ML20211N469
| 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: |
| References | |
| CON-#399-20808, FRN-64FR48259, FRN-64FR48496 ISFSI, NUDOCS 9909130002 | |
| Download: ML20211N469 (31) | |
Text
" 'o 0
uq UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSION t
[
o WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 DOCKETED 5
September 9,1999 USHRC a
?) SEP 10 A9 :45
. OFFICE of THE 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 U]
9909130002 990909 PDR ADOCK 07 22
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 NewburS.New York, h
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 AunfiInspecuan serwee.
require horses imported from Morocco determined that this action will not 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 Encutiw W 12988 Newburgh. NY. for at least 60 days. This 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 ch thi e
g should be effective 15 days after the Paperwork Reduction Act AGENCv: Nuclear Regulatory date of publication in the Federal
,g.gg Commisaba.
Regista.
Information collection or recordkeeping AcTlow: Final mle.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulator 7 requirements under the Paperwork 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 International H1-STAR 100 cask system been determined to be not significant for Animal diseases, imports, Livestock, purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, Poultry and oultry products, to the l.g.st of approved spent fuel i
therefore, has not been reviewed by the g Ms M dowstb Quarantine, eporting and holdws of power ructcv opvating Office of Mana$ement and Budget.
This rule wil recognize Morocco as recgr
, reg en
_ ding 9 CFR licenses to store spent fuelin thi:
horses from Morocco to be shipped to Pm 93 u idows.-
approved cask system under a geneal free of AHS. This action will allow license.
and quarantined at ports designated in PART 83--4MPORTATION OF CERTAIN EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is 5 93.303 and will reduce the quarantine ANIMALS, DIRDS, AND POULTRY.
effective on October 4,1999.
and testing penod to an average of 3 AND CERTAIN ANIMAL, DIRD, AND p0R FURTMER INFORMaTION CONTACT: Stan days to meet quarantine requirements POULTRY PRODUCTS:
Turel, telephone (301) 415-6234, e-nail specified in 693.308.
. CONVEYANCE AND SHIPMNG Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.
REOUIREMENTS FOR MEANS OF sptenrc. ov of the Office of Nuclear U.S. importers of competition and breeding horses from Morocco will be CONTAINERS Nuclear RegulatoTY ommission' C
affected by this rule. These importers will no longer be required to quarantine 1.The authority citation for part 93 Washington, DC 2055M001.
horses from Morocco for 60 days at the continues to road as follows:
SUPPLEMENTARY IN*ORMATION:
i 48260 Federal Register / Vel. 64 N2.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/ Rules and Regulations
Background
Approved Contents and Design a fee gt the NRC Public Document Features, for the Holtec Intemational
. Room. 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Section 218(a) of the Nuclear waste H1-STAR 100 cask stem.The staff has Level). Washington, DC.
E Policy Act of 1982, as amended lic Corninents on the ff Suzam$
re t tit e of t SA the g PC s
e bli Usting of this cask design in to CFR demonstration program, in cooperation.
The NRC received nine comment 72.214.
L with the fspent nuclear fuel at civilianThe title of the SAR has ben revised letters on the proposed rule.The rivate sector, for the dry storage o to delete the revision number so that in commenters included the afmember ofpl nudear reacto ower sites,with the the final rule the title of the SAR is "HI-State of Utah, an individua
'l hh'8','that th uc$ ear STAR 100 Cask System Topical Safety the public, industry npresentatives, and L
Analysis Report."This revision severalutilitios. Copies of the public 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 by the Commission.
Stnet NW (Lower 1.evel), Washington, j
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 the he CoCby specifymgtbt Corninents on N Hnal Rule the Commission." Section 133 of the changes to NWPA states,in part, *[tlhe the CoC holder must submit an As part of the osed rule, the NRC i
Commission shall, by rule, establish application for an amendment to the staff requested c comment on the use of a direct al rulemaking process procedures for the licensing of any certificate if a change to the CoC, for future amendments to the list of technology approved by the including its appendices,is desired.
. approved spent fuel storage casks in 10 Comtmssion under Section 218(a) for This revision conforms the change CFR 72.214. The direct final rulemaking use at the site of any civilian nuclear process to that speci5ed in to CFR process is used by Federal agencies, Power reactor."
72.48, as recently approved by the 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 fuelin NRC. approved casks under a exemption from the requirements of to rulemaking where the agency believes that the rule is concontroversial and general beense, publishing a final rule CFR 72.124(b) because a recent 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 NRC would publish the proposed and criteria for obtaining NRC approval were received from Holtec International amendment to the to CFR 72.214 list as of dry storage cask designs.
and other industry organiaations both a proposed and a final rule in the suggerting changes to the TSs and the Approved Contents and Design Federal Register simultaneously. A Discussion This rule will add the Holtec Features. Some of these were editorial direct final rule normally becomes International HI-STAR 100 to the list of in nature, others provided clarification effective 75 days after publication in the I
NRC approved casks for spent fuel and consistency, and some reflected Federal Register unless the NRC storage in 10 CFR 72.214. Following the final refinements in the cask design.
receives sign!!icant adverse comments procedures specified in to CFR 72.230. Staff agrees with many of these on the direct final rule within 30 days of Subpart L. Holtec International suggested changes and hu facorporated after publication. If significant adverse submitted an application for NRC them into the final documents, as comments are received, the NRC publishes a document that withdraws approval together with the Safety appropriate.
the direct final rule.The NRC then Analysis Report (SAR) entitled "H1-The NRC finds that the Paltec STAR 100 Cask System Topical Safety International Hl-STAR 100 cask system, addresses the comments received as Analysis Report (SAR), Revision 8." The as designed and when fabricated and comments on the proposed rule and NRC evaluated the Holtec International used in ac--^-- " the conditions subsequently issues a final rule.
6 -
submittal and issued a preliminary speciSed in its CoC, meets the One commenter supported use of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and a requirements of to CFR Part 72. Thus, direct final rule process for future proposed Certificate of Compliance use of the Holtec International H1-STAR revisions to the listing in to CFR 72.214.
(CoCl for the Holtec International HI-100 cask system, as approved by the stating that it was imperative that the STAR 200 cask system. The NRC NRC, will provide adequate protection regulatory process be streamlined when published a proposed rule in the of public health and safety and the there is no adverse safety concern. Two Federal Register (64 FR 1542; January environment. With this final rule, the commenters were opposed to use of a
[
11,1999) to add the HI-STAR 100 cask NRC is approving the use of the Holtec direct final rule process stating that a system to the listing in 10 CFR 72.214.
International HI-STAR 200 cask system direct final rule would diminish the The comment period ended on March under the generallicense in to CFR Part public role in commenting on the 29,1999. Nine comment letters were 72, Subpart K, by holders of power approval of spent nuclear fuel casks and received on the proposed rule.
reactor operating licenses under 10 CFR theseby the public's ability to affect the Based on NRC review and analysis of Part 50. Simultaneously,the NRC is outcome of rulemaking procedures. One public comments, the staff has issuing a final SER and CoC that will be of these commenters believed that, f
modified, as appropriate,its proposed effective on October 4,1999. Single given past problems with the casks, N
CoC,includingits appendices the copies of the CoC and SER are available future approval should be subject to Technical Specifications (TSs), and the for public inspection and/or copying for adequate and rigorous public scrutiny.
t 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
final rule process) is not sufficient time To the extent possible, all of the noted that Holtec's conclusion that fuel i
to prepare comments that may be comments on a particular subject are rod integrity will be maintained under 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 l
beheve that an addition to or revision of approved spent fuel storsge casks," has dec ration of 60 while a Lawrence 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 r
Report) abows that the most vulnerable j
in bIr isignificant adverse General Comment, fuel can withstand a deceleration of 63 comrnents were received on the NRC,s Comment No. 2:One commenter hop)he most adverse orientatio in t i
proposed listing of the Holtec asked a number of questions about the
. The commenter believes 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 i]ct changes to the process, that the cladding will maintain its Yo p ea u at th l
Response:The NRC finds thwe integrity because Holtec's anal sis does I
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 cases, the direct final rulemaking stated that the cask should be built and With rupect to a possible incease in process can be used because the cask tested before use at reactors, including rate of oxidation of cladding, Holtec has ~
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 fo to the cask systems in the 10 CFR 72.214 identified in the SER and CoC.Tutbg
" O
- dI"fe,A ' ' cts of Changing listing The NRC disagrees that use of is normally required when the analytic Effe (r vided a tabariables in Dynami the direct final rulemaking procedure methods have not been validated or will limit the public's ability to affect assured'to be akpropriate and/or Spent Fuel Assemblies, which the the outcome of the rulemaking. Receipt conservative.I place 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
- [# I *$ "e'd a
t ft wh t submi a f" " '"'
o comment on an amendment to the CoC addressed in the SER and To leal SAR.
I" *"** "
for a listed cask since most issues The NRC staff has reviewed t e analyses related to the cask design will have been performed by HOl.TEC and found them
[
d b
[R, to n'
f 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 NRC staff's preliminary SER. the TSs.
that is periodically updated.
assemblies, the fuel burn up is limited and the applicant's To'pical SAR. Some Response:This comment is beyond to 37.600 MWD /MTU. Therefore, the of the editorial comments have been the scope of this rulemaking.
potential for significant amounts of
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 i
commenter regarding the consequences calculation.This assumption is 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 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.
g including neutron flux, signiScantly comment, b assertion that the fuel rod 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
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 o
case by-case basis.The purpose of this calculating the potential dose to skin.
applicant should have7o"e a. T Response:The NRC s
ad demonstration is to provide nasonable children is deficient.
n off-assurance that the fuel is undamaged or Response:The NRC disagrees with the 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 (canned) The criteria for intact dose to children,the international approximately a factor of to greater than assembly are defined in TS Section 1.1 community and the Federal agencies normal dose.The Holtec normal table doses b
as being fuel assemblies without known (including EPA and the NRC) ape that condition results show accefied fo or suspected cladding defects greater the overall annual public don lu' nit, when the factor of to is app than pinhole leaks or hairhne cracks from all sources, should be 1 mSv (100 nonnal conditions and have been found by and which can be handled by normal mrem) which is protective of all acceptable as nflected in the SER. No means. Partial fuel assemblies (fuel individuals.The purpose of the public additional action is necessary to meet 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 stated that the licensees' nbo are used to displace an amount of water sensitivity to radiation with age and specific site doses to 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 ruIemakin.
nun an mquimd to 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
. radiation dose to an adult 100 meters lifetime risk, limit the annual exposum Comment No. H:One commenter from the accident due solely to
. that an individual may receive.
asked for a definition of inflatable inhalation of the passing cloud without ConseIuently, the unrestricted mioase annulus seal.The commenter further censidering other relevant pathways, limit o O.25 mSv (25 mrem), a small 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 d
resuspension of deposited age groups because the variation of which is discussed in Sections 1.2.2.1.
radionuclides, ingestion of sensitivity with age and gender was 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 reflect 10 CFR 72.24(m).
annual public dose limit was derived.
