ML23156A414

PR-072 - 63FR31364 - Miscellaneous Changes to Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste

ML23156A414
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/09/1998
From:	Annette Vietti-Cook NRC/SECY
To:
References
PR-072, 63FR31364
Download: ML23156A414 (1)

Text

.ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 06/09/1998 TITLE: PR-072 -63FR31364 - MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE CASE

REFERENCE:

- PR-072 63FR31364 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document'Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete J

STATUS OP RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE: PR-072 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULE NAME: MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO ,LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE, 63FR31364 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE:* 06/09/98 NUMBER OF COMMENTS: 4 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 08/24/98 EXTENSION DATE: I I FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 64FR33178 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 06/22/99 NOTES ON: WOULD AMEND REGS TO CORRECT SEVERAL INCONSISTENCIES & TO CLARIFY C STATUS ERTAIN SECTIONS OF REGS. AND DIFFERENTIATE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORAG OF RULE: E OF ~PENT FUEL UNDER WET AND DRY CONDITIONS, ETC.

HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-072 RULE TITLE: MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROPOSED RULE PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: 98-033. SRM'DATE: 05/08/98 SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 06/03/98 FINAL RULE FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE' SECY PAPER: 99-115 SRM DATE: /* / *SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 06/15/99 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACT!: M. L. AU ~IL STOP: T-9F31 PHONE: 415-6181 CONTACT2: MAIL STOP: PHONE:

DOCKET NO. PR-O72 (63FR31364)

In the Matter of MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT I

• 06/08/98 06/03/98 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE 08/10/98 07/30/98 COMMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - IDAHO OPERATIONS OFFICE

{JAN HAGERS) { 1)

I 08/11/98 08/08/98 COMMENT OF GARRY BROCHMAN { 2) 08/24/98 08/20/98 COMMENT OF MAINE YANKEE {GEORGE A. ZINKE) { 3) 08/28/98 08/18/98 COMMENT OF PECO ENERGY COMPANY {GARRITT D. EDWARDS) { 4) 06/18/99 06/15/99 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - FINAL RULE

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE .PR 1:i.

( 1,fil!:R31a,'I)

"99 JUN 18 P3 :09 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~0 CFR Part 72 RIN 3150-AFS0 Miscellaneous Changes to Licensing Requirements for the lnd~pendent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste

• AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory*commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to correct several inconsistencies and to clarify certain sections of its regulations pertaining to the storage

. of spent fuel and high-level, radioactive waste. The amendments differentiate the requirements for the storage of spent fuel und~r wet and dry conditions, clarify requirements for the content and submission of various reports, and specify that quality assurance {QA) records must be maintained as permanent records when identified with activities and items important to safety.

These amendments are necessary to facilitate NRC inspections to verify compliance with reporting requirements to ensure the protection of public health and safety and the environment.

~ ~ $ ; l'i'&/&/

EFFECTIVE DATE: (lnse1t BO days afte, date of pablicatio11).

• <\,

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M. L. Au, telephone {301) 415-6181, e-mail

~ 1 t, , f 4 t * ,,

mla@nrc.gov, of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Commission's licensing requirements for the independent storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste are contained in 10 CFR Part 72. NRC experience in applying Part 72 has* indicated that certain additions* and clarifications to the regulations are necessary. The NRG published a proposed rule in the FPderal Register on June 9, 1998 (63 FR 31364).

When Subpart L of Part 72' was issued ' in 1990, the purpose and scope of these regulations (i.e., to approve the design of spent fuel storage casks *and issue a Certificate of Compliance (CoC)) was not clearly indicated in §~ 72.1 and 72.2. Additionally, § 72.2 referred to a F~eral Interim Storage Program;*however, the statutory authorization for this program has expired.

The current regulations contain information in multiple locations on where to send Part 72 reports and applications to the NRC. These requirements were inconsistent and did not ensure that received information was properly docketed.

2

The current regulations in § .72.44 on reporting annual summaries of radioactive effluents released from dry storage casks impose an unnecessary regulatory burden on Part 72 licensees by requiring submittal of these reports on a schedule that is different from that required by 10 CFR Part 50. Most Part 72 licensees are also Part 50 licensees. Consequently, this regulation imposed an unnecessary regulatory burden on Part 72 licensees.

The current regulations in§ 72.75 on reporting requirements for specific events and conditions are Inconsistent with the reporting requirements for similar reactor-type events contained in§ 50.73 .

• The current regulations in §§ 72.122 and 72.124 on instrumentation and neutron poison efficacy requirements are unduly burdensome when applied to dry storage cask technology. The Commission has received nine requests for exemption from these regulations over the last three r

years.

The current regulations in Subpart G (quality assurance (QA) requirements) regarding retention of Part 72 QA records differ from the reter:ition requirements imposed on Part 50 license holders. However, § 72.140(d) currently allows a Part 72 license holder to take credit for its Part 50 QA program in meeting the requirements of Subpart G with the result that differing retention requirements are imposed on Part 72 licensees.

3

Discussion This final rule makes eight clarifying changes to Part 72. These changes differentiate the requirements for the storage of spent fuel under wet and dry conditions and ensure that necessary information is included in reports and that QA records are maintained permanently when identified with activities and items important to safety. These reports and records are needed to facilitate NR_C inspections to verify compliance with reporting requirements to ensure protection of publio:health and eafety and the environment.

The following are a group of eight miscellaneous items of changes to the regulations:

1. Modify §§ 72.1 and 72.2 to include spent fuel storage cask and remove superseded information.

~ '

The purpose(§ 72.1) and scope{§ 72.2) were not modified when the Commission amended Part 72 on July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181). Part 72 was amended to include a process for providing a general li<?9nse to a .reactor licensee to store spent fuel in an inde~ndent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at power reactor sites (Subpart K) and a process for the approvat of spent fuel storage *casks (Subpart L). Although the language in these sections may be read to include t~e general license provisions of Subpart K, the approval process for spent fuel storage casks in Subpart L is not referenced. This rulemaking makes the purpose and scope sections complete by specifically referencing the Subpart L cask approval process. Additionally, this rule removes information in the purpose and scope sections, regarding the Federal interim storage

.4

program, because the statutory authorization for the interim storage program has expired (61 FR 35935; July 9, 1996).

2. Change the requirement for making initial and written reports in §§ 72.4 and 72.216.

The change to§ 72.4 provide~ that, except where otherwise specified, all communications and reports are to be addressed to NRC's Document Control Desk (DCD) rather than to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS). Three C

current regulations govern the submission of written reports under Part 72 {§§ 72.75, 72.216{b),

and 50.72(b)(2)(vii)(B), which is*referenced in§ 72.216(a)). Under§ 72.75(d)(2), a report is sent to the DCD. However§§ 50:72(b){4)(vii)(B) and.72.216(b) indicate that the report be sent, as instructed in§ 72.4, to the Director, NMSS. To achieve consistency,§ Z2.4 i,s revised to instruct  :

that-reports shall be sent to the DCD. Licensing correspondence forwarded to the NRC's DCD ensures proper docketing and distribution. Also, § 7:2.216(c) is revised to correct an error in the paragraph designation. The current regulation §.72.75(a)(2) and (3) is revised to read

§ 72.75(b)(2) and (3) .

3. Change the requirement for submittal of the dry cask storage effluent report in § 72.44.

Currently,§ 72.44(d)(3) requires that a dry cask storage effluent report be, submitt~ to the appropriate NRC regional office within the first 60 days of each year. Section 50.36a{a){2) requires that a similar report be submitted to the Commission once each year specifying liquid and gaseous effluents from reactor operations.

5

The revision permits reactor licensees, who also possess licenses for ISFSls, to submit their dry cask storage effluent.report to the NRC once each year, at the same time as the effluent report from their reactor operations. The dry cask storage effluent report would be submitted within 60 days after the end ofthe*12-month monitoring period. However, after the effective date of this final rule, the licensee may submit the dry cask report covering a shorter period of time to synchronize the reporting schedule with the annual reactor effluent report.

4. Clarify the reporting requirements for specific events and conditions In§ 72.75.

Section 72.75 contains reporting requirements for specific events and conditions, including the requirement in§ 72.75(d)(2) for a follow-up written report for certain-types of emergency and non-emergency notifications. This rule clarifies the specific information required to meet the intent of the -existing reporting requirement. A comparable reporting requirement already exists for similar reactor type events in § 50. 73(b). This rule will provide greater , ..

consistency between Parts 50 and 72, on event notification requirements. Since the reporting requirement alreagy exists, a minimal increase in the licensee's reporting burden will occur by*

clarifying the format and content.

