ML23156A418

PR-072 - 64FR41050 - Revision to the List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks Implementing the Director'S Decision 97-03 in Response to a Petition Filed by the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy, Et Al

ML23156A418
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/29/1999
From:	Travers W NRC/EDO
To:
References
PR-072, 64FR41050
Download: ML23156A418 (1)

Text

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 07/29/1999 TITLE: PR-072 -64FR41050 - REVISION TO THE LIST OF APPROVED SPENT FUEL STORAGE CASKS IMPLEMENTING THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION 97-03 IN RESPONSE TO A PETITION FILED BY THE TOLEDO COALITION FOR SAFE ENERGY, ET AL.

CASE

REFERENCE:

PR-072 64FR41050 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

Docket No.: PR-072 04/21/2000 FR Cite: 64FR41050 In the Matter of Revision to the List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks Implementing the Director's Decision 97-03 in Response to a Petition Filed by the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy, et al.

Comment Comment Representing Docket Document Miscellaneous Number Submitted By Date Date Description 0 08/04/1999 07/07/1999 Federal Register Notice -

Proposed Rule

• I M. S. Tuckman Duke Energy Corporation 10/18/1999 10/14/1999 2 U. B. Chopra Transnuclear West Inc. 10/18/1999 10/12/1999 0 03/23/2000 03/13/2000 Federal Register Notice - Final Rule 1

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE.P 1'o2 h 'IFN 'I ID S"o)

• oo N,~mn, 2.J., PJ:.3z NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 AD RIN 3150-AG19 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks; Revision, NUHOMS 24-P and NUHOMS 52-B AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations containing the list of approved spent fuel storage cask designs by adding an amended version of Certificate of Compliance Number (CoC No.) 1004 to this list. The amended version reflects a change of ownership of this certificate from VECTRA Technologies, Inc. to Transnuclear West, Inc., (TN West) as well as an amendment to the certificate .

~ ,.:1~ :;JDOO EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on (*9 ee:ye fFeffl iAe &tate ef publicalioII Ii I ti Ie Feeerel Registe,).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stan Turel, telephone (301) 415-6234, e-mail spt@nrc.gov of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

I~ . I>>? .3/~f/00 wt*~sFie u~ :iCJ,

SUPPLEMENTARV INFORMATION:

Background

Section 218{a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA), requires that "[tJhe Secretary[of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear reactor power sites, with the objective of establishing* one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory]

Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of cMlian nuclear power reactors

• without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site~specific approvals by the Commission." Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, "[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under

\

Section 218(a) for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor."

To implement this mandate, the NRC approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRG-approved casks under a general license, publishing a final rule in 10 CFR Part 72 entitled "General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites" (55 FR 29.181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a*new Subpart L within 10 CFR Part 72 entitled "Approval of

• Spent Fuel Storage Casks," containing procedures and.criteria for obtaining NRC approval of dry storage cask designs:

Discussion The NRC is revising information contained in § 72.214 under CoC No. 1004 to reflect Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1004 and to address four administrative issues in the current 2

language in § 72.214. These four administrative issues include (1) correcting the expiration date of CoC No. 1004 from the present "(20 years after the final rule effective date)" to "January 23, 2015;" (2) correcting the title and revision number of the standardized NU HOMS SAR to be consistent with the approach the NRC adopted for CoC SARs in a new § 72.248 (see final rule in 64 FR 53582; October 4, 1999); (3) revising the Coe to reflect the transfer of the Coe from VECTRA Technologies, Inc. to Transnuclear West, Inc., (TN West); and (4) spepifying the applicability of Amendment No. o and Amendment No. 1 to this Coe.

Change 1 keeps the certificate expiration date consistent with the NRC's policy for Part 72 CoCs, which is to use 20 years from the date the final rule is effective. The final rule

• adding CoC No. 1004 to § 72.214 was effective on January 23, 1995; consequent!~, the expiration date for this Coe is January 23, 2015.

Change 2 keeps CoC No. 1004 consistent with other recent changes to 10 CFR 72.248.

The SAR title will be changed from Safety Analysis Report for the Standardized NUHOMS Horizontal Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Revision 2" to Final Safety Analysis Report for the Standardized NUHOMS Horizontal Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel." In the new§ 72.248, a final SAR is to be submitted to the Commission within 90 days after approval of the cask design and then will be updated periodically.

• Replacement pages will be provided to the Commission in accordance with § 72.248.

Change 3 recognizes the transfer of the CoC from VECTRA to TN West. NRC received letters dated December 18, 1997, from both VECTRA and TN West describing the purchase of VECTRA's intellectual properties and assets associated with NUHOMS technology by TN West.

In its December 18, 1997, letter, TN West described that it planned to conduct fabrication activities in accordance with the quality assurance program described in Section 11 of the NUHOMS SAR. TN West further described that it had acquired the composite records of casks 3

manufactured under CoC No. 1004 and that it had records associated with changes to the NUHOMS design implemented after issuance of the Coe.

Change 4 describes how general licensees would continue to use spent fuel storage casks manufactured under the original CoC No. 1004, if the cask being used was fabricated before [insert effective date of the final rule]. After [Insert effective date of the final rule],

casks must be manufactured in accordance with Coe No. 1004, Amendment No. 1. This final rule issues Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1004. Amendment No. 1 revises and reformats the CoC to be consistent with the NRC's current format and layout for Part 72 certificates.

Proposed condition No. 4 in Coe No. 1004 is removed in response to comments as discussed

• below. Conditions No. 1 through 8 are renumbered.

Based on the October 1995 and January 1999 safety evaluations, the newly established fabrication inspection procedures, and the Amendment No. 1 to Coe No. 1004, the NRG staff has concluded that the NUHOMS-24P and -528 cask design, when used in accordance with the conditions specified in the CoC as amended, and NRG regulations, will meet the Part 72 requirements and thus ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety.

The Amendment No. 1 to Coe No. 1004, the VECTRA safety analyses, and the. NRe staff safety evaluations are available for inspection at the NRG Public Document Room, 2120 L

• Street, NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20003-1527. Documents created or received at the NRG after November 1, 1999 are also available electronically at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System {ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. For more information, contact the NRG Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 202-634-3273 or by email to pdr@nrc.gov. Single copies of the Amendment No. 1 to 4

CoC No. 1004 may be obtained from Stan Turel, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6234, email spt@nrc.gov.

