ML19044A458

3150-AK12 NAC CoC Amendment No. 6 Direct Final Rule FRN- Drm Markup 091918

ML19044A458
Person / Time
Site:	07201015
Issue date:	09/19/2018
From:	Margaret Doane NRC/EDO
To:
MacDougall R
Shared Package
ML19040A003	List: ML19044A453 ML19044A454 ML19044A455 ML19044A457 ML19044A458 ML19044A459 ML19044A460 ML19044A461 ML19044A462 ML19044A463 ML19044A464 ML19044A465 ML19044A466 ML19044A467 ML19044A468 ML19044A469 ML19044A470 ML19044A471 ML19044A475 ML19044A476 ML19044A477 ML19044A478 ML19044A479 ML19052A010
References
RIN 3150-AK12, NRC-2018-0075
Download: ML19044A458 (26)

Text

[7590-01-P]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72

[NRC-2018-0075]

RIN 3150-AK12 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International NAC-UMS Universal Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1015, Amendment No. 6 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the NAC International NAC-UMS listing within the List of approved spent fuel storage casks to include Amendment No. 6 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1015. Amendment No. 6 revises the CoCs technical specifications (TSs) to: remove a redundant requirement for inspection of the concrete Commented [CT1]: See comments below on numbering (I added this last so it feels out of order). Would be best if this were numbered like everything else.

cask and canister; revise a limiting condition of operation (LCO) for heat removal to Commented [MR2R1]: Unfortunately, the OFRs prohibition on numbering in Summary sections required me to restore clarify that LCO not met means that the concrete heat removal system is inoperable; the unnumbered original.

remove an inspection requirement that is already covered by LCO surveillance requirements for off-normal, accident, or natural phenomenon events; and clarify that immediate restoration of a concrete casks heat removal capabilities means within the design-basis time limit in Section 11.2.13 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR),

or within the time limit for a less than design-basis heat load case, as evaluated.

Amendment No. 6 also clarifies that an LCO for loaded cask surface dose rates applies prior to storage conditions, when dose rates will be highest.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective [INSERT DATE 75 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], unless significant adverse comments are received by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. If this direct final rule is withdrawn as a result of such comments, timely notice of the withdrawal will be published in the Federal Register.

Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

Comments received on this direct final rule will also be considered to be comments on a companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0075. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; e-mail: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

• E-mail comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you do not receive an automatic e-mail reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.

• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101.

2

• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

• Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone:

301-415-1677.

For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernard H. White, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301-415-6577; e-mail:

Bernard.White@nrc.gov or Robert D. MacDougall, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301-415-5175; e-mail: Robert.MacDougall@nrc.gov. Both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments II. Rulemaking Procedure III. Background IV. Discussion of Changes V. Voluntary Consensus Standards VI. Agreement State Compatibility VII. Plain Writing VIII. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification XI. Regulatory Analysis XII. Backfitting and Issue Finality 3

XIII. Congressional Review Act XIV. Availability of Documents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0075 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0075.

• NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ADAMS Public Documents and then select Begin Web-based ADAMS Search. For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the Availability of Documents section.

• NRCs PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRCs PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0075 in your comment submission.

4

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. Rulemaking Procedure This direct final rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 6 to CoC No. 1015 and does not include other aspects of the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System design. The NRC is using the direct final rule procedure to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on [INSERT DATE 75 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule by

[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the 5

companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rules underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis; b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.

2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or TSs.

For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.

III. Background 6

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [U.S. 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 [the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.

To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which that added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks, which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs.

The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on October 19, 2000 (65 FR 62581), that approved the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs provided in § 72.214 as CoC No. 1015.

7

IV. Discussion of Changes On May 23, 2017, NAC International submitted a request to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1015. NAC International supplemented its request on January 16, 2018.