5. Clarify the requirement for capability for continuous monitoring of confinement storage systems in§ 72.122(h)(4).

Currently, § 72.122(h)(4) requires the capability for continuous monitoring of storage confinement systems. The meaning of "continuous" is open to interpretation and does not differentiate between monitoring requirements for wet and dry.storage of spent fuel. Wet !?torage 6

requires active heat removal systems which involve a monitoring process that is "continuous" in the sense of being uninterrupted. Because of the passive nature of dry storage, active heat removal systems are not needed and monitoring can be less frequent. This rule clarifies that the frequency of monitoring can be different for wet and dry storage systems.

6. Clarify the requirement specifying instrument and control systems for monitoring dry spent fuel storage in § 72.122(i).

Section 72.122(i) requires that instrumentation and control systems be provided to

• monitor systems important to safety, but does not distinguish between wet and dry spent fuel storage systems. For wet storage, systems are required to monitor and control heat removal.

For dry storage, passive heat removal is used and a control system is not required.

Instrumentation systems for dry spent fuel storage casks must be provided in accordance with cask design requirements to monitor conditions that are important to safety over anticipated ranges for normal conditions and off-normal conditions. This rule clarifies that control systems are not needed for dry spent fuel storage systems .

7. Clarify the requirement for dry spent fuel storage casks on methods of criticality control*, '

in§ 72.124(b).

Section 72.124(b) requires specific methods for criticality control, including the requirement that where solid neutron absorbing materials are used, the design must provide for positive means to verify their continued efficacy. This requirement is appropriate for w~t spent fuel storage systems, but not for dry spent fuel storage systems. The pot~ntially corrosive 7

environment under wet storage conditions is not present in dry storage systems, because an inert environment is maintained. Under these conditions, there is no mechanism to significantly degrade the neutron absorbing materials. In addition, the dry spent fuel storage casks are sealed and it is not practical nor desirable to penetrate the integrity of the cask to make the measurements verifying the efficacy of neutron absorbing materials. This rule clarifies that positive means for verifying the continued efficacy of solid neutron absorbing materials are not required for dry storage systems, when the continued efficacy may be confirmed by demonstration or analy~is before uee.

8. Clarify the requirements in§ 72: 140(d) concerning the previously approved QA program in conformance with Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50.

Section 72.174 specifies that QA records must be maintained by or under the control of the licensee until the Commission terminates-the license. However,§ 72.140(d) allows a holder of a Part 50 license to use its approved Part 50, Appendix B, QA program in place of the Part 72 aA requirements, including the requirement for QA records.

Appendix B allows the licensee to determine what records will be considered permanent records. Thus, Part 50 licensees using an Appendix B, QA program could choose not to make permanent all records generated in support of Part 72 activities. This rule requires these licensees to follow the Part 72 requirement to maintain QA records until termination of the Part 72 license.

8

Summary of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule The NRC received four letters containing nineteen comments responding to the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on June 9, 1998 (63 FR 31364). These comments were considered in the development of the final rule. The primary objective of this rulemaking is to clarify requirements for certain sections of the regulations. The amendments differentiate th~

• requirements for the storage of spent fuel under wet and dry conditions, clarify requirements for the content and submission of various reports, and specify that QA records must be maintained as permanent records. Copies of the*public comments are available for review in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20003-1527.

Four comment letters were received In response to the proposed rule. One was from the Department of Energy (DOE) Idaho Operations Office, one was from a private enterprise, and two were from nuclear power plant licensees. All commenters were supportive of the proposed rule .

• • Public Comments

1. Comment: One commenter believed that to ensure consistency with existing regulations in Part 72 and with another NRC proposed rulemaking, "Expand Applicability of Regulations to Holders of, and Applicants for, Certificates of Compliance and Their Contractors and Subcontractors" (63 FR 39526; July 23, 1998), which proposes to define a Certificate of Compliance (CoC) as a certificate approving the "designn of a spent fuel storage cask (as opposed to approving a cask), changes should be made to sections §§ 72.1 and 72.2(f).

9

L Response: The Commission agrees with this comment. Changes have been made to

§§ '72.1 and 72.2(f) to reflect the fact that Certificates of Compliance are issued to app'rove spent fuel storage cask designs rather than individual casks. In addition, in § 72.2(f), the phrase "in accordance with the requirements of this part as stated in§ 72.236", which appears in the proposed rule, has been changed to "in accordance with the requirements of subpart L of this part" to reflect the fact that all the requirements of subpart L pertain to the issuance of certificates of compliance.

2. Comment: One commenter noted that the proposed revision to § 72.4 removes existing language which provides the street address for NRC's headquarters office. The commenter noted that this information is necessary for persons who wish to either mail communications to the NRC using a private courier service (e.g., FedEx or UPS) or deliver their communication in person. Additionally,§ 72.4 did not provide any guidance for instances in which the due date for a report or written communication falls on a week~nd or holiday. In that regard the language in§ 50.4(e) should be used as an example.

Response: The Commission agrees with this comment. The current language in § 72.4 containing the street address to be used for personal delivery is being retained. In addition, the suggested changes have been made for reports due on the weekend or a holiday. The Public Docket Room at 2120 L Street NW, Washington, DC, has been removed from the address listing because it is no longer receiving mail deliveries, as all mail is now delivered to NRC Headquarters.

10

3. Comment: For§ 72.44(d)(3), one commenter was concerned that allowing flexibility in

-* the timing for submitting the annual report could create "ratcheting" of the due date an~ result in the submittal of each report eartier than required to avoid lateness. The change proposed by the commenter to require that each report be submitted within 60 days from the end of each monitoring period and not to exceed the 12-month reporting interval would ensure timely submittal of these reports.

Response: The Commission agrees that the language in the proposed rule needs clarification. The Commission has added language in the final rule to clarify that the report must be submitted within 60 days after the end of the 12-month monitoring period. This change will allow flexibility in timing of submitting the annual report without resulting in the sub~ittal of each report earlier than required to avoid lateness.

4. Comment: Two commenters noted that current§ 72.75(d)(2) requires a written follow-up,report when an event or condition requires an emergency notification under§ 72.75(a) or a, non-emergency four-hour report under§ 72.75(b), but that a written follow-up report is not required when the event or condition requires a non-emergency 24-hour report under

§ 7_2. 75(c). The second commenter suggested that the NRC clarify its expectation for Part 72 licensees regarding the use of NRC Form 366 and the format and guidance contained in NUREG 1022, Revision 1, "Events Reporting Guidelines 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73:

Response: The Commission agrees with the comment on the first issue and the suggested change has been made to require a written follow-up report after a 24-hour oral notification. The written report is required for documentation for future use and inspection$. With 11

respect to the second issue, the Commission believes that use of NRG Form 366 and the guidance cpntalned in NUREG-1022, Rev. 1, is an acceptable method for preparing written event reports; however, licensees are not required to follow this method if the written report contains all the information required by§ 72.75(d)(2). Therefore, no change has been made to address the second issue.

5. Comment: One commenter recommended not specifying the address and addresses In different sections of the regulations where .licensees submit reports to NRC. Instead, the commenter recommended the use of one initial location to . indicate where reports are Sl:Jbmitted to simplify the regulations and ensure* a consistent approach. Further, the references in Part 72 to the location where persons are to submit information to the NRG should ~se the phrase "in accordance with § 72.4" instead of providing a specific address in each individual section. This approach would be consistent with the approach taken in other sections in Part 72 as well ~s Part

50. This would allow future changes tq the NRG receiving address to involve fewer sections of the regulations. The commenter identified§§ 72.44(d)(3), 72.75(d)(-2) and 72.140(d) as sections where this change should be made.

Response: The Commission agrees and has made the suggested changes in the final rule.

6. Comment: One ~mmenter noted that the proposed amendment to§ 72.75 appears to be inconsistent with the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) for 10 CFR 50.73 (63 FR 39522; July 23, 1998) concerning the format and content for reporting reactor events and conditions.

12

)

Response: An objective of the§ 72.75 rulemaking was to make the Part 72 independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSI) report format and content requirements consistent with the current reactor requirements in§ 50.73. The final proposed reporting requirements for specific events and conditions in§ 72.75 are consistent with the current requirements in§ 50.73. If the reporting requirements in § 50. 73 should change, the staff will consider whether conforming changes to § 72. 75 would be appropriate.