Public Comments on the Proposed Rule Summary of Public Comments on proposed rule.

The NRG received two comment letters on the proposed rule. One comment was from a user of the NUHOMS spent fuel storage system and the other was from the vendor of the

• NUHOMS spent fuel storage system. Both commenters supported the overall approach taken in the proposed amendment. However, both commenters also disagreed with the proposed change to Condition No. 4 in the CoC and proposed alternate wording. Condition No. 4 was added, in part, in response to a February 5, 1997, NMSS Director's Decision, to ensure future compliance with § 72.150, with respect to dry shielded canister (DSC) shell-weld thickness, by requiring inspection of DSC shell welds. Both commenters believe that the concerns identified in the Director's Decision have been overtaken by other events, specifically the numerous

• corrective actions taken by Vectra and later by TN West- Vectra was subsequently acquired by TN West. These actions corrected the petitioner's and NRC's concerns regarding this issue.

At the time of the Director's Decision, Vectra had already begun an exhaustive review of its design, licensing, fabrication, and quality assurance program and implemented numerous improvements to its fabrication specifications, drawings, and procedures. The remaining concerns were addressed by TN West and resulted in NRG authorizing resumption of fabrication of NUHOMS components in 1998. Both commenters indicated that TN West has translated and implemented the proposed Condition No. 4 into the fabrication drawings and r

specifications. Furthermore, these corrective actions provide adequate assurance that the NUHOMS storage system will perform its intended safety function. Therefore, including such detailed fabrication and inspection requirements in the Coe is redundant, inconsistent with the NRC's initiative in this rule to oe uniform in the format and layout for Part 72 CoCs, and is unnecessary.

Response: The NRC agrees with the comments, in part. The 1997 Director's Decision established a process to provide other interested members of the public an opportunity to comment on any aspect of the NRC safety evaluation associated with this issue. One purpose

• of the rulemaking was to consider whether the wall thinning issue justified a unique fabrication inspection requirement in the CoC No. 1004. The Director's Decision was based, in part, on Vectra's performance history with this issue and concluded that changes to the CoC merited consideration. After the 1997 Director's Decision, requirements for wall thickness have been included and implemented in the NUHOMS storage system fabrication specifications, procedures, and inspection requirements. In the revised CoC, Condition No. 3 specifies that the system drawings for the NUHOMS are contained in Appendix E of the Safety Analysis Report. The NRC also notes that Vectra's performance history with this issue is no longer a

• relevant factor in establishing the CoC conditions, because VECTRA is no longer involved in the fabrication of the NUHOMS storage system.

Additionally, the NRG has recently published a separate final rule to expand the applicability of the quality assurance provisions of Part 72, Subpart G, to certificate holders and applicants for a CoC (64 FR 56114; October 15, 1999). Three of the sections in the revised Subpart G are relevant to this response (see §§ 72.146, "Design Control"; 72.150, "Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings"; and 72.160, "Licensee and Certificate Holder Inspection"). The revised § 72.146(a) states, in part:

6

The ... certificate holder ... shall establish measures to ensure that applicable regulatory requirements and the design basis, as specified in the ... Coe application for those structures, systems, and components to which this section applies, are correctly translated into specifications, drawings, procedures, and instructions. These measures must include provisions to ensure that appropriate quality standards are included in design documents ....

The revised § 72.150 states, in part The ... certificate holder ... shall prescribe activities affecting quality by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings of a type appropriate to the circumstances

• and shall require that these instructions, procedures, and drawings be followed.

The revised § 72.160 states, in part:

r The ... certificate holder ... shall establish and execute a program for inspection of activities affecting quality by or for the organizj3.tion performing the activity to verify conformance with documented instructions, procedures, and drawings for the accomplishment of the activity.

TN West's [VECTRA's] revision of the design drawings, instructions, and procedures to specify a weld thickness of greater than 0.500 inch and a weld inspection requirement and its responsibility as the certificate holder to comply with the new quality assurance requirements contained in §§ 72.146, 72.150, and 72.164, taken together, provide reasonable assurance that public health and safety will not be adversely affected by the continued manufacture and use of the NUHOMS storage system. Consequently, the NRG agrees with the commenters that the proposed Condition No. 4 is unnecessary and would be inconsistent with a purpose of the proposed rule related to the NRC's initiative to establish a standard format and content for all Part 72 CoCs. However, the NRG disagrees with the alternative solution proposed by the commenters to retain a modified version of Condition No. 4, because this action would not be 7

fully consistent with the intent of the commenter's standardization issue; nor would it be fullx__

consistent with the NRC's initiative in the proposed rule to establish a standard format and content for Part 72 CoCs.

Therefore, inclusion of the proposed detailed fabricatiorrrequirements (i.e., proposed Condition No. 4) in CoC No. 1004 is unnecessary and is removed in this final rule. All other changes to the CoC stand as proposed. The NRG considers that this action is consistent with the actions delineated in the February 5, 1997, Director's Decision and the subsequent rulemal<lng to expand the applicability of the Part 72 quality assurance regulations in Subpart G to certificate holders.

• Summary of Final Revisions The NRG staff modified the listing for the Transnuclear West, Inc. NU HOMS 24-P and NUHOMS 52-B cask system within 10 CFR 72.214, "List of approved spent fuel storage casks,"

with respect to the expiration date of CoC, the title and revision number of the standardized NUHOMS SAR, and the applicability of Amendment No. O and Amendment No.1 to the CoC.

The NRG staff also revised the Coe.

• Agreement State Compatibility 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 on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this rule is classified as compatibility Category "NRG." Compatibility is not required for Category "NRG" regulations. The NRG program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the 8

NRG by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), or the provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to NRG, 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.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the

• Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, the NRG has determined that this rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. This final rule adds an amended version of Certificate of Compliance Number (CoC No.) 1004 to the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power-reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites without additional site-specific approvals from the Commission. The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection at the NRG Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),

• Washington, DC. Single copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are available from Stan Turel, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-6234, e-mail spt@nrc.gov.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement 9

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0132. ---

Public Protection Notification If a means used to impose an 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 .

