-STAR 100 could be part of the final strength, corrosion resistant material geologic disposal eystem.

used in applications with a temperature be etched or stamped on the plate.

Details are shown in SAR Drawing 1397, Response:The NRCis not reviewing range from - 423 'F (- 253 *C) to 1300 this design for use in a final geologic

'T (704 'C)(Source:Inconel Alloy 718, Sheet 4 of 7, and described in SER Inco Allovs International, fourth Section 9.1.6. The nameplate will disposal system, but only for interim provide appropriate cask identification storage under Part 72 edition.1'985) This material will not Comment No. 48:One commenter rust, unlike carbon steels in corrosive that will last well beyond the design life environments. In addition, the material of the Hi-STAR 100 system. No asked where the MPC shell weld is nonpermanent marking wiu be used. located and if the pocket trunnions at retains significsnt ductility down to the bottom of the overpack have been

- 320 'F (- 196 *C) as shown by impact Comment No. 44:One commenter test results (Source Inconel Alloy 718, requested information on " rupture disc analyzed specifically for tipovers and Table 27) Therefore, the NRC has no replacements," how they are tested for falls.

replacement, what the time criteria are, Response:The MPC shell has concerns about the bolting material.

and what is considered a rupture. roultiple welds located both Comment No. 41:One commenter asked what type of radiographic exam is Response:The rupture disc is located longitudinally on the side of the MPC in the neutron shield tank of the M1- and circumferentially on the top and applicable aird where it would be bottom of the MPC.The pocket conducted. STAR 100 casks.The purpose of the rupture disc is to limit pressure build- trunnions at the bottom overpack have Response SAR Tables 9.1.1, 9.1.2, and 9.1.3 describe which radiographic ups to a precalculated level within the been analyzed by the applicant for exams are to be performed and when neutron shield tank during the fire tipovers and falls.The NRC reviewed accident condition. When the pressure the design for normal, off. normal, and they are required to be performed.

l

uo 48268 Fed:ral Register / Vel. 64, No.171/ Friday, Septenid U, BWJWFuwiranWW39m.o accident c:nditiins, and f:und it exceeds 12 kW). Na additi:naltating is actions am required and h:ve they been aquired for a system aRet it has been evaluat:d (TS B3.1.6-3)?

• acceptabl).

• Raponn:N NRC staff has Comment No. 49:One commenter tested at a heat load greater than or

. stated that the lihing and pocket . eaual to to kW. evaluated this condition.The TSs

'The cask user wiu provide aletter require that if b MPC gas temperature trunnions should be checked over the wport to the NRCin accordance with 10 is exceeded during unloading, no years for cracking or brittlenus and for additional operational actions may be debris accumulation and should be kept CPR 72.4 summarizing b results of each of bee validation tests. Cask users conducted until the temperature is mady for use over b years.

Response:The NRC ogrees with this may also satisfy these and testored to below the TS limit.- '

comment. As shown in SAR Table 9.2.1, mporting requirements by a Commer No. 57 One commnw >

vahdation test mports submitted to wkd if" dry" unloading operations are '

lifting trunnion and pocket trunnion meesses are visually inspected befon NRC by other cask usws withidentical considwed the next handling operation aAer Hi- designs and heat loads. Response:A unloading peration Comment No. 55:One commenter or e Uchi STAR 200 casks are placed on bISFSI asked how much wateris to be drained wm ducribs not buthe SAR a d thus is not pad.b trunnion material has been currently allowed for the HI-STAR 100 evaluated for brittle fracture and found under b MPClid before weldina and  !

to be satisfactory for the opwating how btemperature enters into the system andis beyond the scope of this tempwature range. In addition, b calculations. rul-h L Response: Chapter e of the SAR Commdt No. 38:One comanw-trunnions am load tuted in accordance directs the o tors to pum "' s is a problem with ANSI N14.6,"American National 20 gaHons ofwater from 9 "g"dmi appravimate Standard for Radioactive Matwiele the MPC before commencing welding Response: Dis crudis heYand  !

Special Lifting Devices for Shipping rulemaking andis a Containws Weighing 10000 Pounds OPerstions. The water level is lowered t he scope of to keep moisture away from the weld rience with wet (4500 kg) or More." Thus, there is no region. Under thwe conditions, ample un]! ,P' cine issue 8h ' g,g of some fu ,

credible mason to suspect undetected water mmains inside the MCP to trans ortation has involved handling ,

cracking or brittleness. The pocket maintain cladding tem tures well cant amounts of crud. However, si trunnion recus is closed by abocket below their short term ts. This the NRC notes that the HI-STAR genwie trunnion plug during storage. areis ossibility of animal and bird access Operating condition has been evaluated unlos Procedums miti crud i by the NRC. The resulting temperatur, & . As escussedin on s.3.1 no[

an nesting in the recess, increase is muchless than any of a SAR,these procedura include Comment No. so:One commenter requested information on the criteria for previously analysed accident condition gas sampling of the MPCinternal might produm. atmos hem and speci8e cool-down ,

the critical flaw size. Comment No. 5(:One commenter cask user will develop Response: The criteria for critical flaw asked how lifting height should be 8t*Ps.

size am included in ISG No.4." Cask additional site-specine unloading veri 8ed and stated that the height Procedums based onits radiological Closure WoldInspections."& NRC should be recorded. Protection program to furthw address  !

wview determined that Hohec's Re8Ponse:The maximum liAing propowd methodologyis consistent and mitigate crud di_sporeal.

height maintains the operating CommentNo. 59:The applicant made l with this ISc.

conditions of the Spent Fuel Storage g Comment No. 52:One commenter comments relevant to tla helium Cask (SFSC)within the design and backfill pressum of the cask. AAer i asked Bow subcontractors are to be audited and inspected. analysis basis, k is the general licensee's discussions with the NRC staff Holtec ,,

Response:This commentis beyond ws nsibility to limit the SFSC lifting withdrew this comment during a

• the scope of this rulemaking. he t to aHowable valuw. The lift telephone conversation on 5/7/99.

Comment No. 32:One commenter bei requirements am speci5ed in TS Response:Not applicable.

believed that the first cask for each 2.1.7 for the vertical and horizontal orientations. Surveillance requimments Comments on Proposed TSs utility should be tested at a full heat load and asked whatis meant by the require veri $ cation that SFSC lifting U Pon review of the public comments "First System in Place" requirement. reauirements are met sher the SFSCis received on the proposed TSs for the Response:The heat transfer either suspended or securedin the HI-STAR-100 Storage Cask,'particularly characteristics of the cask system will be transporter and prior to moving the comments received from EXCEL recorded by temperature measurements SFSC within the ISFSI. Corporation and the Holtec Users for the first H1 STAR 100 systems Comment No. 55:One commenter Group, the NRC staff has determined (MPC-24 and MPC-68) placed into questioned how the MPC closum ring. that several structural changes to the swvice with a heatload greater than or lid, vent, and drain covers am removed TSs were in order. Nse changes result equal to 10 kW. An analysis shall be d unloading and what precautions in a clearer set of TSs and move the TSs performed by the cask user that an en.

demonstrates that the temperatum Response:The speciSc procedums for from the new genwation of dual-removal of the closure ring, lid, vent, purpose cask systems toward a measurements validate the analytical and drain covas are to be developed by standardized format.

methods and the predicted thermal Comment No. 60:lt was suggested the cask user. These procedures will be behavior described in Chapter 4 of the that controlling the bases for the TSs as evaluated by thelicensee and by the SAR. pr.rt of the CoC would result in The cask user willpwform validation NRC duringinspections to addrws administrative burdens to allinvolved.

tests for each subsequent cask system adequacy and implementation and, hse bases are not controlled as part of thwefore, am beyond the scope of this that has a heat load that exceeds a Power reactor licenses.

previously validated heat load by more rulemaWg. Response:The NRC staff agrees.

than 2 kW (e g.,if the initial test was Comment No. 36:One commenter brefom, the bases have been relocated conducted at 10 kW, then no additional questioned that if the MPC gas temperature is not met, what additional to an appendix to the SAR.

testingis nuded until the heatload

F Feder:1 Register /Vol. 64. No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/Ruhs and Regulations 48269 with other devices is not prohibited. Response:The NRC s with the Comment No. 62:A number of commenters also raised concerns with The commenter recommended similar comment. Section 2.1 oNe TS: h the inclusion of the extensive fuel changes to the definition of"lDADING been revised based on these and similar specifications (formerly Section 2.0) and OPERATIONS" and "UNIDADING comments received to combine these

, TSs.

a very lengthy design specification OPERATIONS."

section (formerly Section 4.0). Response:The NRC disagrees.The Comment No. 70:One commenter Response: The NRC staff agmes that definitions of h three terms in stated that the uency of SR 3.1.7.1 question do not prohibit lifting of a cask abould be revised use, as written, placement of much of this information in the TS: is unwarranted. Therefore, with other devices (the revised note in the frequency would apply only when a much of the information regarding fuel TS 2.1.3 clarifies this issue), nor do the cask is being moved to or from the ISFSI '

' specifications and some of the design definitions affect the lifting and would not apply at othertimes.

such as when moving casks within the and codes information were moved from recuirements contained in TS 2.1.3. ISFSt. However,the drop analysis 2 the TSs to a separate appendix to the Comment No. 64:One commenter CoC. However.the NRC staff did stated that it would increase the applies any time the cask is suspended.

maintain some of the information standardization of the TSs by relocating The frequency should be revised similar

< 3 regarding requirements for bases the explanatory information of the to " Prior to movement of an SFSC."

controls by adding it to a revised Re8Ponse:The NRC agrees with the l

defined terms in TS Section 1.0 to the comment. The frequency of SR 3.1.7.1 Section 3.0. " Administrative Controls TS Bases.

and Programs." of the TSs. Response:The NRC disagrees with the has been revised.

comment.The terms defined in TS Comment No. 71:One commenter m Upon consideration of public Section 1.0 are important in the recommended that TS Sections 4.1 and comments and further consideration 4.2 be ehminated because they contain ad within the NRC, the NRC staff has understanding of the TS requinments.

determined that the structure of TS These oefinitions need to be contained no unlaue information.

Section 2.1, "SFSC INTEGRITY," did within the TSs. This practice is Resp 6nse:NRC agrees with the I st comment. Sections 4.2 and 4.2 have not provide appropriately clear , consistent with the standard TSs been eliminated.

guidance. Therefore, the NRC staff has developed for the U.S. nuclear power Comment No. 72:One commenter revised this section of the TSs to reflect reactors. recommended relocating the l ric a more logical and focused approach. Comment No. 65:One commenter stated that in Examples 1.b2 and 1.5- information contained in TS Sections l The number of limiting conditions for 4.3 and 4.5 to the SAR, and I 1 operations (LCOs)in this section has 3, the word " action" should be recommended eliminating TS Section i been reduced to four. The NRC staff capitalized.

believes that this will enhance the Response:The NRC agrees.The word 4 4 stating that this section is a

" action" has been capitalized. duplication of existing regulatory usefulness of the TSs. requirements.

Comment No. 62: One commenter Comment No. 66:One commenter recommended the removal of portions Response:The NRC apees in part.

stated that if surface contamination The NRC staff agrees that these sections exceeds 2200 dpm/100 cm2 from of Table 2.1-1 and all of Table 2.1-2 do not belong in the TSs. This design gamma and beta emitting sources, and and Table 2.1-3 from the TSs.

Response:The NRC agrees,in part, information has been relocated to smearable contamination limits cannot Appendix B to the CoC. The NRC staff be reduced to acceptable levels, the TSs that this information should be moved.

de This design information is crucial to the disagrees with the commenter's l require actions up to and including removal of the MPC from the M1-STAR conclusions reached by the NRC staffin Proposal to eliminate or relocate these its SER: therefore, the design sections to the SAR. The NRC has

. 100 overpack after removing the spent relocated these sections to Appendix B fuel from the MPC. The commenter information contained in these tables stated that the proposed Skull Valley has been relocated (and renumbered) to to the CoC due to the importance of the desir,n information contained in these l

ISFS1 in Utah does not have facilities for a separate appendix to the CoC, along sect.ons.The NRC staff aise disagrees decontaminating casks and, therefore, with other critical design information.

Comment No. 67:One commenter with the comment that TS Section 4.4 these TSs could not be met.

Re8Ponse The NRC apees in part. recommended a change to the format of is a duplicate of existing regulations.

ts The revised version of the TSs (TS 2.2.2) the Titles of Tables 2.1-1,2.1-2,2.1-3, since this section contains the and 2.1-4. acceptance criteria for the site-specific l requires verification that removable

,3Y contamination is within limits during Response:The NRC agrees with the design parameters.

l Comment No. 73: A commenter loading operations and provides up to 7 comment. The format has been changed. recommended relocating the days to restore the contamination within Comment No. 68:One commenter recommended a wording change in TS information contained in TS Sections

! lirnits The specifications no longer list 4.6 and 4.8 to an Administrative i MPC or spent fuel removal actions. Section 3.0 from "not applicable to an jt Controls chapter due to their content I ?g' Turther. comments on the proposed site- SFSC" to "not applicable." and relocating Section 4.7 to the SAR specific Skull Valler ISFSI currently Response:The NRC agrees with this comment and has made the indicated because it is a one. time administrative

! under review are be' yond the scope of change, task.

! this rulemaking Decontamination Response:The NRC agrees in part.

Comment No. 69:One commenter requirements will be reviewed as part of stated that there is no need to create two The NRC staff agrees that these sections the site-specific licensing provisions belong in the administrative section of as under Part 72 Subpart B for the Skull specifications for TS 3.1.1, MPC Cavity Vacuum Drying Pressure, and TS 3.1.2, the TSs and has placed this information Vallev ISFSI. OVERPACK Annulus Vacuum Drying in a new TS Chapter 3.0, i Coinment No 63: One commenter I Pressure. In addition, the commenter " Administrative Controls and stated that the definition of

" TRANSPORT OPERATIONS" needs to indicated there is no need to create two Programs." The NRC staff disagre be revised to reflect that the drop specifications for TS 3.1.5, MPC Helium the commenter on the proper location Section 4.7 (now TS Section 3.21, 4d analysis is not limited to drops from the Leak Rate, and TS 3.1.6, OVERPACK Helium Leak Rate, because it is established NRC staff transporter, and that lifting of a cask .

M MMW BM%  !