7. Comment: One commenter believed that the retention of QA records until termination of thei license for Part 72 licensees, and the addition of specific information to meet the existing reporting requirement, do not comply with the Backfit Rule. The commente_r indicates that both of these amendments will introduce changes to licensee procedures which are not justified :by the .J substantial increase in protection standard and asserts that the NRC appears to be applying a new test; i.e:, whether the changes are sufficiently trivial to ignore the Backfit Rule.

Response: Under § 72.62, "backfitting" includes the modification, after the license has been issued, of procedures or organizations required to operate an ISFSI or MRS. This -

backfitting provision is very similar to the Backfit Rule in § 50.109. The- Commission has determined that reporting and record keeping requirements are not considered backfits even though they may result in changes to procedures. If the reporting or record keeping requirements *had to meet the standards for a backfit analysis, the Commission would have to find that the information would substantially increase public health or safety or common defense and security without knowing the results of the request. In addition, the existence or non-existence of a record or report usually has no independent safety significance as comp~red to

\ '

actions taken by the licensee or NRC as a result of the information contained in the record or 13

report. It is this resulting action that affects public health and safety or the common defense or security that should be measured under the back.fit standard and not the method for obtaining or maintaining the information.

Nev.ertheless, the Commission also recognizes that imposing reports i;:,r record keeping requirements may have a significant impact on a licensee's resources. The standard for authorizing reporting or record keeping requirements for NRC licensees that is contained in the Code of Federal Regulations should be the ~ame standard as the regulations requiring the providing of information under 10 CFR 50.54(f). Namely, before the staff either changes existing I

requirements or issues new requirements affecting reporting ot record keeping, a written analysis should be prepared that contains (a) a statement that describes the need for the information in terms of the potential safety benefit and, if appropriate, a discussion of possible alternatives and (b) the licensee actions required and the cost to develop a response to the information request.

In addition, the imposition of the new or modified reporting or record keeping requirement should be appr~ved by the appropriate 1evel of senior management (namely the Executive Director for Operations or his or her designee) or the Commission itself in the case of rulemaking. For rulemaking, the analysis justifying either modifications to existing or new reporting and record keeping requirements sh'all be contained in the regulatory analysis. The regulatory analysis section of this rulemaking package adequately addresses the Commission's standards for this specific record keeping requirement.

8. Comment: One commenter recommended that the proposed change to§ 72.140(d) should also include QA programs which satisfy the requirements of Subpart Hof 10 CFR Part 71.

14

The commenter believes that QA requirements, in Part 71 are equivalent to the QA requirements in Parts 50 and 72.

Response: While the staff agrees that the QA program requirements in Parts 50, 71, and 72 are equivalent, this comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. This issue is being

' considered in a separate rulemaking.

9. Comment: One commenter recommended that the wording in§§ 72.75(d)(2)(ii)(5) and (6) be revised to change the word aplane to "facility" to be consistent with wording, in

§ 72.75(d)(2(ii).

Response: The Commission agrees with this comment and the change has been made. i

10. Comment: One commenter r(:;!commended adding "spent fuel storage" in the second and third sentences to better describe *cask design requirements" in § 72.122(h)(4). ~

Response: The Commission agrees with this comment and the change has been made.

11. Comment: One commenter recommended replacing the terms *systems" and "facility" in the third sentence of§ 72.124(b) with the term "cask~.

Response: The Commission is not adopting this comment. The term "facility" includes casks but is not limited to casks. It is possible that different noncask design configurations could be proposed. In reviewing this comment, the staff recognized that a mistake had been made in 15

the proposed rule language In this section. The proposed rule stated *demonstration and analysis", this has been corrected to read "demonstration or analysis.*

12. Comment: One commenter recommended that the term "notification" be used in place of the term ~.initial report" in the first sentence of § 72. 75(d)(2) to help distinguish between verbal and written communications.

Response: The Commission agrees with the comment and the change has been made .

13. Comment: One* commenter stated that there is no provision in Part 72 for changes to NRC apJ?roved quality assurance programs comparable to the Part 50 provision at

§ 50.54(a)(3) unless a licensee has a§ 72.140(d' OA program incorporating an approved Part 50 program. The commenter re9uests that a program change provision similar to those found in§ 72.44(e} ar:id 72.44{f} be provided to allow for changes to a QA program yvithout NRC approval in defined circumstances.

Response: The proposed recommendation is beyond the scope of this rulemaking action.

14. Comment: DOE requested that§ 72.B0{b) be clarified to exclude DOE from the requirement to submit a copy of its annual financial report.

Response: The Commission agrees with the comment and Section 72.22{e) has been revised to exclude DOE from financial assurance requirements.

16 7

Specific Changes in Regulatory Text The following section is provided to assist the reader regarding the specific changes made to each section or paragraph in 10 CFR Part 72. For clarity and content, a substantial portion of a particular section or paragraph may be repeated, while only a minor change is being made. This approach will allow the reader to effectively review the specific changes without

/

\.

cross-reference to existing material that has been included for content, but has not been significantly changed.

Sections 72.1 (Purpose) and 72.2 (Scope): These sections are revised to remove superseded information regarding the Federal Interim Storage Program that has expired and to indicate that Subpart L provides requirements, procedures, and criteria for approval of ,spent fuel storage cask designs and' issuance of a Certificate of Compliance.

Sections 72.4 a_nd 72.216: These revisions specify that all communications and reports.

are addressed to the NRC's Document Control Desk,.

I Section 72.44: This revision permits reactor licensees, who also possess licenses for ISFSls, to submit dry cask storage effluent report once each year at the same time as the effluent report for reactor operations, instead of'submitting dry cask storage effluent report within 60 days of the begin~ing of each year.

17

Section 72. 75: This change incorporates specific format and content information requirements compa~ble to reporting requirements that already exist for similar reactor type

\

events in § 50. 73(b) .

. Section 72.122(h)(4): This revision is made to state that periodic monitoring instead of continuous monitoring is appropriate for dry spent fuel storage.

Section 72.122(i): This section specifies, the differences between wet pool spent fuel storage instrumentation and control systems and dry spent fuel storage cask instrumentation systems.

Section 72.124(b): This change is made to state that a positive means for verifying the continued efficacy of solid neutron absorbing materials is not required for dry storage systems, when the continued efficacy is confirmed by demonstration or analysis before use.

Section 72.140(d): This change-requires all licensees, including a holder of a Part 50 license using its approved Part 50, Appendix B, QA program, to follow the requirement in

§ 72.174 to maintain Part 72 QA records until termination of the Part 72 license.

Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations Under the "Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs" approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal Register (62 FR 46517, September 3, 1997), this rule is classified as compatibility Category 18

"NRC." Compatibility is not required for Category "NRC" regulations. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC

._.by the AEA or the pro\lisions of Trtle 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and although an -

Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements via a* mechanism that is consistent with the particular State's administrative procedure laws, but does not confer regulatory authority on the State.

Environmental -Impact: Categorical Exclusion

• The NRC has determined that Items 1, 5, 6, *and 7 of this rule are the types of action described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2) and Items 2, 3, 4 and 8 of this rule are the types of action describ~ as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3). ~erefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this re~ulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement this final rule increases the burden on licensees by increasing a record retention' period from 3 years to life. The public burden for this information collection is estimated to average 38

• hours per request. Because the burden for this information collection is insignificant, Office of Management and Budget (0MB) clearance is not required. Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0132.

19

Public Protection Notification If a means used to impose information collection does not display a currently valid 0MB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond, to the information collection.

Regulatory Analysis The NRC has prepared a regulatory analysis on this regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the NRC and concludes that the final rule results in an incremental improvement in public health and safety that outweighs the small incremental cost associated with this proposed change. The analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from M. L. Au, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6181; or e-mail mla@nrc.gov.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Commission certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects only the operators of independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSI). These companies do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration ~t 13 CFR Part 121.

20

Criminal Penalties For the purpose of Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), the Commission is issuing the final rule to amend _10 CFR 72; 72.44, 72.75, 72.140, and 72.216 under one or more of§ 161(b), (i), of (o) of AEA. Willful violation of the rule will be subject to criminal enforcement.