• Voluntary eonsensus Standards The National Technology Transfer Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC is adding an amended version of Coe No.

1004 to the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power-reactor licensees can use to

• store spent fuel at reactor sites without additional site-specific approvals from the Commission.

This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that-establishes generally-applicable requirements.

Regulatory Analysis On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the Commission issued an amendment to 10 CFR 10

Part 72. The amendment provided for the storage of spent nuclear fuel in cask systems with designs approved by the NRG under a general license. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use cask systems with designs approved by the NRG to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRG in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions*specified*in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. In that rule, four spent fuel storage casks were approved for use at reactor sites and were listed in 10 CFR 72.214. That rule envisioned that storage casks certified in the future could be routinely added to the listing in 10 CFR 72.214 through the rulemaking process. Procedures and criteria for obtaining NRG approval of new spent fuel storage cask designs were provided in 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart L.

• The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of this new design and issue a site-specific license to each utility that proposes to use the casks. This alternative would cost both the NRG and utilities more time and money for each site-specific license. Conducting site-specific reviews would ignore the procedures and criteria currently in place for the addition of new cask designs that can be used under a general license, and would be in conflict with NWPA direction to the Commission to approve technologies for the use of spent fuel storage at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site reviews. This alternative also would tend to exclude new vendors from the

• business market without cause and would arbitrarily limit the choice of cask designs available to power reactor licensees. This final rule will eliminate the above problems and is consistent with previous Commission actions. Further, the rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety.

The benefit of this rule to nuclear power reactor licensees is to make available a greater choice of spent fuel storage cask designs that can be used under a general license. The new cask vendors with casks to be listed in 10 CFR 72.214 benefit by having to obtain NRC 11

certificates only once for a design that can then be used by more than one power reactor licensee. The NRG also benefits because it will need to certify a cask design only once for use by multiple licensees. Casks approved through rulemaking are to be suitable for use under a range of environmental conditions sufficiently broad to encompass multiple nuclear power plants in the United States without the need for further site-specific approval by NRG. Vendors with cask designs already listed may be adversely impacted because power reactor licensees may choose a newly listed design over an existing one. However, the NRG is required by its regulations and NWPA direction to certify and list approved casks. This rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies.

• Based on the above discussion of the benefits and impacts of the alternatives, the NRG concludes that the requirements of the final rule are commensurate with the Commission's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and thus, this action is recommended.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the

• NRG has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects only the licensing and operation of 12

nuclear power plants, independent spent fuel storage facilities, and Transnuclear West, Inc.

The companies that own these plants 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 (1 O CFR 50.109 or 10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this rule because this amendment does not involve any provisions that would impose

• backfits as defined in the backfit rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required.

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. 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:

13

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.2071,2073,20TT,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. 10d - 48b, sec. 7902, 10b Stat. 31b3 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C.

4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168).

Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) andJ48(c), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(15), 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, 2244, (42 U.S.C. 10101, 101'37(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. In Section 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1004 is added to read as follows:

§ 72.214 list of approved spent fuel storage casks.

Certificate Number: 1004 Amendment Number: O and 1 Amendment Applicability:

14

Amendment Number: O and 1 Amendment Applicability:

Amendment No. O is applicable for casks manufactured before [insert effective date of final Amendment No. 1 is applicable for casks manufactured after [insert effective date of final rule].

SAR Submitted by: Transnuclear West, Inc.

SAR Trtle: Final Safety Analysis Report for the Standardized NUHOMS Horizontal Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel

• Docket Number: 72-1004 Certificate Expiration Date: January 23, 2015 Model Numbers: Standardized NUHOMS-24P and NUHOMS-528 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this~l~3-'-t-'-h_ _ _ day of March ,2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Executive Director for Operations.

15

Transnuclear West Inc.

39300 Civic Center Drive, Suite 280 Fremont, CA 94538 01 Telephone: 510-795-9800 AL Fax: 510-744-6002 October 12, 1999 The Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff

SUBJECT:

10CFR Part 72, Proposed Rule to Issue Amendment No.l to TN West COC 72-1004 (Federal Register, Volume 64, Number 145, July 29,

REFERENCES:

1999)

1) Preliminary Amendment No. 1 to COC 72-1004 Regarding Shell Weld Thickness (TAC no. L21145), Letter from J. W. Shea to R.

Grenier dated February 11, 1999

2) TNW Safety Analysis Report for the Standardized NUHOMS Horizontal Modular Storage System, Revision 4A

3) Fabrication Specification for NUHOMS System Dry Shielded Canister, NUH-03-105, Revision 8

4) Supplementary Response to Demand for Inspection (DFI), Letter from V. Franceschi to W. Kane, dated June 5, 1997

5) NRC Inspection Report No. 72-1004/97-209; Letter from S .

Shankman to D. Dawson dated January 20, 1998

6) NRC Special Inspection Report No. 72-1004/98-208; Letter from S.

Shankman to D. Dawson dated May 22, 1998

7) NRC Inspection Report 72-1004/98-211; Letter from S. F.

Shankman to R. Grenier dated December 15, 1998

Dear Sir:

TN West concurs with the four proposed changes in Section 72.214 under COC 72-1004 to reflect Amendment No. 1 to COC 72-1004. However, it is TN West's opinion that the proposed revision to COC Condition No. 4 from the wording previously included in Reference 1 as Condition 6 is inappropriate and unnecessary as discussed in the following paragraphs. The proposed Condition No. 4 states that "TN West shall ensure that 100 percent of the full penetration longitudinal and circumferential butt welds used for the DSC shell are inspected using radiographic examination. Inspections shall be performed on each shell weld after the weld is ground flush with the surrounding surfaces, and the weld and the base metal wall thickness shall be greater than or equal to 0.5 inch".

u.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMl8SK)N RUI.EMAKJNGS&AllADCATICN-srAFF OFACEOFHIIDE'ARY OF THE COAl88ION DocllnnW:i 6::"1'~ 10/;ah, tf'k'd ~ e4,U(,J/db.~

Add1 ~ Reproooced __ 'f.:...r--- -

Sp~ ,.idi'Ks' ~

Secretary Page 2 of 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission TN West agrees with the NRC that the stipulated requirements are necessary to provide assurance that the NUHOMS DSCs are capable of fulfilling their intended safety functions.

