ML23156A036

PRM-072-001 - 58FR47222 - Petition of the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition Concerning Generic Issues on Dry Cask Storage

ML23156A036
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/08/1993
From:	NRC/SECY
To:
References
PRM-072-001, 58FR47222
Download: ML23156A036 (1)

Text

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 09/08/1993 TITLE: PRM-072-001 - 58FR47222 - PETITION OF THE MARYLAND SAFE ENERGY COALITION CONCERNING GENERIC ISSUES ON DRY CASK STORAGE CASE

REFERENCE:

PRM-072-001 58FR47222 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

STATUS OF RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE: PRM-072-001 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULE NAME: PETITION OF THE MARYLAND SAFE ENERGY COALITION CONCERNING GENERIC ISSUES ON DRY CASK STORAGE PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE: 58FR47222 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 09/08/93 NUMBER OF COMMENTS: 12 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 11/22/93 EXTENSION DATE: I I FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: I I NOTES ON: PETITIONER WOULD CHANGE THE REGULATIONS ON DRY CASK STORAGE OF STATUS .S~ENT-NUCLEAR FUEL. FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE: DENIAL OF PETITION OF RULE: FOR RULEMAKING PUB. AT 60FR38286 ON 7/26/95. FILE LOCATED ON Pl.

HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PRM-072-001 RULE TITLE: PETITION OF THE MARYLAND SAFE ENERGY COALITION CONCERNING GENERIC ISSUES ON DRY CASK STORAGE PROPOSED RULE PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 09/01/93 FINAL RULE FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: I I STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACT!: GORDON E. GUNDERSEN, RES MAIL STOP: T9-F31 PHONE: 415-6195 CONTACT2: MAIL STOP: PHONE:

DOCKET NO. PRM-072-001 (58FR47222)

In the Matter of PETITION OF THE MARYLAND SAFE ENERGY COALITION CONCERNING GENERIC ISSUES ON DRY CASK STORAGE DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT

- 06/30/93 06/23/93 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING SUBMITTED BY RICHARD OCHS ON BEHALF OF THE MARYLAND SAFE ENERGY COALITION 09/01/93 09/01/93 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING 11/15/93 11/09/93 COMMENT OF FAWN SHILLINGLAW ( 1) 11/15/93 11/11/93 COMMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-SYSTEM (THOMAS J. EVANS) ( 2) 11/19/93 11/10/93 COMMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-SYSTEM (RON VANDERVELDEN) ( 3) 11/22/93 11/18/93 COMMENT OF COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO (WILLIAM F. NAUGHTON) ( 4) 11/22/93 11/18/93 COMMENT OF MARY P. SINCLAIR ( 5) 11/22/93 11/19/93 COMMENT OF EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE (DAVID l. SWANSON) ( 6) 11/22/93 11/22/93 COMMENT OF YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO (DONALD W. EDWARDS) ( 7) 11/23/93 11/22/93 COMMENT OF BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (JAYE. SILBERG) ( 8) 11/26/93 11/22/93 COMMENT OF LAKE MICHIGAN FEDERATION

-(BRUCE N. JOHNSON) ( 9) 11/29/93 11/22/93 COMMENT OF ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC (JERRY W. YELVERTON) ( 10) 11/30/93 11/22/93 COMMENT OF MRS. LEO DREY ( 11) 02/18/94 02/14/94 REBUTTAL OF MARYLAND SAFE ENERGY COALITION TO COMMENTS ADDRESSING PETITION. REBUTTAL SUBMITTED BY RICHARD OCHS, DIRECTOR.

DOCKET NO. PRM-072-001 (58FR47222)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF D.OCUMENT 04/07/94 04/03/94 COMMENT OF MARVIN LEWIS ( 12) 08/14/95 07/11/95 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE: DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING

. 0c..GY.

_.1, *:r:ti sent to tho

_,ni::0 of the Feder:;~ P.~)~'@ri' for publica,il(.*a ,_,_,.,..,""""",,.,;.~, ...:

• 95 ~UG 14 P1 :02

[7590-01-P]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY coMt-fifs~:i-FinblF S[CRETARYE ooct,t1lHG SERV\C(~Y.

10 CFR Part 72 BRA~CH

[Docket No. PRM-72-1]

Maryland Safe Energy Coalition; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM-72-1) from Richard Ochs submitted on behalf of the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition. The petitioner requested several amendments to the regulations governing the independent storage of spent fuel in dry casks.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the public comments received, and the NRC's letter to the petitioner are available for public inspection and/or copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.

(Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gordon E. Gundersen, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6195.

<.oo '?R-- 3 ~:;)."'8 ~

~~. ,{~<c\C\5'

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Pet it ion On June 23, 1993, Mr. Richard Ochs, on behalf of the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition, filed a petition for rulemaking with the NRC.

The petition relates to generic requirements for the licensing of independent storage of spent fuel in dry casks found in the Commission's

- regulations contained in 10 CFR Part 72. In particular, Subpart B provides information required to be submitted in a license application, Subpart C provides requirements for the issuance and conditions of a license, Subpart D provides the requirements for the records that must be kept by a licensee, and Subpart E provides requirements for evaluation of the storage facility site.

The petitioner requested that the NRC amend 10 CFR Part 72 to read as follows:

1. In§ 72.22(e)(2), "Contents of application: General and financial

- information," add "Specify the planned life of the ISFSI."

2. In§ 72.22(e)(3-}, "Contents of--application:-General and financial information," change "after the removal of spent fuel and/or high-level radioactive waste" to "if the spent fuel and/or the high-level radioactive waste is removed."

3. In§ 72.42, "Duration of license; renewal," add a new paragraph (d) to read "No license will be issued before 90 days after the final safety evaluation report (SER) is published."

2

4. In§ 72.44(c)(3), "License conditions," add paragraph (v) to read "dry storage casks must be monitored continuously for radioactivity at the exit cooling vents."

5. In§ 72.46(d), "Public hearings," add "The time prescribed for a notice of opportunity for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene will extend from the notice of proposed action through 90 days after the final SER is published."

6. In § 72.72(a), "Material balance, inventory, and records

- requirements for stored materials," after the first sentence add "The records must include the history and condition of all spent fuel assemblies including a description of any defective fuel, such as fuel that is cracked, swollen, blistered, pinholed, or offgassing."

7. In§ 72.104(a) "Criteria for radioactive materials in effluents and direct radiation from ISFSI or MSR," in place of "real" put "maximally exposed"; after "individual" add "or fetus"; change "25 mrem" to "5 mrem";

change "75 mrem" to "15 mrem"; and change "25 mrem" to "5 mrem." The sentence would then read, " . . dose equivalent to any maximally exposed individual or fetus who . is located .beyond. the .contra 11 ed. area*, must not* exceed 5 mrem .. to, the -*

• whole body, 15 mrem to the thyroid and 5 mrem to any other organ . . . "

This petition for_rulemaking stems from earlier actions regarding the Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). On December 21, 1992, the petitioner filed a petition requesting that the NRC institute a proceeding pursuant to§ 2.206 with regard to the Calvert Cliffs ISFSI. In acknowledging the receipt of the December 21, 1992, petition, the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, indicated that to the extent it addressed generic issues related to dry cask storage, the 3

appropriate course of action would be to file a petition for rulemaking. The Director's decision dated August 16, 1993, denied the§ 2.206 petition, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), 00-9-14 (August 16, 1993); 58 FR 44863 (August 25, 1993). This rulemaking petition filed on June 23, 1993, addresses many of the generic issues that were raised in the December 21, 1992, § 2.206 petition.

Basis for Request As a basis for the requested action, the petitioner stated that, as an environmental consumer organization, the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition is interested in the minimization and safe storage of nuclear waste including spent fuel at nuclear power plant sites in general.

The petitioner indicated that it is particularly concerned about spent fuel storage at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, which is operated by Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E). The petitioner stated that even

- though the spent fuel at Calvert Cliffs is stored under a specific Part 72 license; many of the~generic requirements proposed by the petitioner would be the same or similar to the specific requirements applicable to independent spent fuel storage at Calvert Cliffs.

Public Comments on the Petition A notice of filing of petition for rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on September 8, 1993 (58 FR 47222). Interested persons were requested to submit written comments or suggestions concerning the petition by 4

November 22, 1993. The NRC received five comment letters from the industry and industrial associations, four from individuals, one from an environmental group, and two from governmental agencies. The commenters were evenly split, six supporting all or parts of the petition and six rejecting the petition.

The supporters' comments generally supported the additional 90 days to review the Safety Evaluation Report (SER}, the need for records because of the uncertainty of knowing how long the spent fuel will be stored, the need for continuously monitoring radiation leaving storage cask vents, and lower

- radiation limits. The commenters objecting to the petition were more specific, often citing the Director's decision under§ 2.206, Baltimore Gas &

Electric Co. (Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), DD-93-14, August 16, 1993. Concerning extending the opportunity for hearing or petition to 90 days after the final SER is issued, the objecting commenters cited the NRC hearing and petition processes as providing ample opportunity for public participation. In refuting the lower radiation limits, the objectors cited studies and reports by respected organizations and other regulations including EPA's 40 CFR Part 190 and the recently revised 10 CFR Part 20. Additional information was also received from the petitione~ .. The petition and the comments received in response to the notice of filing are available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room identified above.

Reasons For Denial The NRC has considered the petitioner's requested amendments, the public comments received, and other related information. The following discussion 5

addresses each of the seven parts of the petitioner's requested amendments quoted above and the NRC's response.

Part 1: The petitioner requests that§ 72.22(e)(2) be revised by adding "Spe"ci fy the planned life of the ISFS I."

In the existing§ 72.22(e), there is already the requirement for the applicant to specify the period of time for which the license is requested.

The petitioner's request is therefore unnecessary and redundant because the applicant is already required to specify the planned life of the ISFSI, that is, the period of time for which the license is requested.

Part 2: The petitioner requests that wording of§ 72.22(e)(3) be changed from "after the removal of spent fuel and/or high-level radioactive waste" to "if the spent fuel and/or the high-level radioactive waste is removed."

DOE is required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to accept spent fuel for ultimate disposal. Moreover, the Commission made a generic determination in its Waste Confidence Decisions (September 18, 1990; 55 FR

- 38474 and August 31, 1984; 49 FR 34694) that there is reasonable assurance that safe disposal is technically feasible and will be available within the first quarter of the 21st century. The NRC therefore does not believe it is either necessary or appropriate to revise the existing wording of the regulation as requested by the petitioner.

Part 3 and Part 5: The petitioner requests a new paragraph (d) be added to § 72.42 to read "No license will be issued before 90 days after the final safety evaluation report (SER) is published." The petitioner believes that significant new issues will be contained in the final SER. The petitioner also requests that the following be added to§ 72.46(d): "The time prescribed 6

for a notice of opportunity for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene will extend from the notice of proposed action through 90 days after the final SER is published." The petitioner states that if a notice of opportunity for a hearing or intervention is limited to a short period after the license application, interested parties may be prevented from obtaining a hearing based on the second or final SER. Information in the latter safety reports may impact on the advisability of issuing a license. The public should have the right and opportunity to comment on the final Safety Analysis Report (SAR) and SER before a license is issued.

An applicant for a site-specific dry cask storage license is required by

§ 72.24 to submit a detailed safety analysis report (SAR) with the application for license to the NRC. The applicant's SAR contains the detailed basis for requesting a license and, more particularly, for demonstrating compliance with NRC licensing standards. Following receipt of an application, the NRC publishes a notice of docketing an application for an ISFSI in the Federal Register as required by§ 72.16(e). This notice, which may be combined with a

- notice of opportunity for a hearing, will typically indicate where a copy of the detailed SAR may be examined. An individual is allowed 30 days from the notice of proposed action to request that NRC grant a hearing in accordance with§ 2.105 and§ 2.1107. The 30-day period is provided so that the individual can review the license application and SAR and determine whether to request a hearing or intervention. The SAR will provide ample information for the individual to make the determination. At the same time, the NRC technical staff will commence its review of the SAR and other relevant documents and preparation of an SER. These documents and the license are placed in the NRC Public Document Room and the Local Public Document Room near the licensee site 7

where they are also available for review. Should the SER contain a new issue (as opposed to new evidence on an issue apparent from the SAR) pertinent to the requested license, an interested party could seek late intervention or submit a late-filed contention as allowed by§ 2.714. Finally, a party can petition the NRC to modify a license if new information comes to light after the license is issued. Thus, an individual has ample opportunity to participate in the ISFSI licensing process and to review and raise issues concerning the SER. Adding another 90-day delay in issuing the license would not significantly improve the process for licensing the safe operation of an ISFSI.

Part 4: The petitioner requests a new paragraph (v) be added to

§ 72.44(c)(3) to read "dry storage casks must be monitored continuously for radioactivity at the exit cooling vents." The petitioner states that the exit vents are the most likely location of radioactive venting, and it is therefore logical that monitors would be required at these locations.

NRC regulations already require that the license (or Certificate of

- Compliance in the case of an NRC approved cask) include surveillance and monitoring requirements to determine when corrective actions need be taken to maintain safe storage conditions. See, e.g., 10 CFR 72.122(h)(4). In addition, radiation monitoring and environmental monitoring programs are also already required (e.g., 10 CFR 72.126), and these programs can be expected to detect any radiation leak in excess of NRC limits from an NRC-approved cask.

Furthermore, the NRC-approved cask designs which use cooling vents and air flow between the fuel canister and the concrete biological shield for cooling also are designed to require double seal closure welds on the canister. These welds are inspected and the canister leak tested after being loaded. There is 8

no known long-term degradation mechanisms which would cause the weld to fail within the design life of the canister. Therefore, the regulation proposed by the petitioner is not needed.

Part 5: The response to this part has been combined with the response to Part 3 and is addressed above.

Part 6: The petitioner requests that the following be added after the first sentence in§ 72.72(a): "The records must include the history and condition of all spent fuel assemblies including a description of any e defective fuel, such as fuel that is cracked, swollen, blistered, pinholed, or offgassing. 11 The petitioner states that defective fuel can cause problems for safe storage; therefore, the history and condition of all spent fuel should be documented.

NRC regulations already require that the license (or Certificate of Compliance in the case of an NRC-approved cask) must include specifications for the conditions of fuel assemblies to be loaded into storage casks. See, e.g., 10 CFR 72.44(c). These regulations also require that licensees must demonstrate in procedures and records that the fuel load meets the cask design criteria. In add Hi.on, l icens.ees .must.conduct. ..l oading. operat.i.ons. in ...

accordance with written procedures which must be specific enough to demonstrate that only fuel assemblies that meet the cask design criteria can be loaded. Licensees are required to maintain records, including the condition of the fuel, of all fuel assemblies in storage casks or in the pool.

See, e.g., 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B, XVII, "Quality Assurance Records," and 10 CFR 72.174, "Quality Assurance Records." Therefore, additional records as proposed by the petitioner are not necessary.

Part 7: The petitioner requests the following revisions to§ 72.104{a):

9

in place of "real" put "maximally exposed"; after "individual" add "or fetus";

change "25 mrem" to "5 mrem"; change "75 mrem" to "15 mrem"; and change "25 mrem" to "5 mrem." The sentence will then read, " ... dose equivalent to any maximally exposed individual or fetus who is located beyond the controlled area must not exceed 5 mrem to the whole body, 15 mrem to the thyroid and 5 mrem to any other organ ... "

The change of the word "real" to "maximally exposed" in§ 72.104(a) is not needed. In the regulation, the word "real" in the phrase "The annual dose

- equivalent to any real individual who is located beyond the controlled area ... " refers to an individual who lives closest to the boundary of the controlled area. This individual is, in general, the maximally exposed individual because other individuals are further away from the controlled area. If the petitioner's suggested words "maximally exposed" were adopted, it could mean that an imaginary individual would be continually present at the boundary of the controlled area. The NRC regulates radiation doses on the basis of real people in proximity to the boundary of the controlled area.

Section 72.104(a) establishes the bases for the amount of radioactive materials permitted in ISFSI effluents and direct_radiation from an ISFSI. It -

imposes limits on the annual dose equivalent that is received by an individual who is located beyond the controlled area. The petitioner referred to a 1990 study by Alice Stewart that allegedly supports the conclusion that the standards incorporated in§ 72.104(a) are too high for a developing fetus, women, and children. The petitioner cited additional references during the comment period.

Section 72.104(a) does not incorporate exposure limits that are unique to ISFSI operation. Rather, the exposure limits used in Part 72 are based on 10

the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Radiation Standards for fuel cycle facilities specified in 40 CFR Part 190. 45 FR 74693 (November 11, 1980). Moreover, the EPA, commenting on the proposed 10 CFR Part 72, stated: "Our only comment of substance concerns your requirement that such independent storage facilities provide radiation protection consistent with the Agency's public health protection standards for the Uranium Fuel Cycle (40 CFR 190). We generally support your use of these requirements."

The§ 72.104(a) exposure limits are also consistent with the recent

• revision of 10 CFR Part 20 - Standards for Protection Against Radiation which became effective on January l, 1994. This revision was comprehensive in scope and reflects state-of-the-art data on radiation protection. This revision was based on recommendations and studies of expert groups through 1990, including the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and the National Academy of Science's Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR).

4t Among other things, these studies analyzed the data on radiation exposure to a developing* fetus. In sum, the NRC' s radiation protection standards are based on a body of recent, authoritative, and substantial data. The petition fails to provide an adequate basis for its requested revisions to§ 72.104(a).

It should also be noted that both 10 CFR Parts 20 and 72 have requirements to keep radiation exposures as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). Experience to date with ISFSI operations has demonstrated that due 11

to the conservative ISFSI designs and the application of ALARA requirements, the radiation levels associated with ISFSI operations are in fact well below regulatory limits.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is denied.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this ,!I.a( day ot#-, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ja Ex Direct r Operations.

12

(-c,-c-C. L,1-, ?}. -:J--¥ 5 )

j:-u., \:Id 310u I \, - --

@) ti38Vm 13)\~00

\

t DOCKt: I 11~1,;a (>, v t.1 , , i v .:: vCv flON OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Postmark r

• L/ / S /71.-1 Copies p-, ~. * * - i ----

Add'I C :,:,::.: :~:*::,= :-i. * ** J . _,,__ _

Speci:* . ,,;, ~:1>-J~ J?IJ;z i ~v-- - . -*- ---......,_-

DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM - /

(foFR '-/7112]

CKi ., L:

Maryland Safe Energy Coalition  ;::, Ni*,C P.O. Box 331 t t Baltimore, MD 2 t 2 t 8 410-243-2077 C!

February 14, 1994 Secretary of the Commission US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Maryland Safe Energy Coalition for Rulemaking Docket No. PRM-72-1, 58 Fed.Reg.47222 (June 30, 1993)

Dear Secretary Chilk:

David L. Meyer, Chief of NRC Rules Review and Directives Branch forwarded to me on January 13, 1994, copies of comments in response to our above petition for rulemaking. Below is our rebuttal to comments submitted by Edison Electric Institute, by Jay E. Silberg for Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., by Entergy, by Yankee Atomic Electric Co., and by Commonwealth Edison.

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) claims it "takes actions to ensure that safe, environmentally sound, publicly acceptable, cost-effective radioactive waste management and disposal, and nuclear materials transportation systems are maintained and developed in a timely manner" (page 1 of comments). EEI is in error because no "safe, environmentally sound, publicly acceptable, cost-effective ... disposal" of high level radioactive waste has been proven to exist. The Exploratory Studies Facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, has not been completed much less proven to dispose of high level nuclear waste in the manner described by EEI. EEI cannot "ensure" the required disposal.

Neither can the NRC, the DOE nor Congress. No one can.

I raise this point here to elaborate our basis for the first two previously petitioned rulemaking changes: 72.22(e) (2) add:

"Specify the planned life of the ISFSI" and 72.22(e) (3) change from "after the removal of spent fuel and/or high-level radioactive waste" to "if the spent fuel and/or the high-level radioactive waste is removed."

EEI claims "there is no basis in current law or policy for amending Part 72 to indicate that spent fuel storage in an ISFSI may become permanent." But according to John W. Bartlett, Director of the DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, the policy is in question. In a statement addressing DOE's obligation to assume custody of the fuel under the Nuclear waste Policy Act, Bartlett wrote, "Neither the statute as a whole

)

u.s.NU1.-~-*. I -.,Ill -..OMMISSIO~ (

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF Tl-iE COMMISSION oc::.m1ent $tatistics Postmark D~!o :2.._/11-//Cf'-/

Copies AGC;;i\i., j _ _ _,__=-----

Add'I Copi:?S RC?,0 ;,;;:-3d -"3=--- - - -

Special Dtsl!ibution _a:I P5. ;'fJ.l 4

' / _ I 1

~5ttLlJ

_________ _.J..._

2 nor the Standard Contract purports to obligate the Department to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel in the absence of an operating facility at which the spent fuel qan be either stored or disposed of in the fashion contemplated by the Act. 111 That is, law or no law: if there is no repository, there is no disposal. It is disingenuous for EEI to claim otherwise.

What is the basis for EEI's optimism? In 1975 the Federal government planned on having a high-level waste burial site operating by 1985. The date was moved to 1989, then to 1998, then to 2003 and now to 2010. The Government Accounting Office estimates the soonest it can open is between 2015 and 2023. Even that far-away goal now appears unrealistic. We can go on playing this game forever, but who are we fooling? The best site chosen, under Yucca*Mountain, suffered an earth quake in June 1992. The Nevada governor,* legislature and public are dead set against the project.

A National Academy of Sciences report in April 1992 recommended drilling deep into a paleozoic aquifer under the area and taking core samples from a steep gradient lying just north of the site to characterize the regional hydrogeology better. But DOE has chosen to "brush off" these and other suggestions, says George Thompson of Standard University, vice chairman of the NAS panel. 2 All eight panelists signed a letter to DOE in March 1993 saying that science is taking a back seat to engineering and budgetary considerations. The NRC's Waste Confidence Decision may have found reasonable assurance that a repository will be operational during the first quarter of the 21st century (barely), but in light of the aforementioned short-cuts, is the NRC prepared to second-guess the prestigious Academy on the safety of the repository?.

Stanford University geologist Konrad Krauskopf wrote in Science in 1990, "No scientist or engineer can give ~n absolute guarantee that radioactive waste will not someday leak in dangerous quantities from even the best of repositories." One can certainly make the argument that nuclear waste might be less dangerous in dry storage on site indefinitely or even permanently. Dr. Judith Johnsrud3 and members of Nuclear Guardianship argue that buried containers are irretrievable but on-site dry stored canisters can be monitored and re-canned when 1

OCRWM Bulletin, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, DOE/RW-0405, winter 1993, page 27 & 30.

2 "Scientists criticize DOE work on nuclear repository site" by Tony Reichhardt, Nature, Vol.362, 4*March 1993.

3 Dr. Judith Johnsrud, Director, Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power, 433 Orlando Ave., State College, PA 16803.

3 they leak. 4 England has given up the idea of a national nuclear waste repository. They are now resigned to entombing nuclear waste at reactor sites for at least 130 years and possibly forever. o The Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. might be thinking along the same lines because in March 1993 the Company asked the DOE for a $24 million refund of payments BG&E made toward the Federal repository. And by their asking other utilities to do the same, BG&E certainly is not trying hard to get a Federal repository built, to say the least.

Even the proponents of the proposed Yucca Mountain waste repository are hedging their bets. Project leader Dryfus was asked on MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour on January 13, 1994, "What do we do with the waste if the Yucca Mountain site is not feasible?"

Mr. Dryfus answered, "We have the option of dry storage at many sites."

If the DOE cannot ensure disposal, how can EEI claim to ensure disposal? Given the experimental, unproven and tenuous nature of the project, it would seem irresponsible not to have a back-up strategy. On page 5, EEI claims "there is no reasonable basis for NRC to modify 72.22(e) (3) to suggest *that geologic disposal will ultimately be abandoned in favor of indefinite on-site storage." On the contrary, the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition has presented a reasonable basis. The EEI has many questions.to answer to have a reasonable basis for their claims.

4 Nuclear Guardianship Forum, 1400 Shattuck Ave., #41, Berkeley, CA 94709. ON THE RESPONSIBLE CARE OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS: Nuclear Guardianship is a citizen commitment to present and future generations to keep radioactive materials out of the biosphere. Recognizing the extreme damage these materials inflict on all life-forms and their genetic codes, Nuclear Guardianship requires:

• interim containment of radioactive materials in accessible, monitored storage, so that leaks can be repaired, and future technologies for reducing and containing their radioactivity can be applied; *

• stringent limits on transport of radioactive materials, to avoid contaminating new sites, and to minimize spills and accidents;

• cessation of the production of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy;

• transmission to future generations of the knowledge necessary for their self-protection and ongoing guardianship through time.

4 On page 5 of its comments, EEI claims "it would be inappropriate for NRC to promulgate regulations that are contrary to federal statutes." However, a mandate by Congress for a repository does not prohibit a prudent back-up option. *. Scientific honesty on the part of technical staff is a prerequisite for future Congressional policy amendments. A courageous administrator or engineer will eventually blow the whistle on this charade and take some risks to tell the truth for the wellbeing of our precious earth. Who will the hero be? We hope it happens before irreversible decisions are made with consequences in perpetuity.

Meanwhile, we can expect utility managers to put profits first and let the next generation worry about their waste. If the NRC is not the watchdog, then the fox will eat the chickens.

Is there a macho culture alive in the industry which gets a thrill playing with dangerous stuff or getting,an ego trip wielding power over society? Is it the challenge of brinkmanship or difficult technical innovations? Or is it true concern for providing the energy people need? Is the money that good?

Perhaps a little of each? Some soul searching is in order!

When the licensees apply in 20 years for an extension on their ISFSI licenses, what will be the NRC criterion for granting such?

Do these criteria exist now or will the NRC wait until the need arises? The licensees will probably have to apply again in 40 years. Will the criteria for 40 years be the same as for 20 years? What happens in 60 years and 80 years? There is reason to believe that the ISFSI will be relicensed repeatedly until they start leaking or show signs of serious corrosion.

According to page 3 of EEI's conm\ents, the NRC's 1990 Waste Confidence Review found "reasonable assurance that at least one mined geologic repository will be available within the first quarter of the 21st century." But this optimistic scenario is probably insufficient. According to Dr. Judith Johnsrud of the ECNP (op.cit.), Yucca Mountain will have a 70,000 metric ton limit. Another high level waste dump is already necessary because 82,000 metric tons have already been generated. By the time two underground caverns are built, which will take several decades, mounting HLW will require others to be built. Utilities are seeking reactor life extensions, even though it is not known if permanently leak-safe burial sites are even possible. Dr.

Johnsrud claims the other option, retrievable canisters, while closer to atmosphere and ground water, at least can be re-canned when they leak.

This is not the first time the NRC's projections were inaccurate.

EEI footnotes this on page 3 of their comments: "In its 1984 Waste Confidence Decision, the NRC found~ .. that one or more repositories would be available by the years 1997-2009 ..* 11 It seems to us that it is now time for a third "confidence" review,

5 hopefully more realistic and less dependent on the nuclear industry for the answers.

EEI sums up their criticisms of our idea to specify the planned life of the ISFSI on page 4 of their,comments: " *.* the NRC has repeatedly emphasized that an ISFSI is a facility designed and intended for temporary SNF storage, not permanent disposal." But good intentions are not good enough., In spite of NRC's designs and intentions, the ISFSis may become indefinite or permanent by default. Thousands of events happen in nuclear plants in spite of design and intentions all the time. TMI was not intended to melt down. Let's be realistic and not hide behind an ephemeral legalism. We want the ISFSI to be held to the highest of standards until they can be re-canned at a future date. We believe these six rulemaking changes will uphold higher standards of safety than presently exist.,

While EEI may have confidence in the quality and timeliness of a deep repository, MSEC believes that 5 postponements -- and counting -- does not generate confidence. Although EEI claims "No purpose would be served by requiring an ISFSI licence applicant to attempt to predict the planned life of an ISFSI (p.4)," we assert the purpose is to bring planners down to reality and require better on-site storage facilities.

EEI also takes issue with the MSEC petition for rulemaking changes in 10 CFR 72.42 and 72.46(d) on page 5 of their comments.

EEI does not want to give the public the opportunity for hearings after the final SER is published but,before a licence- is issued.

If the utility has done a adequate job designing the 'ISFSI, what are they afraid of? Do we live in a democracy or what? One would think. that plant operators would be proud of their accomplishments and would be eager to answer the questions of concerned citizens. What's the big secret? The public does not have any veto power and could not stop a utility if they wanted to. If you think we are too suspicious, it's because of the way the nuclear industry tries to hide information from the public and get licenced before peoples' questions are addressed. Is the NRC a watchdog or a co-conspirator? How this rulemaking petition fares will help to answer this question.

On page 5 of its comments, EEI cites NRC rules: "The sole focus of the hearing is on whether the application satisfied NRC regulatory requirements, rather than the adequacy of the NRC staff performance .** " MSEC believes the public has the right to witness and question if the licensee satisfies all NRC requirements. This is not possible until the public can see the NRC requirements in the final SER. For instance, ~he MSEC believes that certain requirements were not satisfied at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant and wanted an opportunity to testify at a hearing. We had many questions, including history and condition of spent fuel and site-specific hazards. Under the

i.

