8872 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

expenses, and $118,850 for office 

expenses. Budgeted expenses for these 

items in 2009–2010 were $4,030,500, 

$725,000, $535,000, and $123,750, 

respectively. 

The Board recommended decreasing 

the assessment rate due to an expected 

increase in the quantity of assessable 

walnuts in the 2010–11 marketing year. 

Prior to arriving at this budget, the 

Board considered alternative 

expenditure levels but ultimately 

decided that the recommended levels 

were reasonable to properly administer 

the order. The assessment rate of 

$0.0174 per kernelweight pound of 

assessable walnuts was derived by 

dividing anticipated expenses of 

$6,812,100 by expected 2010–11 

shipments of California walnuts. 

Merchantable shipments for the year are 

estimated at 391,500,000 kernelweight 

pounds, which should provide 

$6,812,100 in assessment income and 

allow the Board to cover its expenses. 

Unexpended funds may be retained in 

a financial reserve, provided that funds 

in the financial reserve do not exceed 

approximately two years’ budgeted 

expenses. If not retained in a financial 

reserve, unexpended funds may be used 

temporarily to defray expenses of the 

subsequent marketing year, but must be 

made available to the handlers from 

whom they were collected within five 

months after the end of the year, 

according to § 984.69 of the order. 

A review of historical information and 

preliminary information pertaining to 

the upcoming crop year indicates that 

the grower price for the 2010–2011 

season could range between $1.42 and 

$1.88 per kernelweight pound of 

assessable walnuts. Therefore, the 

estimated assessment revenue for the 

2010–2011 season as a percentage of 

total grower revenue could range 

between 0.9 and 1.2 percent. 

This rule continues in effect the 

action that decreased the assessment 

obligation imposed on handlers. 

Assessments are applied uniformly on 

all handlers, and some of the cost 

savings may be passed on to growers. 

The Board’s meeting was widely 

publicized throughout the California 

walnut industry, and all interested 

persons were invited to attend the 

meeting and participate in Board 

deliberations on all issues. Like all 

Board meetings, the June 11, 2010, 

meeting was a public meeting, and all 

entities, both large and small, were able 

to express their views on this issue. 

This rule imposes no additional 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

on either small or large California 

walnut handlers. As with all Federal 

marketing order programs, reports and 

forms are periodically reviewed to 

reduce information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this rule. 

Comments on the interim rule were 

required to be received on or before 

November 15, 2010. No comments were 

received. Therefore, for the reasons 

given in the interim rule, we are 

adopting the interim rule as a final rule, 

without change. To view the interim 

rule, go to http://www.regulations.gov/

search/Regs/home.html#

documentDetail?R=0900006480b4f686. 

This action also affirms information 

contained in the interim rule concerning 

the Executive Orders 12866 and 12988, 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), and the E-Gov Act (44 

U.S.C. 101). 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, it is found that 

finalizing the interim rule, without 

change, as published in the Federal 

Register (75 FR 55944, September 15, 

2010) will tend to effectuate the 

declared policy of the Act. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 984 

Marketing agreements, Nuts, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Walnuts. 

PART 984—WALNUTS GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 7 CFR part 984, which was 

published at 75 FR 55944 on September 

15, 2010, is adopted as a final rule, 

without change. 

Dated: February 10, 2011. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3500 Filed 2–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 72 

RIN 3150–AI09 

[NRC–2008–0361] 

License and Certificate of Compliance 

Terms 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or the Commission) 

is amending its regulations that govern 

licensing requirements for the 

independent storage of spent nuclear 

fuel. These amendments include 

changes that enhance the effectiveness 

and efficiency of the licensing process 

for spent nuclear fuel storage. 

Specifically, they extend and clarify the 

term limits for storage cask Certificates 

of Compliance (CoCs) and independent 

spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) 

specific licenses. The amendments also 

provide consistency between the general 

and specific ISFSI license requirements, 

and allow general licensees subject to 

these regulations to implement changes 

authorized by an amended CoC to a cask 

loaded under the initial CoC or an 

earlier amended CoC (a ‘‘previously 

loaded cask’’). 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on May 17, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You can access publicly 

available documents related to this 

document using the following methods: 

Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

NRC–2008–0361. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher at 

301–492–3668; e-mail: 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1– 

F21, One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852. 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, 

the public can gain entry into ADAMS, 

which provides text and image files of 

NRC’s public documents. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s 

PDR reference staff at 1–899–397–4209, 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keith McDaniel, Office of Federal and 

State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone: 301–415– 

5252, e-mail: Keith.McDaniel@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

II. Discussion 

A. What action is the NRC taking, and 

why? 

B. Whom does this action affect? 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 8873 

C. Why is the NRC increasing initial terms 

and renewal terms for specific ISFSI 

licenses from not to exceed 20 years to 

not to exceed 40 years? 

D. Can applicants apply for an initial term 

or renewal term greater than 40 years? 

E. Why is the NRC changing the word 

‘‘reapproval’’ to ‘‘renewal’’? 

F. Why is the NRC adding a definition for 

the term ‘‘time-limited aging analyses’’ 

(TLAAs)? 

G. What is an ‘‘aging management program’’ 

(AMP)? 

H. Why is the NRC requiring an AMP? 

I. Why is the NRC changing the 20-year 

general license term for cask designs 

approved for use under the general 

license provisions? When would a 

general license term begin and end? 

J. Are there possible conflicts that could 

arise for storage cask designs that are 

granted a term extension that are also 

approved for a different term limit as a 

transportation package? 

K. How does the NRC track cask expiration 

dates? 

L. Who is responsible for applying for CoC 

renewals? 

M. Does the NRC have a definition for 

‘‘terms, conditions, and specifications’’ as 

they relate to the CoC? 

N. Can a licensee apply CoC amendments 

to previously loaded casks? 

O. May a general licensee implement only 

some of the authorized changes in a CoC 

amendment without prior NRC 

approval? 

P. Do later CoC amendments encompass 

earlier CoC amendments? 

Q. Why can’t general licensees use the 

§ 72.48 process to apply CoC amendment 

changes to previously loaded casks? 

R. If a general licensee selects and 

purchases a cask fabricated under an 

earlier CoC amendment, but does not 

load the cask, can the general licensee 

adopt the most recent CoC amendment 

for the empty cask before loading it? 

S. What are the NRC’s plans for providing 

guidance and examples of aging analyses 

and AMPs to licensees? 

T. Could the NRC maintain the current 

paragraph designations of § 72.212(b)? 

U. When are licensees required to submit 

cask registration letters? 

V. If a CoC is not renewed, how long would 

general licensees have to remove casks of 

that design from service? 

W. When NRC renews a CoC, are all 

amendments to that CoC simultaneously 

renewed as well? 

X. If a general licensee applies for the 

renewal of a given CoC (assuming the 

certificate holder went out of business or 

chose not to apply for the renewal of a 

given CoC), and if the NRC approves the 

renewal of that CoC, is the renewed CoC 

available only to that general licensee or 

is it available to all general licensees? 

Y. Can the requirements regarding TLAAs 

for CoC renewals be based upon a 

‘‘current licensing basis’’ (CLB) patterned 

after Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Part 54? 

Z. What is the status of the draft NRC 

Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2007–26 

which was issued on January 14, 2008 

(73 FR 2281)? 

III. Summary and Analysis of Public 

Comments on the Proposed Rule 

IV. Discussion of Final Amendments by 

Section 

V. Criminal Penalties 

VI. Agreement State Compatibility 

VII. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

VIII. Environmental Assessment and Finding 

of No Significant Environmental Impact 

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

X. Regulatory Analysis 

XI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

XII. Backfit Analysis 

XIII. Congressional Review Act 

I. Background 

On April 29, 2002, the Virginia Power 

and Electric Company (Dominion) 

submitted an application to renew 

Special Nuclear Materials (SNM) 

License SNM–2501 for the Surry ISFSI. 

SNM–2501 authorizes the storage of 

spent nuclear fuel in casks at the Surry 

Nuclear Power Plant. In the renewal 

application, Dominion requested an 

exemption from the 20-year license 

renewal term specified in 10 CFR 

72.42(a) and sought approval for a 40- 

year license renewal term. Similarly, on 

February 27, 2004, Progress Energy 

Carolinas, Inc. submitted an application 

for the renewal of H. B. Robinson’s 

ISFSI license which requested an 

exemption from the provisions of 

§ 72.42(a), so that the license renewal 

period for the H. B. Robinson’s ISFSI 

could be extended from 20 to 40 years. 

The NRC staff determined the 40-year 

renewal exemption request to be a 

policy decision, not a technical one, 

because the safety evaluation indicated 

sufficient technical information had 

been provided in the application to 

grant the 40-year renewal period. As a 

result, a Commission paper (SECY–04– 

0175) entitled, ‘‘Options for Addressing 

the Surry Independent Spent Fuel 

Storage Installation License-Renewal 

Period Exemption Request,’’ was 

submitted on September 28, 2004, to 

request Commission approval of the 

Surry 40-year renewal exemption 

request. 