Amendment No. 6 revises the CoCs TSs to: 1) revise Section A.3.1.6 to remove a Commented [MR3]: Removed TS citations here for consistency with

SUMMARY

section language.

redundant requirement for inspection of the concrete cask and canister; 2) revise an LCO for heat removal to clarify that LCO not met means that the concrete heat removal system is inoperable; 3) remove an inspection requirement in TS A5.4 that is already covered by LCO surveillance requirements for off-normal, accident, or natural phenomenon events; 4) clarify that immediate restoration of a concrete casks heat removal capabilities means within the design-basis time limit in Section 11.2.13 of the FSAR, or within the time limit for a less than design-basis heat load case, as evaluated; Commented [CT4]: This should match the #1-4 that are in the transmittal memo and summary section:

and 5) clarify that an LCO for loaded cask surface dose rates applies prior to storage Amendment No. 6 revises the CoCs technical specifications to: 1) remove a redundant requirement for inspection of the concrete cask and canister; 2) revise a limiting condition of conditions, when dose rates will be highest. operation (LCO) for heat removal to clarify that LCO not met means that the concrete heat removal system is inoperable; 3)

As documented in the preliminary safety evaluation report (PSER), the NRC remove an inspection requirement that is already covered by LCO surveillance requirements for off-normal, accident, or natural phenomenon events; and 4) clarify that immediate performed a detailed safety evaluation review of the proposed CoC amendment request. restoration of a concrete casks heat removal capabilities means within the design-basis time limit in Section 11.2.13 of the Final Safety Analysis Report, or within the time limit for There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed CoC a less than design-basis heat load case, as evaluated.

Also see my comment on the transmittal memoit might be amendment. Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, nice if the also sentence after were #5.

the design of the cask would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control Applies throughout.

Commented [MR5R4]: See revised language including new in the event of an accident. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in 5) at left, but well have to go back to the original unnumbered language if it must be identical to the Summary section..

Commented [CT6]: QUESTION: why preliminary? Is a final design or fabrication of the cask. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or issued, ever?

Commented [MR7R6]: Bernie can correct me, but I think offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 6 would remain well within the PSER for a given CoC amendment remains preliminary until after the amendment takes effect. Im unclear, however, the 10 CFR part 20 limits. There will be no significant change in the types or amounts of about how an FSER for Amendment n becomes a PSER again to support Amendment n+1.

any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation 8

exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for, or consequences from, radiological accidents.

This direct final rule revises the NAC-UMS System listing in § 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 6 to CoC No. 1015. The amendment consists of the changes previously described, as set forth in the revised CoC and TSs. The revised TSs are identified and evaluated in the PSER.

The amended NAC-UMS cask design, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the TSs, and the NRCs regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under § 72.210 may, consistent with the license conditions under

§ 72.212, load spent nuclear fuel into those NAC-UMS Universal Storage System casks that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 6 to CoC No. 1015 under § 72.212.

V. Voluntary Consensus Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement 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 direct final rule, the NRC will revise the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System design listed in § 72.214, List Commented [CT8]: Not sure why the title was here and not elsewhere. Put it back if its here for a good reason.

of approved spent fuel storage casks.. This action does not constitute the Commented [MR9R8]: This is template language, but having the title for § 72.214 here is inconsistent with not providing the titles of §§ 72.210 and 72.212 in the paragraph establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements. immediately above. So the deletion is fine by me if its fine by Bernie..

9

VI. 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 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 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the provisions of 10 CFR. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to the NRC, and the Category NRC does not confer regulatory authority on the State, the State may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements by means consistent with the particular States administrative procedure laws.

VII. Plain Writing The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, Plain Language in Government Writing, published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).

VIII. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact A. The Action 10

The action is to amend § 72.214, List of approved spent fuel storage casks, to Commented [CT10]: See comment above.

revise the NAC International NAC-UMS Universal Storage System listing of casks that power reactor licensees can use for dry storage of spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. This direct final rule amends the listing to add Amendment No. 6 to CoC No. 1015. Specifically, Amendment No. 6 revises the CoCs TSs to: 1) remove a redundant requirement for inspection of the concrete cask and canister; 2) revise an LCO for heat removal to clarify that LCO not met means that the concrete heat removal system is inoperable; 3) remove an inspection requirement that is already covered by LCO surveillance requirements for off-normal, accident, or natural phenomenon events;

4) clarify that immediate restoration of a concrete casks heat removal capabilities means within the design-basis time limit in Section 11.2.13 of the FSAR, or within the time limit for a less than design-basis heat load case, as evaluated; and 5) clarify that an LCO for loaded cask surface dose rates applies prior to storage conditions, when dose rates will be highest. Amendment No. 6 revises the CoCs TSs to: 1) revise TS A.3.1.6 to remove a redundant requirement for inspection of the concrete cask and canister, and revise its LCO for heat removal to clarify that LCO not met means that the concrete heat removal system is inoperable; 2) remove an inspection requirement in TS A.5.4 that is already covered by LCO surveillance requirements for off-normal, accident, or natural phenomenon events; and 3) clarify the TS bases that immediate restoration of a concrete casks heat removal capabilities means within the design-basis time limit in Section 11.2.13 of the FSAR, or within the time limit for a less than design-basis heat load case, as evaluated. Amendment No. 6 also clarifies that an LCO for loaded cask Commented [CT11]: See comment above on #1-4 and make conforming changes.

surface dose rates applies prior to storage conditions, when dose rates will be highest. Commented [MR12R11]: See revision at left, with same caveat..