6 present rules, this opportunity was denied us. The licence was granted to the applicant at the same time the final SER was published. We feel this procedure is:appropriate to a dictatorship, not a democracy. *

. i EEI continues on page 6: 11 * *

• the licence1 application should include sufficient information to form a basis for contentions *.* " so that one need not wait to see the SER to intervene * . MSEC believes that the application of Baltimore Gas &

Electric Co. did not include sufficient information to form a basis for contentions. We still are waiting for answers to questions we petitioned for in 1992 (see Docket No. 72-8(50-317/318)). This is proof that the rules are inadequate.

EEI then claims (p.6) that the MSEC rule change would "~ ** be extremely disruptive to the NRC regulatory process and grossly unfair to the applicant." Of course democratic participation is disruptive to bureaucracy. It is supposed to be. That's the price we are willing to pay for encouraging people to get involved in the decisions which. effect their lives. If we train everyone to be sheep, we will be building a house on sand.

Experts need to be accountable. Experts are not always right.

Sometimes a dumb question is a good question. Experts can also improve by being challanged. Often experts disagree with each other and public input can break a logjam. Right now the process is grossly unfair to citizens who are concerned about nuclear power and nuclear waste.

On page 7, EEI claims " **. to hold open the opportunity for a hearing and to entertain new contentions until a very late stage in the ISFSI process ... would be an unreasonable and unworkable procedure." MSEC believes at worst it may slow the process down.

a little but the benefits would be a better informed public, which must live with the nuclear waste and pay the bill. It could also *encourage better decisions because questions of waste policy ultimately depend on an informed and active citizenry.

EEI is,making unsubstantiated claims that the MSEC rule changes would be unreasonable and unworkable.

On page 7, EEI asserts that 11 * *

• a party can al~ays petition the NRC to modify a licence if new evidence *** comes to light after the licence is issued." That is inadequate because hearings, unlike petitions, have the benefit of cross-examination, dialogue, questions and answers. Also, as in the case of the MSEC, we petitioned for hearings and for the licence to be suspended, not modified. However, we were denied both requests.

On page 7, EEI concludes that "The petition does not_ provide any justification for reversing this long-standing policy." On the contrary, the arguments contained herein provides reasonable justification for improving the rules. EEI does not analyze how

(

7 the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages of public involvement and responsibility.

EEI also disagrees with the MSEC petition to change 10 CFR 72.44(c) (3) (ii) to require that ISFSis be monitored for radioactivity at the exit cooling vents. On page 7, EEI claims "This request reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of dry storage technology ... " On page a, EEI claims "the petitioner has presented no basis for incorporating a continuous monitoring requirement *.* "

MSEC believes it understands the ISFSI system. The NRC has allowed a maximum allowable radiation per assembly to be 4.27 x 10 15 photons/sec. of gamma and 2. 32 x 108 neutrons/sec. of flux.

The ISFSI.at Calvert Cliffs contain 24 fuel assemblies per canister, or: 1.02 x 10 16 photons/sec. of gamma and 5.57 x 10 9 neutrons/sec. The dangerously high level of radiation in each canister is about half of the radiation in the atomic bomb fallout over Hiroshima. Some of the gamma radiation and neutron flux of the spent fuel will be shielded by a 0.625 inch thick stainless steel canister shell and an internal neutron shield.

Most of the galllJ[la radiation and neutron flux will be shielded by the 3-foot thick cement vault~

For some reason, neither the NRC or BG&E has reported exactly what amount or percentage of the radiation would penetrate the canister shell (Are they trying to hide something?) If one makes the conservative estimate that half of the radiation penetrates the steel shell, that means that the moisture, dust, insects and microbes drawn in through the convection vents will be bombarded with 5.1 x 10 15 photons/sec. of gamma and 2.78 x 10 9 neutrons/sec.

in each vault. That very high level of radiation will surely activate whatever is in the air, which in turn will leave through the exit vent. The NRC believes some of the vault cement will become radioactive 5 , so surely the internal moisture, dust, insects and microbes will also become activated. Actually, a greater potential environmental and health hazard, that of mutated spores, bacteria, fungus, mold and insects adversely 5

According to NRC's SER for BG&E's ISFSI at CCNPP, November 1992, page 2-12: "The BG&E decommissioning plan includes an analysis of the Residual Radioactivity and Activation of the Horizontal Storage Modules (HSM). This analysis was based upon the assumption that a portion of the HSM building materials will become.activated due to the presence of neutron radiation emanating form the Dry Storage Canister. Should the HSM building materials become activated, then a portion of the HSM would have to be disposed of as radioactive waste. The Decommissioning plan calls for the removal of up to 6 inches of the inside surface of the HSM to remove the radioactive material~"

8 effecting the external environment has not been studied by BG&E, EEI, NRC, DOE or EPA. 6 In any event, MSEC believes there is a reasonable basis for requiring continuous radiation monitoring at the exit vents of the ISFSI. Neither BG&E nor the NRC has ever claimed that radiation at the exit vents is expected to be less than the radiation penetrating through the cemept vault wall.* All they said in answering a separate site-specific petition by the MSEC (Docket No.72-8,50-317/318) was that the radiation at the vent was "not representative." Representative or not, the MSEC wants to know if a monitor will give a higher reading at the vent than anywhere else outside the ISFSI. Is the NRC claiming that a monitor reading at the exit vent will always be lower than at the other monitor locations? If so, on what basis?

In addition, what if a canister springs a leak? Wouldn't a monitor at the exit vent be the earliest warning system? The required TLD monitors further away, which measure radiation penetrating the cement wall, may not be sensitive to a small leak because almost all of the radiation is shielded by the wall.

6 The following excerpts are from the book Deadly Deceit -

Low Level Radiation - High Level Cover-Up by Dr. Jay M. Gould and Benjamin A. Goldman, Four Walls Eight Windows, New York, 1990:

"As indicated in Chapter Seven, the Japanese associated the rapid proliferation of Candida Albicans with a radiation-induced fungal mutation after Hiroshima. In the same period they also noted the sudden emergence of several previously extremely rare forms of cancer, such as pancreatic cancer and childhood leukemia. In this country, Lyme Disease may have suddenly become epidemic because of a sudden lethal change in a spirochete that had been carried by deer and field mice for prior generations without harm to humans. As related in the previous chapter, an outbreak of Lyme Disease began in the fall of 1975, after huge radiation releases from the nearby Millstone reactor."(page 138)

"Since Nobel *Prize-winner Herman Muller began experimenting with fruit flies in the 1920s,.radiation has been known to accelerate the mutation of organisms. Over the past half century, radiation may well have created many new organisms that can take advantage of weakened immune systems.(page 137)

"Among the most rapidly growing diseases today are; AIDS, Chronic Epstein Barr Virus, Lyme Disease, Candida Albicans, herpes, septicemia and several other immune-deficiency ailments *.. These may all be examples of immune system damage traceable to atmospheric fallout, and exacerbated by later accidental releases of fission products from nuclear reactors and reprocessing facilities."(page 135,137)

9 The closer a monitor is to a source, the higher the reading becomes and hence more accurate because the standard deviation (margin of error) is reduced. The MSEC has established a reasonable basis for vent monitoring. '

The MSEC also offers a basis for requiring records of fuel history and condition in 10 CFR 72.72(a), that is, a description of defective or pinholed fuel rods. While other sections of NRC rules already require fuel histories, 72.72(a) should emphasize the need for stable fuel elements in dry cask storage. The rule amendment suggested by MSEC would make 72.72(a) consistent with the other similar rules.

• The suggested amendment would specifically require descriptions of pinholes in fuel rods, that is, how large are the pinholes and how many pinholes in each rod? This specificity is important to determine how many pinholes will be allowed in dry stored fuel.

1 Currently there is no limitation.

The EEI also opposes the MSEC petition to change 10 CFR 72.104(a). The MSEC wants the NRC to require a lower allowable radiation dose to a person at the perimeter of the ISFSI controlled area for three reasons:

1) there is no threshold lev~l of radiation below which an exposed person is safe from radiation damage;

2) low levels of prolonged radiation exposure are more hazardous than brief high levels of exposure, the measured doses over time being the same; and

3) background levels of radiation are hazardous and can be lethal.

EEI's comments (page 11) refer to the National Academy of Science's Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). EEI cites the BEIR-V report on radiation exposure to a developing fetus to disprove the MSEC claim that the current radiation limits in CFR 72.104(a) are hazardous to a fetus. EEI points out that Part 72 exposure limits are consistent with 10 CFR Part 20, the NRC's standards for radiation protection. EEI claims "The Petition falls short of demonstrating that Part 20 is not based on a body of substantial, authoritative, and recent data."

The MSEC hereby cites the BEIR-V report to show that the Part 20 and Part 72 radiation limits give inadequate protection to

10 adults, children and to_the fetus. According to the above-cited book Deadly Deceit by Dr. Jay Gould: 7 The report (BEIR-V) goes on to-pinpoint what we believe is the basic problem: "the discrepancies between estimates based on high-dose studies and observations made in some low-dose studies could ..* arise from problems of extrapolation." These extrapolations may have led to underestimates at low doses, because they assumed the dose-response curve was linear o~

quadratic, rather than supralinear (which rises rapidly at low doses and levels off at high doses).

A supralinear dose-response curve is suggested by the so-called "Petkau effect" (discussed below), which involves tumor promotion from free radicals created by repeated exposures at low dose-rates. Indeed, the BEIR-V report explicitly refers to the tumor-promoting effect of free radicals observed in laboratory studies of cells, and illustrates how such promoting agents can dramatically change the shape of the dose-response curves so as to increase the effect of carcinogens at the lowest doses. As a result of risk estimates based on mistaken extrapolations. government standards for environmental releases of radioactivity from nuclear facilities may be 100 to 1060 times too high.

especially for infants (our emphasis).

The BEIR-V report also cites a new large-scale British study by Dr. Alice Stewart and her associates demonstrating that extremely small radiation doses in the environment are capable of effecting the future health of individuals exposed as fetuses. Dr. Stewart had established with earlier research that childhood cancers and leukemias were associated with exposures to diagnostic X-rays during pregnancy. In the latest study, her group discovered a direct correlation of childhood cancers and leukemias with background levels of gamma radiation from natural and man-made sources in England, Wales and Scotland. The cumulative outdoor doses due to this source during fetal life varied between only ten and 40 millirads, with an average of 22 millirads. After correcting'* for a series of socioeconomic, medical and demographic factors, the researchers found that the effect on fetuses of radioactivity on the ground was more than three times greater than that of diagnostic X-rays.

7 Ibid. page 180

11 These findings, based on the follow-up of some 16 million women over as long a period as 36 years, support the conclusion of Dr. Stewart and her colleagues that natural and man-made background radiation may account for a majority of childhood cancers and leukemias in our society today (page 182).

\

Dr. Stewart's findings would strongly indicate that the standards set for exposure of adults to low-level radiation may be thousands of times too high for the developing fetus (our emphasis) ... It is unfortunate that BEIR-V did not quantify this enormous difference between the sensitivity of the developing fetus to low-level radiation and that of the adult.

The current NRC standards in 10 CFR Part 20 and Part 72 are set too high for adults as well when you consider that any amount of radiation is hazardous. According to John W. Gofman, M.D.,

PhD., 8 "There is no evidence at all for any safe threshold of radiation exposure." According to Dr. Jay Gould's book: 9 our findings of a supralinear effect also agree with similar findings for cancer mortality from exposures to low-level radiation made by four eminent authorities:

Dr. John Gofman, *Dr. Karl z. Morgan, Dr. Thomas Mancuso and Dr. Alice Stewart. All four scientists.worked at various times for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission or Department of Energy. All four concluded that the dose-response relationship was supralinear, which means that there is no level of radiation low enough to be deemed "safe" (our emphasis). The government terminated the services of all four when they each, independently, came up with what Dr. Gofman has called the "wrong" answer -- that is, the opposite of what the

\ AEC wanted to hear.

j To the extent that nuclear energy was part of a Cold War contest with the Soviet Union, the rationale no longer exists to compromise public safety in the interest of national security.

The military mentality which allowed radiation experiments on unsuspecting Americans also caused nuclear environmental contamination. Many nuclear engineers working for utilities and for the NRC are graduates of the navy_* s nuclear propulsion 8

Professor Emeritus in Molecular and Cell Biology, University bf California at Berkeley, author of Radiation and Human Health {1981), Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure (1990), Radiation and Chernobyl: This Generation and Beyond (1994), X-Rays:* Health Effects of Common Exams (1985).

9 Deadly Deceit, Op.Cit., page 8.

12 training. Their prior war indoctrination is obsolete. A new culture of environmental responsibility needs to be inculcated which reflects the post-Cold War reality, as Vice-President Al Gore so well articulated. As the Secretary of the DOE, Hazel O'Leary, has demonstrated, now is the time for whistle-blowing and coming clean. Now is the time for new standards. This also applies to nuclear power and the NRC.

The BEIR-V report (cited above) which recognized problems with extrapolating high-level dose-response.to low-level dose standards is confirmed in studies cited in Dr. Jay Gould's book: 10

• We then found a statistically significant correlation between changes in infant mortality over the past two decades and regional risks of exposure to milk contaminated from civilian reactor emissions since 1974. The fourteen states in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions with the greatest risk of exposure to contaminated milk also had the worst infant mortality performance. Analyzing these data, we found that while the exposure risk of eight Midwest states was 440 times greater than that of three *northern New England states,

- the corresponding infant mortality performance was only ten percent worse. This evidence suggests that the dose-response is "supralinear" rather than linear, which means that infant mortality rises more rapidly at low doses.

Another example of the supralinear relationship was offered in the wake of Chernobyl. The June 1986 increase in infant deaths over June 1985 in the U.S.

was a full ten percent of the increase 'in West Germany's Baden-Wurttemberg province, even though U.S.

radiation levels were only one-hundredth to one-thousandth as great *.. The statistical probability is

- less than one in one million that during the summer following the Chernobyl accident the excess deaths observed in the U.S. were due to chance.

The statistical observations of suprelinearity in dose-response are related to clinical studies, according to Dr. Gould's book: 11 Dr. Abram Petkau is a Canadian physician and biophysicist who until recently managed the Medical Biophysics Branch of the Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment,' located in Pinawa, Manitoba. 1While 10 Deadly Deceit, Op.Cit., page 7 and 8.

11 ,

Ibid., page 172 ff.

13 studying the action of radiation on cell membranes in 1971, Dr. Petkau conducted an experiment never done before. He added a small amount of radioactive sodium-22 (a gamma emitter) to water containing model lipid membranes extracted from fresh beef brain. To his surprise, the membranes burst from exposure to just one "rad" (a measure of the amount of radiation absorbed) over a long period of time. Conversely, Dr. Petkau had previously found that 3,500 rads were required to break the cell membrane when X-rays were applied for only a few minutes. He concluded that the longer the exposure, the smaller the dose needed to damage cells .** Subsequent research by Dr. Petkau and other scientists ultimately demonstrated that this process occurs even at background radiation levels. At high levels of radiation, Petkau found l~ss cellular damage from free-radical production per unit of energy

• absorbed than at low levels of radiation.

Chronic exposure to low-level radiation produces only a few free radicals at a time. These can reach and penetrate the membranes of blood cells with great efficiency, thus damaging the integrity of the entire immune system although very little radiation has been absorbed. In contrast, short~ intense exposures to radiation, as with medical X-rays, form so many free radicals that they bump into each other and become harmless ordinary oxygen molecules. Short exposures thus produce much less membrane damage than the same dose given slowly over a period of days, ,months, or years.

More recently, Charles Waldren 12 and co-researchers have found that when a single human chromosome is placed in a hybrid cell and irradiated, the ionizing radiation produces mutations much more efficiently at low than high doses, as in the case of cell membrane damage. They found that very low levels of ionizing radiation produce mutations two hundred times more efficiently than the conventional method of using high dose rates, or brief bursts from X-ray machines. They found that the dose-response curve exhibits a downward concavity (logarithmic or supra-linear relationship) in mammalian cells, so that the mutational efficiency of X-radiation is maximal at low doses, exactly as was found by Petkau for free radical mediated biological 12 Charles Waldren, Laura Correll, Marguerite A. Sognier and Theodore T. Puck, "Measurment of low levels of X-ray mutagenesis.

in relation to human disease," The Proceedings of t;he Nat;ional Academy of Sciences, Vol.83, 1986, pp. 4839-4843.

14 damage. Thus, their findings contradict the conventional scientific dogma that the dose-response curve is linear, and that a straight line can be used to estimate low-dose effects from studies of high doses (our emphasis).

The petitioner, MSEC, has demonstrated a body of substantial, authoritative and recent data as evidence that the current NRC radiation exposure limits are insufficient for public safety.

In February 1994, the media reported that U.S. men born after 1948 are three times more likely to get cancers unrelated to smoking as their grandfathers were. 13 Something in our environment is killing us. Both the chemical and nuclear industries reject charges it is their fault, saying "prove it!"

The symbiotic and cumulative effect of many hazards in the environment combine to cause cancers, but it may take generations of megadeaths and megatorture to prove the exact causes of the epidemic./ We do know, however, that*any amount of radiation increases the risk of disease. '

The current allowable levels of radiation_are based upon the principle that one must prove the amount of.harm before the cause of such harm is restricted. If someone living near the perimeter of the ISFSI dies of cancer, it is impossible to prove it was caused by ISFSI radiation. In light of the cancer and immune deficiency epidemics, a more conservative radiation limitation would be prudent. A more protective principle needs to be instituted. The burden of proof should be on the nuclear industry to show that radiation is not the cause of disease. If society demanded the burden of proof to fall on the polluters instead of the polluted, the disease rates would no doubt decline. The MSEC challenges EEI to propose a workable policy to reduce environmentally-caused cancer.

EEI points out on page 12 of its comments that "the Petitioner should seek an amendment of Part 20 11 so that Part 72 will not be isolated from the rest of the regulatory scheme with different regulatory limits. MSEC thanks the EEI for.this observation and hereby petitions the NRC to amend 10 CFR Part 20 accordingly to be consistent with the MSEC proposed rule change in 10 CFR 72.104(a), cited in Docket No. PRM-12~1, filed June 30,1993.

MSEC will also petition EPA for an amendment in 40 CFR Part 190 for consistency.

13 "Incidence of cancer on rise amopg baby boomers, study finds -- Environmental causes suspectedll, Baltimore\Sun, 2/9/94, Associated press, chicago. The researchers reported in today's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

1

15 The above MSEC rebuttal to the comments of the Edison Electric Institute also applies to the similar comments by Jay E. Silberg for Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., by Entergy, by Yankee Atomic Electric Co., and by Commonwealth Edison.

Submitted on (date): ~ - / 'f - 7 $i--

by {.l~ O L Richard Ochs, Director Maryland Safe Energy Coalition

OOC!<ET MUMDER -, /

PETITION RULE PRM l ~

I (ij)

Mn. Leo Drey 515 West Point Avenue (SB' FR ~ 7 2 ?- 'J..)  : JCK:. i [ :'

US NiZC University City, MO 63130

• 93 NOV 30 P1 ::'8 November 22, r ,11 93 r

_j L *~ , ~.

Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 re: Docket No. PRM-72-1 These comments are in support of the amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 72, regarding licensing requirements for the independent (non-government) storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste -- as submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the Maryland Safe Energy coalition in June 1993.

As background, I would like to explain that my research in preparation for these comments has led me once again to the following conclusion: whenever a reactor's re-racked spent-fuel pool has reached its maximum capacity, the reactor should be shut down until a permanent high-level radioactive waste disposal facility is operable and has space for that reactor's accumulated spent fuel. (Factored into the assessment of that pool's maximum capacity, of course, should be the reservation of adequate empty space for the storage of the operating reactor's . full fuel core in the event of an accident, or for certain maintenance or retrofitting requirements.)

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be authorized by Congress to allow electric utilities to continue irradiating additional uranium fuel -- thereby creating literally hundreds of millions of curies a year* -- when no safe, permanent disposal site or technology has been found as yet for any of the irradiated fuel is, I believe, immoral. I would urge you to turn this current, nationwide controversy over the installation of dry storage casks -- on site, at nuclear power plants -- into an opportunity to bring the members of Congress up to date on reactor wastes. I would urge you, too, to remind them that no citizens want to host the high- or low-level raqioactive wastes still being created by commercial electric utilities, and that no scientist or engineer has ever been able to prove that those wastes can be kept isolated from our air, water, soil and living creatures for the requisite millennia, and longer.

All NRC Commissioners and staff members know that the fuel rods are lethal and remain permanently hazardous. I hope you will acknowledge this reality and will advise the U.S. Congress of these indisputable facts. If not now, when?

• To put the millions and even billions of curies MAY f 4 1994 * -

Acknowledged by card .................."""'""'"~

D Cl!i cnt S!i *.,tics tr" *,_,:; FU*r;.vu: _____,.__ _ __

• ' ! Cc;*c:; r~s. ~~ . ,.j __,,J'----o::c-=----

S *a1Di :11tu!.on.Jt.r =..t...L.L.

J S-1*._._-.~ ,___

-~ ~ 7

,2 generated by each power reactor into perspective, I often compare the fact that here in st. Louis, at Washington University and its associated hospitals, the scientists and technicians who work in some 850 laboratories share a total of two Quries a year.

Twenty years ago Dr. Thomas H. Pigford, a nuclear engineer of the University of California at Berkeley, and his colleagues calcu-lated that ten years after irradiated fuel has been removed from a thousand-megawatt nuclear reactor, it still contains 12.6 million curies. ("Fuel Cycles for Electric Power Generation."

Teknekron Report No. EEED 101, Table 2.4; 1973, rev. 1975) As you know, during the reactor's operation, the core contains from 15 to 20 billion curies!

The level of hazard these dry storage casks pose is truly beyond our collective imagination.

I would like to submit the following information and comments specifically related to the proposed amendments to 10 CFR 72 which would require (1) the continuous monitoring of the dry cask's exit cooling vents, and (2) the documentation of the history and condition of the irradiated fuel that is to be stored in the dry cask, including a description of all known or suspected defects, such as descriptions of fuel that is "cracked, swollen, blistered, pinholed, or offgassing."

Samples of irradiated fuel which has been exposed to the operating vagaries of a full-scale commercial power reactor have been experimentally stored in dry casks outaige of a hot-cell laboratory for less than ten years. "Some of these fuels have been stored continuously at hot cells [that is, in laboratories]

under dry conditions for approximately two decades." (from a letter I received, dated January s, 199Z, from Frederick Sturz, leader of the NRC's Irradiated Fuel Section). Recognizing the extended period of time during which decay heat will continue to be generated by the long-lived radioactive materials within the cask, and acknowledging the indefinite duration that may be necessary for on-site storage before even the first federal permanent high-level waste repository (at Yucca Mountain??)

is built and operable, the knowledge about the safety of dry casks that has been accumulated to date seems totally inadequate.

Because of the limited amount of field experience with actual irradiated reactor fuel in full-scale dry casks, it seems unlikely that anyone can predict with assurance such cask conditions as the following: the rate and types of degradation of the fuel rod cladding, the rate of release of fission gases and particles from the rods into the cask cavity, the buildup of internal temperature and pressures, and the release of the cask's fission gases and particles into the environment over the indefinite duration of the cask's on-site storage.

Because zirconium is known to be one of the most reactive metals

t L

J

.. f.

r

'I I

(

3 chemically, zirconium-alloy fuel-rod cladding failures are not uncommon. oxidation and embrittlement of the Zircaloy cladding, for example, can be caused by steam at high temperatures (from the reaction of the metal with hydrogen and oxygen in water). It is my understanding that an inadequate amount of experimentation has been performed to date to be able to determine at what minimum or maximum temperature the fuel rods must be stored to keep oxidation from occurring that could destroy (split or deform) the cladding, thereby permitting fission products to escape from the fuel.

Additional uncertainties about the condition of the fuel pellets and cladding exist because of the recent use of high burnup nuclear fuel. Can anyone accurately predict what effects, if any, the increased uranium fuel burnup is having on the fuel rods' integrity -- that is, what effects has the increase in the megawatt days per metric ton of uranium (the lengthened amount of time the fuel is now allowed to be irradiated in the reactor) produced on the fuel? What effects has the increase in the percentage of fissionable uranium-235 in the fuel been having on the ceramic fuel pellets and on the cladding? And what about the fact that some NRC licensees are now permitted to operate their reactors at a higher level of power than that for which the reactor was designed?

I believe that the following comments about high-burnup fuel, submitted to the NRC on June 4, 1980, by Dr. Earl Gulbransen, research professor of metallurgy at the University of Pittsburgh, are relevant:

Increased fuel burnup to 55,000 MWD/MTU from 38,000 MWD/MTU would lead to increased oxidation of the Zircaloy cladding, to increased hydride formation in the cladding, to decreased ductility and strength of the cladding and to potentially more failed fuel rods. This would in turn lead to more emission of inert gases such as krypton-85 and to increased liquid effluents including tritium and mixed fission and activation products. The effect of increased fuel burnup leads to additional problems in the short and long period storage of spent fuel assemblies at the reactor site and off site storage. (Docket PRM-51-6)

Because of the experimental nature of the recently-designed and fabricated dry casks, I would imagine the NRC would concur with the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition on the need to amass for safety and research purposes as many operational data as possible. The fuel rod history and the continuous-flow vent measurements should help provide the data needed to help determine to what extent radio- activity may have been released to the environment and to predict the likelihood of future releases.

Each reactor core contains from about J0,000 to 50,000 fuel rods (the latter being the typical number for a 1000-megawatt

s.

if

,"l t

pressurized water reactor). The cladding (or hollow metal cylinder encasing the 250 or so uranium fuel pellets in each of the 12-foot-long fuel rods) is only two hundredths of an inch thick. It seems to me that the only way a nuclear power plant licensee would be able to confirm accurately the presence or absence of pinhole leaks, cracks, swelling, defective welds, or other flaws in the cladding of each of the fuel rods in the spent fuel pool (pre-dry cask storage) would be to have a thorough inspection performed of each rgq in each irradiated core at a hot-cell laboratory. The cost of such a project, however

-- in dollars, time, and in the workers' radiation exposure --

is incalculable.

Even assuming ultrasonic scanning systems were available and were technologically feasible for the inspection of all the individual fuel rods, the following example demonstrates that the costs of a rod-by-rod inspection would indeed be prohibitive. Accord-ing to an article in the october 1982 IGiG Monitor, it took about five minutes to scan the cladding of a single four-foot-long fuel plate a few inches wide (using a scanning system developed at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory). Because of the extraordinarily high radiation fields surrounding irradiated reactor fuel rods, all transducers and scanning mechanisms would no doubt have to be operated by remote control. surely not enough hot-cell laboratories, trained personnel, or funds exist in the entire nation to even contemplate such a massive inspection project.

Therefore, the actual structural condition of the thousands of fuel rods that would be stored in a given cask at a given time can only at best be an estimate. That is why I remain perplexed by the following assurances Dr. Sturz offered in his January 1992 letter to me:

To gate, only fuel with no koo,m defes::te in tbe clad is being stgred in dry casks. This means that the noble gases are contained within the fuel rods. The purpose of the storage systems is to protect the rods from any damage, thus preventing the escape of noble gases to the internal cask structure. But even if all of the fuel rods were to be subject to a non-mechanistic failure caused by unknown forces, we have not been able to postulate credible circumstances that would allow the release of those gases to the atmosphere. (emphasis added)

Because fission products and gases can and will escape from defective rods into the cask interior and potentially into the environment, the citizens who live downstream and downwind from the proposed dry-cask farms are understandably challenging them

-- for example, the casks on the shores of Lake Michigan and on the banks of the Mississippi River (whose unpredictable power we in St. Louis know all too well). How can the NRC possibly guarantee that these new casks, with their volatile contents, will remain inviolate all the way until the year 2010 or 2025 or

1' y

T

5 whenever the rods' promised permanent home is supposed to be built and operable?

In st. Louis we have over 2 1/2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste which was generated starting on April 24, 1942

-- over 50 years ago -- in the successful effort to figure out how to purify tons of uranium for the world's first nuclear chain reaction (December 2, 1942), the first atomic bomb, and 25 more years of nuclear weapons production. our generations alive today still do not know what to do with the first cupful of this historic radioactive waste.

An additional milestone was reached last month: no new nuclear power plant has been ordered since October 1973 that has not subsequently been cancelled. That is, for twenty years our nation's investor-owned electric Utilities have recognized the fact that nuclear power, even with federal subsidies, is not financially viable. The uncertainties surrounding the costs and liabilities of reactor wastes have undoubtedly been a factor in this assessment.

I urge you to proceed with caution. To encourage our nation's nuclear electric utilities to continue generating high-level radioactive waste, and to permit them to continue stockpiling it in concrete fuel pools and experimental casks while awaiting a mythical Final Solution is an abdication of your responsibility to the citizens of our fragile, still habitable land.

