ML20247L703
| ML20247L703 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/26/1988 |
| From: | Beckjord E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Mcdonald W, Murley T, Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245D207 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-54FR19379, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-72, TASK-CE-601-1, TASK-RE, TASK-RM112 AC76-1-26, NUDOCS 8906020238 | |
| Download: ML20247L703 (68) | |
Text
%,.
/j0 ?(7 f ff
?,,.
UNITED STATES
)f(
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y }h 5.*
4j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
.j,, **
JUL 2 61988
~ MEMORANDUM FOR: Hugh L. Thompson, Director, NMSS William G. Mcdonald, Director, ARM Thomas E. Murley, Director, NRR-Stuart A. Treby, Assistant General Counsel for Rulemaking'and Fuel Cycle, OGC FROM:
Eric S. Beckjord, Director, RES
SUBJECT:
COMMISSION PAPER CONCERNING STORAGE OF SPENT FUEL AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR SITES Your concurrence is requested in the er; closed Commission' paper. The paper concerns a proposed rule that would allow holders of power reactor licenses to store spent fuel.on site in casks approved by NRC under a general license.
The following is a summary of this request:
1.
Title:
Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites 2.
Task No.:
CE-601-1 3.
Task Leader:
W. R. Pearson (Extension 23764)
- 4..
Cognizant Individuals:
J. P. Roberts, NMSS E. E. Jakel, OGC S. N. Wigginton, ADM/DRR R. J. Clark, NRR 5.
' Requested Action:
Office concurrence 6.
Requested Completion Date:
August 12, 1988 l
7.
Background:
The rulemaking would respond to directives in the Nuclear 1
d Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the Commission's policy and planning guidance to provide the basis that would permit the use of dry spent fuel storage without additional site-specific licensing reviews.
1 S "'
q dA JU Eric S. Beckjord, D ec or Office of Nuclear R ulatory Research
Enclosure:
Commission Paper q
i
- 5
/
8906020238 890526
.h" b
~
_a
9 i
.]
.c
~
The Commissio'ners (8) - Copies of the Federal Register notice will be distributed to affected licensees and other interested parties.
Scheduling:
I'f scheduled on the Commission agenda,.it is' recommended that this paper be considered at an open meeting.
Victor Stello, Jr.
i Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Proposed Federal Register notice.
2.
Draft regulatory analysis.
3.
Draft Congressional letter.
4.
Draft public announcement ~.
5.
Environmental. assessment.
Distribution:
[COMEM601]
subj-circ-chron l
ESBeckjord DFRoss BMorris ZRosztoczy Wlahs JTelford WPearson l
RDB Reading File STreby, 0GC TMurley, NRR HThompson, NMSS JScinto, 0GC EJakel, OGC JRoberts, NMSS LRouse, NMSS CSawyer, NMSS l
See Previous Concurrence Offe: RES:RDB:DRA RES:RDB:
RA ~R
- RDB:DRA RkS:hA FSW RES:DD RE :DD
/88 g/g)/88 Name: *WPearson:jp JTelford Wlahs ZRosztoczy BMorris Dross s
Date:
/ /88-
'7 /;t(/8 1/9/88 7 /24/88 7 /22/8
/
OGC NRR NMSS ADM RES:D ED0 g [t,WParler M
TMurley HThompson WMcDonald EBeckjo VStello JI f//6/88
/ /88
/ /88
/ /88
/ /88
/ /88 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY.
x
m The Commissioners (8) Copies of the Federal Register notice will be distributed to affected licensees and other interested parties upon request.
Scheduling:
If sc eduled on the Commission agenda, it is recommended that this pa er be considered at an open meeting.
l Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Proposed Federal Register notice.
2.
Draft regulatory analysis.
3.
Draft Congressional letter.
4.
Draft public announcement.
5.
Environmental assessment.
Distribution:
[COMEM601]
subj-circ-chron ESBeckjord DFRoss BMorris ZRosztoczy WLahs JTelfo d WPearson RDB Reading File STreby, OGC TMurley, NRR HThotapson, NMSS JScinto, 0GC EJakel, 0GC JRoberts, NMSS LRouse, NMSS CSawyer, NMSS I
Offc: RES:
. RA RES:RDB:DRA RES:RDB:DRA RES:DRA RES:DRA R
- DD RES:DD l
Name: W on:jp JTelford WLahs ZRosztoczy BMorris DRo s TSpeis l
Date:
i /88
/ /88
/ /88
/ /88
/ /88
/
88
/ /88 l
WParler TMurley HThompson WMcDonald EBeckjord VStello 7
l
/ /88
/ /88
/ /88
/ /88
/ /88
/ /88 I
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
1 The Commissioners For:
The Commissioners From:
Victor Stello, Jr.
l Executive Director for Operations
}
Subject:
PROPOSED RULEMAKING ENTITLED, " STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL IN NPC-APPROVED STORAGE CASKS AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR SITES" AND i
CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PARTS 72 AND 170
Purpose:
To obtain Commission approval to putslish subject rulemaking in l
the Federal Register.
Category:
This paper covers a major policy question requiring Commission f
approval.
Resource estimates are category 1, preliminary.
Background:
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) includes the follorag directive, "The Secretary [of DOE] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the Commission may, by rule, approve for use at sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need i
for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission."
l Section 133 of the NWPA states that "the Commission shall, by j
rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology j
approved by the Commission under section 218(a) for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor".
Contact:
W.R. Pearson, RES (301) 492-3764 1
_---___j
p
.)
y,.
. The Commissioners a-This proposed action responds-to these directives and also to thel Commission's planning guidance in NUREG-0885, Issue 6, "U.S.-
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Policy and Planning Guidance 1987,"
..that the NRC sh'ould continue to develop the basis for; q
rulemaking that would, to the extent practicable, enable the use of dry spent fuel -storage casks without-site-specific ~ licensing reviews.
1 s
Discussion:-
Proposed Rule. The proposed rule would provide for power.
reactor licenses-to store spent fuel without additional.
site-specific reviews. No reduction in the protection of public f
health and safety is anticipated as~ a result of promulgation of this rule. A general license would be issued to holders of.
power reactor licenses for the on-site storage of spent fuel in casks app' roved.by'.the NRC. This-rule would not limit storage of spent fuel.to that which is generated at the reactor site.
' Transfers of spent fuel from one: reactor site to another are authorized under the receiving site's facility operating license pursuant to 10 CFR'Part 50. The ho W r of a reactor operating license would apply for a license amendment, under 550.90 (unless already authorized in the operating license),
l for the receipt and handling of the spent fuel from another l
reactor.
In addition, the reactor licensee would be expected to' request amendment of the Price-Anderson indemnification agreement to provide for coverage of the transferred spent j
fuel.
10 CFR Part 72 is not germane to such transfers of spent l
fuel.
If the spent fuel has been previously transferred and is currently stored in the reactor spent fuel pool, the only consideration under the general license would be whether or not the spent fuel met conditions of the cask's Certificate of Compliance.
L L
L i
2
?
.. fy '.,
The Commissioners F
The-licensee would have to show there are no changes required in the facility technical specifications or unreviewed safety questions related to spent fuel storage under the. general license, and shew compliance with conditions of the cask Certificate of Compliance. The licensee would have to establish and maintain records showing compliance, which would have to be
'made available for inspection by the Commission.
The proposed rule would allow storage of spent fuel under the general license to continue under an amended Part 50
(" possession-only") license. However, a plan for handling and shipping the spent fuel before needed equipment is decommissioned must be submitted to and approved by the NRC.
In previous rulemaking proceedings, the Commission has determined that compliance with the regulations in 10 CFR Part 72 would ensure adequate protection of public health and n fety. This rule would not change any safety requirements for the storage of spent fuel.
It would eliminate the necessity of submitting an application for.a specific license and requiring additional site-specific approvals by the Commission. Based on an environmental assessment that has been prepared (Enclosure 5),
no significant incremental environmental impacts are expected from promulgation of this rule.
The reactor licensee would perform an evaluation using the procedures and criteria in 10 CFR 50.59 to determine whether or not handling and storage of spent fuel under the general license would involve changes in the facility technical specifications or any unreviewed safety question.
If any unanswered safety questions exist, the cask could not be used under the general license.
If the safety issue involved plant systems or components (e.g., cranes), the licensee could opt to make design changes and submit for a license amendment under Part 50 to show compliance with conditions of the general license and cask certificate, if necessary. Alternately, the reactor licensee could apply for a specific license to store the spent fuel under Part 72.
3
The Commissioners In a separate procedure, the NRC staff would review safety l
analysis reports submitted for spent fuel storage casks to ensure that use of the cask regardless of operations performed or its storage location, provided the conditions of the Certificate of Compliance are met, would provide adeauate protection to public health and safety. The cask certificate would specify conditions under which the cask could be used to i
store spent fuel. The general licensee would have to comply l
with the terms of the certificate. A quality assurance program, j
accepted by the Commission, would be applied for cask design, fabrication, testing, and maintenance. The staff would establish records for tracking the fabrication, testing, and use of each cask.
On May 27, 1986 a proposed rule was published in the Federal Register (51 FR 19105). This proposed rule revised 10 CFR Part 72 related to storage for spent fuel and solidified high-level waste at monitored retrievable storage facilities.
Although the rule addressed the safety of dry spent fuel storage, it did not address the mandates set forth in Sections j
218(a) or 133 of the NWPA. The Commission approved a final rule, derived from the proposed rule, at a meeting held on July 14, 1988. Changes made in Part 72, as a result of this final rule, are taken into account in this proposed rule (Enclosure 1).
Resource Requirements. The staff anticipates that total NRC resource requirements will not change significantly as a result of this action. However, distribution of these resources will differ significantly. Currently the bulk of the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation licensing burden is borne by NMSS.
NMSS will continue its activities through cask design
)
reviews and g provals and will maintain records of cask use, and i
registered cask users for the purpose of detecting and notifying I
users of any cask safety problems. NRR and the Regional offices l
are expected to assume a larger share of the burden under the l
4 Lm _._ _
m--
- a. L,
, ',, k '-
The Commissioners, t
I proposed rule. NRR personnel will be responsible for inspection of cask fabrication, application and' approval of quality assurance l
programs, and responsibility for physical security plans.
Inspections of activities related to storage of spent fuel under the general' license on the reactor site would-be performed by resident inspectors.
Revisions.will be made to Part 170 to
)
recover' full costs for these inspection services. A regulatory analysis, which will be made available in the Commission's public document room, shows the anticipated resource requirements in detail (Enclosure 2).
l
. Recommendations:
That the Commission:
1.
Approve publication of a notice of the proposed amendments
.in the Federal Register (Enclosure 1).
2.
Note that:
(1)'TheCommissionapproves.thetechnologyinvolvingdry storage of spent fuel, including consolidated fuel rods, in casks for use at the sites of nuclear power reactors.