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 Holtec has followed NRC staff guidance asked if the streaming dose rates have remained intact during underwater in making conservative assumptions been measured and if not, will they be loading. NRC found the seal description regarding the source term and duration measured on the first cask loading?
and operation to be acceptable. Each of the release. In SER Chapter 10,the Response:There is no NRC regulatory generallicensee will develop site-NRC staff found that the radiation requirement to measure streaming dose specific operating procedures that shielding and confinement features of rates at the first cask loading. Further, address the use of the inflatable annulE the cask design are suff cient to meet the the applicant did not provide meatund seal. Ecch gener radiation protection requirements of to dose rates from cask streaming in its operate the Hl-STAR 100 under a to CFR Part 20,10 CFR 72.104, and to CFR application because it was not required. CFR Part 20 radiologic 72.106. Section 72.106 addresses The applicant did provide calculated program postaccident dose limits.
streaming dose rates in the SAR Comment No. 25:One commenter When a general licensee uses the cask shielding analysis. The HI-STAR 100 suggested that there should be criteria 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 CFR 72.212. This review will consider user is required to operate the H1-STAR during loading and unloading interdiction and remedial actions to 100 under a 10 CFR Part 20 radiological Response:NRC disagrees with this monitor releases and pathways based on program. NRC has reasonable assurance suggestion be the chosen site conditions and the that the general licensee's radiological not specifically require these criteria fa location. Therefore, the pathways protection and ALARA program will dose measurement. Each general identified by the commenter will be detect and mitigate exposures from any licensee is required to operate the HI-STAR too under a to CFR Part 20 addressed in the general licensee's site significant or unexpected ndiation 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 Holtee has not specifically stated that the applicant should have include radiological protection dose calculated potential radiation dose to performed a specific analysis for off-surveys that rnust be conducted during children, and this does.not meet NRC normal conditions for confinement loading and unloadinE operations.
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 basis is not a bounding accident and annunciations at the generallicense comment. In Section 4.4.1.1.7 of the that the NRC shov!d consider the effect ISFSI are monitored by the alarm SAR Holtec addassed the heat transfer
(
stations at the reactor site. Response to interaction between the overpacks for a 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 and surveillances to ensun that the maximize the interaction heat effect).
nuclear waste facilities and shipments, P ysical protection systems are The applicant further adjusted the heat h
The NRC staff could impose additional conditions on dry storage casks and operating within their design limits. It is transfer in accordance with ANSYS the ISTSIlicensee who is naponsible for methodology and applied it in the f
ladependent Spent Fuel Storage Protecting spent fuel in the casks from calculations. Further, in SER Section i
Installations (ISFSis), e g., the CoC sabotage rather than the certificate 4.5.2.1, the NRC staff noted that the j
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 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 Comment No. 27:One commenter normal ambient conditions with I
National Laboratory and Battelle asked whether an evaluation for a truck insulation. The NRC staff concluded in Columbus Laboratories that measured the release of radioactive materials as a bomb sabotage event has been the SER that it has reasonable assurance l
result of cask sebotage. The NRC has conducted.
that the spent fuel cladding will be j
6 never estimated the economic and safety Response:The staff has evaluated the protected against degradation by l
effects of a truck bomb located adjacent maintaining the clad temperature below j
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 shipments of spent fuel. At least 32 have an ISFSI at its nector site is not required for the VSC-24 cask I
parties submitted more than 100 pages required to develop physical protection design.The commenter further of comments in response to the notice, to which the NRC never publicly plans and install a physical protection questioned why NRC allowed coatings responded. The NRC suspended action system that provides high assurance to be applied to casks because it will on the rulemaking but inappropriately against unauthorized activitin that create problems for future DOE waste continues to use the unrevised could constitute an unmasonable risk to disposal conclusions in the proposed rule as a the public health and safety.The Response:NRC regulations do not basis for its policies on terrorism and physical protection systems at an ISFSI prohibit the use of coatings in a cask sabotage of nuclear shipments, and its associated reactor are similar in design. An applicant must provide Response:The NRC disagrees with the design to ensure the detection and information in its safety analysis report comment.The NRC reviewed potential assessment of unauthorized activities.
to support use of coatings.The issues related to possible radiological Response to intrusion alarms is apphcant should describe the near and sabotage of storage casks at reactor site required. Each ISFSI is periodically long term effects of the coatings on i
ISFSis in the 1990 rulemaking that inspected by NRC, and the licensee systems important to safety including I
added subparts K and L to 10 CFR Part conducts periodic patrols and the benefits and potentialimpacts of I
72 (55 FR 29181: July 18,1990). NRC surveillances to ensure that security coating use. Based on the applicant's ations in to CFR Part 72 establish systems are operating within their analysis, the NRC reviews and assesses ysical protection requirements for an design limits. The NRC believes that the the use and adequacy re FSIlocated within the owner.
inherent nature of the epent fuel and the Specific comments relating directly to controlled area of a heensed power spent fuel storage cask provides VSC-24 an beyond the scope of this reactor site. Spent fuel in the ISFSlis adequate protection against a vehicle rulemaking.
required to be protected against bomb, and hu concluded that there are Comment No. 20:One commenter radiological sabotage using provisions no safety concerns outside the asked why the current HI STAR 100 is and requirements as specified in to CFR controlled area.
not an ASME str,mped component.
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 Comment No.18:One commenter design and fabrication requirements for CFR Part 73. Each utility licensed to 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 because described in to CFR plans and install svstems that provide they do not take into account a NRC staff's Standard Review Plan, high assurance against unauthorized minimum pitch or center-to-center NUREG 1536. " Standard Review Plan distance between casks to be stored in for Dry Cask Storage Systems."
activities that could constitute an unreasonable risk to the sbhc health the ISFSI. Further Holtee has not Applicant submitta's are reviewed to the criteria in the Standard Review Plan.
performed rigorous calculations to and safety.
support the assigned pitch of 12 foot or Cask fabrication activities are inspected The physical protection systems at an ISFS! and its associated reactor are 4 foot spacing between casks based on by the licensees and the NRC staff to
48265 Federrl Regist:r/Ybl. 64, f4o.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/Rul:s and Regulations
^*
1
=
ensure that components am fabricated Comment No. 23:One commenter Response:The tipover, and drops, and as designed.
asked how the pnpossession or horiznntal drop analyses form part of Comment No. 22:One commenter anodization of aluminum surfaces is the structural design basis for the HI-a asked a number of questions related to checked and what the criteria were for STAR 100 cask design. Holtec described the Boral and NS-4-FR concerning (1) the inspection.
drops and tipover analyses in SAR Whether it has been used "over time" in Response:The NRC disagrees that an Section 3.4.9. The NRC's evaluation of inspection is necessary.The only the vendor's analyses is described in a enk. (2) the amount of" creep or 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 how the testing is conducted, and (4) 68 is for the Boral neutron absorbers.
NRC found the results of these analyses how the Boral content is tested in the Aluminum forms a very thin, adherent to be satisfactory in that the calculated panels. The commenter further asked if film of aluminum oxide whenever a stnsses were within the allowable fabrication is inspected and why no fmsh cut surface is exposed to air or criteria of the Amwican Society of surveillance or monitoring program is water, becoming thicker with increasing Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code.
required to check the Boral content.
temperatures and in the pasence of Before using the HI STAR too casks. the 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 are addressed in Sections 6.4.2 and 9.1.4 Metals Handbook, Desk Edition, site characteristics are encompassed by 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."
and 9.1.5.3 of the SAR. The NRC Thus, no inspection or acceptance The events listed in the comment are routinely accepts the use of Boral as a criteria are necessary.
among the site specine considerations I
neutron absorber for storage cask Comment No. 24:One commenter that must be evaluated by the licensee applications, and it has been used in
. mquested clariBeation on whether the using the cask.
casks. NRC has approved both storage helium will be pure and not mixed with Comment No. 27:One commenter and transportation cask designs that use krypton or xenon that would have an asked whethw the design has been Boral. Section 1.2.1.3.1 of the SAR effect on internal pmssure or evaluated for a seismic event during describes the historical applications and temperature. The commenter also asked loading and unloading.
service experience of Boral.This whether the helium had to be dry.
Response:The HI. STAR 100 casks can information indicates that Boral has Response:Only pure helium willbe only be wet load.d and unloaded inside been used since the 1950's and used in used to backfill the cask; no krypton or the fuel handling facility. Generally, baskets since the1960's. Several utilities xenon gasses willbe added during thne activities take place in a have also used Boral for nuclear backfill. Technical Specification Table sted under-water cask loading pit w
would limit cask movement applications such as spent fuel storage 2-1 Footnote 1. speciSes that helium rocks. Based on industry experience, no used for backfill of MPC shall have a during a seismic event. The cask will be r
orted for a seismic event during credible mechanism for " creep or purity ofit99.995% Acceptable helium
' and unloadiug. Genwal su slump" of Boralin the cask has been purity for dry spent fuel storage was identified.
deEned by R. W. Knoll et al. at PaciSc ure ducriptions for thue Sections 2.2.1.3.1 and 9.1.5.3 of the Northwest laboratory (PNI.)in operations are summarized in Sections SAR describe the testing proceduns for " Evaluation of Cover Gas Impurities and 3.1 and 8.3 of the SAR. Detailed lo Boral. Boral will be manufactured and Their Effects on the Dry Storage of LWR and unloading procedums are tested under the control and Spent Fuel," PNL-6365, November developed and evaluated on a site-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.
the requirements of 10 CFR Part 72.
Step 28, and SER Section 8.1.3.
Comment No. 28:One commenter Subpart G. A statistical sample of each Comment No. 25:One commenter questioned whether the method for manufactured lot of Boral is tested by asked whethe leakage of gases, cooling has been tested with a real cask.
the manufacturer using wet chemistry volatiles, fuel fines, and crud was Response:The NRC ations and considered credible and whethw the guidance in the Stand Review Plan procedures and/or neutron attenuation techniques.
analysis addressed this concern.
require the review and approval of the The Boralis designed to remaio Response:The applicant has dwign criteria. No testing is required for effective in the HI-STAR 100 system for calculated the postulated annual dose at approval of the design under th 100 meters assuming a realistic leakage current rule. The cask user is required a storage period greater than 20 years rate consistent with ANSI N14.5 to perform pnopwational tuting to and there are no credible means to lose the Boral. Further, the NRC accepts the Standard " leakage Tuts on Packages determine the eBectiveness of the use of NS-4-FR as a neutron absorber for Shipment for Radioactive Materials" cooling methods.
for storage cask applications, and it has (1997) and has reflected the results in Comment No. 29:One commenter 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 the calculated dose had been found to on the overpack had been evaluated an9
- needed, be within regulatory guidelines (limits) tested, how the tuting was done, and Comment No. 22: One commenter provided a discussion on the VSC-24 and acceptable to the NRC staff.
what the nsults were. The commenter Comment No. 26:One commenter was also questioned whether/how the design The issues included materials, the use of continEs, the use of March concerned that the cask could drop or painted components were safely stored.