However, TN West licensing documents (DSC Drawing NUH-03-1021 included in Appendix E of Reference 2) currently reflect identical inspection requirements for DSC fabrication and inspection. In addition, TN West DSC Fabrication Specification (Reference 3) and DSC Fabrication drawings (which are created from the DSC Licensing Drawings) specify identical requirements. TN West has included critical DSC fabrication parameters and inspection criteria for acceptability of these parameters into the NUHOMS licensing drawings. In addition, these licensing commitments have been translated into the DSC fabrication drawings and specifications; which provide adequate assurance that the NUHOMS DSCs will perform their intended safety function. Hence, inclusion of such a detailed fabrication and inspection requirement in the COC is redundant and unnecessary .

• The proposed change to COC Condition No. 4 intends to implement the decision of the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (Reference Director's Decision DD-97-03, February 5, 1997).

TN West contends that the conditions which gave rise to this decision have subsequently been fully remedied and therefore inclusion of the aforementioned portion of Condition 4 in the COC is no longer justified. In response to the Demand for Information issued by the NRC in January 1997, VECTRA Technologies Inc., initiated an exhaustive review of their design, licensing, fabrication, and quality assurances programs. This review resulted in implementation of numerous corrective actions and programmatic improvements (Reference 4). The NRC subsequently conducted an inspection of these corrective actions in October 1997, during which it identified some remaining concerns (Reference 5). TN West satisfactorily addressed these remaining concerns by implementing additional corrective actions as documented in NRC Inspections Reports (References 6 and 7) that authorized

• resumption of fabrication of NUHOMS components.

In summary, TN West considers the proposed change to Condition 4 of the COC as unwarranted and inappropriate. The Director's decision has been de facto implemented by the numerous corrective actions previously implemented by TN West as described. A more appropriate wording for Condition 4, which is also acceptable to TN West, was previously included in Reference 1 as Condition 6 which states that "Fabrication activities shall be conducted in accordance with a quality assurance program as described in Section 11 of the SAR. All fabrication acceptance tests and procedures shall be performed in accordance with detailed written procedures. Procedures for fabrication, acceptance testing, and maintenance shall be developed using the specifications contained within the SAR, and shall ensure that commitments to specific Codes and standards described in the SAR are satisfied.

( 1) Fabrication inspections shall be performed on each shell weld after the weld is ground flush with the surrounding surfaces, to ensure that the shell thickness meets the requirements of Section 1/1, subsection NB of the ASME Code"

Secretary Page 3 of 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sincerely, U. B. Chopra Licensing Manager Docket: 72-1004

• cc: File NUH003.10003

October 14, 1999 NOTE TO: Emile Julian Assistant for Rulemakings and Adjudications FROM: Carol Gallagher ADM,DAS

SUBJECT:

DOCKETING OF COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULE - LIST OF APPROVED SPENT FUEL STORAGE CASKS; REVISION, NUHOMS 24-P AND NUHOMS 52-B

• Attached for docketing is a comment letter related to the subject proposed rule. This comment was received via the rulemaking website on October 12, 1999. The submitter's name is U. a. Chopra, Transnuclear West Inc., 39300 Civic Center Drive, Suite 280, Fremont, CA 94538. Please send a copy of the docketed comment to Stan Turel (mail stop T-9F-31) for his records.

Attachment:

• As stated cc w/attachment:

S. Turel

(j)

~ Dulce Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church Street

' " Energy... IJOt"' ,-r P.O. Box 1006 (EC07H)

Charlotte, NC 28201-1006 I

(704) 382-2200 OFFICE M. S. Tuckman (704) 382-4360 FAX Executive Vice President Nuclear Generation *99 DC, 18 I\? :j[3 October 14, 1999 A

Ms. Annette Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C .

20555-0001 ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff

Subject:

Comment s on Proposed Rule, List of App roved Spent Fuel Stora ge Casks ; Revision, NUHOMS 24-P and NUHOMS 52 -B, 64FR41050, dated July 29, 1999

Dear Ms. Vietti-Cook:

The following comments are submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the captioned rulemaking. The proposed rule would amend 10 C.F . R. § 72.214 to address several administrative issues related to Certificate of Compliance (CoC)

No. 1004, including the transfer of CoC No. 1004 from VECTRA Technologies, Inc. (VECTRA) to Transnuclear (TN) West. As part

• of the rulemaking, the NRC proposes to issue Amendment No. 1 to Coe No. 1004.

amendment to the Coe.

Our comments are focused on this proposed Duke supports the proposed revisions to Coe No. 1004 which are intended to "reformat the Coe to be consistent with the NRC' s current format and layout for Part 72 certificates." 64.

Fed. Reg. 41052. We believe that it is appropriate for the NRC to seek uniformity in the CoCs for approved spent fuel storage casks. However, Duke is opposed to the proposed revision to (new) Condition No.4 which would add the following provision:

All fabrication acceptance tests and procedures shall be performed in accordance with detailed written procedures. TN We st shall ensure that 100 percent of the full penetration longitudinal and circumferential butt welds used for the DSC shell are inspected using radiographic examination. Inspections shall be OCT 19 1999

~cknowtedged by cmd AIOIT I --

u.S. NUClfAR REGULATORY COMtM8SK)N RULEMAKIGS&ADIDCATIONS IWF OAUC.1NIECMTARY

<J=MOOfMl8ION Doatna 8'!llala PO&Ralk Olla Coples i() h'-I / q 9

/

Add'I _ ..,..:5=:;,_ _ _

Sp

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 14, 1999 Page 2 performed on each shell weld after the weld is ground flush with surrounding surfaces, and the weld and the base metal wall thickness shall be greater than or equal to 0.500 inch.

64 Fed. Reg. 41052.

The NRC states that the addition of the above provision to Coe No. 1004 is intended to implement a 1997 decision of the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) on a 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 petition request. 64 Fed. Reg .