(2) The notice of proposed rulemaking will be published p
L in the Federal Register with a 45-day comment period.
)
L (3) The Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (Enclosure 1)..
L 1
j 1
s
__j
.n fgj yi:
The Commissioners.-
,N j.'
(4)' The Comission~ finds that no significant incremental
' environmental impact is expected as a result of.this action and no ma,ior Federal action is involved, thus, no
~
b environmental impact statement has.been prepared (Enclosure.' 5).
(5)l The. Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Committee on the Environment'and Public. Works, the L-Subcommittee on Energy' and the Environment of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Comittee,-and the Subcommittee
~
on Energy Conservation and Power'of the House Energy and:
Comerce Comittee will be informed of the Comission's action by letter'(Enclosure 3).
(6) This proposed rule contains information requirements
'that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. The proposed rule changes have been submitted to OMB for' clearance.
(7) The Office' of Public Affairs has prepared a public announcement for release when the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register (Enclosure ~4).
6.
W; is*
The. Commissioners (8) Copies' of the Federal Register notice will-be distributed to' affected licensees and other interested e
parties.
L Scheduling:
If scheduled on the Commission agenda, it. is recommended that I
this paper be considered at an open meeting.
Victor Stello,' Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
' Proposed Federal Register notice.
2.
Draft regulatory analysis.-
_ 3.
Draft Congressional letter.
(;
4.
Draft public announcement.
h 5.
Environmental assessment.
l 7
I
___z____---
.i
I.
[7590-01]
i p
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
10 CFR Parts 72 and 170 Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Rear. tor Sites j
l AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
j i
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
l
SUMMARY
The Commission is proposing to amend its regulations in 10 CFR-l Part 72 to provide, as directed by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, l
for the storage of spent fuel at the sites of power reactors without, to.
i the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals.
Holders of power reactor operating licenses would be permitted to' store spent fuel, in casks approved by NRC, under a general license.
The proposed rule contains criteria for obtaining an NRC Certificate of Compliance for spent fuel storage casks.
DATE:
Submit comments by (45 days following publication).
Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES:
Mail written comments to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555 ATTN:
Docketing Service Branch.
l Deliver comments to one White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. weekdays.
07/19/88 1
r.
ls
[7590-01]
!~
l Copies of NUREG-0459, 0525, 0703, 0709, 1092, 1140, and 1223, reports which are referenced in this notice and the environmental assessment, may be purchased through the U.S. Government Printing Office by calling (202) 275-2060 or by writing to the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O.
Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082.
Copies of DOE /RL-87-11, refer-enced in the environmental assessment, and the NUREG reports listed above may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Copies of the NUREG reports listed above, the environmental assessment and finding of no significant environmental impact, and comments received on the proposed rule are available for inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC.
l i
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William R. Pearson, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Telephone:
(301) 492-3764.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) includes the following directive, "The Secretary [of 00E] shall estab-lish a demonstration program in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power J
reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more tech-nologies that the [ Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the 07/19/88 2
t-
[7590-01]
maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission." Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, 1
that "the Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licens-ing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 218(a) for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor."
Discussion i
This proposed rule would allow power reactor licensees to store spent fuel at the reactor site without additional site-specific reviews.
A general license would be issued to holders of power reactor licenses for the storage of spent fuel in casks approved by the NRC.
The licensee would have to show that there are no changes required in the facility technical specifications or unreviewed safety questions related to activities involving storage of spent fuel under the general license.
The licensee would also have to show compliance with conditions of the Certificate of Compliance.
The licensee would have to establish and maintain records showing compliance, which would have to be made avail-able for inspection by the Commission.
l This rule would not limit storage of spent fuel to that which is generated at the reactor site.
Transfers of spent fuel from one reactor site to another are authorized under the receiving site's facility operating license pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.
The holder of a reactor operating license would apply for a license amenoment, under S 50.90 (unless already authorized in the operating license), for the receipt and handling of the spent fuel from another reactor.
In addition, the reactor licensee would be expected to request amendment of the 07/19/88 3
l
[7590-01]
e Price-Anderson indemnification agreement to provide for coverage of the transferred spent fuel.
10 CFR Part 72 is not germane to such transfers of spent fuel'.
If the spent fuel has been previously transferred and is currently stored in the reactor spent fuel pool, the only consideration under the general license would be whether or not the spent fuel met conditions of the cask's Certificate of Compliance.
Although experience with storage of spent fuel under water is greater than with dry storage in casks, experience with storage of spent I
fuel in dry casks is extensive and widespread.
The Canadians have been storing dry CANDU-type spent fuel at Whiteshell in vertical concrete casks called silos since 1975.
Although the storage of spent fuel at Whiteshell does not involve light-water-reactor (LWR) fuel, it has con-tributed to the knowledge and experience of dry spent fuel storage in concrete casks.
Dry cask storage has been demonstrated in West Germany.
There has also been experience with dry spent fuel storage in the United States.
The Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessors have kept non-LWR spent fuel in dry storage in vaults and dry wells since the 1960s.
An NRC survey of the dry storage of spent fuel, in the United States and elsewhere, was presented in NUREG/CR-1223, " Dry Storage of Spent Fuel - A Preliminary Survey of Existing Technology and Experience" (April 1980).
NUREG/CR-1223, at Section IV.C, contains a description of DOE demonstra-tion of dry LWR spent fuel storage in sealed storage casks (SSC) and dry wells.
The storage of LWR spent fuel in SSC, which is an above ground, steel-lined, reinforced concrete cylinder or cask, started in 1979.
The DOE demonstration program has continued and.has been expanded to include dry storage in metal casks and storage of consolidated fuel rods as well as storage of spent fuel assemblies.
Programs have been conducted by DOE 07/19/88 4
[7590-01]
in cooperation with Virginia Power at its Surry plant, with Carolina Power and Light at its H.B. Robinson 2 plant, with General Electric at its Morris plant for dry storage of LWR spent fuel.
Also dry storage of LWR spent l
fuel assemblies continues at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, along with demonstration of their disassembly and storage of the consolidated fuel rods.
The NRC staff has obtained substantive information from the DOE development programs.
It has also gained experience from the issuance of licenses for the onsite storage of spent fuel in nodular cast iron casks at the Surry site of Virginia Power and in stainless steel canisters stored inside concrete modules at the H.B. Robinson 2 site of Carolina Power and Light.
The safety of dry storage of spent fuel was considered i
during development of the Commission's original regulations in 10 CFR Part 72, " Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)," which was promulgated on November 12, 1980 (45 FR 74693). A proposed rule entitled, " Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste," was published in the Federal Register on May 27, 1986 (51 FR 19106).
The proposed rule mainly provided for licensing the storage of spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste at a Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility, and l
did not cover the mandates of Sections 133 and 218(a) of the NWPA.
j However, the MRS rulemaking also addressed the safety of dry storage of j
spent fuel in casks.
Recently the Commission approved a final rule derived from the proposed rule.
This rulemaking t,akes into account changes in Part 72 that will appear in the final rule.
07/19/88 5
_-------_---________J
J
[7590-01]
m Activities related to unloading fresh and spent fuel casks and load-
-ing spent fuel casks for shipment are routine procedures at power reac-tors.'.The procedures for dry storage of spent fuel in casks would be an extension'of these' procedures.
Over the last several years the staff has reviewed and approv'ed three spent fuel storage cask designs, a dry spent fuel storage system consisting of stainless steel canisters placed in concrete modules, and a concrete modular vault design.
Requests for 4
approval of cask designs are currently submitted in the form of topical I
safety analysis reports (TSARS).
Three dry storage cask TSARS have been approveo for referencing, which means that an ISFSI license _ applicant may reference appropriate parts of the report in licensing proceedings for the storage of spent fuel.
This greatly reduces an ISFSI license appli-cant's time, effort, and cost. The same reliance on an approved safety analysis is being made available for on-site. dry cask storage.
Separate topical safety analysis reports have been received for design-of casks fabricated using nodular cast iron, thick-walled ferriti
- steel, concrete, and stainless steel and lead.
Four cask design topical reports I
are under active review at the present time.
Three spent fuel storage cask designs have been approved to date, and their approval for spent
. fuel storage under the general license is being included in this rulemak-ing.
Casks approved for storage in the future will be routinely added to the listing in proposed $72.214 through rulemaking procedures.
Since such rulemaking would neither constitute a significant question of policy
~
nor amend 10 CFR Parts 0, 2, 7, 8, 9 Subpart C, or 110, the Commission concludes that additions to S72.214 may be made under the rulemaking authority of the EDO.
Certificates of Compliance would be exhibited in a-
)
l 07/19/88 6
i
[7590-01]
NUREG report issued by the NMSS staff, which would be updated as appropriate.
The NRC experience in the review of cask design and fabrication and licensing of spent fuel storage installations on the site of operating reactors has been documented in part by publication of two draft regula-tory guides.
In April of 1986, two draft regulatory guides entitled
" Standard Format and Content for the Safety Analysis Report for Onsite Storage of Spent Fuel Storage Casks" (Task number CE-301) and " Standard Format and Content for a Topical Safety Analysis Report for a Dry Spent Fuel Storage Cask" (Task number CE-306) were issued for public comment.
Single copies of these draft guides may be obtained from W.R. Pearson, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 (Telephone:
(301)492-3764).
The passive nature of dry storage of spent fuel in casks provides operational benefits attractive to potential users.
One benefit is that there is no need to provide operating systems to purify and circulate the water.
Another benefit is that the potential for corrosion of the fuel cladding and reaction with the fuel is reduced, especially if an inerting atmosphere is maintained inside the cask.
Also, since cooling of the spent fuel is a passive activity, active mechanisms, such as pumps and fans, are not required.
Although Part 72 allows storage of any spent fuel over one year old, it is anticipated that most spent fuel stored in casks will be five years old or more.
Because of the passive nature of cask cooling, the storage capacity of a cask is significantly increased as the spent fuel is aged, especially for fuel that is five years old or j
more.
It is probable that reactor licensees will remove the older fuel from the storage pool to take advantage of this additional cask storage 07/19/88 7
[7590-01]
capacity.
Spent fuel storage casks are massive (on the order of 100 tons),
of simple design, passive in nature, and will be manufactured under a strict quality assurance program, which NRC will ensure through its inspection program.
The Commission believes that, with provisions for proper quality i
assurance ensured under the Commission's inspection and enforcement authority, dry storage cf spent fuel in casks provides adequate protec-tion to public health and safety.
iroposed Rule The General License l
Under this proposed rule, a general license would be issued to holders of nuclear power reactor licenses to store spent fuel at reactor sites in casks approved by the NRC.
The Commission will rely on dry storage of spent fuel in casks for confinement of radioactive material to provide adequate protection of public health and safety and the environ-ment.
It will rely on its inspection and enforcement authority to ensure compliance with conditions of the general license and cask certificates.