Backfrt Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 72.62, does not apply to this rule, because these amendments do not Involve any provisions th~t .would Impose backflts as defined in 10 CFR 72.62(a). Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required for this rule.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act In accordance with the Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of 0MB.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part_ 72 Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 72.

21

PART 72 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT

• NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

1. The authority citation for Part 72' continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended' (42 U.S.C. ~071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, '2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021);

sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851}; sec. 102, Pub. L. 91~190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 14~, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168).

Section 72.44(9) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also issued under

• Sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239): sec. 134, Pub. L.97-425; 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C .

10154). Section 72.96(~) also issued under sec. 145(9), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(9)). s.ubpart J also issued under secs. 2(2}, 2(15), 2(19}, 117(a), 141 (h), Pub.

L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2224 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137{a), 10161(h)).

Subparts Kand Lare also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198).

2. Section 72.1 is revised to read as follows:

22

§ 72.1 Purpose.

The regulations in this part establish requirements, procedures, and criteria for the issuance of licenses to receive, transfer, and possess power reactor spent fuel and other radioactive materials associated with spent fuel storage in an i11dependent spent _fuel storage installation (ISFSI) and the terms and conditions under which the Commission will issue these I .

licenses: The regulations in this part also establish requirements, procedures, and criteria for the issuance of licenses to the Department of Energy (DOE) to receive, transfer, package, and possess power reactor spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and other radioactive materials associated with the spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste storage, in a monitored

• retrievable storage installation (MRS). The regulations in this part also es~blish requirements, procedures, and criteria for the issuance of Certificates of Compliance approving spent Juel storage cask designs.

3. In§ 72.2, paragraph (e) is removed, paragraph (f) is redesignated as paragraph (e) and a new paragraph (f) is added to read a~ follows:

• § 72.2 Scope.

(f) Certificates of Compliance approving spent_ fuel storage cask designs shall be issued in accordance with the requirements of subpart L of this part.

4. Section 72.4 is revised to read as follows:

§ 72.4 Communications.

23

Except where otherwise specified, all communications and reports concerning the regulations in this part and applications filed under them should be addressed to the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

Written communications, reports, and applications may be delivered in person to the Nuclear J

• Regulatory. Commission at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738 between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm eastern time. If the submittal deadline date falls on a Saturday, or Sunday, or a Federal holiday, the next Federal working day becomes the official due date.

5. lfl § 72.44, paragraph (d)(3) is revised to read as follows:

§ 72.44 License conditions.

{d)

.(3) An annual report be submitted to the Commission in accordance with§ 72.4, specifying the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides rele;ased to the environment in liquid and in gaseous effluents during the previous 12 months of operation and such other information as may be required by tlie Commission to estimate maximum potential radiation dose commitment to the public resulting from effluent releases. On the basis of this report and any additional information that the Commission may obtain from the licensee or others, the Commission nf~y from time to time require the licensee to take such action as the Commission deems appropriate. The report must be submitted within 60 days after the end of the 12-month monitoring period.

24

6. In§ 72.75, paragraph (d)(2) is revised, and paragraphs (d)(3), (d)(4), (d)(5), (d)(6) and (d)(7) are added to read as follows:

§ 72. 75 Reporting requirements for specific events and conditions.

(d)

(2) Written report. Each licensee who makes an ihitial notification required by patagraphs (a}, (b}, or (c) of this section also shall submit a written follow-up report within 30 days of the initial notification. Written reports prepared pursuant to other regulations*may be submitted to fulfill this requirement if the reports contain all thE: necessary infomiation and the appropriate distribution is made. These written reports must be sent to the Commission, in accordance with § 72.4. These reports must include the following:

(i) A brief abstract describing the major occurrences during the event, including all component or system failures that contributed to the event and significant e:orrective action taken or planned to prevent recurrence; (ii) A clear, specific, narrative description of the event that oq::urred so that knowledgeable readers conversant with the design of ISFSI or MRS, but not familiar with the I

details of a particular facility, can understand the complete event. The narrative description must include the following specific infomiation as appropriate for the particular event:

(A) ISFSI or MRS operating conditions before the event; (B) Status of structures, components, or systems that were inoperable at the start of the event and that co'ntributed to the event; (C) Dates and .approximate times of occurrences; (D) The cause of each component or system failure or personnel error, if known; 25

(E) The failure mode, mechanism, and effect of each failed component, if known; t

{F) A list of systems or secondary functions that were also affected for failures of components with multiple functions; (G) For wet spent fuel storage systems only, after failure that rendered a train of a safety system inoperable, an estimate of the elapsed time from the discovery of the failure until the train was returned to service; (H) The method of discovery of each component or system failure or procedural error; (l)ill Operator actions that affected the course of the event, including operator errors, procedural deficiencies, or both, that contributed to the event; cg) .For each personnel error, the licensee shall discuss:

(D Whether the error was a cognitive error (e.g., failure to recognize the actual facility condition, failure to realize which systems should be functioning, failure to recognize the true nature of the event) or a procedural error; (ff) Whether the error was contrary to an approved procedure, was a direct result of an error in an approved procetlure, or was associated with an ~ctivity or task that was not covered by an approved procedure;

@) Any unusual characteristics of the work location {e.g., heat, noise) that. directly contributed to the error; and (M The type of personnel involved (e.g., contractor personnel, utility-licensed operator, utility nonlicensed operator, other utility personnel);

(J) Automatically and manually initiated safety system responses (wet spent fuel storage systems only);

(K) The manufacturer and model number (or other identification) of each component that failed during the event; 26

(L) The quantities and chemical and physical forms of the spent fuel or HLW involved; (3) An assessment of the safety consequences and implications of the event. This assessment must include the availability of other systems or components that could have performed the same function as the components and systems that failed during the event; (4) A description of any corrective actions planned as a result of the event, including those to reduce the probability of similar events occurring in the future; (5) Referen~ to any previous similar events af the same facility that are known to the licensee; (6) The name and telephone number of a person within the licensee's organization who is knowledgeable about the event and can provide additional information concerning the event and the facililty's characteristics; (7) The extent of exposure of individuals to radiation or to radioactive materials without identification of individuals by name.

7. In§ 72.122, paragraphs (h)(4) and (i) are revised to read as follows:

§ 72.122 Overall Req1,Jirements. *

(h)

(4) Storage 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. For dry spent fuel storage, periodic monitoring is sufficient proyided that periodic monitoring is consistent with the dry spent fuel storage cask design 27

requirements .. The monitoring period must be based upon the spent fuel storage cask design requirements.

{i) Instrumentation and control systems. Instrumentation and control systems for wet spent fuel storage must be pro'(ided to monitor systems that are important to safety over anticipated ranges for normal operation and off-normal operation. Those instruments and control systems that must remain operational under accident conditions must be identified in the Safety Analysis Report. Instrumentation systems for dry spent fuel storage casks must be provided In accordance with cask design requirements to monitor conditions that are important to safety over anticipated ranges for normal conditions and off-normal conditions. Systems that are required under accident conditions must be identified in the Safety Analysis Report.

8. In § 72.124, paragraph (b) is revised to read as foUows:

§ 72.124 Criteria for nuclear criticality safety.

(b) Methods of criticality control. When practicable, the design of an ISFSI or MRS must be based on favorable geometry, permanently fixed neutron absorbing materials (poisons), or both. Where solid neutron absorbing materials are used, the design must provide for positive means of verifying their continued efficacy. For dry spent fuel storage systems, the continued efficacy may be confirmed by a demonstration or analysis before use, showing that significant degradation of the neutron absorbing materials cannot occur over the life of the facility.

28

9. In§ 72.140, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:

§ 72.140 Quality assurance requirements.

(d) Previously app_roved programs. A Commission-approved quality assurance program which satisfies the applicable criteria of Appendix B to Part 50 of this chapter and which is established, maintained, and executed with regard to an ISFSI will be accepted as satisfying the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, except that a licensee using an Appendix B quality assurance program also shall meet the requirement of § 72.174 for recordkeeping. Prior to initial use, the licensee shall notify the Commission, in accordance with § 72.4, of its intent to apply its previously approved Appendix B quality assurance program to ISFSI activities. The licensee shalt identify the program by date of submittal to the Commission, doi:ket number, and date of Commission approval.

• 29

10. In§ 72.216, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:

§ 72.216 Reports.