41051 - 41054. In our view, however, it is not necessary to revise the CoC in the manner proposed by the NRC to accomplish the Di re ct or 's st ated objective in init ia ting thi s rul emaking, i ~ e., to "ensure that the [dry shielded canister (DSC)]

fabrication process . . produces DSC components that conform to the design criteria and safety margins approved by the NRC." 1 For the following reasons, we urge the NRC to consider revising Coe No. 1004 by adding only the sentence: "All fabrication acceptance tests and procedures shall be performed in accordance with detailed written procedures."

The NMSS Director determined that "changes to [Coe No.

1004] merit consideration as possible additional actions to assure quality of NUHOMS components in light of" the circumstances which preceded the 2.206 petition. However, because the requirements are now included in the NUHOMS fabrication specifications and procedures, inclusion of the proposed detailed fabrication requirements in the Coe would no longer be justified. The circumstances which gave rise to this aspect of the proposed rule (i.e., poor fabrication and design control by then Coe holder, VECTRA) have subsequently been fully remedied. 2 At the time of the Director's Decision on February 5, 1997, VECTRA had just begun an exhaustive review of its programmatic controls. Recurring fabrication and design deficiencies Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), DD-97-03, 45 NRC 71, 81 (1997).

2 Id. at 82 (emphasis added).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 14, 1999 Page 3 (including the lack of dimensional verification following grinding of the shell welds) had caused the NRC to issue a Demand for Information to VECTRA on January 13, 1997. In response, VECTRA issued a stop work order on January 24, 1997, that remained in ef feet until May 1998. Additionally, VECTRA initiated an exhaustive review of its design, licensing, fabrication, and quality assurances programs and instituted numerous corrective actions which were described in several subsequent submittals to the NRC. The effect of these corrective actions was to ensure that the NUHOMS design and

• licensing requirements, as approved by the NRC, were properly translated into fabricated components.

numerous improvements drawings, and procedures.

to its VECTRA implemented fabrication specifications, VECTRA also reviewed the NUHOMS design to identify the critical characteristics of each NUHOMS component (which included the thickness of the post-grinding shell welds) and developed quality assurance (QA) inspection lists to verify these critical characteristics in the fabricated components. Moreover, programmatic improvements were instituted to ensure future performance during all phases of the design, licensing, and fabrication would not decline. The corrective actions taken by VECTRA were described to the NRC in a letter submitted by VECTRA on June 5, 1997. NRC subsequently conducted an inspection of these corrective actions in October 1997,

• during which it identified some remaining concerns.

Inspection Report implemented the

1. 72-1004/97-209 January 20, remaining concerns were addressed by TN West.

based on its conclusion corrective that TN West actions, the had NRC (See NRC 1998)). The On May 6, 1998, sufficiently authorized resumpt_ion of limited fabrication of NUHOMS components.

Inclusion of the proposed detailed fabrication requirements in the Coe would be unique to Coe No. 1004. It would also be counter to the other proposed revisions intended to make Coe No.

1004 consistent with the NRC's standard format for Part 72 certificates. Moreover, we are concerned that should the NRC adopt the proposed revision to the NUHOMS CoC, a precedent may be set whereby the Coe may become an expedient vehicle to "remedy" future fabrication deviations.

For the foregoing reasons, we oppose NRC' s proposal to amend Coe No. 1004 to include specific fabrication requirements

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 14, 1999 Page 4 in Condition No. 4. Duke recommends that the proposed revision to Condition No. 4 of the Coe be limited to adding: "All fabrication acceptance tests and procedures shall be performed in accordance with detailed written procedures." Duke is of the opinion that inclusion of this sentence would provide sufficient assurance that the NUHOMS canisters can fulfill their intended safety functions and that allowable stress values are not exceeded.

If there are any questions regarding this matter, please contact

• Luellen B. Jones at (704) 382-5826.

Sincerely, M. S. Tuckman xc: L. A. Reyes,. Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II Atlanta Federal Center

• 61 Forsyth Street, SWW, Suite 23T85 Atlanta, GA 30303 D. E. Labarge, NRC Project Manager (CNS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 0-8 H12 Washington, DC 20555-0001 F. Rinaldi, NRC Project Manager (MNS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 0-8 H12 Washington, DC 20555-0001 P. S. Tam, NRC Project Manager (ONS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 0-8 H12 Washington, DC 20555-0001

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 14, 1999 Page 5 M. C. Shannon, NRC Senior Resident Inspector (ONS)

D. J. Roberts, NRC Senior Resident Inspector (CNS)

S. M. Shaeffer, NRC Senior Resident Inspector (MNS)

[7590-01 -P]

• 99 AIJG -4 P4 :22 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO~IS~ION 71, 10 CFR Part 72 ADJU RIN: 3150-AG19 NUHOMS Revision to the List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks Implementing the Director's Decision 97-03 in Response to a Petition Filed by the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy, et al.

• AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations containing the list of approved spent fuel storage cask designs to add an amended version of Certificate of Compliance Number (Coe No.) 1004 to this list. The amended version reflects a change of ownership of this certificate from VECTRA Technologies, Inc. to Transnuclear West, Inc., (TN West) as well as an amendment to the certificate. This rulemaking also implements a Director's Decision, in response to a petition filed by the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy, et al.,

regarding the cask design, approved by Coe No. 1004, in which the Director determined that a rulemaking should be conducted to require a fabrication inspection of dry shielded canister (DSC) shell welds.

&~1:i, 19'19 DATES: The comment period expires (il"lsert  :;zs days iF9r:r:l d~t0 gf ~ubli~ation). Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for com111ents received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Hand deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.

You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking web site through the NRC's home page (http://www.nrc.go~). 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) 415-5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov.

Certain documents related to this rulemaking, including comments received by the NRC, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC 20003-1527. 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: Stan Tµrel, telephone (301) 415-6234, e-mail, spt@nrc.gov of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

2

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

J , '

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA), requires,

"... for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing* one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use\at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without,* to the maximum extent practicable, .the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission." Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that "[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 218(a) for use at the site pf any civilian nuclear power reactor.".

To implement this mandate, the NRG approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRG-approved casks under a general -license by publishing a final ~le in 10 CFR Part 72 entitled, "General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites" (55 cR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new Subpart L within Part 72, entitled "Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks," that contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRG approval of dry storage cask designs.