A power reactor license holder would have to notify the Commission before storing spent fuel under the general license for the first time and register use of each cask as the spent fuel is stored.
The Commission would make use of the notification of first use to initiate inspection actions and the registration of each cask to establish independent records related to use of casks.
The cask records would be used to detect potential generic and specific cask safety problems, to keep track of repairs, to keep track of defects and damage resulting in a signif-icant reduction in safety, and to keep track of the date by which spent 07/19/88 8
____________.________________J
[7590-01]
fuel must be removed from the cask unless the cask model has been reapproved.
(As explained later, a cask service life is initially limited to 20 years.) A separate record would also be established for each cask by the cask vendor.
This record would be transferred to, and be main-I tained by, cask users who would show any maintenance to the cat'; and j
lists its contents. When a cask model has been reapproved, users of this model would be notified by the NRC.
They would also be advised of any l
changes in conditions for use of the cask.
The reactor license holder would have to show that the storage of spent fuel will be in compliance with the conditions of the cask Certificate of Compliance, including assurance that site parameters and
{
other design bases are within the envelope of the values analyzed in the i
cask safety analysis report.
An evaluation would also be made to show that there will be no changes necessary to the facility technical specifications and no unresolved safety questions in activities involving i
the storage casks.
Procedures and criteria in 10 CFR 50.59 would be used for these evaluations.
These types of evaluation are currently done for specific licenses issued under Part 72.
Issues related to systems and i
l components used both for reactor operations and spent fuel storage activ-ities would be included.
Most concerns to date have been related to control of heavy loads and have been accommodated.
If there is a safety problem or a change in technical specifications required, and the reactor license holder wishes to store spent fuel under the general license, the problem must be resolved before storage, including cubmittal of an application for license amendment under Part 50 if necessary.
The reactor license holder would commit to establishing and maintaining a quality assurance program, an emergency plan, a training 07/19/88 9
[7590-01]
j 1
program, and a radiation control program for activities related to spent fuel storage under the general license.
Similar plans and programs are in effect for reactor operations.
The appropriate existing plans or programs could be modified or amended to cover activities related to the spent fuel storage, if the reactor licensee chose to do this.
These plans and programs would be examined for compliance by the NRC inspection i
staff.
The reactor license holder should make a commitment to conduct spent fuel storage activities in accordance with written and approved procedures.
l Procedures for safe handling of the spent fuel shoul'd be established by a thorough study of what is to be accomplished and approved by two inde-pendent competent groups within the licensee's organization.
The reactor licensee has made this commitment for reactor operations, and the same or a similar approval system may be used for this storage of spent fuel.
Instances in which significant reductions in the safety effective-ness of or defects in casks are discovered must be reported.
Initial I
notifications would have to be made within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, and written reports would follow within 30 days.
The 24-hour notification is necessary, because defects or damage from accidents may present a hazard to public health and safety which could be mitigated by assistance from Federal Agencies, including the Commission.
A written report is needed so that the staff can determine whether or not there are generic health and safety implications.
The 30-day period is allowed so that the licensee can review and analyze the event and present a clear and complete history.
When the power reactor operating license expiration date approaches, the holder of the license must take some actions.
Under 10 CFR 50.54(bb) 07/19/88 10
l
-[7590-01]
a l'
the reactor license holder must submit a program in writing to the Com-mission, no later than five years prior to the license expiration date, showing hcw the reactor licensee intends to manage and provide funding for the management of all irradiated fuel on the reactor site.
This program would have to' include the spent fuel stored under the general
)
license proposed in this rulemaking.
The reactor license holder will also have to decide whether to request termination of the reactor operating license under 10 CFR 50.82.
In a proposed rule published by the Commission in the Federel Register on February 11, 1985 (50 FR 5600), S 50.82 would be revised, but this discussion is equally applicable to the current or the proposed S 50.82.
If the reactor license holder decides to apply for termination of the 1
license, the plan submitted with the application must show how the spent fuel stored under this general license will be removed from the site.
The plan would include an explanation of when and how the spent fuel will l
l be moved, unloaded, and shipped prior to starting decommissioning of the 4
equipment needed for these activities.
In part, the environmental assessment for this rulemaking relies on j
findings from the waste confidence proceedings, in which the Commission concluded they had confidence that there would be no significant environ-mental impacts from the storage of spent fuel for a period of 30 years beyond the expiration date of reactor-licenses.
Thus, an application for reactor license termination that proposes a decommissioning period beyond this 30-year period would have to contain a discussion of the environ-mental impacts from storage of the spent fuel beyond the period analyzed by the Commission.
The general license would terminate automatically when the spent fuel is removed from storage.
07/19/88 11 1
[7390-01]-
l1 Cask Certification Cask vendors will submit a safety analysis report (SAR) showing how cask designs and fabrication can provide adequate protection to public health and safety.
In the process of evaluating design bases in the SAR, certain assumptions must be made in order to arrive at practical solu-tions.
One assumption is that the spent fuel will be stored in'the cask for.20 years. Thus, the NRC initially approves casks for only 20 years of storage, after which they would have to be reapproved. This does not mean that after 20 years the cask becomes an unsafe container, it simply means that evaluations were not performed for a period greater than 20 years.
The service life of a cask is 20 years from the time spent fuel is initially loaded into the cask.
As a result of the limited service life, casks in use will have varying storage lifetimes remaining.
~
For instance, 20 years after a cask model has been approved for storage there could be casks of this model in use with from zero to 20 years of service life remaining.
The holder of the cask Certificate of Compliance (cask vendor) should l
apply for reapproval of a storage cask.
Submittal of an application would be made 17 years after the initial cask approval date, which is three years prior to the expiration date of the cask certificate, to allow time for the NRC staff to reevaluate the cask safety and reissue the cask certificate.
However, if the holder of a cask certificate goes out of business or will not submit an application for reapproval in a timely manner for any reason, the Commission would be notified and in turn would notify the cask users.
In any case, cask users would have to take action to ensure that spent fuel is stored in casks approved by the NRC.
Several options would be available to licensees.
If the cask were reapproved under 07/19/88 12
[7590-01]
submittals by the vendor, the Commission would notify all users and the only action necessary for the users would be to update the cask records.
If the cask vendor does not apply for reapproval, for whatever reason, the licensee would be notified by the Commission.
The licensee would then have to arrange for reapproval or remove casks from service as their service life expires.
This could mean removal of the spent fuel and storing it elsewhere.
The cask will be relied on to provide safe confinement of radio-active material independent of the operations in which it is involved or regardless of its location, so long as conditions comply with the Certificate of Compliance.
Part of the cask approval procedure will be for NRC to ensure, through acceptance of a quality assurance program and inspections, that casks are designed, fabricated, tested, and maintained I
under the acceptance criteria that are set forth in this rule.
The cask approval program will be analogous to that now conducted for casks approved for shipping spent fuel under 10 CFR Part 71.
Records will be established by vendors and maintained by users to provide historical information on all casks, so that if there is a safety problem with a i
particular cask, a cask fabrication process, or with a cask model the NRC I
could issue notices to cask vendors and users to initiate corrective actions.
\\
l NRC costs related to cask approval reviews and evaluations, quality assurance program approvals, and cask fabrication inspections would be l
j fully recovered.
The schedule of fees in 10 CFR 170.31 and 170.32 would be revised to recover these costs.
Inspection of plant and site-related activities would be performed by resident inspectors.
NRC costs related L
to onsite inspections would also be recovered under 10 CFR Part 170.
07/19/88 13 l
[7590-01]
p Safeguards Spent fuel removed from light water reactors contains low enriched uranium, fission products, plutonium, and other transuranium elements (transuranic). Owing to the special nuclear material in spent fuel, safeguards for an independent spent fuel storage ' installation must pro-tect against theft and radiological sabotage and must provide for mate-rial accountability.
The requirements for. physical protection are set forth in proposed S 72.212.
No specific requirements for material con-trol and accounting are being added, because existing requirements in Parts 72 and 50 are adequate.
The theft issue arises mainly from the plutonium component of the spent fuel.
Plutonium, when separated from other substances, can be used in the construction of nuclear explosive devices and therefore must be provided with a high level of physical protection.
However, the pluto-nium contained in spent fuel is not readily separable from the highly radioactive fission products and other transuranic and for that reason is not considered a highly attractive material for theft.
Moreover, the massive construction of casks significantly complicates theft scenarios.
For these. reasons no specific safeguards measures to protect against theft are proposed other than maintaining accounting records and conducting periodic inventories of the special nuclear material' contained in the spent fuel.
Safeguards measures to protect against sabotage should be consistent with the probability and consequences of radiological sabotage.
The term
" radiological sabotage" is defined in 10 CFR Part 73 and means any delib-erate act directed against a plant or transport vehicle and cask in which an activity licensed under NRC regulation:;'is conducted, or against a 1
07/19/88 14
.l l
{
l
[7590-01]
- e
=
l'.
[,.
component'of a plant or: transport vehicle and cask which could directly or, indirectly endanger the public health and safety by exposuresto-
. radiation.
In assessing the probability and consequences of radiological.sabo-L tage,:the NRC; considers:
(1) the threat to storage facilities; (2) the_
1 l
-response of. typical. storage casks or vaults and their contained-spent fuel to. postulated acts of; radiological sabotage; and (3) the public health' consequences of acts of radiological' sabotage.
~
The NRC has carried out' studies to develop information about
-possible adversary groups which might pose a threat to licensed nuclear facilities. :The results of.these studies are published in NUREG-0459,-
" Generic Adversary Characteristics - Summary Report" (March 1979) and NUREG-0703, " Potential Threat to Licensed Nuclear Activities from o
Insiders" (July.1980).
Actions against facilities were found to be limited to a number of low consequence activities and harassments, such as hoax bomb threats, vandalism, radiopharmaceutical thefts, and firearms-discharges..The list of actions is updated annually in a NUREG-0525, y
" Safeguards Summary Event List" (July 1987).
None of the. actions have affected spent fuel containment and, thus, have not caused any radio-logical health hazards.
In addition, the NRC staff regularly consults with law enforcement agencies and intelligence gathering agencies to obtain their views concerning the possible existence of adversary groups interested in i
)
radiological sabotage of commercial nuclear facilities.
None of the
-information the staff has collected confirms the presence of an identi-i fiable domestic threat to dry storage facilities or to other components of nuclear facilities.
l 07/19/88 15
[7590-01]
w The consequences to the public health and safety would stem almost exclusively from the fraction of the release that is composed of respir-able particles.
In an NRC study, an experiment was carried out to evaluate.the effects of a very severe, perfectly executed explosive sabo-tage, scenario against a simulated storage cask containing spent fuel assemblies.
The amount of fuel disrupted was measured.
The fraction of disrupted material of respirable dimensions (0.005%) had been determined in,a previous experiment.
From this information an ' estimate of the air-borne, respirable release was made, and.the dose as a function of range and other variables ~was calculated.