B. The Need for the Action 11

This direct final rule amends the CoC for the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license.

Specifically, Amendment No. 6 clarifies and removes redundancies in requirements for the use of the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System. The amendment facilitates the dry cask storage of spent fuel that would might otherwise have to be stored in the affected power reactors spent fuel storage pools. Commented [CT13]: There are lots of other casks, so it seems weird that the fallback would be the SFPs. This may be template text but clarification would help. Ive suggested an alternative but am open to others.

Commented [MR14R13]: I think the rationale for this C. Environmental Impacts of the Action language is to remind interested members of the public that the point of dry cask storage is to provide an alternative to pool storage, which critics of nuclear power often find more On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR problematic. Providing that alternative is also the intent of the dry cask storage authorization section of the NWPA, but its part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs less explicit than the approved language here. Although youre right that other dry cask designs could be used, this assumes that other vendors would be willing and able to approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved provide them when needed. If an alternative cask isnt so available, using the NAC cask would still facilitate dry SNF storage. Because this language has been NLOd by OGC, Im storage casks was initially analyzed in the environmental assessment (EA) for the 1990 a little reluctant to ask for another review, but . we might still be under the wire if we were to substitute might for would as shown at left. Would that satisfy your concern about the final rule. The EA for this Amendment No. 6 tiers off ofbuilds on the EA for the July 18, approved language? Please advise.

Commented [CT15]: This is a preference change vs. the 1990, final rule. Tiering onApplying past EAs is a standard process under the National informal tier usage. If this is template and essential text, keep it the way it was.

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). Commented [MR16R15]: I like the revision, but the deleted language is template language, and tiering is a NEPA term of art. Maybe we do need another OGC scrub if you really NAC-UMS Universal Storage Systems are designed to mitigate the effects of want the plainer language and were going to make that tweak in the Need for the Action paragraph above..

design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an iIndependent Sspent Ffuel sStorage iInstallation, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other events.

Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the 12

design of the cask would prevent loss of confinement, shielding, and criticality control in the event of an accident. If there is no loss of confinement, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts resulting from an accident would be insignificant.

This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. Because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 6 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the proposed CoC changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the EA supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in individual or cumulative radiation exposures, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences of radiological accidents. The staff NRC documented its safety findings in a PSER.

D. Alternative to the Action The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 6 and end the direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into NAC International NAC-UMS Universal Storage Systems in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 6 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. Therefore, the environmental impacts of the alternative action would be the same as, or more likely greater than, the preferred action.

13

E. Alternative Use of Resources Approval of Amendment No. 6 to CoC No. 1015 would result in no irreversible commitment of resources.

F. Agencies and Persons Contacted No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this EA.

G. Finding of No Significant Impact The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in NEPA, and the NRCs regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions. Based on the foregoing EA, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule entitled, List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International NAC-UMS Universal Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1015, Amendment No. 6 will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This direct final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Existing collections of information were approved by the Office of Management and 14

Budget (OMB), approval number 3150-0132.

Public Protection Notification The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number.

X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification Formatted: Keep with next, Keep lines together Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this direct final rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and NAC International. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (§ 2.810).

XI. Regulatory Analysis On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the casks CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in 15

§ 72.214. On October 19, 2000 (65 FR 62581), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214.

On May 23, 2017, and as supplemented on January 16, 2018, NAC International submitted an application to amend the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System as described in Section IV, Discussion of Changes, of this document.

The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 6 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into NAC International NAC-UMS Universal Storage Systems under the changes described in Amendment No. 6 to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.

Approval of this direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the PSER and EA, this direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of this direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and therefore, this action is recommended.

XII. Backfitting and Issue Finality 16

The NRC has determined that the actions in this direct final rule do not require a backfit analysis because they either do not fall within the definition of backfitting under

§ 72.62 or § 50.109(a)(1), or they do not impact any general licensees currently using these systems. Additionally, the actions in this direct final rule do not impact issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses under 10 CFR part 52.