. e j practice to place importar.t measurements, only "each cask with c nvecti:n heat transfir, far which I y

administrative requirements, cv:n ene- subsequ:ntly loaded with a higher heat so credit is taken in the application. m.

tim: requirements,in the TSs. load." NRC's intent 13 wquire a writt:n Rispense:The NRC agrees with the

~

Comment No. 74:A commenter stated report for the first temperature comment and has revised renumbered '

n, that TS 3.1.s contains conflicts because measurements is not clear. The TS Table 2-1. ,

"f the APPLICABILITY statement, and the commenter further stated that it is not Comment No. 85:One commenter Se COMPLETION TIME when the clear what " calculation"is being recommended that TS 4.3.1 be avised et, condition la not met, are the same referred to in the last two sentences, to allow for changes to codes and statement.The commenter further whether it is the original design standards because it would provide both ce recommended that because ofits calculation or a new calculation the vendor and the NRC the flexibility Se complexity and rarity ofits up, this generated from the test. The commenter to add exceptions / alternatives to the ar specification be eliminated and the further recommended the addition of code without amending the certificate. 4: j information specified in the SAR. " decay heat" aftw "leuer" and befon Response:The NRC agrees with the cc Response:The NRC agrees in part. " loads"in the last line. comment. Section 1.3.2 of Appendix B The NRC spees with the first point. TS C' Response:The NRC agrees with theee has been revised accordingly.

2.1.4 has been rewritten to remove this comments, except for the Comment No.#6:The applicant i conflict.The NRC staff disagrees with recommendation to add the phrase recommended in TS Section 4.4.6, the re l the second point and considers this "d%:y heat." which the NRC consides revision of the soil effective modulus of i N i information important to the proper unnecessary. TS Section 3.3 has been elasticity from "s6.000 psi"to "s28.000 71 operation of the cask system. Further. mvind to clarify the reporting psi."In addition, the commentw P1 the changes made to this section resolve requirements and the calculational recommended an acceptable method for tk ll concerns regarding its complexity. comnarison requimd by this TS licensees to comply with the soil (

l Comment No. 73: One commenter condition. modulus limit. C8 ncommended relocating the figum Comment No. 80:One commenter Response:The NRC agrees with the C5 attached to TS 3.2.1 to the TS Bases. recommended some editorial changes to comment. The information has been t P '

because the purpose of the figure is to revise TS Bues 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 to clarify added to Appendix B to the CoC. AC show whue dose measurements should that to CFR 72.75 has additional Comment No. 87:One commenter P be taken. nporting requirements that may need to recommended the addition of a third l' Response:The NRC disspees with be met independent of these TS option to TS LCO 3.1.7 and Bases B3.1.7 tI this comment. This figure, now attached requirements. (or elsewhere in the TSs) that allows I to TS 2.2.1. is an integral part of the Response:The NRC agrees with the genwallicensees to calculate site- '

proper implementation of this TS and comment. A reference to to CFR 72.75 specific lifting mquirements based on P assuns that the dose measurements will has been added to Appendix B to the the site-specific pad design and be taken at the proper locations. c CoC. /tipover analyses.

Comment No. 76: The commenter. Comment No. 82:One commenter associated Response:T dro$e NRC apees with the P' stated that the TSs do not comply with 10 CFR 72.44(d) that requires TSs on recommended adding a new definition for fuel building to the TSs.

comment. TS LCO 2.1.3 has been revised to add this option.

[

radioactive efiluents. Response:The NRC s with the Comment No. 88: One commenter Response:The NRC agrees with this comment. A definition fuelbuilding believed that the 46-hour time limit within TSs 3.1.1 thr6 ugh 3.1.6 is overly ',

revi o ncorp rate t e r qu rements has been added to the TSs.

Comment No. #2:One commenter g restrictive.

mment ho.g recommended editorially revising TS Response:The NRC apees with this 77:One commenter LCO 3.1.7. "SFSC Lifting Requirements" comment in part. Accordingly, the NRC {

recommended that within TS Section and the related bases to clarity the has reviewed the time limit in each 1.1. the definition for " Intact Fuel t Assembly" should be revised to state applicability. The revision is necessary applicable TS. Some of the time limits

" * *

• an amount of water greater than because the LCO is not intended to be have been extended to provide for a ,,

or '9ual to * * *'" adding the term applicable while the transport vehicle is controlled, deliberate response to the .

ij in the fuel building or when the cask is LCO condition.

..Nbi secured on a railcar or heavy haul trailer Comment No. 89: One commenter fl thr..

espect t y rod because the cask.is not being lifted. recommended the deletion of the Design s

,gg  :

Response:The NRC agrees with the Response:The NRC agrees with the Features, Section 4.6. Training Module, comment and has revised the definition. c mment. TS 2.1.3 has been revised and Section 4.7. Pre-Operational Testing Comment No. 78:One commenter accordingly. and Training Exercise because the neommended that within TS Table 2.1- Comment No. 83:One commenter review of the training propam is a

1. Item II.B should be reworded for recommended a revision to TS Tables required by to CFR 72.212(b)(6) and the i clarification because the current 2.1-2 and 11-3 Note 1, for the TS duplicates the requirement in the t wording could be misinterpreted by Purposes of clarification and to allow regulation. 4 users that intact fuel assemblies are for manufacturer tolerances. Response:The NRC spees in part.

r; quired to be loaded into damaged fuel Response:The NRC apees with the The NRC agrees tb st there is duplication containers. comment. The recommended changes to in the TSs and tha regulatory Response:The NRC agrees with the the tables have been made. The table requirements. Ac.cordingly,TS 3.1 comment. The table, which has been has been relocated to Appendix B of the (previously Section 4.6) has been relocated to Appendix B. has been CoC. modified to reference the gennal revised. Comment No. se:One commenter licensee's systematic approach to Comment No. 79:One commenter recommended the revision of TS Table training. However, the NRC staff requested clarification of TS Section 4. 3-1. Item 1.c. to change the lower believes that listing the training As written, the text does not require a helium tolerance to 10 percent because exercises as a specific requirement for written report of the results of the first the smaller tolerances were associated proper cask operation is appropriate to g ggw , EG ww' "" - 4 ' JM- aT U* E . M &* " - ' ' "

7 .ag i Federal Regist:r/Vol. 64 No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/Rul:s and Regulations 48271 be included in the TSs, and it has been controls.The SAR or SER does not . Section 8.1.2 of the SER that states:

maintained. specify which entity must perform each "Each cask user will need to develop Comment No. 90:One commenter test. This is because some tests are detailed Ir,ading procedures that recommended adding " diesel" before performed during fabrication, while incorporate the ALARA objectives of

" fuel" in TS Section 4.4.5 and in SER others can only be performed after their site-speciSc radiation protection Sections 3.1.2.1.8,4.3.4. and 4.4.3.4 for installation. The quality assurance program."'Therefore, each user can clari$ cation. programs implementedby the develop site-speciSc operating Response:The NRC apees fabricator, certi$cate holder, or procedures based on ALARA objectives conceptually with the comment. TS applicant with appropriate oversight that would include the use of manual Section 4.4.5 (now 1.4.5 of Appendix B) will ensure that these SAR speciSed welding and make changes to the SAR and SER Sections 3.1.2.1.8,4.3.4, and tests are completed and are effective. in accordance with to CFR 72.48.

4.4.3.4 have been revised to refer to Further, the NRC inspection program Comment No. 200:One commenter combustible transporter fuel. also veriSes on a sempling basis that ' recommended that SER Section 8.3.1.

tests and surveillances are conducted as which discusses the evaluation of Comments on the Draft CoC "

Comment No. 92:Two commenters

);o ent No. 96:One commenter $kun5 go Uon s oul 8

recommended that CoC Condition 10 be recommended revising the last sentenoo Frvised to allow option of a once-revised to be consistent with 1D CFR of the first paragranh c,f SER Section through purge in lieu of the closed loop I '

72.48 for the cask design and operating 3.1.2.1.6 to read:"he design-basis cooling system.

procedures. Another commenter stated earthquake accelerations are assumed to Response:The NRC disagrees with that Condition to was not clear. be applied at the top of the ISFS1 this comment. An amendment Response:The NRC apees with the concrete pad with the resulting inertia application with a specific desi d comments The applicable CoC forces applied at the1% STAR too mass su ugh condition has been revised to delete the center."

hebporting analysis for a um cooling system would be prescriptive controls for making changes Response:The NRC with the aquired for NRC review and is beyond to the cask design and operating comment. The SER has n revised. b scope of Ws rulemakin8 procedures. The condition now reflects Comme.nt No. 97:One commenter '

recommended in SER Section 3.1.4.4,in [t a 10 CFR 72;48 as recently approved by no APPP the Commission. the

"*

• first

• t e $arapaph, fabricator is b replacement an accredited ofimp 3eme thegrmanestimee Comment No. 92:Two commenters ack had been accepted by the NRC recommended that a Bases Control facility by the ASME for nuclear ovege im STAR 100 transputation cask . -

Propam be added to the TSs or CoC. fabrication work holding "N" and and recommended this method be used Response. The NRC disapees with the "NFT" stamps, * * *" with "* *

• the f r this ca4 design. Appropriate comment. The proposed TS bases are HI-STAR 200 System is designed in changes were recommended to be made part of the SAR. Because 10 CFR 72.48 accordance with the ASME Code, as to the SER and SAR.

rovides a change process for the SAR clariSed by the exceptions to the Code Response %e NRC s est @s for control of the bases, there is no need listed in TS Table 4-1." m od eSAR to incorporate this propam into the CoC Response:The NRC apees with the f ,

8 or TSs. comment. The SER has been revised. APPr Printe changes have been made to Comment No. 93:One commenter Note that the table is now in Appendix Section 9.1.6 of the SAR and Chapter 9 requested information on the status of a B. of the SER, petition for rulemaking on the change Comment No. 98:One commenter Comment No. 202:The applicant process in to CFR 72.48. recommended that in SER Section 6.3.

the word " minimum" be replaced with submined nummus editwial comments Response:This comment is beyond on the SAR, SER, and CoC. Comments the scope of this rulemaking. " maximum"in the third sentence of the were intended as clarification,,

Comment No. 94:One commenter first full paragraph to match the nstoration of deleted information, stated that the description of the analysis. Brammatical corrections, corrections to Response:The NRC s with the attachment to the CoC was in error. text, to maintain consistency between Response:The NRC agrees with this comment. The SER has n revised to correct the error, documents, typopaphical corrections, comment. The description has been format changes, and to correct corrected. Comment No. 99:One commenter stated that SER Section 8.1.4, which terminology. These editorial changes do Comments on the NRCStoffs SER discusses the evaluation of welding and not change the design of the cask or Comment No. 95:One commenter sealing procedures, should be revised to supporting analysis.

Response:The NRC agrees with many asked a question about what is meant by recognize the option of performing of the editorial comments suggested by the statement included in the NRC SER manual welding of the MPC lid closure Holtec International. The SAR, SER, and in Section 9.3 related to the examination weld in accordance with a user's as low CoC have been revised to address the and/or testing of the H1-STAR 100 by as reasonably achievable (A1. ARA) comments as appropriate.

the applicant / certification holder / practices.

licensee. Response:The NRC disagrees with the Comments on the Apphcant's Topical Response:The SER refers to Section comment. As discussed in Sections 8.1 sag 9.1 of the applicant's SAR. This section and 10.1 of the SAR, the use of the Note: In response to comments received, a summanzes the scope and acceptance Automated Weld System provides number of changes to the SAR were made by critena for the M1-STAR 100 test justification that the H1-STAR 100 is Holtec!ntemational as discussed below.

propam. It includes fabrication and designed in accordance with Part 72 nondestructive examinations, weld radiological requirements and ALARA Comment No. 203:One commentt r inspecting structural and pressure tests. objectives consistent with Part 20. proposed a revision to the languac. .n However,the intent of the proposed Section 8.0 of the SAR to clarify -

leakage tests, component tests, and users will have some flexibility 1: m shielding and integrity testing and SER revision is alrudy implied in

Fed:ral Register /Vcl. 64, No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/ Rules and Regulati:ns j

. 48272 l Respo se:The NRC agrees that the sevwal changes to the SER as f allows-procedures and equipm:nt suitabla for SER Section 8.1.4 sh:uld be changed ts

' site-specine needs and capabilities. changes to the drawings w:re )

• Response:The NRC agrew with the appropriate and do not resultin any add "(or optional multi layer PT changes to the supporting design aramination),"aftw " ultrasonic suggested editorial changes.The avamination (UT)"; the SER should l changes to the SAR have been made. analyses. The SAR drawings have been l revised in acx:ordance with the recognize that users may choose to Comment No. 204:One commenter pwform the MPC void-to shell weld l recommended some editorial changes sugestod changes. l within SAR Section 4.4, because the Comment No. 209:The applicant manually; and SER Section 11.4.1.3.1 l

sugested using Magnetic Particle should be reworded to read " examined '

wording in Subsection 4.1.1.25 may be

. erroneously interpreted to mean that the amhation in lieu of1.iquid Penetrant instud using of"1.TT or multi layer volumetrically PT techniques,"

examined Examination for the ovwpack weld chilled helium delivned to the MPC examination and recommended changes usingIJr?

cavity to cool the intwnals prior to Raponse:The NRC agrees and notes to the associated drawing notes.

flooding the cavity with water must be that the applicant's comments with Response:The NRC agrees with this at too 'F. The commenter stated that the suggested change. The NRC agrees that respect to TS Table 4-1 have been text of the SAR requires clarification to resolution of this comment willinvolve superseded by its latest revision to the pumit each cask usn's cooldown SAR. Changes have been made to Table system to be engineered with the a change to the drawings which will mean that drawings rmrencing this 1-3 to Appendix B.The SER has been Boxibility to cool MPCs containing fuel revised as recommended.

with varying levels of decay but examination shall be diffwent for the storage and transportation certificates. Sumsmary of FinalRevisions production, These differences are not significant Response:The NRC s with the because the staff finds Magnetic Particle The NRC staff modified the listing for comment.The SAR has n revised. Examination to be equally acceptable to the Holtec International HI-STAR 100 Comment No. 205:In SAR Section cask system within to CFR 72.214," List Liquid Penetrant Examination.