Metalfab as a fabricator, calculations tip over in the loading area of the plant The commenter further stated that the and whether this has been evaluated.
paint on the surfaces of the overpack being performed when problems are The commenter was also concerned should be a speciSed paint, not just a being solved, testing of soils and pads, about a drop or tip over during transfer requirement of "an emissivity of no I and cask handling temperatures.
from the pad or during transport and than 0.85."
Response:These comments are bevond the scope of the current that all of the analysis seemed to be for Response:The manufactun and rufemaking.
the pad.
application of high-emissivity paints is 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
i the specified emissivity.b NRC has 2.4.7 of Appendix B to the CoC requires minimum cooling time, maximum 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 of the The TSs state a 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 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 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 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
".l center to-center cask pitch was assumed As discussed in Section 5.2.1 of the additional support for the basket to be 12 feet in the shielding analyses.
preliminary SER. for the same level of supports.The actualthickness of the 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 recalculated overpack are unavoidable and are CommInt N3. 42:One commenter build up exceeds the[sc will rupture e
oecessary to ensure that there will be no disagreed with allowing the use of a desip pressure, the physicalinterferences and to allow free penetrant test in' lieu of volumetric relieve the pressua.The rupture disc is 2
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. equirement for r
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 permanent record' disagrees with this worst ice and snowloads possible. Ice Response:NRC build ups around the cask bue are not appropriate.
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 '
["r's[i e crash wfth a t to Response: Loading and unloading speci6c proceduns that are beyond the procedures are site-specificissues not scope of rulemaking for the Hi-STAR
,c3 or full cask arra conducted and required for design approval and are too system. Nondestructive wbtbr thm is a sti ulation as to P
bevond the scope of this rulemaking.
Examination (NDE) methods are Comment No. 39: One commenter speci5ed in accordance with Section III "I",8,3 had in an area where plan I" "*
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 j
Response Comments on the site-ASME Code and are already described 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 or other means that can rovide a 100 system.
Coinment No. 40: One commenter was retrievable record of wefd integrity. As evaluation 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 tornado missiles design will withstan 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 Response: Tfie NRC disagrees with believed that the marking material for pounds) that constitute,the majority of l
this concern over the integrity of the the casks should be designated and that aircraft in operation today. The events l
bolting material The 54.1% inch-the mark needed to be permanent.
listed in the comment are among the diameter. closure plate bolts are made Response:NRC agrees with the site-specific considerations that must be l from ASME SB-637-N07718 material comment.The storage marking evaluated and are beyond the scope of i
per SAR BM-1476. N07718, a nickel-nameplate is made from a 4 inch by 10 this rulemaking.
chromium alloy. does not become brittle inch,14-gauge Type 304 stainless steel Comment No. 47:One commenter j
at colder temperatures N07718 is a high sheet and welded to the outside of the questioned why Holtec stated that the strength, corrosion resistant material
}D-STAR 100 Overpack. lettering will PD-STAR 100 could be part of the final used in applications with a temperature be etched or stamped on the plate.
geologic disposal eystem.
range from - 423 'F (- 253 *C) to 1300 Details are shown in SAR Drawing 1397, Response:The NRCis not reviewing
'T (704 'C)(Source:Inconel Alloy 718, Sheet 4 of 7, and described in SER this design for use in a final geologic Inco Allovs International, fourth Section 9.1.6. The nameplate will disposal system, but only for interim edition.1'985) This material will not provide appropriate cask identification storage under Part 72 rust, unlike carbon steels in corrosive that will last well beyond the design life Comment No. 48:One commenter environments. In addition, the material of the Hi-STAR 100 system. No asked where the MPC shell weld is retains significsnt ductility down to nonpermanent marking wiu be used.
located and if the pocket trunnions at
- 320 'F (- 196 *C) as shown by impact Comment No. 44:One commenter the bottom of the overpack have been 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.
concerns about the bolting material.
replacement, what the time criteria are, Response:The MPC shell has Comment No. 41:One commenter and what is considered a rupture.
roultiple welds located both asked what type of radiographic exam is Response:The rupture disc is located longitudinally on the side of the MPC applicable aird where it would be in the neutron shield tank of the M1-and circumferentially on the top and conducted.
STAR 100 casks.The purpose of the bottom of the MPC.The pocket Response SAR Tables 9.1.1, 9.1.2, rupture disc is to limit pressure build-trunnions at the bottom overpack have 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 they are required to be performed.
accident condition. When the pressure the design for normal, off. normal, and l
48268 Fed:ral Register / Vel. 64, No.171/ Friday, Septenid U, BWJWFuwiranWW39m.o uo exceeds 12 kW). Na additi:naltating is actions am required and h:ve they been accident c:nditiins, and f:und it aquired for a system aRet it has been evaluat:d (TS B3.1.6-3)?
acceptabl).
Comment No. 49:One commenter tested at a heat load greater than or Raponn:N NRC staff has stated that the lihing and pocket eaual to to kW.
evaluated this condition.The TSs trunnions should be checked over the
'The cask user wiu provide aletter require that if b MPC gas temperature years for cracking or brittlenus and for wport to the NRCin accordance with 10 is exceeded during unloading, no debris accumulation and should be kept CPR 72.4 summarizing b results of additional operational actions may be mady for use over b years.
each of bee validation tests. Cask users conducted until the temperature is 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 lifting trunnion and pocket trunnion vahdation test mports submitted to wkd if" dry" unloading operations are 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 or e Uchi Comment No. 55:One commenter wm not buthe SAR a d thus is not STAR 200 casks are placed on bISFSI asked how much wateris to be drained ducribs pad.b trunnion material has been under b MPClid before weldina and currently allowed for the HI-STAR 100 evaluated for brittle fracture and found to be satisfactory for the opwating how btemperature enters into the system andis beyond the scope of this calculations.
rul-h L
tempwature range. In addition, b Response: Chapter e of the SAR Commdt No. 38:One comanw-trunnions am load tuted in accordance s
is a problem "g"d with ANSI N14.6,"American National directs the o tors to pum 9
20 gaHons ofwater from mi Standard for Radioactive Matwiele appravimate the MPC before commencing welding Response: Dis crudis heYand Special Lifting Devices for Shipping OPerstions. The water level is loweredthe scope of rulemaking andis a Containws Weighing 10000 Pounds to keep moisture away from the weld rience with wet un]!,P' cine issue 8h ' g,g of some fu (4500 kg) or More." Thus, there is no region. Under thwe conditions, ample 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 si cant amounts of crud. However, trunnion recus is closed by abocket trunnion plug during storage.
areis below their short term ts. This the NRC notes that the HI-STAR genwie ossibility of animal and bird access Operating condition has been evaluated unlos Procedums miti crud i
no[ nesting in the recess, by the NRC. The resulting temperatur,
. As escussedin on s.3.1 an 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 the critical flaw size.
might produm.
atmos hem and speci8e cool-down Response: The criteria for critical flaw Comment No. 5(:One commenter 8t*Ps.
cask user will develop size am included in ISG No.4." Cask asked how lifting height should be additional site-specine unloading Closure WoldInspections."& NRC veri 8ed and stated that the height Procedums based onits radiological wview determined that Hohec's should be recorded.
Protection program to furthw address Re8Ponse:The maximum liAing and mitigate crud di_sporeal.
propowd methodologyis consistent height maintains the operating CommentNo. 59:The applicant made l
with this ISc.
conditions of the Spent Fuel Storage comments relevant to tla helium g
Comment No. 52:One commenter asked Bow subcontractors are to be Cask (SFSC)within the design and backfill pressum of the cask. AAer i
audited and inspected.
analysis basis, k is the general licensee's discussions with the NRC staff Holtec ws nsibility to limit the SFSC lifting withdrew this comment during a Response:This commentis beyond 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 believed that the first cask for each 2.1.7 for the vertical and horizontal Response:Not applicable.
utility should be tested at a full heat orientations. Surveillance requimments Comments on Proposed TSs load and asked whatis meant by the require veri $ cation that SFSC lifting U on review of the public comments P
"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 Response:The speciSc procedums for from the new genwation of dual-an en.
measurements validate the analytical removal of the closure ring, lid, vent, purpose cask systems toward a demonstrates that the temperatum methods and the predicted thermal and drain covas are to be developed by standardized format.
Comment No. 60:lt was suggested behavior described in Chapter 4 of the the cask user. These procedures will be that controlling the bases for the TSs as evaluated by thelicensee and by the The cask user willpwform validation NRC duringinspections to addrws pr.rt of the CoC would result in SAR.
administrative burdens to allinvolved.
tests for each subsequent cask system adequacy and implementation and, hse bases are not controlled as part of that has a heat load that exceeds a thwefore, am beyond the scope of this Power reactor licenses.
previously validated heat load by more rulemaWg.
Response:The NRC staff agrees.
Comment No. 36:One commenter brefom, the bases have been relocated than 2 kW (e g.,if the initial test was questioned that if the MPC gas conducted at 10 kW, then no additional testingis nuded until the heatload temperature is not met, what additional to an appendix to the SAR.
F Feder:1 Register /Vol. 64. No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/Ruhs and Regulations 48269 Response:The NRC s with the Comment No. 62:A number of with other devices is not prohibited.
comment. Section 2.1 oNe TS: h commenters also raised concerns with The commenter recommended similar 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 a very lengthy design specification OPERATIONS."
TSs.
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 placement of much of this information question do not prohibit lifting of a cask abould be revised use, as written, 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.
and codes information were moved from recuirements contained in TS 2.1.3.
such as when moving casks within the 2
the TSs to a separate appendix to the Comment No. 64:One commenter ISFSt. However,the drop analysis 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."
l controls by adding it to a revised defined terms in TS Section 1.0 to the Re8Ponse:The NRC agrees with the Section 3.0. " Administrative Controls TS Bases.
comment. The frequency of SR 3.1.7.1 and Programs." of the TSs.
Response:The NRC disagrees with the has been revised.
Upon consideration of public comment.The terms defined in TS Comment No. 71:One commenter m
recommended that TS Sections 4.1 and comments and further consideration Section 1.0 are important in the ad within the NRC, the NRC staff has understanding of the TS requinments.
4.2 be ehminated because they contain determined that the structure of TS These oefinitions need to be contained no unlaue information.
Resp 6nse:NRC agrees with the I
st Section 2.1, "SFSC INTEGRITY," did within the TSs. This practice is 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 information contained in TS Sections The number of limiting conditions for stated that in Examples 1.b2 and 1.5-4.3 and 4.5 to the SAR, and l
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 usefulness of the TSs.