This direct final rule revises CoC No. 1015 for the NAC International NAC-UMS Universal Storage System, as currently listed in § 72.214, List of approved spent fuel storage casks.. The revision consists of Amendment No. 6, which revises the CoCs Commented [CT17]: See comment above on title.

Commented [MR18R17]: See reply above.

TSs to: 1) remove a redundant requirement for inspection of the concrete cask and canister; 2) revise an LCO for heat removal to clarify that LCO not met means that the concrete heat removal system is inoperable; 3) remove an inspection requirement that is already covered by LCO surveillance requirements for off-normal, accident, or natural phenomenon events; 4) clarify that immediate restoration of a concrete casks heat removal capabilities means within the design-basis time limit in Section 11.2.13 of the FSAR, or within the time limit for a less than design-basis heat load case, as evaluated; and 5) clarify that an LCO for loaded cask surface dose rates applies prior to storage conditions, when dose rates will be highest. which revises the CoCs TS A.3.1.6 to remove a redundant requirement for inspection of the concrete cask and canister and revise the LCO for heat removal to clarify that LCO not met means that the concrete heat removal system is inoperable; removes an inspection requirement in TS A.5.4 that is already covered by LCO surveillance requirements for off-normal, accident, or natural phenomenon events; and clarifies that immediate restoration of a concrete casks heat removal capabilities means within the design-basis time limit in Section 11.2.13 of the FSAR, or within the time limit for a less than design-basis heat load case, as evaluated. Commented [CT19]: Use same numbering scheme above (1-4 preferably vs. 1 see comments above)

Amendment No. 6 also clarifies that an LCO for loaded cask surface dose rates applies Commented [MR20R19]: See revised language at left, although wed have to remove the numbering if this language must be identical to the Summary section..

17

prior to storage conditions, when dose rates will be highest.

Amendment No. 6 to CoC No. 1015 for the NAC International NAC-UMS Universal Storage System was initiated by NAC International and was not submitted in response to new NRC requirements, or an NRC request for amendment. Amendment No. 6 applies only to new casks fabricated and used under Amendment No. 6. These changes do not affect existing users of the NAC International NAC-UMS Universal Storage System, and the current Amendment No. 5 continues to be effective for existing users. While current CoC users may comply with the new requirements in Amendment No. 6, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of current users.

For these reasons, Amendment No. 6 to CoC No. 1015 does not constitute backfitting under § 72.62 or § 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52.

Accordingly, the NRC staff has not prepared a backfit analysis for this rulemaking.

XIII. Congressional Review Act This direct final rule is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

XIV. Availability of Documents The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.

DOCUMENT ADAMS ACCESSION NO. / WEB LINK / FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION 18

Request to Amend Certificate of Compliance ML17145A380 No. 1015 for the NAC-UMS Cask System, dated May 23, 2017 Revision of Request to Amend Certificate of ML18018A893 Compliance No. 1015 for the NAC-UMS Cask System, dated January 16, 2018 Revision 11 to NAC-UMS Final Safety ML16341B102 Analysis Report for the UMS Universal Storage System Proposed CoC No. 1015, Amendment No. 6 ML18088A174 Proposed Technical Specifications ML18088A176 Appendix A Proposed Technical Specifications ML18088A178 Appendix B Preliminary Safety Evaluation Report ML18088A181 The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2018-0075. The Federal Rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: 1) navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2018-0075); 2) click the Sign up for E-mail Alerts link; and 3) enter your e-mail address and select how frequently you would like to receive e-mails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72 Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear energy, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Whistleblowing.

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; 19

the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:

PART 72 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE

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

Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g),

10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

2. In § 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1015 is revised to read as follows:

§ 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks.

Certificate Number: 1015.

Initial Certificate Effective Date: November 20, 2000.

Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: February 20, 2001.

Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: December 31, 2001.

Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: March 31, 2004.

Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: October 11, 2005.

Amendment Number 5 Effective Date: January 12, 2009.

Amendment Number 6 Effective Date: [INSERT DATE 75 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 20

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

SAR Submitted by: NAC International, Inc.

SAR

Title:

Final Safety Analysis Report for the NAC-UMS Universal Storage System.

Docket Number: 72-1015.

Certificate Expiration Date: November 20, 2020.

Model Number: NAC-UMS.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this xxth day of Xxxxx, 2018.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Margaret M. Doane, Executive Director for Operations.

21