1.5, Drawings 1399, Sheet 3, and BM- . of approved spent fuel storage casks,"

APFropriate changes to the drawings 1476, and in Drawing Section "N-N," with respect to the title of the SAR as have been made. well as the CoC and its two appendices, one commenter recommended the Comment No. 2io:The applicant addition of four threaded holes aced suggested a clariScation for the the TSs, and the Approved Contents and 90 degrees apart as a personnel [ose reduction enhancement. The new holes sequence for the hydrostatic helium leakage tuting dunng modified its testing SER. and Design Featuas.

would allow the personnel attaching the ack. Agmement State Compatibility shield to work in an area of lesser fabrication of theg'sThN=*

He'f ans @if"ci f?*deid E,@,$,p Ad';y*ggr,gg=',a=

Comment No. 222:As it relates to the Agreement State Programs" approved by sttachment will remain the same.

Response:The NRC agrees with the the Commission on June 30,1997, and Radiogrsphy and Heat Treatment comment. Drawings 1399 and BM-1476 requinments for the containment published in the Federal Register oc have been revised to reflect the change. boundary of the ID-STAR overpack, the September 3.1997 (62 FR 46517), this Comment No. 206:One commenter applicant:equested that post weld hut rule is classified as compatibility suggested that in SAR Revision to, the l Category "NRC." Compatibility is not drawings in Chapter 1 be revised to tnatment (PWHT), after combeting used for required for Category "NRC" nondestructive examination.

match those ap roved by the NRC in the all overpack containment boundary rsgulations. The NRC program elements transponation AR. welds which require an exception from in this category are those that relate Response:The NRC agrees with the directly to areas of regulation reserved the ASME code. .

comment. Seven drawings in SAR Response:The NRC agmes. The SAR to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of and Appendix B to the CoC have been 1954, as amended (AEA), or the Section 1 have been revised to match those in the transponation SAR. modified appropriately. provisions of Title to of the Code of Although four drawings have not been Comment No. 222:'the applicant Federal Regulations. Although an revned to match the transportation suggested a nvision to the drawings in Agreement State may not adopt program SAR, this is acceptable to the NRC staff the SAR to reflect the localized thinning elements reserved to NRC,it may wish because they reflect storage design tolerance in the containment shell. to inform its licensees of certain features. Response:The NRC staff agrees with requinments via a mechanism that is Comment No. 207:In the SAR, one the suggested revision. However, the consistent with the particular State's commenter (the applicant) applicant did not provide the suggested administrative procedure laws, but does recommended changing Section 6.1 by changes in its final revisions to the SAR. not confer regulatory authority on the replacing "(20 *C-100 *)" with "(i.e., The initial drawings remain acceptable. State, water density of 1.000 g/cc)" and delete Comment No. 223:One commenter Finding of No Significant

"(20 *C assumed)" to more accurately (the applicant) recommended that EnvironmentalImpact: Availability describe the assumption made in the changes to Technical Specification Table 4-1, MPC Enclosure Vessel and Under the National Environmental analyses. Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Response:The NRC agrees. The SAR Lid, should be made to replace "and sufficient intermediate layers to detect Commission's regulations in Subpan A has been revised as suggested by the of to CFR pan 5L the NRC has commenter. critical wild flaws" with "and at least Comment No. 208:The applicant one intermediate PT after approximately determined that this rule is not a major

• /s inch weld depth." The commenter Federal action significantly affecting the suggested a number of changes to the quality of the human environment and drawings for the HI-STAR 100 Storage also recommended the deletion of therefore an environmentalimpact Cask. These changes did not require a " Flaws in austenitic stainless are not expected to exceed the bead".The statement is not required. This final rule change to the supporting design adds an additional cask to the list of analyses, commenter further recommended 3

i i

t - _

,e---

i Federal Register /Vol. 64, No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/ Rules and Regulations 48273 !

met. In that rule, four spent fuel storage Based an b above discussion of the

' approved spent fuel storage casks that bene $ts and impacts of the alternatives, ,

power reactor beensees can use to store casks were approved for use at nactor I sites and were usted in 10 CFR 72.214. & NRC concludw that the spent fuel at reactor sites without seguirements of b Enal rule are additional site. specific approvals from That rule envisioned that storage casks certiBod in the future cx>uld be routinely commensurate with the Commission's the Commission. The environmental neponsibilities for public health and l anessment and Mnr of no signiBeant added to the Esting in to CFR 72.214 through the rulemaHng process. safety and the common defense and l impact on which this determination is security.No other available alternative based are available for inspection at the Proceduns and criteria for obtaining NRC Public Document Room,2120 L NRC approval of new spent fuel storage is beheved to be as natisfactory, and i cask designs were provided in to CFR thus, this action is recommended.

' Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, l DC. Single copies of the environmental part 72, subpart L. Small Businees Regulatory Enforcement !

assessment and finding of no significant The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of this new design Fairness Act impact are available from Stan Turch Office of Nuclear Material Safety and and issue a site speci5c license to each In accordance with the Small l utility that proposes to use the casks. Business Regulatory Enforcement Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, This alternative would cost both the Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has NRC and utilities more time and money determined that this action is not a l telephone (301) 415-4234, e-mail for each site-specific license.

sptenre' gov' ma}or rule and has verthed this Conducting site-specfEe reviews would determination with the Office of Paperwork Reduction Act Statement ipore the proceduns and criteria Information and Regulatory Affairs, curantly in place for the addition of This final rule does not contain a new new cask designs that can be used under OfSee of Management and Bu or amended information collection Regulatory Flexibihty Certincation requirement subject to the Paperwork a general Scense, and would be in conflict with NWPA direction to the In accordance with the Regulatory Reduction Act of 1995 (44 USC 3501 et Commission to approve technologies for

' seq.). Existing requirements were the use of spent fuel storage at the sitw Flexibility Act of1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) '

approved by the OfSce of Management of civilian nuclear power ructors the Commission certifies that this rule and Budget, approval nu:sber 3150- without,to the maximum extent willnot,if promulgated, have a 0132. practicable, the need for additional site significant economic impact on a Public Protection Notification nviews. This alternative also would substantial number of small entities.

tend to exclude new vendors from the This rule affects only the licensing and l If a means used to impose an information collection does not display business market without cause and operation of nuclear power plants.

i would arbitrarily limit the choice of independent spent fuel storage facihties.!

a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, cask desips available to power reactor and Holtec International. The licensees. This final rulemaking will companies that own thne plants do not l and a person is not nquired to respond eliminate the above problems and is fah within the scope of the def;nitioL of l to, the information collection.

consistent with previous Commission amah entides" set forth in the l Voluntary Consensus Standards actions. Further, the rule will have no Regulatory Flexibthty Act or the Small The National Technology Transfer Act adverse effect on public health and Business Size Standards set out in of 1995 (Pub. L.104-113) requires that '

Federal agencies use technical standards safety, The benefit of this rule to nuclear hgulatij"Ayi

, d b the Smallstnti that are developed or adopted by power reactor heensees is to make 121*

voluntary consensus standards bodies available a greater choice of spent fuel storage cask designs that can be used Backfit Analysis unless the use of such a standard is under a*generallicense The new cask inconsistent with applicable law or The NRChas determined that the otherwise impractical. In this final rule, vendors with casks to belisted in to backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109 or to CFR CFR 72.214 benefit by having to obtain 72.62) does not apply to this rule the NRC is adding the Holtee International H1-STAR 100 cask system NRC certificates only once for a desip because this amendment does not that can then be used by more than one to the list of NRC approved cask involve any provisions that would systems for spent fuel storage in tobenefits CFR power reactor licensee.

because it will need to certifyThe NRC also impose backfits as defined in the backfi,t 72.214 This action does not constitute rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not:

a cask desip only once for use by l the establishment of a standard that multiple licensees. Casks approved required.

establishes generally applicable through rulemaking are to be suitable h fS in n CFR Part 72 requirements. for use under a range of environmental l

Regulatory Analys.ts conditions sufficiently broad to Criminal penalties, Manpower encompass multiple nuclear power training programs, Nuclear materials.

On July 18,1990 (55 FR 29181) the Occupational safety and health, l Commission issued an amendment to N plants in the United States without the need for further site speciSc approval Reporting and recordkeeping CFR part 72. The amendment providet nquinments, Security measures, Spea for the storage of spent nuclear fuelin by NRC. Vendors with cask desips cask systems with designs approved by already listed may be adversely fuel.

the NRC under a generallicense. Any impacted because power reactor licensees may choose a newly listed For the reasons set out in the nuclear power reactor licensee can use preamble and under the authority of 6 cask systems with designs approved by design over an existing one. However. Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amendt the NRC is required by its regulations the NRC to store spent nuclear fuelifit and NWPA direction to certify and list the Energy Reorpnization Act of 1974j notifies the NRC in advance, the spent as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NR approved casks. This rule has no fuel is stored under the conditions significant identifiable impact or benefit is ado ting the following ame specified in the cask's CoC and the on other Government agencies. toto part 72.

conditions of the generallicense are k

uuxJ tmEal RegUer7Vf(20, ge.171/ Friday. S:ptember 3,1999/ Rules and Regulations i

PART 72-LICENSING FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM a similar increue in the federal funds .

REQUIREMENTS F!R THE rate annrunced at the same tim 2.

INDEPENDENT STORAf E C F SPENT 12 CFR Part 201 NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH LEVEL

• R*5ulatory Flexibility Act Certification

[ne9utetton A)

RADIOACTIVE WASTE Pursuant to section 605(b) of the y Extensions of Credit by Federal Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

1.The authority citation for part 72 Reserve Senks; Change in Discount 605(b)), the Board certifies that the continues to read as follows: Rate change in the baste discount rate will Authority: Secs. 51,53.57,62.63.65,69. not have a significant adverse economic 81.161.182,183,164,186,187.189,68 Stat. AGENCY: Board of Governors of the impact on a substantial number of small Federal Reserve System. entities. The rule does not impose any 929.930.932,933.934,935,948.953,954.

935,as arnended, sec. 234,83 Stat. 444, as ACTKm: Final rule. additional requirements on entities amended (42 U.S.C. 2071. 2073,2077,2092, affected by the regulation.

2093,2095,2099.2111.2201,2232,2233, suuMARY:The Board of Governors has amended its Regulation A on Extensions Adminfetrative Procedure Act 2734. 2236. 2237,2238. 2282), sec. 274. Pub.

of Credit by Federal Reserve Banks to The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) l L 66-373,73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 reflect its approval of an increase in the relating to nouce and public U.S.C 2021); sec. 201, as amended 202. 206 bule discount rate at each Federal participation were not fMlowed in  !

88 Stat.1242, as amended 1244,1246(42 U.S.C 5841. 5642. 5s46): Pub. L 95-601, sec. Reserve Bank. The Board acted on connection with the adoption of the requests submitted by the Boards of amendment because the Board for good 10,92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L tod- Directors of the twelve Federal Reserve cause finds that delaying the change in 48b, sec. 7902,10b Stat. 31b3 (42 U.S.C.

Banks. the basic discount rate in order to allow 58511: sec.102. Pub. L 91-190,83 Stat. 853 [

(42 U.S.C 43321: secs.131.132.133.135, EFFECTNE DATE' he amedments to part notice and public comment on the 137.141. Pub. L 97-425. 96 Stat. 2229. 2230, 201 (Regulation A) were effective change is impracticable, unnecessary, 2232,2241, sec.148. Pub. L 200-203.101 AuE"st 24' 1999. %e rate chan8a for and contrary to the public interest in Stat.1330-235 (42 U.S.C 10151.10152, adjustment credit were effective on the fostering sustainable economic growth. i dates specihed in 12 CFR 201.51. The 10153,10155.10157,10161,10168). p,,,,,g(rovisions of 5notice U.S.C E52!) tht Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs.

e 30 days prior of the -

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

142(b) and 148(c). (d). Pub. L 200-203,101 Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the effective date of a rule have not been Stat.1330-232.1330-236 (42 U.S.C Board. (202) 452-3259; for users of followed because section 553(d) 10162(b).10168tc).(d)). Section 72.46 also Telecommunications Device for the Deaf provides that such prior notice is not issued under sec.169. 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C (TDD). contact Diane Jenkins, (202) 452- necessary whenever there is good cause 2239). sec.134. Pub. L 97-425,96 Stat. 2230 3544, Board of Governors of the Federal for finding that such notice is contrary (42 U.S.C 10154). Section 72.96(d) also Reserve System,20th and C Streets to the public interest. As previously 6 stated, the Board determined that issued under sec.145(g). Pub. L 200-203, NW., Washington, D.C. 20551.

101 Stat.1330-235 (42 U.S.C 10165(g)).

delaying the changes in the basic SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant disecunt rate is contrary to the public Subpart I also issued under secs. 2f 2). 2(15). <

to the authority of sections 10(b).13,14, interest. '

2(19).117(a).141(h). Pub. L 97-425. 96 Stat. 19, et al., of the Federal Reserve Act, the 2202. 2203. 2204,2222. 2244 (42 U.S.C -

Board has amended its Regulation A (12 List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 201 ,

10101,101371a).10161th)). Subparts K and L CFR part 201) to incorporate changes in Banks, banking. Credit, Federal '

are also issued under sec.133. 98 Stat. 2230 Reserve System.

discount rates on Federal Reserve Bank (42 U.S.C 1c153) and sec. 218(a). 96 Stat. For the reasons set out in the 2252 (42 U.S C 10198).

extensions of credit. The discount rates are the interest rates charged to Preamble.12 CFR depository institutions when they as set forth below:part 201 is amended

2. In Section 72.214. CertiScate of Compliance 1008 is added to read as borrow from their disdct Roem I II "'

PART 201--EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT e " basic discount rate"is a fixed FE RA R SERVE BANKS Egu O

$ 72.214 List of approved spent fuse rate charged by Reserve Banks for stors9e casks, adjustment credit and, at the Reserve 1. The authority citation for 12 CFR e . . . . Banks' discretion, for extended credit. part 201 continues to read as follows:

Certificate Number: 1008 In increasing the basic discount rate Authority:12 U.S.C 343 et seg. 347a.

SAR Submitted by: Holtec international from 4.5 percent to 4.75 percent, the 347b,347c 347d,348 et seq.,357,374. 374a SAR

Title:

H1-STAR 200 Cask System Board acted on requests submitted by and 461.

Topical Safet) Anal 3sis Report the Boards of Directors of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks. The new rates 2. Section 201.51 is revised to read as Docket Number. 72-1008 gogjow,:

Certification Expiration Date: (20 years after were effective on the dates specified final rule effective date) below. 3 201.51 Adjustment credit for depository Mofel Number: H1-STAR 100 With financial markets functioning institutions.