On November 29, 2004, the 

Commission issued a Staff 

Requirements Memorandum (SRM) for 

SECY–04–0175, which authorized the 

NRC staff to approve a 40-year license 

renewal term for the Surry ISFSI, with 

appropriate license conditions to 

manage the effects of aging. The SRM 

further directed the NRC staff to: 

(1) Initiate a program to review the 

technical basis for future rulemaking; 

(2) provide recommendations on the 

license term for part 72 CoCs for spent 

nuclear fuel cask storage systems; and 

(3) apply the Commission-approved 

guidance for part 72 renewals to future 

specific license exemption requests 

without further Commission approval. 

In response to this direction, the staff 

submitted a Commission paper (SECY– 

06–0152) entitled, ‘‘Title 10 Code of 

Federal Regulations part 72 License and 

Certificate of Compliance Terms,’’ on 

July 7, 2006, to recommend the scope of 

rulemaking. 

In an SRM, dated August 14, 2006, the 

Commission authorized the staff to 

proceed with rulemaking proposals 

described in SECY–06–0152. In 

addition, the Commission specifically 

directed the staff to address the 

following points in the rulemaking: 

(1) Clarify the start of the 20-year term 

limit for cask designs approved under 

general license provisions; (2) identify 

whether the cask vendor or licensee is 

responsible for applying for the CoC 

renewals; (3) discuss possible conflicts 

that could arise for storage cask designs 

that are granted a license term extension 

and that have been approved for 

transport with a different license term; 

(4) discuss how the cask expiration 

dates are tracked at each general license 

site so that it is clearly understood when 

the CoC for each cask design must be 

renewed; and (5) clarify the difference 

between CoC ‘‘approval’’ and ‘‘renewal.’’ 

As this rulemaking commenced, the 

NRC staff identified a related issue 

regarding its approval of Amendment 4 

to CoC 72–1026, which revised cask 

monitoring and surveillance 

requirements for the BNG Fuel 

Solutions W–150 storage cask. 

Subsequent to the approval, the 

certificate holder requested guidance 

from the NRC on the implementation of 

the changes authorized by the CoC 

amendment to previously loaded casks. 

In addition to this request, the NRC staff 

became aware of the belief among some 

general licensees that changes 

authorized by CoC amendments can be 

applied to previously loaded casks 

without prior NRC approval, if an 

analysis under § 72.48 is performed. 

The NRC staff determined that under 

the current regulations, changes 

authorized by CoC amendments cannot 

be applied to previously loaded casks 

without express NRC approval, if such 

change results in a change to the terms 

or conditions of the CoC under which 

the cask was loaded. A previously 

loaded cask is bound by the terms and 

conditions (including the technical 

specifications) of the CoC applicable to 

that cask when the licensee loaded the 

cask. Therefore, under the current 

regulations, general licensees that want 

to apply changes approved by a CoC 

amendment to a previously loaded cask 

must request an exemption from the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
8874 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

NRC if these changes alter the terms or 

conditions of the CoC under which that 

cask was loaded. 

In the SRM for COMSECY–07–0032, 

dated December 12, 2007, the 

Commission stated that it did not object 

to the staff expanding the scope of the 

proposed rulemaking to include the 

following two issues: (1) To extend the 

terms of specific ISFSI licenses, for both 

initial and renewal terms, to not to 

exceed 40 years; and (2) to allow a 

general licensee to apply changes for a 

CoC amendment to a previously loaded 

cask without express NRC approval, 

while still ensuring that this action 

protects public health and safety. 

In the August 14, 2006, SRM for 

SECY–06–0152, the Commission 

directed the NRC staff to be as 

transparent as possible in developing 

the proposed rule package, including 

making draft text available for comment 

to stakeholders, and holding public 

meetings, if necessary, before formal 

submission of the proposed rule to the 

Commission. In response, the NRC staff 

held public meetings on November 7, 

2006, and February 29, 2008, to discuss 

the technical basis of the rulemaking 

with stakeholders. In addition, on 

August 4, 2008, the NRC staff made 

preliminary draft rule text available for 

comment to stakeholders on 

Regulations.gov (Docket ID NRC–2008– 

0361). The only external stakeholders 

that submitted comments were the 

Nuclear Energy Institute and Florida 

Power and Light. The comments 

generally supported the rulemaking. 

The ‘‘Discussion’’ section of this 

document includes NRC responses to 

significant stakeholder comments. 

The NRC published the proposed 

rule, ‘‘License and Certificate of 

Compliance Terms’’ in the Federal 

Register on September 15, 2009 (74 FR 

47126), for public comment. The NRC 

received five comment letters on the 

proposed rule. These comments and the 

NRC responses are discussed in Section 

III of this document, ‘‘Summary and 

Analysis of Public Comments on the 

Proposed Rule.’’ 

II. Discussion 

A. What action is the NRC taking, and 

why? 

The NRC is revising part 72 

requirements for specific and general 

ISFSI licensees and part 72 

requirements pertaining to CoCs to 

enhance the effectiveness and efficiency 

of the licensing process. 

For specific ISFSI licenses, the 

Commission is codifying a technical 

approach consistent with that applied in 

granting the 40-year exemptions for the 

Surry and H. B. Robinson specific ISFSI 

license renewals, so that all specific 

ISFSI licensees will have the flexibility 

to request initial and renewal terms not 

to exceed 40 years while ensuring safe 

and secure storage of spent nuclear fuel. 

For CoCs, the Commission is also 

allowing the flexibility for CoC 

applicants and CoC holders to request, 

respectively, initial terms and renewal 

terms not to exceed 40 years. The 

response to Question ‘‘C’’ of this section 

discusses the technical basis for this 

change. Under this change, applicants 

and CoC holders will be required to 

demonstrate that design and operational 

programs are suitable for the requested 

term. The NRC staff has developed a 

standard review plan (SRP) for renewal 

applications. The final rule amendments 

also clarify the term (length) of the 

general license, particularly as the 

general license term relates to CoC 

renewals (see the response to Question 

‘‘I’’ of this section for further detail). 

For both specific licenses and CoCs, 

the final rule adds a requirement that 

renewal applicants must provide TLAAs 

and a description of an AMP (see the 

responses to Questions ‘‘F’’, ‘‘G’’, and 

‘‘H’’) to ensure that storage casks will 

perform as designed under extended 

license terms. 

The NRC is replacing the term 

‘‘reapproval,’’ which is used to describe 

the process of extending the CoC terms, 

to ‘‘renewal’’ for consistency with 

specific license terminology. Question 

‘‘E’’ of this section discusses the 

rationale for this change. 

The final rule will also allow general 

licensees to implement changes 

authorized by a CoC amendment to a 

previously loaded cask, provided that 

the loaded cask then conforms to the 

CoC amendment codified by the NRC in 

§ 72.214 and thus, continues to ensure 

the safe and secure storage of spent 

nuclear fuel. Question ‘‘N’’ of this 

section discusses the rationale for this 

change. 

B. Whom does this action affect? 

The final rule will affect part 72 

specific and general licensees and CoC 

holders and applicants for a CoC. 

C. Why is the NRC increasing initial 

terms and renewal terms for specific 

ISFSI licenses from not to exceed 20 

years to not to exceed 40 years? 

The NRC is amending § 72.42 to 

increase the initial terms and renewal 

terms for specific ISFSI licenses from 

not to exceed 20 years to not to exceed 

40 years. This increase is consistent 

with the NRC staff’s findings regarding 

the safety of spent nuclear fuel storage, 

as documented in the renewal 

exemptions issued to the Surry and H. 

B. Robinson ISFSIs. During the review 

for the Surry and H. B. Robinson 

renewal applications, the NRC staff 

evaluated the technical data resulting 

from an NRC-supported research 

program at the Idaho National 

Laboratory (INL), formerly Idaho 

National Engineering and 

Environmental Laboratory, and also 

considered experience with spent fuel 

storage casks used at Surry. Under the 

INL research program, INL opened a 

storage cask after the fuel had been 

stored for approximately 15 years. At 

Surry, several casks were also opened 

after less than 15 years of storage as a 

result of some faulty weather covers, 

which were corrected. Summaries of the 

findings regarding the condition of the 

fuel and cask components follow: 

(1) Cladding creep is a timedependent change in the dimension of 

the cladding resulting from high 

temperature and stress. It was 

considered as a potential degradation 

mechanism during storage. 

Confirmatory inspection of the spent 

fuel stored at INL verified that no 

cladding creep had occurred. The spent 

fuel in storage at Surry also supports 

this finding. The NRC staff expects very 

little to no fuel degradation at the end 

of an extended licensing period. The 

established limits for cladding 

temperature during storage 

accompanied by a continually 

decreasing level of cladding stress and 

temperature, further remove creep as a 

degradation mechanism. Assessment of 

these factors indicates that cladding 

creep will not be an issue during a 40 

year term. 