(c) The general licensee shall make initial and written reports in accordance with§§ 72.74 and 72.75, except for the events specified by§ 72.75(b)(2) and (3)'for which the initial reports will be made under paragraph (a) of this section.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this \.-5+:r- day of 3'TM::- e ...

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

~Lll'cm--~

nnetteLVietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.

30

Station Support Department DOCKETE D PECO NUCLEAR US /RC PECO Energy Company 965 Chesterbrook Boulevard A Unit of PECO Energy Wayne, PA 19087-5691 "98 AUG 28 P3 :39 August 18, 1998 Of-t-RUL Mr. John C. Hoyle ADJUI Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOCKET NUMBER Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Branch 0 AOPOSED RULE 7:2-Washington, DC 20555-0001 0'3Fl<. 3l 3 fell

Subject:

Comments Concerning Proposed Rule 10 CFR 72, "Miscellaneous Changes to Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste (63FR31364, June 9, 1998)

Dear Mr. Hoyle:

This letter is being submitted in response to the NRC's request for comments concerning Proposed Rule 10 CFR 72, "Miscellaneous Changes to Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste, " published in the Federal Register (i.e., 63FR31364, dated June 9, 1998). This proposed rule is intended to correct several inconsistencies and to clarify certain sections of the regulations . The amendments would differentiate the requirements for the storage of spent fuel under wet and dry cond itions, clarify requirements for the content and submission of various reports, and specify that quality assurance (QA) records must be maintained as permanent records.

PECO Energy appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule . The proposed rule does clarify and reduce requirements imposed on dry spent fuel storage facilities, and therefore, we are not opposed to promulgation as a final rule . One example of improvement, is that the efficacy question with regard to neutron absorbing materials is clarified . However, PECO Energy offers the following comments for consideration by the NRC.

Comments PECO Energy recommends that the wording in sections 10 CFR 72.75(d)(2)(ii)(5) and (6) be revised. Specifically, the word "plant" should be changed to "facility" in order to be consistent with previous wording in 10 CFR 72.75(d)(2)(ii). Therefore, sections 10 CFR 72. 75(d)(2)(ii)(5) and (6) should read as follows:

(5) Reference to any previous similar events at the same facility that are known to the licensees; (6) The name and telephone number of the person within the licensee's organization who is knowledgeable about the event and can provide additional information concerning the event and the facility's characteristics; If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Garrett D. Edwards Director* Licensing ck wtect ed b canL.06~ - 2 1998

lJ.S. UCLEAA REGULATORY COMM1:, ~

RULEMAKINGS & ADJUDICATIONS ST, -

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistir.s PoamerkData 8 ol4 8' Cq&AriJoliiw<:l /