Sincerely,

. I V

DOCKET NUMBER *

-===- ENTERGY PETITION RULE PRM C5 o F.,~.'J.?2.. 22

• . 'U .,. '-*, t-_L UJ ~li<C

-/ Entergy Operations, Inc.

Route 3 Box 137G Russellville, AR 72801 Tel 501-964-8888 Jerry W. Yelverton

• 93 ~ DV 29 P3 :O7 Vice President Operations ANO November 22, 1993 0CAN119301 Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Arkansas Nuclear One - Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368 License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6 Comments On 10CFR72 Petition (Docket No. PRM-72-1)

Gentlemen:

In response to your request for comments on the petition for rulemaking filed by the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition concerning proposed changes to the requirements for dry cask storage contained in 10CFR72 (58 FR 47222), the attached comments are forwarded for your consideration.

Very truly yours, attachment ACknowIedged by card .....MAY ::,._,,,n_

N .....

'!!!If 4 1994J.-....

I *

• - 1 OH Y C0\'1\!ISSION

' , ?:=,w1:c SECT!ON C' I  :, : (_,r- T!,- SECRETARY OF Tiit: co*; ,liSSION Document ~!at:stics

U . S.NRC November 22, 1993 0CANl 19301 Page 2 cc: U . S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Mail Station Pl-137 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. James L. Milhoan Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 NRC Senior Resident Inspector Arkansas Nuclear One - ANO- I & 2 Number 1, Nuclear Plant Road Russellville, AR 7280 I Mr. Roby B. Bevan, Jr.

NRR Project Manager Region IV/ANO-I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Mail Stop 13-H-3 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. Thomas W . Alexion NRR Project Manager, Region IV/ANO-2 U . S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR Mail Stop 13-H-3 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852

Attachment to 0CANl 19301 Page 1 of2 Comments on Petition for Rulemaking The following comments are numbered to correspond with the numerical identifications for each proposed change used in the Federal Register notice.

1. The maximum license period for an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI),

or individual cask in the ISFSI, is 20 years per 10CFR72.42(a). Each application for renewal of a site-specific license would be noticed in the Federal Register as required by 10CFR72.16(e), thereby providing the general public an opportunity for involvement in determining the lifetime of an ISFSI. Therefore, the overall lifetime of an ISFSI does not need to be included in the financial information included in the application for license identified in 10CFR72.22(e)(2).

2. The suggested wording change to 10CFR72.22(e)(3) would, in essence, give the licensee the option to provide an estimate of the decommissioning costs in the license application for the ISFSI dependent upon the licensee's own determination of whether the ISFSI was intended for temporary or permanent storage. This is not acceptable.

It is the policy of the United States that all spent fuel and high level waste (HLW) stored at an ISFSI would someday be transferred to a federal repository for disposal; therefore, it is necessary for the licensee to plan for eventual decommissioning and its associated costs, not continual operational costs for storage. It is beyond the scope of the NRC, through this potential Part 72 rulemaking, to change the direction of U. S.

policy for central disposal ofHLW to one of indefinite storage at multiple sites.

3, 5. Amending 10CFR72.42 and 10CFR72.46(d) to mandate a 90 day waiting period between publication of the final safety evaluation report (SER) and issuance of the license in order to increase opportunity for additional public comment negates the SER from being considered "final" . More than adequate opportunity for public involvement in the licensing process is given by 10CFR2.104, 10CFR2. l 05, and 10CFR2. ll 07 through 10CFR72.46. The final SER is written with consideration of the resolution of issues raised by the above processes and the Staff's review. No new information which could raise safety concerns beyond that present in the licensee's initial application will be present in a final SER; therefore, it is unlikely that additional public participation at that point in the process would be beneficial.

4. Appending a new section to 10CFR72.44(c)(3) to require continuous monitoring for radioactivity at the exit cooling vents of a dry storage cask is not necessary. The analyses performed by the technology's owners, and our own reviews, show that there is an extremely low probability of accidental release. The steel canisters or casks that contain the fuel are sealed in two layers prior to leaving the spent fuel pool area. In comparison, this configuration has similar barriers as the fuel in the reactor core. The first primary barrier is the cladding around the fuel pellets. The next barrier is the sealed steel containment vessel which, in some cases, is also inside a thick concrete enclosure. The final barrier is the administrative controls required for the fuel placed

Attachment to 0CAN119301 Page 2 of2 in storage. Only spent fuel that has had sufficient burnup, passed a physical inspection, and decayed (cooled) sufficiently is placed in storage. Finally, due to the nature of spent fuel and the properties of the capsule or cask, 10CFRl 00 limits would not be exceeded if there were a breach.

6. The information requested to be added to 10CFR72.72(a) on the condition of the spent fuel is not necessary. Information on all fuel (including defective fuel) is currently required to be submitted to the Department of Energy on Form RW-859 due to the requirements of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (15 USC Section 761 et. seq.) and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 USC 10101 et.

seq.). It should be noted that any fuel assemblies containing fuel rods with visible defects would be required to be placed in a sealed canister prior to placement in a cask. If detail on defective fuel is deemed necessary, 10CFR72.72(a) could be modified to require the submission of completed RW-859 forms to the NRC. This would be similar to the submittal ofRW-742 forms required in 10CFR72.76.

7. While the report cited by the petitioner indicates fetuses are more sensitive to radiation damage than adults, no specific basis has been given in the petition to support reducing the annual dose equivalents to a member of the public in 10CFR72.104(a) by 80%.

Even if the proposed annual dose equivalents can be justified, it is not appropriate to only revise 10CFR72 to reflect this information. A petition to revise to 10CFR20 to include the revised dose equivalents is a more appropriate starting point, with other related regulations (including 10CFR72) then being revised to reflect any changes to Part 20.

S:~i LAKE MICHIGAN FEDERATION November 22, 1993 OOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM -::J2- /

Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (~ fr" FR '17221) *93 NO' 26 PJ :16 Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Maryland Safe Energy Coalition Petition for Rulemaking Docket No. PRM-72-1 The Lake Michigan Federation (LMF) is a non-profit environmental organization promoting citizen action toward the improvement and preservation of the Lake Michigan Basin. LMF has

- offices in Muskegon, MI; Chicago, IL; and Milwaukee and Green Bay, WI.

LMF supports stringent monitoring and exposure standards in order to maximize the protection of public health and safety. In additions, we firmly believe the public should have ready access to all information on HLW storage and disposal--including the issues surrounding the use of dry cask storage--and the time to effectively react to it.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS The Maryland Safe Energy Coalition proposes a number of changes to 10 CFR Part 72, "Licensing Requirements for Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Radioactive Waste." LMF's comments are organized around several subject matter clusters:

1) 72.22 ( e) (2) add: "Specify the planned life of the ISFSI."

72.22 ( e) (3) change from "after the removal of spent fuel and/or high-level radioactive waste" to "if the spent fuel and of the high level radioactive waste is removed."

We concur with the premise upon which these changes are based--the length of time an ISFSI will be in operation is unclear due to the inability of the federal government to establish a national repository. The change in (e) (3) is appropriate in light of the continued delay expected.

However, "specifying the planned life of an ISFSI" does not go far enough in addressing this uncertainty. The requirement as presented by the MSEC could be satisfied merely by citing the most recent estimate of the opening of a national repository, or the mandated time frame under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (including any future amendments).

Current review of the ISFSI application at the Wisconsin Electric Power Company's Point Beach facility is a case in point. That application defines a period to end no later than 1998, the date scheduled for the U.S. Department of Energy to remove the spent fuel from the site. Such a constraint potentially limits discussion of future impacts economically and environmentally.

1 59 E. Van Buren St.* Suite 2215

• Chirngo, IL 60605 * :n2 9:l\l.!)838

• FAX '.112 9:1~1.:t,11:--:

812 S. Fisk St.* Green Bay, WI 54304

• 414 499 0220

• FAX 4H 1199.8889 fi4 7 W. Virginia St.

• Suite 307

• Milwaukee. WI S:l:204

• 414 27 l .SOS9

• FAX .J1-1 271 07%

425 W. WE-stern Ave .* Suite 201. Muskt>gon. Ml 49440. filri 722.5] J(i. FAX (i](j 722 l\)]8 Acknowled ed b MM - 4 1994.

g y card .................."******..."***

-~ .. \ ,J0M~,11ssr~

[*'..., -rn,J,CE SECTION

(;~, *,;:_vi" id[ EC:=JETARY OF Ti 1i:: Crn/i.A:SSION

LMF would like to see 72.22 (e) (2) expanded to require detailed discussion on the expected length of time the ISFSI would be in operation. This time frame should be based on current projections founded in realistic analysis. License requirements should include a more specific definition of that time frame. Only then will the public be provided a better understanding of the potential future costs of an ISFSI and whether or not the cask design chosen for such a facility will be adequate for the entire period.

2) 72.42 add: "(d) No license will be issued before 90 days after the final SER is published."

72.46 (d) add: "The time prescribed for a notice of opportunity for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene will extend from the notice of proposed action through 90 days after the final SER is published."

As previously stated, LMF supports regulations which provide adequate time for the public to react to the release of documents of the announcement of decisions. We also agree that a consistent time period to request a public hearing should be established. A 90 day period is not unreasonable in light of the lengthy and highly technical information generated during the evaluation process.

3) 72.44 (c) (3) ( ii) add "(v) dry storage casks must be monitored continuously for radioactivity at the exit cooling vents. "

72. 72 (a) add after the first sentence: "The records must include the history and condition of all spent fuel assemblies including a description of any defective fu el, such as fuel that is cracked, swollen, blistered, pinholed or offgassing."

LMF assumes the goals here are greater safety in operation of the ISFSI and supports any additions to the rules that would accomplish this. We are particularly concerned that surveillance requirements are vague. Currently, monitoring discussions at the state level have been defined by federal requirements. Given that generic approval is supposed to cover all possible threats to the integrity of the cask or the system, specific monitoring requirements should be established for each cask design upon which the public may review and comment.

With regard to the condition of spent fuel assemblies, LMF feels this is absolutely necessary to enhance public knowledge of the potential problems involved with a dry cask storage system.

All too often the process is presented as a simple and uncluttered transfer and storage procedure with little threat to human or environmental health.

The storage of defective fuel rods or assemblies has not, in our view, been adequately addressed.

At the very least, the public must be made aware the process is not as simple as it has been led to believe. In addition, a sub-section specifically describing the destiny of those rods or assemblies too defective for safe dry cask storage should be required.

2

MSEC' s petition highlights the necessity of increased public information and greater citizen participation in the decision making process regarding the storage and disposal of HLW in the U.S.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on MSEC' s petition.

Bruce N. Jo nson, Director Northeast Wisconsin Office 812 S. Fisk St.

Green Bay, WI 54304 (414) 499-0220 3

COC,KET NUMBER . L]

p.;T!TION RULE PRM *

( ~ 8' FP.. Lf 11-1.'-)

• *. r: .l SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRID'GE*

A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL. CORPORATI ONS 2300 N STREET, N .W . *93 NOV 23 p J 1 . FARM CREDIT DRIVE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037-1128 McLEAN, VIRGINIA 22102-5004 (202) 663-8000 FACSIMILE I r I , I 201 LIBERTY STREET, S .W .

1 (202) 663-8007  !.iJC~[ i I: *~ L'.EESBURG, VIRGINIA 22075*2721

' I

...f N "

JAY E . SILBERG, P.C.

(202) 663-8063 November 22, 1993 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Maryland Safe Energy Coalition Petition for Rulemaking (Docket No. PRM-72-1)

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Provided below are the comments of Baltimore Gas & Electric Company ("BG&E") on the Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition in Docket No. PRM-72-1. The peti-tion requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission amend the site-specific licensing provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 72. BG&E is the licensee for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, and for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation ("ISFSI") located at the Calvert Cliffs site.

Although the rulemaking petition seeks generic modifications to Part 72, it had its origins in the Calvert Cliffs ISFSI licensing proceeding. On December 21, 1992, the Coalition filed a petition requesting that the NRC institute a proceeding pursu-ant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.202 with regard to the Calvert Cliffs ISFSI.

In acknowledging the receipt of the December 21, 1992 petition, the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, indicated that to the extent it addressed generic issues related to dry cask storage, the appropriate course of action would be to file a petition for rulemaking. The Director's Decision dated August 16, 1993, denied the§ 2.206 petition. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), DD-9-14, 38 N.R.C. (August 16, 1993); 58 Fed.

Reg. 44863 (Aug. 25, 1993). The rulemaking petition, filed on June 23, 1993, addresses many of the issues that were raised by the Coalition in the December 21, 1992 petition. Although the rulemaking petition does not seek modifications unique to the Calvert Cliffs ISFSI license or licens i ng proceeding, i t does seek modif i cations to the site-specific licensing provisions o f Acknowledged by card -~~-~.!!f

,'1, ,.,-)M\41SSION

[ *., 1vlCE SECTION

f 1.

SECRETARY 0 THE CO',I 11SSION Oocun t ~tatis*ics I I I;2.J-/CfJ I

)h i00 _!!,,=!!:.1~:J.+:U.C..- -

Le.. t>--, *---------

Part 72 that would be applicable to any ISFSI licensed thereun-der. BG&E therefore continues to have a significant interest in the issues raised by the Coalition.

BG&E is a member of the Edison Electric Institute and its Utility Nuclear Waste and Transportation Program ("EEI/UWASTE").

BG&E fully supports the comments filed in this proceeding by EEI/UWASTE and therefor will limit its comments herein to issues specific to the Calvert Cliffs ISFSI. For the reasons discussed in EEI/UWASTE's comments, as well as the additional reasons pro-vided below, the rulemaking petition should be denied.

Specific Comments

1. ISFSis are Licensed under Part 72 and Intended for Temporary Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Pending Acceptance by the Department of Energy for Permanent Disposal.

The Coalition requests that 10 C.F.R. § 72.2(e) (2) be amended to require that an application for an ISFSI license spec-ify the planned life of the ISFSI because the Coalition is con-cerned that SNF storage in an ISFSI may become permanent or indefinite. In a related request, the Coalition seeks an amend-ment of 10 C.F.R. § 72.22(e) (3) to remove the assumption that SNF will ultimately be removed from the ISFSI. Given t he national policy decision to dispose of commercial spent nuclear fuel

("SNF") in a repository developed under the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 ("NWPA"), 42 u.s.c. §§ 10101, et seq., it would be inappropriate for the NRC to adopt the requested amendments. Nor has the Coalition provided the techni-cal, scientific, or other data necessary under 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.802(c) (3) to support the modifications requested.

- The NRC issued Materials License SNM-2505 to BG&E, under 10 C.F.R. Part 72, Subpart B, on November 25, 1992 authorizing con-struction and operation of the Calvert Cliffs ISFSI for a 20 year term. 57 Fed. Reg. 57247 (Dec. 3, 1992). Although BG&E may find it necessary to seek a renewal of the license term, it has no intention to store SNF permanently or indefinitely in the ISFSI.

Nor would this be permissible. BG&E has executed a contract with the Department of Energy (DOE"), pursuant to the provisions of the NWPA, under which DOE is obligated to accept the SNF gener-ated at Calvert Cliffs, including the SNF stored in the Calvert Cliffs ISFSI, for permanent disposal in a repository developed under the provisions of the NWPA. See 10 C.F.R. Part 960. BG&E has paid millions of dollars to DOE in fees under the contract, and intends to hold DOE to its SNF acceptance obligations. More-over, BG&E is not unique in this regard. Rather, every domestic utility has executed a contract with the DOE for SNF acceptance and ultimate disposal in a repository.

There is no question that there are uncertainties regarding the federal nuclear waste program under the NWPA that will affect the timing of SNF acceptance by DOE and the commencement of oper-ations of a repository or federal interim storage facility. How-ever, Congress made a policy decision in favor of ultimate dis-posal of SNF in a repository, thereby rejecting the alternative of continued and indefinite storage at reactor sites. There are no indications at present that Congress intends to abandon that decision. In fact, while recognizing the technical, regulatory and institutional barriers facing the repository program, the NRC has nevertheless expressed its reasonable assurance that a repos-itory will commence operations within the first quarter of the twenty-first century. Waste Confidence Decision Review, 55 Fed.

Reg. 38474 (1990).

Thus, there is no basis for concluding at this point in time that an ISFSI will become a permanent or indefinite storage facility, and it would be inappropriate for the NRC to amend Part 72 to suggest that the national policy codified in the NWPA will be abandoned. The NRC has committed to review its Waste Confi-dence Decision at least every 10 years, and more often in the event of a major shift in national policy, a major unexpected institutional development, and/or new technical information that may require a reevaluation of the findings contained therein.

Absent a change in NRC's conclusions regarding the ultimate availability of a repository, it would be inappropriate to amend Part 72 to indicate that SNF storage in an ISFSI might become indefinite or permanent.

Moreover, no purpose would be served by requiring a Part 72 license applicant to attempt to estimate the planned life of a proposed ISFSI, or by suggesting in the regulations that SNF will not ultimately be removed from an ISFSI. The Coalition has pre-sented no evidence demonstrating that a different ISFSI licensing regime would be necessary to protect public health and safety and the environment if the actual life of an ISFSI were to exceed 20 years.

2. The Extension of the Time Period For the Filing of Interven-tion and Hearing Requests Until 90 Days after Issuance of the SER Would Serve No Purpose and Would be Unfair to ISFSI License Applicants.

The Coalition requests that the NRC amend§ 72.42 to require a 90-day period between issuance of the final Staff Safety Evalu-ation Report ("SER") and the ISFSI license. The Coalition also requests that§ 72.46(d) be amended to extend the time prescribed for a notice of opportunity for a hearing or petition to inter-vene from the notice of proposed action through 90 days after the final SER is published. The NRC has consistently refused to structure its licensing proceedings in such a manner, and the Coalition has presented no new evidence sufficient to warrant a reversal of the NRC's position.

The result of the proposed amendment would be to allow a potential intervenor to use the SER as a discovery tool. When the NRC promulgated amendments to its general Rules of Practice it rejected a request that the rules be amended to provide an opportunity for a potential intervenor to request a hearing or formulate contentions after reviewing the SER:

The Commission also disagrees with the comments that§ 2.714(b) (2) (iii) should permit the peti-tioner to show that it has a dispute with the Com-mission staff or that petitioners not be required to set forth facts in support of contentions until the petitioner has access to NRC reports and docu-ments. Apart from NEPA issues, which are specifi-cally dealt with in the rule, a contention will not be admitted if the allegation is that the NRC staff has not performed an adequate analysis.

With the exception of NEPA issues, the sole focus of the hearing is on whether the application sat-isfied NRC regulatory requirements, rather than the adequacy of the NRC staff performance . .

For this reason, and because the license applica-tion should include sufficient information to form a basis for contentions, we reject commenters' suggestions that intervenors not be required to set forth pertinent facts until the staff has pub-lished its FES and SER.

54 Fed. Reg . 33168, 33171 (1989) (citations and footnote omit-ted). This rationale is especially compelling in the ISFSI licensing context, where the one-step licensing process compels preparation of an extremely detailed SAR that evaluates all safety aspects of the proposed ISFSI.

For example, the ISFSI design issues raised in the Coali-tion's December 1992 petition could readily have been framed as contentions based on the information in the SAR, without any recourse to the SER.ll The December 1992 petition's allegation about the potential danger to the ISFSI from the Cove Point LNG l/ These included concerns over the alleged danger from block-age of air convection ports; the absence of radiation limi-tations at the air inlets and outlets or to require inspec-tions for canister embrittlement, corrosion, or leakage, or internal canister monitoring; the storage of fuel with pin-hole leaks in the ISFSI; and the potential for the thermal limits for the concrete in the ISFSI to be exceeded.

terminal, while allegedly based on information contained in the SER, could easily have been generated from the extensive public record material on cove Point. Thus, no purpose would have been served had the proceeding been delayed as requested in the peti-tion to provide an opportunity for potential intervenors to review the SER prior to requesting a hearing or formulating con-tentions.

3. There is No Technical Basis Either for Requiring Continuous Monitoring of Dry Storage casks for Radioactivity at the Exit Cooling Vents or For Modifying the Radiation Limits Imposed On ISFSI Operation.

The Coalition requests that 10 C.F.R. § 72.44(c) (3) (ii) be amended to require that dry storage casks be monitored continu-ously for radioactivity at the exit cooling vents. It also requests that 10 C.F.R. § 72.104(a) be amended to reduce the amount of radioactive materials permitted in ISFSI effluents and direct radiation from an ISFSI, and to impose the radiation lim-its on exposure to the maximally exposed individual or fetus located beyond the controlled area in lieu of any real individual located beyond the controlled area. For the reasons discussed in EEI/UWASTE's comments, and the additional reasons provided below, the requested amendments should be denied.

First, whether or not the Coalition is correct in asserting that exit cooling vents are the most likely location of radioac-tive venting, a continuous monitoring requirement is not neces-sary to ensure that the licensee is promptly made aware of any abnormal or unexpected venting. The Coalition raised a similar issue in its December 1992 petition, in which it alleged that the NRC had failed to require radiation limitations at the air inlets and outlets, which it claimed are the points of greatest poten-tial radiological risk. In responding to this allegation, BG&E explained that the ISFSI design in combination with the extensive radiological monitoring program in place at the Calvert Cliffs site, as augmented by the ISFSI specific monitoring system, would be sufficient to detect any release of radioactivity at the exit cooling vents. The NRC agreed with BG&E's assessment:

In the ISFSI license specifications NRC has imposed contact dose rate limits at the HSM [hori-zontal storage module] walls and door (20 mrem/hr at the HSM walls and 100 mrem/hr at the access door) to ensure that worker's doses are below the limits that are specified [in] 10 CFR Part 20.

The air inlets and outlets of the HSM are local-ized areas, compared with the overall HSM sur-faces. The surface dose rates at the air inlets and outlets locations are less representative than dose rates at the HSM walls and door for assessing the effect on the direct radiation levels to indi-viduals located beyond the controlled area. Fur-ther, NRC requires that the overall radiation dose to a member of the general public from the

[Calvert Cliffs ISFSIJ operation be below the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Radiation Standards for fuel cycle facilities When workers are in the vicinity of loaded HSMs, radiation levels at the air inlets and outlets would be measured, in accordance with the licensee's radiation protection program, to ensure that worker exposures are within the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20. These are the radiation limits imposed to ensure worker safety and the protection of the general public. Radia-tion limits at the air inlets and outlets, as sug-gested by the the Coalition, are not needed.

Director's Decision at 10. For the same reasons, there is no need for a continuous monitoring requirement at ISFSI exit cool-ing vents.

The above-quoted excerpt from the Director's Decision deny-ing the Coalition's December 1992 petition also addresses the Coalition's argument that the radiation limits imposed by 10 C.F.R. 72.104(a) are inappropriate. As explained in the EEI/UWASTE comments and in the Director's Decision, the radiation limits imposed on ISFSI operations are consistent with both the NRC's standards for protection against radiation hazards from licensed activities at 10 C.F.R. Part 20 and the EPA's radiation standards for fuel cycle facilities at 40 C.F.R. Part 190. If the Coalition believes that these standards are too low to pro-vide adequate protection to workers and the general public, then the appropriate course of action is to file a rulemaking petition seeking an amendment of either 10 C.F.R. Part 20, 40 C.F.R. Part 190, or both. Any such amendment would then be reflected in the remainder of Title 10. It would be inappropriate for the NRC to amend Part 72 radiation exposure limits so that they are incon-sistent with the standards established in Part 20.

4* The Design of the Calvert Cliffs ISFSI and the Specifica-tions Governing the Storage of SNF in the ISFSI Are Suffi-cient To Ensure that Defective Fuel Does Not Pose a Problem for Safe Storage.

The rulemaking petition requests that 10 C.F.R. § 72.72(a) be amended to require that the records maintained by an ISFSI licensee include "the history and condition of all spent fuel assemblies including a description of any defective fuel, such as fuel that is cracked, swollen, blistered, pinholed or offgassing." The Coalition claims that such a requirement is necessary because defective fuel can cause problems for safe storage. The imposition of the requested recordkeeping require-ment, in addition to the detailed records regarding each fuel assembly already maintained by a Part 50 licensee, is unnecessary to ensure that SNF placed in an ISFSI will not be defective in a manner that compromises the safety of the storage.

As an example, the technical specifications incorporated in the license for the Calvert Cliffs ISFSI preclude BG&E from load-ing in the ISFSI fuel assemblies known or suspected to have structural defects sufficiently severe to adversely affect fuel handling and transfer capability. Director's Decision at 12; ISFSI TS§ 3.1.1(9) .~/ This restriction is "directed at avoiding structural defects, or cladding degradation, that could lead to gross rupture of the fuel, and could pose operational safety problems in the later handling of the fuel, during its removal from storage for further processing or disposal." Id. As a result of the ISFSI design, minor structural defectsin the fuel, such as pinhole leaks, are essentially insignificant in that they should not affect the structural integrity of the storage canis-ters or cause leakage. Id.

In the extremely unlikely event that a spent fuel assembly with a significant defect is inadvertently loaded into the ISFSI, mechanisms are in place to detect any radiation leakage. BG&E is required to maintain ISFSI operations in compliance with the lim-itations imposed by 10 C.F.R. § 72.104(a). The Calvert Cliffs plant's extensive radiological monitoring program, in conjunction with the ISFSI specific monitoring program, will detect any unex-pected release in radiation activity.

The ISFSI technical specifications provide further assurance of storage canister confinement integrity and non-oxidizing fuel environment by imposing limits on drying vacuum pressure, helium backfill pressure, primary seal weld helium leak rate, and by requiring closure weld dye penetrant tests. TS§§ 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.2. The following additional ISFSI technical spec-ifications also help to ensure stored fuel and storage canister integrity:

~/ Additional assurance that the stored SNF will maintain its integrity are provided by technical specifications which require that (1) the fuel stored in the ISFSI must be intact unconsolidated fuel irradiated at the Calvert Cliffs plant (TS§§ 3.1.1(1), 3.1.1(8)); (2) the initial enrichment of fuel to be stored in the ISFSI will not exceed 4.5w% U-235 (TS§ 3.1.1(2)); and (3) fuel to be stored in the ISFSI must have cooled a minimum of ten years and have a maximum heat generation rate not greater than 0.66 kilowatt per assembly (TS§ 3.1.1(6)).

Measurement of a n d limits on storage canister surface contamination as well as storage canister, Transfer Cask, and HSM surface dose rates . TS§§ 4 . 2.3.1, 4.2.3.2, 2.4; Measurement of a n d limits on the air temperature rise between the spent- fuel - loaded storage canist er HSM inlets and outlets. TS§ 3/4.4; and Daily visual inspection of the HSM air inlets and out-lets. TS§ 4 . 4 . 1 . 2 .

As discussed a bove, t he Coalition ' s concern that defective SNF could pose a problem for safe storage has been comprehen-sively addressed by the provisions of Part 72 and the specific provisions of the Calvert Cliffs ISFSI license. To the extent that similar provisions are required to ensure safe storage in the cont ext of other ISFSI licenses, they will be incorporated in such licenses by the NRC. Accordingly, there is no need to amend 10 C. F.R. § 72.72{a) to impose further recordkeeping requirements on Part 72 licensees.

For the foregoing reasons, t h e Petition for Rulemaking should be denied. BG&E appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments.

erely,

.f1/2 el to Baltimore Gas El ectric Company Telephone (508) 779-6711 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY TWX 710-380-7619 I' ..

• .,....d. ..

LhNFC I L ,.. ..i (J) 580 Main Street, Bolton, Massachusetts 0 1740-1398

• 93 N011 22 P 2 :18 DOCKET ~.UMBER PETITION R' !..E .:...PR~M

.;.

....,iaali::IC!BI November 22 , 1993 (S~FI<- i/72 22) FYC 93 -024

, l J 1_, r ~ _ . . ii SPS93-107 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Yankee Atomic Electric Company Comments on the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition Petition for Rulemaking (58FR47222)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the subject proposed rule. YAEC is a New England utility which owns the Yankee plant in Rowe, Massachusetts and provides engineering and licensing services to other nuclear power plants in New England.

Yankee supports the comments filed by EEI regarding this matter . Our specific comments to the detailed petition requests follow below.

The petitioner recommends that 10 CFR 72.22(e)(2) be amended to require that an application for a license to store spent fuel specify the planned life of the independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). The petitioner further states that licensees should be required to state the length of time that each storage canister and/or cask will be used .

The suggested amendment is not necessdry. 10 CFR 72 . 22(e)(2) presently requires that the applicant demonstrate the availability of funds for operating costs over the planned life of the ISFSI. In requiring such information, the regulation also specifically requires that the application state , " ... the period of time for which the license is requested." The maximum length of time that each storage canister or cask is used is predefined by virtue of the fact that the license for each canister/cask is set by regulation (10CFR72.42) at 20 years, at which time the license must be renewed if further use is desired.

The petitioner suggests a change to 10 CFR 72.22(e)(3) because the petitioner believes that the NRC should not assume that removal of nuclear waste including spent fuel at a reactor site, is the safest policy, due in C76\3 74 Acknowledged by card ~~:... ~.1...!.9J!:_~

- ' ' -*~cnY COB..IISSION

• . t 1iJC:.E'

' --l.'1v: SECTION DO'-'*

Ort - _.__GC.ETARY 1 ~ * ~.SSION

' .. J ~!iCS

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk November 22, 1993 Page 2 part to the perceived hazards associated with transporting high level nuclear waste.