" action" has been capitalized.
duplication of existing regulatory Comment No. 62: One commenter Comment No. 66:One commenter requirements.
stated that if surface contamination recommended the removal of portions Response:The NRC apees in part.
exceeds 2200 dpm/100 cm2 from of Table 2.1-1 and all of Table 2.1-2 The NRC staff agrees that these sections gamma and beta emitting sources, and and Table 2.1-3 from the TSs.
do not belong in the TSs. This design information has been relocated to smearable contamination limits cannot Response:The NRC agrees,in part, de be reduced to acceptable levels, the TSs that this information should be moved.
Appendix B to the CoC. The NRC staff require actions up to and including This design information is crucial to the disagrees with the commenter's l
removal of the MPC from the M1-STAR conclusions reached by the NRC staffin Proposal to eliminate or relocate these sections to the SAR. The NRC has 100 overpack after removing the spent its SER: therefore, the design 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 l
ISFS1 in Utah does not have facilities for a separate appendix to the CoC, along desir,n information contained in these decontaminating casks and, therefore, with other critical design information.
sect.ons.The NRC staff aise disagrees these TSs could not be met.
Comment No. 67:One commenter with the comment that TS Section 4.4 Re8Ponse The NRC apees in part.
recommended a change to the format of is a duplicate of existing regulations.
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 ts l
requires verification that removable and 2.1-4.
acceptance criteria for the site-specific
,3Y contamination is within limits during Response:The NRC agrees with the design parameters.
l loading operations and provides up to 7 comment. The format has been changed.
Comment No. 73: A commenter days to restore the contamination within Comment No. 68:One commenter recommended relocating the lirnits The specifications no longer list recommended a wording change in TS information contained in TS Sections i
MPC or spent fuel removal actions.
Section 3.0 from "not applicable to an 4.6 and 4.8 to an Administrative
?g' Turther. comments on the proposed site-SFSC" to "not applicable."
Controls chapter due to their content jt specific Skull Valler ISFSI currently Response:The NRC agrees with this and relocating Section 4.7 to the SAR I
under review are be' yond the scope of comment and has made the indicated because it is a one. time administrative this rulemaking Decontamination
- change, task.
requirements will be reviewed as part of Comment No. 69:One commenter Response:The NRC agrees in part.
stated that there is no need to create two The NRC staff agrees that these sections the site-specific licensing provisions as under Part 72 Subpart B for the Skull specifications for TS 3.1.1, MPC Cavity belong in the administrative section of Vacuum Drying Pressure, and TS 3.1.2, the TSs and has placed this information Vallev ISFSI.
i Coinment No 63: One commenter OVERPACK Annulus Vacuum Drying in a new TS Chapter 3.0, I
stated that the definition of Pressure. In addition, the commenter
" Administrative Controls and
" 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 4d analysis is not limited to drops from the Leak Rate, and TS 3.1.6, OVERPACK Section 4.7 (now TS Section 3.21, transporter, and that lifting of a cask Helium Leak Rate, because it is established NRC staff
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 j
specification be eliminated and the further recommended the addition of code without amending the certificate.
4:
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 C'
The NRC spees with the first point. TS 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 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 P1tk l the changes made to this section resolve requirements and the calculational recommended an acceptable method for concerns regarding its complexity.
comnarison requimd by this TS licensees to comply with the soil
(
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.
CoC.
c
/tipover analyses.
associated dro$e NRC apees with the Comment No. 76: The commenter.
Comment No. 82:One commenter Response:T P'
stated that the TSs do not comply with recommended adding a new definition comment. TS LCO 2.1.3 has been
[
10 CFR 72.44(d) that requires TSs on for fuel building to the TSs.
revised to add this option.
radioactive efiluents.
Response:The NRC agrees with this Response:The NRC s with the Comment No. 88: One commenter comment. A definition fuelbuilding believed that the 46-hour time limit has been added to the TSs.
within TSs 3.1.1 thr6 ugh 3.1.6 is overly revi o ncorp rate t e r qu rements Comment No. #2:One commenter restrictive.
g mment ho.g recommended editorially revising TS Response:The NRC apees with this
{
77:One commenter recommended that within TS Section LCO 3.1.7. "SFSC Lifting Requirements" comment in part. Accordingly, the NRC 1.1. the definition for " Intact Fuel and the related bases to clarity the has reviewed the time limit in each t
Assembly" should be revised to state applicability. The revision is necessary applicable TS. Some of the time limits because the LCO is not intended to be have been extended to provide for a
" * *
- an amount of water greater than 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 thr..
fl espect t y rod secured on a railcar or heavy haul trailer Comment No. 89: One commenter s
because the cask.is not being lif ed.
recommended the deletion of the Design t
,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 Federal Regist:r/Vol. 64 No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/Rul:s and Regulations 48271 i
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 8
);o ent No. 96:One commenter
$kun5 go Uon s oul Comment No. 92:Two commenters 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
hebporting analysis for a comments The applicable CoC forces applied at the1% STAR too mass su ugh condition has been revised to delete the center."
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 10 CFR 72;48 as recently approved by recommended in SER Section 3.1.4.4,in
[t a no APPP the first $arapaph, b replacement ofimp 3eme thegrmanestimee the Commission.
"* *
- t e fabricator is an accredited ack had been accepted by the NRC Comment No. 92:Two commenters ovege STAR 100 transputation cask.
recommended that a Bases Control facility by the ASME for nuclear im 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 recommended that in SER Section 6.3.
submined nummus editwial comments process in to CFR 72.48.
the word " minimum" be replaced with on the SAR, SER, and CoC. Comments Response:This comment is beyond 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.
attachment to the CoC was in error.
Response:The NRC s with the Brammatical corrections, corrections to Response:The NRC agrees with this comment. The SER has n revised to text, to maintain consistency between documents, typopaphical corrections, comment. The description has been correct the error, corrected.
Comment No. 99:One commenter format changes, and to correct 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 and/or testing of the H1-STAR 100 by as reasonably achievable (A1. ARA)
CoC have been revised to address the the applicant / certification holder /
practices.
comments as appropriate.
Response:The NRC disagrees with the Comments on the Apphcant's Topical licensee.
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 leakage tests, component tests, and However,the intent of the proposed Section 8.0 of the SAR to clarify -
shielding and integrity testing and SER revision is alrudy implied in users will have some flexibility 1: m
48272 Fed:ral Register /Vcl. 64, No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/ Rules and Regulati:ns j
procedures and equipm:nt suitabla for Respo se:The NRC agrees that the sevwal changes to the SER as f allows-
' site-specine needs and capabilities.
changes to the drawings w:re SER Section 8.1.4 sh:uld be changed ts Response:The NRC agrew with the appropriate and do not resultin any add "(or optional multi layer PT
)
suggested editorial changes.The changes to the supporting design aramination),"aftw " ultrasonic changes to the SAR have been made.
analyses. The SAR drawings have been avamination (UT)"; the SER should Comment No. 204:One commenter revised in acx:ordance with the recognize that users may choose to recommended some editorial changes sugestod changes.
pwform the MPC void-to shell weld within SAR Section 4.4, because the Comment No. 209:The applicant manually; and SER Section 11.4.1.3.1 wording in Subsection 4.1.1.25 may be sugested using Magnetic Particle should be reworded to read " examined
. erroneously interpreted to mean that the amhation in lieu of1.iquid Penetrant using 1.TT or multi layer PT techniques,"
chilled helium delivned to the MPC Examination for the ovwpack weld instud of" volumetrically examined cavity to cool the intwnals prior to examination and recommended changes usingIJr?
flooding the cavity with water must be to the associated drawing notes.
Raponse:The NRC agrees and notes at too 'F. The commenter stated that the Response:The NRC agrees with this that the applicant's comments with 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 a change to the drawings which will SAR. Changes have been made to Table system to be engineered with the mean that drawings rmrencing this 1-3 to Appendix B.The SER has been Boxibility to cool MPCs containing fuel examination shall be diffwent for the revised as recommended.
with varying levels of decay but storage and transportation certificates.
Sumsmary of FinalRevisions production, These differences are not significant The NRC staff modified the listing for Response:The NRC s with the because the staff finds Magnetic Particle comment.The SAR has n revised.
Examination to be equally acceptable to the Holtec International HI-STAR 100 cask system within to CFR 72.214," List Comment No. 205:In SAR Section 1.5, Drawings 1399, Sheet 3, and BM-Liquid Penetrant Examination.
. of approved spent fuel storage casks,"
1476, and in Drawing Section "N-N,"
APFropriate changes to the drawings with respect to the title of the SAR as have been made.
one commenter recommended the Comment No. 2io:The applicant well as the CoC and its two appendices, 90 degrees apart as a personnel [ose suggested a clariScation for the the TSs, and the Approved Contents and aced addition of four threaded holes reduction enhancement. The new holes sequence for the hydrostatic testing and Design Featuas.
helium leakage tuting dunng modified its SER.
would allow the personnel attaching the ack.
fabrication of theg'sThN=*
Agmement State Compatibility shield to work in an area of lesser E,@,$,p Ad';y*ggr,gg=',a=
He'f ans @if"ci f?*deid sttachment will remain the same.
Comment No. 222:As it relates to the Agreement State Programs" approved by Response:The NRC agrees with the Radiogrsphy and Heat Treatment the Commission on June 30,1997, and 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 l
Category "NRC." Compatibility is not suggested that in SAR Revision to, the tnatment (PWHT), after combeting drawings in Chapter 1 be revised to nondestructive examination.
used for required for Category "NRC" 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 the ASME code.
directly to areas of regulation reserved comment. Seven drawings in SAR Response:The NRC agmes. The SAR to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of Section 1 have been revised to match and Appendix B to the CoC have been 1954, as amended (AEA), or the 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 Under the National Environmental analyses.
Table 4-1, MPC Enclosure Vessel and Response:The NRC agrees. The SAR Lid, should be made to replace "and Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the has been revised as suggested by the sufficient intermediate layers to detect Commission's regulations in Subpan A critical wild flaws" with "and at least of to CFR pan 5L the NRC has commenter.
Comment No. 208:The applicant one intermediate PT after approximately determined that this rule is not a major suggested a number of changes to the
- /s inch weld depth." The commenter Federal action significantly affecting the drawings for the HI-STAR 100 Storage also recommended the deletion of quality of the human environment and Cask. These changes did not require a
" Flaws in austenitic stainless are not therefore an environmentalimpact change to the supporting design expected to exceed the bead".The statement is not required. This final rule commenter further recommended adds an additional cask to the list of
- analyses, 3
i i
t
,e---
i 48273 !
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/ Rules and Regulations
' approved spent fuel storage casks that met. In that rule, four spent fuel storage Based an b above discussion of the power reactor beensees can use to store casks were approved for use at nactor bene $ts and impacts of the alternatives,,
sites and were usted in 10 CFR 72.214.