ce _ f

~~~~~~~ ,~,~ -

Maine Yankee DOC~ETED P.O. BOX 408

• WISCASSET, MAINE 04578 * (207) 882-6321 US ~f-'C August 20, 1998 MN-98-57 GAZ-98-46 '98 AUG 24 A9 :18 OFF Rl ,

AD U Jl. *. II Fi-Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudication's

Reference:

(a) License No. DPR-36 (Docket No. 50-309)

(b) Letter to USNRC from MYAPC, Appeal of NRC Determination Concerning Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Claim ofBackfit Regarding Beyond Design Basis Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools (Generic Issue 82); dated May 6, 1998 (MN-98-38)

(c) Letter to MYAPC from USNRC, Summary of Meeting Held on July 10, 1998 to Discuss Backfit Appeal Submitted by Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company; dated July 22, 1998

Subject:

Comments on Proposed Rule 10 CFR Part 72, "Miscellaneous Changes to Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste" Gentlemen:

Maine Yankee has reviewed the proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 72 that were published in the Federal Register on June 9, 1998 (Volume 63, umber 110), and would like to offer the following general comments on NRC compliance with Backfit Rules, and specific comments with respect to the proposed rulemaking.

Backfit Rules (e.g. 10CFR50.109 and 10CFR72.62) provide protection for licensees from new rulemaking or new staff interpretations that do not represent a substantial safety benefit.

Specifically, the 10CFR72 Backfit Rule prevents addition, elimination, or modification of procedures or organization required to operate an ISFSI or nuclear power plant except when there is substantial increase in the overall protection of the occupational or public health and safety to be derived from the backfit, and the direct and indirect costs of implementation are justified in view of the increased protection. The 10CFR50 Backfit Rule is similar in its threshold for when backfits are appropriate.

AUG 2 7 1998 Acknowledged by card .."-*-"___

U. . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM ISSION RULEMAKINGS & ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Po Co

Maine Yankee UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MN-98-57 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudication's Page Two Increasingly the NRC has been overlooking its responsibility to comply with the Backfit Rules - i.e. ,

to identify and evaluate backfits through both rulemaking and new staff positions imposed on licensees. The proposed "miscellaneous changes" in the ISFSI regulations are a good case in point.

Consider the following from the supplementary information to the proposed rulemaking:

" 8. Clarify the requirements in Sec. 72.140(d) concerning the previously approved quality assurance program in conformance with Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50. Section 72.174 specifies that quality assurance (QA) records must be maintained by or under the control of the licensee until the Commission terminates the license. However, Sec. 72.140(d) allows a holder of a Part 50 license to use its approved Part 50, Appendix B, QA program in place of the Part 72 QA requirements, including the requirement for QA records. Appendix B allows the licensee to determine what records will be considered permanent records, using Regulatory Guide 1.28. Thus, Part 50 licensees using an Appendix B, QA program could choose not to make permanent all records generated in support of Part 72 activities. This proposed rule would require these licensees to follow the Part 72 requirement to maintain QA records until termination of the license." {emphasis added}

Contrary to 10CFR72.62(a) this rulemaking change clearly would cause a change to licensee Pro -,,.,1ur~~ s ' .1.7 C,* t 1*nJ. +h.c di P'._ o-p" 1crr. ,,l ,;n - * "The 1' ID r, l* " ,-lot-c>rm;-eA that

\.,\,,,U * - - -... l, C'.l** u..:

t. .... ..1.-., lt...:a* 1\...l.J -:.,1,., )~ ... +-e r tt..e GUJ.,_;s .l. ....

0 '" * -*

vov u 1 Ul .. .:... ..... i\...ti . g. ~ ~.1'-'- , ,.k.> U.\JLV .l.U..&..J.l U, 1 L the backfit rule, 10 CFR 72.62, does not apply to this rule, because these amendments do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 72.62(a). Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required for this proposed rule."

Similarly:

"4. Clarify the reporting requirements for specific events and conditions in Sec. 72.75.

Section 72.75 contains reporting requirements for specific events and conditions, including the requirement in Sec. 72.75(d)(2) for a follow-up written report for certain types of emergency and non-emergency notifications. The proposed rule would clarify the specific information required to meet the intent of the existing reporting requirement. A comparable reporting requirement already exists for similar reactor type events in Sec. 50. 73(b). The proposed rule would incorporate the format and content outlined in Sec. 50.73(b) into Sec.

72.75(d)(2) to clearly inform licensees of the information necessary for the NRC staffs review. Since the reporting requirement already exists, no significant increase in the licensee's reporting burden will occur by clarifying the format and content."

This discussion obfuscates the fact that a full page of detailed reporting requirements are being added to the rule - all of which will require changed procedures on the part of licensees. Furthermore, the discussion raises the irrelevant notion that similar reporting requirements apply to Part 50 licensee events as if to justify their imposition for ISFSI's. Separate from our backfit concerns, this rulemaking does not seem to be well coordinated since the advance notice of proposed rulemaking for 10CFR50.73 [Federal Register: July 23 , 1998 (Volume 63, Number 141)] is proposing changes to the same requirements this rulemaking is proposing to become similar to.

Maine Yankee UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MN-98-57 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudication's Page Three Typical of recent proposed rulemakings and recent interactions with licensees (e.g. reference (b))

which involve changed staff positions, the NRC appears to be applying a new test, separate from the Backfit Rules - i.e., is the new requirement sufficiently trivial to ignore the Backfit Rule? This approach tends to cheapen the authority of the Backfit Rules and, in any case, constitutes non-compliance with the regulation on the part of the NRC.

As discussed in Reference (c), we recommend that the staff reevaluate its commitment to rigorous compliance with the Backfit Rules. Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Very truly yours, George A. Zinke, Dire tor Nuclear Safety & Regulatory Affairs Department c: Mr. Hubert Miller Mr. M. Roberts Mr. Michael T. Masnik Mr. Michael K. Webb Mr. Patrick J. Dostie Mr. Uldis Vanags

August 20, 1998 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Chief, Docketing and Services Branch FROM: Carol Gallagher /l . I) ;{ ~ /J fl ... ,L-,;

ADM, DAS ~~

SUBJECT:

DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULEMAKING -

MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

• Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject proposed rulemaking.

This comment was received via the interactive rulemaking website on August 20, 1998. The submitter's name is George A. Zinke, Maine Yankee, P.O. Box 408, Wiscasset, ME 04578.

Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Markley L. Au (mail stop T9-F-31) for his records.

Attachment:

As stated cc w/o attachment:

M.Au

DOCKET NlMBER PROPOSED Rll.E 1:2, DOC KETED US r hC TSW Enterprises

( ~1JFR3!3~1/ 17045 Catalpa Court Rockville, MD 20855

@ *9a AUG 11 P2 :16 August 8, 1998 OF,-,

ATIN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Rl t L Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionAOJL[ F Washington, DC 20555-0001

Reference:

Proposed Rule to Amend 10 CFR Part 72 (63 FR 31364)

Gentlemen:

I support the proposed rule "Miscellaneous Changes" to amend 10 CFR Part 72 with the following comments .

1. To ensure consistency with the existing regulations in Part 72 and a separate NRC rulemaking to "Expand the Scope of Part 72" (63 FR 39526) in which a CoC is defined as approving the design of a spent fuel storage cask, the following changes should be made:

• § 72.1 , last sentence, should read as follows: "Furthermore, the regulations in this part also establish requirements, procedures, and criteria for the issuance of Certificates of Compliance approving the design of spent fuel storage casks."

• § 72.2(f), should read as follows: "Certificates of Compliance approving the design of a spent fuel storage cask shall be issued in accordance with the requirements of this part as stated in§ 72.236."

• § 72.122(h)(4), second and third sentences, should read as follows: "For dry storage, periodic monitoring is sufficient provided that periodic monitoring is consistent with the spent fuel storage cask design requirements. The monitoring period shall be based upon the spent fuel storage cask design requirements."

• § 72.124(b), third sentence, should read as follows: "For dry spent fuel storage casks, the continued efficacy may be confirmed by a demonstration and analysis, before use, showing that significant degradation of the absorbing material cannot occur over the life of the cask."

2. All references to the location where persons shall submit information to the NRC should use the phrase "in accordance with § 72.4" instead of providing a specific address in the individual section. This approach would be consistent with the approach taken in other sections in Part 72 as well as Part 50 and would allow future changes to the NRC's receiving address to involve fewer sections of the regulations.

• § 72.44(d)(3), should read as follows: "An annual report shall be submitted to the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with § 72.4 specifying the quantity of each of the principal ... "

• § 72.75(d)(2), last sentence, should read as follows: "These written reports shall be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with§ 72.4."

AUG t 3 1998 Acknowledged by card .........mwm,w 11 m~'-

NUCLEAR EGULATORY ISSION KINGS & ADJUDICATIONS irAFF FICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION P stmark Date _ _ _ __ _

Co.

• I roouced _ _,_

IDS

• § 72.140(d), second sentence, should read as follows: "Prior to initial use, the licensee shall notify the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with § 72.4, of its intent to apply its previously approved Appendix B program to ISFSI activities."

3. The present and proposed regulation on event reports, § 72.75, does not require that written reports of 24-hour events be submitted to the NRC. These written reports would involve events which were required to be reported verbally to the NRC under§ 72.75(c). If the NRC deems that an event is important enough to require a verbal report, a subsequent written report is also appropriate.

• § 72 .75(d)(2), first sentence, should read as follows: "Each licensee who makes an initial report required by paragraphs (a) , (b), or (c) of this section shall also submit a followup written report within 30 days of the initial report."

4. The proposed revision to § 72.4 removes the existing language which provides the street address for the Commission's headquarters. This information is necessary for persons who wish to either mail a communication to the NRC using a private courier service (e.g ., FedEx or UPS) or to deliver their communication in person. Additionally, § 72 .4 did not provide any guidance for instances in which the due date for a report or written communication falls on a weekend or holiday.

In that regard the language in § 50.4(e) should be used as an example.

• § 72.4, the following sentences should be added to the end of the proposed rule:

"Communications, reports, and applications may be delivered in person at the Commission's Offices at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville , MD 20852-2738 between the hours of 8:15 a.m.

and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. If a submittal due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal Holiday, the next Federal working day becomes the official due date. "

5. The present, and proposed, § 72.140(d) would allow an existing Quality Assurance program which meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, to satisfy the requirements of Part 72. However, a Quality Assurance program which meets the requirements of Part 71 ,

Subpart H, is also be satisfactory and should be added to this paragraph.

• § 72.140(d), should read as follows :

A Commission-approved quality assurance program which satisfies the applicable criteria of either Appendix B to part 50 of this chapter or Subpart H to part 71 of this chapter and which is established , maintained, and executed with regard to an ISFSI will be accepted as satisfying the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.

Additionally, a licensee using an Appendix B or Subpart H quality assurance program shall also meet the requirements of § 72.174. Prior to initial use, the licensee shall notify the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with

§ 72.4, of its intent to apply its previously approved Appendix B or Subpart H quality assurance program to ISFSI activities.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely 6P~ £/o~

Garry Brochman

Department of Energy OOC'{ETED Idaho Operations Office LS~RC 850 Energy Drive Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401-1563 "98 AUG 10 P3 :27 July 30, 1998 Q l=t I. (

• f'.

n L DOCKET ADJi___;L __ -

• Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission AOPOSED R Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudication's

SUBJECT:

DOE Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID) Comments on Proposed Rule 10 CFR Part CD 72, Miscellaneous Changes to Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste (OPE-SFP-98-260)

Dear Secretary:

DOE-ID has reviewed the proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 72 that were published in the Federal Register on June 9, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 110), and would like to offer the following comments for consideration.

Comment 1.

In proposed Change 3, the provision allowing flexibility of timing of the 72.44(d) annual report could create a slight ratcheting of the reporting date (in other words, to avoid a late report, a licensee might decide to submit each report slightly earlier than required) .

The intent of this proposed change could also be satisfied by (1) requiring each report to be submitted within 60 days of the end of each monitoring period and (2) each monitoring period not to exceed 12 months.

Comment 2.

In proposed Change 4, there is no change in requiring a written follow-up report for initial reports required by paragraphs (a) and (b) and not for initial reports required by paragraph (c).

It is recommended that NRC's expectations regarding the submittal of a follow-up report for initial reports required by paragraph (c) be identified in paragraph (d). Specifically, the following question should be addressed: Are written follow-up reports for initial paragraph (c) reports (for example, Technical Specification violations) expected in the proposed format and content or may they follow the current format and content?

Comment 3.

Also regarding proposed change 4, it is recommended that NRC use the term "notification" in place of "initial report" to help distinguish between verbal and written communications.

Comment 4.

Also regarding proposed change 4, clarification is requested regarding NRC's expectation for Part 72 licensees (specific and/or general) regarding the use of Licensee Event Report (form 366 series) format and content, and the associated guidance at NUREG-1022, Rev. 1.

AUG 1 3 1998

• Acknowledged by card ..- 111 lb I 111111 11

LJ.S NUCLEAR REGULArO Y C ISSION RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICAT STAFF OFFIC O THE SECRETAffi OF THE ISS

Secretary, NRC July 30, 1998 Comment 5.

There is no provision in Part 72 for changes to NRC approved quality assurance programs comparable to the Part 50 provision at Section 50.54(a)(3) unless a licensee has a Section 72.140(d) incorporating an approved Part 50 program. It is requested that a provision similar to those found at Sections 72.44(e) and 72.44(f) be provided for any program submitted for NRC approval.

This comment may exceed the scope of proposed Change 9. Please notify DOE-ID as to whether a Section 2.802 petition is requ ired for consideration of this comment.

Comment 6.

Outside the scope of the proposed changes, but within the apparent intent of the existing rule at Section 72.22(e): It is requested that Section 72.B0(b) be clarified to exclude DOE.

If you need additional clarification concerning these comments please call Charles Maggart at (208) 526-5560.

DOCKETED USN C

[7590-01-P]

"98 JUN -8 A7 :32 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFI ~ ' .St-I RLJI r ,.

• ADJl.£ ;~ - "-

10 CFR Part 72 RIN 3150-AFB0 Miscellaneous Changes to Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste

• AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule .

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations to correct several inconsistencies and to clarify certain sections of the regulations. The amendments would differentiate the requirements for the storage of spent fuel under wet and dry conditions, clarify requirements for the content and submission of various reports, and specify that quality assura:--~e (QA) records must be maintained as permanent records.

~ ~"' l'1'18 DATES: The comment period expires (76 days after J3UBlieation. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

Washington , DC 20555-0001 . Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.

You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking web site through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). This site provides the availability to upload comments as files (any format) if your web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-6215; e-mail CAG@nrc.gov.

Certain documents related to this rulemaking, including comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW., (Lower Level), Washington, DC. These same documents also may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the interactive rulemaking website established by NRC for this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M. L. Au, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6181, e-mail mla@nrc.gov.

• SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Commission's licensing requirements for the independent storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste are codified in 10 CFR Part 72. The NRC experience in 2

applying Part 72 has indicated that certain additions and clarification~ to the regulations are necessary. This proposed rule would make eight miscellaneous changes to 10 CFR Part 72.

These changes would ensure that necessary information is included in reports and that Quality Assurance records are maintained permanently when identified with activities and items important to safety. These reports and records are needed to facilitate NRC _inspection to verify compliance with regulatory reporting requirements to ensure the protection of public health and safety, and the environment.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments

1. Modify §§ 72.1 and 72.2 to include spent fuel storage cask and remove the superseded information.

The purpose (§ 72.1) and scope (§ 72.2} were not modified when the Commission amended Part 72 on July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181) to include a process for providing a general

• license to a reactor licensee to store spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at power reactor sites (Subpart K) and a process for the approval of spent fuel storage casks {Subpart L}. Although the language in these sections may be read to include the gener?I license provisions of Subpart K, the approval process for spent fuel storage casks in Subpart L is not referenced. This rulemaking would make the purpose and scope sections complete by specifically referencing the Subpart L cask approval process. This rulemaki;ig also would remove information in the purpose and scope sections regarding the Federal interim storage program since the time for its implementation has expired (61 FR 35935; July 9, 1996).

3

(

2. Change the requirement for making initial and written reports in§§ 72.4 and 72.216.

This change would be made to§ 72.4 to provide that, except where otherwise specified, all communications and reports are to be addressed to NRC's Document Control Desk (DCD) rather than to the Director, Office of Nuciear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS). Three current regulations govern the submission of written reports under Part 72 (§§ 72.75, 72.216(b),

and 50.72(b)(2)(vii)(B) that is referenced in§ 72.216(a)). Under§ 72.75(d)(2) a report is sent to the DCD. However§§ 50.72(b)(2)(vii)(B) and 72.216{b} indicate that the report be sent as instructed in§ 72.4, to the Director, NMSS. To achieve consistency, § 72.4 is being revised to instruct that reports- be sent to the DCD. Licensing correspondence forwarded to the NRC's DCD would ensure proper docketing and distribution. Also, § 72.216(c) is being changed to correct an error. The current regulation references§§ 72.75(a}(2) and (3); the reference should be revised to§§ 72.75(b)(2) and (3).

3. Change the requirement for submittal of dry cask storage effluent report in § 72.44.

Currently, § 72.44(d)(3) requires that a dry cask storage effluent report be submitted to the appropriate NRC regional office within the first 60 days of each year. Section 50.36a(a)(2) requires that a similar report be submitted to the ~ommission once each year specifying liquid and gaseous effluents from reactor operations.

The proposed revision would permit reactor licensees to submit their dry cask storage effluent report to the NRC once each year at the same time as the effluent report from reactor operations. The time between submission of these reports would be no longer than 12 months.

4

However, after the effective date of the final rule, the licensee may submit the first report for a shorter period of time to get on the same reporting schedule as the annual reactor effluent report.

4. Clarify the reporting requirements for specific events and conditions in § 72. 75.

Section 72. 75 contains reporting requirements for specific events and conditions, including the requirement in§ 72.75(d)(2) for a follow-up written report for certain types of emergency and non-emergency notifications. The proposed rule \*.":Uld clarify the specific information required to meet the intent of the existing reporting requirement. A comparable reporting requirement already exists for similar reactor type events in § 50. 73(b). The proposed rule would incorporate the format and content outlined in§ 50.73(b) into§ 72.75(d)(2} to clearly inform licensees of the information necessary for the NRC staffs review. Since the reporting requirement already exists, no significant increase in the licensee's reporting burden will occur by clarifying the format and* content.

• 5. Clarify the requirement for capability for continuous monitoring of confinement storage systems in§ 72.122(h}(4).

Currently, § 72.122(h)(4) requires the capability for continuous monitoring of storage confinement syste,-ns. The meaning of "continuous" is open to interpretation and does not differentiate between monitoring requirements for wet and dry storage of spent fuel. Wet storage requires active heat removal systems that involve a monitoring that is "continuous" in the sense of uninterrupted. Because of the passive nature of dry storage, active heat removal 5

systems are not needed and monitoring can be less frequent. This proposed rule would clarify that the frequency of monitoring can be different for wet and dry storage systems. As part of the NRC approval process, the periodicity of monitoring is specified in the Certificate of Compliance

6. Clarify the requirement specifying instrument and control systems for monitoring dry spent fuel storage in § 72.122(i).

Section 72.122(i) requires that instrumentation and control systems be provided to monitor :-::stems important to safety bt** *foes not distiriguish between wet and dry storage systems. For wet storage, systems are required to monitor and control heat removal. For dry storage, passive heat removal is used and a control system is not required. This proposed change would clarify that control systems are not needed for dry storage systems.

7. Clarify the requirement for dry spent fuel storage cask on methods of criticality control in§ 72.124(b).

Section 72.124(b) requires specific methods for criticality control, including the requirement that where solid neutron absorbing materials are used, the design must provide for positive means to verify their continued efficacy. This requirement is appropriate for wet spent fuel storage systems but not for dry spent fuel storage systems. The potentially corrosive environment under wet storage conditions is not present in dry storage systems because an inert environment is maintained. Under these conditions, there is no mechanism to significantly degrade the neutron absorbing materials. I~ acidition, the dry spent fuel storage casks are sealed and it is not praqtical to penetrate the integrity of the cask to make the measurements for 6

• J verifying the efficacy of neutron absorbing materials. This proposed rule would clarify that positive means for verifying the continued efficacy of solid neutron absorbing materials are not required for dry storage systems, where the efficacy is demonstrated at the outset.

8. Clarify the requirements in§ 72.140(d) concerning the previously approved quality assurance program in conformance with Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 50.

Section 72.174 specifies that quality assurance (QA) records must be maintained by or

• 'Jr::ler the control of the licensee until the Commission terminates the ~:cense. However,

§ 72.140(d) allows a holder of a Part 50 license to use its approved Part 50, Appendix B, QA program in place of the Part 72 QA requirements, including the requirement for QA records.

Appendix B allows the licensee to determine what records will be considered permanent records, using Regulatory Guide 1.28. Thus, Part 50 licensees using an Appendix B, QA program could choose not to make permanent all records generated in support of Part 72 activities. This proposed rule would require these licensees to follow the Part 72 requirement to maintain QA records until termination of the license.

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that Items 1, 5, 6, and 7 of the proposed rule are the types of action described a~ a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22{c)(2) and Items 2, 3, 4 and 8 of the proposed rule are the types of action described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed regulation.

7