The suggested amendment is not needed. To date in excess of 2500 commercial spent fuel shipments containing approximately 9000 spent fuel assemblies have been made in the U.S. These shipments have been virtually incident free. No member of the public has been exposed to radiation from accidents involving commercial transport of spent fuel.

Further. testing of the damage resistant shipping casks has demonstrated that the potential for release of radioactive material from any conceivable transportation accident is vanishingly small.

The petitioner recommends a change to 10 CFR 72.42 to require a period of 90 days between the final safety evaluation report and the issuing of a license to allow potential petitioners time to intervene based on issues in the final SER. The petitioners request also that 10 CFR 72.46(d) be amended to prescribe a period for a notice of opportunity for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene until 90 days after the final SER is published.

The proposed changes are not necessary for ensuring the public the opportunity to participate in a meaningful manner. NRC's review of the applicant's safety analysis report is typically a confirmation that what has been proposed by the applicant is acceptable in that it meets all applicable regulatory requirements and therefore, provides for the protection of public health and safety. During the course of the NRC review, if clarification and/or changes are required by NRC in order to ensure that the regulatory requirements are met. the changes are submitted for incorporation. All submittals are docketed and made available for public review.

• Because the NRC's review is typically a confirmation that the regulations have been met, and the documents reviewed by the NRC are also available for public review during the course of NRC's review.

interested parties have more than ample time to review the necessary details. formulate potential contentions. and decide whether to request a hearing and or petition to intervene if a hearing has already been granted. Furthermore. NRC allows for 30 days from its Notice of Proposed Action in the Federal Register for filing of a request for hearing or petition to intervene if a hearing has already been granted.

The petitioner requests a change to 10 CFR 72.44(c)(3) that would require the dry storage casks to be monitored continuously at the exit cooling vents because the exit cooling vents are the most likely location for radioactive venting.

C76\374

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk November 22, 1993 Page 3

• The suggested amendment to require continuous monitoring of dry storage casks at dry cask exit cooling vents is unnecessary. In order to comply with the annual radiological release reporting requirements codified in 10CFR72.44(d)(3) (" ... specifying the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to the environment in liquid and in gaseous effluents ... "); licensees will have to perform monitoring. In addition, 10 CFR72.44(d)(2) requires an environmental monitoring system to be established. This environmental monitoring system would detect significant releases of radioactive materials from the storage canisters.

- The petitioner suggests a change to 10 CFR 72.72(a) to require that licensees document the history and condition of all spent fuel because defective fuel can cause problems for safe storage.

• The suggested amendment is not necessary as defective fuel (fuel that is cracked, swollen, blistered, pinholed, or offgassing) does not cause problems for safe storage - either in a reactor spent fuel pool or ISFSI. Subpart F (General Design Criteria) to 10 CFR Part 72 codifies the necessary criteria and requirements to safely store spent fuel -

"defective" or otherwise. A requirement to document each fuel assembly's history and condition provides no information which contributes to enhancing the safe storage of any assembly in an ISFSI.

Further, there is no basis for the assertion that defective fuel can cause problems for safe storage at an ISFSI that is in full compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 72.

- The petitioner believes that the 10 CFR 72.104(a) limit for the annual dose to an individual should be based on a dose to a maximally exposed individual at the perimeter of the controlled area and that the possibility of a pregnant woman working and/or living at the perimeter should be a safety assumption for setting radiation limits. The petitioner claims that the standards set for exposure to adults to low level radiation are too high for a developing fetus.

• The national and international radiation protection standards setting organizations (NCRP and ICRP) take into consideration the fact that there may be segments of the population that have an increased sensitivity to the effects of radiation exposure. Unborn children is one such segment of the population. The recommended limits of 100 mrem/y for exposure of the public, therefore, already account for this uncertainty between population groups. The required limits for an ISFSI of 25 mrem/y further reduces these recommended limits by a factor of 4.

No additional reduction of radiation exposure limits is warranted.

C76\374

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk November 22, 1993 Page 4 Yankee appreciates the opportunity to comment on the subject petition and urges that the amendments proposed not be adopted.

SU;J~

Donald W. Edwards DWE/dhm Director, Industry Affairs C76\37(

701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W Washington D.C. 20004-2696 Telephone 202-508-5550

.; ~\ :. ; t .

,:) NhC (j)

HD EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE DAVID L.SWANSON

, ,Senior Vice President, Energy

.1vl~9d Environmental Activities November 19, 1993 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Maryland Safe Energy Coalition Petition for Rulemaking; Docket No.

PRM-72-1: 58 Fed. Reg. 47222 (Sept. 81 1993)

Dear Secretary Chilk:

Enclosed are the comments of the Edison Electric Institute (EEi) and its Utility Nuclear Waste and Transportation Program (EEI/UWASTE) on the Petition for Rulemaking (Petition) filed by the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition (Petitioner) in the above-referenced docket. The Petition requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission amend certain provisions of 10 CFR Part 72, the Commission's regulation governing the licensing of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSls). For the reasons discussed in the enclosed comments, the Petition should be denied.

EEi is the association of the nation's investor-owned utilities. It's members generate approximately 78 percent of the nation's electricity. The Edison Electric Institute Utility Nuclear Waste and Transportation Program (EEI/UWASTE) is a separately-funded activity within EEi and represents the vast majority of electric utilities with nuclear energy programs. EEI/UWASTE takes actions necessary to ensure that safe, environmentally sound, publicly acceptable, cost-effective radioactive waste management and disposal, and nuclear materials transportation systems are maintained and developed in a timely manner.

With respect to each requested amendment to Part 72, the Petition fails to provide the evidentiary support required by 10 CFR § 2.802, the Commission's regulation governing rulemaking petitions.

MAY 14 1994 .

Acknowledged by card .................,,,,,,,,,",1111

U.S. NUCLE/l.f": REGLJ1_:. ffJP:Y COMMISSION OOCKr:T:, lG 2. Si:ff,"CE SECTION Off:CF- OF* Tl-'E SECRETARY OF T~E COMMiSSION Dcccmen* Statl.,tics Postmark D::tc . ;--/&1---d. /2LJ Iv-<. r,e}.;

Copi-=-S Rec*~1:::- *_ _ __L_ _ _ __

Aden Copies hf:; 1 }JUCSd ....

1 1.___.,,...---

Spi,,,.,,JI Distributivn /l.,-/4 ,pP{?..

U ~I  ;

• Secretary of the Commission November 19, 1993 Page 2 The Petition raises a number of policy, procedural and technical issues. It would open fo~ questioning the national policy determination for permanent disposal. The national policy codified in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 calls for permanent disposal of commercial spent nuclear fuel in a geologic repository. The NRC's Waste Confidence Decision has found reasonable assurance that such repository will be operational during the first quarter of the twenty-first century. There is no basis in current law or policy for amending Part 72 to indicate that spent fuel storage in an ISFSI may become permanent.

Experience to date with ISFSls licensea under Part 72 has supported the Commission's consistent conclusions that these facilities are passive, safe, and environmentally benign. Petitioner has not identified any basis for the requested technical amendments to Part 72, nor has Petitioner demonstrated the need for its request that the Commission amend its rules governing ISFSI licensing proceedings to adopt procedures that would be unique among all other types of NRG licensing proceedings.

• EEI/UWASTE appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, David L. Swanson DLS/jjt Enclosures

Comments of the Edison Electric Institute and its Utility Nudear Waste and Transportation Program on the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition Petition for Rulemaking 58 Fed. Reg. 47222 (Sept. 8, 1993).

Provided below are the comments of the Edison Electric Institute (EEi) and its Utility Nuclear Waste and Transportation Program (EEI/UWASTE) on the Petition for Rulemaking (Petition) filed by the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition (Petitioner). The Petition requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG or Commission) amend certain provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 72. For the reasons presented in the following discussion, the Petition should be denied.

EEi is the association of the nation's investor-owned utilities. It's members generate approximately 78 percent of the nation's electricity. The Edison Electric Institute Utility Nuclear Waste and Transportation Program (EEI/UWASTE) is a separately-funded activity within EEi and represents the vast majority of electric utilities with nuclear energy programs. EEI/UWASTE takes actions necessary to ensure that safe, environmentally sound, publicly acceptable, cost-effective radioactive waste management and disposal and nuclear materials transportation systems are maintained and developed in a timely manner.

General Comments As a preliminary matter, the Petition fails to meet the standards set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 2.802. The NRC's regulations governing the required content of petitions for rulemaking require that a petitioner set forth the issues involved, its views or arguments with respect to those issues, and 11 relevant technical, scientific or other data involved which is reasonably available to the petitioner, and such other pertinent information as the petitioner deems necessary to support the action sought. 11 10 C.F.R. § 2.802(c)(3). A petitioner is also required to state 11 any specific cases of which petitioner is aware *where the current rule is unduly burdensome, deficient, or needs to be strengthened." Id. The Petitioner has failed to provide the type of supporting evidence required by§ 2.802(c)(3).

The growing body of experience with technologies for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) licensed under Part 72 demonstrates that they are extremely safe and benign, that radiation exposures are well below regulatory limits, and that even a worst-case accident would have a negligible impact on public health and safety. The Petition has presented no factual evidence demonstrating the need for the requested amendments to Part 72 to provide adequate protection to public health and safety, or the environment.

Unsupported allegations of concern, many of which were raised and addressed by the NRG during the original Part 72 rulemaking process, are insufficient grounds for a regulatory amendment.

EEI/UWASTE 11/19/93

Specific Comments I. 10 C.F.R. § 72.22(e}(2) 10 C.F.R. § 72.22(e)(2) requires that the application for a site specific Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) license contain information showing that the applicant will have the necessary funds available to cover the estimated operating costs over the

. planned life of the ISFSI. The Petition requests that this regulation be amended to require the application also to specify the planned life of the ISFSI and, in particular, the length of time that each storage canister and/or cask would be used. . The sole proffered justification for this request is the statement that 11 any storage which might become either permanent or indefinite would require additional regulations. 11 For the reasons discussed below, no purpose would be served by requiring an ISFSI license applicant to make a prediction regarding the planned life of the ISF$I and, other than unsubstantiated claims regarding the potential need for 11 additional regulations, 11 the Petitioner has failed to justify the need for such a requirement.

Site specific ISFSI licenses do not have open-ended terms, but are issued for a defined period, not to exceed 20 years. 10 C.F.R. § 72.42(a). An ISFSI license may be renewed by the Commission at the expiration of the license term on application by the licensee pursuant to specified regulatory requirements. Id. In responding to comments on the proposed Part 72, the Commission rejected concerns that the license renewal provisions could develop into permanent storage:

Part 72 is specifically designed to cover only interim or temporary storage of spent fuel. Permanent storage and/or disposal may require a completely passive system. Such systems will be more appropriately covered under the (Part 60 series) waste management regulations now under development.

U.S. NRG, Analyses of Comments on 10 C.F.R. Part 72 (Nov. 1980), NUREG-0587 (NUREG-0587) at 1-13. The Commission reiterated this point in response to additional comments about its authority under the Atomic Energy Act to provide for permanent storage or disposal of SNF:

This rule is specific to the licensing requirements for the temporary storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation, pending its eventual removal in accordance with a national policy decision as to whether to transfer the spent fuel to a Federal repository to be provided for disposal of spent fuel as a waste, or to transfer the spent fuel to a reprocessing plant for recovery of useable fissile materials.

EEI/UWASTE 11/19/93

Id. at 11-14. Finally, despite its acknowledgment that some ISFSls may operate longer than 20 years, depending on national policy at that time, the NRC nevertheless concluded that 11 [i]t is not necessary , . ; ., to issue licenses for the expected useful life of such installations." Id. at 11-76. 1 Since enactment of Part 72 in 1980, Congress has codified the national policy decision for disposal of SNF in a repository. This national policy was codified in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 10101, et. seq. In 1987, Congress amended the NWPA to streamline and refocus DOE's efforts at identifying a suitable.

repository site. While recognizing that the repository would not commence operation until 2010, and that DOE could find the Yucca Mountain site to be unsuitable, the NRC nevertheless found in its 1990 Waste Confidence Review, reasonable assurance that at least one mined geologic repository will be available within the first quarter of the twenty-first century, and that sufficient repository capacity will be available Within 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of any reactor to dispose of the commercial high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel originating in such reactor and generated up to that time.

55 Fed. Reg. 38474 (1990). 2 1

In adopting 1O C.F.R. Part 72, Subpart K, the Commission chose a 20-year reapproval period for cask designs because it corresponded to the 20-year license renewal period under the site specific licensing provisions of Part 72 (Fed. Reg. 28181, 28184 (1990)). The Commission emphasized that in requiring evaluations showing compliance with the cask's certificate for the anticipated total number of casks to be used for storage, it did not intend 11that licensees be required to anticipate how much storage capacity would be needed before DOE begins accepting spent fuel for storage or disposal. 11 Id. at 28186. More recently, in the context of adding storage casks tb the list of casks approved for use under the Subpart K general license, the NRC rejected similar arguments regarding the potential permanency of the storage, noting that if safe storage in a particular cask cannot be. demonstrated beyond 20 years, an alternative means of storage will be required, and pointing out the statutory requirement for DOE to accept SNF for ultimate disposal (58 Fed. Reg. 51762, 51766 (Oct. 5, 1993); 58 Fed. Reg. 17948, 17961 (April 7, 1993)).

2 In its 1984 Waste Confidence Decision, the NRC had found reasonable assurance that safe disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel in a mined geologic repository is technically feasible, that one or more repositories would be available by the years 1997-2009, and that sufficient repository capacity would be EEI/UWASTE 11/19/93

In making this finding, the NRC took into account many of the problems facing the NWPA program, including the fact that the Yucca Mountain, Nevada site may prove to be unsuitable or unlicenseable. Id: at 38492. However, given the state of the technical and scientific knowledge, and Congress' continued support for the NWPA program, NRC was able to make this finding.

In sum, the NRC has repeatedly emphasized that an ISFSI is a facility designed and intended for temporary SNF storage, not permanent disposal. The NRC has also repeatedly reviewed the status of the DO E's progress in implementing the NWPA and ex-pressed its confidence that a repository will be available within the first quarter of the twenty-first century, thus precluding the possibility that ISFSI storage will become permanent. No purpose would be served by requiring an ISFSI license applicant to attempt to predict the planned life of an ISFSI.

II. 10 C.F.R. § 72.22(e)(3) 1O C.F.R. § 72.22(e)(3) requires that the license application contain an estimate of decommissioning costs, and the necessary financial arrangements to provide reasonable assurance prior to licensing that decommissioning will be carried out after the removal of SNF from storage. The Petition requests that this regulation be amended to remove the assumption that SNF will eventually be transferred from the ISFSI. According to the Petition, the lack of a repository or a monitored retrievable storage facility (MRS), and the hazards of transporting HLW and SNF, may make prolonged or indefinite storage the only option or the safest policy. -

As discussed above, Congress has adopted a national policy in favor of geologic disposal of SNF. In enacting the NWPA, Congress found that permanent disposal of SNF is the appropriate means of protecting the public health and safety and the environment from the potential risks of radioactive waste. 42 U.S.C. § 10131 (a). 3 Implicit in this finding was Congress' conclusion that the benefits of permanent disposal of SNF at a repository outweigh any risks associated with transportation of SNF to a repository.

available within 30 years beyond the expiration of *any reactor operating license to dispose of the HLW and SNF originating in such reactor and generated up to that time.

49 Fed. Reg. 34658 (1984). .

3 The courts have so int~rpreted the NWPA. 11The Act contemplates that [SNF] will eventually be stored in permanent federal repositories 'that will provide a reasonable assurance that the public and the environment will be adequately protected' from the hazards they pose. 11 National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissions v. DOE, 851 F.2d 1424, 1425 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

EEI/UWASTE 11/19/93

Thus, the assumption that SNF will ultimately be removed from an ISFSI that is reflected in § 72.22(e)(3) is based on a codified national policy decision. 4 It is unquestionably appropriate for NRC to reflect Congress' policy decisions in its regulations. Indeed, it would be inappropriate for NRC to promulgate regulations that are contrary to federal statutes. Moreover, given NRC's finding of reasonable assurance that the national policy in favor of geologic disposal will be implemented by the end of the first quarter of the twenty-first century, there is no reasonable basis for NRC to modify § 72.22(e)(3) to suggest that geologic disposal will ultimately be abandoned in favor of indefinite on-site storage.

Ill. 10 C.F.R. §§ 72.42 and 72.46(d)

The Petition requests that the NRC add a new subsection to § 72.42 requiring a 90 day period between issuance of the Staff's final Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and the ISFSI license. The Petition also requests that § 72.46(d) be amended to extend the time prescribed for a notice of opportunity for a hearing or petition to intervene from the notice of proposed action through 90 days after the final SER is published.

These requested modifications assume that crucial information pertinent to the issuance of the requested license will be referenced for the first time in the NRC staff's SER.

Therefore, members of the public should have an opportunity to request intervention and/or a hearing only after reviewing the final SER. Both of these assumptions are wrong and have been repeatedly rejected by the NRC for the following reasons; First, any material issues of fact or law that would provide a basis for intervention and the formulation of contentions should be readily identifiable from the applicant's Safety Analysis Report (SAR). The SAR is the document that provides the factual information pertinent to the findings necessary to support issuance of the requested license. As NRC stressed in adopting the one-step Part 72 licensing process, For the granting of a single license under Part 72 prior to the commencement of construction, the SAR submitted must be in sufficient detail to provide a basis for an independent evaluation of all safety aspects of the proposed installation.

NUREG-0587 at 11-46 (emphasis supplied).

The Commission made this same point when it revised its Rules of Practice in 1989. 11The sole focus of the hearing *is on whether the application satisfied NRC regulatory requirements, rather than the adequacy of the NRC staff performance ....11 54 Fed. Reg.

4 It will also be Congress' decision whether or not to continue to fund DOE's development of an MRS facility, which it authorized in 1987.

EEI/UWASTE 11 /19/93

33168, 33171 (1989). For this reason, and because the license application should include sufficient information to form a basis for contentions, the Commission refused to delay the time period for the filing of motions to intervene and contentions until after publication of the Staff SER. ld. 5 The NRC staff's responsibility is to review and analyze the data presented by the applicant in the SAR, not to engage in de nova fact gathering. It is the application, and not the adequacy of the NRC staff's review thereof, that is the proper focus of licensing proceedings. Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-921, 30 N.R.C. 177, 186 (1989); Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-812, 22 N.R.C. 5, 55-56 (1985); Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-728, 17 N.R.C. 77, 807, review denied, CLl-83-32, 18 N.R.C. 1309 (1983). The NRC is not obligated to provide a hearing opportunity based on a staff SER. The hearing opportunity should be and is tied to questions raised by a license application. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units.1 and 2), ALAB-728, 17 N.R.C. 777, 807, review declined, CLl-83-32, 18 N.R.C. 1309 (1983).

Second, permitting a potential intervenor to defer a decision on whether to intervene and request a hearing on a license application until 90 days after NRC Staff issues a final SER would be extremely disruptive to the NRC's regulatory process and grossly unfair to the applicant.

• All of the technical and operational aspects of the proposed ISFSI will be discussed and analyzed in detail in the SAR. There is no reason why a potential intervenor cannot identify material issues of law or fact and decide whetherto intervene and request a hearing based on an analysis of the application and SAR, and that is precisely what intervenors in NRC proceedings have done for many years. Private parties do not have a right to utilize staff studies 11 as a sort of pre-complaint discovery* tool. 11 Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 920 F.2d 50, 56 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Moreover, this 5

Subsequently, the NRC amended Part 2, Subpart J, which establishes procedures applicable to proceedings for the issuance of licenses for the receipt of high-level radioac-tive waste at a geologic repository (56 Fed. Reg. 7787 (1991)). In so doing, the NRC amended 10 C.F.R. §2: 1014 to apply the late-filed contention standard to all contentions filed after the initial contention deadline, including contentions based on information contained in the SER. Prior to amendment, §2.1014 provided a 40-day period following the publication of the SER during which contentions could still be filed without being subject to the higher standard for late-filed contentions. The Commission rejected arguments that the amendment .of §2.1014 would deprive the parties and intervenors of the right to incorporate new issues raised by the SER, noting that (a) the extensive interaction in the pre-license application phase between all interested parties and the early availability of documents through the computerized licensing support system should aid in the formulation of early contentions; and (b) the* revision would contribute to a more efficient hearing process. Id. at 7789.

EEI/UWASTE 11 /19/93

approach would force the NRC to hold open the opportunity for a hearing and to entertain new contentions until a very late stage in the ISFSI development process. This would be an unreasonable and unworkable procedure.

Third, should the final SER contain a new issue (as opposed to new evidence on an issue apparent from the SAR) pertinent to the requested license, an interested party could seek late intervention or submit a late-filed contention. See 10 C.F.R.§ 2.714. Moreover, any new issue must be taken into account by the NRC internally and, on judicial review, would be considered by a court in determining whether a licensing decision is supported by substantial evidence. Union of Concerned Scientists, 920 F.2d at 55. Finally, a party can always petition the NRC to modify a license if new evidence that comes to light after the license is issued. Id. at 55 n.4.

In sum, the NRC has significant discretion to determine the procedural structure of its licensing proceedings, and it* 11 can certainly adopt a pleading schedule designed to expedite its proceedings 11 by requiring that a potential intervenor base its decision whether to intervene or request a hearing on the Part 72 license application and SAR. Id. at 55.

This approach is not novel, but has been followed by the NRC consistently in power plant and other licensing proceedings and has proven to be adequate to protect the public interest. The Petition does not provide any justification for reversing this long-standing policy.

IV. 10 C.F.R. § 72.44(c)(3)(ii)

The Petition requests that 10 C.F.R. § 72.44(c)(3)(ii), which specifies technical specifications that must be included in each Part 72 specific license, be amended to include a requirement that dry storage casks be monitored continuously for radioactivity at the exit cooling vents. The basis for this requested amendment is the Petitioner's

- assertion that 11 exit vents are the most likely location of radioactive venting. 11 This request reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of dry storage technology and the specific licensing process. The dry storage systems that have been licensed for use at reactor sites utilize conservative designs and passive technologies that provide multiple barriers to the release of radioactivity to the environment. As the NRC

• explained in promulgating Part 72, 11 [t]here are no high temperatures or pressures present during normal operations or under design basis accident conditions to cause the release and dispersal of radioactive materials. 11 45 Fed. Reg. 74693, 74694 (1980). This fact, combined with the monitoring, inspection, and surveillance systems required by § 72.44(c) and the radiation monitoring systems required at reactor sites, makes regulatory a requirement for continuous monitoring at exit cooling vents unnecessary.

If the NRC determines that continuous exit cooling vent monitoring is necessary to maintain safe storage conditions for a particular ISFSI design, it will include such a requirement in the technical specifications when licensing that design for use at a EEI/UWASTE 11 /19/93

particular site. 10 C.F.R. § 72.122(h)(4) states that "[s]torage confinement systems must have the capability for continuous monitoring in a manner such that the licensee will be able to determine when corrective action needs to be taken to maintain safe storage conditions." In the final rule adding the VSC-24 cask system to the list of casks approved for use under the Part 72, Subpart K general license, the Commission rejected a comment that it had failed to enforce § 72.122(h)( 4) by not requiring continuous monitoring, noting that the regulation does not "specify the details for particular monitoring programs. to allow the NRC to require monitoring programs that are appropriate for a particular storage system design." [58 Fed. Reg. 17948, 17954 (1990)

(comment 17)] NRC stressed that it "has and will consider continuous monitoring where it believes continuous monitoring is needed to determine when corrective action needs to be taken:' Id.

In sum, the Petitioner has presented no basis for incorporating a continuous monitoring requirement in § 72.44(c) applicable to every ISFSI design whether or not the NRC determines that such a requirement is necessary. 6 V. 10 C.F.R. § 72.72(a) 10 C.F.R. § 72.72(a) requires that a Part 72 licensee keep detailed records regarding the receipt, inventory, disposal, acquisition and transfer of all SNF in storage. The Petition requests that§ 72.72(a) be amended to require that the records also include 11the history and condition* of ail spent fuel assemblies including a description of any defective fuel, such as fuel that is cracked, swollen, blistered, pinholed or offgassing. 11 The Petition states that because defective fuel can cause problems for safe storage, the history and condition of all SNF should be documented. There is no need for the requested amend-ment to ensure that defective fuel does not pose a problem for safe storage in an ISFSI.

Detailed records of fuel characteristics are required to be maintained by Part 50 licensees.

The Administrative Controls section of the Technical Specifications incorporated in Part 50 licenses require licensees to retain records for the duration of the operating license of new and irradiated fuel inventory, fuel transfers and assembly burnup histories.7 In addition, during the refueling process, if the licensee suspects that an irradiated fuel 6

The NRC Staff has rejected a virtually identical claim raised by the Petitioner in its challenge to the ISFSI at Baltimore Gas &. Electric Company's Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power

• Plant. Director's Decision Under 10 C.F.R. §2.206, Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. (Calvert

• Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), DD-93-14, 38 N.R.C. _ (Aug. 16, 1993), slip op. at 10-11.

7 See, g_,_g,_, Standard Technical Specifications for Babcock and Wilcox Pressurized Water Reactors, NUREG-0103, Rev. 2, Pt. 1 (June 1978), Administrative Controls-.Record Retention at 6-19.

EEI/UWASTE 11/19/93

element is defective and intends to reinsert that element in the core, under the existing industry practice the licensee would test the fuel element to identify any defects. Any defects identified in this manner would be documented and maintained with the records of the fuel element. 8 -

Each site-specific ISFSI lice_nse issued under Part 72 will specify the parameters of the SNF (e.g., size, condition, burnup level) that is eligible for storage in the ISFSI. As the NRG explained in promulgating Part 72, 11 [a]n individual ISFSI will be designed to accommodate specific types of fuel assemblies with* a stated maximum burnup, heat output and radiation characteristics. 11 NUREG-0587 at 11-88. The ISFSI will be designed to ensure that storage of the SNF meeting the required parameters will satisfy the conditions of Part 72 and the specific license. 9 Licensees will verify that SNF to be placed in. the ISFSI meets the license conditions for safe storage.

Similar provisions are included in the Certificates of Compliance for casks approved for use under the Part 72, Subpart K general ISFSI license. In the Statement of Considerations accompanying promulgation of Subpart K, in response to concerns about

• the potential for corrosion of fuel cladding and reaction with the fuel during storage, NRG explained that 11 [t]he Certificate of Compliance requires that the spent fuel be stored in accordance with the technical specifications developed in the safety analysis report.

These specifications set forth the age, number of fuel assemblies, maximum initial enrichment, maximum burnup, and maximum heat generation rate of the spent fuel. 11 55 Fed. Reg. 29181, 29188 (1990). The Certificate of Compliance for Pacific Sierra Nuclear Associates VSC-24 cask system, for example, contains a detailed list of the characteristics of SNF that may be stored in the VSC-24 cask (e.g.,. decay power per assembly, maximum and minimum burnup levels, neutron and gamma source), and requires that a cask user develop a procedure for the documentation of the characterizations performed to select spent fuel to be stored in the cask, which includes a requirement for independent verification of each fuel assembly selection to ensure that it satisfies the specified fuel characteristics. Certificate of Compliance No. 1007 (May 7, 1993), at A-3 and A-9. In the Statement of Considerations accompanying the final rule adding the VSC-24 cask to the list of approved casks for use under 1O C.F.R. Part 72, Subpart K, NRG explained that its regulations prohibit use of the VSC-24 cask in violation of the Certificate of Compliance spent fuel specifications, and require any user to perform written 8

Pursuant to the Standard Contract executed between reactor licensees and the DOE, licensees must advise DOE of any known failed fuel prior to DOE's acceptance thereof.

9 For example, the technical specifications incorporated in the Part 72 license for Baltimore Gas & Electric Company's Calvert Cliffs ISFSI preclude the loading in the ISFSI of fuel assemblies known or suspected to have structural defects sufficiently severe to adversely affect fuel handling and transfer capability.

EEI/UWASTE 11/19/93

\.

evaluation before cask use to verify that all Certificate of Compliance conditions are met.

[58 Fed. Reg. at 17965].

In sum, under Part 72 and specific ISFSI licenses, SNF with defects of a magnitude that would affect the safety of ISFSI storage will be precluded from placement in the ISFSl. 10 The ISFSI license will specify the characteristics of SNF eligible for placement in the ISFSI, and the licensee will be able to verify if a particular element satisfies these characteristics through the recordkeeping requirements imposed by the Technical Specifications incorporated in Part 50 licenses, and the records, inventory procedures, and material control and accounting procedures specified in § 72.72. If SNF with certain known structural defects cannot be stored safely in the ISFSI, or should not be placed in the ISFSI for other reasons (e.g., potential handling and transfer problems), then the license will preclude its placement in the ISFSI. The Petition presents no evidence demonstrating that any additional recordkeeping requirements are necessary to ensure that defective fuel does not pose a problem for safe storage.