Dated at Rockville. Maryland, this 23rd day more normally, and with persistent The rates for adjustment credit cf August.2m strength in domestic demand, foreign provided to depository institutions For the NucJear Regulatory Commission.

economies firming, and labor markets under i 201.3(a) are:

William D. Travers, remaining very tight, the degree of monetary ease required to address the Foceral Reserve Rate Executhe Director /c'r Operations. 0** Effective global financial market turmoil oflast (G Doc.99-2305 Filed 9-2-99. 8 45 aml fallis no longer consistent with Boston - 4.75 August 24,1999

,a oong 7,,,,,p sustained, non inflationary, economic New York 4.75 August 24,1999.

expansion. The 25-basis. point increase Pnitadelpnia . 4.75 August 24,1999 in the discount rate was associated with C6eveland . 4.75 August 24,1999.

@ W ,

• p-- L. . ,5

.- ,., ber 3,1999 Septem 1

3

[-

r J

. 9 -

N i

r.

F.

Part lil  :

Nuclear Regulatory l

- Commission I

• 10 CFR Part 51 j

Changes to Requirements for d Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses; h Final Rules

'l 3

i '

i 1

C6496 Fed:ral Register /Vcl. 64, No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/ Rules and Regulatirns

• Nuclear Power Reactor,"in plant.

Mountain as a repository.Rather,it NUCLEAR REGULATORY reflects NRC's existing license renewal speci$c license renewal reviews: (2) the COMMl8SION ository conditions that mustbe met before an process by reflecting current rep!! cation applicant may adopt Table S-4: and (3) activities and policies. lf an app 10 CPR Part 51 the extent to which the generic effects is Sled by the Department of Energy of transporting spent fuel to a Hl.W MW 3180-A005 (DOE) thelicensing process for a repository abould be considend in a repository in the vicinity of Yucca plant-specine license renewal Mview.

Changes to Requirements for Mountain will constitute an entirely After considering the comments Environmental Review for Menewol of separate regulatory action from the received on the rule, the Commission Nuclear Power Plant Opervting Proposed Analrule.Furthermore,if, Licenees based on technical or national policy MPublished the rule in the Federal Register on December 18.1996 (61 FR AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory considerations, some site other than 66537).The rule at to CFR Cornmission. Yucca Moantain is selected in the futur, 51.53(c)(3)(li)(M) continued to require, for study as a repository, the NRC will "The environmental effects of ACThoN: Final Rule. .

transportation of fuel and waste shall be sus 4 MARY: The Nucleu Regulato evaluate the a{plicability of the generic,,yg,,,,,, , impact Commission (NRC)is amending license renewal process to other 5152." However,in nsponse to ations on the environmental proposed repository sites. comments received,the following i ormation required in applications t RFFEC NE DaTE October 4,1999*

renew the operatlog licenses of nuclear "Suirement was added'*

Pom FunTHER MFonesATs0N 00NTACTt The review of impacts shall also discun power plants. This amendment expands Donald P.Cleary Office of Nuclear the senwie and cumulative impacts the generic findings about the

• Reactor Regulation.U.S. Nuclear t pemuo Qc'hY,Qhb et A '

environmentalim acts due to Regulatory Commission. Washington, , ,,p transportation of f el and waste to and DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415- alta.The candidate site at Yucca Mountain from a single nuclear power plant. 3903; e-mail:DPCentc. gov. abould be used as a reprmentative site for the Specifically,this amendment adds to purpose of impact anaJysis as long as that site findings concerning the cumulative SUPPLEs4ENTARY MFOne4AT10N: is unda consideration for licensing.

ence Backgraind Also in nsponse to the comments,the l environmentalimpacts of conve7e of spent fuel shipments on a sing On June 5,1996 (61 FR 26467),the Commission stated that:

destination, rather than multiple Commission publishedin the Federal do P e As destinations, and the environmental impact of transportation of higher Register a finalrule amendingits ,,iden rb 8

the environmental protection regulations in consider whetbc further channes to the rule enriched and higher burnup spent fuel to CFR part 51 to improve the efficiency are desirable to generically address: (1) t during the renewal term. The effect of inue of cumulauve transoonstion impacts of the process of smvironmental review and 121 the implicat6ons that the um of higher this amendment is to permit the NRC to for applicants seeking to renew a- burnup fuel have for the conclusions in Table -

make a generic finding regarding the nuclear power plant operating license S-4. Mtw consideration of tbme inves, the l impacts so that an analysis of these for up to an additional 20 years.The Commission will determine whether the impacts will not have to be repeated for rulemaking was based on the analyses each individuallicense renewal chU)d

" "H application. This action reduces the nported in the final report of NUREG-1437, " Generic Environmental Impact in 8SECY-97 tT279,1)titled P " Generic and regulatory burden on applicants for Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts of Statement for License Renewal of license renewal by replacing individual Nuclear Plants" (CEIS) (May 1996). The Transnortation of High Level Waste plant operating license renewal reviews rulemaking daw on the considerable gggf)in the Vicinity of a HLW with a Eeneric review of these topics. dated December 3,1997, experience of operating nuclear power Repository,"ff informed the Commiss Also, this amendment incorporates rule plants in order to generically assess the NRC sta languese to be consistent with the many of the environmentalimpacts,so that it was the staffs preliminary view findmgs in NUREG-1437. " Generic that repetitive reviews of issues whose that its supplemental analyses of the Environmenta! Impact Statement for generic and cumulative impacts of the impacts are well understood could be License Renewal of Nuclear Plants" eninirnised.In the statement of trapsportation of HLW and of the (May 1996), which addresses local impi cations of higher burnup fuel for traffic impacts attributable to continued rule, theconsiderations Commission statedaccompanying that before the finalimpacts support a transportation operation of the nuclear power plant the final rule became effective,the reasonable technical andlegal during the licence renewal term. Commission was seeking comments on determination that transportation of in analyzing the environmental HLW is a Category 1 issue and may be impact of transporting spent fuel and the treatment oflow level waste (LLW) storage and disposalimpacts,the generically adopted in a license nnewd waste in the vicinity of a single cumulative radiological effects from the application. In a Staff Raquirements repository,the NRC evaluated the uranium fuel cycle, and the effects from Memorandum (SRM) dated January 13.

impact in the vicinity of Yucca the disposal of high-levelwaste (HLW)

Mountain and specifcally the impacts un massen and in the rule,caieserv i and spent fuelIn response to thelune in the vicinity of LasVegas. NV.The 5,1996, final rule, a raumber of isives are then environment t suun for what. i NRC elected to evaluate the impacts in enalv$ls and unadinsi have been dete .

the vicinity of Yucca Mountain because commentors stated that the 1' b i l requirements for the review of $,',*p, aQ,ejeary c, erpl.n Yucca Mountain is the only location . . pi ,(,, ,n. cs,7 ci,n,uc, %,, , y transportation of HLW in the rule were inform uon thei nisnificantly chansa the tc oc.

Currently being, evaluated for a unclear with respect to (1) the use and these seneric findmai msv be edopted in i repository under the Nuclear Waste Polier Act.The NRC's analysis of the legal status of 10 CFR 51.52," Table S-4-Environmentalimpact of $'l,"""",%yllM'8lg*,u' <

impa'ets in the vicinity of Yucca Transportation of Fuel and Waste To cruena of categorp cannot be me ans.c a Mountain in this instance does not oddition. piani..pectric renew .reque.o and From One Light Water-Cooled prejudge the eventual licensing of Yucca

Federal R==latr/ Vel. 64, No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/Rults and Regulations 48497 t

1998,the Commission direct:d b NRC Dia===l== discuss b generic and cumulativs

, cu a "

ekonsM Rulesnaking to , v$ c 1U amen O CFR 5 53[ ' M 88'P sopository site at Yucca Mouhtain (see categorize the impacts of transpanation The NRCis promulgeting this rulein of m.W as a Category 1 issue. In a 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(11)(M)).The NRC memorandum dated July 1,1998,the order to meet its Natimal staff has performed a generic =a-==at NRC staffinformed the Commission of EnvironmentalPoucy Act(NEPA) dem cumukuveimpeu,which h

< its plans for amending to CFR part St. 8*sPonsibilities to consider the in NUREG-1437 Vol 1

"" dandum 1, %e analysis focused on la that memorandum b NRC staff also proposed, u an administrative ecki (1 6 and el FR 66537),the NRC published a 6467 Clark County, Nevada because it amendment,to address local trafEc rule ht codi6ed condudow rogueng ** Presents the area with the largest impacts attributable to continued b avironmentd impeu dbcean Population in b vicinity of the operation of the plant during the licon" renewal (see 10 CFR part St. Appendix potatialrepository.The Analruk codifies the conclusions of this analysis renewal term This issue was identified B to subpart A).The amendment issued in to CFR Part 51. In addition, the NRC as a Category 2 issue in NUREG-1437, in the present Notics constitutes a relatively small addition to those staff has generically considwed the Seedon 4.7.3.2 and the overall issue of transportation was designated as previously published conclusions. In potentialis cts of transportin higher enriched an higher burnup fusk than

,I .

- Category 2 in the rule (see to CFR Part pwucular, as discussed above,this amendment ensures among other things currently covwed in to CFR 51.52 sad -

.- 51, Subpan A Appendix B, Table B-1, "Public Services Transportation"). that the NRC has considered the likely ' is these Radings with this j impacts of trans arting spent fuel Saal e. hetassusmentconcludes However,the specificissue oflocal transportation hnpacts during the generated d the Econse renewal that the impacts of transporting ful and renewal term wu inadvenently omitted paiod over a le transportation waste generated during b license corridor in the vicinity of a waste mnewal period are aman and are i,$ from 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) and its inclusion in Table B-1 is not exphcitly consktet wie &impeu dh regory.use the Yucca Mountain site in vdus kTabh H deerede's

'p' stated. The basic transponstion concern Nevada currently represents the most identified in NUREG-1437 is the agulations y 51.52).Under the

. otential adverse contribution of a likely candidate for a spository, the Commission a mgulations for the j^ farger plant work force to traffic Bow in NRC has used that site as a en*onmental av>w of hense '

d the vicinity of the power plant. representative site for its analysis in lieu renewal decisions (see 10 CFR part 51, of considerin$ transportation subpart A, appendix B), the Commission hi To address the above issues, the uns ed. otheticalsite The to an may reach a conclusion of"small" Commissionissued proposed d to use uccaMountainforthe impact for a particularissw if the:

Fb 2 999( 884) d [urposes owever,in no ofway theincreases currentoranalysis, . . . environmental eNects are not provid a public comment riod of 60 decreases thelikelihood that Yucca detectable or are so minor ht they wiu days.The supplemental an sis,which Mountain wiU in fact be,hoonsed as a wither destabilise nor noticeably alter any i j

suppens this rule,is mporte in MPository for the nation s highlevel important attribuw of the moeurce. For the N NUREG-1437,Vol.1, Addendum 1. waste. Instead, it simply provides the purposes of aseeming radiologicalimpacu.

$ ' *" Generic EnvironmentalImpact E wie se infonnedonit mods to the e--w n has o concluded that those i Statement for 1icense Renewal of ouge the potentialimpacts from gapects that do not exceed permissible levels l in b Commission *negulations am Nuclear Plants: Main Re ort Section 6.3 ' Transportation,' Table 9.1 fsconsing nuc ear anW additional 20 year pari fu en pWw[.If an considered small as the term is und in this 4 , Summary oi findings on NEPA iseus p application is Sled by the Department of table.

for license renewal of nuclear power Energy (DOE), the hoensing for 9 ace The Analrule amends bissue of

, plants, F nal Report."The draft for a aposumy k b vicinity transportanon of ful and waste from ,

comment was published in Februar Mountain win constitute an entirely '

q 1999 and the final mport is expecto t latory action from this final Category 2 to Category 1. In order to

.be published in August 1999 r[e. Any%C decision on a repository reach this Category 2 conclusicia on an se arate The public comment period closed on license will be accompanioil analysis by seperste issue and thus not req of the issue pursuant to April 27,1999. Extensive public safety and environmental analyses that comments were received, including will include a thorough examination of 6 51.53(c)(s)(i), the Commission has made the following Andings in concerns by some commentors about the the environmentalimpacts stemming lensth of the comment period. Although from the construction and operation of accordance with the definitions set out 4

the mpository. If the analyses prepamd in 10 CFR Part St.Subpart A Appendix the NRC did not extend the public comment period,the NRC staff did for the mpository licensing decision 3: -

consider comments dated as late as June yield results that are inconsistent with D)The enWonmentalisnpacu 25,1999, and received as late as early those reached in the present notice,it is assocismd with the issue have been ,

July 1999 The NRC staffs responses to likely that the NRC will have to amend determined to apply either to all plants the comments are provided below. As the conclusions in Table B-1 of Part 51 or,im some issus,to plants having a to conform with ee new findings.

i explained in more detail below, the comments have led to both the use of Amendments to the Rule 8Pecific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristic; more conservative assumptions in & (2) A single significance level,in this The current regulations require each analysis reponed in Addendum 1 and a applicant for license renewalcase fuller explanation of the analysis. The to "small"has review been assigned to the b environmental effects of impacts (except for coUective off site T regulatory text has been edited for transportation of fuel and waste in radiological impacts from the fuel cycle I clarification but there is no matwial accordance with 10 CFR 51.52, and to j change from the proposed rule.

a 0 e

- _ _ _ e'

48498 Federal Register /V:1. 64, N2.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/ Rules and Regulat!:ns and from high level waste and spent natural resource un and efDuents to the submitted extensive comments th environment for the uranium fuel cycle, focund on concerns with the scope and fuel disposal 2); and thoroughness of the supporting analysis (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts from mining to ultimate disposal of in Addendum 1, including the lack of spent fuelThe discussion of the consideration of the proposed Private associated with the issue has been implications for the environmental considend in the analysis, and it has Fuel Storage Facility at Skull Valley, been determined that additional plant- impact data reported in Table S-4 was not repeated or referenced in Section Utah. Industry comments focused on spec!Sc mitigation measures an likely 6.3, which addresses the incremental clarifications in the rule language.

not to be suffeiently beneficialto  !

lementation. impacts oflicense renewal on the e wrinen comments have h ,

summarind and gm P L" l

warrant As a resu im$1 of thn Categoryfrom 1 finding,ll nuclear power transponation planta. Addendum of fuel and waste to and neither applicants nor the NRC staff wi need to prepare a separate analysis of 1 and this finalrule clarify the NRC ,'f ]ulto n co ents som the issue for individual license renewal Sadings on the sensitivi of er values in modifications and clarifications have Table S-4 to the use of been incorporated into Addendum 3-a plications as long as no new and

' sfgnificant information exists. The enrichment fueland hi r burnup fuel a tably,6e un of mon conurvauve analysis in NUREG-1437, Vol.1, presently in use. The analysis concludes assumptions in the analyses and a fuller l

' Addendum 1 which forms the technical that shipment of higher enriched or exPl anation of those analyses. In l basis for the rulemaking, relies on a higher burnup fuel results in impacts addition,the rulelanguage has been consistent with the impacts in Table S- edited for clarification. The NRC staff series of conservative assumptions. As such.the results of the analysis 4,10 CFR 51.52. It should be noted that has also prepared responses, given cask designs used to transport or store below,to the issues raised by the overestimate the environmental impacts higher enriched fuel and higher burnup commentors.

ci spent fuel shipments converging on fuel require specific NRC review and one location, such as Yucca Mountain. Issue 1-Public Notice approval.