(2) The NRC staff also expects limited 

degradation of other internal 

components because there are no 

significant corrosive influences in the 

inert environment, either for the fuel or 

for other components. The INL 

inspection verified that there was no 

indication of corrosion for any internal 

canister components. The NRC staff has 

also concluded that radiation levels are 

too low to significantly alter the 

properties of the metals for any storage 

canister components. 

(3) The other external components of 

the storage systems (which are exposed 

to weathering effects) would already be 

covered by an inspection and corrective 

action program, or routine maintenance, 

to ensure that any degradation will be 

identified and assessed for its 

importance to safety, and will be 

addressed through corrective actions to 

ensure continued safe operation of the 

storage system. 

Based on these findings, the 

Commission concludes that, with 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 8875 

appropriate aging management and 

maintenance programs, license terms 

not to exceed 40 years are reasonable 

and protect public health and safety. 

D. Can applicants apply for an initial 

term or renewal term greater than 40 

years? 

This final rule amends § 72.42 by 

extending the term allowed for specific 

ISFSI licenses from not to exceed 20 

years to not to exceed 40 years. This 

extension applies to both the initial 

terms and renewal terms. Any request 

for a term greater than 40 years would 

be processed as an exemption under 

§ 72.7. The NRC does not plan to 

ordinarily grant license term requests 

for greater than 40 years. As discussed 

in Question ‘‘C’’ of this section, the NRC 

believes that terms that do not exceed 

40 years are reasonable and provide 

adequate protection of public health and 

safety, if the applicant demonstrates to 

the NRC appropriate aging management 

and maintenance programs. 

If an applicant requests a specific 

license term greater than 40 years, that 

applicant would have to provide 

information on the long-term material 

degradation of spent fuel storage casks, 

as well as associated aging management 

activities, to justify safe operation 

during such an extended period, and the 

NRC would need to evaluate this 

information. 

E. Why is the NRC changing the word 

‘‘reapproval’’ to ‘‘renewal’’? 

The NRC is changing the word 

‘‘reapproval’’ to ‘‘renewal’’ in the final 

rule to be consistent with the 

terminology used in other license 

requirements under part 72. Currently, 

§ 72.240 uses ‘‘reapproval’’ to describe 

the process of extending the terms of 

CoCs. However, this terminology differs 

from other sections in part 72. For 

example, § 72.42 uses the word 

‘‘renewal’’ to define the process for 

extending the term of specific ISFSI 

licenses, and § 72.212(a)(3) uses 

‘‘renewals’’ to define the process for the 

continued use of storage casks of a 

particular design under a general 

license. Although ‘‘reapproval’’ and 

‘‘renewal’’ are similar words, they are 

subject to different regulatory 

interpretations. ‘‘Renewal’’ typically 

implies a process whereby the term of 

an existing license or CoC is extended. 

As such, a renewal reaffirms the original 

design basis, perhaps with some 

modifications. ‘‘Reapproval,’’ on the 

other hand, implies a process to 

reevaluate the original design basis in 

accordance with current review 

standards, which may be different from 

the standards in place when the cask 

design was initially certified. 

In addition, the Statements of 

Consideration (SOC) for the final rule 

(55 FR 29184; July 18, 1990) that added 

the general license provisions to part 72 

stated that ‘‘the procedure for reapproval 

of cask designs was not intended to 

repeat all the analyses required for the 

original approval.’’ The referenced SOC 

also reported that, ‘‘the Commission 

believes that the staff should review 

spent fuel storage cask designs 

periodically to consider any new 

information, either generic to spent fuel 

storage or specific cask designs, that 

may have arisen since issuance of the 

Certificate of Compliance.’’ Clearly, 

measures would need to be taken if the 

‘‘new information’’ involves safety 

concerns. These measures would 

depend on the nature of the safety 

concerns and the cask design. Requests 

for Additional Information (RAIs) may 

be generated during the renewal process 

to prompt applicants for CoC renewals 

to address such safety concerns. 

The NRC recognizes that a cask design 

certified years ago may not meet the 

latest standards, yet that design may be 

fully acceptable to continue to store 

spent fuel already loaded into casks of 

that design. If the cask design were 

subject to a reapproval process, and as 

such, to current standards, there is the 

possibility that certain components of 

the original design would not meet the 

current standards. Under this scenario, 

general licensees would be forced to 

remove the cask from service and 

repackage the spent fuel. Obviously, 

there are significant safety 

considerations if spent fuel were to be 

repackaged. When considering 

repackaging, safety considerations 

associated with the repackaging 

operation should be weighed against 

any safety concerns with leaving the 

spent fuel in its existing storage 

container. Although the NRC 

continuously updates its review 

standards, no compelling safety 

concerns have been identified to date 

that warrant the removal of spent fuel 

from a cask design that does not meet 

the latest review standards. 

Thus, the NRC concludes that the 

review of extending the term of a 

currently approved cask design is more 

in the nature of a renewal, because it is 

based on the cask design standards in 

effect at the time the CoC was approved, 

rather than a reapproval, which is based 

on the current standards. By replacing 

the word ‘‘reapproval’’ with the word 

‘‘renewal,’’ the final rule revisions will 

remove ambiguity from the process for 

extending the terms of CoCs. 

F. Why is the NRC adding a definition 

for the term ‘‘time-limited aging 

analyses’’ (TLAAs)? 

Stakeholders asked for a definition of 

TLAAs when they reviewed the initial 

guidance document for the Surry and H. 

B. Robinson specific ISFSI license 

renewals. TLAA is a process to assess 

systems, structures, and components 

(SSCs) important to safety which have a 

time-dependent operating life. This final 

rule adds a definition of TLAA to the 

part 72 definitions section, § 72.3, and 

makes revisions to §§ 72.42(a)(1) and 

72.240(c)(2), respectively, because 

TLAAs will be required for the renewal 

of a specific license and for the renewal 

of a spent fuel storage cask CoC. 

G. What is an ‘‘aging management 

program’’ (AMP)? 

An AMP is a program for addressing 

aging effects that may include 

prevention, mitigation, condition 

monitoring, and performance 

monitoring. The final rule adds a 

definition of AMP to the part 72 

definitions section, § 72.3, because SSCs 

must be evaluated to demonstrate that 

aging effects will not compromise the 

SSCs’ intended functions during the 

renewal period. 

H. Why is the NRC requiring an AMP? 

The NRC is amending §§ 72.42 and 

72.240 to require that applicants for 

specific license and CoC renewals 

describe a program, in their 

applications, for the management of 

issues associated with aging that could 

adversely affect SSCs. In this regard, 

degradation of the SSCs at an ISFSI, 

such as degradation due to corrosion 

and radiation, are time-dependent 

mechanisms and are expected to be 

addressed in renewal applications. AMP 

requirements will ensure that SSCs will 

perform as designers intended during 

the renewal period. AMP requirements 

will be reflected in the terms, conditions 

and technical specifications of the 

renewed CoC and thus made applicable 

to the general licensee per § 72.212(b). 

For specific licensees, AMP 

requirements will be reflected in the 

terms and conditions of the renewed 

specific license. 

I. Why is the NRC changing the 20-year 

general license term for cask designs 

approved for use under the general 

license provisions? When would a 

general license term begin and end? 

The final rule changes the 20-year 

general license term limit for the storage 

of spent fuel in casks fabricated under 

a CoC to be consistent with the revisions 

to CoC initial and renewal terms (which 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
8876 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

establish a CoC term not to exceed 40 

years). 

Under § 72.210, a general license for 

the storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI at 

power reactor sites is issued to those 

persons authorized to possess or operate 

nuclear power reactors under 10 CFR 

parts 50 or 52. The general license is 

limited to that spent fuel which the 

general licensee is authorized to possess 

at the site under the part 50 or 52 

license for the site. The general license 

is further limited to storage of spent fuel 

in casks approved and fabricated under 

the provisions of subpart L of part 72; 

the approved cask designs are listed in 

§ 72.214. Currently, the general 

licensee’s authority to use a particular 

cask design under an approved CoC 

terminates 20 years after the date that 

the general licensee first uses the 

particular cask to store spent fuel, 

unless the cask’s CoC is renewed, in 

which case the general license 

terminates 20 years after the CoC 

renewal date. In the event the cask’s 

CoC were to expire, any loaded spent 

fuel storage casks of that design will 

need to be removed from service after a 

storage period not to exceed 20 years. 

This final rule amends §§ 72.3 and 

72.212(a)(3) to clarify the term of the 

general license and to match the term of 

the general license to the term of the 

applicable CoC. The final rule also 

amends § 72.3 by adding a definition for 

the phrase ‘‘the term certified by the 

cask’s Certificate of Compliance,’’ which 

is defined to mean, for a CoC that is not 

renewed, the period of time 

commencing with the CoC effective date 

and ending with the CoC expiration 

date, and for a renewed CoC, the period 

of time commencing with the most 

recent CoC renewal date and ending 

with the CoC expiration date. 