VI. 10 C.F.R. § 72.104(a) 1O C.F.R. § 72.104(a) establishes the criteria for the amount of radioactive materials permitted in ISFSI effluents and direct radiation from an ISFSI. It imposes limits on the

' annual dose equivalent that is received by any real individual who is located beyond the controlled area. The Petition requests that § 72.104(a) be modified in two ways: first, to reduce substantially the specified annual dose equivalent that may be received by the whole body, thyroid, and any other organ; and second, to impose these limits on the annual dose equivalent to the 11 maximally exposed individual or fetus located beyond the controlled area11 as opposed to any real individual located beyond the controlled area.

In support of this request, the Petition refers to 11 recent studies 11 (although it only refers vaguely to one; a 1990 study by Alice Stewart) addressing the effects of radiation expo-sures that allegedly support a conclusion that the standards incorporated in § 72.72(a) are too high for a developing fetus,. women, and children.

10 In this regard, it bears emphasis that few fuel defects will be of a magnitude to effect the safety of storage in an ISFSI, which is designed with multiple containment barriers to prevent the release bf radioactivity even if a fuel element exhibits certain defects. For example, in the final rule adding the TN-24 storage cask to the list of casks approved for use under the 1O C.F.R. Part* 72, Subpart K general license, the NRG explained that 11 [i]n the case of pinhole leaks in the fuel rod cladding, the cask is designed as a secondary confinement barrier to retain gaseous products. Therefore, gaseous components are not released to the environment, and routine monitoring is not required. 11 ,

58 Fed. Reg. 51762, 51765 (October 5, 1993). The NRG further explained that the cask had been analyzed for a hypothetical condition in which all the fuel rods rupture and the conclusion was that the resulting pressure within the cask would be negligible. Id.

EEI/UWASTE 11/19/93

r As an initial matter, it bears emphasis that 1O C.F.R. § 72.104(a) does not incorporate exposure limits that are unique to ISFSI operation. Rather, as the NRG explained in promulgating Part 72, the exposure limits are based on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Radiation Standards for fuel cycle facilities specified in 1O C.F.R. Part 190:

A number of commenters addressed the subject of dose limits for normal operations and accidents. Although spent fuel storage is not specifically identified as a fuel cycle operation in 40 C.F.R. Part 190, ... , the dose limits specified in this regulation are used in Part 72.

45 Fed. Reg. at 74696-97. In fact, in commenting on the proposed Part 72, the EPA stated:

Our only comment of substance concerns your requirement that such independent storage facilities provide radiation protection consistent with this Agency's public health pro-tection standards for the Uranium Fuel Cycle (40 C.F.R. 190).

We generally support your use of these requirements in this fashion.

NUREG-0587 at B-191.

The Part 72 exposure limits are also consistent with the recent revision of 1O C.F.R. Part 20, the NRC's standards for protection against radiation hazards arising out of licensed activities, which will become effective on January 1, 1994. This revision was comprehensive in scope, and reflects state-of-the-art data on radiation protection. As NRG explained in the Statement of Considerations, the primary purpose of the revision was to reflect in Part . 20 11 developments in the principles and scientific knowledge underlying radiation protection that have occurred since Part 20 was originally issued more than 30 years ago. 11 56 Fed. Reg. 23360 (1991).

In revising Part 20, the NRC explained that it had reviewed the recommendations and studies of expert groups through 1990, including the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and the National Academy of Science's Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). Among other things, these studies analyzed the data on radiation exposure to a developing fetus. The BEIR-V Report, for example, includes a chapter entitled 11 Other Somatic and Fetal Effects11 that discussed the data on cancer in childhood following exposure in utero and the effects of prenatal irradiation on the growth

• and development of the mammalian embryo and fetus. . The Petition falls far short of demonstrating that Part 20 is not based on a body of substantial, authoritative, and recent d~a. -

EEI/UWASTE 11/19/93 j

In revising Part 20, NRC also explained that 11 [a]s a result of the application of the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) philosophy to effluent release standards . . . for nuclear power reactors and EPA's 40 C.F.R. Part 190 for the uranium fuel cycle, doses from radioactive effluents from fuel cycle facilities are already much less than 11 the standards in Part 20. kt at 23363. Part 20 and Part 72 both require for all licensees to have a radiation protection program that includes provisions for keeping radiation doses ALARA. Id. at 23367; 10 C.F.R. § 72.104(b). Experience to date with ISFSI operations has demonstrated that, due to conservative ISFSI designs and application of ALARA requirements, radiation levels associated with ISFSI operations are in fact well below I

regulatory limits.

I The Petition requests that NRC isolate Part 72 from the rest of its regulatory scheme and impose stricter and different regulatory limits on effluents and direct. radiation exposure

• resulting from ISFSI operations. Not only does the Petition fail to support this request with sufficient scientific and technical data, but it would be inappropriate for the NRC to take such a regulatory approach. If the. NRC failed to take information into account in revising Part 20 that would significantly have affected the substance of Part 20, then the Petitioner should seek an amendment of Part 20. Any such amendment would thereafter be reflected in the remainder of Title 10 (including, e.g., Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72).

Similarly, if the Petitioner believes that the EPA's standards in 40 C.F.R. Part 190 are inap-propriate, it should petition the EPA for an amendment of that provision. The inappropriate course of action is to seek an amendment to Part 72, which is consistent with and based on current EPA and NRC accepted radiation protection standards.

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition should be denied.

EEI/UWASTE 11/19/93

r; r>r*, . . '!'\ ." ',it f,' o,--H

• p;;*;;;,~:~;;c~;*PRM 2--/

I (Slt f [<. Lf 7221) -

5711 Summerset Dr.

Midland, MI 48640

• 93 NOV 22 P2 :18 Nov. 18, 1993 Mr. Samuel Chilk Secretary of the Commissioflt !l , ~ _-> v:l- iJ,r :'

-ii,(>\ ; lt*H, ' t-1' I/ r.f U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cdminis~tPijJL1~

Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

These comments are in response to a notice published m the Federal Register, Sept. 8, 1993.

In general, I believe the NRC should respond affirmatively to the suggestion of the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition that its regulation of generic issues be amended in relation to dry cask storage of high level radioactive waste.

I agree with the point that a licensee should specify the planned life of the ISFSI. If the claim is made that the storage 1s temporary, then the planned duration date should be given. I agree that licensees should be required to state the length of time that each storage canister or cask will be used. If storage is indefinite or permanent, then additional regulatory controls would be needed.

The NRC should spell these out.

There should be a period of 90 days between the final safety evaluation report and the issuing of a license to allow petitioners time to intervene based on issues in the final SER.

Monitoring continuously at the exit cooling vents should be required, but internal monitoring for the condition of the metal basket and helium pressure such as inside the VSC-24 cask, for example, should also be required.

The public should have the right to comment on the final safety analysis report and the SER before a license is issued.

To augment these comments, and to prove that the present generic rule needs to be revised and more safeguards for the public need to be instituted, I am attaching a statement I presented to the MAY 4 199.fl Acknowledged by card ................................

• $. NUCLEA'"-; *;:::c*._, , , JF:, CO'..\!, iSSION OOCY.'- T . '3 i:.. !:;(..~V!CE SECTION Of-Fl~t. or- We "ECRETARY OF T~ E cot.\Mk,3\0N st an< Date L I /1 /13 q

p1es Rece*,*-~ ! ' /

Md'l Cop1 s Re?ioduccd . -- - - - -

Special Distribution l.1,,--r:. (} c:, , YJIJ'llJ h ;

U.S. Radioactive Waste Technical Review Board meeting in Dallas, TX on Nov. 1-2. I was invited to make this presentation to the Board so that they would get a better idea of the institutional problems in the overall nuclear waste storage and disposal policy developments in the country In this statement, I have detailed the many difficulties that the public has encountered in the first attempt at implementation of the current generic rule Subpart K and Subpart L at the Palisades nuclear plant in Southwest Michigan. I believe the issues described will provide further proof that the rules must be changed.

Respectfully submitted, cc. Enclosure

U.S Radioactive Waste Technical Review Board Meeting, Nov.1-2, Dallas, Tx.

Statement by Mary P. Sinclair, PhD National Energy Policy Committee, Sierra Club Co-Chair, Don't Waste Michigan The U.S. Radioactive Waste Technical Review Board is to be commended for including in its deliberations the viewpoints of a wide range of persons who are involved in studying and working on radioactive waste disposal policies from many different perspectives.

This nation is at a very critical stage in its policy decisions on high level and "low-level" radioactive waste disposal from commercial nuclear power plants. Reactor spent fuel pools are filling up and no federal repository has been established. All the plans and methods proposed so far for the storage and disposal of nuclear waste are still experimental.

They have not been tested for any meaningful length of time considering the longevity of this waste and its toxicity.

There is a grave danger that economic pressures together with a desperate need for solutions will result in very poor decisions being made at this moment in history. These decisions will be irreversible in their impacts on some of our most valued natural resources and will adversely affect all our future generations.

The current placement of high level nuclear waste in untested concrete casks at the Palisades nuclear plant site, in my view, is one such decision. These casks are 150 yards from the shore of Lake Michigan.

Every cask that has been designed and constructed for storage of high level nuclear waste in this country up until these casks were built has had to meet rigid construction and testing requirements devised by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Each cask had to undergo a rigorous site-specific licensing procedure. But with the VSC-24 casks, these types of requirements that would give assurance of due regard for public health and safety have not been met. I will describe some of these regulatory failures.

The VSC-24 casks were the first that were to be approved under the generic ruling, Subpart K and Subpart L of the Federal Code of Regulations which the NRC adopted in August, 1990. (10 CFR 72.230). With this rule, the NRC intended to implement the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of

Page 2 1983 [Section 218 (a)] which provides that "the Secretary [of Energy] 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

[NRC] 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." (Emphasis added)

There is nothing in this or any other provision of the NWPA which states that, where site-specific determinations must be made by the NRC--as has been the case with Palisades--the public's right to an adjudicatory hearing may be obliterated by a generic rule making process. Yet this is what has happened at Palisades.

By presenting some of the highlights of the violations of NRC's own rules in the process of expediting the construction and loading of these VSC-24 casks at Palisades, I hope to demonstrate the harsh realities of what is happening at the grassroots level that is at great odds with the technical planning and intent of organizations such as the one meeting here today. I will describe the institutional problems and breakdowns that are a part of the process, and the dangers they pose in making policies for the storage of high level nuclear waste in this nation.

In 1990, in adopting Subpart K and Subpart L as the route by which they could approve dry storage technologies generically, the NRC was careful to spell out many important safeguards for the process. However, in what was to be the first implementation of this rule with the VSC-24 casks at Palisades, the NRC made numerous exemptions and allowed significant contradictions to this rule in order to approve it expeditiously and generically. The NRC was driven by the fuel loading time table of Consumers Power Co. at its Palisades plant, rather than by a conscientious application of the rules it had set out for the process of generic approval of this technology which were intended to protect public health and safety.

For example, the eight concrete casks and three metal baskets that have been built for storage of high level nuclear waste at Palisades were constructed 11 months before the Certificate of Compliance was issued for that cask and before the public comment period was even announced. Yet, one crucial requirement for "generic" approval of cask technology is that "fabrication of a cask under the Certificate of Compliance must not start prior to the receipt of the Certificate of Compliance." The rule further states, "If a vendor has not received a certificate, then the vendor does not

Page 3 have the necessary approved specifications and may design and fabricate casks to meet incorrect criteria. "(55 Fed. Reg. 29,185)

The NRC conducted an inspection of the cask construction in the spring of 1992 after most of the casks were already constructed. It found that workers were not handling the concrete according to the American Concrete Institute Standard 301, and did not know what the code was or its requirements. The inspectors also "identified examples of work activities and quality assurance/quality control implementation which failed to meet applicable specifications and standards. Oversight of the contractor activities on site was weak." The utility had to shut down construction to correct these problems. (CPCo. letter to J. Massey, Sierra Nuclear Corporation, May 29, '92) In contrast to the way in which these casks were constructed, the 1990 final rule for generic approval states that the "NRC ... will ensure that each cask is fabricated under an NRC-approved quality assurance program."

Also, the 1990 rule for generic approval specifically provides that, "to the extent practicable in the design of storage casks, consideration should be given to compatibility with removal of the stored spent fuel from a reactor site." [10 CPR 72.236 (m)] In approving the use of the VSC-24 cask at Palisades, however, the NRC contradicted this requirement, and simply asserted, "there is no need for the VSC-24 cask to be compatible with transportation requirements." (58 Fed. Reg. 17,960)

A good deal of concern was expressed in the public comments on the lack of monitoring devices for these casks. In addition, NRC's generic requirements provide that "storage confinement systems must have the capability for continuing monitoring in a manner such that the licensee will be able to determine when corrective action needs to be taken to maintain safe storage conditions." [10 CPR 72.122 (h) (4)] However, in approving the VSC-24 casks, the NRC deviated from its generic requirement adopted in 1990 and said, "the NRC does not consider such continuous monitoring to be necessary for the VSC-24 cask."( 58 Fed. Reg. 17,954, Apr. 7, 1993)

Drive-by or walk-by surveillance of the exterior of the inlets and outlets of the cask was required in the Final Rule. However, the casks stand upright 18 ft. high on the storage pad, and no mention is made as to how checking of air vents above 6 to 8 feet would be possible with this kind of surveillance. The Safety Evaluation Report (SER, May 6, '92, p. 14-

14) states that, in the event of complete blockage of all vents, the concrete

Page 4 can reach the accident temperature of 350°F m a time period between 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> and one week.

This summer a new tum of events took place on what could be contained in the casks. On June 14, 1993, six weeks after the final Certificate of Compliance was approved, the manufacturer of the casks sent a letter to F. Sturz of the NRC in which he enclosed the first revision to the VSC Safety Analysis Report. This revision addressed the need to store the fuel with control components within the VSC system. It stated, "The need to include the storage of control components in the fuel assemblies is to be consistent with the standard contract between the utilities and the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE) for disposal of spent nuclear fuel." We don't -

know if the casks already built and loaded at Palisades include these components or were designed and constructed to allow this.

The contradiction in the evaluations of these components has to be a concern. A paper delivered at the high level nuclear waste meeting in Las Vegas, NV, April 26-30, '93, (R. Stigers, et al.) states, "Most nonfuel component wastes contain a large number of curies and produce significant gamma radiation fields and therefore present special handling concerns during storage, processing, transportation and disposal." But the manufacturer of the VSC-24 casks states, in dicussing adding these components to this cask in the June 14 letter to the NRC, "The neutron and gamma sources remain unchanged since the addition of control components would not add significantly to the total fuel assembly source terms ... (and) ... no significant changes to the factors of safety." He asked expedited approval by the NRC for this evaluation. Whose evaluation is correct? Isn't this an example of an unresolved safety issue being considered after the rule was final? Shouldn't the public have had the opportunity to have this issue resolved?

In a letter dated Aug. 31, '92, while the public comment period for the final rule on the VSC-24 casks was in progress, but when eight casks had already been built, the manufacturer, Sierra Nuclear Corp. (SNC),

indicated that it would agree to make changes in the cask design in response to NRC's safety concerns. However, the project manager of the cask system, John Massey, stated that he preferred "to get the subject documents and our generic certificate approval as-is and as-soon-as-possible in order to support our efforts at Palisades." The final rule on the VSC-24 casks and their Certificate of Compliance were issued and became final on May 7, '93. Two months later, on July 16, '93, the manufacturer of

Page 5 the casks wrote a letter to the NRC saying that he was ready to take up the amendments to the Safety Analysis Report at a meeting scheduled for July 28, '93.

Was this was to include the technical issues which had been held in abeyance as he had requested a year earlier in order to complete their "efforts at Palisades"? Were other safety issues considered at this meeting?

No public information is available on this meeting. Were other more recent safety issues considered? Shouldn't the public be informed about this and be allowed to comment?

The question is when does a Final Rule on the safety of a cask become final? What will utilities be ordering? The VSC-24 cask as approved is the cheapest of all cask designs that have already been approved. Will revised versions become more and more expensive? Why would a utility buy anything except the least expensive one already approved by the NRC?

In addition, with no data available to the public about the resolution of these SAR licensing amendments, another letter was sent to the NRC (Frederick Sturz) on August I 0, '93, in which John Massey, the manufacturer, gave notice that he intended to start fabrication of more VSC-24 casks in 45 days. After many phone calls in trying to find out where this was happening, Region III of the NRC finally acknowledged that they were being constructed at Palisades. Will these casks include safety features that the initial 8 casks do not have?

The major issues,--construction of the casks prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Compliance, the violation of NRC's own rules, as well as concerns for the environment of Lake Michigan and the Great Lakes prompted thousands of people to send petition signatures, calls and letters to Attorney-General Frank Kelley of Michigan. In response to these citizens' requests, he asked for a public hearing on this project at Palisades.

Our elected officials, Michigan Senators Levin and Riegle, Michigan Congressman John Dingell, and Senators from the neighboring states of Illinois and Wisconsin also followed up these citizens' concerns with the NRC. But no public hearing was granted by the NRC who is apparently accountable to no one except the nuclear industry.

Page 6 Through all of this period of time, the NRC reiterated that no public hearing was indicated because the VSC-24 cask system was generic and not specific to the Palisades site. However, there were numerous site-specific requirements at Palisades that the NRC asked for and reviewed before the final rule was issued.

For example, the NRC's own Safety Evaluation Report on the VSC-24 cask indicated in no uncertain terms that there were novel site-specific features that would involve new and previously unresolved safety considerations when used at a particular location. (Mar., '91 SER, p.8-1).

The NRC noted that "since the VSC is a new system that has not been built and tested, site-specific procedures will be contingent upon successful -

demonstration of most 'first-of-a-kind' features." (Id.) There are numerous other such features.

In February 1993, Consumers Power Co. submitted a rev1s10n to the NRC of its security plans as related to the storage casks, and in April, '93 ,

it submitted its emergency plan revisions. Both of these revisions are site-specific issues. These revisions were approved, but these findings were not subject to any public input, even through public comment.

Although the National Environmental Policy Act requires that an environmental impact statement be made for any federal agency action that can have a substantial impact on the human environment, no environmental impact statement was produced for this action, i.e., placing -

high level nuclear waste in untested concrete casks 150 yards from the shore of Lake Michigan. Yet in approving this VSC-24 cask, the NRC has made it available for use--with no public input--by any utility in the country under its general license, including those situated on the Great Lakes. In fact, it is already scheduled for use at Point Beach, Wisconsin, on the other side of Lake Michigan.

Seventeen nuclear plants on the U.S. side of the Great Lakes will be needing spent fuel storage within ten years. Nationally, 54 reactors nationwide will have their spent fuel pools filled and will be seeking storage by the year 2004. Will the VSC-24 cask as it has been approved for use through its Final Rule by the NRC without any public review become the cask of choice since it is the cheapest cask and everyone knows of the nuclear industry's staggering economic problems?

Page 7 Other safety issues that have been ignored are what the process of recovery will be in the case of cask or metal basket failure and decommissioning problems. Of special concern are the potential corrosion problems that are possible with this cask and that generally plague the nuclear industry. The NRC staff has expressed concern about corrosion from metal to metal contact between the metal basket and the caskliner m case of buckling deformation which would make it impossible to unload the metal basket in case of failure of the basket, or for transport offsite if a Federal repository is established. Another study states that "irradiation ... potentially has some deleterious effect upon corrosion rates .. .if the canister becomes wet and remains wet for some time during the storage period." (Rept. by Quinn, Lehnert, and Rosa of Pacific Nuclear, Rad. Waste Mgement, p. 2224) Humidity is an important site-specific issue to be considered on the shore of Lake Michigan.

Without making any full scale field testing of this cask, the VSC-24, the NRC concluded in their 5 page environmental assessment that there was no significant impact on the environment from this project. The first test of these casks was to be at the Palisades site because, as the NRC wrote, "This preoperational test is viewed by the NRC staff as necessary because the fuel clad temperature predicted by the vendor is only 4°F below the design criteria for off-normal conditions. Also, the concrete temperature is very close to the design criteria under the same conditions."

(Revision of Draft COC, letter from Sturz, NRC, to Massey, SNC, July 8, '92)

That is to say, there may be only a 40 F difference between normal operation and a nuclear accident.

The only tests that were conducted were at the Idaho Engineering Laboratories with a smaller cask, the VSC-17, and in a controlled environment. This cask had a different configuration, and a different kind of fuel. The NRC did not use these test results in their rulemaking, but the manufacturer did use the results in the design of the VSC-24.

Furthermore, Consumers Power Co. did not have the type of fuel specified in the draft Certificate of Compliance for the VSC-24 at Palisades to be able to perform the preoperational test required by the NRC. They had fuel with less heat content than needed for the test. The NRC made an exemption to allow them to load this fuel--surely a site-specific decision.

Now the fact remains that this cask has been released for use by any

Page 8 utility--with no public review--without its having had any real test of its heat removal capacity.

These casks have been set on a storage pad in a fragile sand dune area which is geologically characterized as a high risk erosion area. No information is available in any public documents concerning the design and construction of that storage pad. Yet this pad is expected to hold 25 casks each of which will weigh 130 tons when loaded. When the NRC was asked for these data, the director of the project, Frederick Sturz, said that this was not NRC's responsibility because the VSC is a generic cask and can be placed anywhere. The Coastal Management Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources who had issued a permit for the storage -

pad said that details of the storage pad construction were not their responsibility since these decisions were preempted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The utility spokesperson on the site of Palisades said that numerous contractors were involved in building the storage pad, but that this information was not available to the public.

However, the final Certificate of Compliance states at No. 8 that the VSC-24 cask is approved for use for any utility under a general license subject to 10 CFR 72.212. This section of the code states that the licensee must "perform written evaluations, prior to use, that establish that... cask storage pads and areas have been designed to adequately support the statis load of the stored casks." (Emphasis added) Although two casks have been loaded, the public has yet to see those written evaluations of the a adequacy of the storage pad to support the load that it must hold in a W fragile dunes area of shifting sands in the heart of the Great Lakes, which contain 20% of the world's fresh water supply,-- 90% of the fresh water supply of this nation.

The NRC received many public comments on this cask design once the proposed rule to add it to the available cask designs was announced in the Federal Register on June 26, 1992. They included, among many others, important observations by other cask manufacturers and a utility executive who noted that numerous requirements for construction and testing had been relaxed in the construction and deployment of the VSC-24 cask compared to those that had been previously required. It was generally characterized as a substandard cask. One commenter suggested that the "expedited approval of the VSC is based on reasons other than full compliance with these established standards which all previous applicants have been required to satisfy. By virtue of its actions, NRC has established

Page 9 a new precedence which has lowered the standard for all future dry storage systems." (Letter from PNS to NRC, Dec. 4, '91)

Questions were raised during the comment period on the possible build-up of fission gases in the metal basket containing the fuel. In their response, the NRC dismissed this as a concern. We now find that the Dept.

of Energy is abandoning plans to put plutonium-contaminated bomb waste into underground storage in new Mexico for a test. One of the uncertainties about the waste storage program is whether corroding wastes would create gas that would build up under pressure, opening cracks deep in the earth. (NYT, Oct. 22, '93, p. llA) There is also a recent London Observer story stating that nuclear wastes storage in Britain which have also been stored in concrete silos and metal casks at reactor sites are leaking and deteriorating at an alarming rate and pose a grave threat to public safety.(Reprinted in the Plain Dealer, Oct. 15, '93) Let us try to learn from these developments.

Many political leaders and national environmental groups believe a national commission should be appointed by this Administration that includes all stakeholders which can address this severest of all environmental problems as the national issue that it is. The piecemeal solutions that are now going on in attempts to solve both the "low-level" and high level nuclear waste problems can lead to national disaster.

The curbing and eliminating of public participation in key decisions on nuclear power and nuclear waste issues has been increasing throughout the last decade. Yet it is the public--not the Atomic Energy Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or our political Ieaders--that has been responsible for most of the advances in the safety of this technology.

For example, the failure of all the tests in Idaho of the initial ECCS design was brought out in the Midland hearing. This resulted in the national safety hearings of the early '70's where numerous other safety issues surfaced as a result of discovery procedures. Better hydrogen control and improved control room design were raised by the public as issues to be corrected after TMI. Design errors and weld defects at Diablo Canyon, and management failures in inspection and maintenance at Vermont Yankee were made known by whistleblowers, to name just a few instances.

Page 10 This trend, to exclude the public, is not only politically unhealthy, but it withholds a rich source of valuable insights from the decision-making process on the nuclear fission technology at a time when we most need them.

I hope that this statement has been of some value to the deliberations of this Board.

Safety official warns Britons of dangerous nuclear waste LONDON OBSE8VER copies to Scottish Secretary fan Horlock points out the s<<t't*ty P () LO f l ~ J'i 3 LONDON Lan1;t, Environment St*crctary problems are made more acute b.v Nuclear wa::.te iores across Brn- John Gummer, Emp!oyment S1:c- the .. n.,tural rcluctanc*e"' ,1r nuclear ain are dckrioratmg at an alarm- rdary Duv1cl Hunt and Agriculture OJ)1 *i'alon; to repackage rad1oai.:ti\'t*

ing rate, posing a threat to public Minister Gillian Shephard. wastl' more securt:ly in lt.'mpurury safety, the government's chief nu- In his letter. he says the tempo- sites until they know wilat kind of clear safety adviser has warned. rary radioactive waste stores i/.n.! packaging will be needl'Ci for it:;

"deteriorating" and "unsatisfac- ewntual burial.

The problem is so serious that tory for long-term storage." Horlock concludes that the risk:;

John Horlock, chairman of the Ad- As a result, he warns that delays to public safety are "~~fficient tu visory Committee on the Safety of in the industry's plans to transfer warrant urgent steps to make Nuclear Installations, has urged the waste to a permanent deep un- sure that a permanent nuclcur Prime Minister John Major's Cab- derground dump are "producing a dump is provided quickly, avoid-inet that democratic procedures be situation in which safety at nuclear ing "unnecessary planning overridden by the urgent need to sites could be compromised in hurdles."

find a permanent safe under- tt>rms of opt.>rator handling and the John Large. an independent nu-grouiid repo~itory for Britain's !U:

• l)Qtential for acci<.lental reh:ases:* clear i.:unsultant. said Horl(,ck s iet-clear legacy. The nucll*ar disposal company, tcr exposed a "terrifying c-1 ,_,s" al At present, nuclear waste is Nirex. officially hopes to complete the heart or the nuclear ind ustrv.

stored in concrete silos or metal the planned deep dump at the Sell- **Professor Horlock und his com-drums at dozens of nuclear power afield nuclear complex in Cumbria mittee are saying we have got to stations and other installations by 2007. But Horlock's letter ques- get a deep underground nuclear across Britain. tions whether the dump will be waste store in place immediately Inspections of these facilities, built "before 2010 or even within a before there is a major accident at carried out by the advisory com- few years of that date." a nuclear site and we haven't got mittee, were so alarming that Hor- He warns that the longer the de- two years to spare for a public in-lock decided to raise the alarm in lay, "the more potential there is for quiry," Large said. "That has Whitehall. He wrote Energy Min- safety to be compromised" at tem- frightening implications both for ister Tim Eggar on Aug. 4 and sent porary surface stores. safety and dcmucrncy."

/V ttTi/?t.~

NATIONAL FRIDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1993

~* -~ .- ~-. . . . * . . ~- :

_:* r/."~*:**~*: _;.*: ~-- U.S.*Drops Test Plan at Bomb Waste Site By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr, bringing the storage site lnUI operation spec11110Th<How Yark n.... for test purposes.

• WrtASH INGf TEON, Octb2I d- edThe De- Zt The department now lntenfds to apply pa men1 o nergy a an on p1ans !.::I to the E.P.A. in the spring o I99 5 for a today to rit the (lrst plutonium-con- -~ certification, based on the labqralory laminate bomb waste Into under- .,.-,:  ::;:, test results, thar.._ the waste storage ground storage in New Mexico to test scheme complies with

• Federa.1 ~mvi-the site's suitability. Instead, ii will ,: o ronmental requirements. *

'conduct laboratory tests or the project_. .r *,... "The test plan was Indefensible,"

and seek further Federal review of its f: f'/ said Margret Carde of Concerned CiU*

environmental merits. J' " :tens for Nuclear Safety, based In Santa Hazel R. O'Leary, the Secretary of i mm!!!I ~' Fe, N.M. "U D.O.E. hadn't withdrawn Energy, called the decision "a major ~ { It, E.P.A: would have had to deny ap-

.break with the last Administration's

• proval."

ap,proach." **t Last year the B~sh Administration ~- - - - - -- ' Buildup of Gas Feared won Congressional approval for early 1on-site testing of the nation's first per-

fi}~~

:tMae, { *

• i ut the

~ --i-tq:J::_:'° et cor*

manent storage site for highly radloac- n.. Hew Yark 1,11,... create live and toxic equipment, chemicals, A nuclear waste storage site near ..a=.=--=::.:,.::=--=""""--'T"""...._"'s-su=r:--"e, clothing and other Items contaminated CarIs b a d , N.M., will probab1y sit , ~rha~s o~nmg crac s ee¥i in ,~the In the production or nuclear w e a p o n s . C 1 b h a 1 o u 1 s i . a u o w contam nan .... 10 The new flan means that the first empty until 1998.

shipments O waste to the storage site, r--:-:-:-:-:-::-:-----~tiar~£1hD~a~~~:]I~ffi:~a["

built 2,150 feet underground In salt de-posits near Carlsbad, N. M., will not A $1.5 b1'll1'on istant future.

e take place until near the end or the nly a small fraction of the existing decade, perhaps In 1998. ll had been scheduled to start next year.

pro1ect is sub1ect J J Inventory or waste was to have been buried at first, and .the ..waste would Early Operation Expected tO 1a* b tests. have been removed if the underground tests indicated that .was necessary...