In a typical situation, for an indi-vidual-at the boundary of the reactor site (taken as 100 meters from the location of the release) and in the center of the airborne plume, the whole-body dose was calculated to be 1 rem and the 50 year dose commit-I ment (to the lung, which is the most sensitive organ) was calculated to be 2 rem.
Doses higher or lower can be obtained depending on the vari-ables used in the calculation.
Variables include the meteorological conditions, the age and burn-up of the fuel, the heat-induced buoyancy of the airborne release, the range to the affected individual, and the explosive scenario assumed.
Although the experiment and calculations carried out lead to a con-clusion of low public health consequences, there are limitations that must be taken into account.
In particular, consequence modeling assump-tions more severe than those in the foregoing calculation are possible if unconstrained sabotage resources or protracted loss of control of the storage site are allowed.
For that reason protection requirements are proposed to provide for (1) early detection of malevolent moves against the storage site, and (2) a means to quickly summon respnnse resources to
' assure against protracted loss of control of the site.
07/19/88 17
[7590-01]
>l The proposed requirements comprise a subset of the overall protec-tion requirements currently in force at every operating nuclear power l
reactor.
Inasmuch as the security force at each reactor is thoroughly familiar with requirements similar to those proposed and has years of
(
experience in carrying them out, the NRC concludes that the requirements I
can be successfully imposed through a general license for storage of k
spent fuel in NRC-approved casks without the need for advanced NRC review and approval of a physical security plan or other site-specific document i
before the reactor licensee implements the requirements.
)
i Material control and accounting (MC&A) requirements are designed to protect against the undetected loss of the special nuclear material in spent fuel by maintaining vigilance over the material, tracking its move-l ment and location, monitoring its inventory status, maintaining records of transactions and movements, and issuing reports of its status at the time' of physical inventory.
Similar requirements for MC&A have been applied to power reactors, to spent fuel storage at independent spent fuel storage installations, and to operations at certain other classes of fuel cycle facilities without requiring the licensee to submit a plan to document how compliance will be achieved.
In these situations the l
requirements have been found to be sufficient.
For these reasons, it is concluded that the MC&A requirements for the dry storage of spent fuel at power reactors can be handled under a general license.
1 L
1 l
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact:
Availability I
The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 07/19/88 18 j-i
p
\\l
.v f,?'
[7590-01]
'l lp
- Subpart A of.10 CFR Part'51, that this rule,
- if adopted, would not be a j
.majorLFederal-action significantly affecting the quality of the. human i
environment and therefore an environmental impact. statement is not
]
req'ui red.' _The rule is mainly administrative in nature and.would not y
L change safety requirements, which could have-significant environmental impacts. 'The proposed rule would provide for power reactor licensees to
[
store' spent fuel in casks approved by NRC at reactor sites without
. additional site-specific approvals by the Comm ss on.
It would set forth i
i conditions of a general license for the spent fuel storage and procedures-c Land criteria for obtaining storage cask approval.
The environmental assessmentand finding'of no significant impact on which this determina-
. tion is-based are available for inspection at.the NRC Public Document-
' Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC.
Single copies of the environ-mental' assessment and the finding of no significant impact are available from W.R. Pearson, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear Regulatory' Commission, Washington, DC 20555; Telephone:
(301)492-3764.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U..S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements.
07/19/88 19 1
_____________.________.______m__._
[7590-01]
Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a preliminary regulatory analysis on
-this proposed rule.
The analysis examines the benefits and impacts con-sidered by the Commission.
The Preliminary Regulatory Analysis is avail-able for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW.,
Washington, DC.
Single copies may be obtained from W.R. Pearson, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC~20555; Telephone:
(301)492-3764.
The Commissica requests public comments on the preliminary regula-tory analysis.
Comments on the preliminary regulatory analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification l-l In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), the Commission certifies that this. rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small I
entities.
This proposed rule affects only licensees owning and operating nuclear power reactors.
The owners of nuclear power plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in Sec-tion 601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.
l l
07/19/88 20 I
[7590-01]
l l
Backfit Analysis i
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule, and, thus, a backfit analysis is not j
i required for this proposed rule, because these amendments do not involve l
any provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 6 50.109(a)(1).
i List of Subjects Part 72:
Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel.
Part 73:
Hazardous materials - transportation, Incorporation by reference, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, l
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
Part 74:
Accounting, Hazardous materials - transportation, Material control and accounting, Nuclear materials, Packaging and containers, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Special nuclear material.
Part 170:
Byproduct material, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors; Penalty, Source material, Special nuclear material.
For reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC-is proposing to adopt the following revisions to 10 CFR Part 72 and conforming amendments to 10 CFR Parts 73, 74, and 170.
07/19/88 21
i-
'4
[7590-01]
PART 72
. Licensing Requirements for the I'ndependent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level' Radioactive Waste
-1.
The authority citation for Part 72 is revised to read as i.
follows:
Authority: -Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 9296 930, 932, 933, 934, 935', 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83' Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86 373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L.95-601, i
l sec. 10, 92 Stat.- 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102,' Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168).
Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c),.(d),
Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b),
10168(c)(d).) Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 l
(42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C.
10154).
Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g).) Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244 (42.U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)).
Sub-j parts K and L are also added under sec. 133, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C.
10153)and218(a),96 Stat.2252h2U.S.C.10198).
\\
~
l 07/19/88 22
_--____--_--_--__-_________-__-_____._____A
[7590-01]
.1 For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958,-as amended (42 U.S.C.
2273); SS 72.6, 72.22, 72.24, 72.26, 72.28(d), 72.30, 72.32, 72.44(a),
.(b)(1), (4), (5), (c), (d)(1), (2), (e), (f). 72.48(a), 72.50(a),
72.52(b),72.72(b),(c),72.74(a),(b),72.76,72.78,72.104,72.106, 72.120,72.122,72.124,72.126,72.128,72.130,72.140(b),(c),72.148, 72.154,.72.156, 72.160, 72.166, 72.168, 72.170, 72.172, 72.176, 72.180, 72.184, 72.186'are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); SS 72.10(a), (e), 72.22, 72.24, 72.26, 72.28, 72.30, i
.72.32,72.44(a),(b)(1),(4),(5),(c),(d)(1),(2),(e),(f),72.48(a),
72.50(a),.72.52(b),72.90(a)-(d),(f),72.92,72.b4,72.98,72.100, j
72.102(c),(d),(f),72.104,72.106,72.120,72.122,72.124,72.126, 72.128,72.130,72.140(b),(c),72.142,72.144,72.146,72.148,72.150, 72.152, 72.154,'72.156, 72.158, 72.160, 72.162,~72.164, 72.166, 72.168, l
72.170, 72.172, 72.176, 72.180, 72.182, 72.184, 72.186, 72.190, 72.192, 72.194 are issued under sec. 161i, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2201(i)); and SS 72.10(e), 72.11, 72.16, 72.22, 72.24, 72.26, 72.28, 72.30,72.32,72.44(b)(3),(c)(5),(d)(3),(e),(f),72.48(b),(c),
4 72.50(b),72.54(a),(b),(c),72.56,72.70,72.72,72.74(a),(b),
72.76(a),72.78(a),72.80,72.82,72.92(b),72.94(b),72.140(b),(c),
(d),72.144(a),72.146,72.148,72.150,72.152,72.154(a),(b),72.156, 72.160, 72.162, 72.168, 72.170, 72.172, 72.174, 72.176, 72.180, 72.184, 72.186, 72.192, 72.212(b), 72.216, 72.218, 72.230, 72.234(e) and (g) are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
l 07/19/88 23
-_ ___--________ -__ _ _ a
- "L
[7590-01]
- .p 2.
New'Subpart K and Subpart L are added to read as-follows:
I.
Subpart K - General License' for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites Sec.
72.210. General license issued.
72.212 Conditions of general license issued under S 72. 210.
72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks.
72.216 Reports.
72.218-Termination of the general license.
.72.220 Violations.
Subpart L - Approval'of Spent Fuel Storage Casks
- 72. '.-
Procedures for spent fuel storage cask submittals.
e 72.232 :In'spection'and tests.
72.234 Conditions of approval.
~
-72.236 Specific criteria for spent fuel storage cask approvah 72.238 Issuance of an NRC Certificate of Compliance.
72.240 Conditions for spent fuel storage cask reapproval.
Subpart K - General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites S 72.210 General license issued.
A general license is herchy issued for the storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation at power reactor sites to 07/19/88-24
_-_-______--___-_____O
[7590-01) persons authorized to operate nuclear power reactors under Part 50 of this chapter.
6 72.212 Conditions of general license issued under 6 72.210.
(a)(1) The general license is limited to storage of spent fuel in casks approved under the provisions of this Part.
(2) The general license for each cask fabricated under a Certificate of Compliance shall terminate 20 years after the date that the cask is first used to store spent fuel, unless the cask model is reapproved.
In the event that a cask vendor does not apply for a cask model reapproval under S 72.240 of this part, any eser or user i
representative may apply for cask reapproval.
(b) The general licensee shall:
(1)(i) Notify the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 672.4 at
-least 90 days prior to first storage of spent fuel under the general license.
The notice may be in the form a letter, but must contain the licensees name, address, reactor number (s), and the name and means of contacting a person for additional information.
A copy of the sub-mittal must be sent to the Administrator of the appropriate Nuclear I;egulatory Commission regional office listed in Appendix D to Part 20.
I (ii) Register use of each cask with the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-i sion no later than 30 days after using the cask to store spent fuel.
This registration may be accomplished by submitting an NRC Form-xxx i
l or by a letter containing the following information:
the licensee's l
l' name and address, the licensea's reactor license number (s), the name and title of a person who can be contacted for additional information, l
the cask certificate or model number, the cask identification number.
l 07/19/88 25
-- --. _ _ J
4
[7590-01]
Submittals must be in accordance with the instructions contained in B 72.4 of this part.
A copy of each submittal must be sent to the i
Administrator of the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
Regional Office listed in Appendix D to Part 20.
)
I (2) Perform written evaluations that show that conditions set forth in the Certificate of Compliance are met for the anticipated total number l
of casks to be used for storage.
The licensee shall also show that cask storage pads and areas are designed to adequately support the static load of the stored casks.
Evaluations must show that the requirements of S 72.104 of this part are met.
A copy of this record must be retained for 3 years.
(3) Determine, using procedures and criteria in S 50.59 of this chapter, whether activities under this general license involve any unreviewed safety questions or changes in the facility technical specifications, including activities related to spent fuel storage casks.
If any Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval is required, j
L the procedure set forth in Part 50 of this chapter for this type of approval must be followed.
A copy of the evaluation must be retained l-by the licensee for three years after initial storage of spent fuel under the general license.
l (4) Protect the spent fuel n;ainst the design basis threat of radiological sabotage in accordance with the licensee's physical security plan approved in accordance with S 73.55, with the following additional conditions and exceptions:
(1) The physical security organization and program shall be expanded and modified as necessary to assure that activities conducted under this general licensee do not decrease the effectiveness of the protection of vital equipment in accordance with S 73.55.