Although the NRC staff has anused In the course of preparing the final these impacts as if Yucca Mountain rule, several non substantive changes to Comment:The titles of the notices w:uld be the only HLW repository, the the wording and organization of the published in the Federal Register were NRC staff believes that the impacts regulatory text were made in order to . Inaccurate and misleading because they calculated for Yucca Mountain bound maintain the rule's internal consistency, do not clearly indicate the subject the impacts that would be experienced First, the content of the propond matter of the proposed rule and for a site other than Yucca Mountain. It language in 5 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) re arding Addendum 1 that addresses is unlikely that any other repository site localtransp nationimpactsin e transportation of spent nuclear fuel.

w;uldhave an exposed po ulation

" b Re8Ponse:The NRC believes that the lac into Table 1 u der d i is u iely$at at fu 1 n n s dy C oc c n mi e ni e a le. ations a oti e of e o ed e av rge on and porte ough Similarly, the reposed language in ty cne metropolitan area. If an alternative Addendum 1 were published in the

$ $1.53(c)(3)(il (M) hu not been to a high level waste refository at Yucca included in the final rule because the Register (64 FR 9884 and 64 FR Federal Mountain is considere in the future

• matters covered by $ $1.53(c)(3)(ii) only 9889, February 26,1999). While the the NRC may need to determine apply to Category 2 issues and, as such, notice a title did not include the specific whether such an alternative includes the inclusion cf matters related to a term transportation, the titles define new and significant information that Category t issue in that section would the sub ect matter of the regulation to be ma change the regulato outcome' not have been appropriate. Instead, the affecte ; the title of the pro osed rule is in addition to consider ng the content of the language that had been Chan;,es to Requirements or cumulative impacts of transportation in Proposed for 5 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M)is the vicinit of a repository, the NRC also adequately cove ed by the amended Environmental Review for Renewal of considere whether use of higher Nut. lear Power Plant Operating entry in Table B-1 itself under the issue Licenses."The title of the Notice of ,

burnup or higher enriched fuel that is f "Trar.sportation"in the Uranium shipped to a repository results in Availability is " Changes to Tuel Cycle and Waste Management impacts consistent with the NRC Requirements for Environmental Review section.

regulations (6 51.52,' Table S f r Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Environmental Impact of Transportation Response to Comments Operating Licenes, Availability of cf Fuel and Waste To and From One Thiny-one commentlenen wm Supplemental Environmental!mpact the proposed rule from Statement." Addendum 1 supplements Light Water-Cooled Nuclear Power received Reactor'). The environmental power reactorlicensees State andlocal specific sections of NUREG-1437 ea po7e$us its eg ations. e en fofL$i Re e of Po Nuclear Plants (May 1996). This limited a publicintest gmup, and an individual. Most of the comments were function is indicated by the title of discussed in Section 6.2 3 of NUREG- Addendum 1, Generic Environmental l

h sensiti t of e da a p ente in *s, 'e$ada i ccal o ent "'

f n Tiryh'"d eM Pe d r M e?' g = ? ," g C T l g g i,a" i and s ng the b$'A*2(4"T@n

b 'o,o{a P 91 a*A

fuelburnup. Table S-3 summarizes Vad 87tus 9xcephon on)3 epphes to the two entries deficiencies in the scope and s to cm s. soc. wouco of propo.ed ruiem ung" in Table B-1 labeled "Offsne rndaologicalimp cu and to Cn st.117.*Dreh annronmental unpact thoroughness of the analysis in the (collocuve effects)" and "Offsite radiolosul statemenroouco orevaaeben.-

impacts (spent fuel and high level waste disposan Addendum.The State of Utah also i

1

. s. 48499 Fed:ral * -jm/Vcl. 64, No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/ Rules and Regulatirns I

,j

)

for beense nnewal of nuclear power incorporate in a license renewal review YuccaM:untain site so th can of plants that may use fuel enriched up appropriately consider b7aformation

> . plants,' Draft Report in any futun pali activitin le chan e an for the Comment.

su to 5 percent and potentially ship spent . Specisc to um et yb t- fuel with a burnup of up to 62,000 involvingYucca Moun I the current rule,the dem specificenvironmentalanal is mwd /MTUT med =inpuu a b dphic data r

required to be submitted in e b . s- t has no direct Environmenta! Report of an applicant regulatory impact on any entity within computer code,which was used to i for the renewal of a nuclear power plant Nevada.N selection of Yucon generate bimpact analydsin ]

s operating license and b plant speciSc Mountain for the generic evaluation of Addendum 1 were moes current than data used in many of the studies cited i supplemental environmentalimpact transportationimpacu was made statement prepared by the NRC.Even because that alte is currently the only by the commentors.

, one under consideration for a high- Casunent:NRC failed to consult the

though the analysisin Addendum 1 full spectrum of transportation mode focuses on spent fuel shipments level-*aste (Hl.W) wposi . Before

,; Hl.W is actually to Yucca and route scenarios.

y converging on the proposed npository State, local Aespons:h purpose of 2 rule at Yucca Mountain, Nevada,that Mountain, Nevada, Governments, Indian Tribes, and the and associated analysisis to reach anelysis and the resulting rule affect conclusions regarding blikely only the review requirements for public have the opportunity.to provide environmentalimpact of heense

- renewal of an individual nuclear power input on site speciRe transportation renewal. As noted above,this impacts by commenting on DOE's draft amendmentis an addition to generic y- plant operating license. it is not repository at the EIS forthe pro

intended that Addendum 1 or the site,which was smede assessments oflicense renewal revised rule support any other Yucca Mo

! available for a 180aisy comment period environmental imp' acts aheady codine regulatory decision by the NRC. in the Commission s regulations at10 beginning on August 13,1999 [http://

www.ynp. gov). CFR part 51, subpart A, appendix B. k issue 2-Communications is not an environmentalimpact

$. Also, the need for and scope of the

,: Comment:NRC failed to consult with current rule amendment were identined statement for a repository at Yucca Nevada State agencies Nevadalocaf Mountain for which Dotis nsponsible f within the context of a proceding governments and with NevadaIndian and, as such, does not delve into the rulemaking that specined the plant-Tr b s- expansive range of di5erent

- Response: As discussed above, a speci8e content of the environmental vanety of organizations and government review of appucations for b renewal of transportation modes and ro scenarios that would be considered in agencies submitted substantive individualnuclear newer plant operating heenses.the pwvious Anal the context of a decision on Yucca comments in response to the proposed Mountain as the possible site for the rule.The NRC has considmd these rule was pubhshed in the Federal Regiseer Srst on June 5,1996 (61 FR incility itself. Instead, the NRC has comments and,in many cases, altered sought to determine a conservative its analysis as a result of this input. 2s467), and again with minor estimate of blikelyimpacts from Prior to issuance of the proposed rule modifications on December 18,1996 (61 transporting fuel and waste gen '

for comment, however, the NRC did not FR 66537).b Commission stated in during the license renewal term,in the seek any pre publicationinput from & December Federal Register notice,

'; as part ofits efforts to develop . vicinity of apotentialrepository.In

. Nevada state agencies, Nevada local doing so, the NRC considwed only those p Governments, and Nevada Indian Tribes ngulatory guidance for this rule, the transportation moda and route for the following reasons. First, the rule Commission willconsider whether involves a narrow aspect of the furbr changes to the rule are dwirable scenarios that would hkely nsult in th tut impacts.For the proposed rule, environmental review ofindividual to generically address:(1)hinue of

! nuclear power plant license renewal cumulative transportation impacts and NRC staff-in consuhation with the y (2)the implications that the use of DOE staff-determined that truck decisions, which is a ngulatory shipments through densely populated

• decision completely separate from the highn burn up fuel have for the areas of Clark County, Nevada,would regulatory requirements that will guide conclusions in Table S4 After have b highest potentialimpacts the NRClicensingreview of a HLW consideration of thee issues, the I" Commission will determine whethw the among the alternative transportation J , npository and from the decinon scenarios and modes that would roosive issue of transportation ingacts should serious consideration in decisions

> process leading to a DOE site recommendation on Yucca Mountain, be changed to Category 1. relating to the suitability of the site I

2 Nevada.the site DOE currently has issue 3-Transportation Analysis undergoing study for a repository at under study.This rule amends the Yucca Mountain.The NRC continun to December 18.1996, rule with respect to Comment:NRC failed to consult i

two questions not adequately answered: relevant YuccaandMountain risk and impact studies.

transportation modes to generate conservative be

• 1. Are the current environinental Response:The publications cited by estimates is reasonable for the purpose I impact values in Table S-4, based on of this rulemaking.

several destinations, still reasonable to commentors have bwn reviewed for information that may be of direct use Comment:There was insufficient incorporate in a license renewal review within the limited focus and purpose of considwation of routine transportadon that assumes a single destination for the current rule. Most of the information radiologicalrisks due to use of an spent fuel at Yucca Mountain. Nevada? everage dose rate lower than the in these documents was found to be regulatorylimit.

2. Are the current environmental potentially more relevant to a detailed impact values in Table S-4 (which are Response:The RADTRAN analysis

! based on fuel enriched to no gnater site-specific review of Yucca Mountain 8 than to the generic analysis for this rule. reportedin the final Addendum 1 than 4 percent, the average level of That information has been brought to been modified to use the most

'4 irradiation of spent fuel not exceeding conservative assumption that the the attention of those organisational 33.000 mwd /MTU, and shipment no radiation levels for all shipments an at units within the NRC nsponsible for less thr.n 90 days after discharge from activities relating to DOE's study on the the regulatory limit of 0.1 mSv/

the reactor) still reasonable to T

i l

4 l

- - - - ^

m ,

Federal Registr/Vcl. 64. NA 172 / Friday. September 3.1999/ Rules the and 48500 more conservativo assumpti:ns, the ns f

- le

= thelicense renewalterm,thelarge

• estimated does and risk to b crew are story limits.

asem/hourl at 2 m (6.6 Al from the analyticaleBortrequired forthe c population smalland below ors would to shipment vehicle surface. As noted in identiacation of & risktovehi e, Section4aa 2.2.3 of Addendum 1. this locatiens and c circumstancesis be encompassed by the dition of tk-is sufBdently conservatin stationary time for the transport truck in

-=p*d the analysis of routine not warranted within the context of the naponse to comment en toboun currentrule, Although the comments ( m transportation radiological risk and raise validissues,those concerns should Clark County seeabout trafBc gridlock, p a estimated does and risk are increased by a allow areasonable assessment studying, and of thatrisk.

making decisions Actual average the use of radiation more levels and be mool conservatiw u associated doses would be muchlower a Ha= the suitability of the assumptions;but they remain small and b because shipments must be designed so candidate repost site atYucca below regulatorylindts. e that the regulatory limits are not - blountaja and tory. krts Comment:There waslasufBdent ,

use of the regulatory t fuel.

exceeded. . governing transponation o7 cient consideration of severe transportation ]

limits in the revised analysis results in Comment:There was accident risks.

. higher dose estimates for incident-free consideration of radiological risks Response:b Commission has ,

d transportation. Howeva, these revisedestimates are still small u deaned in to resu Response:TrafBc gridlock incidents hasards of severe L- ptation truck and rail spent CFR Part 51, Subpart A Appendix B. are not spectScally analysedin accidentsinv uently,the conclusion regarding NUREG-1437 because of the limited monts(NUIGGI nuclear fuel (SNF) the ologicalrids of routine scope and generic natum of the analysis CR-4829."Shipp tainer way and transportation matins valid. (see response to ea==aat on Response to Severe tions" February Comunent:hre was insufBcient - consideration of risks to members of the Railway Acddent consideration of routine transportation public, above). However, the revised 1947, commonly referred to as the radiologicalrisks to membus of the RADTRAN analysis conservatively modal study).b modal study public residing, working, or includa approximately two hours of evaluated SNF shipping casks certified lastitutionally confined at locations stationary time in Clark County (during toNRC standards against thennaland near shippins routes, a too to 140 mile trip depending upon mechanical forces generated in actual Response:N analysis encompasses the route) for each truck shipment; and truck and rail accidents. This evaluation members of the public residing, trafBc gridlock could be one of the included an assessment of cask working, or institutionally confined at reasons for the truck being stationary, locations near shipping routa by To a limited extent, the incorporation performance for a number of sevej assuming that the raident population of more conservative assumptions of CaldecottTunnel Are.N modal study along the transportation routes is truck speedintothe revised RADTRAN concluded thatthee would be no

=g M to evwy shipment.The text of l id t analysis compensates for an analysis oftrafBc gridlock i

Sect. 2.3 of Addendum 1,has been revised to state this assumption and its exposure time at any given point during accidents could swult in any signincant e5ects on the revised analysis more transport. As noted earlier,these revised solesse. These results when combined clearly. In addition, more consevatiye assumptionslead to higherbut still with the probability of a severs accident assumptions of truck s d have been small dose estimates. In addition,the involving a shipment of SNF.