But Energy Department officials  : But scientists who revleJ't'~ thf un-also said that they expected the labora; derground ,testing plan ~rted *. ~ tew tory tests to go quickly and that the With disclosures In recent years of monlhs ago that there was no *:sc1en.tif*

full-scale operation of the storage site environmental problems throughout IC.. regulatory or operational lmeera-could begin earlier than would have the bomb-building system, the problem live" to do the tests with actual ,wjlstes been possible under the old plan, which of what 10 do with the wastes has ,ul_lderground, accordlng*to*Energy De*

would have required at least five years become politically pressing with pa~ent:data made pubUc today; *'

or testln_g berore permanent storage. 'stales like Idaho pressing to move the 'The. new plan wlll ~. '1DO*T8dloac-The site, known as the Waste Isola- ' . - live simulated wastes In (:arefully ~n-lion PIiot Plant, has touched off years waS t e lhat wa~ building up at. tempo- trolled latiOratory expert.merits, a.swell of debate In Washington and New Mexi- rary st0 511 rage ~s. . as actual**waste. The simulated wastes co. Sclentis(s have questioned whether The Clinton Administration still will ,be easier for experlmenter:s

• to enough testlng*would be done to Insure faces these pressures but It no longer measure *.ln det:ill,.*whllethe. 11ctual

• that the was~es, which will remain tox- appears Interested In opening the New wastes wlll help fine-tune the results le for thousands of years, could be Mexico storage site under the rubric or and detect any unanticipated phenom*

successfully Isolated In the deep tomb. a .test plan* without first meeting the enon 1101 disclo.~ed by the simulations.

. ,:tie proJec~ has already cost $1.5 requirements of environmental laws The sites* or the tests have not.been

, b1lhon, and will cost that much more for storing dangerous wastes. chosen, b11t will probably Include one .o r

• ag.iin by the year 2000. Energy Department officials said more of the nationahlaboratorlea, In Critics or the project heartily en- the new plan would save more than California,' ldHho or New York where dorsed the change of direction, saying $100 million by delaying the costs of nuclear en~rgy rcsearchJs ..':°nducied.

that they would now press for rigorous *

• tests of the storage site's feasibility -------=======================

and that they believed the tests would demonstrate the project's flaws. ,

TermlnatJon Predicted I "If the analysis Is done properly and :

Independently, carefully, with an unbi- :

ased approach, these naws are going to become very clear very quickly," said Scott Denman, executive director of the Safe Energy Communication Coun-cil, a coalition of environmental organi*

zatlons. "We believe that a truly com*

prehensive review would yield a termi*

nation as opposed to going forward."

Under a law that went into ertect last year, the Environmental Protection Agency must review the New Mexico site's compliance

• with environmental laws before \t-begins full-scale opera- ,

lions, but the Energy* Department was allowed to store some wastes at the site on a test basis. . ,.' * ,. .

The Goveinmel\t has been trying IQ find a way to stofe the wastes safely since the J9S0's, and It has been l'(ork*

Ing for nearly 20 years to open U1e New Mexico site, known as the Waste Isola-lion Pilot Plant..

The Energy. Department, In charge of the natJon's *nuclear weapons pro-grams, was confronted with a huge buildup of toxic and radioactive wastes for which there is no other permanent storage site, and considered 011;:site tests the only way to keep momentum going ror opening the' New Mexico ~lie.

FACT SHEET--DRY CASK STORAGE OF HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTES AT THE PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT The Federal Government encouraged private utilities to build nuclear plants in the '50's with the understanding that the government would be responsible for the storage of the high level waste that is the by-product of this process for generating electricity. In the past 4 decades, the Federal Government has not been able to establish any site for the safe storage of these wastes.

Now the storage pools that contain the spent fuel from the operation of these plants are almost filled to capacity. These wastes are extremely toxic and will remain hazardous for centuries. A new stop-gap method for dealing with these wastes has been devised that will continue to allow the plants to keep operating and generating the wastes without any solution for their disposal. It is storing these long-lived nuclear wastes in non-transportable concrete casks at nuclear plant sites.

- Following are the facts regarding the concrete dry cask storage casks being planned for use at the Palisades n-plant less than 200 yards from the shoreline of Lake Michigan.

1) The concrete casks that are planned to be used to store high level nuclear waste (spent fuel) from the Palisades n-plant have never been constructed before. (Letter from NRC, April 22, 1992)

2) These casks have also never been tested.(SER, Mar.'9 l ,p.8-1) yet the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) allowed~ casks to be constructed at the Palisades site and 3 metal baskets that will hold the nuclear wastes within the casks even before they issued a certificate of compliance to establish the criteria for their construction.

3) Dept. of Energy's (DOE) Final Version Dry Cask Storage Study (DOEJRW-0220) states that a potential safety issue "is the structural integrity of concrete at the temperatures expected in the cask." (pl-5) The casks are certified for 20 years. There are no tests that confirm this expectation in the harsh freeze-thaw

- environment of Michigan winters.

4) However, the NRC is licensing these storage-only casks with no plans for transportation of these wastes off the shores of Lake Michigan and can continue to relicense these casks for at least the next 140 years. (GAO/RCED 91-194, p.42)

5) The Nuclear Waste Fund which ratepayers have been paying into for years to pay for a solution to the nuclear waste problem cannot be used to pay for this project (DOEJRW-O220, p.1-8-9) This prqject will have to be paid for through a new assessment in utility rates while the Federal Government continues to collect through our rate base for the Nuclear Waste Fund in their attempts to find a solution to the problem.

6) Nuclear power is subsidized by the Federal Government to the tune of $20 billion dollars a year.

according to Dr. Henry Kendall, Nobel Laureate nuclear physicist at MIT, founder of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is opposed to this method of generating electricity because of the safety and waste problems. WRITE A LEITER TO YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS, CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS. SEND THIS FACT SHEET ANDOPPOSENON-TRANSPORTABLEDRYCASK STORAGE OF NUCLEAR WASTES ON THE SHORES OF THE GREAT LAKES, DON'T WASTE MICHIGAN, P.O. BOX 142, RIGA, MI 49276

Commonwealth Edison 1400 Opus Place Downers Grove, Illinois 60515

~ t. : :

,Ni \C

• 93 NOV 22 P2 :18 1-\

November 18, 1993 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Services Branch

Subject:

Proposed Rulemaking to 10 CFR Part 72 Licensing Requirements for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), filed by Maryland Safe Energy Coalition, 58 Fed. Reg. 47223 (September 8, 1993)

Commonwealth Edison Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to 10 CFR part 72. In general, we believe that part 72 as written already provides for appropriate regulation of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSis), and should not be modified as proposed by the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition.

Detailed comments are provided in the attachment to this letter.

Sincerely,

~lfn+

William F. Naughton, Director Strategic Licensing Policies & Issues MAY !4 19941 Acknowledged by card"'"""'"'"'""",,,:;;;;;;;;,

L

. ',C,,1MIS 10N

'V s::c - ON

' ,-  :~:TAMY Postmark D le ' / // rl LjJ Cop;es f19ce: e' _____ _ _ _ __

Add l Cc~i:?

• r. 1

• 1,,~-c. i """

J _ __,,--=-...,,.--

Spec1a I"' ,., .' n_1L~ PD/s

_g5~ .,

- - --~------*

ATTACHMENT Commonwealth Edison Co. Comments on Proposed Rulemaking to 10 CFR Part 72 Licensing Requirements for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) 58 Fed. Reg. 47223 (September 8, 1993)

1. 72.22(e)(2)

There is no need to specify a planned lifetime of the ISFSI. It must last as long as needed to safely store fuel either until the plant is decommissioned or DOE meets their obligations to remove the fuel. Should any lifetime restrictions be imposed, they should be based on engineering design criteria, and allow for extension. Additional regulatory control beyond design criteria are not necessary.

Similarly, canisters or casks should be licensed for a specific lifetime based upon an engineering evaluation of it's ability to safely store spent fuel. There should be no restrictions on it's licensed lifetime. This lifetime could be longer than the lifetime specified of the ISFSI. Both the lifetime of the ISFSI and the individual canisters need to be satisfied.

2. 72.22(e)(3)

NRC's mission is not to follow the "safest" policy but rather to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety. Further, regulatory controls should not be established based on the assumption that the federal government fails to comply with it's obligations. ISFSis are interim measures, taken until such time that the federal government begins accepting and storing spent fuel.

3. & 5. Proposed changes to 72.42(d) and 72.46(d)

The Maryland Safe Energy Coalition recommends that 10 CFR § 72.42 be amended to require the NRC staff to delay 90 days between publishing a "final safety evaluation report (SER)"

for an ISFSI and issuing the license for that facility. The coalition requests that 10 CFR § 72.46(d) be similarly amended to extend the "opportunity for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene" to 90 days after the final SER is published.

The Commission's regulations already provide that it will issue the license for an ISFSI upon a determination that "the application for a license meets the standards and requirements of the Act and the regulations of the Commission, and [§ 72.40 in particular]." 10 CFR § 72.40(a).

There is no benefit to the public health and safety from delaying the issuance of the license for an ISFSI until 90 days after the Staff has completed its evaluation of an applicant's license and issued the SER. These facilities are required to maintain full-core discharge capability within the spent fuel pools during each refueling outage. Thus, depending on the timing of the application as well as the scope and duration of the Staffs review, the delay in the issuance of the license could significantly impact the operation of the associated nuclear

power plant. Since it is unclear when the U. S. Department of Energy will be able to provide additional spent fuel storage capacity, an increasingly greater number of nuclear facilities could be impacted by this delay.

The Commission's regulations provide for notice of the docketing of an application for a specific license for an ISFSI 10 CFR § 72.16(e). This notice may be combined with a notice of an opportunity for a hearing and a proposed action on the request for a license. 10 CFR §§ 72.16(e) and 72.46(a). An individual is allowed 30 days from the notice of proposed action and opportunity for hearing to request that the NRC grant such a hearing. 10 CFR §§ 2.105, 2.1107 and 72.46.

Thus, an individual is already provided an opportunity to request a hearing under the Commission's regulations. Neither the Commission's prior practice nor the Atomic Energy Act suggests that intervention should be delayed until the SER is issued. An individual which is interested in the construction of an ISFSI should come forward with any concerns he might have and request a hearing if necessary so that those concerns can be resolved by the licensee and Staff in a timely manner. Individuals should not be allowed to second guess the NRC Staffs conclusions in the SER and thus, seek to delay issuance of the license for the ISFSI even further.

4. 72.44(c)(3)

The current requirements of part 72 are sufficient to ensure that the integrity of the ISFSI and it's components is maintained. Part 72.44(c)(3)(ii) ensures that the ISFSI technical specifications include surveillance requirements for "inspection, test and calibration activities to ensure that the necessary integrity of required systems and components is maintained."

Continuous monitoring is an unnecessary overburden. There may be other suitable measures for ensuring cask integrity is maintained; however, any measures taken should be consistent with the design basis of the facility. Requiring continuous monitoring eliminates any flexibility for implementing other measures which may be as acceptable.

6. 72.72(a)

The requirement to document the history and condition of all spent fuel placed in the ISFSI is unreasonable. Further definition as to what is meant by "history" would also be necessary.

This could include many different facts which are irrelevant to the issue of safe storage. The condition of any fuel stored in the ISFSI will have to be consistent with the conditions assumed in the design basis of the ISFSI.

7. 72.104(a)

Radiation limits are controlled by 10 CFR 20 and they should apply in the same way as they would apply to any other licensed facility. Installation of an ISFSI provides no reason to change these limits.

To: J. Tortorrell:i,.

H. Bliss P. Garner-Davis E. Young K. Petersen D. Jenkins G. Wald J. Thomasen C. Larson J. Reiss

Subject:

Proposed Rulemakings by the NRC on the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)

Enclosed are two proposed rulemakings recently issued by the NRC on . the ISFSI. They are:

1) Maryland Safe Energy Coalition; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking, Fed. Reg. Vol. 58, No. 172 dated s,r. Ll&* lc. 1>

September 8, 1993. Comments to NRC due 11/22/93.

2) Notification of Events at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations and the Monitored Retrievable

-'r/211r, &~"*' Storage Installation, Fed. Reg. Vol. 58, No. 176 dated September 14, 1993. Comments due to NRC 11/29/93.

As Cece's representative on the NUMARC's Decommissioning Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, these proposed rulemakings were discussed at the October 8, 1993. NUMARC stated they had the lead in obtaining industry comments on these proposed rulemakings prior to the NRC submittal and were requesting utility comments by November 12 (see attached NUMARC notice

- dated October 18, 1993).

As the focal point for ISFSI/HLW issues, it is prudent that the HLW Working Group respond to these proposals. Since Tom Rausch is presently busy with Owners Groups issues and I am presently responsible for the activities of Cece's Decommissioning Working Group, I agreed to issue the attached documents to you requesting your feedback. Comments are to be sent to Tom Rausch who will coordinate Cece's feedback to NUMARC. For your information, the Decommissioning Working Group will also provide comments on the proposed rulemakings.

If you have any questions on the subject matter, please call me at ext. 7216.

[).1. £, id -

D.R.Eggeft Strategic Licensing Policies & Issues CC: w. NaughtoI1 T. Rausch

i\t.l!t.4.RC- 8583 0233 500;; 2 Ari&+/- I ..

• r:11~-Cf I=

NUCl!AR MANAGEMIM AND IIUOUICB COUNCIL 177~ t-ye :-:trea~ :'-4.W

• S1.,ilC 300

• Wn~ingn"'\. 0C 2C006 3706 (2£.lZ) i:12 1280 October 18, 1993 TO: NlJMAR.C Dccommi~ioning Group

SUBJECT:

Meeting FolJow-up Request for Comments Over the moo few weeks l will be prcpnring meeting minutes in regard to regulatory activities di~cusscd at our meeting 111 Fort St V~ on October 7.

1993.

l\t that meeting we distributed tlu., following Feckra/ Register unnouncements for comment:

• MD Safety Energy Coalition Receipt of Petition tbr R.ulemaking 58 FR 47222 September 8~ 1993 The petitioner requests that NR.C amend its regulations regnrding generic issues related to dry cask storage.

Notification ofEvQlts at Independent Spent fuel Storage lnstallations and Monitored Retrievable Storage Installations 58 FR 48004 September l4, 1993 Please send or FAX (202-785-1!98) any comments to me by .Fritl!ty~

November 12, i993. Call me should you ha,,c any questions.

stk# -

Alan P. Nelsr Senior Project Manager Operations. Management and Support £enices Division APN:cir.a

47ZZ2 Fedenlllagiatar Vol. 58, No. 172 Weciaelday, September 8, 1993 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER 9 CFR Part 113 to the Animal and Plant Health contains noticN to ... public°' the p,opoeed Inspection Service (APHIS). In addition, Issuance ot rulee Md ,eguillMOnL The [Docbt No. 92-112-2}

the proposed rule provided that all pu,poae °' .... rdcN la to give Interested petlOl18 an opportunity to partcipele in the In Vitro Teat* In Place of Animal Testa immunoassay potency tests used in for lmmunogenk:lty place of animal tests to determine rule making prior to the edoplon d the llnaf rules.

relative potency be conduded with an AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health unexpired reference.

Inspection Service, USDA. APlllS solicited comments on the DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ACTlON: Withdrawal of proposed rule. P~P~ rule for a 60-day period encung May 3. 1993. Six comments were

SUMMARY

We are withdrawing a Animal and Plant Health lnapedlon received for1he proposed rule. APHlS Service . proposed rule to amend the regulations carefully considered all of the regarding the use of in vitro tests In comments that were received. While place of animal tests for 9CFRPart78 generally supportive of the rule as immunogenicity. The proposed proposed. the commentms rai8ed issues amendment would hne pnmded for that suggest that some confusion exists

[Dockal N o . ~ the use_ o~ a parallel line assay for concerning cmtain provisions and areas determm1ng the relative antigenic such u the scope of the rule and the BruceUosla; ll*atda Movement of content (potency} of a serial of product Swine; Comtdlon procedures that may be used for derived from an approved Master Seed. requalification of references in order to Based o~ comments received, the extend the period of time that the AGDiCY: Animal and Plant Health Agency believes that the subject should references may be used.

Inspection Service, USDA. be further explored, and the rule should In order to provide a more complete ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. be reproposed. h also appears that there notice including more information was some confusion concerning the

• regarding procedures for the

SUMMARY

': We are correcting an editorial proposed rule. For example, it may not requalification o( references, A.PHIS is error in a proposed rule to revise the have been clear that the rule, if adopted, withdrawing its proposed rule and swine brucellosis regulations. The would have been to standardize all in postponing rulemaking until we hav/

proposed rule was published in the vitro immunoassay test methods used in gathered additional information. ID this Federal Register oo July 23. 1993 (58 FR place of animal tests to determine the iasue of the Federal llegister, we are 39458-39462, Docket No. 92--044-1). antigenic content of inactivated publishing a sepai'8te notice ("Public products. and to require that all such Meeting; In Vitro Potency Testing,"

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. tests involw the 1198 of a parallel line Docket No. 92-112-3) in which we Delorias Lenard, Senior Staff assay. Therefore. we are withdrawing annoWlce our intention to hold a public Veterinarian, Swine Health Staff, VS, the proposed rule and will postpone meeting on this subject.

APms. USDA, room 736, Federal further rulemaking until we gather Accordingly, the proposed Building, 6505 Belcrest Road, additional information. amendments to 9 CFR 113.8, published Hyattsville, MD 20782. 301-436--7767. FOR FUR_THEA INFORMATION CONTACT: at 58 FR 12187-12188, March 3, 1993, In Docket No. 92-044-1, pages Dr. D~v1d A. Espeseth, Deputy Director, are withdrawn.

39458-39462, the following correction Vetennary Biologics, BBEP, APIDS, USDA, room 838, Federal Building, Authority: 21 U.S.C. 151-159; 7 O'R 2.17, is made: 2.51, and 371.2(d).

6505 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD On page 39458, the third column, in 20782, (301) 436-8245, fax (301) 436-- Done ln Washington, DC. this 2nd day of the Summary, and on page 39459, the 8669. September 1993.

second column, in the BaclcgroWld, in Teny L Medley,

~e ~ourth line from the top, the words SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant validated brucellosis-free herds must Background Health Inspect.ion Service.

be tested to maintain" are removed and (FR Doc. 93-21861 Flied 9-7-93; 8:45 aml The regulations in 9 CFR part 113 the words "breeding swine must be pertain to the use of in vitro test.a in a.LINQC:OC.341~

tested to qualify States for" are added in place of animal tests for determining the their place. relative potency of veterinary biological Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of products. On March 3, 1993, we NUCLEAR REGULATORY~

September 1993. published a document in the Federal COMMISSION /f" Terry L MedJey, Register (58 FR 12187-12188, Docket No. 92-112-1) proposing to amend the 10 CFR Pert 72 Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. regulations in 9 CFR 113.8 to provide

[Docket No. PRM-72-1)

(FR Doc. 93-21863 Filed 9-7-93; 8:45 am) for the ~~ of a parallel line assay in detemumng the relative antigenic Maryland Safe Energy Coalition*

INLUNG CODE J41......

content (potency) of a serial of product Receipt of PetiUon for Rulemald~

derived from an approved Master Seed which has been tested for AGENC!: f':luclear Regulatory immunogenicity in a manner aa::eptable Comnuss1on .

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 8, 1993 / Proposed Rules 47Z2J

, ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice action under 10 CJ1R 2.802 with the prolonged or indefinite on-site storage

., of receipt. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). the only option or the safest policy.

The petitioner ia an envinmmental The petitioner recommends a change

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory consumer organization that is interested to-§ 72.42 tcffeqwreaperiocrof 90 days Commission (NRC) is publishing for in the minimization and safe storage of betwein-tlie-final safety iviluatfon -

public comment a notice of receipt of a nuclaar waste, including spent fuel at Jjjport (~ER) _enc! ~- ~f~! a~!!.~

petition for rulemaking datad June 23, nuclear power plants in seneraJ and at _Jo allow potential petitioners time to 1993, which was filed with the the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in intervene based on issues*in the fmaI Commission by Maryland Safa Energy particular. The petitioner represents the _s~_Tbe petitioner also 18CJ.Uesls a Coalition. The petition was docketed by interests of more than a hundred _change to S72.44(c)(3)(1i) tliat would the NRC on June 30, 1993, and has been signers, most of whom reside in the -require the dry stCJ?S9 ~ to be _

assigned Docket No. PRM-72-1. The vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs plant. The _monitored co~tinUCJ~,y _at the mt petitioner requests that the NRC amend petitioner alao supports the efforts of _cooling vents, since ac::cordhig fo the its regulations regarding generic issu* similar organizations in several states petitioners, the exit vents are the most related to dry cask storage. where dry cask stonge of spent fuel is likely location of radioec:tive YaDting.

DATES: Submit comments by November an issue. The petitionel"II request that S 72.46(d) 22, 1993. Comments received after this -be.-amended to prescribe a pen~ for a date will be considered if it is practical lleuom for the Petition notice of opportunity for a hearing or to do so but the Commission ia able to According to the petitioner, the -~titi_~n.f~r !~~ to intervene ll!ltil 90 __

assure consideration only for comments purpose of the petition is to change the oays after die final_ SER is piibllahed. In received on or before this date. rules regarding dry culc storage of spent support of this suggested amendment, ADDRESSES: Submit written comments fuel at nuclear power plant sites. 1be the petitioner states that "If a notia, of to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. petitioner ia particularly concerned opportunity for a bearing or Nuclear Regulatory Commission, about spent fuel storage at the Calvert intervention is limited to a short period Washington, OC 20555, Attention: Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, which ia after the license application, 1iilirested Docketing and Senice Branch. operated by Baltimore Gas and Electric partie~ may be PJ'8Y8Dted from obtaining Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Company (BG&E). O'ha petitioner a heanng ~ ~ the second or ftnal Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 believes that 8"8D though the spent fuel SER. Information m the latter aatet, am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays. at the Calvert Cliffs plant is stored under repo~ may impact on the adviaab1lity For a copy of the petition, write the a specific part 72 liamse, many of the of issumg _a license. The public should Rules Review and Directives Branch, generic requirements proposed by the have the nght an&!!fportunity to Division of Freedom of Information and petitioner"would be the same or similar comment of the safety an&!ysia .

Publications Services, Office of to ~e specific requiremen~ applicable =e~5~AR) and SER before a licaose 11 Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory to mde~ent spent fuel storage at The petitioner suggests a c:bange to Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Calvert Cliffs). _s 72.72(a) to require that liac:s.,.

The petition and mpies of comments received may be inspected and copied Diacuuioa _document the histmy and condition of for a fee at the NRC Public Document . all spent fuel becaUl8 defective fuel can _

The petitioner recommends that 10 _cause problems for safa storage.

room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), CJ1R 72..22(e)(2) be amended to require In S 72.104(a), the petitioner believes Washington, OC. an application fer a liamse to "store -- tliat the radiation liniit should be based FOR RJRTHER INFORMATION CONrACT: ispent fuel to specify the planned life of - 00 a dose to a mmmally expoied Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules Review Section, Rules Review and Directives

!Jie independent spent f u e l ~ -individual at the perimeter of the

!_nstallation .CISFSI). The petitioner controlled area and that the possibility Branch, Division of Freedom of ~rts that 1f ~e storage of spent fuel -of a pregnant person :~oiling and/or Information and Publications Services, *! temporary, *~ follows _that the planned living at the perimeter. ~ould be a Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear life bu a definite duration. The *safety assumption for setting radiation Regulatory Commission. Washington, petitioner ~ e r states that liC8DS86s _limits. According to the petitioner, DC 20555, Telephone: 301-492-7758 or should be required to state the length of recent studies have shown that women, Toll Free: 800-368-5642. time th_at each storage can~~ and/or children, and fetuses are especially SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ca~ will be u~ed. The petitioner also sensitive to radiation damage. The behaves that, 1D the llbsence of a stated petitioner also states that the National Background _lifetime, it should not be aasumed that Academy of Science's Committee cm the The Nuclear Regulatory c.ommission's _the storage is temporlll)'. The petitioner Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation regulations contained in 10 CFR part 72 indicates _that any storage wh:fch mi~ cited a report in 1990 by Dr**Alica provide licensing requirements for the become e1~r permanent or mdefiajta Steward that established a direct independent storage of spent nuclear would reqwre additional regulatory correlation of childhood canCSJ"II and fuel and high-level radioactive waste. In control - . leukemias with background levels of particular, subpart K to part 72 provides The petitioner sugests a change to gamma radiation from natural and man-a general license for storage of spent fuel S 72.22(e)(3) because the petitioner made sources in England, Wales, and to nuclear power reactor licensees, and ~lieves that the NRC should not Scotland. The cumulative outdoor doses subpart L sets forth procedures and assume that removal of nuclear waste, due to this source during fetal life criteria for approval of storage caslca for including spent fuel from a reactor site, varied between only 10 and 40 the storage of spent fuel under the is the safest policy. 1be petitioner millirads, with an average of22 general license provided in subpart K. further states that the lack of a national millirads. According to the petitioners, waste repository or monitored this study indicates that the standards The Petitioner retrievable storage installation (MRS) set for exposure of adults to low-level On June 30, 1993, the Maryland Safe and the hazards of transporting high- radiation are too high for the developing E."lergy Coalition filed a request for level nuclear waste may make a fetus.

47224 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 8, 1993 / Proposed Rules The Suggested Amendmeob ACT10N: Notice of proposed rulemaking environmental, and energy aspects of The petitioner requests that the NRC (NPRM). the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before amend 10 GFR Part 72 to read as

SUMMARY

This documen~f::poses the and after the closing date for comments, follows: adoption of a new airwo

• ess in the Rules Docket for examination by

1. In § 72.22(e)(2), add "Specify the directive (AD) that is applicable to

• interested persona. A report planned life of the ISFSI." certain Boeing Model 747-100, -200,

2. In § 72.22(e)(3), change "after the summarizing each FAA-public contact

-300, and -400 series airplanes. This concerned with the substance of this removal of spent fuel and/or high-level proposal would require various proposal will be filed in the Rules radioactive waste" to "if the spent fuel modifications of certain evacuation and/or the high-level radioactive waste DockeL ramp/slides. This proposal is prompted Commenters wishing the FAA to is removed." by reports of several evacuation ramp/ acknowledge receipt of their comments

3. In § 72.42, add a new paragraph (d) slide malfunctions. The actions submitted in response to this notice to read "No license will be issued before specified by the proposed AD are must submit a self-addressed, stamped 90 days after the final safety evaluation intended to prevent delayed inflation of postcard on which the following report (SER) is published."

• evacuation ramp/slides, which could statement is made: "Comments to

4. In§ 72.44(c)(3), add paragraph (v) delay or impede the evacuation of Docket Number 93-NM-106-AD." The to read "dry storage casks must be passengers during an emergency. postcard will be date stamped and monitored continuously for DATES: Comments must be received by returned to the commenter.

radioactivity at the exit cooling vents." November 2, 1993.