The final rule amends § 72.212(a)(3) 

to clarify that the term of the general 

license runs through any renewal 

periods, unless otherwise specified in 

the CoC. In addition, the final rule also 

amends § 72.212(a)(3) to clarify that the 

general license term for those casks 

placed into service during the final 

renewal term of a CoC (i.e., during the 

CoC term immediately preceding the 

expiration of the CoC), or similarly, 

during the term of a CoC that is not 

renewed, begins when the cask is first 

used (i.e., when the cask is loaded with 

spent fuel) and expires after a storage 

period not to exceed the length of ‘‘the 

term certified by the cask’s Certificate of 

Compliance.’’ 

The following scenarios are provided 

as illustrative examples: 

Scenario 1: The CoC has a term of 20 

years. The general licensee places a cask 

into service at the end of the 19th year 

of the CoC term. The CoC is not 

renewed and expires at the end of the 

20th year; that is 1 year after the general 

licensee loaded the cask. The term of a 

general license for a cask shall be for a 

storage period not to exceed the term 

certified by the cask’s CoC (i.e., for a 

CoC that is not renewed, the period of 

time commencing with the CoC effective 

date and ending with the CoC expiration 

date). Thus, in this scenario, the general 

license commences upon loading at the 

end of the 19th year and runs for 20 

years (terminating 19 years after the date 

of the CoC expiration, giving a storage 

period of 20 years). 

Scenario 2: The initial CoC has a term 

of 20 years. The CoC is renewed (by 

rulemaking amending the appropriate 

entry in § 72.214) for 40 years. The 

general licensee places a cask into 

service at the end of the 39th year of the 

renewal term. The CoC is not renewed 

a second time and as such, expires 40 

years after the effective date of the 

renewal amendment to § 72.214 (here, 

1 year after the general licensee loaded 

the cask). The term of a general license 

for a cask shall be for a storage period 

not to exceed the term certified by the 

cask’s CoC (i.e., for a renewed CoC, that 

is the period of time commencing with 

the most recent CoC renewal date and 

ending with the CoC expiration date). 

Thus, in this scenario, the term of the 

general license for the cask would 

commence upon loading and terminate 

40 years after loading (in this case, 39 

years after expiration of the CoC, giving 

a storage period of 40 years). 

Scenario 3: The initial CoC has a term 

of 20 years. The CoC is then renewed for 

40 years. The general licensee places a 

cask into service at the end of the 39th 

year of the renewal term. The CoC is 

then renewed a second time for an 

additional 40 years. In this case, the 

general license would run through the 

second renewal period. Thus, the 

general license for that cask would 

commence upon loading and terminate 

at the expiration of the CoC (giving a 

storage period of 41 years). 

Scenario 4: The initial CoC has a term 

of 20 years. The CoC is then renewed for 

40 years. The general licensee places a 

cask into service at the end of the 39th 

year of the renewal term. The CoC is 

then renewed two more times, each 

additional CoC renewal term being for a 

40-year period. In this case, the general 

license would run through both renewal 

periods. Thus, the general license for 

that cask would commence upon 

loading and terminate at the expiration 

of the CoC (giving a storage period of 81 

years). 

Scenario 5: The initial CoC has a term 

of 20 years. The CoC is then renewed for 

40 years. The CoC is then renewed a 

second and final time, but only for a 30 

year period. The general licensee places 

a cask into service at the end of the 29th 

year of the final renewal term. In this 

scenario, the general license for that 

cask would be for a storage period not 

to exceed the term certified by the cask’s 

CoC (for a renewed CoC, that is the 

period of time commencing with the 

most recent CoC renewal date and 

ending with the CoC expiration date). 

Thus, in this scenario, the general 

license for this cask would commence 

upon loading and terminate 30 years 

after loading (in this case, 29 years after 

expiration of the CoC, giving a storage 

period of 30 years). 

In short, the general license term for 

any given cask will be, at a minimum, 

for a storage period not to exceed ‘‘the 

term certified by the cask’s CoC’’ (as that 

term is defined in § 72.3). The rationale 

for extending the general license 

through any CoC renewal term is twofold. First, the extension of the general 

license through a CoC renewal term is 

premised upon the licensee 

implementing all appropriate aging 

management requirements. Second, the 

NRC concluded that the occupational 

risks of taking a cask out of service and 

repackaging the spent fuel into another 

storage cask exceed the risks of leaving 

the spent fuel in the original cask. 

J. Are there possible conflicts that could 

arise for storage cask designs that are 

granted a term extension that are also 

approved for a different term limit as a 

transportation package? 

The Commission raised this issue in 

its SRM for SECY–06–0152, dated 

August 14, 2006. The NRC staff does not 

foresee any possible conflicts. The 

current regulations in part 72 encourage, 

but do not require, storage cask designs 

to have a compatible, approved 

transportation cask. So called ‘‘dual use’’ 

systems must be separately certified 

under the requirements in 10 CFR part 

71 (transportation) and part 72 (storage). 

Typically, the only common item 

between these systems is the inner 

canister, which holds the spent fuel 

contents. 

Part 71 certificates for transportation 

packages are issued for a 5-year term 

whereas part 72 CoCs are issued for 

much longer periods (under the current 

regulations, all approved CoCs have 

20-year terms; under this final rule, the 

CoC term is extended to a not to exceed 

40-year term). For each transportation 

cask certified under 10 CFR part 71, the 

CoC specifies ‘‘approved contents.’’ The 

description of the approved contents for 

a spent fuel transportation package 

defines the acceptable fuel types and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 8877 

characteristics and, typically, it is the 

condition of the fuel, not its age, that 

determines its acceptability. Spent fuel 

stored in casks, even for extended terms, 

is not expected to experience any 

significant degradation that would affect 

its acceptability to be shipped in a 

suitable transportation cask. The part 72 

general design criteria require fuel 

retrievability (§ 72.122(l)) and for CoC 

applications, the design of the storage 

cask should consider, to the extent 

practicable, compatibility with removal 

of the stored spent fuel from a reactor 

site, transportation, and ultimate 

disposition by the Department of Energy 

(§ 72.236(m)). Based upon the NRCsupported INL research program and the 

Surry and H. B. Robinson ISFSI renewal 

applications, the NRC staff has 

concluded that typical spent fuel can be 

safely stored in casks without 

appreciable degradation. 

If the condition of spent fuel, or its 

storage canister, was believed to have 

degraded during extended storage such 

that it no longer met the criteria for 

approved contents, a licensee would 

have other alternatives for transport of 

that spent fuel. A new or modified 

approved transportation cask might be 

used, or the fuel might be repackaged, 

to place it in an acceptable 

configuration. 

K. How does the NRC track cask 

expiration dates? 

Section 72.212(b)(2) of the final rule 

will require general licensees to register 

use of each cask with the Commission 

no later than 30 days after using that 

cask to store spent fuel. To register 

casks, licensees must submit their name 

and address, reactor license and docket 

numbers, the name and title of a person 

responsible for providing additional 

information concerning spent fuel 

storage under the general license, the 

cask certificate number, the amendment 

number, if applicable, cask model 

number, and the cask identification 

number. With this information, the 

Commission will know the loading and 

expiration dates of each cask. This 

information will also enable the NRC to 

schedule any necessary inspections and 

will permit the NRC to maintain an 

independent record of use for each cask. 

L. Who is responsible for applying for 

CoC renewals? 

The final rule retains the structure of 

the current rule, which emphasizes that 

the certificate holder (the cask vendor) 

applies for cask renewal. If the 

certificate holder chooses not to apply 

for the renewal of a particular cask 

design or is no longer in business, a 

licensee, a licensee’s representative, or 

another certificate holder may apply for 

renewal in its place. If the applicant for 

CoC renewal seeks to fabricate this cask 

design, it must satisfy the applicable 

requirements of part 72, including 

establishment and maintenance of the 

requisite quality assurance (QA) 

program (general licensees may rely 

upon previously established part 50 or 

71 QA programs if they meet the 

requirements of §§ 72.140 and 72.174). 

M. Does the NRC have a definition for 

‘‘terms, conditions, and specifications’’ 

as they relate to the CoC? 

The NRC does not include a 

definition for ‘‘terms, conditions, and 

specifications’’ in the final rule because 

these words are generic in nature, and 

are used in other parts of the NRC’s 

regulations without definition. 

N. Can a licensee apply CoC 

amendments to previously loaded 

casks? 

This final rule amends § 72.212(b) to 

clarify that general licensees may apply 

changes authorized by a CoC 

amendment to a previously loaded cask 

provided that the licensee demonstrates, 

through a written evaluation, that the 

cask meets the terms and conditions of 

the subject CoC amendment (i.e., the 

loaded cask must conform to the CoC 

amendment codified by the NRC in 

§ 72.214). 

O. May a general licensee implement 

only some of the authorized changes in 

a CoC amendment without prior NRC 

approval? 