26 07/19/88 l
1 I
ll~.i
[7590-013-1 r
o i
i f,
'(ii) Storage of spent fuel shall be within a protected area, in-accordance with 6 73.55(c), but need not be within a separate vital l
area.
Existing protected areas may'be expanded or new protected areas E
added for the purpose of storage of spent fuel in accordance with this peneral license.
(iii) Notwithstanding any requirements of the licensee's approved security plan, the observational capability required by 6 73.55(h)(6)'
l may be-provided by a guard or watchman in lieu of closed circuit television-for protection of spent fuel under the provisions of this L
i general license.
(iv) For the purposes of this general license, the licensee is exempt from 6 73.55(h)(4)(iii)(A) and (5) of this chapter.
(5) Establish and maintain as current records an emergency plan', a
-quality assurance program, a training program, and a radiation protec-tion program for activities related to storage of spent fuel under the general license until the general license is terminated.
(6) Maintain a copy of the Certificate of Compliance'and documents referenced in the certificate for each model of cask used for storage of i
spent fuel, until use of the cask model is discontinued.
The licensee shall comply with the terms and conditions of the certificate.
(7)(i) Maintain the record provided by the cask supplier for each cask that shows:
(A) The NRC Certificate of Compliance number; (B) The name and address of the cask vendor / lessor; i
(C) The listing of spent fuel stored in the cask; and (D) Any maintenance performed on the J.
07/19/88 27 l
[7590-01]-
(ii) This record must include sufficient information to furnish
' documentary evidence that any testing and maintenance of the cask has been conducted under a quality assurance program accepted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(iii) In the event that a cask is sol', leased, loaned, or otherwise d
i; transferred,~this record must also be transferred to and must be i
accurately maintained by the new user.
This record must be maintained i
by:the current cask user during the period that the cask is used for storage of spent fuel and retained by the last user for 3 years following' decommissioning of the cask.
(8) Conduct activities related to storage of spent fuel under this general license in accordance with procedures written and approved by the licensee.
(9) On reasonable notice the licensee shall make records available to the Commission for inspection.
6 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks.
The following casks have been reviewed and evaluated by the l
i l
Commission and are approved for storage of spent fuel-under the i
conditions specified in their respective Certificates of Compliance.
1.
Certificate Number:
SAR Submitted by:
General Nuclear Systems, Inc.
l SAR
Title:
" TSAR for the Castor V Cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Dry Storage)"
Docket Number:
72-1000 Certification Expiration Date:
October 2009.
l Model Number:
CASTOR V/21 07/19/88 28
___-_________--__-_._-_-_-___D
?!
W<
(('
[7590-01]
ter-2.
. Certificate Number:
SAR Submitted by: Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Title:
" Topical Safety Analysis Report for the Westinghouse MC-10 Cask for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Dry Storage)."
Docket Number:
72-1001~
Certification. Expiration Date:
2009 Model Number: MC-10 3.
Certificate Number:
SAR Submitted by:
Nuclear Assurance Corp.
a SAR
Title:
" Topical Safety Analysis Report for the NAC Storage /
Transport Cask for use at an Independent Spent Fuel.
Storage Installation."
Docket Number:
72-1002 Certification Expiration Date:
2009 Model Number:
Storage / Transport-1 S 72.216 Reports.
(a) The licensee shall make an initial report within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to
]
the Director, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, and a
)
resident inspector at the reactor site, of any:
(1) Defect with safety significance discovered in any cask; and I
(2) Instance in which there is a significant reduction in the safety effectiveness of any cask during use.
E (b) A written report, including a description of the means employed to repair any defects or damage and prevent recurrence, must be submitted i
l.
L 07/19/88 29 l
i J
I k-
}
i'*
[7590-01]
s i
l in accordance with 6 72.4 within 30 days.
A copy of the written report
'I i
must be sent to the Administrator of the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission regional office shown in Appendix D to Part_20.
l S 72.218 Termination of the general license.
j (a) The notification regarding planning for the management of all spent fuel at the reactor required by S SG.54(bb) of this chapter must include a plan for removal of the spent fuel stored under this general license from the reactor site.
The plan must show how the spent fuel will be managed before starting to decommission systems and components needed for moving, unloading, and shipping this spent fuel.
The general license terminates when all spent fuel stored in dry casks is removed from the dry cask storage area.
(b) Spent fuel previously stored may continue to be stored under this general license after termination of the reactor license under f
6 50.82 of this chapter.
An application for termination of the reactor l
operating license submitted under 6 50.82 of this chapter must, however, contain a description of how the spent fuel stored under this general license will be removed from the reactor site.
If the decommissioning mode selected under S 50.82 is likely to extend beyond 30 years after the expiration date of the reactor operating license, the licensee must include in the application a discussion of incremental environmental impacts of the extended spent fuel storage.
l (c) The reactor licensee must send a copy of submittals under S 72.218(a) and (b) to the Administrator of the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Office shown in Appendix D to Part 20.
07/19/88 30 I
e
[f
~ '
[7590-01]
S 72.220 Violations.
Storage of spent fuel under a general license may be halted or terminated under S 72.84.
l Subpart L - Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks 1
6 72.230 Procedures for spent fuel storage cask submittals.
(a) An application on NRC Form-xxxx must be submitted in accordance with the instructions contained in S 72.4.
A safety analysis report describing the proposed cask design and how the cask should be used to store spent fuel safely must be included with the application.
l
{b) Casks that have been certified for transportation of spent fuel under Part 71 of this chapter may be approved for storage of spent fuel i
under this subpart.
An application on NRC Form-xxxx must be submitted in accordance with the instructions contained in S 72.4.
A copy of the Certificate of Compliance issued by the NRC for the cask, and drawings and other documents referenced in the certificate, must be included with the application.
A safety analysis report showing that the cask is suitable for storage of spent fuel for a period of at least 20 years must also be included.
(c) Public inspection.
An application for the approval of a cask for storage of spent fuel may be made available for public inspection under S 72.20.
(d) Fees.
(1) Fees for review and evaluation related to spent fuel storage cask approval and reapproval are those shown in S 170.31 of this chapter.
(2) Fees for quality assurance program approvals and p
inspections related to spent fuel storage cask fabrication are those shown in 6 170.32 of this chapter.
07/19/88 31
~
.J (w
[7590-01]
p.
l-g.-
6 72.232 Inspection and tests.
(a) The applicant shall permit, and make provisions for, the
'I
' Commission to' inspect at reasonable times the' premises and facilities at which a spent fuel storage' cask is fabricated and tested.
(b) The applicant shall perform, and make provisions that permit the Commission to' perform, tests that the Commission deems necessary or appropriate for the administration of the regulations in this part.
(c) The applicant shall notify the Director, Division of Reactor p
Inspection andnSafeguards, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and the Director, Division of Ir.dustrial'and Medica 1' Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear Materials-Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion, Washington, DC, 20555, ~at least 45 days prior to starting fabrica-tion of any spent fuel storage cask.
S'72.234 Conditions of approval.
(a) Design, fabrication, testing, and maintenance of a spent fuel storage cask must comply with the technical criteria in S 72.236.
~
(b)' Design, fabrication, testing, and maintenance of spent fuel storage casks must be conducted under a quality assurance program that meets the requirements of Subpart G of this part.
(c) Cask fabrication must not start prior to receipt of the Certifi-cate of Compliance for the cask model.
(d) Cask model reapproval is required 20 years after the issuance i
of a Certificate of Compliance.
Any applicant under S 72.230, who receives a Certificate of Compliance under S 72.238, shall notify the Commission if an application for cask reapproval will not be submitted.
4 07/19/88 32
_-___.____m_____m.-_._______________.m_m_____m_
j'
.[
[7590-01]
l (e)(1) The applicant shall ensure that a record is established and maintained for each cask fabricated under the NRC Certificate of I
Compliance.
i (2) This record must include:
(i) The NRC Certificate of Compliance number; (ii) The cask model number; (iii) The cask identification number; (iv) Date fabrication started; (v) Date fabrication completed; (vi) Certification that the cask was designed, fabricated, tested, and repaired in accordance with a quality assurance program accepted by NRC; (vii) Certification that inspections required by 6 72.236(j) were performed and found satisfactory; and (viii) The name and address of the cask user.
(3) A copy of this record must be submitted to the Commiss_ ion in accordance with instructions contained in 6 72.4 and the original of the record supplied to the cask user.
A current copy of a composite record of I
all casks, showing the above information, must be retained by the applicant for 20 years after the cask is shipped.
(f) The composite record required by 6 72.234(e)(3) must be made available to the Commission for inspection.
(g) The applicant shall ensure that written procedures and appropriate tests are established for use of the casks.
A copy of these procedures and tests must be provided to each cask user.
07/19/88 33 i
i
[
[7590-01]
S 72.236 Specific criteria for spent fuel storage cask approval.
(a) Technical specifications concerning the spent fuel to be stored in the cask, such as the
'e of spent fuel (i.e., BWR, PWR, both),
enrichment of the unirradiated fuel, burn-up (i.e., megawatt-days /MTU),
cooling time of the spent fuel prior to storage in the cask, maximum heat designed to be dissipated (i.e., kw/ assembly, kw/ rod), the maximum spent fuel loading limit, and condition of the spent fuel (i.e., intact assembly or consolidated fuel rods), inerting atmosphere requirements, must be provided.
(b) Design bases and design criteria must be provided for struc-tural members and systems important to safety.
(c) The cask must be designed and fabricated so that the spent fuel is maintained in a subcritical condition under credible conditions.
i (d) Radiation shielding and confinement features must be provided to the extent required to meet the requirements in SS 72.104 and 72.106.
(e) Casks must be designed to provide redundant sealing of con-l finement systems, f
(f) Casks must be designed to provide adequate heat removal capac-i ity when the cask is stored without active cooling.
(g) Casks must,be designed to store the spent fuel safely for a minimum of 20 years and permit maintenance as required.
(h) Casks must be compatible with wet or dry spent fuel loading and unloading facilities.
(i) Casks must be designed to facilitate decontamination to tSe extent practicable.
l 07/19/88 34
[7590-01]-
(j) Casks must be inspected to ascertain that there are no cracks, pinholes, uncontrolled voids, or other defects that could significantly l
reduce their confinement effectiveness.
(k) Casks must be conspicuously and durably marked with i
(1) A model number; (2) A unique identification number; and (3) An empty weight.
(1) Casks and systems important to safety must be evaluated,.by l
subjecting a sample or scale model to tests appropriate to the part being tested, or by other means acceptable to the Commission, demon;trat-ing that they will reasonably maintain confinement of radioactive material i
under normal, off-normal, and accident conditions.