TRAN analysis routes usedin the analysisin

- used in the revised demonstrate that the overallrisk thus extending the exposure time to Addendum 1 wwe deliberately chosen associated with severe accidents of SNF Individuals along the transportation to ==vimise estimated dose. Actualshipping casks is very low The results route.Thwe assumptions further ensure routes would belesslikelyto have of the modal study were factoredinto '

that members of the public cited by the signiacant areas where trafBc gridlock the analysis for this rulemaking, as an commentors would be encompassed by occurs.b selection of the actual input to the RADTRAN computer code, the dose and risk assessments. As routw, for example,would comply with Additional analyses were performed to expected,the use of bee more the U.S. Department of Transportation's addrew the possibleimpacts of conservative assumptions leads to FederalHighway Administration accidents involving higher burnup fuel.

higher estimates of radiation dose to the regulations (49 CFR Fort 397. Subpart h consequence D) associated with an public.However, then revised dose that require =inimi ing the tism in individual SNF shipment have an upper estimata remain well below regulatory transit (i.e., avoiding periods of great bound, based on the amount of material lindts for members of b public and trafBc congestion)for routing in the package,the availability of small compared to natural background radioactive shipments. mechanisms to disperse the radioactive and other sources of radiation exposure. Comment:There was insuf5cient contents, the locations and number of Sevwal commentors indicated that consideration of routine transportation receptors, and post event intervention Addendum 1 should focus on unique radiological risks to vehicle inspectors than would occur.Further,this u per and location specine circumstances of and escorts, bound in transit might rouonabl be e

the transportation routes and population Response:b RADTRAN analysisin expected to be las than that at centers.However, the analysis in the revised Addendum 1 uses the origin or destination points (where more Addendum 1is generic anilwm regulatory dose retelimit of 02 mSv/ SNF would be stored), and some events designed to support only the limited hour (2 mrom/ hour)for the vehicle themselves mightbe expected to have scope of the decision regarding this rule crew,in addition, a discussion of gruter consequenew than the damage change.The NRC believes that the potential doen to escorts has been they cause to the SNF cask.The NRC routes chosen represent a conservative included in Addendum 1 Section 2.2.3. rwcognizes that there are some t analysis due to the higher number of In the analysis, both the escorts and conceivable events (not necessarily ').

ple who live along these routes. drivers are assumed to be exposed to b traditional ' transportation accidents use the purpose of this ruleis to that mightbe hypobsized to occur to j;

regulatory limit, although the dose to provide a generic analysis for the b escorts would realistically be less a SNF cask while in transport. Even limited purpose of determining the than that to the drivers. Even with thee likely impact of transportation during M ,,

r l . s. 1

), Federal Register /Vol. 64, No.171/ Friday. SeptImber 3,1999/ Rules and Regulatiens 48501 l

, [ th: ugh th:se cvents have an extremely converging on e ne destination, Yucca unique local conditions, unforeseen

,  ; ., low probability of occumng, they might Mountain-the candidate site under events, sabotage, and human error in i

result in high consequences if they were study by DOE for a repository, rather cask design. The NRC should adopt the  !

to occur. The NRC considers these than several destinations. Table S-4 comprehensive risk assessment I g events to be remote and speculative and does not consider non-commercial approach for SNF and HLW -

thus, does not call for detailed power reactor shipments of fuel and traneportation decribed in Golding and

,. l

- considerstjen. Because the NRC waste. Nevertheless, a discussion of the White, Guidelines on the Scope, y traditionally considers risk to be the cumulative impacts of transporting Content and Use of Comprehensive

j product of the probability of an event spent fuel, HLW, and low. level waste Risk Assessment in the Management of i ,d and its resuhant consequences, events through southern Nevada has been High-level Nuclear Waste l .' with such low probability of occurring added to Addendum 1 (Section 2.4).To Transportation (1990). l i have a negligible contribution to the wtimate the potential cumulative effects Res onse

See the response above l overall risk. In addition, as the of DOE shipments of LLW to the Nevada regar[ng considerCion of severe '

l h

g probabilities of the events become very Test Site as well as shipments of HLW accident risk (low probability, high low, the value ofinsights to be gained, to a possible repository, the NRC staff consequence accidents) during I

!j for use in regulatory decisions,1s not used information published in DOE's transportation.

apparent. Waste Management Programmatic EIS The NRC's regulatory program will Comment:The study underestimates (DOE /EIS-0200-F) May 1997.To continue to ensure that the risk of severe Clark County's residential population ensure that cumulative Impacts are not transportation accidents are =W=Md.

, and growth rate, in addition, the study underestimated, the NRC staff selected Physical security for spent fuel l .i does not account for the larye alternatives in the EIS that led to the transportation is regulated under to l 'q. nonresident population.rr Nng in highest numbers of shipments to the CFR 73.37, The regu! story philosophy is underestimates of risk and uopacts. Nevada Test Site and Yucca Mountain. designed to reduce the threat potential Responsa:In keeping with the generic The results of the analysis indicate that to shipments and to facilitate response nature and limited intent of the the cumulative doses and expected . to incidents and recovery of packages e analysis, the original analysis used best cancer fatalittes resulting from the that might be diverted in transit.

g available data and best estimates of civilian SNF and the DOE shipments are Although the analysis supporting the

. existing population and population small compared to the risk of cancer current rule does not account for the p growth rates. In response to ,

from other causes. Potential for human error, activities i

commentors' concerns and to reflect the Comment:Commentors stated that related to the design, fabrication, I potentially large population growth r'ste cumulative impacts along the Wasatch maintenance, and use of transportation of Clark County, the NRC staff has Front must be considered. packages are conducted under an NRC-incorporated higher population Response:The State of Utah approved Quality Assurance Program.

estimates into the analysis to provide maintains that a study similar to the one, This helps to provide consistency in conservative (higher than best estimate) conducted for las Vegas and Clark performance and helps reduce the assessments of potentialimpacts. County must be conducted for the Incidence of human error.While a l

However, as indicated by the comment, cumulative impacts along the Waastch location: specific transportation risk the task of estimating the impacts on the Front that would origir ate from the assessment is included in the DOE EIS '

j n

area population is more complex than proposed Private Fuel Storage Facility for the decisions relating to a possible

, assuming a population growth rate. Both to be located at Skull Valley, Utah. Such Yucca Mountain repository,the NRC

- the rate of growth of the population and an analysis is beyond the scope of this staff believes that the analysis changes in location of the population generic rulemaking because the conducted for this rulemaking provides

'! within the county are important. As Commission directed that cumulative an adequate consideration of the stated in Addendum 1, populations impacts attributed to transportation be impacts from license renewal. Further,

' within a half mile of the transportation analyzed only in the vicinity of Yucca through its regulatory, licensing, and d route are the most affected by the Mountain. However, the NRC is certification functions, the NRC has transportation activities. Therefore, in currently reviewing a site-specific tried to ensure that transportation of I  :

order to ensure that the size of the affected population is conservative, the application for construction and operation of the proposed Private Fuel SNF is performed safely with minimum risk to the public, and that vehicle 3 NRC staffs analysis not only increases Storage Facility at Skull Valley in a crashes while transporting SNF do not over time the existing population separate regulatory action. A site- result in severe accidents. Similarly, 1

densities along the assumed specific' study of the cumulative impacts DOE is expected to ensure that the

.' transportation routes, but also forecasts of transportation is part of that review. routes and procedures chosen for SNF increased residential, business, and The study will be reported in a draft transport to the repository provide i transient / tourist populations in the Environmental Impact Statement to be ample protection of the public health areas oflikely development, published for public comment. Its and safety and the NRC reviews and availability will be noticed in the approves the selected routes.

Issue 4-Cumulative impacts Federal Register. The analysis in Addendum 1 shows t

Comment: NRC failed to consider that even with conservative

' Issue 5-1,egal Requirements assumptions, the cumulative cumulative impacts of all spent fuel, H1,W, and low level waste shipments. Comment NRC failed to conduct a radiological and non radiological

! Response: Table S-4 shows the legally sufficient risk assessment. Use of accident risks of SNF transport in Clark 4 emironmentalimpacts of transportation a model such as RADTRAN is not in County are small. However, there are a j of fuel and waste directly attributable to and of itself sufficient to meet the number of opportunities to further

? one nuclear power plant. The current requirements of the National reduce human health impsets. These i rulemaking was narrowly focused on Environmental Policy Act. The NRC include transporting SNF by rail rather 1 the question of whether the impact must consider consequences oflow- than by truck. This would reduce I values given in Table S-4 would be probability, high-consequence accidents human health effects by reducing th.

different with spent fuel shipmests not included in RADTRAN, including number of shipments and the likelihuva

~

l

U .

48502 FedItal Regist:r/Vol. 64. No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/Rul:s and Regulations of accidents. In additio'n, shipping SNF Issue 7--Higher Burnup Fuel under consideration as a HLW via the proposed beltway would reduce F'pository. If, in the future, Yucca I Comment:There was insufficient M untain is amoved from health impacts compared to shipping considadon of extended fuel burnup the via the current intustate highway heu consideration as a HLW repository,de g, ionse: Section 3 of Addendum 1 Commluion wiu evaluate wheen system. The implementation of such Benwie analysis performed for de mitigative measures must await future addneses the issues associated with current rule is a plicable to other sites decisions that fall well outside of the extended fuel burnup in detail.The that are conside d. If fuel enrichment scope of this rulemaking. In additiona NRC staff's anal sis of higher burnup reent ranium 235 an fuel examined the issun of radiation Qter than 5 for the purposes of individual license renewal rule decisions, no plant specific doses due to higher dose rates during gw Cmdubn,b bved

[p"$

mitigation measures were found shipment, higher radiation doses in the d ybnthewin appropriate for addressing the impacts event of transportation accidents, and consider a rulemaking to assess the identified in the Addendum. The NRC th otential for a criticality in the very continuing generic applicability of j staff notes that DOE addresses ely event that high burnup fuel Table S-4 to environmental myiews for i transportation impacts, mitfgetion geometry is altered during a heense renewal.

measures, and alternative transportation transportation accident. Comment:The addition to the rule of modes in its EIS for the propowd The analysis done by the NRC staff local transportation impacts associated wpository at Yucca Mountain. concluded that higher burnup fuel with continued operation of a plant would likely cause higher dose ret" during the license renewal period neds issue 6-Socioeconomics during transportation and that dose funher clarification in the rule language rates following transportation accidents and in the Supplementary Information.

Comment:NRC failed to consider with radiological nleases would also Response:The rule was revised to socioeconomic impacts. .

increase, all other things being equal. clarify that the issue of"Public service, Response: Several commentors raised However, despite the increased dose Transportadon"in Table B-1 of an issue of public perception of risk of rates the potentialimpacts on the Ap ndix B to subpart A of to CFR Part waste shipments and its effect on transport crews and the affected si volyw b contribution of highway tourism and property values. Under the members of the public would still be traffic dimetly attributable to Nat2enalEnvironmentalPolicy Act acceptably small. The analysis of the refurbishment and continued operation (NEPA), the NRC is obligated to potential for criticality following a of a plant during the license renewal consider the effects on the physical change in fuel geometry as the msult of period to changes in the service levels environment that could result from the a transportation accident determined of highways ir. the vicinity of the plant.

proposed action. Effects that are not that such an event was not a concern. The majority of traf5c directly directly related to the physical attributable to a plant is commuting environment must have a reasonably lasue 8-Environmental Justice plant workers. I close causal relationship to a change in Comment:NRC failed to consider Comment: Paragraph (M)of toCFR l

the physical environment. The Supreme Environmental Justice. 51.53(c)(3)(ii) should be deleted.

Response:The analysis sugguts that Response:The rule language has been l Court ruling in Mermpolitan Edison Co.

v. People Against Nuclear Energy,460 the routes through downtown 1.as amended and Paragraph (M) has been U.S. 766 (1983) has narrowly Vegas, Nevada may run through amas deleted. This change from the proposed containing a higher proportion of low- rule was necessary in order to provide j circumscribed,if not entirely '

eliminated, an agency's NEPA income and minority groups than the consistency with 51.53(c)(3)(li), as this beltway routes. However, as discussed section only deals with Category 2 obligation to consider impacts arising issues. Since the cumulative impacts of solely from the public's perception that in Sections 2.3 and 2.4 Addendum, the radiological and nonradiological transportation of SNF in the vicinity of an agency's action has created risks of Yucca Mountain is no longer a Category accidents. Accordingly,it is not impacts of transportation of SNF are small. In addition, thne small impacts 2 issue, inclusion in 51.53(c)(3)(ii) is no necessary to consider the impacts on are dispersed throughout the entire longer necessary.

tourism and property values from the routes and do not appear to fall u public's perception of risk. disproportionatal in any one ama.

The socioeconomic impacts of plant Bued on the an sis performed the This section addresses the comments refurbishment and continued operation NRC staff conclu s the overallimpacts that are not encompassed by the issue during the renewal period are discussed of transportation of SNF will not likely summaries and responses given above.

in the plant-specific supplement to the be disproportionately high or adverse in addition some comments were GEIS for each individuallicense for any minority or low. income aceived after the close of the comment renewal applicant. The NRC recognizes population. period. These comments were reviewed.

that there willlikely be increued costs and most were found to be similar to Issue 9-Regulatory Text comments already addressed by the in the unlikely event of an accident.

However. for the majority of Comment: Several suggestions for issue summaries and responses.

transportation accidents that may occur, clarifying the regulatory text were However, the comments that raised new the associated costs are small. For the offered. ideas relevant to Addendam 1 are also most severe accidents analyzed by the Response:The rule has been avised presented in this section. For these late to make it *. lear that the environmental comments, revisions to Addendum 1 RADTRAN computer code, the costs impact v6as in Table S-4 (to CFR were necessarily minimal.

could be substantial. Given the low Comment: Addendum 1 assumes that probability of such accidents, the 51.52) may be used to account for the socioeconomicimpacts of transportation environmental effects of transportation truck transport would have the highest l of fuel and waste to and from a nuclear doses. This assumption is not

, of SNF do not alter the Commission's necessarily valid. Also, a different route conclusions regarding the impacts of power plant at a repository such as Yucca Mountain, Nevada, which is that avoids 1.as Vegas should be i this issue.

e a

?

48503 Federd Regist:r/Vcl. 64. No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/ Rules and Regulations

, P suitability of Yucca Mountain or any addrused. (A route through Nellis Air Response: As a general matter, the consideration that DOE may give to j Force Base and down US-95 is being National Environmental Policy Act transnostation impacts in making that y considered by DOE andit has been (NEPA) requires all Federal agencies to 4 shown to have higher risks of accident perform an environmentalmview for decision.