If a general licensee elects to apply 

the changes authorized by a CoC 

amendment to a previously loaded cask, 

then the cask, after the changes have 

been applied, must conform to the terms 

and conditions (including the technical 

specifications) of the CoC amendment. 

Partial or selective application of some 

of the authorized changes, but not 

others, requires prior NRC approval (in 

this case, the general licensee would 

apply for an exemption). The basis for 

allowing licensees to apply the changes 

authorized by a CoC amendment to a 

previously loaded cask without prior 

approval from the NRC is that the cask 

will remain in an analyzed condition if, 

after the changes have been applied, it 

conforms to the terms and conditions of 

the CoC amendment. The NRC has 

previously stated, ‘‘a spent fuel storage 

cask will be relied on to provide safe 

confinement of radioactive material 

independent of a nuclear power 

reactor’s site, so long as conditions of 

the Certificate of Compliance are met’’ 

(54 FR 19381; May 5, 1989). However, 

partial or selective application of a CoC 

amendment’s changes could result in a 

cask that would be in an unanalyzed 

condition. 

In a related issue, the NRC agrees with 

an industry comment raised in response 

to the publication of the draft 

preliminary rule text (73 FR 45173; 

August 4, 2008). The draft preliminary 

rule text required that a general licensee 

ensure that once the changes authorized 

by a CoC amendment had been applied 

to a previously loaded cask, that the 

cask then ‘‘fully conforms’’ to the terms 

and conditions of the CoC amendment. 

The industry comment raised the 

concern that the phrase ‘‘fully conforms’’ 

was overly restrictive and requiring 

conformance with all the changes 

authorized by a CoC amendment would 

not be feasible or logical in certain 

instances, namely, in those cases where 

the amended CoC requirements do not 

apply to that particular general licensee 

site or ISFSI (e.g., requirements for 

pressurized water reactors (PWR) fuel at 

a boiling water reactor (BWR) plant). 

In light of this comment, the final rule 

language now requires that the cask, 

once CoC amendment changes have 

been applied, ‘‘conforms’’ to the terms 

and conditions of the CoC amendment. 

Thus, CoC amendment requirements for 

PWR fuel need not be met at a BWR 

plant. 

Similarly, if the CoC amendment 

includes changes to the Technical 

Specifications for loading, general 

licensees may have difficulty 

demonstrating that the previously 

loaded cask complies with the new 

loading requirements. As revised by this 

final rule, § 72.212(b)(5) will require 

general licensees to perform written 

evaluations prior to applying the 

changes authorized by an amended CoC 

to a previously loaded cask. If the 

evaluation indicates that the loading 

conditions under the initial or older 

CoC amendment would not affect the 

ability of the previously loaded cask to 

meet the storage or unloading 

requirements of the newer CoC 

amendment, then the cask would be 

considered as conforming with the 

terms and conditions of the newer CoC 

amendment without having to meet the 

new loading requirements. 

P. Do later CoC amendments encompass 

earlier CoC amendments? 

No, later CoC amendments do not 

encompass earlier amendments unless 

the language of the later CoC 

amendment expressly indicates 

otherwise. Generally, when the NRC 

reviews an amendment to a CoC, the 

NRC staff considers the changes 

associated with the amendment request 

only and limits its review to the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
8878 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

bounding conditions of the analysis. 

Specific changes associated with earlier 

CoC amendments for previously loaded 

casks are not considered during the 

review process for a later amendment. 

Thus, depending on the nature of the 

changes, later amendments do not 

necessarily encompass earlier 

amendments and sometimes may be 

inconsistent with earlier amendments. 

Q. Why can’t general licensees use the 

§ 72.48 process to apply CoC 

amendment changes to previously 

loaded casks? 

The principal requirement of § 72.48 

regarding changes to cask designs is that 

the desired changes do not result in a 

change in the terms, conditions, or 

specifications incorporated in the CoC. 

A previously loaded cask is bound by 

the terms, conditions, and technical 

specifications of the CoC applicable to 

that cask at the time the licensee loaded 

the cask. Thus, under § 72.48, a licensee 

may only make those cask design 

changes that do not result in a change 

to the terms, conditions, or 

specifications of the CoC under which 

the cask was loaded. The final rule will 

not amend § 72.48, but will amend 

§ 72.212 by authorizing a general 

licensee to apply the changes authorized 

by a CoC amendment to a previously 

loaded cask, provided that after the 

changes have been applied, the cask 

conforms to the terms and conditions, 

including the technical specifications, 

of the CoC amendment. 

R. If a general licensee selects and 

purchases a cask fabricated under an 

earlier CoC amendment, but does not 

load the cask, can the general licensee 

adopt the most recent CoC amendment 

for the empty cask before loading it? 

Adoption of the most recent CoC 

amendment depends on the nature of 

the changes between the CoC 

amendment under which the cask 

system was fabricated and the most 

recent amendment. CoC amendments 

are routinely requested by cask 

manufacturers or vendors (also referred 

to as the certificate holders) to account 

for advances in cask design and 

technology. Some amendments will be 

associated with cask hardware changes. 

A cask system that was purchased under 

an older amendment may or may not be 

able to be modified to a cask system that 

meets the most recent amendment. 

As revised by this final rule, 

§ 72.212(b)(5) will require that general 

licensees perform written evaluations 

demonstrating that the cask, once 

loaded with spent fuel, will conform to 

the terms, conditions and specifications 

of a CoC or an amended CoC listed in 

§ 72.214. In the case of an unloaded cask 

fabricated under the initial or earlier 

CoC amendment, the cask cannot be 

loaded under a later CoC amendment if 

the § 72.212(b)(5) evaluation shows that 

the cask, once loaded, will fail to meet 

the terms, conditions and specifications 

of the later CoC amendment. If the 

evaluation demonstrates that the terms, 

conditions and specifications of the 

later CoC amendment are met, then the 

cask can be loaded under the later CoC 

amendment. 

S. What are the NRC’s plans for 

providing guidance and examples of 

aging analyses and AMPs to licensees? 

The NRC has developed NUREG–1927 

‘‘Standard Review Plan for Renewal of 

Independent Spent Fuel Storage 

Installation Licenses and Dry Cask 

Storage System Certificates of 

Compliance.’’ This SRP provides 

guidance to the NRC staff in reviewing 

licensees’ programs for managing the 

effects of aging on spent fuel storage 

casks or ISFSI sites. Aging analyses and 

AMPs are two components of an overall 

program for managing the effects of 

aging. Because applicants will need to 

submit a TLAA and a description of 

their program to manage the effects of 

aging when applying for renewal of 

either CoCs or specific licenses under 

the final rule, this SRP will also assist 

potential applicants in identifying 

parameters to be included in a renewal 

application and measures necessary to 

ensure that the cask or ISFSI can be 

operated during the renewal period 

without undue risk to the public health 

and safety. The SRP will be published 

following the publication of this final 

rule. 

T. Could the NRC maintain the current 

paragraph designations of § 72.212(b)? 

The NRC understands the burden 

arising from changing the paragraph 

designations of a regulation. However, 

the NRC is rearranging the provisions of 

§ 72.212(b) to better organize regulatory 

requirements. For example, the final 

rule will group recordkeeping 

requirements at the end of § 72.212(b) 

rather than dispersing them among 

other requirements, as is currently the 

case. The NRC’s intent for rearranging 

§ 72.212(b) is to make this provision 

more user-friendly. These changes are 

documented in Table 1 located in 

Section IV (Item 4) of this document 

(Discussion of Final Amendments by 

Section under the discussion pertaining 

to § 72.212). 

U. When are licensees required to 

submit cask registration letters? 

Under final § 72.212(b)(2), general 

licensees must submit a cask 

registration letter no later than 30 days 

after using that cask to store spent fuel. 

One registration letter may be submitted 

for a campaign that loads more than one 

cask, provided that the letter lists the 

cask certificate number, the amendment 

number, the cask model number, and 

the cask identification number of each 

cask covered by the campaign. 

In addition, under final § 72.212(b)(4), 

general licensees must submit a cask 

registration letter no later than 30 days 

after applying the changes authorized by 

an amended CoC to a previously loaded 

cask. One registration letter may be 

submitted for a campaign that applies 

CoC amendment changes to more than 

one cask, provided that the letter lists 

the cask certificate number, the 

amendment number to which the cask 

will conform, the cask model number, 

and the cask identification number of 

each cask covered by the campaign. 

V. If a CoC is not renewed, how long 

would general licensees have to remove 

casks of that design from service? 

For those cask storage systems for 

which renewals are not planned, general 

licensees should plan ahead to remove 

these cask storage systems from service 

at or before the termination of the 

general license (see the response to 

Question ‘‘I’’ above). Because users are 

most aware of the general cask schedule 

and the number of casks to be removed 

from service at their sites, users are in 

the best position to develop a reasonable 

schedule for the removal. 

W. When the NRC renews a CoC, are all 

amendments to that CoC simultaneously 

renewed as well? 