& NRC concludw that the spent fuel at reactor sites without That rule envisioned that storage casks seguirements of b Enal rule are additional site. specific approvals from the Commission. The environmental certiBod in the future cx>uld be routinely commensurate with the Commission's anessment and Mnr of no signiBeant added to the Esting in to CFR 72.214 neponsibilities for public health and impact on which this determination is through the rulemaHng process.
safety and the common defense and based are available for inspection at the Proceduns and criteria for obtaining security.No other available alternative i
NRC Public Document Room,2120 L NRC approval of new spent fuel storage is beheved to be as natisfactory, and Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, cask designs were provided in to CFR thus, this action is recommended.
DC. Single copies of the environmental part 72, subpart L.
Small Businees Regulatory Enforcement l
assessment and finding of no significant The alternative to this action is to Fairness Act impact are available from Stan Turch withhold approval of this new design Office of Nuclear Material Safety and and issue a site speci5c license to each In accordance with the Small Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory utility that proposes to use the casks.
Business Regulatory Enforcement l
This alternative would cost both the Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has Commission, Washington, DC 20555, 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.
ma}or rule and has verthed this sptenre' gov' 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 new cask designs that can be used under OfSee of Management and Bu This final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork a general Scense, and would be in Regulatory Flexibihty Certincation Reduction Act of 1995 (44 USC 3501 et conflict with NWPA direction to the Commission to approve technologies for In accordance with the Regulatory
' 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.
If a means used to impose an tend to exclude new vendors from the This rule affects only the licensing and information collection does not display business market without cause and operation of nuclear power plants.
a currently valid OMB control number, would arbitrarily limit the choice of independent spent fuel storage facihties.!
i the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, cask desips available to power reactor and Holtec International. The and a person is not nquired to respond licensees. This final rulemaking will companies that own thne plants do not l 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 safety, benefit of this rule to nuclear hgulatij"Ayi d b the Smallstnt Federal agencies use technical standards The that are developed or adopted by power reactor heensees is to make 121*
voluntary consensus standards bodies available a greater choice of spent fuel unless the use of such a standard is storage cask designs that can be used Backfit Analysis inconsistent with applicable law or under a*generallicense The new cask 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 the NRC is adding the Holtee CFR 72.214 benefit by having to obtain 72.62) does not apply to this rule International H1-STAR 100 cask system NRC certificates only once for a desip because this amendment does not to the list of NRC approved cask that can then be used by more than one involve any provisions that would systems for spent fuel storage in to CFR power reactor licensee. The NRC also impose backfits as defined in the backfi, t
72.214 This action does not constitute benefits because it will need to certify the establishment of a standard that a cask desip only once for use by rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not:
establishes generally applicable multiple licensees. Casks approved required.
l through rulemaking are to be suitable h fS in n CFR Part 72 requirements.
for use under a range of environmental conditions sufficiently broad to Criminal penalties, Manpower l
Regulatory Analys.ts l
On July 18,1990 (55 FR 29181) the encompass multiple nuclear power training programs, Nuclear materials.
Commission issued an amendment to N plants in the United States without theOccupational safety and health, CFR part 72. The amendment providet need for further site speciSc approval Reporting and recordkeeping for the storage of spent nuclear fuelin by NRC. Vendors with cask desips nquinments, Security measures, Spea cask systems with designs approved by already listed may be adversely fuel.
the NRC under a generallicense. Any impacted because power reactor For the reasons set out in the licensees may choose a newly listed cask systems with designs approved by design over an existing one. However.
preamble and under the authority of 6 nuclear power reactor licensee can use the NRC to store spent nuclear fuelifit the NRC is required by its regulations Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amendt and NWPA direction to certify and list the Energy Reorpnization Act of 1974j as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NR notifies the NRC in advance, the spent 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
tmEal RegUer7Vf(20, ge.171/ Friday. S:ptember 3,1999/ Rules and Regulations uuxJ 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 R*5ulatory Flexibility Act Certification NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH LEVEL
[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 not have a significant adverse economic Authority: Secs. 51,53.57,62.63.65,69.
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the impact on a substantial number of small 81.161.182,183,164,186,187.189,68 Stat.
Federal Reserve System.
entities. The rule does not impose any 929.930.932,933.934,935,948.953,954.
ACTKm: Final rule.
additional requirements on entities 935,as arnended, sec. 234,83 Stat. 444, as affected by the regulation.
amended (42 U.S.C. 2071. 2073,2077,2092, suuMARY:The Board of Governors has 2093,2095,2099.2111.2201,2232,2233, 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 Reserve Bank. The Board acted on connection with the adoption of the U.S.C 5841. 5642. 5s46): Pub. L 95-601, sec.
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 The p,,,,,g(rovisions of 5 U.S.C E52!) tht 10153,10155.10157,10161,10168).
dates specihed in 12 CFR 201.51.
e 30 days prior notice of the Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
effective date of a rule have not been 142(b) and 148(c). (d). Pub. L 200-203,101 Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the 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.
delaying the changes in the basic 101 Stat.1330-235 (42 U.S.C 10165(g)).
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 discount rates on Federal Reserve Bank Reserve System.
(42 U.S.C 1c153) and sec. 218(a). 96 Stat.
extensions of credit. The discount rates For the reasons set out in the 2252 (42 U.S C 10198).
Preamble.12 CFR are the interest rates charged to as set forth below:part 201 is amended
- 2. In Section 72.214. CertiScate of depository institutions when they Compliance 1008 is added to read as borrow from their disdct Roem PART 201--EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT I II "'
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 Banks' discretion, for extended credit.
part 201 continues to read as follows:
e 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 sis Report the Boards of Directors of the twelve 3
Docket Number. 72-1008 Federal Reserve Banks. The new rates
- 2. Section 201.51 is revised to read as 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:
remaining very tight, the degree of William D. Travers, monetary ease required to address the Foceral Reserve Executhe Director /c'r Operations.
global financial market turmoil oflast 0**
Rate Effective (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.
p--
W,
L..
,5
,., ber 3,1999 Septem 1
3
[-
r J
9 N
i r.
F.
Part lil Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
Changes to Requirements for Environmental Review for Renewal of d
Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses; h
Final Rules
'l 3
i i
1
Fed:ral Register /Vcl. 64, No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/ Rules and Regulatirns C6496 Mountain as a repository.Rather,it Nuclear Power Reactor,"in plant.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY reflects NRC's existing license renewal speci$c license renewal reviews: (2) the ository conditions that mustbe met before an COMMl8SION process by reflecting current rep!! cation applicant may adopt Table S-4: and (3) activities and policies. lf an app the extent to which the generic effects 10 CPR Part 51 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 Changes to Requirements for Mountain will constitute an entirely plant-specine license renewal Mview.
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, MPublished the rule in the Federal Licenees based on technical or national policy 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, ACThoN: Final Rule.
for study as a repository, the NRC will "The environmental effects of evaluate the a{plicability of the generic,,yg,,,,,,, impact transportation of fuel and waste shall be sus 4 MARY: The Nucleu Regulato 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*
"Suirement was added'*
renew the operatlog licenses of nuclear 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 Qc'hY,Qhb et A
t pemuo 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 purpose of impact anaJysis as long as that site Specifically,this amendment adds to SUPPLEs4ENTARY MFOne4AT10N:
is unda consideration for licensing.
findings concerning the cumulative environmentalimpacts of conve7e Backgraind Also in nsponse to the comments,the ence l
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 As 8
do P
e rb the destinations, and the environmental Register a finalrule amendingits
,,iden impact of transportation of higher 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 of the process of smvironmental review inue of cumulauve transoonstion impacts 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 "H
tT 1) P each individuallicense renewal nported in the final report of NUREG-chU)d in SECY-97 279, titled " Generic and 8
application. This action reduces the 1437, " Generic Environmental Impact regulatory burden on applicants for Statement for License Renewal of Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts 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.
experience of operating nuclear power Repository,"ff informed the Commiss dated December 3,1997, 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 impacts are well understood could be generic and cumulative impacts of the License Renewal of Nuclear Plants" eninirnised.In the statement of trapsportation of HLW and of the (May 1996), which addresses local traffic impacts attributable to continued considerations accompanying the final impi cations of higher burnup fuel for rule, the Commission stated that before transportation impacts support a 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 the treatment oflow level waste (LLW)
HLW is a Category 1 issue and may be impact of transporting spent fuel and 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 and spent fuelIn response to thelune isives are then environment t suun for what. i un massen and in the rule,caieserv i in the vicinity of LasVegas. NV.The 5,1996, final rule, a raumber of enalv$ls and nadinsi have been dete NRC elected to evaluate the impacts in commentors stated that the 1' b u
l Yucca Mountain is the only location requirements for the review of
$,',*p, aQ,ejeary erpl.n i
the vicinity of Yucca Mountain because c,
transportation of HLW in the rule were
.. pi,(,,,n. cs,7 ci,n,uc, %,,, y Currently being, evaluated for a unclear with respect to (1) the use and inform uon thei nisnificantly chansa the tc oc.
these seneric findmai msv be edopted in i repository under the Nuclear Waste legal status of 10 CFR 51.52," Table S-
$'l,"""",%yllM'8lg*,u' Polier Act.The NRC's analysis of the 4-Environmentalimpact of impa'ets in the vicinity of Yucca Transportation of Fuel and Waste To cruena of categorp cannot be me ans.c a Mountain in this instance does not and From One Light Water-Cooled oddition. piani..pectric renew.reque.o prejudge the eventual licensing of Yucca
48497 Federal R==latr/ Vel. 64, No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/Rults and Regulations t
1998,the Commission direct:d b NRC Dia===l==
discuss b generic and cumulativs cu a
ekonsM Rulesnaking to
, v$
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 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(11)(M)).The NRC of m.W as a Category 1 issue. In a 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 la that memorandum b NRC staff ecki (1 dandum 1, %e analysis focused on 6
6467 Clark County, Nevada because it also proposed, u an administrative and el FR 66537),the NRC published a 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 staff has generically considwed the Seedon 4.7.3.2 and the overall issue of relatively small addition to those cts of transportin higher potentialis enriched an higher burnup fusk than transportation was designated as previously published conclusions. In
,I.
Category 2 in the rule (see to CFR Part pwucular, as discussed above,this 51, Subpan A Appendix B, Table B-1, amendment ensures among other things currently covwed in to CFR 51.52 sad -
j "Public Services Transportation").
that the NRC has considered the likely ' is these Radings with this However,the specificissue oflocal impacts of trans arting spent fuel Saal
- e. hetassusmentconcludes 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 i,$
from 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) and its corridor in the vicinity of a waste mnewal period are aman and are consktet wie &impeu dh inclusion in Table B-1 is not exphcitly regory.use the Yucca Mountain site in vdus kTabh H deerede's
'p' stated. The basic transponstion concern identified in NUREG-1437 is the Nevada currently represents the most 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 to an uns ed.
otheticalsite The subpart A, appendix B), the Commission hi To address the above issues, the Commissionissued proposed d
to use uccaMountainforthe may reach a conclusion of"small" impact for a particularissw if the:
[urposes of the current analysis, Fb 2
999(
884) d owever,in no way increases or
... 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
suppens this rule,is mporte in MPository for the nation s highlevel important attribuw of the moeurce. For the j
N NUREG-1437,Vol.1, Addendum 1.
waste. Instead, it simply provides the purposes of aseeming radiologicalimpacu.
the --w n has concluded that those i
$ ' *" Generic EnvironmentalImpact E wie se infonnedonit mods to e
o ouge the potentialimpacts from gapects that do not exceed permissible levels Statement for 1icense Renewal of fsconsing nuc ear pWw[.If an anW fu en in b Commission *negulations am Nuclear Plants: Main Re ort Section additional 20 year pari considered small as the term is und in this 6.3 ' Transportation,' Table 9.1
, Summary oi findings on NEPA iseus application is Sled by the Department of table.