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement Proposed Rule Containing Insignificant Information Collections This proposed rule increases the burden on licensees by increasing the record retention period to life of license in 72.140(d). The public burden for this information collection is estimated to average 38 hours4.398148e-4 days <br />0.0106 hours <br />6.283069e-5 weeks <br />1.4459e-5 months <br /> per request. Because the burden for this information collection is insignificant, Office of Management and Budget {0MB) clearance is not required. Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0132.

Public Protection Notification If an information collection does not display a currently valid 0MB control number, the NRG may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection.

Send comments on any aspect of this proposed information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Records Management Branch {T..S F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail at BJS1@f'-1RC.GOV; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0132), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Comments to 0MB on the information collections or on the above issues should be submitted by (insert date 30 days after publication in the Fed_erat Register). Comments .received after this 8

will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.

Regulatory Analysis The NRC has prepared a regulatory analysis on this regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the NRC and :oncludes that the .

proposed rule results in an incremental improvement in public health and safety that outweighs the small incremental cost associated with this proposed change. The analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level), Washington.

Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from M. L. Au, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6181 .

• Regulatory Flexibility Certification

• In accordance with. the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 as amended 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this proposed rule will not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect only the 9

operators of independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). These companies do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 72.62, does not apply to this rule, because these amendments do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 72.62(a). Therefore, a backfrt analysis is not required for this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72 Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the ~nergy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553 the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 72.

PART 72 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

1. The authority citation for Part 72 continues to read as follows:

10

j AUTHORITY: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended(42U.S.C.2071, 2073,2077,2092,2093,2095,2099,2111,2201,2232,2233,2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021);

sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub.

L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1:30-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168).

Section 72.44(9) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C.

10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(9), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(9)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141 (h), Pub.

L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2224 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)).

• Subparts Kand Lare also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198).

2. Section 72.1 is revised to read as follows:

§ 72, 1 Purpose.

The regulations in this part establish requirements, procedures, and criteria for the issuance of licenses to receive, transfer, and possess power reactor spent fuel and other radioactive materials associated with spent fuel storage in an independent spent fuel storage 11

installation (ISFSI) and the terms and conditions under which the Commission will issue these licenses. The regulations in this part also establish requirements, procedures, and criteria for the issuance of licenses to the Department of Energy (DOE) to receive, transfer, package, and possess power reactor spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and other radioactive materials associated with the spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste storage, in a monitored retrievable storage installation (MRS). Furthermore, the regulations in this part also establish requirements, procedures, and criteria for the issuance of Certificates of Compliance approving spent fuel storage casks.

3. In§ 72.2, paragraph (e) is removed, paragraph (f) is redesignated as paragraph (e),

and a new paragraph (f) is added to read as follows:

§ 72,2 Scope.

(f) Certificates of Compliance approving the use of spent fuel storage casks shall be issued in accordance with the requirements of this part as stated in § 72.236.

4. Section 72.4 is revised to read as follows:

§ 72.4 Communications.

Except where otherwise specified, all communications and reports concerning the regulations in thi:: part and applications filed under them should be addressed to the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

12

5. In § 72.44, paragraph (d)(3) is revised to read as follows :

§ 72.44 License conditions.

(d) * * *

(3) An annual report be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, A TIN:

Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001, specifying the quantity of each of the

• principal radionuclides released to the environment in liquid and i,... gaseous effluents during the previous 12 months of operation and such other information as may be required by the Commission to estimate maximum potential radiation dose commitment to the public resulting from effluent releases. On the basis of this report and any additional information that the Commission may obtain from the licensee or others, the Commission may from time to time require the licensee to take such action as the Commission deems appropriate. The time between submission of reports must be no longer than 12 months .

6. In§ 72.75, paragraph (d)(2) is revised, and paragraphs (d)(3), (d)(4), (d)(5), (d)(6) and (d}(7) are added to read as follows:

§ 72,75 Reportiug requirements for specific events and conditions.

(d} * *

• 13

(2) Written report. Each licensee who makes an initial report required by paragraph (a) or {b) of this section shall submit a written follow-up report within 30 days of the initial report.

Written reports prepared pursuant to other regulations may be submitted to fulfill this requirement if the reports contain all the necessary information and the appropriate distribution is made. These written reports must be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:

Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001. These reports must include the following:

(i) A brief abstract describing the major occurrences during the event, including all compc:--snt or system failures that cc'"'"'ibuted to the event and significant corrective action taken or planned to prevent recurrence; (ii) A clear, specific, narrative description of what occurred so that knowledgeable readers conversant with the design of ISFSI or MRS, but not familiar with the details of a particular facility, can understand the complete event; and the narrative description must include the following specific information as appropriate for the particular event:

{A) ISFSI or MRS operating conditions before the event; (B) Status of structures, components, or systems that were inoperable at the start of the event and that contributed to the event; (C) Dates and approximate times of occurrences; (D) The ~use of each component or system failure or personnel error, if known; (E) The failure mode, mechanism, and effect of each failed component, if known; (F) A list of systems or secondary functions that were also affected for failures of components with multiple functions; 14

(G) For wet spent fuel systems storage only, after failure that rendered a train of a safety system inoperable, an estimate of the elapsed time from the discovery of the failure until the train was returned to service; (H) The method of discovery of each component or system failure or procedural error; (l)ill Operator actions that affected the course of the event, including operator errors, procedural deficiencies, or both, that contributed to the event; (2) For each personnel error, the licensee shall discuss:

(D Whether the error was a cognitive error (e.g., failure to recognize the actual facility

':C;"dition, failure to realize which systems should be functioning, failure to recognize the true nature of the event) or a procedural error; (ii) Whether the error was contrary to an approved procedure, was a direct result of an error in an approved procedure, or was associated with an activity or task that was not covered by an approved procedure; (iii) Any unusual characteristics of the work location (e.g., heat, noise) that directly contributed to the error; and

(&) The type of personnel involved (e.g., contractor personnel, utility-licensed operator, utility nonlicensed operator, other utility personnel);

(J) Automatically and manually initiated safety system responses (wet spent fuel storage systems only);

(K) The manufacturer and model number (or other identification) of each component that failed during the event; (L) The quantities and chemical and physical forms of the spent fuel or HLW involved; 15

(3) An assessment of the safety consequences and implications of the event. This assessment must include the availability of other systems or components that could have perfonned the same function as the components and systems that failed during the event; (4) A description of any corrective actions planned as a result of the event, including those to reduce the probability of similar events occurring in the future; (5) Reference to any previous similar events at the same plant that are known to the licensee; (6) The name and telephone number of a person within the licensee's organization who is knowledgeable about the event and can provide additional infonnation concerning the event and the plant's characteristics; (7) The extent of exposure of individuals to radiation or to radioactive materials without identification of individuals by name.

7. In§ 72.122, paragraphs (h)(4) and (i) are revised to read as follows:

§ 12.122 (h)

Overall Regujrements.

(4) Storage confinement systems must have the capability for continuous monitoring in a manner such that the licensee will be able to detennine when corrective action needs to be taken to maintain safe storage conditions. For dry storage, periodic monitoring is sufficient provided that periodic monitoring is consistent with the cask design requirements. The monitoring period must be based upon the cask design requirements.

16

I (i) Instrumentation and control systems. Instrumentation and control systems for wet spent fuel storage must be provided to monitor systems that are important to safety over anticipated ranges for normal operation and off-normal operation. Those instrµments and control systems that must remain operational under accident conditions must be identified in the Safety Analysis Report. Instrumentation systems for dry spent fuel storage casks must be

• provided ir. ::1ccordance with cask design requirements to monitor conditions that are important to safety over anticipated ranges for normal conditions and off-normal conditions. Systems that are required under accident conditions must be identified in the Safety Analysis R~port.

8. In § 72.124, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

§ 72.124 Criteria for nuclear criticality safety.

(b) Methods of crit 1"ality control. When practicable the design of an ISFSI or MRS must be based on favorable geometry, permanently fixed neutron absorbing materials (poisons), or both. \Nhere solid neutron absorbing materials are used, the design must provide for positive means of verifying their continued efficacy. For dry spent fuel storage systems, the continued efficacy may be confirmed by a demonstration and analysis before use, showing that significant degradation of the neutron absorbing materials_ cannot occur over the life of the facility.

17

9. In§ 72.140, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:

§ 72.140 Quality assurance reguirements.

(d) Previously approved programs. A Commission-approved quality assurance program which satisfies the applicable criteria of Appendix B to Part 50 of this chapter and which is established, maintained, and executed with regard to an ISFSI will be accepted as satisfying the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section except that a licensee using an Appendix B quality assurance program also shall meet the requirement of§ 72.174 for recordkeeping. Prior to initial use, the licensee shall notify the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555--0001, of its intent to apply its previously approved Appendix B program to ISFSI activities. The licensee shall identify the program by date of submittal to the Commission, docket number, and date of Commission approval.

10. In§ 72.216, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:

§ 72.216 Reports.

18

(c) The general licensee shall make initial and written reports in accordance with

§§ 72.74 and 72.75, except for the events specified by§ 72.75(b)(2) and (3) for which the initial reports will be made under paragraph (a) of this section.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3r::d day of ~,1998.

(/

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John'.,C. Hoyle, Secretary of the Commission.

19