ML20247L820
| ML20247L820 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/08/1989 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245D207 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-54FR19379, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-72 AC76-1-36, NUDOCS 8906020271 | |
| Download: ML20247L820 (5) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. a:.n. 3 ,,,;w,;, n.3. - --,-.;y--- g=g-6 ~.
- (
k C-% : 1 P o /T 1 ~ W') - D % $ For: The Commissioners 1 . From: Victor Stello - Jr. I Executive Director for Operations i
Subject:
PROPOSED RULEMAKING ENTITLED, " STORAGE OF-SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL IN NRC-APPROVED STORAGE CASKS AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR SITES" AND' ' CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PARTS 50 AND 170
Purpose:
To obtain Comission. approval to publish the subject rulemaking in the Federal Register. Category: This paper covers a major policy question requiring Comission-approval. Resource estimates are Category 1, preliminary.
Background:
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA). includesthefollowingdirective,"TheSecretary[ofDOE]shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power establishing one or mor. reactor sites, with the objective of e technologies that the Comission may, by rule, approve for use at sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Comission." .Section 133 of the NWPA states that "the Comission shall, by. rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Comission under section 218(a) for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor". This proposed action responds to these directives and also to the Comission's planning guidance in NUREG-0885, Issue 6, "U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Policy and Planning Guidance 1987," that the NRC should continue to develop the basis for rulemaking that would, to the extent practicable, enable the use of dry spent fuel storage casks without site-specific licensing reviews. On August 19, 1988 a final rule, entitled " Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste", was published'in the Federal Register (53 FR 31651, effective date 9/19/88). These revisions of 10 CFR Part 72 related mainly to storage of spent fuel and solidified high-level radioactive waste at monitored retrievable storage facilities (MRS). Although the MRS rule specifically addressed safety of dry spent fuel storage, it did not address the mandates set forth in sections 218(a) or 133 of the NWPA.
Contact:
W.R. Pearson, RES (301)492-3764 090602o271 890526 (p Q % $19379 PDR g, c
. a... m... + w..= ' a=r m m. .. 2: '. - ^ w. -..<~ aa L The Commissioners In addition,.a minor editorial. change to 572.30(b) (entitled "Decounissioning planning, including financing and recordkeeping") is being included in this rulemaking to make L clear that a decommissioning funding plan is an integral part of an applicant's proposed decommissioning plan. Discussion: Proposed Rule. Enclosed'is a draft Federal Register notice ~ (Enclosure 1) for a proposed rule'which would allow. power j reactor licensees to store spent fuel without additional site-specific reviews. A general license would be issued to. holders of power reactor licenses for the on-site storage of spent fuel in casks approved by the NRC. The Commission.would' rely on its inspection and enforcement authority to ensure compliance with its regulations. No reduction in the protection of public health and. safety is anticipated as a result of promulgation of this rule. In previous rulemaking proceedings, the Commission has determined that compliance with the regulations in 10 CFR Part 72 would ensure adequate protection to public health and safety. This proposed 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 2), no significant incremental environmental impacts are expected from promulgation of this rule. The storage of spent fuel under the general license in this proposed rule would eliminate the necessity for site-specific fuel storage at this time)ge (but not for other types of spent reviews for dry cask stora Reactor licensees, however, would have to register as users under the general license. These licensees would have to show that there are no changes required in the facility technical specifications, that there are no unreviewed safety questions related to spent fuel storage under the general license, and that the spent fuel will be stored in conformance with conditions of the cask Certificate of Compliance. If there is any unanswered safety question, the spent fuel could not be stored under the general license unless the question was resolved. If the question involved plant systemsorcomponents(e.g., cranes),thelicenseecouldoptto make design changes, which might include submittal of a license amendment under Part 50, to show compliance with conditions of the general license. Alternatively, the reactor licensee could apply for a specific license to store the spent fuel under Part 72. The proposed rule would allow storage of spent fuel under the general license to continue after termination of reactor operations under an amended Part 50 (" possession-only") license. However, a plan for handling and shipping the spent fuel, before needed equipment is decommissioned would have to be included n.