S 72.238 Issuance of an NRC Certificate of Compliance.
l A Certificate of Compliance for a cask model will be issued by NM i
on a finding that (a) The criteria in 6 72.236(a) through (i) are met; and (b) The applicant certifies that each cask will be fabricated, inspected, and tested in accordance with 6 72.236(j) through (1).
l 6 72.240 Conditions for Spent Fuel Storage Cask Reapproval.
(a) The holder of a cask model Certificate of Compliance, a user I
of a cask model approved by NRC, and representatives of ask users may 3
apply for a cask model reapproval.
(b) Application for reapproval of a cask model must be submitted 3 years prior to the date that the Certificate of Compliance for that model expires.
The application must be accompanied by a safety analysis 07/19/88 35 i
[7590-01]
A report (SAR).
The new SAR may reference the SAR originally submitted for the cask model
-(c) A cask model will be reapproved if conditions in 6 72.238 are met, including demonstration that storage of-spent fuel has not signif-icantly, adversely affected systems and components important to safety.
The following amendments are proposed to 10 CFR Part 170 of this chapter.
Part 170 - Fees for Facilities and Materials licenses and Other Regulatory Services Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended' I
3.
The authority citation of Part 170 continues to read as j
follows:
l l-AUTHORITY:
31 U.S.C. 9701, 96 Stat. 1051; sec. 301, Pub. L.92-314,-
L I:
86 Stat.-222 (42 U.S.C. 2201w); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C.'5841).
4.
In 6 170.31, a new category 13 is added to read as follows
[
(note:
Footnotes to the chart remain unchanged):
S 170.31 Schedule of fees for materials licenses and other regulatory servicer..
{
)
{
07/19/88 36 L
f,-
p..
[7590-01) s y
i l
(:.
l l
. Category of' materials and type
' Fees of feel 1}.
Approval and reapproval of spent fuel storage cask design:
' Application - - - - - - - - -
$150 Approval:
1.
Safety Analysis Report - -
Full Cost 3 2.
Amendments, Revisions and Supplements to Safety Analysis Report - - - - -
Full Cost 3 f
5.
In S 170.32, category 10 is revised to read as follows (note:
Footnotes to the chart remain unchanged):
S 170.32 Schedule of fees for health and safety, and safeguards inspections for materials licenses.-
Type of Maximum 3
1 Fees frequency
- Category of licensees inspection 10.
Transportation of Inspections on Full N/A--Resident l
radioactive mate-the reactor site cost' inspector.
rial and storage of
- recovery, spent fuel under 10 CFR 5 72.401:
Evaluation and Approval of Evaluation and fabrication of
--do--
each storage inspection of spent spent fuel dry cask design.
fuel casks, pack-storage casks.
Inspection of ages, and ship-casks to be ping containers.
determined.
i Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of
, 1988.
l I
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.
07/19/88 37 1
wa l.
g; y
0: Q,
\\
w in PRELIMINARY REGULATORY ANALYSIS Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites (10 CFR Parts 72 and 170) 1.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
,m
~
It is anticipated that electrical utilities which utilize nuclear reactors q
'.for power will have a major.need for additional: storage of spent: fuel to
- supplement the. reactor's water basin storsge, starting in the 1990s. The
~
Nuclear Waste Policy ~Act.ofL1982 (NWPA) recognizes this need for additional.
spent fuel storage capacity at nuclear power reactor sites.. In section.218(a),
- theNWPA.statesthat"theSecretary[of00E]shall' establish.
demonstration program, in cooperation.with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent
. -c fuel' at civilian; nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective.of
~
establishing one or more technologies that the Commission may, by rule, approve for'use at.the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission".
In ~section 133, the NWPA states that "the Comission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the
?
Commission under'section 218(a)". The Comission_ recognizes _ these needs by -
. including the' development of the basis for rulemaking that would enable use of
. dry spent ~ fuel storage in casks without, to the extent practicable, site-specificlicensereviews.intheirplanningguidance(NUREG-0885,"U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Policy and Planning Guidance l1987", Issue 6
' September 1987).
Currently the regulations in Part 72 do'not permit licensing spent'. fuel storage without extensive site reviews. -This rulemaking would-accomplish these directives by providing for issuance of a general license to the holders of nuclear' power reactor licenses for the storage of spent fuel at i
f
-the site.in casks approved by the NRC.
'I J
1 1
f 2
g
.2.
' OBJECTIVES 2.1 To provide for compliance with the directives in sections 133 and 218(a) of the NWPA'that instruct the Commission to approve one or more technologies for the dry storage of spent fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites without the need for additional site-specific approvals and to set forth procedures for licensing any approved technology.
2.2 To establish conditions that protect the health and safety of the public and that are not inimical to the common defense and security.
3.
ALTERNATIVES 3.1 No Action The NWPA directs that the Commission approve one or more technologies, that have been developed and demonstrated by 00E, for the use of spent fuel storage at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific review.
It also directs that the Commission, by rule, set forth procedures for licensing the technology. Regulations for accomplishing these needs are not in place, thus.
l some action is necessary.
3.2 Available Alternatives The procedural alternatives available to NRC staff are amendment of licenses, use of regulatory guides or branch technical positions, and use of the rulemaking process. The purpose of this action is to license storage of spent fuel.
10 CFR Part 72 specifically addressec dry storage of spent fuel, j
under a materials license. The reactor is licensed to operate under 10 CFR
{
Part'50 arid amendment of the reactor operating license, which is a facility l
license, is not appropriate. Regulatory guides or branch positions do not l
carry the force of law, so they are only appropriate for conveying information i
concerning staff procedures. The preferred course of action is to proceed with rulemaking to amend Part 72.
2*
y
.s.
6
,W
- 4. CONSEQUENCES l
i, 4.1 Benefits The proposed action will bring NRC regulations into compliance with the NWPA with no adverse effect on the public health and safety, and minimal impact l
on nuclear power reactor licensees and the NRC.
Industry and NRC impacts are discussed in sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.'3.
The proposed rule would ensure protection of public health and safety
{
'through the use of'the Commission's inspection and enforcement authority.
NRC inspectors would inspect activities related to storage of spent fuel at the reactor. site and verify that conditions important to safety are in compliance with the Commission's regulations.
Personnel from the Office of Nuclear
~
Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) will evaluate design and fabrication procedures for storage casks, as submitted in a safety analysis report by cask I
vendors, and approve casks for storagc of spent fuel.
They will issue a Certificate of Compliance for casks after verification of the cask-design and the applicant's quality assurance program (QA)..The criteria for obtaining a Certificate of Comr,11ance are set forth in proposed subpart L. 'In general' terms, cask approval can only be obtained after NRC is assured that the design is adequate for' storage of the type of spent fuel specified and that a QA program acceptable to the NRC will be applied to the cask design, fabrication, testing, and maintenance.
Except for the formal submittal of a license appl.ication and its related documents,-the procedure for storage of spent fuel under this rule would essentially be the same as that currently required for a specific license under Part 72.
The rulemaking process ensures that the public I
will be involved in the development of any final rule that may be promulgated.
i 4.2 Impacts 4.2.1 NRC o
NMSS. Approximately one staff year (2087 hours0.0242 days <br />0.58 hours <br />0.00345 weeks <br />7.941035e-4 months <br />) of effort and
$200,000 in contractor work is currently required for reviews and evaluations l
F related to issuance of a specific license under Part 72. The $200,000 includes technical assistance for such work as independent computation and verification 3
of design bases and design criteria applications.
It is estimated that two license applications per year, for a period of 10 years starting about 1990, will be submitted for dry storage of spent fuel on nuclear power reactor sites.
The total burden on NMSS for issuance of the estimated 20 specific licenses would be about 41,740 staff-hours under current requirements in Part 72.
The proposed rule would eliminate the r.ecessity for this type of license review by NMSS.
The staff did not analyze reso m e requirements beyond the year 2000.
However, if a significant number of reactor licensees seek and obtain license extension amendments (beyond the current limit of 40 years), the need for additional dry storage capacity would rise significantly.
Thus, the requirement for this type of resource would increase.
The proposed rule would require that casks used for storage of spent fuel be approved by the NRC.
Subpart L of the proposed rule sets forth criteria for obtaining cask approval. The major burden for reviews, evaluations, and issuance of Certificates of Compliance will be assigned to NMSS personnel.
It is estimated that NMSS staff resources required for approval of each cask would-be about one-half a staff year (1,000 staff-hours).
Based on current submittals and information, the staff anticipates that there may be 10 or more applications for spent fuel storage cask certificates.
For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that there will be 10 submittals.
Thus, it would require about 10,000 staff-hours for reviews and evaluations related to initial storage cask approvals, or about 1,000 staff-hours per year averaged over the 10 year period analyzed.
Technical assistance costs would still be required.
Cask designs that have been approved for transportation of spent fuel may also be considered for spent fuel storage.
If the cask vendor has a Certificate of Compliance issued under Part 71 for the cask, the procedure for approval for spent fuel storage would entail an analysis showing that the spent fuel could be stored in the cask safely for 20 years.
This could be a rather simple analysis and no technical assistance work is anticipated.
Further, since many of the casks currently approved for transportation would be uneconomical for spent fuel storage, few submittals are expected.
Thus, no separate estimate is made.
4 l
1
4
.;1,
1 u.
L.
o' NRR.
The anticipat'ed involvement of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.(NRR) personnel under the proposed rule would be significantly different from their current involvement.
Reactor project managers and HMSS personnel currently coordinate to ensure that independent spent fuel storage L
installation (ISFSI) operations and reactor operations are compatible.
Currently NRR resource requirements are small.
Under the proposed rule, it is anticipated that NRR personnel will be responsible for inspections related to spent fuel cask fabrication and QA application. They will also continue to
'be responsible for physical protection plans.
L It is estimated that about 6,750 metric tons (tonnes) of uranium in spent fuel will be removed from reactors over the 10 years analyzed.
It is assumed that it 'will be stored in casks and that about 10 tonnes of uranium can be-stored in a cask.
Thus, about 680 storage casks will be required.
About 15 percent of these cask fabrications would be inspected by NRC, which will be about 10 cask fabrication inspections per year.
An average inspection trip is estimated to require about 40 staff-hours and cost about $2,000.
The reason lfor the large estimated travel expenses is that some inspection trips will require foreign travel.
In addition, there would be technical assistance costs estimated to be about $10,000.
It is anticipated that there will also be about 80 staff-hours required for inspection preparation and report writing.
- Thus, l
about 1,200 staff-hours and $120,000 in expenses would be required per year for spent fuel cask fabrications.
o Regional Offices.
Each operating reactor has at least one resident inspector.
In addition, the regions have a staff of field inspectors.
It is L
anticipated that inspection activities related to storage of spent fuel under I
the general license proposed in this rule, including review of operating plans and programs (i.e., quality assurance plan, emergency plan, training program) would be performed by a resident inspector.