4p for license renewal of nuclear power Energy (DOE), the hoensing for The Analrule amends bissue of 9
plants, F nal Report."The draft for a aposumy k b vicinity ace transportanon of ful and waste from comment was published in Februar Mountain win constitute an entirely latory action from this final Category 2 to Category 1. In order to q
1999 and the final mport is expecto t se arate %C decision on a repository r[e. Any reach this Category 2 conclusicia on an
.be published in August 1999 The public comment period closed on license will be accompanioil by seperste issue and thus not req April 27,1999. Extensive public safety and environmental analyses that analysis of the issue pursuant to comments were received, including will include a thorough examination of 6 51.53(c)(s)(i), the Commission has concerns by some commentors about the the environmentalimpacts stemming made the following Andings in lensth of the comment period. Although from the construction and operation of accordance with the definitions set out the NRC did not extend the public the mpository. If the analyses prepamd in 10 CFR Part St.Subpart A Appendix 4
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 i
explained in more detail below, the to conform with ee new findings.
8Pecific type of cooling system or other comments have led to both the use of Amendments to the Rule specified plant or site characteristic; more conservative assumptions in &
The current regulations require each (2) A single significance level,in this analysis reponed in Addendum 1 and a applicant for license renewal to review case "small"has been assigned to the fuller explanation of the analysis. 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 fuel disposal 2); and environment for the uranium fuel cycle, focund on concerns with the scope and (3) Mitigation of adverse impacts from mining to ultimate disposal of thoroughness of the supporting analysis in Addendum 1, including the lack of associated with the issue has been spent fuelThe discussion of the consideration of the proposed Private considend in the analysis, and it has implications for the environmental Fuel Storage Facility at Skull Valley, been determined that additional plant-impact data reported in Table S-4 was Utah. Industry comments focused on spec!Sc mitigation measures an likely not repeated or referenced in Section not to be suffeiently beneficialto 6.3, which addresses the incremental clarifications in the rule language.
lementation.
impacts oflicense renewal on the e wrinen comments have h warrant im$1 of thn Category 1 finding,ll transponation of fuel and waste to and summarind and gm P L"
l As a resu neither applicants nor the NRC staff wi from nuclear power planta. Addendum 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 values in modifications and clarifications have been incorporated into Addendum 3-a plications as long as no new and Table S-4 to the use of er enrichment fueland hi r burnup fuel a tably,6e un of mon conurvauve
' sfgnificant information exists. The presently in use. The analysis concludes assumptions in the analyses and a fuller l
analysis in NUREG-1437, Vol.1, Addendum 1 which forms the technical that shipment of higher enriched or exP 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 4,10 CFR 51.52. It should be noted that has also prepared responses, given such.the results of the analysis 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.
Although the NRC staff has anused approval.
Issue 1-Public Notice 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 transportation of spent nuclear fuel.
e w;uldhave an exposed po ulation Re8Ponse:The NRC believes that the lac into Table 1 u der b
iely$at at fu 1 d i is u 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
$ $1.53(c)(3)(il (M) hu not been Addendum 1 were published in the to a high level waste refository at Yucca included in the final rule because the Federal Register (64 FR 9884 and 64 FR Mountain is considere in the future
- matters covered by $ $1.53(c)(3)(ii) only 9889, February 26,1999). While the the NRC may need to determine apply to Category 2 issues and, as such, notice a title did not include the specific whether such an alternative includes the inclusion cf matters related to a term transportation, the titles define new and significant information that Category t issue in that section would the sub ect matter of the regulation to be ma change the regulato outcome' not have been appropriate. Instead, the affecte ; the title of the pro osed rule is in addition to consider ng the content of the language that had been Chan;,es to Requirements or cumulative impacts of transportation in Proposed for 5 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M)is Environmental Review for Renewal of the vicinit of a repository, the NRC also adequately cove ed by the amended Nut. lear Power Plant Operating considere whether use of higher entry in Table B-1 itself under the issue Licenses."The title of the Notice of burnup or higher enriched fuel that is f "Trar.sportation"in the Uranium Availability is " Changes to shipped to a repository results in Tuel Cycle and Waste Management Requirements for Environmental Review impacts consistent with the NRC section.
f r Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant regulations (6 51.52,' Table S Environmental Impact of Transportation Response to Comments Operating Licenes, Availability of cf Fuel and Waste To and From One Thiny-one commentlenen wm Supplemental Environmental!mpact Light Water-Cooled Nuclear Power received the proposed rule from Statement." Addendum 1 supplements Reactor'). The environmental power reactorlicensees State andlocal specific sections of NUREG-1437 en fofL$i po7e$us Re e of its eg ations.
e ea Po a publicintest gmup, and an Nuclear Plants (May 1996). This limited discussed in Section 6.2 3 of NUREG-individual. Most of the comments were function is indicated by the title of
Addendum 1, Generic Environmental l
h
- s, 'e$ada b$'A*2(4"T@n a*A
f sensiti t of e da a p ente in i ccal o ent Tiryh'"d M Pe d r M e?' g = ?," g C T l g g i,a" n
- b
'o,o{a P
91 e
ng the fuelburnup. Table S-3 summarizes Vad i and s 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 thoroughness of the analysis in the and to Cn st.117.*Dreh annronmental unpact (collocuve effects)" and "Offsite radiolosul Addendum.The State of Utah also statemenroouco orevaaeben.-
impacts (spent fuel and high level waste disposan i
1
48499 Fed:ral * -jm/Vcl. 64, No.171/ Friday, September 3,1999/ Rules and Regulatirns
. s.
)
,j for beense nnewal of nuclear power incorporate in a license renewal review YuccaM:untain site so th can
>. plants,' Draft Report for Comment.
of plants that may use fuel enriched up appropriately consider b7aformation le chan e an the su to 5 percent and potentially ship spent in any futun pali activitin um et yb t-fuel with a burnup of up to 62,000 involvingYucca Moun
. Specisc to I
med =inpuu a b dphic data the current rule,the dem specificenvironmentalanal is mwd /MTUT b.
s-t has no direct r
required to be submitted in e
i Environmenta! Report of an applicant regulatory impact on any entity within computer code,which was used to for the renewal of a nuclear power plant Nevada.N selection of Yucon generate bimpact analydsin
]
operating license and b plant speciSc Mountain for the generic evaluation of Addendum 1 were moes current than i
supplemental environmentalimpact transportationimpacu was made data used in many of the studies cited s
statement prepared by the NRC.Even because that alte is currently the only by the commentors.
though the analysisin Addendum 1 one under consideration for a high-Casunent:NRC failed to consult the focuses on spent fuel shipments level-*aste (Hl.W) wposi
. Before full spectrum of transportation mode converging on the proposed npository Hl.W is actually to Yucca and route scenarios.
at Yucca Mountain, Nevada,that Mountain, Nevada, State, local Aespons:h purpose of 2 rule y
anelysis and the resulting rule affect Governments, Indian Tribes, and the and associated analysisis to reach only the review requirements for public have the opportunity.to provide conclusions regarding blikely environmentalimpact of heense renewal of an individual nuclear power input on site speciRe transportation plant operating license. it is not impacts by commenting on DOE's draft renewal. As noted above,this intended that Addendum 1 or the EIS forthe pro repository at the amendmentis an addition to generic y-revised rule support any other Yucca Mo site,which was smede assessments oflicense renewal regulatory decision by the NRC.
available for a 180aisy comment period environmental imp' acts aheady codine beginning on August 13,1999 [http://
in the Commission s regulations at10 CFR part 51, subpart A, appendix B. k issue 2-Communications www.ynp. gov).
Comment:NRC failed to consult with Also, the need for and scope of the is not an environmentalimpact Nevada State agencies Nevadalocaf current rule amendment were identined statement for a repository at Yucca f
governments and with NevadaIndian within the context of a proceding Mountain for which Dotis nsponsible Tr b s-rulemaking that specined the plant-and, as such, does not delve into the Response: As discussed above, a speci8e content of the environmental expansive range of di5erent vanety of organizations and government review of appucations for b renewal of transportation modes and ro agencies submitted substantive individualnuclear newer plant scenarios that would be considered in comments in response to the proposed operating heenses.the pwvious Anal the context of a decision on Yucca rule.The NRC has considmd these rule was pubhshed in the Federal Mountain as the possible site for the comments and,in many cases, altered Regiseer Srst on June 5,1996 (61 FR incility itself. Instead, the NRC has 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,
. Nevada state agencies, Nevada local
as part ofits efforts to develop.
vicinity of apotentialrepository.In Governments, and Nevada Indian Tribes ngulatory guidance for this rule, the doing so, the NRC considwed only those for the following reasons. First, the rule Commission willconsider whether transportation moda and route p
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 NRC staff-in consuhation with the y
nuclear power plant license renewal cumulative transportation impacts and DOE staff-determined that truck decisions, which is a ngulatory (2)the implications that the use of 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 I"
the NRClicensingreview of a HLW consideration of thee issues, the have b highest potentialimpacts npository and from the decinon Commission will determine whethw the among the alternative transportation scenarios and modes that would roosive process leading to a DOE site issue of transportation ingacts should serious consideration in decisions J
I recommendation on Yucca Mountain, be changed to Category 1.
relating to the suitability of the site Nevada.the site DOE currently has issue 3-Transportation Analysis undergoing study for a repository at 2
under study.This rule amends the Comment:NRC failed to consult Yucca Mountain.The NRC continun to i
two questions not adequately answered: relevant Yucca Mountain transportation be December 18.1996, rule with respect to
- 1. Are the current environinental risk and impact studies.
and modes to generate conservative Response:The publications cited by estimates is reasonable for the purpose I
impact values in Table S-4, based on commentors have bwn reviewed for of this rulemaking.