1 Comment: Addendum t is not

' intalities and to incmase b radiological certain actions they propose to conduct. manningful to the public. For exam f risk.) Routes chomn in Addendum 1 do in several management, the context agenciesof nuclearitblisotope have is impossible to determine if b spent waste inventory shown in the y not bound the analysis properly.

reguletary and operational a

Response:The transportation and moponsibilities which mayinvolve sample p&ges of the RADTRAN pri toute scenarios and their underlying matches bl considered in the

. various proposed actions that,in turn, assumptions were designed to reflect Addendum.

situations that most likely would result require the preparation of Responee:In preparing Addendum 1.

environmental impact ststements (E!Ss). the NRC staff has attempted to write to in highest doses in order to bound & there may be a degree of analysis properly as the routes chosen inevitably,b types ofimpacts a broad and diverse audience as much b; overlapin as possible.The NRC staff acknowledges for this analysis were the most discussed in thm various EISs. involves 4

populated routes in the State of Nevada. However, the analysis developed by the that this rulem calissues. However, f

! Also, as noted in an earlier response, b NRC for the purposes oflicense renewal complicated, t the NRC staff has attempted to present NRC staff consulted DOE in determining is not binding on future actions and that truck shipments through densely these matters in the most clear manner associated environmentalimpact possible. Addendum 1 has been avised populated areas of Clark County, analyses. and Table 2 provides the fuelisotope Nevada, would have b highest The NRC proposed action that has to the inventory that can be com s potentialimpacts among the alternativ, trigged the preparation of this sample pages of the

.. transportation scenarios that would be rulemaking and b associated analysis giveo <erious consideration in decisions of evironmental impact is the agency's computer code Comment:%e studyprintout.

ares is n relating to the suitability of the site responsibility to review applications for inaccurately defined and the location of undergoing study for a repository at the renewal of nuclear power plant some cities is incorrectly stated.

Yucca Mountain. licenses. In 11 t of the discrete purpose Response:Dunng the preparation of The comment that a route from Nellis of this rule , the NRC has sought Addedum 1,ee inidal study ame I Air Force Base down US-95 is higher to gauge eeimpacts oflicense mowal selected for analysis em hasized the risk than those selected by the NRC staff i Vegas.

rovided no specific details conosening 5 ven binformation currentiavailable on those Route selections impacts were based in partincfudi on nsportation of spent fuel. Even that any route assertion.

that b assesla the majorNRC centers staffs view'ofem impacts do not occur at e, esir prWmity to em ar

's'*ough utstion willksve significant! lower lant site during license renewal, the po[io3ogic,j re impacts. g.ith regar['t fiRC has considered them here pursuant Public comments,the stud expanded to include the entire county.

traffic accident rates, while it may be- to its NEPA responsibilities. Consequently, the " entry" point for SNF true that certain routes will have Future EISs propand by other abipments shifted to cities such as t are g agencies on proposed actions in the Mesquite.

a r8, , waste management arena (e.g., any Comment: Addendum t should avera8 enough that modest increases from the recommendation by DOE on approvalof discuss potential mitigation measuns, everage will not significantly change the the Yucca Mountain site for will not rely on the DOE Yucca Mountain staff s conclusions. development of a wpository)f the same EIS for that discussion.

Comment: SNF from California would undoubtedly address some o Response:The analysis in Addendum go through Las Vegas twice (in route to impacts covend by the analysis 2 shows that,even with conservative Skull Valley and subsequently to Yucca described in this notice. Some of thm assumptions, b cumulative Mountain), resulting in increased risk. other impact statements are anticipated radiological and non radiological Response:lf the proposed SNT storage to be mon detailed gfven bir purpose accident risks of SNF transport in Clark facility is licensed and built, some ShT and the availability of additional County are small. However,there are a information in the future. This, number of opportunities to further j may go through Clark County on the however, does not diminish the Utah. The NRC reduce human health impacts. Thwe i way to Skull staff has Valley,d this possible not analyze adequacy of the NRC's action.This include transporting SNF by rail rather analysis is sufficient for b purpose it than by truck.This would reduce impact because it is not clear at this serves and it provides the Commission time that the proposed Skull Valley human boahh effects by nducing the d

facility will be licensed or that the SNT would go through Las Vegas if the with the information needed to weighthe likely enviro transportation for individual license via the proposed beltway would reduce facility were built. In addition SNT renewals applications and reach from California makes up only a small health impacts compared to shipping informed decisions regarding the via the cunent interstate highway l fraction of the SAT that would be acceptability of bse applications.The shipped The NRC staff concludes that system.The implementation of such rule does not,however, dictate any mitigative measures must await future the conservative assumptions used in the analvsis more than compensate for particular msult for future actions taken decisions that fall well outside of the with regard to a waste apository or scope of this rulemaking. in addite n.

minor efianges in transportation plans other waste management matters.

that may develop for that fraction of the for the purposes ofindividuallicen e j total SNF, Speci$cally, any generic conclusions by renewal rule decisions, no plant sp the Commission concerning the mitigation measures were found

- Comment:The NRC should provide cumulative environmentalimpacts of affected parties with some statement of appropriate for addressing the impacts transportation associated with nuclear i

the regulatory effect of the identiSed in b Addendum.The NTsC power plants would in no way affect notes that DOE addnsses transponation l

interrelationships between the any DOE decision concerning the numerous other similar analyses.

l

.i

48504 FaibialTegister7vorce,%_ I t rtunity for public comment as part impacts assumes b use ofI al-wei e NRC's rul: making process. As Impacts, mitigation measura, and trucks for shipment of the SN whi such, tb3 NRC has f:ll:wed all alternative transportation modes in its rwults in more and smaller shipm:nts.

EIS for the proposed action to devel p applicablilegalrequirements and For the accident analysis,the use cf the appropriately carried outits

• a apository atYucca Mountain. est capacity casks was assumed in msponsibility to consider the Comment: Addendum 1 does not er to W* the amount of SNF environmental impacts of its license mention that the proposed repository that would be involved in the accident. renewal decision.

which is the datination for shi monts. These parameters were intended to Comment;b NRC staff uses of spent nuclear fuelis in Nye e bound the parts of the analysis, not to "Aswed" science as evidenced by Response: A statement noting that describe parts of the actualSNF factorsincluding a questionable proposed Yucca Mountain repository isablpment protocol such as the speci$c deSnition of risk which falls to account in Nye County has been added to casks that will be used. for severe accidents.use of misleading Addendum 1. Comment:The analysis appean to if not falso average radiation dose rates, Comment:No statements of basehn* anume that oldat spentnuclear fuel manipulation of dose rate data to obtain conditions are givenin Addendum 1. would be shipped arst to the repository. acceptable results and lack of empirical Response: Addendum 1 uses If so, how will institutional measums data especially that applicable to background and natural radiation levels as the baseline conditions against which achieve this sequencingt transportation if theyofdo SNF.

not, Response:The decisionbefore the dose estimates can be cornpared. Both how willthe maximum notential radioactive risk in shipdent and storage Commissionis whether theimpacts of are presented in Addendum 1 and are or disposalbe addrused? license renewal are so severe that they basedinlarge part oninformation Response:The spent fuelwillbe should preclude the option oflicense published by the NationalCouncil on shipped in casks certiBed by the NRC. renewal. As such,the Commission has Radiation Protection and Measurements. In fact,the current practice of NRCconsidered a reasonable wtimate of Comment:The analysis in Addendum issuing certificata of compliance impactsfor and notincluded nmote and 1 is limited to human health effects. casks used for shipment of power speculative scenarios that do not add to Other potentialimpacts should be reactor fuel is to specify 5 yean as the our regulatory decision (we also considered. minimum cooling period in a certiacate. response to comment on severe Response: Addendum I was prepared to provide information regarding a Comment: Addendum 1 uses national accidents, above)' described in proposed rule to determine whether local accident the rates rate statistica. State and/or In the analyses would be mon appropriate. Addendum 1 the NRC staff usa dose transportation of higher enriched, Response:For the analysis of rates that reflect the applicable higher burnup fuel to_ a single radiological accidents, data speciac to' regulatory limit rather than average dow destination is consistent with the values Nevada won usedin the RADTRANrates. Even with these very conservative of Table S-4. Because the pertinent computer codiruns. However, for the assumptions for dose retw, section of Table S-4 concerns impact analysis of non-radiological accidents, transportationmodw transportation values for human health effects, the NRC staff required data regarding routes, and a number of other factors, Addendum 1 concentrates on potential not only accident rata but also injury radiation impacts on the transport crews cumulative impacts to human health, and fatality statistics. Those data were and the generalpublic were not only However, Section 2.3 of Addendum 1 not available except from the U.S. found to be within all agulatory limits has been revised tolook at the Department of Transportation. but smallas welland there was no nee potentially most significant non-human Comment:Watu resource supplin to adjust the assumptions.

health effect which is the potential Throughout Addendum 1 the NRC within boundaries of the State of increase in traffic volume in Clark Nevada belong to the public. All waters staff discusses the assumptions that County as the result of the an subject to appropriation for the were made and where applicable the transportation of SNF.The NRC staff bene $cial use only under state law. empirical data used to support those conclusion is that the impacts are small. Response:The water resources of theassumptions is referenced. With respect l Comment:The analysis assumes the state will be unaffected by the transport 'to making Judgements about the use of the large-capacity CA-4/9 truck of SNF through Clark County.

cask, which has not been certined and shipment of spent fuel the NRC staff has Comment: Report failed to provide the benefit of data from over 40 years of must be used in combination with conditions for informed consent which experience in shipping SNFin this specially designed trucks that have not requires disclosure to those affected. country as well as overseas.

been tested. It also assumes that these their understanding , and voluntary Comment:High level waste cask and truck systems will be available acceptance. management and transportation should in suf5cient quantity for the shipments. Response: NRC regulat)ons already not be a genericissue and Yucca The assuaedcommentor truck cask systemseeks assurance is feasible that be acceptable the contain environmental impactsvaluw that the NRC considers to M etudy as DOEis behind schedule andit and that DOE's proposed regional from the shipment of SNF and other is not an approved site for SNF.

service conmoi toproach would radioactive waste.In Addendum 1 the Response:Given that the potential feasibieiy result in t'he ce of such a NRC staff is,in part, ensuring that the environmentalimpacts of the system for all shipments in ti e potential overallimpacts of the transportation of transportation of SNF resulting from truck shipment campaign, the additional SNF that will be license renewal are similar for all Response:The analysis dote by the generated as the result of nuclear power nuclear power plants who seek to renew l NRC staff assumes that an adequate plantlicense renewal are bounded, their operating licenses. and that the number of certified casks would be given the best information the NRC staff NRC staffs analysis contained in available. Addendum 1 used extremely has at this time,by those values Addendum 1 concludes that the impacts conservative assumptions regarding previously found acceptable. The values are likely to be small, the Commini SNF shipments and casks to ensure that speci5ed in the regulations are feels it is appropriate to reclassify the the analysis would lead to maximum supported by analysis and were ado ted issue as a Category 1 issue. Use dose estimates. For example, the into the regulations only after provi ing analysis of incident free transportation i.

L,- FedIral RegistIr/Vcl. 64 No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/ Rules and Regulati ns 48505 s

, t. Mountain, Nevada for purposes of the been periodically myiewed and found Protection Requirements for Spent Fuel

, staffs analysis, as the datination of the adquate. The h etical accident Shi monts,6/s/84).

. SNF is appropriate as it is the only alto constions of to 71.73 have been

The NRChas not quantified Prwently under study. It must be

'.[ emphastzed that this generic evaluated encoun actual conditions in highway and railway the 11 hood of the occurrence of sabotage in this analysis because the environmentalimpact statement is accidents and were found to be likelihood of anindividualattack required to make use of b best bounding as documented in NUREG/ cannot be determined with any degree information avallable and at this time CR-4829, February 1987, Shipping of certainty. Nonethelms, the NRC has the assumption that Yucca Mountain is Container Response to Severe Highway considered, for the purposes of this the destination is reasonable for and Railway Accident Conditions.** As environmentalimpact statement and purposes of the staffs analysis. l'in the notedin Table 3 of Addendum 1 the rulemaking,the environmental future. conditions change, the version of RADTRAN usedis updated to consequenew of such an event. In the assumption made for this analysis may March 1999. determination of b consequences of (L. ned to be reevaluated.

Comment:Need to senside the Section 3 of Addendum 1 dom consider b possible effect of cladding such an event, highw burnup is only one factor. Based on the staffs study of

intermodal option being considered by degradation on criticality in b context highw burnup fuel (NUREG-1437,

. Congress for Caliente. Nevada. Vol.1, Addendum 1. Table 2), the I ofincreased bursup.That analysis Response:The shi ment of SNF by consequence of a sabo eevent would be equally applicable to any

., rail t Caliente and en transferring it cladding degradation that might occur involving such blcoul be large than e to truck for shipment to Yucca thosein h studim rdmaced by b dudag prdongd dry stwage of b j,. Mountain is one of many options undw sNp commentor. However, given that h consideration by DOE. Rather than connquenew cf the studies afwenced

. With regard to what is asserted to be p speculate on which transportation inadequate consideration of b by the commentor were small, even p option or options will ultimately be modwt imesses due to the effects of selected, the NRC staff has chosen a potential radiologicalimpacts of b

,g rail heavy haul truck option,the NRC highn burnup fuel would not asult in mode and routes to Yucca Mountain . unacceptably large consequences.

which in its judgement will have the staff has analyzed b ndidogical g impacts of the truck mode alo various Because burnup is not the only factor g greatest potential environmental that could affect the consequences of a im acts in order to do a bounding routes through and around Im esas aabo event, the staff continues te

, an ysis for the purpose of this and concludes scenarios. that the[ows in hare study Th largat thelimitingarea. Should new and

! '"I'*'EI"8' Comment: The analysis needs t incident free conditions are now to the significant information result from the i l

further study, actions addressing such address the impacts of above ground Public.

scenario Ifwas theadopted, rdl beavy a subultransyrt tanti information willis considwed.

nuclear weapons testing being done at Portion of the publ.ic exposure would be Neverblas,b utensive security the Nevada Test Site. avoided, since in this scenario, the slow measures required tr/ NRC regulations I Response: For the purposes of moving heavy haul truck transpat make abotage eve exuemely l considering the environmental impacts oflicense renewal, there does not w uld not move through a major unlikely. Moreover, tre casks uired to be used to transpo;t spent fu are appear to be a relevant connection Population center.

designed to withstand very substantial between transportation impacts from Comment:NRC must consider impacts during trans ort without loss of civilian SNF and defense related PotentialIndian Tribe claims of containment int .The cask designs weapons testing at the Nevada test site. authority to regulate shipments across should urve to er mduce the Comment:The analysis relies on mamation land'* likelihood of please of radioactive assumptions that are n-30 years old Response:This analysis is a generic material in the extremely unlikely event i and that have a number of problems study that assumes certain routa for the of sabotaae. In view of the fact that NRC