The NRG subsequently issued a final rule to amend Part 72 by adding to the list of approved spent fuel storage cask designs CoC No. 1004 to VECTRA Technologies, Inc., of San Jose, California, for the standardized NUHOMS-24P and NUHOMS-52B spent fuel storage cask designs (59 FR 65898; December 22, 1994). The NUHOMS design consists of a sealed, dry shielded canister (DSC), which contains the spent fuel assemblies. A loaded DSC is stored inside a ventilated, horizontal, concrete vault (i.e., storage module).

3

The Petition The Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy, et al., filed a petition with the NRC on December 5, 1995,

)

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. The petitioners raise*d concerns on the safety of the NUHOMS-24P spent fuel storage cask design regarding a reduction in the thickness of the welds in the walls of three DSCs fabricated for use at the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant. In addition, the petitioners questioned the NRC's administrative process by which VECTRA was permitted to deliver the DSCs containing wall thinning to the Davis-Besse facility and by which the licensee for Davis Besse was permitted to use these casks. The petitioners 'claimed that an NRC rulemaking or some other public proceeding was necessary to grant permission for the transfer and use of these spent fuef storage casks.

The Petition was referred to the Director of the NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) for action under the N~C's regulations in 10 CFR 2.206. On February 5, 1997, the Director of NMSS_issued Director's Decision* 97-03 (DD-97-03) that granted the Petition, in part. The decision found that the minimum wall thickness measured by VECTRA in the three DSCs was 0.581 inch, less than,the original design wall thickness of

• 0.625 inch specified in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR). VECTRA pei:for_med calculations demonstrating that a DSC with a 0.500 inch uniform minimum wall thickness still met the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pre'ssure Vessel Code (ASME Code),

allowable stress values and satisfied the NRC's design criteria.* '(ECTRA submitted these calculations in a letter dated September 5, 1995. In a Safety Evaluation (SE), dated October 5,

~ '

1995, the NRC accepted VECTRA's wall thickness calculation as meeting the ASME Code allowable stress values. However, the NRC indicated that because of the limited experience in performing weld thickness measurements, it was reasonable for VECTRA to establish a fabrication margin of 0.063 inch a~ove the 0.500 inch minimum design wall thickness. The 4

decision stated, in part, "while VECTRA failed to comply with its SAR commitment of 0.625 inch, its failure resulted in no compromise of safety. Nonetheless, the failure raised an issue of poor control during the fabrication process." The decision also found that existing NUHOMS-24P casks remained acceptable for continued use. The decision further found that VECTRA had no procedure to measure the final wall thickness in the area of the welds, after grinding or in any subsequent steps in the fabrication proces~. which would provide an adequate level of control in maintaining minimum acceptable wall thickness. VECTRA failed to comply with the NRC's requirement under § 72.150 to have procedures that include appropriate qualitative and quantitative acceptance criteria-for determining that important activities tiave been satisfactorily accomplished. The decision indicated that CoC No. 1004 should be modified to require a fabrication inspection procedure to assure that DSC weld-grinding operations do not result in wall thinning below acceptable levels. Accordingly, the petitioners' request was granted, in part. The decision is available for review in the NRC Public Document Room as "Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206, DD# 97-03."

• . Discussion

• The NRC is proposing to revise information contained in § 72.214 under Coe No. 1004 to reflect Amendment No. 1 to Coe No. 1004 and to address four administrative issues in the current language in § 72.214. These four administrative issues include (1) correcting the expiration date of CoC No. 1004 from the present "(20 years after the final rule effective date)"

to "January 23, 2015;" (2) correcting the title and revision number of the standardized NUHOMS SAR to be consistent with the approach the NRC proposed for CoC SARs in a new § 72.248 (see proposed rule in 63 FR 56098; October 21, 1998); (3) revising the CoC to reflect the 5

transfer of the CoC from VECTRA Technologies, Inc., to Transnuclear West, Inc., (TN West);

and (4) specifying the applicability of Amendment No. O and Amendment No. 1 to this Coe.

Change 1 keeps the certificate expiration date consistent with the NRC's policy for Part 72 CoCs, which is to use 20 years from the date the final rule is effective. The final rule adding CoC No. 1004 to § 72.214 was effective on January 23, 1995; consequently, the expiration date for this CoC is January 23, 2015.

Change 2 keeps Coe No. 1004 consistent with other proposed changes to Part 72. The SAR Title will be changed from "Safety Analysis Report for the Standardized NUHOMS Horizontal Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Revision 2**to "Final Safety Analysis Report for the Standardized NUHOMS Horizontal Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel." In the new§ 72.248, a final SAR is to be submitted to the Commission within 90 days after approval of the cask design and then wilr be updated periodically.

I Replacement pages will be provided to the Commission, but FSAR revision numbers will not be used.

Change 3 recognizes the transfer of the Coe from VECTRA to TN West, NRC received letters dated December 1?, 1997, from both VECTRA and TN West de.scribing the purchase of I

VECTRA's intellectual properties and assets associated with NU HOMS technology by TN West.

In its December 18, 1997, letter, TN West described that it planneq to conduct fabrication activities in accordance with the quality assurance program described in Section 11 of the NUHOMS SAR. TN West further described that it had acquired the composite records of casks manufactured under CoC No. 1004 and that it had records associated with changes to the NUHOMS design implemented after issuance of the CoC.

Change 4 describes how general licensees would continue to use spent fuel storage casks manufactured under CoC No. 1004, Amendment No. O (i.e., the initial CoC), if the cask 6

being used was fabricated before [Insert effective date of the -~nal rule]. After [Insert effective date of the final rule], casks must be manufactured in accordance with CoC No. 1004, Amendment No. 1.

This proposed rule would issue Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1004. Amendment No. 1 would revise and reformat the CoC to be consistent with the NRC's current foni1at and layout for Part

\

72 certificates. Conditions No. 1 through 8 would be renumbered and Condition No. 9 would remain the same. Additionally, Condition No. 4 (previously Condition No. '6) would be revised to implement DD-97-03. Because the Director granted the Petition, in part, and to ensure future compliance with § 72.150 with respect to DSC shell-weld thickness, the revised Condition No. 4 to Coe No.1004 would require inspection of DSC shell welds and specify a minimum shell-weld thickness. Condition No. 4 would be revised to read as follows'.