Section 72.214 lists one expiration 

date for each CoC. Amendments under 

a CoC may have different effective dates; 

however, they share the same certificate 

number and docket number. Therefore, 

when the NRC renews a CoC, all 

amendments to that CoC are renewed as 

well. 

X. If a general licensee applies for the 

renewal of a given CoC (assuming the 

certificate holder went out of business or 

chose not to apply for the renewal of a 

given CoC), and if the NRC approves the 

renewal of that CoC, is the renewed CoC 

available only to that general licensee or 

is it available to all general licensees? 

CoCs are generic designs and 

approved by rulemaking. The renewed 

CoC will be available to all persons who 

hold a general license under § 72.210. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 8879 

Y. Can the requirements regarding 

TLAAs for CoC renewals be based upon 

a ‘‘current licensing basis’’ (CLB) 

patterned after 10 CFR part 54? 

The NRC does not believe that the 

part 54 CLB is the appropriate basis for 

TLAAs in support of CoC renewals. The 

NRC does not believe that it is 

appropriate for the CLB to be applied to 

cask CoC renewals, which are generic. 

The CLB is typically the set of NRC 

requirements applicable to a specific 

plant and a specific licensee’s written 

commitments for ensuring compliance 

with and operation within applicable 

NRC requirements, including the plant 

specific design basis (including all 

modifications and additions to 

regulatory commitments over the life of 

the license) that are docketed and in 

effect. 

Z. What is the status of the draft NRC 

Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2007– 

26 which was issued on January 14, 

2008 (73 FR 2281)? 

The NRC decided not to finalize the 

draft RIS 2007–26 because § 72.212(b) 

provides a path forward for 

implementation of later CoC 

amendments to previously loaded casks. 

An Enforcement Guidance 

Memorandum (EGM), dated September 

15, 2009, was issued in conjunction 

with the publication of the proposed 

rule to provide guidance to NRC 

inspectors for exercising enforcement 

discretion concerning deficiencies 

related to implementing changes, 

authorized by CoC amendments to 

previously loaded casks, that occurred 

prior to issuance of the EGM. 

III. Summary and Analysis of Public 

Comments on the Proposed Rule 

This section presents a summary of 

the public comments received on the 

proposed rule and supporting 

documents, the NRC’s response to the 

comments, and changes made in the 

final rule and supporting documents as 

a result of these comments. 

The NRC received five comment 

letters on the proposed rule. These 

comments came from the Nuclear 

Energy Institute, the U.S. Department of 

Energy, Exelon Nuclear, 

Decommissioning Plant Coalition, and 

the Prairie Island Indian Community. 

Three of the commenters supported the 

new regulation, while two of the 

commenters expressed concern about 

the proposed regulation. The 

commenters opposed to the proposed 

regulation were primarily concerned 

about the increased license term 

extension from 20 to 40 years for 

specific ISFSI licensees. One of these 

commenters also had questions about 

the environmental review process. The 

other commenters provided comments 

on different topics within the proposed 

rule, including the proposed CoC terms, 

the CoC renewal process, the CoC 

amendment process, TLAAs, and spent 

fuel storage in general. These 

commenters made observations about 

these topics and recommended areas 

within the proposed rule where the NRC 

could make improvements. Two 

commenters suggested revisions to the 

proposed rule language and the SOC. 

Copies of the public comments are 

available for review in the NRC Public 

Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, MD 20852–2738. A review of 

the comments and the NRC responses 

follow: 

General Support 

Comment 1 

A commenter agreed with the 

proposed amendments and stated that 

they are in the public interest and are 

consistent with scientific evidence. The 

commenter also noted that the proposed 

regulation would reduce the costs 

incurred by licensees and the NRC as a 

result of preparing and reviewing 

applications and exemption requests. 

The commenter stated that the proposed 

rule would provide the NRC and 

regulated entities with greater regulatory 

certainty. 

Response 

The NRC agrees with the comment. 

General Opposition 

Comment 2 

A commenter suggested that the 

proposed revisions would negatively 

and directly impact their community 

and expressed opposition to extending 

specific ISFSI licenses by 40 years. The 

commenter also indicated that the 

proposed rule, along with the 

‘‘scrapping’’ of Yucca Mountain, would 

lead to permanent spent fuel storage at 

nuclear power reactor sites. In addition, 

the commenter urged that the 20-year 

initial and renewal terms should remain 

unchanged. The commenter suggested 

that a 20-year term better protects the 

public because the casks are monitored 

more frequently. 

Response 

The NRC acknowledges the concerns 

raised by the commenter. The 

Commission believes there is reasonable 

assurance that spent fuel can be stored 

safely and without significant 

environmental impacts at ISFSIs during 

the extended license terms authorized 

by the final rule. This reasonable 

assurance is partly based on the 

technical data gained from an NRC 

supported research program and field 

data. Details are discussed in the 

response to Question ‘‘C’’ of the 

‘‘Discussion’’ section of this document. 

Furthermore, this final rule would 

require all licensees to identify timedependent degradations of the ISFSI 

SSCs when they apply for license 

renewal. If any aging issues which could 

adversely affect SSCs are identified, the 

final rule requires the license renewal 

applicant to describe an AMP in its 

license renewal application. The AMP 

will address the prevention and 

mitigation of aging effects. The NRC 

staff will evaluate the AMP and will 

only approve the renewal application if 

the AMP is deemed adequate. 

An AMP would require licensees to 

monitor the casks and take other 

measures to ensure public health and 

safety. AMP requirements will be 

reflected in the terms and conditions of 

the renewed specific license, which are 

enforceable by NRC. The NRC will 

monitor the licensee’s compliance with 

the terms and conditions of the license 

through the NRC’s inspection program. 

The NRC concluded that, with 

appropriate aging management and 

maintenance programs, a license term 

up to 40 years is reasonable and 

provides adequate protection of public 

health and safety. 

Comment 3 

A commenter stated that the proposed 

rule, ‘‘like the proposed revision of the 

Waste Confidence Rule,’’ validated the 

commenter’s earlier concerns raised 

during the initial licensing process for 

the ISFSI located near its Tribal 

boundary and ‘‘exposes the false 

assurances that the ISFSI is an interim 

or temporary solution.’’ The commenter 

added that the Commission’s position is 

to ‘‘simply streamline approvals for 

extending the term that spent fuel can 

be stored at either onsite or offsite 

ISFSIs.’’ The commenter suggested that 

‘‘regulatory requirements should be 

further enhanced rather than relaxed.’’ 

Response 

The NRC has not made any regulatory 

or policy decision which states that the 

storage of spent fuel at ISFSIs obviates 

the need for a permanent repository of 

spent fuel and other high-level waste. 

The establishment of such a repository 

is a national policy decision and is 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

The extension of specific license 

terms in § 72.42 does not relax any 

regulatory requirements. The rationale 

for extending the terms for specific 

ISFSI licenses, for both initial terms and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
8880 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

renewals, is set forth in the responses to 

Questions ‘‘C’’, ‘‘D’’, and ‘‘F–H’’, in 

Section II of this document. The rule 

requires that any applicant for license 

renewal demonstrate the safety of the 

continued storage of spent fuel for the 

requested term through TLAAs and the 

establishment of an AMP. If the 

applicant demonstrates to the NRC 

appropriate aging management and 

maintenance programs, then the NRC 

has concluded that a renewal term up to 

40 years is reasonable and provides 

adequate protection of public health and 

safety. 

CoC Terms and Renewal Process 

Comment 4 

A commenter stated that the term 

‘‘unloaded cask’’ in the fifth paragraph of 

Section II, ‘‘Discussion,’’ Question ‘‘E’’, of 

the proposed rule is unclear. The 

commenter asked whether the term 

‘‘unloaded cask’’ is limited to a cask that 

has never been loaded or if it also 

includes a cask that has been used but 

subsequently unloaded of stored fuel. 

The commenter added that the review of 

a generic CoC renewal should not 

depend on whether or not a particular 

cask is unloaded. The commenter 

requested that the NRC delete the final 

sentence of the fifth paragraph of 

Section II, ‘‘Discussion,’’ Question ‘‘E.’’ 

Response 

In the context of the response to 

Question ‘‘E’’, the NRC considered the 

term ‘‘unloaded cask’’ to be either a cask 

that has never been loaded or one that 

was loaded and then subsequently 

unloaded. In any event, the NRC agrees 

with the comment. When a CoC is 

renewed by the NRC, it is the cask 

design that is being renewed. It does not 

matter whether the cask is loaded or 

not. Therefore, clarifying changes have 

been made to the response to Question 

‘‘E’’, including the deletion of the 

sentence which contains the term 

‘‘unloaded cask.’’ 