! purpose of evaluating environmental including omission ofimportant safeguards regulations make sabotaae j radionuclides (lodine 129, Chlorine 36 impacts. Because the purpose of this events extremely unlikely, and the Inct

, and Cobalt 60), unrealistic RADTRAN study is neither to propose nor approve

• that the cask designs themselva should assumptions including inadequate routes, the NRC does not need to make a release of redioactive material consideration of severe accidents, consider tribal claims of authority to unlikely even were sabotage to occur,

- outdated assumptions from NUREG regulate shipments in the context of this and based on our judgement that,in b 0170 and WASH-1238 including the analysis- extremely unlikely event that sabotage failure to consider the degradation of Comment:The beltway is a county and release did occur,the cladding during extended dry storage, road, not part of the Federal highway consequences from higher burnup fuel and failure to consider the rail-heavy s{ stem; it is not clear it can be used would for not be unacceptably large, we haul truck option. a pments. have concluded that a more extensive Response: With regard to the Re8Ponse:The DOT regulations do study of highw burnup bl radionuclides, as indicated in Table 2 of not reguire that SNF shipments only use connquences is not warranted for this Addendum 1, Cobalt 60 is considered. federal highways. Therefore, the NRC environmentalimpact statement and While both lodine-129 and Chlorine 36 assumed that the beltway is a possible rulemaking.

are long lived, neither is a significant route around las Vegas. On June 22,1999, the Nevada contributor to overall dose. lodine 129 Comment:The NRC should addras Attorney General filed a petition with has a very low specific activity and the implications of higher enrichment, the Commission which requested the Chlorine 36 is a beta emitter. higher burnup fuel for consequences of NRC to amend regulations governing The issue of the severity of accidents radiological sabotage, as NRC has done safeguards for shipments of spent considered in the NRC staffs analysis so far for the increue in burnup from nuclear fuel against sabotage and was addressed in an earlier re.ponse to 33,000 mwd /MTU to 40.000 mwd / terrorism and to initiate a comment. The assumptions that are MTU (see 49 FR 23867, Proposed comprehensive assessment. In used in the NRC staffs analysis have Revisions to 10 CFR 73, Modification of particular, the petition indicated that O

i 6

48506 Federal Register /Vcl. 64, No.171/ Friday, Septainber 3,1999/Rul:s and Reg ncies i }

unintentionally omitted bom the June S. 104-113, requires that Federal ag:d by orJ use technie=1 standards develope NRC should factor into its regulations the changing manus of thmats posed by 1996 Anal rule. The ruleis unchanged consensus adopted by volun oss the use of such f

oncept for enincreasein beneSts standardsbodies domestic terrorists,the increased derived kom a eductionin the a standard is inconsistent with evallability of advanced weaponry and - applicant burden of 190 hours0.0022 days <br />0.0528 hours <br />3.141534e-4 weeks <br />7.2295e-5 months <br /> of esort applicable law or otherwise impractical.

the grooter vulnerability oflarger in preparing an application for renewal There am no maaaamus standards that shipping casks traveiins across the - of a nuclear power plant operating ,

country. If, as a result of reviewing this apply to the analysis and Andings license. process,nor to the m(uirements petition the NRC reaches concluslons This change increases the. substantial unposed by this rule. Tnus the

. that an inconsistent with the results or cost saving of the Anal rule estimated in assumptions in the present rulemaking, NUREG-1440," Regulatory Analysis for provisions of the Act the Commission will need to revisit the Amendments toRegulations for the this rule.

analysis presented hem. " ' List of Subjectsin to CFR Part 81 Finding of No SigalScast Nucl P t Administrative practice and Environmentellspact: Availability tg,,,,, NUREG-1440 is available for procedure,Environmentalimpact -

inspection in the NRC Public Document statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear The NRC has detwmined that this Room 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), power plants and reactors, Reportin Anal rule is the type of action described Washington, DC. In addition, coplu of as a categoricalexclusionin to CFR and recordkeeplag requirements.

NRC Saal documents citedhee may be For the reasons set outin the 51.22(c)(3). Therefore, neither an purchased from the Superintendent of environmental impact statement nor an Documents U.S.GovernmentPrin Preamble to this notice and underth authority of the Atomic Energy Act of environmental assessment has been OfBce PO Box 370s2, Washington, 1954, as amended;the Energy prepared for this regulation.This action 20018-7082. Copies an also availableReorganization Act of 1974, as is proceduralin nature and pertains for purchase from the National only to the type of environmental ^ amended theNationalEnvironmental Technica11aformation Service,52ss Policy Act of 1969, as amended; and 5 information to be reviewed. Port Royal Road, Spring $ eld, Virginia U.S.C. 552 and 553,the NRC is adopting Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 22161. ' the foHowing amendments to 10 CFR This final rule decreases unnecessary Regulatory Flondbility Act Certi$ cation p ,g gg, mgulatory burden on licensees by As required by the Regulatory PART 51--ENVIRONMENTAL eliminating the requirement that license Flexibility Act of 1960 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). PROTECTION REGULATIONS renewal applicants addmss the generic and cumulative environmental impacts the Commission certi6u that this Saal DOMESTIC UCENSING AND RELATED rule wiU not have a significant impact associated with transportation opwation on a substantialnumber of sman REGULATORY FUNCTIONS in the vicinity of a HLW rep)ository site Tim Anal rule wiu reduce the 1.The authori s foHows'-

entitia.

(-400 hours, - 2 responses , and adds a new requirement to addrus local amount of information to be subsnitted comunun to mabcitation by nuclear power plantlicensees to Authwiry: Sec.161,68 Stat.948, as traffic impacts attributable to continued facilitate NRC's obligations under amended.Sec.1701.106 the Stat.2est 29s2.

operation of the plant during tlw license NationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act. 2953 (42 ES.C 2201,22974 acs. 201,as anewal term (+20 hours, +2 responses). lastlicensees do not The public burden for thue information Nuclear bower [ennition of small****d*USC.

fall with the 4 g42 sN *' * "

collections is estimated to avwage a subpart A also luued under National businnees as defined in Section 3 ofEnvironmentalPolicy the Actof te6s,seca.102, reduction of 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> for each of 2 Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632) or104, los, s3 Stat. asMse, as amended (42 sosponses for tne elimination of the the Commission's Size Standards, April above mentioned requirement, and an U.S.C 4332,4334,433s); and Pub. L. 95 404. ,

11,1995 (60 FR 18344). Title II, e2 Stat. 303Mo41: and sec.te3. Pub.

increase of 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> foruirement, each of for 2 l responsw for the new BeckSt Analysis L.101-57s 104 Stat. 2s35. (42 U.S.C. 224l Sections st.20. st.30. st.ac st.at, st.so, '

a net burden mduction 380 hours0.0044 days <br />0.106 hours <br />6.283069e-4 weeks <br />1.4459e-4 months <br />. The Commission has determined that and St.97 also twued under secs.135,141.

Because the burden for this information those amendments do notinvolve any Pub. L. e7-42s. es Stat. 2232. 2241, and sec.

collection is insignificant Office of provisions that would impose backSts

• tio .22 Management and Budget (OMB) as denned in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1); $C. tot \s 6,06) clearance is not required. Existing therefore, a backfit analysis need not be also issued under sec. 274,73 Stat. eaa. as requirements were approved by the , amended b) 92 Stat. 3036-303s (42 U.S.C.

propend, 20 and de Nuc1e OMB, approval number 3150-0021, 22,b gt,, as( ,P U j {^

Seau Businses Regulatory Enforcement ,

Public Protection NotiScotion Fairnas Act 10141). Sections s1.43. $1.67. and 51.10e also issued under Nuclear Weste Policy Act If a means used to impose an In accordance with the Small of 1982, sec.11 elf). es Stat. 2216. as information collection does not display Business Regulatory Enforcement amended (42 U.S.C. to134(f)).

a currently valid OMB control number, Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has the NRC may not conduct or sponsor. 2. In 6 51.53, paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(M) is determined that this action is not a amoved and rwerved and paragraph and a personis not required to rwpond major rule and hasvwined this

' to,the information collection. determination with the Of$ce of (c)(3)(ii)(J)is revised to rnd as follows: I i Information and Regulatory Affairs of 8 51.53 Pat. construction environmenta Regulatory Analysis The regulatory analysis prepared for OMB. '*P *~

the final rule published on June 5,1996 M W h l'EYTM W (61 FR 28467), and amended on Advancement Act (c) . . .

December 18.1996 (61 FR 66537),to The NationalTechnology Transfw (3) * *

• make minor clarifying and coJforming (ii) * *

• and Advancement Act of 1995. Pub. L changes and addlanguage

reo: ras magnetert vet. be, No.1/1s trtray, beptetnoer s, twvixuies ana segulau:ns Gcou/

=

, 0) Allepplicants shall assess the (M)[ Reserved). .

Appendix B to Subpart Ain to CFR Part

- ted b . . . . . as are revised to read as foll ws:

impact of hipway traffic b5'3k"b'Nb*yd' dbNhte MQ'I"8%rh,*,;

. activities and dudag the term of the rmwed license.

" Transportation" issue under the Uranium FuelCycle and Waste

[

• * *

• Management Section ofTable B-1, e

• • TABLE B-1.-

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS ON NEPA ISSusS FoR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PL L

issue Caispory cirusngs g

Seeiessenemise Pubhc services. Transporteten - 2 SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE. Transportation impacts (lowet of mennes) of fugh-mey wellic genereted sluring piern returtushmers and sluttng the term of the so-

'," newed lleense are generally espected to tie of small signifloance. Howower, Wie in-orense ki traffic anecented with addeonel workere and the local toed and esfile E control condtons may tend to impacts of modorr 4 or large signflicence at some ease. See 5 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J).

Urenium Puol Cyeis and Weste Management Transportaten - . . . . . .

1 SMALL The impacts of sansporting spent fuel enriched up to 5 percent urermum 235 wth average bumup for the peak red to oprient levels approved by NRC ngs to

$2,000 MWcvMTU and the cumulative impacts of transporting high-level weste to a emple repoonory, auch as Yucos Mountain. Neweds are found to be conestent with

1. ie irr: pact values contamed in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Summary Table " ' 7. m rnental impact of Transportaten of Fuel and Weste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nucieer Power Reactor,11 fuel enrichmord or bumup condetens are not met, the apphcent must submit an asessemort of the imphcmeans for the onwwon-mental impact values reponed in 651.52.

'l f

' Data suppofting tnis tat >le are contained en NUREG-1437. Generic Erwironmental impact Statement for uoense Renewal o

1. (May 1996) and NUREG-1437. Vol 1. Aodendum 1. "Genene Environmental impac j (August 1999). .

k .

Dated at Rockville. Maryland. this 26th day NUCLEAR REGULATDRY 1487.Vol.1. Addendum 1." Generic COMMISSION Environmental!mpact Statement for of August.1999-For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. . License Renewal of Nuclear Plants:

10 CPR Part 81 Main Report Section S.b-Annette Vietti.ceek, ' Transportation ' Table 9.1 ' Summary of Secretary of the Commission.

RIN 3180 A005 I bhss on MAissues im Econee (FR Doc. 99-22764 Filed 9-2-99. 8:45 aml Changes to Rettuitemente for renewal of nuclear power plants,' Final i name coo **** Environmental Review for Renewalof Report"(August 1999).

Nuclear power Plant Operating ADonasses: Copies of NUREG- 1437 Licenses To include Conancieration of Vol.1, Addendum 1 may be obtained by Certain Transportation impacts,

1. Availability of Supplemental writing to the Superintendent of i Documents. U.S. Government Printing l d Environmentallmpact Statement Office P.O. Box 37082. Washington DC i i

AnaNev: Nuclear Regulatmy. 20402-9328. Copies are also available Connmission. from the National TechnicalInforma '

Action: Finalrule: Notice of availability Service,5285 Port Royal Road, of supplemental document- Sp'ringfield Virginia 22161. A copy of l

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory the document is also available fer Commhslon (NRC)is announcing the inspection and/or copying for a fee in completion and availability of NURZG- the NRC Public Document Room,2120 i

a -

t.

-~ -

48508 Federal Reilster/V I. M, N;.17i/ Friday, September 3,19997Rulm Ed Regulations _

L Street, NW (lower Level), Category 2 designation for the issue of NRC's Home Page (http://www.nrc. gov)

Washington, DC. Transportation in Secti = 6.3 and Table and choosing " Nuclear Materials," bn Pon PumER WORMATION CONTACT: 9.1 of NUREG-1437.This aport "Businans Process Redesign Project "

. Donald P. Cleary Of5ce of Nuclear *XPands the generic findings about the then " Library," and then "NUREG-Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear environmentalimpacts due to 2437, Volume 1, Addendum 1."

Regulatory Commission, Washington transportation of fuel and waste to and from a a le nuclear power plant. Small Businese Regulatory Enforcement DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415 3903; e. mail: dpc@nte. gov. Specifi y, the report adds to findings Fairnese Act rnbg 6e cutnuladve SUPPLEMENTARY WORMATION:There in accordance with the Small provides the technical basis for rule " Changes to Requirements for I

al 6*y"p","*"3

,fbort I"$*

destination, rather than multiple gg Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has Environmental Review for Renewal of destinations, and the envimamental determined that this action is not a Nuclear Power Plant Operating nation of higher ma}or rule and has verified this Licenses" that amends requirements to determination with the OfBee of the Commission's rule in 10 CFR Part impact enriched and h of transPgher burnuh spent fuel duringtherenewalterm.T erepott Information and Regulatory Affairs of 51-Environmental Protection conclusions would OMB.

R ations for Domestic Licensing and findings to be used hrmit thoseincorporatin by this 26th day Dated at Rockville, Maryland.

Re sted Regulatory Functions. reference in the environmental review The NF C staff has completed the lication for renewal of an

• fA # 1999' For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

analyses of trar tportation issues as of anffualnuclear indiv plant eperating reported in NUKhG-1437, Vol.1, license. 'Ibe resultt saw being codi$ed in Annette Vietti<,ook, Addendum 1, which provides the bases 10 CFR Part 51. %ofde comon.

vbw te a N ry ffs e. Electronic Access moch22765 Filed >2645 am)

A endum 1 would sup1p ement the NUREG-1437,Vol.1 Addendum 1,is analysis and amend the findings and the also available electronically by visiting

...,# ., aw *=

O