\

Fabrication activities shall be conducted in accordance with a quality assurance program as described in Section 11.0 of the SAR. .All fabrication acceptance tests and procedures shall be performed in accordance with detailed written procedures:

• TN West shall ensure that 100 percent of the full penetration longitudinal and circumferentiat butt welds used for the DSC shell are inspected using radiographic examination. Inspections shall be performed on each shell weld after the weld is ground flush with surrounding surfaces, and the weld and the base met<;1l wall thickness shall be greater than or equal to 0.500 inch.

VECTRA's analysis indicated that a wall design of 0.500 inch would satisfy NRG design criteria. In a letter dated August 7, 1995, VECTRA described plans to perform measurements of shell-weld thickness during the DSC fabrication process. By letter dated September 5, 1995 7-

(NRC document Accession Number 9509110095), VECTRA submitted an analysis, NUH004.0213, "Standardized NUHOMS-24P DS~ Shell Minimum Acceptable Uniform Thickness," Revision 1, which evaluated the structural acceptability of a standardized NUHOMS-24P DSC with a minimum shell thickness of 0.500 inch. 1 In a Safety Evaluation (SE) dated October 5, 1995, (Accession Number 9512200130) the NRC staff concluded that the structural capability of the DSC would not be compromised I

with a shell-weld thickness of 0.500 inch. In a letter dated Decemb!;)r 11, 1998 (Accession Number 9812300347), VECTRA

[TN West) submitted an an~lysis, NUH004.0218, "Standardized NUHOMS-52B DSC Shell Minimum Acceptable Uniform Thickness," Revision 1', that evaluated the ,structural acceptability of a standardized NUHOMS-52B DSP with a minimum shell thickness of 0.500 inch. In a safety evaluation dated January 22, 1999 (Accession Number 9902110261 ), the NRC staff concluded that with a wall thickness of 0.500,inch, the NUHOMS-52B DSC can acceptably meet structural design codes. ,

The Director, in his Decision, specifically proposed amending CoC No. 1004 to require that, in the fabrication of the DSC, the shell, and basket assembly must be inspected to ens~re that structural design margins, associated with the ASME Code Section Ill allowable stress values, are not compromised. VECTRA established fabrication inspection procedures, including fabrication margins to ensure that the DSC shell welds are not reduced to a thickness less than 0.500 inch. VECTRA established an "administrative" minimum fabrication limit of 0.563 inch. This limit would allow for uncertainties in weld thickness measurements, weld shrinkage, and weld grinding operations and would ensure that the weld and base metal are not 1

The Standardized NUHOMS system includes two versions: the NUHOMS-24P which stores up to 24 pressurized-water reactor assemblies and the NUHOMS-52B which stores up to 52 boiling-water reactor assemblies. The staff examined minimum weld thickness issues for the NUHOMS-24P in a safety evaluation dated October 5, 1995. For completeness, the staff examined minimum weld thickness issues for the NUHOMS-52B in a safety evaluation dated January 22, 1999.

• 8

reduced less than the analyzed wall thickness of 0.500 Inch. Because the safety evaluation supportin~ the Director's Decision relied on a 0.500 inch weld thickness, proposed Amendment No 1 to CoC No. 1004 requiring a 0.500 inch weld thickness is consistent with DD-97-03.

Based on the October 1995 and January 1999 safety evaluations, the newly established fabrication inspection procedures, and the proposed Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1004, the NRC staff has concludE;id that the NUHOMS-24P and -528 cask design when ~sad in accordance with the conditions specified in the CoC as amended, and NRC regulations, will meet the requirements of Part 72 and thus ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety. Furthermore, as indicated in DD-97-03, NUHOMS-24P casks previously manufactured before DD-97-03 was issued will continue.to adequately protect public health and safety.

. The proposed Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1004, the VECTRA safety analyses, and the NRC staff safety evaluations are available for inspection and comment at. the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L.,Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20003-1527. Single copies of the proposed Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1004 may be obtained from Stan Tu rel, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (30~) 415-6234, email spt@nrc.gov.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments by Section *

§ 72.21'4 List of approved spent fuel storage casks.

The text in § 72.214 for Certificate No. 1004 would be revised as fol.lows:

(1) The name of person that submitted the SAR (i.e., name of the certificate holder) would be changed to "Transnuclear West, Inc:";

~

(2) The title of the SAR would be changed to "Final Safety Analysis Report for the StandardJzed NUHOMS Horizontal Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel";

9

(3) The expiration date for the certificate would be changed to "January 23, 2015"; and I

(4) A new line on the applicability of Amendment No. O and Amendment No.' 1 would be added.

In addition to the changes to the rule language in§ 72.214, the text for Condition No. 4 of CoC No. 1004 would be revised as described above.

Applicability Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 10(?4 would apply to TN West's manufacture of NUHOMS-24P or -528 DSCs, or to a general licensee using- the NUHOMS-24P or -52B cask system, where the manufacture of the DSC was completed after [Insert effective date of the final rule]. General licensees who possess a NUHOMS-24P or -528 DSC, whos.e fabrication was completed before [insert effective date of the final rule]', would continue to use the original version [Amendment No. O] of CoC No. 1004 in implementing the requirements of

§ 72.212 for the operation of an in~ependent spent fuel storage installation .

• Finding_of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability Under the National Environmental Policy Act.of 1969, as amended, and the NRC regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal*action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. It would not change safety requirements and would not have significant environmental impacts. The proposed rule would revise the listing of approved spent fuel storage casks contained in § 72.214 by correcting 10

certain information listed under this certificate and by issuing Amendment No. 1 which revise$

Condition No. 4 to CoC No. 1004 for the Standardized NUHOMS-24P and -528 cask system.

The NRG has concluded that Standardized NUHOMS-24P and -528 cask system designs, as modified by Amendment No. 1 to the CoC, can continue to be used to safely store spent fuel..

The-environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is bc\ised are available for inspection at the NRG Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.

(Lower Level),. Wa.shington, DC. Single copies of the environmental assessment and finding oJ no significant impact are available from Stan Turel, Office of Nucle~r Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6234, email spt@nrc.gov.