Comment 5 

Two commenters requested that NRC 

clarify Section II, ‘‘Discussion,’’ 

Questions ‘‘I’’ and ‘‘V’’ and Section III, 

‘‘Discussion of Proposed Amendments 

by Section,’’ Item 4 and § 72.212(a)(3) of 

the proposed rule. These sections of the 

SOC and § 72.212(a)(3) address the 

relationship between the term of a 

general license, the CoC term and 

renewal, and the date an individual cask 

is loaded. 

One of the commenters stated that 

‘‘[i]ndustry believes that each individual 

cask should be permitted to be operated 

for the full design life of the cask, 

including the full renewal period.’’ The 

commenter stated that aging 

management requirements would be 

implemented during the renewal period. 

This commenter then provided two 

examples: the first, ‘‘a cask loaded under 

an active CoC with a 20-year initial term 

and not renewed should be permitted to 

be operated under a general license for 

20 years from the date of initial use, no 

matter when that cask is placed into 

service;’’ and the second, ‘‘a cask loaded 

under an active CoC with a 20-year 

initial term and renewed for 40 years 

should be permitted to be operated 

under a general license for 60 years from 

the date of initial use, no matter when 

that cask is placed into service.’’ 

The commenter then asserted that 

each cask is fabricated to meet a specific 

design life and that the ‘‘successful 

renewal of the CoC extends that design 

life provided all design and 

maintenance parameters that were part 

of the renewal approval are met.’’ The 

commenter further asserts that the 

design life ‘‘does not begin for each 

individual cask until the cask is loaded, 

i.e., the cask is experiencing the 

conditions contemplated in design.’’ The 

commenter concluded that ‘‘forcing 

casks to be taken out of service at an 

arbitrary date would result in 

unnecessary fuel repackaging and 

occupational radiation exposition with 

no commensurate public health and 

safety benefit.’’ 

The second commenter made a 

similar comment, stating that the ‘‘cask 

life should be solely based on the 

qualification of the cask, and not on the 

CoC expiration date.’’ The commenter 

then suggested that ‘‘the NRC consider 

evaluating the lifespan of the fuel 

storage system based on date of loading 

(i.e., activation of the system) of the cask 

system in compliance with all 

applicable terms, conditions, and 

specification, and not based on other 

external factors.’’ 

Response 

The NRC agrees, in part, and 

disagrees, in part, with the comments. 

The part 72 regulations do not define 

the term ‘‘design life.’’ Rather, the part 

72 regulatory scheme is based on 

licenses, specific and general, and the 

terms of those licenses. The general 

license term is premised upon the CoC 

in effect at the time the cask was placed 

into service (i.e., loaded with spent fuel 

and deployed onto the ISFSI pad). As 

explained in the response to Question 

‘‘I’’ of Section II, the general license 

term, for loaded casks, will run through 

any consecutive CoC renewal terms as 

the occupational risk of unloading a 

cask and repackaging the spent fuel into 

another storage cask exceeds the risk of 

keeping the spent fuel in the original 

cask. 

The NRC agrees with the first 

commenter’s statement regarding the 

implementation of aging management 

requirements during the renewal period. 

The NRC further agrees with the first 

commenter’s first example regarding a 

cask fabricated under a 20-year CoC 

term, which is not renewed. Under both 

the current regulation and the regulation 

as revised by this final rule, the general 

license term for such a cask would be 

20 years, regardless of when during the 

20-year CoC term the cask is placed into 

service. Of course, after the CoC expires, 

casks of that design could no longer be 

placed into service. 

The NRC disagrees with the second 

example and the commenter’s rationale 

to support that example. The 

commenter states ‘‘a cask loaded under 

an active CoC with a 20-year initial term 

and renewed for 40 years should be 

permitted to be operated under a general 

license for 60 years from the date of 

initial use, no matter when that cask is 

placed into service’’ (emphasis added). 

The NRC does not agree that successful 

renewals of the CoC cumulatively 

extend the general license term for that 

cask (the commenter uses the term 

‘‘design life,’’ which the NRC assumes to 

be the equivalent of the general license 

term desired by the commenter). The 

commenter uses the example of a CoC 

that has an initial term of 20 years 

followed by a renewal term of 40 years. 

The commenter then asserts that the 

design life of the cask would be 60 

years. Thus, under this reasoning, a cask 

placed into service the day before the 

renewed CoC expires could be in service 

for 60 years. Essentially, the commenter 

appears to be asserting that the 

regulatory scheme should allow 

cumulative terms, such that each 

successive renewal of the CoC adds to 

the design life of the cask, and thus, to 

the term of the general license. 

The intent of the amendments 

implemented by the final rule is that the 

use of a cask is determined by the 

general license term, which in turn is 

determined by the term specified in the 

applicable CoC in effect at the time the 

cask is placed into service; the general 

license term is not determined by 

adding all the successive CoC renewal 

terms to the initial CoC term. The term 

of the general license for any cask 

placed into service during a CoC 

renewal term is based upon the length 

of the renewal term (renewal date to 

expiration). Thus, if a CoC is renewed 

for 40 years and a cask fabricated under 

that CoC is placed into service during 

the 39th year of the renewal term, the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 8881 

1As background, see the response to Question 21 

in the July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29186), final rule that 

promulgated subparts K and L of part 72. In 

particular, the NRC stated that ‘‘the 20-year storage 

period will also apply to new casks put into use 

after a Certificate of Compliance is reapproved.’’ 

Clearly, there was no intent that the storage period 

for a cask placed into service during the renewal 

term was to be for a term that was equal to the 

initial term plus the renewal term. 

general license for that cask would be 40 

years. 

According to the commenter, if the 

initial term of the CoC was 20 years, and 

the CoC was then renewed twice, each 

time for 40 years, then a cask placed 

into service on the last day of the 

second renewal period would have a 

general license of 100 years (essentially, 

100 years beyond the CoC expiration 

date). It is not the intent of the NRC to 

allow for such extended, cumulative 

license terms.1 Such an interpretation of 

the regulatory scheme implemented by 

this final rule is well beyond the 

regulatory norm and is not aligned with 

the stated purpose of this rulemaking, 

which was to extend specific license 

terms from not to exceed 20 years to not 

to exceed 40 years and then to make the 

terms of CoCs and general licenses equal 

with those of specific licenses. 

The NRC disagrees with the second 

commenter, who stated that ‘‘cask life 

should be solely based on the 

qualification of the cask, and not on the 

CoC expiration date.’’ In this regard, the 

NRC will allow for casks already in 

service, i.e., those already loaded prior 

to any given CoC renewal, to remain in 

service through any future renewal 

periods, given that the occupational 

hazards associated with unloading a 

cask and repackaging the spent fuel into 

another storage cask exceed the risks of 

leaving that fuel in the original cask. 

However, this is not the same as 

allowing an unloaded cask (i.e., either a 

new cask or one formerly loaded and 

then subsequently unloaded) to be 

placed into service for a cumulative 

term that is equal to the length of the 

initial term and all renewal terms. The 

intent of this final rule is that the 

general license term for any cask placed 

into service shall not be longer than the 

term certified by the then effective CoC, 

unless that CoC is renewed after that 

cask has been placed into service, in 

which case, the general license will 

terminate at the expiration of the CoC 

(i.e., at the end of the final CoC renewal 

term). Please see the response to 

Question ‘‘I’’ of this document for 

additional details, including examples 

of various general license scenarios. 

In response to these comments, this 

final rule amends § 72.212(a)(3) to 

include clarifying language regarding 

general license terms and similarly, 

adds a definition of the phrase ‘‘the term 

certified by the cask’s Certificate of 

Compliance’’ to the part 72 definitions 

section, § 72.3. 

Comment 6 

A commenter requested that the NRC 

clarify the QA program requirements for 

general licensees that seek to fabricate 

casks (as discussed in Section II, 

‘‘Discussion,’’ Question ‘‘L’’ of the 

proposed rule). The commenter asked 

whether a general licensee that seeks to 

fabricate a cask under its part 50 QA 

program may apply its part 50 QA 

program as long as it governs part 72 

activities. 

Response 

Section 72.140 sets forth the 

requirements of a part 72 QA program. 

Under § 72.140(d), a QA program 

previously approved by the Commission 

as satisfying the requirements of 

Appendix B to part 50 or subpart H of 

part 71 will be accepted as satisfying the 

requirements of § 72.140(b), provided 

that the general licensee or other 

applicant meets the recordkeeping 

requirements of § 72.174. In filing the 

description of the QA program required 

by § 72.140(c), a general licensee who 

seeks to fabricate casks under a renewed 

CoC must notify the NRC, in accordance 

with § 72.4, of its intent to apply its 

previously-approved QA program to 

part 72 activities. The notification shall 

identify the previously-approved QA 

program by date of submittal to the 

Commission, docket number, and date 

of Commission approval. 

Comment 7 

A commenter suggested that the word 

‘‘terms’’ in the phrase ‘‘terms, conditions, 

and specifications’’ may be confused 

with the word ‘‘term’’ as in the ‘‘term 

certified in the cask CoC.’’ The 

commenter requested that the NRC 

revise Section III, ‘‘Discussion of 

Proposed Amendments by Section,’’ 

Item 4 to address this issue. The 

commenter requested that the NRC add 

a definition to § 72.3 for the phrase 

‘‘term certified by the cask’s Certificate 

of Compliance.’’ 