Comment:There was insufficient several destinations, still reasonable to information that may be of direct use 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?
in these documents was found to be everage dose rate lower than the
- 2. Are the current environmental regulatorylimit.
impact values in Table S-4 (which are potentially more relevant to a detailed site-specific review of Yucca Mountain Response:The RADTRAN analysis based on fuel enriched to no gnater than to the generic analysis for this rule. reportedin the final Addendum 1 8
than 4 percent, the average level of That information has been brought to been modified to use the most irradiation of spent fuel not exceeding the attention of those organisational conservative assumption that the
' 4 33.000 mwd /MTU, and shipment no units within the NRC nsponsible for radiation levels for all shipments an at 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 4
l
^
Federal Registr/Vcl. 64. NA 172 / Friday. September 3.1999/ Rules and m,
the 48500 f
more conservativo assumpti:ns, the le
=
thelicense renewalterm,thelarge
- estimated does and risk to b crew are asem/hourl at 2 m (6.6 Al from theanalyticaleBortrequired forthe smalland below story limits.
ns ors would to shipment vehicle surface. As noted in identiacation of c population
& risktovehi dition of e,
Section 2.2.3 of Addendum 1. this c circumstancesis be encompassed by the tk-locatiens and not warranted within the context of the stationary time for the transport truck in 4aa is sufBdently conservatin
-=p*d the analysis of routine currentrule, Although the comments
(
naponse to comment en toboun transportation radiological risk and raise validissues,those concerns should Clark County seeabout trafBc gridlock, m
allow areasonable assessment of thatrisk. Actual average radiation levels and be moo estimated does and risk are increased by p
a studying, and making decisions the use of more conservatiw associated doses would be muchlower a
Ha= the suitability of the assumptions;but they remain small and u
b because shipments must be designed so candidate repost site atYucca below regulatorylindts.
e blountaja and tory.
krts Comment:There waslasufBdent that the regulatory limits are not -
use of the regulatory
. governing transponation o7 t fuel.
consideration of severe transportation
]
exceeded.
limits in the revised analysis results in Comment:There was accident risks.
cient
. higher dose estimates for incident-freeconsideration of radiological risks Response:b Commission has transportation. Howeva, these revisedestimates are still small u deaned in to resu d
Response:TrafBc gridlock incidents hasards of severe L-ptation accidentsinv truck and rail spent CFR Part 51, Subpart A Appendix B.
are not spectScally analysedin uently,the conclusion regarding NUREG-1437 because of the limited nuclear fuel (SNF) monts(NUIGGI ologicalrids of routine scope and generic natum of the analysis CR-4829."Shipp tainer the (see response to ea==aat on Response to Severe way and transportation matins valid.
Comunent:hre was insufBcient
- consideration of risks to members of the Railway Acddent tions" February consideration of routine transportation public, above). However, the revised1947, 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 a too to 140 mile trip depending upon mechanical forces generated in actual near shippins routes, 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, performance for a number of seve locations near shipping routa by To a limited extent, the incorporation j
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 analysis compensates for an analysis oftrafBc gridlock
=g M to evwy shipment.The text of l
id t 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.
- used in the revised TRAN analysis routes usedin the analysisin 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 FederalHighway Administration accidents involving higher burnup fuel.
conservative assumptions leads to higher estimates of radiation dose to the regulations (49 CFR Fort 397. Subpart D) h consequence 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 the transportation routes and population Response:b RADTRAN analysisin expected to be las than that at e
centers.However, the analysis in the revised Addendum 1 uses theorigin 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 vehiclethemselves 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 analysis due to the higher number of In the analysis, both the escorts and conceivable events (not necessarily ').
t ple who live along these routes.
drivers are assumed to be exposed to b traditional ' transportation accidents use the purpose of this ruleis to regulatory limit, although the dose to that mightbe hypobsized to occur to j;
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.
),
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No.171/ Friday. SeptImber 3,1999/ Rules and Regulatiens 48501
[
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 result in high consequences if they were study by DOE for a repository, rather cask design. The NRC should adopt the i
to occur. The NRC considers these than several destinations. Table S-4 comprehensive risk assessment 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 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).
i have a negligible contribution to the wtimate the potential cumulative effects Res onse:See the response above overall risk. In addition, as the of DOE shipments of LLW to the Nevada regar[ng considerCion of severe l
h l
probabilities of the events become very Test Site as well as shipments of HLW accident risk (low probability, high g
low, the value ofinsights to be gained, to a possible repository, the NRC staff consequence accidents) during
!j for use in regulatory decisions,1s not used information published in DOE's transportation.
I 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 does not account for the larye alternatives in the EIS that led to the transportation is regulated under to l
.i 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 analysis, the original analysis used best cancer fatalittes resulting from the that might be diverted in transit.
e 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 commentors' concerns and to reflect the Comment:Commentors stated that related to the design, fabrication, i
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 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 n
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 application for construction and SNF is performed safely with minimum affected population is conservative, the operation of the proposed Private Fuel 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 1
over time the existing population separate regulatory action. A site-result in severe accidents. Similarly, 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 Comment: NRC failed to consider that even with conservative t
cumulative impacts of all spent fuel, Issue 5-1,egal Requirements assumptions, the cumulative 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 F'pository. If, in the future, Yucca I
via the proposed beltway would reduce Comment:There was insufficient M untain is amoved from health impacts compared to shipping considadon of extended fuel burnup the consideration as a HLW repository,de via the current intustate highway heu Commluion wiu evaluate wheen system. The implementation of such g, ionse: Section 3 of Addendum 1 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 NRC staff's anal sis of higher burnup reent ranium 235 an scope of this rulemaking. In additiona for the purposes of individual license fuel examined the issun of radiation Qter than 5
[p"$
renewal rule decisions, no plant specific doses due to higher dose rates during Cmdubn,b bved y the gw mitigation measures were found shipment, higher radiation doses in the d bn win 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 attributable to a plant is commuting directly related to the physical lasue 8-Environmental Justice environment must have a reasonably plant workers.
close causal relationship to a change in Comment:NRC failed to consider Comment: Paragraph (M)of toCFR the physical environment. The Supreme Environmental Justice.
51.53(c)(3)(ii) should be deleted.
Court ruling in Mermpolitan Edison Co.
Response:The analysis sugguts that Response:The rule language has been
- 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 circumscribed,if not entirely containing a higher proportion of low-rule was necessary in order to provide j
eliminated, an agency's NEPA income and minority groups than the consistency with 51.53(c)(3)(li), as this obligation to consider impacts arising beltway routes. However, as discussed section only deals with Category 2 solely from the public's perception that in Sections 2.3 and 2.4 Addendum, the issues. Since the cumulative impacts of an agency's action has created risks of radiological and nonradiological transportation of SNF in the vicinity of accidents. Accordingly,it is not impacts of transportation of SNF are Yucca Mountain is no longer a Category 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 public's perception of risk.
disproportionatal in any one ama.
u 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 in the unlikely event of an accident.
Issue 9-Regulatory Text comments already addressed by the 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 RADTRAN computer code, the costs to make it *. lear that the environmental comments, revisions to Addendum 1 could be substantial. Given the low impact v6as in Table S-4 (to CFR were necessarily minimal.
probability of such accidents, the 51.52) may be used to account for the Comment: Addendum 1 assumes that l
socioeconomicimpacts of transportation environmental effects of transportation truck transport would have the highest of SNF do not alter the Commission's of fuel and waste to and from a nuclear doses. This assumption is not conclusions regarding the impacts of power plant at a repository such as necessarily valid. Also, a different route 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
Response: As a general matter, the suitability of Yucca Mountain or any j
addrused. (A route through Nellis Air National Environmental Policy Act consideration that DOE may give to Force Base and down US-95 is being transnostation impacts in making that
- 4 considered by DOE andit has been (NEPA) requires all Federal agencies to decision.
y perform an environmentalmview for Comment: Addendum t is not shown to have higher risks of accident intalities and to incmase b radiological certain actions they propose to conduct. manningful to the public. For exam 1'
f risk.) Routes chomn in Addendum 1 do in the context of nuclear waste it is impossible to determine if b spent y
not bound the analysis properly.
management, several agencies have blisotope inventory shown in the Response:The transportation and reguletary and operational sample p&ges of the RADTRAN pri a
toute scenarios and their underlying moponsibilities which mayinvolve matches bl considered in the assumptions were designed to reflect various proposed actions that,in turn, Addendum.
require the preparation of Responee:In preparing Addendum 1.
situations that most likely would result 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 a broad and diverse audience as much analysis properly as the routes chosen inevitably,b types ofimpacts b;
overlapin as possible.The NRC staff acknowledges for this analysis were the most discussed in thm various EISs.
that this rulem involves 4
populated routes in the State of Nevada. However, the analysis developed by the f
Also, as noted in an earlier response, b NRC for the purposes oflicense renewal complicated, t calissues. However, the NRC staff has attempted to present NRC staff consulted DOE in determining is not binding on future actions and these matters in the most clear manner that truck shipments through densely 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 inventory that can be com to the potentialimpacts among the alternativ, trigged the preparation of this transportation scenarios that would be rulemaking and b associated analysis sample pages of the s
giveo <erious consideration in decisions of evironmental impact is the agency's computer code printout.
Comment:%e study ares is relating to the suitability of the site responsibility to review applications for inaccurately defined and the location of n
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 5 ven binformation currentiavailable on those impacts incfudi Vegas.
i rovided no specific details conosening Route selections were based in part on that assertion. la the NRC staffs view'of nsportation of spent fuel. Even
's'*ough em impacts do not occur at e, esir prWmity to em a asses major centers any route that b utstion willksve significant! lower lant site during license renewal, the po[io3ogic,j impacts. g.ith regar['t fiRC has considered them here pursuant Public comments,the stud expanded to include the entire county.
re 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.
waste management arena (e.g., any Comment: Addendum t should a r8, 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 not rely on the DOE Yucca Mountain will staff s conclusions.
development of a wpository)f the sameEIS 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 may go through Clark County on the information in the future. This, number of opportunities to further j
Utah. The NRC however, does not diminish the reduce human health impacts. Thwe way to Skull Valley,d this possible adequacy of the NRC's action.This include transporting SNF by rail rather staff has not analyze 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 human boahh effects by nducing the time that the proposed Skull Valley with the information needed to weighthe likely enviro d
facility will be licensed or that the SNT would go through Las Vegas if the transportation for individual license via the proposed beltway would reduce facility were built. In addition SNT from California makes up only a small renewals applications and reach health impacts compared to shipping fraction of the SAT that would be informed decisions regarding the via the cunent interstate highway shipped The NRC staff concludes that acceptability of bse applications.The system.The implementation of such l
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 minor efianges in transportation plans with regard to a waste apository or scope of this rulemaking. in addite n.
other waste management matters.
for the purposes ofindividuallicen e that may develop for that fraction of the Speci$cally, any generic conclusions by renewal rule decisions, no plant s j
the Commission concerning the mitigation measures were found total SNF, Comment:The NRC should provide cumulative environmentalimpacts of appropriate for addressing the impacts affected parties with some statement of transportation associated with nuclear identiSed in b Addendum.The NTsC i
the regulatory effect of the power plants would in no way affect notes that DOE addnsses transponation l
interrelationships between the any DOE decision concerning the numerous other similar analyses.
l
.i!