' \

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule d_oes not contain a new or amended _informati,on*collection requirement subject to the ,Paperwork Reduction Actof 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved. by the Offic.e of Management and Budget, approval

.*_ number 3150-0132.

Public Protection Notification If a means used to impose 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.

11

Voluntary Consensus Standards The National Technology Transfer A~t of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-113), requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards t;>0dies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this proposed rule, the NRC would issue Amendment No. 1 to CoC N,o. 1004 for the NUHOMS-24P and -528 cask system, which is currently listed in§ 72.214.

This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that establishes generally-applicable requirements.

Plain Languag~

The Presidential Memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled, "Plain Language in

(

Government Writing," directed that the Government's writing be in plain language. The NRC requests comments on this proposed rule specifically with respect to the cla~ity and effectiveness of the language used. Comments should be sent to the address listed under the

• heading "ADDRESSES" above.

Regulatory Analysis On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181 ), the Commission amended 10 CFR Part 72 to provide regulations for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC.' Any civilian nuclear power reactor licensed under 10 CFR Part 50 was issued a general license under Part 72 to use NRG-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if: (1) they notify the NRC in advance, (2) the spent fuel is stored under the 12

conditions specified in the CoC,, and (3) the conditions of the general license are met. In that rule.making, four spent fuel storage cask designs were approved for use at reactor sites, and were listed in § 72.214. That rulemaking envisioned that storage cask designs approved in the

--future would be added to the listing in § 72.214 throu_gh the rulemaking process. Procedures.

and criteria for obtaining NRG approval of new spent fuel storage cask designs were provided in Part 72, Subpart L. The NRG subsequently amended Part 72 and_ authorized issuance of Coe No. 1004 to VECTRA Technologies, Inc., .of San Jose, California, for the standardized

' (_

NUHOMS-24P and -528 spent fuel storage cask designs (59 FR 65898; December 22, 1994).

This proposed rule would issue Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1004. .Amendment No. 1 I

would revise and reformat the CoC to,b~ consistent with the NRC's current format and layol,lt for Part 72 certificates. Conditions No. 1 through 8 would be renumbered and Condition No. 9 would remain the same. Additionally, Condition No. 4 (previously Condition No. 6) would be

( '

revised to implement the direction of DD-97-03 The NRG has deemed necessary the changes to CoC No. 1004 tC? ensure co~pliance with Part 72 quality assurance requirements. On August 29*, 1995, the NRG issued an enforcemE;nt action in the fc:>rm of a Notice of Nonconformance to VECTRA regarding VECTRA's failure to comply with the quality assurance

• regulations in § 72.150. Specifically, VECTRA failed to ensure that adequate* wall thickness was maintained in DSCs manufact_ured under CoC No. 1004. Subsequently, the Director, NMSS, in response to a petition from the Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy, et al. found, in Director's Decision 97-03, that an inspection procedure requiring the performance of minimum wall thickness measurements would be reasonable and directed that CoC No. 1004 be amended ,

to include such a requirement. Consequently, the NRG I considers this rule, in part, to be an administrativ~ action taken to implement DD-97-03.

13

General licensees would continue to use spent fuel storage casks manufactured under CoC No. 1004, Amendment No. 0, if the cask was fabricated before [insert effective date of the final rule]. After [insert effective date of the final rule], casks must be manufactured in accordance with CoC No. 1004, Amendment No. 1.

The alternative to this proposed action would be to allow outdated information to remain in CoC No. 1004 and to withhold Amendment No. 1 to Coe No. 1004 and forgo inclusion of an explicit requirement for measuring DSC shell-weld thickness. However, based on the concerns identified with VECTRA's control of the fabrication process described in the Notice of Nonconformance, the NRC deemed that addition of an explicit requirement for measuring wall thickness in CoC No. 1004 is necessary.

Approval of_the proposed rule would provide both the NRC staff and th~ public additional

• assurance that DSCs manufactured under Coe No. 1004 are fabricated in accordance with the approved design and Part 72 quaiity assurance requirements, and would have no adverse effect on public health and safety .

. This-proposed rule has no significant identifiable impact or ,benefit on other Government

• t ,..

agencies: Based on the above discussion of the benefits ~nd impacts of the alternatives, the

• NRC concludes that the r_equir~nients of the proposed rule are com.me~surate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. N6 other available alternative is believed to.be satisfactory, and thus, this action is recommentjed.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, (5 U.S.C ..605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a 14

substantial number of small entitie$. This proposed rule a~ects only the operation of nuclear power plants, independent spent fuel storage facilities, and Transnuclear West, Inc. The

(

companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the- definition of "small entities"

-set forth in the fiegulatory 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 backfit rule (§§ 50.109 or 72.62) does not apply to certificate holders. Moreover, this proposed rule does not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in those regulations because the amended versiqn of Coe No. 1004 is applicable only to casks to be fabricated after the effective date of the final rule. General licensees who currently posse$$

these casks may operate under the original Coe No. 1004 (Amendment No. 0) which remains on the list of approved cask designs at'§ 72.214. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required.

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.

r 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. 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 72.

15

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. 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. 1 o,, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 10d - 48b, sec. 7902, 10b Stat. 31b3 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C.

4332); secs.131, 132,133,135,137,141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 1015;3, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168).

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

/

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

10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(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, 2244, (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).

16

2. Section 72.214, Certificate of Compliance Number 1004, is revised to read as follows:

§ 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks.

Certificate Number: 1004 Amendment Number: O and 1 Amendment Applicability:

Amendment No. 0 is applicable for casks manufactured before [insert effective date of final rule].

Amendment No. 1 is applicable for casks manufactured after [Insert effective date of flnal rule].

SAR Submitted by: Transnuclear West, Inc.

SAR

Title:

Final Safety Analysis Report for the Standardized NUHOMS Horizontal Modular Storage System for Irradiated Nuclear Fuel Docket Number: 72-1004 Certificate Expiration Date: January 23, 2015 Model Numbers: Standardized NUHOMS-24P and NUHOMS-52B

.t.ll-Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this_ _~ - - - day of ~u!J ,

- 1999.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

~~t-4* ~

William D. Travers, Executive Director for Operations.

17