5. In § 72.46(d), add "The time ADDRESSES: Submit comments in Availability of NPKMa prescribed for a notice of opportunity triplicate to the Federal Aviation Any person may obtain a copy of this for a hearing or petition for leave to Administration (FAA), Transport NPRM by submitting a request to the intervene will extend from the notice of Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, proposed.a;tion through 90 days after Attention: Rules Docket No. 93-NM- ANM-103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

the final SER is published." 106-AD, 1601 Und Avenue SW., 93-NM-106-AD, 1601 Und Avenue

6. In § 72.72(a), add after the first Renton, Washington 98055-4056. SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.

sentence "The records must include the Comments may l:,e inspected at this history and condition of all spent fuel Diacuuion location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.,

assemblies including a description of Monday through Friday, except Federal The FAA has received reports that the any defective fuel, such as fuel that is holidays. door 3 evacuation ramp/slide installed cracked, swollen, blistered, pinholed, or on certain Boeing Model 747-100, -200, offgassing." The service information referenced in -300, and -400 series airplanes failed to

7. In § 72.104(a) in place of "real" put the proposed rule may be obtained from inflate automatically when the door was "maximally exposed"; after the BFGoodrich Company, Aircraft opened. In other instances, the door 3 "individual" add "or fetus"; change "25 Evacuation Systems, Sustaining ramp/slide deployed into (or on top of) mrem" to "5 mrem": change "75 mrem" Engineering, D/7916, Phoenix, AZ the door 4 slide/raft. Other reports to "15 mrem"; and change "25 mrem" 85040. This information may be indicate that the ramp/slide deployment to "5 mrem". The sentence will then examined at the FAA. Transport indicator tube caught under the door 4 read, ". . . dose equivalent to any Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue slide/raft, preventing the indicator tube mµimally exposed individual or fetus SW., Renton, Washington. from being visible from the door 3 exit.

who is located beyond the controlled FOR RJATHER INFORMATION CONTACT: These conditions, if not corrected, could area must not exceed 5 mrem to the Andrew Gfrerer, Aerospace Engineer, result in delayed inflation of evacuation whole body, 15 mrem to the thyroid and Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM- ramp/slides, whipi could delay or 5 mrem to any other organ. * . ." 131L. FAA, Transport Airplane impede the evacuation of passengers Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft during an emergency.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, thil 1st day Certification Office, 3229 East Spring of September. 1993. The FAA has reviewed and approved Street, Long Beach, California 90806- BFGoodrich Service Bulletin 7A1418-For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2425: telephone (310) 988-5338; fax 25-253, dated April 28 1993, that Samuel J. Culk. (310) 988-5210. describes procedures for various Secretary of the Commission. modifications of certain evacuation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

(FR Doc. 93-21822 Filed 9-7-93; 8:45 am) ramp/slides. Those modifications are NJJNG cooe: 7'IIO-Ot~ C.Ommenb Invited described as follows:

Interested persona are invited to 1. Modifying certain reservoir participate in the making of the assemblies to another configuration by DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION proposed rule by submitting such replacing the currently-installed written data, views, or arguments as actuator. Accomplishment of this Federal Aviation Admlnlatratlon they may desire. Communications shall modification will prevent the door 3 identify the Rules Docket number and evacuation ramp/slide from failing to 14 CFR Part 39 be submitted in triplicate to the address inflate automatically when the door is specified above. All communications opened.

[Dodcet No. 93-N~106-ADJ 2. Modifying the inflatable assembly received on or before the closing date Airworthiness Directive*; Boeing for comments, specified above, will be by installing a picture frame pre-form Model 747-100,-200,-300, and -400 considered before taking action on the between the toe support bag and the Series Airplanes Equipped With proposed rule. The proposals contained inflatable bottom ply: adding a velcro BFGoodrtch Evacuation Ramp/Slide* in this notice may be changed in light hook patch and a velcro pile patch to of the commenb received. the toe support bag: adding a AGENCY: Federal Aviation Comments are specifically invited on deployment indicator tube support Administration, DOT. the overall regulatory, economic, strap: modifying the bottle bag: and

48004 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

(!~

==========================~=1 removing "25" and adding "100' .. in.its. the opportunity to obtain a greater ACTION: Proposed rule~

place; and tho third sentence would be understanding of lhe proposed rule and removed. its implications."

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory The Commission's intention Commission (NRC) proposes to amend

§ ~.404 (Amended) underlying the proposed rule, as its regulations to revise licensee

3. In § 92.404, paragraph (a)(4)(i), the explained' in the notice of proposed reporting, requirements regarding the second sentence would be amended by rulemaking. is. to make procedural notification of events related to removing **2s" and' adding "t 00,. in its changes that are essentially radiation* safety*at' Ihdependent Spent place; andit-h&l*h ird sentence*would be* administrative in nature; the>pmposed, Fuel' Storage Iilstal1ations (ISFSis)*and E removed. changes would.not affecl. tlle-acope of Monitored Retrieval'>la. Stora~

NRC.site-specific.niviews.011 dlanp: Installation. (MRS)_ This.action. will'

§ 92.504 [Amended) ensure that si(Dificant, oc:cummces al:

• current public bearingopportunitiee..

4'. lni §.9Z;~ paragraph (a)(4)(ik die second sentence* wouJd be amended 1 by or Therefore,it would be- ~r.ticular. these licensed facilities are promptly, interest fcu: NRC.to-undanstand, fully, the* reported to NRC so that the. Commi.ssior removing* '"'25" and: adding "too*~ in, its can evafuate whether tlie ficensee has basis for public.comment& that appau to place; and the third!senfence would;be, taken appropriat&.actions: to; protect th_e suggest (as.indicated.bJ tha-above-removed: quoted. cmnment,J:thcrproposed. rule, pubfic health and safety and whether Donlfin Washington.DC; this 3rd day of would aduallJ do the,cant.Rll!J~ prompt NR action* is nec:essmy to September. Accordinpy,, the-Commisaian, fincla.that address generic safety concerns.

Patricia. A. fema. it is raasonable,toexteoa&herpublic:: DATES: The comment periad.axpiru, Deputy Assistallt Secretary, Marlceting aad' comment period,45-da,-.to,Octabar t,., November 29. 1993. Comments receivec Inspection Services. ll993,.. in, ordn t0oallow all interasted- after this date will be considered if it is IFRDoc. 93-22423 Filed 9--13-93 ~8:45 aml: pemons:adequata. time fuUl" to*pnmde practical to do so, buf dnJ Commission IIIUING ~ ~~ their v-iews. is able. to. assure. consideration only for DATES: Tha*comment period bas;been: co - .this.

extendedancinowupiNs.©c::tlXNIII t... ate. ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 1993~ti:ommentlsnicaiwci'aftw-this.da ADDRESSES:: Mail Wllitten commu~ ~

COMMISSION will ba:considendifl itis:pracdcal!toi Secretary, U.S. Nu<<lilarReguiatmy, so*.but thBiCoramissiOIII iaaMe;to .... Commission, Washington.. 0C., l055 10 CFR Parts 2 and 72 considemtim oal¥ for*mmmants Attention.:. Docbting. an.c!Senice.

RJN:3:16CJ:-AEM recai.ved ma; OStbelmw-lfli*date. Branch..C.Orornaots ID8)! ba.ciali~11Hi t .

ADDRESSES: Submit comments tet* One Wbita Flli1t. ~ U555. R.cxtkville Interim. Storage,of Spent Fuel In*an, Secretary, U:5. N\adear Regulatory Pib*.Rocbille., MD,. 20852..between*

lndepeAdent-.Spent, Fuel*Storage- Commission-, Washiilgtotr. EC 205SS~ 7:45 am and 4:15. pm on.Federal lnstallaUon;. SiaSpec:ffic:. Ucanse,to a. A TFN~ EJoclceting, ancf Serwia,s Branch*. woi:xdaJs..

QuaUfiecl.Appllcant- RaN deliver COIIIIIHllltlt b ' usss, Copfes oftlur.draft ragµlatory analysis.

R/ot:irilli,* PHr:e*.Rbcbftle; Maryland! the finamg,ebo.sfgnificant impaa.. the AGENCY: Nuclear Regµlator, Commission,. between* 7:45* *.m. ancf 4':1'5- p.nr. Fed supporting.statement suhmitteci to.

OMlr.,and' comm&Dt:& rearind may '6e.

workuys.

• AC110N::l?ru{losed*i:ula;, Extension. 0£ Cilpiea-efeomment*inay,&.anmmad examined:at: 'Ifle,NRCP'ufilic Ilocument public.- comment perioL at the ~ -P'nblf1t Doeumentt Room~ Room.ZllO'L Street NW:. (Lower Lave.IT.

SUMMARY

-On fune-3; 1993'(SB' FR' 2120 L-Slreeti. NW. ({.owerl!.Pelf. Washington, DC:

31478), the Nuclear Regulatory WashingtoIT, DC in* the; lbwer-level of"th FOR' FUATHElf lNPOfUIAT10ft CONTACT:

Commissioir (NRQ published for public Gelman- Buildin~ Naiem s: Tanious, Offia,-ofNucfear*

comment a.proposed rule to.amend.its FOR*,URnfER'INFORMaflON'CONTACT:*C: Regulatory Research, U$. Nucl'ear*

procedures under which the Director of. William. Reamer, Offica*of tlie General' Regulatory*E:ammission~ Washiogn:,n..

Nuclear Materials Safety and* Safeguards Counsel~ u~s. Nuclear Regulatory . 5_ .

can issue a site-specific lfcense to a Commission; Wasnington, DC20555; SUPPLEIIENTAlnINFORIIATION:.

qualified appli'cant forrt.lie* interim. Telephone: (301') 504-18'40:

storage of spent fuel in.an- ind'epeod8Jlt DatedatRockville,.Mar.yland.,this ath.daY,,

Background, spent fuel storage installation (ISFSIJ of September, 1993. C!>n Augusf 1'6i 1991' (5& P1U8~57):

following satisfadoey, completiou of. For*the Nuclear Regulatory O>mmiilsiim. the,NR(!; unandecf its regulations in NRC safety*and.emrimmnental; rniewg, s.mue1 r. Cwk. Title 10. Cod& of FederM: Regufations and after. an¥' public.heuing: on, the: Seaet,uyofthe.ommiBsiasr.. (10,CFRJ. parts zo~ 30, 40'; and- 7-CHo appltation.. T.hecmnmentt perioci1far. (FR Doc. 93-2*2389-Filad 9-13-93; 8:45,aml' bette11 describe thosa:eventl'thatmust be this proposed r.w.r.was:to*have- expired, BIU;ING* cooa ,........_, reported* to-the NRC&ec:ause they pose on August 11".. 1993'. a bazardtoipublic*healtli anchafety*or Th8'Commission,received* a ~int the environment. These*new* reporting request from three organizations, requirements- covered die following' requesting; the Commisaion* to*extend: areas: Inability*tu-control: Jicansed' the puolie comment' period~ The* joint material, unphmnedicontlminat:ion request states. in pertinent part that events, failure of safety equipment',

Notfflcatlon.of Events at Independent'

"[t)he,proposed'rule appears*- to m per.ionelinju.ry even~ and fires* and Spent Fuef Storage lns1allatlon* and' the opportunity for site-specifier the MonltoNd:Aetrtevable*Stonlge explosions.

and judicial' review more remote* Installation* Public-comments reGeived* wb.en* the now is. We.and severaLor.g_anim amendments. wenr proposed: suggested concemed. about the. trend, ta long- AGENCX: Nudeu Regula~ that part 72.alsa.be*amended to,nK\µire term,~ sOlrag_e-at; readoi:s. wow .

• Commission.. notification of eveots:at ISFSI& and the*

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday. September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48005 MRS. The NRC responded that it would commercial power reactor licensees for includes the special nuclear material, consider the suggestion and initiate activities licensed under part 72; the byproduct material, source material, and rulemak.ing to amend part 72. if amendments also apply to research and other radioactive materials associated appropriate. In considering the test reactor licensees possessing with fuel assemblies), or high-level suggestion. the NRC reviewed the event material licensed under part 72 who are radioactive waste (HLW) , rests with the reporting requirements imposed on part not subject *10 the notification licensee. It is important that the NRC 72 licensees and found that, except for requirements in § 50.72. ~r simplicity. immediately receive reports of events criticality. part 72 itself contains no a nuclear power plant licensee who that prevent the licensee from reporting requirements for the types or 1iolds both art 50 and art 72 licenses performing immediate actions necessary events covered by the recent amendments to parts 30, 40, and 70.

Furthermore, among the six existing

~ ~oror:~:armvu:tr:tm1! 6oili the reactor and the ISFSL Furthermore, to maintain control of spent fuel or HLW and from protecting the public.

Licensees will need to exercise some part 72 licensees. the reporting liie licensee would not necessarily make judgment in determining when events requirements (imposed by license any changes to comply with the require immediate NRC notification.

conditions) were not consistent. requirements of this rule if the reporting After an event has been discovered, the Therefore, the NRC has now decided requirements in the technical licensee must determine what that it is desirable to proceed with

• specifications for ISFSI would be at immediate actions are necessary to: (1) amending part 72. least as stringent as the reporting Maintain and verify control of all spent requirements proposed for part 72. fuel or HLW involved and (2) avoid Discussion If. as NRC now intends, this proposed exposures to radiation or radioactive The event reporting requirements rule becomes final, conforming license materials that could exceed regulatory which are the subject of this proposed amendments may be issued by the NRC limits, or to releases of spent fuel and rulemaking are similar to those added to to resolve any remaining conflicts HLW that could exceed regulatory parts 30, 40, and 70. The NRC believes between the newly promulgated rule limits. Events may include fires, that the proposed requirements more and existing license conditions. If explosions, toxic gas releases. natural accurately describe events that must be confonning license amendments are phenomena that can cause damage such reported to the NRC because they affect required, the NRC intends to issue these as tomados. and earthquakes, etc. An the health and safety of the public and amendments on its own initiative immediate NRC notification would be the environment. without a formal submittal from the . required if the event prevented the The intent of event reporting licensee requesting the amendments. licensee from performing any of those requirements is to require timely The NRC specifically requests public actions, regardless of the duration of the notification (either immediately or comments on (1) the completeness of event.

within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, depending on severity) these reporting requirements, (2) the The NRC expects licensees to report

' to the NRC of events that could require number of reports that licensees expect as soon as possible any event where prompt action by the NRC to protect might be generated yearly, (3) how to personnel normally able to take an public health and safety or the minimize reports of events that do not immediate action are somehow environment. Events that may require require a prompt NRC response without prevented from taking the action. An notification include personal injuries. excluding any events that do require - immediate action is an initial action fires, explosions, toxic gas releases, prompt NRC actions, and (4) events that taken after a hazardous situation is tomados, etc. Prompt NRC actions may would require prompt NRC actions but identified to minimize exposures to include evaluating the potential hazards are not covered under the proposed radiation or radioactive materials, or to and corrective actions being taken by amendments. minimize releases of radioactive the licensee, issuing immediate For purposes of Section 223 of the materials. Immediate adions would warnings of generic hazards to other Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, normally be taken within 15 minutes of licensees, communicating with other concerning violations under identifying the hazard. The NRC does Federal and State organizations, circumstances set forth in that section. not expect immediate reports of normal activating the NRC incident response the amendments are proposed for delays associated with sounding alarms center, or dispatching a response team issuance under Sections 16th, 161i, or and responding to the site of the to the site of the event. 16to of the Act. emergency. However, if alarms cannot With one exception (i.e., GE Morris), be sounded or personnel cannot ISFSis currently licensed under Part 72 A . Immediate Notification respond. an immediate report (within 4 are located at commercial power reactor

• A period of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> would be the hours) would be required. A normal sites. and those reactor licensees are *' maximum time allowed for "immediate delay in responding to an event such as already subject to event reporting notification" by part 72 licensees. It is the time to drive to the site or the time requirements under 10 Q"R 50.72 as intended that licensees will notify the

• to call the fire department would not be well as, in some cases, under part 72 NRC of events requiring immediate reportable. However. once responders license conditions. The proposed notification, as described below, as soon are available and able to do the job, any amendments would therefore achieve as possible, but in no case later than additional delay would be reportable.

consistent event reporting requirements four hours after discovery of the event. Examples of cases where an for ISFSis and an MRS with very little The proposed "immediate notification" immediate report would be required practical impact on current part 72 requirements are consistent with the include: A toxic gas leak near an licensees. immediate notification requirements operation that prevents workers from To avoid conflicts, the proposed specified in§ 50.72 for power reactors. immediately reducing a high radiation amendments do not apply to licensee field around the leak; a fire that events subject to the reporting Control of Spent Fuel or High-Level prevents workers from immediately requirements in 10 CFR § 50.72 by Radioactive Waste securing a ventilation system to stop a virtue of license conditions included in The primary responsibility for release of airborne radioactive material their part 72 licenses. However, these controlling spent nuclear fuel (as exceeding regulatory limits; and a amendments would otherwise apply to defmed in 10 CFR 72.3, spent fuel collapsed ceiling from an explosion that

48006 Federal Register /' Vol. 58, No. 176 I Tuesday, September 1'4, 1993 / Proposed Rule~

prevents workers from immediately contamination and to*perfonn any any releases thar may have occurred.

closing*a valve to stop a release of necessary decontamination~ Prompt Prompt action may be required to ver radioactive material exceeding action-may also berequired to survey results and radiological centre regulatmy* limits. investigate the cause of the injury and for recovery efforts. In the event of a f to prevent additional contamination or explosion, an. immediate report Power Reactors Using Storage Casks problems. Ifwithin*4 hours*of would be required if licensee. personr Pursuant to*§. 72-.l16(c). as propose¢ discovering the personal iµjury event or firefighters were prevented by*

reporting requirements*would be:added the lieensee has not* verified- whether the radiation hazards or other conditions.

by this proposed rule*iA§12.75 (a){.2). individual receiving medical treatment from performing.immediate msponse and (a)(J).fo*conr*power reactors was contaminated. thtt. licensee- is actions that the),! would: normall)t be licensed undec put SO-who are*also* expected:to-act conservatively md* able to perform. However. ifno.

usintt fuel storage easies. under * *general report*th*event. immediate response actions were, lic;:enS& issued.under § 7-2.210' (Subpart The*requirement tttreport personal prevented~ but them was damage that K-Genenr:l license, for Storage of Spent injury events isbeing*proposed as an affected the integrity. of the spent fuel Fuel at Power*Reac::tor*Sites)~ These. immediate report rather thm*the 24 HLW or its container, an immediate ISFSI general licensees: antrequ~d*by hours reporting 19quirement established report would still be required. lfwith

§ 12.216 and S sa72(b)(.2)(vii1m. report

• in pan 30, 40-, and 10 to-make-the* 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of discovering the, fu:e or immediately. but: not later fhan,4* h ~ proposed: f9C{Uirement consistent with* explosion the licensee has not verifi.e-any ciefect in1aspent fuel storag1rcask S S0.72tb)f2){vi which* n,quires a-4' hour struaure-.. syetem. oc mmponent which.

whether any reportable damage-n,pcnt from power reactors. /cs-stated oc:curred. the licensee ia expected ta. ,

is important to,salety-. or a significant. earlier; most faanues Deensed under CODSe1:Vatively1 aad reportthe:nent..

reduction: in,theeflet:tiveness 0£ any part 72*are located' at' power reacl'Or*

spent fuel storage.cask confinement. sites, and; event repertmg* liubeen* 8; 24'-Hour Notifi.cation system. Addia~ these requirements* to incor-porated*into the adbriilistratiw the new &ec?:tiODt P2.75o will.establish Contamination Events proced\ulas.for di*power reactors. &*a muistent.s:eper.ting;reqairements resuit,.those part T-Z facilities:woufd The proposed.rule*wt,uld1require.

amoeg all licensees:using. spent fuel- alr.eady, l'&pOl:t pel'SCJIUlll lnjury events* licensees.to. notify the NR<!: within, ~

storagJt caskL. within*+ hours. The-NRC'.ls propesfng: hours of discovering any unpwmed A repollting-,req_uirement is: being: to make this coD&isblnC 'M11i- part: 50*

proposed.in, S,,72.75(a)(4-) t,o.eovu contamination* event* that n,qawas '

becaua-mosc ~ 12 fam-1fti*are-

• to the cont.amioatad:arN. bywarieer.f]

immediate,actiona:needed to-protea the. ~sel7*asaaciated watl- power-reactors. the public, to-be:restrided formare:tl public health and safety talcen in an. As f01t199881'Ch and test reactors;. which* 24- hours-through- tba*impomfumof 1 emm:geng that deput &om, a.liamse will be coventet-by-thi:::r= rule, additional radiological- ccmtrols m condition, or.a: tacluaical specification:. thear.ant=n~lic:8D&Ni 'undarpart rro combat a fire. mroampia the. prohibiting entrJ inlD thelll'8&.lf a. 1 72 IDthese*nenpc..+81 wtuts-for* licensee discuYem that 11111araahas:

licensee ~tab*mea.smes:tbatia..- not normall:,*&Hawed by. tfae liamsa)*lllus:

inaepmdaot storage of tlmiil'apen.f fuel!.

1ihe1 NRChelievea taat tfte,.fmpad' of.'tliiil unexpectedly.bean, CPotarninatail witl licensed: mlll'el:iah.. the NRC c,q-i ts If propesed recpiiramant isbasaci CD requialmftc oo part n .ftn::imi. .wiim* licenwt: tu, impose*appaoptidt9iamtr.l existing.~.mputs: m:a:natloca11td at powwNHtoraftes: to,keep uposums.md rtn88.S89 uhn.

S0.7l{bitll)(i,)£B): and 5.a.54{x):. &idmg. (i..c.,a:E.lr,lmuJ will,b,i,miaiiDal 18880oably acbtnahie (:Al.A.IM)i 'IDffl" this Npmtmg:requinrmant bJ. §. 72:.:1$.

the*m,a.can bltdeamtamimrtact.. lf. I will ensm:a: thmi such reports.will sti1t h6 Fires and' Explosions controls beJamii those requil8d1 befar requii'ed: .i:f tha part 50 llama is A new 1'11Cp1immmtwoulcl be;acldadi terminated and: th* ISFSI.contfnues to, 111por.t u sOOD. u.poaaibllr bat.not the contamination, even~ ocr:urred: arrj openrti:on 1111d.ar*aspeci"icput n later than 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> afterdia:ovar.iilgany necessary far mG1111tlnm 2>t hmu:s; ..-

license~ fint*orexplosion. thatdunages:apant fuel report wouid:b<<zaqun,ad- 1 or HLW. or an.y*deri*.cantainer, ar* Safety EqJ.upment Related E"vents 1 Personal IRjury E"vents equipmeat thatccmtama*apant.fuel or A requirement would be-added: f01t HLW. These events must.t>>naluated. A reporting requirement would be licensees tampon as soon as possibla. promptly to minimize an.)' spread of added' for licensaes*to report wi~n *1 but not laa than 4! hours.aiter' contamination and' to datermine the hOW'S'ofdiscoverin-gany eventm wr discov.aring any* e.wnt that mcprires: perfoima.,.ce.ofshieldiilg and other equipment is disabled*odails.to 1 uaplannedi medical tmatment at ai faatures:designecf. to-cmtroli spent fuel, function*as designed*if.(l}'the medkalfacwty o£an indmdual with or HI:.W~ Fires as upleaions that equipmentfneqnirecf by regµlittion I radioadiwe amtaminatiaD oa the damags. spent fuellCR"IO.W &N-of. license condition to- prevent refeases indi-vidual,'s, dothmg: or body, wlifchi particwar. aignilicance1beauee-they am exposurenxceeding.regulatory limi*1 could C8US8' ntrther. contamination. cause radioacti:ve*materials te>be or to mitigate the c:onsequencesohr Theae*eveats. am sip.incant because: relea&lld;..generate-aiJbome.redloactive accid'ent:*(*2 )'the equipment is req_uir they may (l)'indicat&physical,safety- contamination~ and *genarate- to-be*available and operable when ill problems. in a, licensed operation., (2): cootaminated*runoff from waten1sed1to* disabled or fiu1s;- and (3) no redundaj risk intemal c:ontamination-through extinguish: fires. A seamd*notification is* equipment Is available and'operable j open wounds*.anct. ca, expose medical not raquired. if &JJ. immediate, perfonn the required safety functionJ personnel:t,o;radiationan<i* no1ification* was made, fm-a fin, or when the failure. occurs. This repo~

contamination:.. explosion that prevent.ed.immediata requirement includes equipme~t* fail This: inimmatiOD'.is: necasary, to, response actions (see the:di8CUSSion. equipment damage,.and. procedural_

provide the basia;fur an:independent above for control of spent fuel or 1-ll.W). errors which -::ause equipmenrto.fa!i determination, b.ythe: NRC. that This information is*necesaary*to. be disabled; NRCmust be awam.of '1 appropriata*am"'ons-:have: been. taken: assure the*NRC that*appropriate*actions* events to identify potential safety botAi to,conuoiJ the spn,adl of have beell' taken*te-detec:t aud control* hazards and to ensure that the llcen:

j Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48007 takes appropriate actions to protect Applicability of the Rule Regulatory Analysis workers and the public.

Licensees will need to exercise some The NRC believes that the proposed The Commission has prepared a draft judgment in determining when an event rule will have little or no impact on regulatory analysis on this proposed requires a 24-hour NRC notification. current part 72 licensees. The proposed regulation. The analysis examines the First, thelicensee must determine rule would not apply to power reactor costs and benefits of the alternatives whether the inoperable equipment was licensees who do not store spent fuel considered by the Commission. The required by regulation or license under a part 72 license. The rule would draft analysis is available for inspection condition to prevent releases or apply to research and test reactor in the NRC Public Document Room, overexposures exceeding regulatory licensees possessing spent fuel under a 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level).

limits, or mitigate the consequences of part 72 license, and not subject to the Washington. DC. Single copies of the an accident. Second, the licensee must notification requirements in § 50.72. draft analysis may be obtained from determine whether the function of the However, at the present time there are Naiem S. Tanious, telephone (301) 492-equipment, or the availability of the no part 72 licenses issued to research or 3878. The Commission requests public function was needed when the test reactor licensees. With one comments on the draft regulatory equipment was disabled or failed to exception (i.e., General Electric, Morris, analysis. Comments on the draft function. A 24-hour notification is not IL), all current part 72 specific licensees analysis may be submitted to the NRC required under this requirement if are ISFSis operated by nuclear power as indicated under the ADDRESSES

• neither the function nor its availability plants holding part 50 licenses. All of heading.

was required when the equipment was these power plants have incorporated inoperable. Third, the licensee must their ISFSI into the reactor ltegulatory Flexibility Certification determine whether redundant administrative procedwes which equipment was operable and available The NRC has prepared a draft include reporting procedures subject to regulatory analysis of the impact of this to perform the required safety function. the requiremenm in § 50.72. Therefore, The accident consequences to be proposed rule on small entities. The the proposed rule would have no impact mitigated by the equipment include draft analysis indicates that the on these .ISFSis.

major property damage, widespread proposed rule is estimated to have no contamination of uncontrolled areas, or Environmental Impact: Categorical significant economic impact on part 72 fatalities or serious injuries requiring Exclusion licensees, because the estimated cost to medical treatmenL industry of reporting postulated events The following are examples of events The NRC has determined that this would be in the range of S0-21 lZ that would require a 24-hour NRC proposed rule is the type of action annually. Moreover, none of the current notification: described in the categorical exclusion part 72 licensees are considered small (1) Damage to a filtered ventilation 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)(iii). Therefore, entities. The proposed rule would apply system, required by regulation or license neither an environmental impact to research and test reactors who are condition, that permits effluent air to statement nor an environmental small entities, should they choose to bypass filters during operations. This assessment has been prepared for this store spent fuel under a part 72 license.

bypass could result in either releases regulation. However none of these are part 72 that exceed regulatory 1imits or Paperwork Reduction Act Statement licensees at present. In any case, no exposure of personnel to levels of report would be required of licensees airborne radioactive material that This proposed rule amends unless there is an incident involving exceed regulatory limits. information collection requirements that spent fuel or HLW that meets the (2) Failure of equipment or shielding are subject to the Paperwork Reduction aiteria specified in the proposed materials required by regulation or Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). amendments. Hence, the impact on part license condition to shield radiation This rule has been submitted to the 72 licensees should be minimal. The from spent fuel or HLW. Office of Management and Budget for , draft analysis is available for inspection (3) Failure of monitoring equipment review and approval of the paperwork in the NRC Public Document Room, required by regulation or license requirements. 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),

condition to verify that safe criticality Washington, DC. Single copies of the The public reporting burden for this conditions exist while spent fuel collection of information is estimated to draft analysis may be obtained from bundles are being moved in a pool.

This information is necessary to average 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> per response, including Naiem S. Tanious, telephone (301) 492-the time for reviewing instructions, 3878.

assure the NRC that when the function of required safety equipment bas been searching existing data sources, Backfit Analysis lost, the licensee has taken appropriate gathering and maintaining the data action to compensate for the lost safety needed, and completing and reviewing The NRC has determined that the function or to eliminate the hazard the collection of information. Send backlit rule 10 CFR 50.109, does not requiring the safety function. comments regarding this burden apply to this proposed rule because estimate or any other aspect of this these amendments do not involve any Written Reports collection of information, including provisions which would impose bacltfits The proposed rule would require a ~uggestions for reducing the burden, to on licensees as defined in§ 50.109(a)(1).

written report within 30 days of any the Information and Records Also, the NRC has determined that immediate or 24-hour notification. Management Branch (MNBB-7714), bad.fitting requirements in § 72.6Z do Written reports prepared pursuant to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, not apply to this proposed rule because other regulations may be submitted to Washington, DC 20555; and to the Desk the proposed event reporting fulfill this requirement if the report Officer. Office of Information and requirements are not procedures contains all of the necessary information Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019 (3150- required to operate an I~FSI or MRS.

and the appropriate distribution is 0132), Office of Management and Therefore a backlit analysis is not made. Budget, Washington, DC 20503. required.

48008 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 I Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules Lisi of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72 (1) An event that prevents immediate (1) Licensees shall make reports actions necessary to avoid exposures to required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of Manpower training programs. Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and radiation or radioactive materials that this section by telephone to the NRC health, Reporting and recordkeeping could exceed regulatory limits. or Operations Center.2 To the extent that requirements, Security measures. Spent releases of radioactive materials that the information is available at the time fuel. could exceed regulatory limits (events of notification. the information provided may include fires. explosions. toxic gas on these reports must include:

For the reasons set out in the releases. etc.). (i) The caller's name and call back preamble and under the authority of the (2) A defect in any spent fuel storage telephone number:

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; structure, system, or component which (ii) A description of the event .