It is anticipated that about 800 staff-hours per year would be required for these inspections.
o Training.
Resources would also be needed to train NRR and Regional personnel to perform reviews, evaluations, and inspections related to spent fuel storage in casks under the general license and to cask fabrication. A cadre of 10 persons from the Regional offices (2 from each Region) and 2 from l
5 l.,
.f-
+
.. t NRR would' probably be sufficient for an initial' compliment.
It is estimated that the training could be accomplished using NRC training facilities.. The training sessions could be conducted by NMSS personnel.
It is estimated that
'I a total of.800 staff-hours for the Regions, 160 staff-hours for NRR, and 240 staff-hours for NMSS would be required.
In addition the Regions would incur an estimated $15,000'in expenses for travel to headquarters.
o Total NRC Resource Requirements.
If storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI were to be licensed under existing regulations, the major resources would be the estimated 41,740 NMSS staff-hours and the $4,000,000 in contracted technical assista'nce required for reviews and evaluations related to issuing the estimated 20 equivalent specific licenses under Part 72. This would be about 4,200 staff-hours per year, averaged over the 10-year period analyzed. Other NRC resource requirements under current regulations are not zero, but are relatively small.
Estimated resources for NMSS activities under the proposed rule would be the estimated 1,000 staff-hours per year for initial cask reviews and approvals. In addition, there would be the 1,200 staff-hours and $120,000 expenses per year required by NRR related to cask fabrication inspections, and the 800 staff-hours per year required by the regions for inspections. The total estimated resources for training is-1,200 staff-hours and $15,000 in expenses.- Total NRC staff resource requirements are estimated to amount to about 3,000 staff-hours per year under the proposed rule, which would compare to an estimated 4,200 staff-hours if specific licenses are approved under j
f existing regulations. The $?00,000 for contractor assistance would continue to be part of the initial approval of cask designs and would amount to $2,000,000 over the 10 year period analyzed. This is about half of the contractual expenses estimated to be required if specific licenses had to be approved.
This leads to the conclusion that total NRC resource requirements under the proposed rule would be lower than if specific licenses were issued under current regulations. Resources are required for inspections related to safeguards and physical security. These resources are expected to remain about the same and j
are not considered separately.
In any case, fee schedules in 10 CFR 170 are
.being revised to ensure that costs related to the rule are fully recovered.
j
[
j L
l 6
)
-____________-___O
m 4.
f 4.2.2 Other Government Agencies.
1 l
i No other Government agency, except TVA, is licensed to operate a nuclear power' reactor. The impacts estimated for nuclear power reactor licensees would apply to TVA.
4 4.2.3 Nuclear Power Reactor Licensees i
Currently nuclear power reactor licensees must submit an application for a specific license under 10 CFR Part 72 to store spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation on the reactor site. The NRC recovers full costs for approval of specific licenses, which in cases similar to the general license would amount to about $200,000. License fees related to spent fuel storage under the general license would be eliminated.
l It is estimated that the annual reporting burden for a specific licensee under Part 72 is currently about 1,309 hours0.00358 days <br />0.0858 hours <br />5.109127e-4 weeks <br />1.175745e-4 months <br /> and the recordkeeping burden about 5,165 hours0.00191 days <br />0.0458 hours <br />2.728175e-4 weeks <br />6.27825e-5 months <br />. The proposed rule would eliminate the annual reporting burden for affected reactor licensees.- Costs related to printing and distribution of license documents required by Part 72 (e.g., safety analysis report, environmental report) would also be eliminated. However, evaluations concerning safety and recordkeeping related to operating and organizational plans and programs would still have to be conducted. Records related to these l
activities would have to maintained by the reactor licensee and would be l
subject to inspection by, but not submitted to, the NRC. The proposed rule l
would not alter reactor operating requirements under Part 50. The proposed rule would simplify 'the procedures under which a nuclear power reactor licensee could store spent fuel. A draft regulatory guide entitled, Standard Fonnat and Content for a Safety Analysis Report for Onsite Storage of Spent Fuel Storage Casks," was issued for public coment in April 1986 under task number CE-301-4. This guide and the public comments received on it were considered in the development of proposed subpart K.
(Single copies of the draft guide may be obtained from W.R. Pearson, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC, 20555 (Telephone: (301) 492-3764)).
l 7
t
i l
Incremental costs for design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of facilities for the storage of spent fuel under this rule have not been estimated.
If the reactor licensee has a need for storage of spent fuel beyond the capacity of the reactor storage pool, the licensee could choose whether to apply for a specific license under 10 CFR Part 72 or to store spent fuel under the general license provided by this rule.
In either case, there would be costs related to the design, construction, operation and decommissioning.
The licensee would decide on the procedure that provided the better solution for his purposes.
In the area of safeguards and physical protection it is estimated that adoption of these regulations would cost reactor licensees a one time expenditure of about $42,000, if an additional protected area must be constructed for storage of the spent fuel under the general license.
This is based on estimated costs of about $14,000 for additional physical barriers (800 feet of fence and a 50 foot gate encompassing about an acre), $8,800 for additional illumination (8 poles), and $19,200 for additional detection systems (6 systems).
It is also estimated that an annual cost of about $1,300 for additional testing and maintenance related to this storage of spent fuel will be required.
Current experience indicates that existing safeguards organizations are adequate to cover safeguards functions similar to those required by this proposed rule.
However, it is possible that additional guards may be required under some circumstances.
For instance, it may be necessary to increase the number of guards to cover spent fuel storage areas located remotely from the reactor protected area.
4.2.4 Cask Vendors.
Currently costs for approval of a topical safety analysis report, which is the present means of getting dry spent fuel storage cask designs approved for use, are limited to $20,000.
This is significantly less than NRC actual costs.
Under the proposed rule NRC would recover full costs for approval of cask designs.
This could amount to about $250,000 to $300,000 per design, including cost of contractor work and cask fabrication inspections.
8 I
e
}:
Cask vendors have submitted six topical reports to NMSS for approval for use of casks for spent fuel storage. Three of the topical reports have been approved and these casks are listed in this rule as approved for storage of spent fuel.
No incremental costs for additional reporting requirements are expected as a result of this action. The criteria for approval of spent fuel storage casks, as set forth in subpart L, are not significantly different from the design, fabrication, and quality assurance criteria that are currently used. A draft regulatory guide entitled, " Standard Fonr.at and Content for a Topical Safety Analysis Report for a Dry Spent Fuel Storage Cask," was issued for q
public comment in April 1986 under task number CE-306-4. The guide and the l
public comments received on it'were considered in development of subpart L.
(Single copies of the draft guide may be obtained from W.R. Pearson, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC, 20555 (Telephone: (301)492-3764)).
\\
4.2.5 Public.
No incremental cost impact on the public is expected. As shown in the preceding cost analyses, no significant increase in the cost of doing business is expected as a result of this action.
It is anticipated that costs to power reactor licensees will be less than that required to obtain a specific license for the same type of storage. Total NRC resources are also anticipated to be reduced slightly. However, these incremental costs would be insignificant compared to the overall costs, so no significant savings to the public is anticipated.
Since the power reactor licensee must comply with the requirements of the Comission's regulations, no reduction in public health and safety is anticipated.
In fact, risk to public health and safety could be reduced.
If shipment of the spent fuel is significantly delayed, the i
radioactivity of the spent fuel would be lower at the time of shipment.
9
.t D
t l
4.3 Impacts on other Requirements.
On May 27, 1986, a proposed rule amending Part 72 was published in the Federal Register (51 FR 19106).
It primarily concerned licensing the storage of spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste in a monitored retrievable storage facility, which would be constructed and operated by the DOE and licensed by the Comission.
It did not address requirements for licensing mandated by sections 133 and 218(a) of the NWPA. The Commission approved a l
final rule, derived from the proposed rule, at a meeting held on Thursday, July 14, 1988. Changes made in Part 72, as a result of this final rule, are reflected in this proposed rulemaking.
4.4 Constraints.
No legal, institutional, or policy constraints are anticipated.
5.
DECISION RATIONALE.
An assessment of the benefits and impacts of the alternatives leads to the conclusion that the requirements of the proposed rule are commensurate with the Commission's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security.
No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, thus, this action is recommended.
f 1
l 6.
IMPLEMENTATION.
This proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register allowing 45 days for public comment. Since rulemaking is mandated by the NWPA and the incremental impacts of this rule are minor, no implementation problems are anticipated.
ll l
1 I
10 C__________--._
l l
,c DRAFT CONGRESSIONAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Chairman:
o j
tr. closed for the information of the Subcommittee on is a copy of a Federal Register notice of a proposed rule concerning the storage of spent fuel on the sites of. nuclear power reactors. This rulemaking is in response to
' directives in sections 218(a) and 133 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which state that the Commission should approve one or more technologies for dry storage of spent fuel and establish procedures for licensing of any technology approved by the Commission for use at any power reactor site.
This proposed rule would allow storage of spent fuel in casks approved by the NRC for dry storage, under a general license issued to the holder of a power reactor license.
The Commission would rely on its inspection and enforcement authority to ensure compliance with its regulations and to provide adequate protection for public health and safety.
The proposed rule would also set forth criteria for obtaining approval for storage casks. Storage under the general license could continue under an amended Part 50 license, if the reactor licensee submitted an application for an operating license temination. However, the application for license temination must show how the spent fuel would be removed from storage and
' shipped prior to decommissioning the needed equipment.
The enclosed Federal Register notice would allcw 45-days for public comment.
f Eric S. Beckjord, Director L
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 1
- p
~
_0 RAFT J(T a,
'i NRC CONSIDERS AMENDMENTS TO REGULATIONS ON SPENT FUEL STORAGE 1
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering amending its regulations to authorize nuclear power plant licensees to store spent fuel on reactor sites in NRC-approved dry storage casks.under a general license, without submitting an application for a specific license to store the fuel.
The proposed rule also sets out criteria and procedures for obtaining NRC approval of the casks to be used for the spent fuel storage.
The authority to store the spent fuel on-site could continue after the reactor shuts down permanently, but the licensee would have to indicate in its application for reactor license termination how the spent fuel would be removed from storage and shipped off-site prior to decommissioning, or release of the site for unrestricted use.
The nuclear reactor licensee would have to ensure, through written evaluations, that there are no unreviewed safety questions or changes needed in association with the use of the casks for storage of spent fuel at the particular reactor site. A record of these evaluations would have to be retained by the licensee for three years after the initial use of each type of l
cask.-
l l
l
!L_-.-
DRAFT The licensee would also have to show compliance with conditions of the cask's Certificate of Compliance and develop operating procedures for use of the dry storage casks.