~,,g..,,.; ~ r. x-. n ,. z., L 1.MiD.XQ:f 'ceL 3 ,l j "p 4 j [ The Commissioners W with the application for-license termination submitted under y 550.82. 4 The proposed rule would not limit storage of spent fuel to that m ? .which is generated at the reactor ~ site. Transfers of spent fuel from one reactor site to another would be authorized under the- >l receiving-site's facility operating license pursuant to.10 CFR Part 50. :The holder of. a-reactor operating license would apply L for a license amendment,; under $50.90 unless already authortred -{ 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 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 storage is.in . compliance with the cask's Certificate of Compliance. ~ In a separate procedure, the NMSS staff would review safety ~ analysis-re) orts submitted for spent fuel storage cask. designs a to ensure t1at casks, regardless of operations perfonned or W storage location and provided the conditions of the Certificate h of Compliance are met, will provide. adequate protection to public health and safety. To the extent practicable, cask designers should consider compatibility of'the Lcask design with ' activities related to removal of the stored spent fuel from the reactor site and eventual transportation for storage and disposal at a DOE facility. A quality assurance program, accepted by the Comission, would be applied for cask design, fabrication, testing, use, and maintenance. Spent fuel storage cask designs would be approved or certified through rulemaking procedures and their Certificates of Compliance would be made available in an NRC NUREG. Records for tracking the i fabrication, testing, and use of each cask would be established. I Resource Requirements. The regulatory analysis (Enclosure 3) shows that total NRC resource requirements would be i significantly reduced, as a result of this action, over the resources required if routine licensing procedures were followed. Under the proposed rule, distribution of the resource requirements within the offices will differ significantly. The L bulk of the independent-spent fuel storage installation 1 licensing burden is currently borne by NMSS. NRR and the Regional offices are expected to assume a larger share of the burden under the proposed rule. NRR personnel would be responsible for an initial inspection of cask fabricators related to implementation of quality assurance programs. Inspections of activities related to storage of spent fuel on i the site under the general license would be performed by regional inspectors. Onsite inspection requirements for NRR programs are expected to generate some additional resource requirements, estimated to be about 0.3 FTE per year related to = -
X E.. l _..Z.~.f 7 5 R I__ C y 1 The Commissioners i vendor inspections and about 0.3 FTE per year for the regions j related to onsite inspections. Revisions will be made to Part 170 to recover full costs for these services. The regulatory analysis will be made available for inspection in the Commission's public document room. Coordination: The proposed rule was reviewed in June 1988 by the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW). The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) was informed, but deferred review to the ACNW. Comments by the ACNW in its July 1,1988 memorandum to Chairman Zech have been taken into account in this proposed rule package. The staff also had benefit of CRGR comments resulting from CRGR meetings in November and December 1988. The Offices of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and Administration concur in the proposed rule. OGC has reviewed the proposed rule and has no legal objection. Recommendations: That the Commission: 1. Approve publication of a notice of the proposed amendments in the Federal Register (Enclosure 1). 2. Note that: (1) The Commission finds that dry storage of spent fuel in NRC-approved casks will provide adequate protection to public health and safety and the environment. (Statement contained in Enclosure 1, page 9). (2) The notice of proposed rulemaking will be published in the Federal Register with a 45-day ccament period. (3) The Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. (Statement contained in Enclosure 1). (4) The Commission finds that no significant incremental l environmental impact is expected c.s a result of this action, thus, no environmental impact statement has been prepared (Enclosure 2). (5) The Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, and the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House Energy and I 4
L The Commissiensrs y Commerce Committee will.be informed of the Commission's action by letter (Enclosure 4). (6) This proposed rule contains information requirements that are subject to review by _the Office of Management and Budget. The proposed information requirements have been submitted to OMB for clearance. (7) Public Affairs has prepared a public announcement for release when the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register (Enclosure 5). (8) Copies of the Federal Register notice will be distributed to affected licensees and other interested parties. (9) The Commission will approve, in the proposed rule at S72.214, the= design of four casks. for the storage of spent fuel upon approval of a final _ rule. The Certificate of Compliance for each cask will be made available for comment -in the Commission's Public Document Room. is the Certificate of Compliance for the Castor V/21 cask, which is typical. -(10) The staff recommends that the Commission address this issue by notational vote. Scheduling: If scheduled on the Commission agenda, it is recommended that i this paper be considered at an open meeting. l U'#nd s: 4 b r S'c.' 7 q : y'r nx Victor Stello, Jr. Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1. Proposed Federal Register notice. 2. Environmental assessment. 3. Draft regulatory analysis. 4. Draft Congressional letter. 5. Draft public announcement. 6. Certificate of Compliance - Typical. ,44(No legal objections validated by telephone conversation with R. Fonner on 1/31/89. See Previous Concurrence i Offe: RES:RDB:DRA RES:RDB: 'RA R :RDB:DRA Rks RA b RES:DD RE':DDf Name: *WPearson:jp JTelford Wlahs ZRosztoczy BMorris DR J4 Dater / /88 7 /A(/8 'l/9/88 7/1488 7 /2#8 /88 g/g/88 gc OGC NRR NMSS ADM RES:D E WParler' TMurley HTho'mpson WMcDonald EBeckfo VS ello b 7//g88 / /88 / /88 / /88 / /88 , /-k)/88 necter m orenen enev h}}