• the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, is important to safety.

as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy including date and time; (3) A significant reduction in the (iii) The exact location of the event; Act of 1982. as amended; and 5 U.S.C. effectiveness of any spent fuel storage (iv) The quantities. and chemical and 553, the Commission is proposing to confinement system during use.

adopt the following amendments to 10 physical form of the spent fuel or HLW (4) An action taken in an emergency involv_ed; and CTR part 72. that departs from a license condition or (v) Any personnel radiation exposure PART 72-UCENSING a technical specification contained in a data available. .

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE license issued under this part when the (2) Written report. Each licensee who INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT action is immediately needed to protect makes a report required by paragraph (a)

NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL the public health and safety and no or (b)* of this section shall submit a RADIOACTIVE WASTE action consistent with license written follow-up report within 30 days conditions and technical specifications of the initial report. Written reports

1. The authority citation for Part 72 is that can provide adequate or equivalent prepared pursuant to other regulations revised to read as follows: protection is immediately apparenL may be submitted to fulfill this Authority: Secs. St, 53. 57. 62, 63. 65, 69. (5) An event that requires unplanned requirement if the reports contain all of 81, 161, 182. 183/184, 186, 187,189.68 Stat. medical treatment at a medical facility the necessary information and the 929.930,932,933,934.935.948,953.954, of an individual with radioactive appropriate distribution is made. These 955, as amended. sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as contamination on the individual's written reports must be sent to the U.S.

amended (42 U.S.C. 2071. 2073, 2077. 2092. clothing or body which could cause Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2093.2095,2099.2111,2201.2232,2233. further radioactive contamination. Document Control Desk. Washington.

2234. 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. (6) An unplanned fire or explosion OC. 20555, with a copy to the L.86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended. 202. 206, damaging any spent fuel or HLW, or any appropriate NRC Regional Office listed 88 Stat. 1242, as amended. 1244, 1246 (42 device. container, or equipment in Appendix D of 10 CTR part 20. The U.S.C. 5841. 5842, 5846); Pub. L 9s-601, sec. containing spent fuel or HLW when the reports must include the following:

to. 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102. damage affects the integrity of the (i) A description of the event, Pub. L 91-190, 83 Stal 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); material or its container. including the probable cause and the Secs. 131,132.133,135, 137.141.Pub.L (b) Twenty-four hour report. Each manufacturer and model number (if 97--425, 96 Stat. 2229. 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. licensee shall notify the NRC within 24 applicable) of any equipment that failec 148. Pub. L 100-203. 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 hours after the discovery of any of the or malfunctioned; u.s.c. 10151, 10152, 10153. 10155, 10157, following events involving spent fuel or (ii) The exact location of the event; 10161. 10168). HLW:

Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. (iii) Quantities, and chemical and 142(bl and 148(c), (d). Pub. L. 100-203, 101 (1) Any unplanned contamination physical form of the spent fuel or HLW Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. event that requires access to the involved; 10162(b). t0t68(c), (dl). Section 72.46 also contaminated area by workers or the (iv) Date and time of the event; issued under sec 189. 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. public to be restricted for more than 24 (v) Corrective actior.s taken or 2239): sec. 134, Pub. L 97--425, 96 Stat. 2230 hours by imposing additional planned and the results of any (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also radiological controls or by prohibiting evaluations or assessments; and issued under sec. 145 (g), Pub. L 100-203, entry into the area. (vi) The extent of exposure of 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. t0t65(g): (2) An event in which safety individuals to radiation or to radioacti-Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2). 2(15),

2(19). tt7(a), 141(h), Pub. L 97--425, 96 Stat. equipment is disabled or fails to materials without identification of 2202. 2203, 2204. 2222. 2224 (42 u.s.c. function as designed when: individuals by name.

10101. 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts Kand L (i) The equipment is required by (d) The provisions of§ 72.75 do not are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 regulation or licensee condition to apply to licensees who are required hr (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a). 96 Stal prevent releases exceeding regulatory their part 72 licenses to comply with e 2252 (42 u.s.c. 10198). limits, to prevent exposures to radiation notification requirements in§ 50.72 of

2. A new § 72.75 under subpart D- and radioactive materials exceeding this chapter. They do apply to researcl "Records. Reports, Inspections. and regulatory limits, or to mitigate the and test reactor licensees possessing 1 Enforcement"-is added to read as consequences of an accident; material licensed under part 72 who a follows: (ii) The equipment is required to be not subject to the notification available and operable when it is requirements in § 50.72.

§ 72.75 Reporting requirements for events disabled or fails to function; and 3. In§ 72.142(b) Footnote 2 is other than crttlc:aJlty. (iii) No redundant equipment is redesignated as footnote 3.

(a) Immediate report. Each licensee available and operable to perform the 4. Section 72.216 under Subpart K-shall notify the NRC as soon as possible required safety function. "Reports"-is amended by adding a but not later than 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> after the (c) Preparation and submission of new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

discovery of any of the following events reports. Reports made by licensees in or conditions involving spent fuel or response to the requirements of this JThe commercial telephone number for the N.

HLW: section must be made as follows: Operations Center is (3011951~550.

Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 176 I Tuesday. September 14. 1993 / Proposed Rules 4800~

§ 72.216 Reports Directorate. 1601 Lind Avenue. SW.* airplane between 69,000 and 83,000

• * * *

• Renton. Washington. simulated flights. Fatigue cracking, if (c) The general licensee shall comply FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: not detected and corrected in a timely with § 72.75 of this chapter according to Stephen Slotte, Aerospace Engineer. manner, could lead to rupture of the the tenns of that section. Standardization Branch. ANM-113. inner rear spar and subsequent reduced FAA. Transport Airplane Directorate. structural integrity of the wing.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland. this 27th day Airbus lndustrie has issued Service of August, 1993. 1601 Lind Avenue. SW.* Renton.

Washington 98055-4056; telephone Bulletin A320-57-1060. dated For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. December 8. 1992. that desaibes James M. Taylor. (206)227-2797;fax(206)227-1320.

procedures for perfonning a cold Executive Director for Operations. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: expansion of all the attachment holes IFR Doc. 93-22390 Filed 9-13-93: 8:45 aml Comments Invited for the forward pintle fitting of the MLG.

• LUNG CODE 751CM1..P except for the holes that are for taper-Interested persons are invited to lok bolts. The service bulletin also participate in the making of the describes p~ures for cold expansion proposed rule by submitting such of the holes that have not been DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION written data. views. or arguments as previously cold expanded at the they may desire. Communications shall actuating cylinder anchorage of the Federal Aviation Administration identify the Rules Docket number and MLG. The cold expansion increases the 14 CFR Part 39 be submitted in triplicate to the address fatigue life of the rear spar. The DGAC specified above. AU communications classified this service bulletin as (Docket No. 93-NM-130-ADJ received on or before the closing date mandatory and issued Airworthiness for comments. specified above. will be Directive 92-276-035(0), dated*

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus considered before taking action on the December 23. 1992, in order to assure lndustrie Model A320 Series Airplanes proposed rule. The proposals contained the continued airworthiness of these AGENCY: Federal Aviation in this notice may be changed in light airplanes in France.

Administration, oar; - of the comments received. This airplane model is manufactured Comments are specifically invited on in France and is type certificated for ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemalcing the overall regulatory. economic. operation in the United States under the (NPRM). environmental. and energy aspects of provisions of§ 21.29 of the Federal

SUMMARY

This document proposes the the proposed rule. All comments Aviation Regulations and the applicable adoption of a new airworthiness submitted will be available, both before bilateral airworthiness agreement.

directive (AD) that is applicable to and after the closing date*for comments. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness certain Airbus Model A320 series in the Rules Docket for examination by agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA airplanes. This proposal would require interested persons. A report informed of the situation described a cold expansion of certain attachment summarizing each FAA-public contact above. The FAA has examined the holes for the forward pintle fitting and concerned with the substance of this findings of the DGAC. reviewed all certain holes at the actuating cylinder proposal will be filed in the Rules available information. and detennined anchorage of the main landing gear Docket. that AD action is necessary for products (MLG). This proposal is prompted by Commenters wishing the FAA to of this type design that are certificated reports that. during fatigue testing, acknowledge receipt of their comments for operation in the United States.

cracking was found propagating from submitted in response to this notice Since an unsafe condition has been must submit a self-addressed, stamped identified that is likely to exist or attachment holes for the forward pintle develop on other airplanes of the same fitting of the MLG. The actions sp13cified postcard on which the following type design registered in the United by the proposed AD are intended to statement is made: '"Comments to Docket Number 93-NM-130-AD." The States, the proposed AD would require prevent fatigue cracking, which may a cold expansion of all the attachment lead to rupture of the inner rear spar postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. holes for the forward pintle fitting of the and subsequent reduced structural MLG. except for the holes that are for integrity of the wing. Availability ofNPRMs taper-lok bolts. The proposed AD would DATES: Comments must be received by Any person may obtain a copy of this also require a cold expansion of the November 8, 1993. NPRM by submitting a request to the holes that have not been previously cold ADDRESSES: Submit comments in FAA. Transport Airplane Directorate, expanded at the actuating cylinder triplicata to the Federal Aviation ANM-103, Attention: Rules Docket No. anchorage of the MLG. The actions Administration (FAA), Transport 93-NM-130-AD. 1601 Lind Avenue. would be required to be accomplished Airplane Directorate. ANM-103. SW .* Renton, Washington 98055-4056. in accordance with the service bulletin Attention: Rules Docket No. 93-NM- described previously.

130-AD. 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Discussion The FAA estimates that 5 airplanes of Renton. Washington 98055-4056. The Direction Generale de !'Aviation U.S. registry would be affected by this Comments may be inspected at this Civile (DGAC), which is the proposed AD, that it would take location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m .* airworthiness authority for France. approximately 600 work hours per Monday through Friday, except Federal recently notified the FAA that an unsafe airplane to accomplish the proposed holidays. condition may exist on certain Airbus actions, and thatthe average labor rate The service infonnation referenced in Model A320 series airplanes. The DGAC is $55 per work hour. Required parts the proposed rule may be obtained from advises that, during fatigue testing. would be provided by the manufacturer Airbus Industrie, 1 Rood Point Maurice cracking was found propagating from at no cost to the operators. Based on Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac, Cedex France. six attachment holes for the forward these figures, the total cost impact of the This information may be examined at pintle fitting of the main landing gear proposed AD on U.S. operators is the FAA, Transport Airplane . *-

(MLG). This cracking occurred on a test estimated to be $165,000, or $33,000 per

=

w WWW rm ow The University of Wisconsin System Radioactive Waste Review Board rm 3817 Mineral Point Road Madison, Wisconsin 53705-5100 (608) 263-4125 FAX (608) 262-8086

'93 NOV 19 P2 :09 November 10, 1993 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn : Docketing and Services Branch The Radioactive Waste Policy Advisory Council, created under sec.

15.917(2), Wis. Stats., to advise the Wisconsin Radioactive Waste Review Board on policy issues, has reviewed the suggested amendments to 10 CFR Part 72 submitted to the Commission by petition of the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition [Docket No. PRM-72-1]. The proposed changes were published in the Federal Register on September 8, 1993: vol. 58, no .

172, pp. 47222-47224.

Based upon review of the suggested amendments, the Council urges the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to adopt the proposed changes in 10 CFR Part 72 affecting the licensing requirements for the independent storage.

Specifically, the Council endorses the suggested amendments to NRG rules as follows:

10 CFR 72.22(e)(2) .. ...... The requested specification of the "planned life" of an ISFSI is consistent with the need for the public's complete understanding of the intended operational life of such storage facilities.

10 CFR 72.22(e)(3) ........ The requested modification is consistent with prudent waste management practice if such materials might be most safely managed in an ISFSI.

10 CFR 72.42 .............. The 90-day period between the final safety evaluation report (SER) approval and issuance of a license provides a better opportunity for final SER evaluation for all interested parties.

10 CFR 72.42(c)(3)(ii) .... The Policy Council is concerned with possible venting of radioactivity at RWRB exit cooling vents and endorses continuous radiological monitoring.

MAY,. 4 1994

• Acknowledged by card ..................".......:::;

Universities: Madison, Milwaukee, Eau Claire, Green Bay, La Crosse, Oshknsh, Parkside, Platteville, River Falls, Stevens Poinr, Stout, Superior, Whitewater.

Centers: Baraboo/Sauk County, Barron County, Fond du Lac, Fox Valley, Manitowoc County, Marathon County, Marinette County, Marshfield/Wood County, Richland, Rock County, Sheboygan County, Washington County, Waukesha County. Extension: Offices statewide.

• ~ . UCI '.::,::. ;. . , _, . GilY COMMISSION DOC*.:.,..:, : _ -* ::,rnv1CE SECTION Ot- f- Ct: o;- THE SECRETARY OF- THE COMMISSION Document Statistics f'ostmark Date J L / I b / q J Copies Rec;P,iv d _ _---, / .------

Mnl Copies Reµroduced _1_ _ _ __

f;ft; al rnstribution 14-J: I?~ jo OI( ,

10 CFR 72.46(d) .. . .. ... . .. The notice of an opportunity for a hearing or petition to intervene for 90 days after final SER publication is a positive change which permits more complete public access to the ISFSI licensing action.

10 CFR 72.72(a) ........... The request for expanded documentation of fuel history and condition is a useful, prudent amendment to existing requirements.

10 CFR 72.104(a) ..... . . . .. The reduction of maximum allowable exposure of the public to radioactivity at the control area boundary associated with the ISFSI is prudent in l ight of the r esearch r esul t s c i t ed.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and your consideration of our remarks in your rule-making process.

Sincerely,

~

Ron Vander Velden Chairman, Policy Advisory Council RVV:rmh 2

DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM ""12,; I w

WWW I WWW The University of Wisconsin System Radioactive Waste Review Board (sYF'P- '77121} '

==

---

3817 Mineral Point Road Madison, Wisconsin 53705-5100 (608) 263-4U5 FAX (608) 262-8086

• 93 NOV 15 A1 1 :Q2 November 11, 1993 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Services Board The Radioactive Waste Technical Advisory Council of the Wisconsin Radioactive Waste Review Board has reviewed the suggested amendments to 10 CFR Part 72 submitted to the Commission by petition of the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition

[Docket No. PPu¥,-72-1]. The proposed changes wera published in the Federal Register on September 8, 1993: vol. 58, no. 172, pp. 47222-47224.

Based upon review of the suggested amendments, the Council urges the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as follows:

With regard to proposed changes to 10 CFR 72.22 (e)(2), 10 CFR 72.22(e)(3), 10 CFR 72.42, 10 CFR 72.26(d), and 10 CFR 72.72(d), the Council has no comments to offer as these would appear to be po licy- oriented proposals and are not within the Council's area of expertise.

10 CFR 72.42(c)(3)(ii) ... The Council does not endorse this proposed change since there is no credible transport mechanism for radioactivity that is to be monitored at exit cooling vents. Continuous monitoring would not be useful or necessary.

10 CFR 72. 104(a) ......... The Council does not believe the research referenced is sufficient to warrant the suggested 5-fold reduction in maximum exposures at the boundary of the controlled area of an ISFS I. The substantive weight of radiological research published to date indicates that the existing limits adequately project public health and safety.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the rule changes proposed by the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition.

Sincerely, RWRB Th~2~

Chairman, Technical Advisory Council TJE:rmh CC: James Kleinhans Acknowledged by card ... ~~::.~!9!:::::

Universities: Madison, Milwaukee, Eau Claire, Green Bay, La Crosse, Oshkosh, Parkside, Platteville, River Falls, Stevens Point, Stout, Superior, Whitewater.

Centers: Baraboo/Sauk County, Barron County, Fond du Lac, Fox Valley, Manitowoc County, Marathon County, Marinette County, Marshfield/Wood County, Richland, Rock County, Sheboygan County, Washington County, Waukesha County. Extension: Offices statewide.

. .JUCLEAR fa: ,._,,..AlO~Y COMMISSION l)OCKl: 1!.*'.G .: SER/ICE SECTION OFFtCC: OF ThE SECRETARY OF THE COi,1MISSION

[)ocUment StatisticS

,0!1Jnar1i. Date __,_/..__._'-'"--'~.__.---

Cop1es Received _ _ __.,__----

~d'I Copies Reproduced _3.,,___ .....,...__

~ ial Distribution tn:tJ;i pYJ ~I

~

./

,,_ i ..

. t

• * 'i

. -~

,I ... ~-:i.,

it, 1"t r* ** ~

~~~ ~.

~---

t ~N, ~

NOi

.I

,~*., - ; .* r

~ ;~.1,? ;* ..

I,. \.'

.. 'i ~ ,.

,,..t_........,..

=~ .... "-.

f. -

.. ,. ',:q ~

-~~, **- .

~

~ ,, .~. '* ~

1/4

. *~ .~.. ,

. ~*, ~~ ~

. .:.**~t,.. ; ~ . "'

..... "'i"'*~ .. ,. ...

• * ~- ~

,*;:"1'*'l-

<'I Jo' ~ ." 1,.

I 1 *:.. )-1

,4--...-

-!,., --- ~ -,-

re,

~ ~.....

~~---..

L

~

,... ' ~-i: ...

~l'- *,,;/1:( ....

. r*. _,_,__

~

It' .,_, *

,. '"* .i..:.{fr ~{ ,~;

~ ., ,¢

~. . --

• ~t~ ~* .,. .*

. **; r,.,,_-*~

~ '":, . .* _......___!._--::-

(i\~

- '  ? '

-. _..Jr~

, , I

~~~ ' ---:i ..

~:1-,..

J'.\,

.. .v<

. \ ~ .....

a;~

-f  :.1:* . . .

1 ,t.

,~;-, ">-,"'~

i.

M--..,_r

-'1..4ilr..

" ~

[ 7 5°~ P]

,""fr r *u

• 7*1* '

., v n t. _Q US Ni\C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION *93 S[P -1 P6 :QB 10 CFR PART 72 t I,

[Docket No. PRM-72-1]

Maryland Safe Energy Coalition; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Notice of receipt.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing for public comment a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking dated June 23, 1993, which was filed with the Commission by Maryland Safe Energy Coalition. The petition was docketed by the NRC on June 30, 1993, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-72-1. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations regarding generic issues related to dry cask storage.

111'2-'J..J 1ll DATE: Submit comments by (75 days after publication in the Federal Register). 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: Submit written commeqts to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.

Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.

For a copy of the petition, write the Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

The petition and copies of comments received may be inspected and copied for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules Review Section, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: 301-492-7758 or Toll Free: 800-368-5642.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations contained in 10 CFR Part 72 provide licensing requirements for the independent storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

In particular, subpart K to Part 72 provides a general license 2

for storage of spent fuel to nuclear power reactor licensees, and subpart L sets forth procedures and criteria for approval of storage casks for the storage of spent fuel under the general license provided in subpart K.

The Petitioner On June 30, 1993, the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition filed a request for action under 10 CFR 2.802 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The petitioner is an environmental consumer organization that is interested in the minimization and safe storage of nuclear waste, including spent fuel at nuclear power plants in general and at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in particular. The petitioner represents the interests of more than a hundred signers, most of whom reside in the vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs plant. The petitioner also supports the efforts of similar organizations in several states where dry cask storage of spent fuel is an issue.

Reasons for the Petition According to the petitioner, the purpose of the petition is to change the rules regarding dry cask storage of spent fuel at nuclear power plant sites. The petitioner is particularly concerned about spent fuel storage at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, which is operated by Baltimore Gas and Electric company (BG&E). (The petitioner believes that even though the 3

spent fuel at the Calvert Cliffs plant is stored under a specific Part 72 license, many of the generic requirements proposed by the petitioner would be the same or similar to the specific requirements applicable to independent spent fuel storage at Calvert Cliffs).

Discussion The petitioner recommends that 10 CFR 72.22(e) (2) be amended to require an application for a license to store spent fuel to specify the planned life of the independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). The petitioner asserts that if the storage of spent fuel is temporary, it follows that the planned life has a definite duration. The petitioner further states that licensees should be required to state the length of time that each storage canister and/or cask will be used. The petitioner also believes that, in the absence of a stated lifetime, it should not be assumed that the storage is temporary. The petitioner indicates that any storage which might become either permanent or indefinite would require additional regulatory control.

The petitioner suggests a change to §72.22(e) (3) because the petitioner believes that the NRC should not assume that removal of nuclear waste, including spent fuel from a reactor site, is the safest policy. The petitioner further states that the lack of a national waste repository or monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS) and the hazards of transporting high-level nuclear waste may make a prolonged or indefinite on-site storage 4

the only option or the safest policy.

The petitioner recommends a change to §72.42 to require a period of 90 days between the final safety evaluation report (SER) and the issuing of a license to allow potential petitioners time to intervene based on issues in the final SER. The petitioner also requests a change to §72.44(c) (3) (ii) that would require the dry storage casks to be monitored continuously at the exit cooling vents, since according to the petitioners, the exit vents are the most likely location of radioactive venting.

The petitioners request that §72.46(d) be amended to prescribe a period for a notice of opportunity for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene until 90 days after the final SER is published. In support of this suggested amendment, the petitioner states that "If a notice of opportunity for a hearing or intervention is limited to a short period after the license application, interested parties may be prevented from obtaining a hearing based on the second or final SER. Information in the latter safety reports may impact on the advisability of issuing a license. The public should have the right and opportunity to comment of the final safety analysis report (SAR) and SER before a license is issued."

The petitioner suggests a change to §72.72(a) to require that licensees document the history and condition of all spent fuel because defective fuel can cause problems for safe storage.

In §72.104(a), the petitioner believes that the radiation limit should be based on a dose to a maximally exposed individual at the perimeter of the controlled area and that the possibility 5

of a pregnant person working and/or living at the perimeter should be a safety assumption for setting radiation limits.

According to the petitioner, recent studies have shown that women, children, and fetuses are especially sensitive to radiation damage. The petitioner also states that the National Academy of Science's Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation cited a report in 1990 by Dr. Alice Steward that established a direct correlation of childhood cancers and leukemias with background levels of gamma radiation from natural and man-made sources in England, Wales, and Scotland. The cumulative outdoor doses due to this source during fetal life varied between only 10 and 40 millirads, with an average of 22 millirads. According to the petitioners, this study indicates that the standards set for exposure of adults to low-level radiation are too high for the developing fetus.

The Suggested Amendments The petitioner requests that the NRC amend 10 CFR Part 72 to read as follows:

1. In §72.22(e} (2), add "Specify the planned life of the ISF~I. 11

2. In §72.22(e) (3), change "after the removal of spent fuel and/or high-level radioactive waste" to "if the spent fuel and/or the high-level radioactive waste is removed."

3. In §72.42, add a new paragraph (d} to read No license will be issued before 90 days after the final safety evaluation 6

report (SER) is published."

4. In §72.44(c) (3), add paragraph (v) to read "dry storage casks must be monitored continuously for radioactivity at the exit cooling vents."

5. In §72.46(d), add "The time prescribed for a notice of opportunity for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene will extend from the notice of proposed action through 90 days after the final SER is published."

6. In §72.72(a), add after the first sentence "The records must include the history and condition of all spent fuel assemblies including a description of any defective fuel, such as fuel that is cracked, swollen, blistered, pinholed, or offgassing."

7. In §72.104(a) in place of "real" put "maximally exposed"; after "individual" add "or fetus"; change "25 mrem" to 11 5 mrem"; change "75 mrem" to "15 mrem"; and change "25 mrem" to "5 mrem". The sentence will then read, " .** dose equivalent to any maximally exposed individual or fetus who is located beyond the controlled area must not exceed 5 mrem to the whole body, 15 mrem to the thyroid and 5 mrem to any other organ *... "

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this (-s7 day of 5('.,-f~o,1993.

~r the~ Nu e ~ l a t o r y Commission.

~J. ik, ~

Secretary the Commis~ion.

7

DOCKET ;-:U!? .... ,

r.' 1 - '~ J ~* ,. : : I ** 7 _,

(5'o FR L/72.22:) --~

Maryland Safe Energy Coalition/:/

P.O. Box 33111 -

Baltimore, MD 21218 410-243-2077

¥.

June' 2 3 - 199°3 The Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Branch:

Robert M. Bernero of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards pointed out in a February 24, 1993 acknowledgement of our Petition of December 21, 1992, Docket No. 72-8 (50-317/318):

"to the extent that you are seeking to petition for rulemaking regarding generic issues related to dry cask storage, you should refer to 10 CFR 2.802 for the Commission's requirements for a proper petition for rulemaking."

Accordingly, we hereby petition the NRC for rulemaking regarding generic issues of dry cask storage. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.802(c) (1) and (3), we wish to suggest amendments to the following rules under 10 CFR based on accompanying arguments:

72.22(e) (2) add: "Specify the planned life of the ISFSI."

If the storage of spent fuel is temporary, it follows that the planned life has a definite duration. Licensees should be required to state the length of time that each storage canister and/or cask will be used. In the absence of a stated lifetime, it should not be assumed the storage is temporary. Any storage which might become either permanent or indefinite would require additional regulations.

72.22(e) (3) change from "after the removal of spent fuel and/or high-level radioactive waste" to "if the spent fuel and/or the high-level radioactive waste is removed".

The NRC should not assume that removal of nuclear waste including spent fuel from a reactor site is the safest policy. The lack of a national waste repository, MRS or the hazards of transporting high-level nuclear waste may make a prolonged or indefinite on-site storage the only option or the safest policy.

72.42 add: "(d) No license will be issued before 90 days after the final SER is published".

I 1

~ i

• • • I

~

1,.E:E!V~O

2 Requiring a reasonable period between the final SER and the issuing of a license will allow potential petitioners time to intervene based on issues in the final SER.

72.44(c) (3) (ii) add "(v) dry storage casks must be monitored continuously for radioactivity at the exit cooling vents".

Since the exit vents are the most likely location of radioactive venting, it is logical that monitors would be required at such locations.

72.46(d) add: "The time prescribed for a notice of opportunity for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene will extend from the notice of proposed action through 90 days after the final SER is published".

If a notice of opportunity for a hearing or intervention is limited to a short period after the license application, interested parties may be prevented from obtaining a hearing based on the second or final SER. Information in the latter safety reports may impact on the advisability of issuing a license. The public should have the right and opportunity to comment on the final SAR and SER before a license is issued.

72.72(a) add after first sentence: "The records must include the history and condition of all spent fuel assemblies including a description of any defective fuel, such as fuel that is cracked, swollen, blistered, pinholed or offgassing."

Defective fuel can cause problems for safe storage, therefor the history and condition of all spent fuel should be documented.

72.104(a) in place of "real" put: "maximally exposed" after "individual" add: "or fetus" change "25 mrem" to "5 mrem" change 11 75 mrem" to "15 mrem" change 11 25 mrem" to 11 5 mrem" The sentence will then read: " ... dose equivalent to any maximally exposed individual or fetus who is located beyond the controlled area must not exceed 5 mrem to the whole body, 15 mrem to the thyroid and 5 mrem to any other organ *.. "

The radiation limi~ should be based on a the dose to a maximally exposed individual at the perimeter of the controlled area. The possibility of a pregnant person working and/or living at the perimeter should be a safety assumption for setting radiation limits.

Recent studies have shown that women, children and fetus are especially sensitive to radiation damage. The National Academy

3 of Science's Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation cited a report in 1990 by Dr. Alice Stewart establishing "a direct correlation of childhood cancers and leukemias with background levels of gamma radiation from natural and man-made sources in England, Wales and Scotland. The cumulative outdoor doses due to this source during fetal life varied between only 10 and 40 millirads, with an average of 22 millirads. This study indicates that the standards set for exposure of adults to low-level radiation are too high for the developing fetus.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.802(c) (2), our grounds and interest in the above changes in regulations are as follows:

As an environmental consumer organization, the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition is interested in the minimization and safe storage of nuclear waste including spent fuel at nuclear power plants in general and Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in particular.

Even though the NRC license to Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (BG&E) is site-specific rather than generic, many of the generic regulations are the same or similar to the specific regulations for the Calvert Cliffs ISFSI. We are petitioning for these changes in both the specific and generic rules. While our immediate interest is in Calvert Cliffs, these changes apply to all on-site dry cask storage facilities in general. The docket number of our site-specific petition, filed on December 21, 1992, is 72-8 (50-317/318).

We are representing the interests of more than a hundred petition signers (see enclosed petitions to the State of Maryland for an NRC hearing), most of whom reside in the vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs plant. We also support the efforts of similar organizations in several states where dry cask storage of spent fuel is an issue.

Since we are not experienced or trained in regulatory legal standards, please advise us if we have overlooked any procedural requirements for a rulemaking petition.

Sincerely yours ,

r?~ ~

Richard Ochs Director, MSEC cc: Robert M. Bernero, Office of Nuclear Safety and Safeguards Maryland Public Service Commission John Glynn, Maryland Peoples Counsel J