48504 FaibialTegister7vorce,%_
I rtunity for public comment as part Impacts, mitigation measura, and impacts assumes b use ofI al-wei e NRC's rul: making process. As t
whi trucks for shipment of the SN such, tb3 NRC has f:ll:wed all alternative transportation modes in its rwults in more and smaller shipm:nts.
applicablilegalrequirements and EIS for the proposed action to devel p For the accident analysis,the use cf the appropriately carried outits a apository atYucca Mountain.
est capacity casks was assumed in msponsibility to consider the Comment: Addendum 1 does not er to W* the amount of SNF environmental impacts of its license mention that the proposed repository that would be involved in the accident.
renewal decision.
which is the datination for shi monts.
These parameters were intended to Comment;b NRC staff uses of spent nuclear fuelis in Nye bound the parts of the analysis, not to "Aswed" science as evidenced by Response: A statement noting that describe parts of the actualSNF factorsincluding a questionable e
proposed Yucca Mountain repository is in Nye County has been added to ablpment protocol such as the speci$c deSnition of risk which falls to account casks that will be used.
for severe accidents.use of misleading Comment:The analysis appean to if not falso average radiation dose rates, Addendum 1.
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 if they do not, transportation of SNF.
Response:The decisionbefore the dose estimates can be cornpared. Both how willthe maximum notential are presented in Addendum 1 and are radioactive risk in shipdent and storage Commissionis whether theimpacts of 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 for impacts 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 minimum cooling period in a certiacate. response to comment on severe considered.
Response: Addendum I was preparedComment: Addendum 1 uses national accident rate statistica. State and/oraccidents, above)' described in to provide information regarding a proposed rule to determine whether the In the analyses local rates 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, Addendum 1 concentrates on potential the NRC staff required data regarding routes, and a number of other factors, cumulative impacts to human health, not only accident rata but also injury radiation impacts on the transport crews 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 within boundaries of the State of Throughout Addendum 1 the NRC 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.
Comment:The analysis assumes the Response:The water resources of theassumptions is referenced. With respect use of the large-capacity CA-4/9 truck state will be unaffected by the transport 'to making Judgements about the shipment of spent fuel the NRC staff has of SNF through Clark County.
cask, which has not been certined and 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 specially designed trucks that have not requires disclosure to those affected.
experience in shipping SNFin this been tested. It also assumes that these their understanding, and voluntary country as well as overseas.
Comment:High level waste cask and truck systems will be available management and transportation should acceptance.
in suf5cient quantity for the shipments.
Response: NRC regulat)ons already not be a genericissue and Yucca The commentor seeks assurance that the contain valuw that the NRC considers to M assuaed truck cask system is feasible be acceptable environmental impacts 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 theResponse: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 the additional SNF that will be license renewal are similar for all truck shipment campaign, 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 Commin SNF shipments and casks to ensure thatspeci5ed 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 evaluated actual conditions the 11 hood of the occurrence of emphastzed that this generic encoun in highway and railway 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
(
ned to be reevaluated.
Section 3 of Addendum 1 dom such an event, highw burnup is only L.
Comment:Need to senside the consider b possible effect of cladding 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.
ofincreased bursup.That analysis Vol.1, Addendum 1. Table 2), the I
Response:The shi ment of SNF by would be equally applicable to any consequence of a sabo eevent rail t Caliente and en transferring it e
to truck for shipment to Yucca cladding degradation that might occur involving such blcoul be large than dudag prdongd dry stwage of b thosein h studim rdmaced by b j,.
Mountain is one of many options undw sNp commentor. However, given that h consideration by DOE. Rather than p
speculate on which transportation
. With regard to what is asserted to be connquenew cf the studies afwenced inadequate consideration of b by the commentor were small, even p
option or options will ultimately be potential radiologicalimpacts of b modwt imesses due to the effects of selected, the NRC staff has chosen a
,g mode and routes to Yucca Mountain.
rail heavy haul truck option,the NRC highn burnup fuel would not asult in g
which in its judgement will have the staff has analyzed b ndidogical unacceptably large consequences.
g greatest potential environmental impacts of the truck mode alo various Because burnup is not the only factor 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 that the[ows in hare thelimiting scenarios. Th largat study area. Should new and
'"I'*'EI"8' The analysis needs t Comment:
incident free conditions are now to the significant information result from the further study, actions addressing such address the impacts of above ground Public. If the rdl beavy bultransyrt information willis considwed.
nuclear weapons testing being done at scenario was adopted, a su tanti Neverblas,b utensive security the Nevada Test Site.
Portion of the publ.ic exposure would be Response: For the purposes of avoided, since in this scenario, the slow measures required tr/ NRC regulations I
l considering the environmental impacts moving heavy haul truck transpat make abotage eve exuemely oflicense renewal, there does not w uld not move through a major unlikely. Moreover, tre casks uired appear to be a relevant connection Population center.
to be used to transpo;t spent fu are 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 including omission ofimportant purpose of evaluating environmental 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 for would 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
Federal Register /Vcl. 64, No.171/ Friday, Septainber 3,1999/Rul:s and Reg
}
48506 ncies i
104-113, requires that Federal ag:d by or unintentionally omitted bom the June S.
use technie=1 standards develope J
f NRC should factor into its regulations 1996 Anal rule. The ruleis unchanged adopted by volun oss the use of such consensus the changing manus of thmats posed by 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 renewalThere am no maaaamus standards that shipping casks traveiins across the -
of a nuclear power plant operating apply to the analysis and Andings country. If, as a result of reviewing this 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 orcost 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.
List of Subjectsin to CFR Part 81 analysis presented hem.
Nucl P t Administrative practice and Finding of No SigalScast 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, Reporti Anal rule is the type of action described Washington, DC. In addition, coplu of and recordkeeplag requirements.
as a categoricalexclusionin to CFR NRC Saal documents citedhee may be For the reasons set outin the 51.22(c)(3). Therefore, neither an purchased from the Superintendent of Preamble to this notice and underth environmental impact statement nor an Documents U.S.GovernmentPrin 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 only to the type of environmental ^
for purchase from the National 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 REGULATION renewal applicants addmss the generic the Commission certi6u that this Saal DOMESTIC UCENSING AND RELATED and cumulative environmental impacts rule wiU not have a significant impact REGULATORY FUNCTIONS associated with transportation opwation on a substantialnumber of sman in the vicinity of a HLW rep)ository site entitia. Tim Anal rule wiu reduce the comunun to mabcitation 1.The authori
(-400 hours, - 2 responses, and adds amount of information to be subsnitted s foHows'-
a new requirement to addrus local by nuclear power plantlicensees to Authwiry: Sec.161,68 Stat.948, as traffic impacts attributable to continued facilitate NRC's obligations under the amended.Sec.1701.106 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).
Nuclear bower [ennition of small****d*USC.
sN *' * "
lastlicensees do not The public burden for thue information 4 g42 fall with the subpart A also luued under National collections is estimated to avwage a businnees as defined in Section 3 of the EnvironmentalPolicy 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 above mentioned requirement, and an the Commission's Size Standards, April U.S.C 4332,4334,433s); and Pub. L. 95 404.
increase of 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> for each of 2 11,1995 (60 FR 18344).
Title II, e2 Stat. 303Mo41: and sec.te3. Pub.
l L.101-57s 104 Stat. 2s35. (42 U.S.C. 224 responsw for the new uirement, for BeckSt Analysis 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
$C. tot \\s 6,06) tio
.22 Management and Budget (OMB) as denned in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1);
clearance is not required. Existing therefore, a backfit analysis need not be also issued under sec. 274,73 Stat. eaa. as amended b) 92 Stat. 3036-303s (42 U.S.C requirements were approved by the,
- propend, OMB, approval number 3150-0021, Seau Businses Regulatory Enforcement 22,b gt,,
as,P j {^
20 and de Nuc1e
( U Public Protection NotiScotion Fairnas Act 10141). Sections s1.43. $1.67. and 51.10e also issued under Nuclear Weste Policy Act If a means used to impose an In accordance with the Small of 1982, sec.11 elf). es Stat. 2216. as information collection does not display Business Regulatory Enforcement amended (42 U.S.C. to134(f)).
a currently valid OMB control number, Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has
- 2. In 6 51.53, paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(M) is the NRC may not conduct or sponsor.
determined that this action is not a amoved and rwerved and paragraph and a personis not required to rwpond major rule and hasvwined this to,the information collection.
determination with the Of$ce of (c)(3)(ii)(J)is revised to rnd as follows:
Regulatory Analysis Information and Regulatory Affairs of 8 51.53 Pat. construction environmenta i
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)...
(3) * *
- December 18.1996 (61 FR 66537),to The NationalTechnology Transfw (ii) * *
- make minor clarifying and coJforming 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 as are revised to read as foll ws:
ted b impact of hipway traffic b5'3k"b'Nb*yd' dbNhte MQ'I"8%rh,*,;
activities and dudag the term of the
" Transportation" issue under the
[
rmwed license.
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
- 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 (May 1996) and NUREG-1437. Vol 1. Aodendum 1. "Genene Environmental impa
- j (August 1999).
k Dated at Rockville. Maryland. this 26th day NUCLEAR REGULATDRY 1487.Vol.1. Addendum 1." Generic of August.1999-COMMISSION Environmental!mpact Statement for
. License Renewal of Nuclear Plants:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
10 CPR Part 81 Main Report Section S.b-Annette Vietti.ceek,
' Transportation ' Table 9.1 ' Summary of RIN 3180 A005 Secretary of the Commission.
bhss on MAissues im Econee I
(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, Availability of Supplemental writing to the Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing 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 the document is also available fer
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commhslon (NRC)is announcing the inspection and/or copying for a fee in completion and availability of NURZG-the NRC Public Document Room,2120 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 DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415 from a a le nuclear power plant.
Small Businese Regulatory Enforcement 3903; e. mail: dpc@nte. gov.
Specifi y, the report adds to findings Fairnese Act rnbg 6e cutnuladve in accordance with the Small SUPPLEMENTARY WORMATION:There provides the technical basis for 6 fbort
- y"p","*"3 I"$*
Business Regulatory Enforcement I
al gg Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has rule " Changes to Requirements for destination, rather than multiple Environmental Review for Renewal of destinations, and the envimamental determined that this action is not a nation of higher ma}or rule and has verified this Nuclear Power Plant Operating impact of transPgher burnuh spent fuel enriched and h determination with the OfBee of Licenses" that amends requirements to duringtherenewalterm.T erepott Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Commission's rule in 10 CFR Part 51-Environmental Protection conclusions would OMB.
R ations for Domestic Licensing and findings to be used hrmit thoseincorporatin by Dated at Rockville, Maryland. this 26th day Re sted Regulatory Functions.
reference in the environmental review
- fA # 1999' The NF C staff has completed the lication for renewal of an of anffualnuclear plant eperating For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
analyses of trar tportation issues as indiv 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 N ry ffs Electronic Access moch22765 Filed >2645 am) te a e.
endum 1 would sup1p ement the NUREG-1437,Vol.1 Addendum 1,is A
analysis and amend the findings and the also available electronically by visiting aw
- =
O