Within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of discovery of a pefect in a cask during first use or a significant reduction in safety effectiveness.during use, the licensee would have to make an initial report to the NRC. A complete written report, including a description of the means used to repair any defects or damage and to prevent recurrence, would have to be submitted to the NRC within 30 days.
l To obtain NRC approval of a dry storage cask, an applicant would have to submit a safety analysis report describing the proposed cask and how it should be used to store spent fuel safely. The applicant would have to make provisions for the NRC to inspect the premises and facilities where a spent fuel storage cask is fabricated and tested.
In addition, the applicant would have to perform, and make provisions to allow the NRC to perform, tests that i
the NRC decides are necessary.
Design, fabrication, testing, and maintenance of a spent fuel storage cask would have to comply with technical criteria in the Comission's regulations and be conducted under a quality assurence program that meets the NRC's
~
requirements. Cask reapproval would be required 20 years after issuance of a Certificate of Compliance.
l The cask would have to be designed and constructed so that the spent fuel j
is maintained in a suberitical condition under all credible conditions.
It i
l I
l L
DRAFT
,9,
.would have to be designed to store the spent fuel safely for a minimum of 20 years and; permit maintenance as required.
t.
Other details of the proposed amendments, which are principally to Part 72 of the Conunission's regulations, are contained in a Federal Register notice published on-Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
l-
' Enclosure 4
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING 0F NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Environmental Assessment for Proposed Rule Entitled, " Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC-Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites."
i Identification of Proposed Action The Commission is proposing to amend its regulations in 10 CFR Part 72 to provide for additional storage of spent, nuclear fuel at commercial power reactor sites without the need for additional site-specific approvals. The proposed amendment would allow holders of power reactor licenses to be issued a general license which would permit onsite storage of its spent fuel in casks approved by NRC, thus eliminating the need to submit a license application for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). The proposed amendment also contains criteria for obtaining NRC approval for spent fuel storage casks. The cask approval program would be analogous to that for spent fuel shipping casks under 10 CFR Part 71.
!!nder this proposed i
amendment, the cask will be relied on to provide safe confinement of that fuel independent of the reactor site location and when used within specified limits.
A reactor licensee, in order to use an NRC approved cask onsite, would have to ensure that the reactor site parameters and potential site-boundary doses were l
l within the scope of the cask safety analysis report and reactor licenses.
{
Spent fuel storage in approved casks at the site of a commercial power reactor would still have to comply with the existing safety requirements of 10 CFR Part 72.
l 1
1
~
c E.
.1 -
The Need for the Proposed Action 1
L This proposed rulemaking to amend 10 CFR Part 72 is needed to bring NRC regulations into compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA)
(Pub. L.97-425). Section.133 of the NWPA states, in part, that "the (Nuclear Regulatory). Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing-of any technology approved by the Commission under section 218(a) for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor." Further, Section 218(a) of
.the NWPA inbludes the following directive, "The Secretary [of DOE) shall establish a demonstration program in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the Commission may, by rule, approve for use at thc sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission." llence, this proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 72 to provide for spent fuel storage cask approval and general licenses to power reactor licensees for additional dry cask storage of spent fuel onsite without site-specific approval by NkC.
Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action There has been over 30 years of experience with dry storage of spent fuel in the United States and other countries. The environmental impacts associated
)
with storage of light water reactor (LWR) spent fuel (including dry storage) have been previously considered in other Commission rulemakings and ifcensing actions on which this assessment is tiered.
The " Final Generic Environmental I
2
i Impact Statement on the Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Reactor Fuel," NUREG-0575 (August 1979), was issued in support of the initial effective rule (45 FR 74699, November 12,1980).
In a proceeding entitled " Final Waste Confidence Decision," published in the Federal Register (49 FR 34688) on August 31, 1984, the Commission found " reasonable assurance that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of that reactor's operating license at that reactor's spent fuel storage basin, or at either onsite and offsite independent spent fuel storage installations,"
The " Environmental Assessment for 10 CFR Part 72 "' Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste,'"
NUREG-1092 (August 1984), and the Supplementary Information for the proposed rule published in the Federal Register (51 FR 19106) on May 27, 1986, contain specific analyses showing that the potential environmental impacts from dry storage of spent fuel in casks are small. Additionally, for a site specific analysis, the " Environmental Assessment Related to the Construction and Operation of the Surry Dry Cask Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation,"
l April 1985 Docket No. 72-2, concluded that dry cask storage on the reactor site would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and subsequently led to the issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (50 FR 15517, April 18, 1985).
The major non-radiation environmental impacts for dry cask storage of spent fuel would be those related to fabrication of the casks and construction of the storage facility.
In " Spent Fuel Storage Requirements 1987," 00E/RL-87-11 1
(September 1987), DOE estimates that by the year 2000 about 6753 metric tons of j
1 uranium (MTU) as spent fuel will need to be stored outside of existing reactor storage pools. Assuming about 10 MTU per cask, about 675 casks would be l
\\
3
required to store this amount of spent fuel. Storage casks weigh about 100 tons and.are fabricated mainly from steel, lead or uranium, concrete and l
plastic. The estimated 67,500 tons of steel required for these casks over this time period is expected to have very little impact on the steel industry. The amounts of lead and iron needed would not have significant incremental impacts on the mining and use of these metals. Similarly, the amount of uranium used in these casks would not have significant incremental impacts on the uranium industry because the uranium needed could be obtained from processing some of the vast supply of depleted uranium available as uranium hexafluoride.
If concrete casks are used, the amount of concrete required would be small compared to industrial and construction uses. The amount of plastic, most comonly polyethylene used as a neutron shield, would not be more than about a ton per cask and would be insignificant compared to the millions of tons produced annually.
Other than casks, storage of spent fuel under a general license would consist of primarily cranes and mobile equipment necessary to move the casks, reenforced concrete pads on which the casks are placed, and the land. The materials required for such ancillary equipment and structures are small, and incremental impacts from their construction and use are not considered to be significant. Land use commitments are negligible. Only a small fraction of the licensees land previously committed for the nuclear power station would be used.
Incremental impacts caused by the operation of additional dry cask storage of spent fuel under a general license are not considered significant. No effluents are expected from the sealed dry storage casks. However, activities
)
4 i
1
m
'x associated with cask loading and decontamination may result in some small
~
incremental liquid and gaseous effluent. These operations will be conducted under 10 CFR Part 50 reactor operating licenses, and effluents will be L*
controlled to be within existing -aactor technical. specifications. Because of L
the relatively large reactor sites, any incremental doses offsite due to l
direct' radiation' exposure from the spent fuel storage casks are expected to be small and when combined with the contribution from reactor operations will be well within the 25 mrem /yr limit specified in 10 CFR 72.67 and 40 CFR 190.
Incremental impacts in collective occupational exposure due to additional dry 1
cask storage of spent fuel under a general license are expected to be only a l
small fraction of that occurring for operation of the reactor power station.
The staff has assessed the public health consequences of dry storage cask accidents. In connection with separate ongoing rulemakings related to licensing-requirements for storage of spent fuel and high-level radioactive wastes (51 FR 19106,5/17/86) and emergency preparedness (52 FR 12921, 4/20/87), the staff reevaluated consequences of potential accidents involving spent fuel storage in dry casks ("A Regulatory Analysis on Emergency Preparedness fur Fuel cycle and Other Radioactive Material Licensees," NUREG-1140 (June 1985)). The reevaluation revealed no reason to increase the estimated doses in NUREG-0575 and NUREG-0709, " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Renewal of Material License SNM-1265 for the Receipt, Storage, and Transfer of Spent Fuel Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 72 - Morris Operations - General Electric Company," NUREG-0709 (July 1981). Docket Nos. 70-1308 and 72-1. The staff also determined that the release from dry cask storage is of a comparable magnitude to that for wet storage. The staff also assessed public health consequences from acts of radiological sabotage and concluded that, to be successful, it would have to be carried out with the aid of explosives. The public health consequences from an explosive sabotage event would stem almost exclusively from the release of
__x-____
_ _ m stman x_- - - -_
i respirable particles.
In an NRC study, an experiment was carried out to l
l evaluate the effects of a severe, perfectly executed sabotage scienario aganist 1
a simulated storage cask containing spent fuel assemblies. The whole-body dose j
to an offsite individual was calculated based on these release data and found j
to be about I ren. The experiment and calculations lev "a the conclusion of low public health consequence. As a result of these evaluations, the staff determines that, becau".e of the physical characteristics and the conditions of storage that include specific security provisions, the potential risk to the public health and safety due to accidents or sabotage are extremely small.
t Decommissioning additional dry cask spent fuel storage under a general license would be carried out as part of the power reactor site decommissioning plan.
It would consist of removing the spent fuel from the site and decontaminating cask surfaces. The casks would then be released for re-use or disposal.
No i
residual contamination is expected to be left behind on supporting structures.
The incremental cost associated with decommissioning are expected to represent a small fraction of the cost of decommissioning an entire nuclear power station.
Because this proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 72 would not change the existing safety and environmental requirements for the storage of spent nuclear fuel, and because additional dry cask spent fuel storage under a general license will still have to meet these requirements, no reduction in j
the protection of public health and safety is anticipated.
In previous l
rulemaking proceedings, the NRC determined that compliance with the f
requirements of 10 CFR Part 72 would ensure adequate protection of the public 4
health and safety. Based on the above assessment, the NRC finds that 1
6 f
y 2
ei; a
additional dry cask spent fuel storage under a general license by reactor licensees would not have a significant environmental impact.
Alternatives to The Proposed Action Because the Commission has determined that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action, any alternative with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated.
The' principal alternatives available to the NRC would be procedural in nature whereby additional dry cask spent fuel storage could be approved under other
-existing or new' parts of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.
Regardless of the' method selected to approve such additional dry cask spent fuel storage, all would have similar environmental impacts.
The NWPA directs that the Commission approve one or more technologies, that 4
have.been developed and demonstrated by DOE, for the use of spent fuel storage at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific review.
It also directs that the Commission, by rule, set forth procedures for licensing the technology. Regulations for accomplishing this are not in place, thus some l
action is necessary to comply with the Federal Law. Therefore the no action I
alternative is not acceptable.
l I
' Alternative spent fuel storage technologies exist. However, at this time, the NRC considers them neither sufficiently demonstrated nor practicable without 7
(
o_
'7 s., ;.
le,
.l
[
. additional site-specific reviews.
If other storage technologies become more
~
amenable. to this type of action, they could be considered at a later time.
Alternative Use of Resources-The only irreversible comitments of resources determined in this assessment
.J were those materials needed for the casks and the land used for the storage site.. The resources comitments for dry cask storage are similar to those resources required for extended storage of spent fuel previously evaluated in i
Agencies and Persons Contacted No other agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with l
i the preparation of this environmental assessment.
I Finding of No Significant Impact Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the Comission concludes that this proposes rulemaking, entitled " Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel in NRC Approved Storage Casks at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites" will not have a significant incremental effect on the quality of the human environment. The Comission has, therefore, determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for this rulemaking.
8
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.