Response 

The NRC agrees that clarification is 

needed. The NRC added the following 

definition to § 72.3: 

‘‘Term certified by the cask’s 

Certificate of Compliance, for the 

purposes of this part, means, for an 

initial CoC, the period of time 

commencing with the CoC effective date 

and ending with the CoC expiration 

date, and for a renewed CoC, the period 

of time commencing with the most 

recent CoC renewal date and ending 

with the CoC expiration date.’’ 

Comment 8 

One commenter asked if a ‘‘cask user 

or user’s representative’’ renews a CoC, 

then would that user or user’s 

representative become the CoC holder 

and, as a result, obtain all CoC holder 

responsibilities. In particular, the 

commenter questioned whether the user 

or user’s representative would assume 

responsibility for cask Final Safety 

Analysis Report (FSAR) updating and 

reporting requirements under § 72.48. 

Response 

In the SOC for the July 18, 1990, final 

rule which promulgated subparts K and 

L of part 72, the NRC stated its 

expectation that the cask vendor, if still 

in business and fabricating the subject 

cask design, would apply for cask 

renewal (55 FR 29184; July 18, 1990). If 

the certificate holder is no longer in 

business or chooses not to apply for the 

renewal of a particular cask design, then 

a cask user or user’s representative (i.e., 

the licensee or licensee’s representative) 

could apply to renew a CoC. If approved 

by the NRC, the cask user or 

representative would then become the 

CoC holder. In this capacity, the cask 

user or representative absorbs all CoC 

holder responsibilities, such as cask 

FSAR updating and reporting 

requirements under § 72.48. 

CoC Amendment Process 

Comment 9 

A commenter objected to a sentence 

in the first paragraph of Section II, 

‘‘Discussion,’’ Question ‘‘O’’ that stated, 

‘‘However, partial or selective 

application of a CoC amendment’s 

changes would result in a cask that 

would be in an unanalyzed condition.’’ 

The commenter asserted that this 

sentence was a ‘‘significant 

overstatement’’ as not all partial or 

selective application of a CoC 

amendment’s changes would result in 

the cask being in an unanalyzed 

condition. The commenter requested 

that the sentence be deleted or that the 

first instance of ‘‘would’’ be replaced 

with the word ‘‘could.’’ 

Response 

The NRC agrees with the comment 

that, depending on the nature of 

changes in the amendment, partial or 

selective application of a CoC 

amendment’s changes may not always 

result in the cask being in an 

unanalyzed condition. To minimize the 

possibility of the cask being in an 

unanalyzed condition, however, the 

general licensee is required to apply for 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
8882 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

an exemption in those cases where the 

general licensee seeks such a partial or 

selective application of the changes 

authorized by a later CoC amendment to 

a previously loaded cask. The NRC has 

revised the sentence in Section II, 

‘‘Discussion,’’ Question ‘‘O’’ of this 

document as follows: 

‘‘However, partial or selective 

application of a CoC amendment’s 

changes could result in a cask that 

would be in an unanalyzed condition.’’ 

Comment 10 

A commenter suggested that the NRC 

should consider including in CoC 

amendments language addressing 

whether or not the CoC amendment 

encompasses all requirements of the 

initial CoC and previous amendments. 

The commenter asserted that such CoC 

amendment language would 

‘‘significantly simplify’’ the adoption 

process for general licensees, ‘‘especially 

in cases where only the contents have 

changed and no cask hardware 

modifications are involved.’’ 

Response 

The approach suggested by the 

commenter is not within the scope of 

this rulemaking because the 

commenter’s recommended language 

would be placed within the text of the 

CoC amendment, not the NRC 

regulations. Moreover, the NRC has 

considered a process that requires the 

application of every part 72 CoC 

amendment to include a basis which 

proposes the applicability of the 

proposed amendment to previously 

loaded casks. The NRC staff’s 

acceptance of the proposed applicability 

and its basis would then be documented 

in the CoC amendment and in the 

accompanying Safety Evaluation Report 

(SER). However, the NRC staff has 

concluded that conducting the requisite 

analyses to evaluate each prior CoC 

amendment in relation to the new 

amendment would impose more 

burdens on both the NRC and applicants 

as compared to the process in the final 

rule. 

Comment 11 

With respect to Section II, 

‘‘Discussion,’’ Question ‘‘W’’ of the 

proposed rule, a commenter asked 

whether, after the renewal of a CoC, 

subsequent amendments to that CoC 

continue the existing amendment 

numbering or if the numbering for these 

amendments ‘‘start over’’ as the first 

amendment against the renewed CoC. 

Response 

After a CoC is renewed, subsequent 

amendments to that CoC will continue 

with the existing numbering. For 

example, if there are seven amendments 

under a CoC before renewal, the next 

amendment, under the same CoC after 

renewal, will be Amendment No. 8. 

Comment 12 

A commenter provided comments as 

requested under Section II, 

‘‘Discussion,’’ Question ‘‘AA’’ of the 

proposed rule. Question ‘‘AA’’ is not 

included in the SOC of this final rule 

because it was intended only to solicit 

comments on the particular items 

identified. Question ‘‘AA’’ solicited 

public comment on whether or not the 

evaluation required by proposed 

§ 72.212(b)(5) should be reviewed and 

approved by the NRC. The commenter 

does not support NRC review of 

‘‘evaluations performed pursuant to 

§ 72.212(b)(5) to apply a later CoC 

amendment to previously loaded casks.’’ 

The commenter suggested that NRC 

review of these evaluations would be 

‘‘inappropriate and contrary to the 

concept of a general licensee.’’ The 

commenter stated that the NRC 

approves CoC amendments and that 

§ 72.212 evaluations, and revisions to 

these evaluations, ‘‘are reviewed by NRC 

under the inspection program, at NRC’s 

discretion.’’ 

Response 

The NRC agrees with the comment. 

The amendments implemented by this 

final rule do not require any prior NRC 

review or approval of the evaluations 

conducted by a general licensee 

pursuant to § 72.212(b)(5). After a 

general licensee has made the findings 

required by § 72.212(b)(5)(i)–(iii), it may 

apply the changes authorized by a later 

CoC amendment to a previously loaded 

cask. Of course, the NRC may review 

these evaluations through the NRC 

inspection program. 

Comment 13 

A commenter described the proposed 

language in § 72.212(b)(7) that states, 

‘‘and revise it to add a requirement to 

evaluate any changes to the site 

parameters determination and analyses 

required by § 72.212(b)(6),’’ as 

unnecessary and requested that the 

language of § 72.212(b)(7) be simplified. 

The commenter recommended that the 

NRC revise § 72.212(b)(7) from 

‘‘paragraph (b)(5) of this section’’ to 

‘‘paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) of this 

section.’’ 

Response 

The NRC agrees with the comment 

that § 72.212(b)(7) could be clarified by 

modifying the first sentence. Therefore, 

the NRC revised the first sentence of 

§ 72.212(b)(7) as follows: 

‘‘Evaluate any changes to the written 

evaluations required by paragraphs (b)(5) and 

(b)(6) of this section using the requirements 

of § 72.48(c).’’ 

Comment 14 

A commenter stated that the proposed 

30-day timeframes for licensees to notify 

the NRC of the initial use of a cask and 

the application of a later CoC 

amendment to a previously loaded cask 

will cause the licensee an ‘‘unnecessary 

administrative burden.’’ Specifically, the 

commenter argued that the proposed 

rule language would require licensees to 

send two separate notifications into the 

NRC: (1) For new casks, licensees would 

need to notify the NRC within 30 days 

of deployment; and (2) for previously 

loaded casks, licensees would need to 

notify the NRC within 30 days of 

applying the changes authorized by a 

CoC amendment to a previously loaded 

cask. The commenter noted that 

applying the changes authorized by a 

CoC amendment to previously loaded 

casks is usually part of a larger 

campaign that includes deploying new 

casks. The commenter stated that 

allowing ‘‘120 days for both notifications 

would allow general licensees to 

combine these two notifications into 

one, in most cases.’’ 

Response 

The NRC does not agree that the 

requirement to prepare two letters, one 

covering loading the new casks, and the 

second covering the application of the 

changes authorized by a later CoC 

amendment to previously loaded casks, 

is particularly burdensome. The NRC 

staff has concluded that the 30-day 

timeframe is a reasonable requirement. 

The NRC acknowledges that applying 

the changes authorized by a later CoC 

amendment to previously loaded casks 

may be connected to a cask loading 

campaign. If the general licensee is 

loading new casks fabricated under a 

given CoC amendment and the changes 

authorized by that CoC amendment are 

also applied to previously loaded casks 

at the same time as explained by the 

commenter, one registration letter may 

be sufficient for that whole campaign, 

provided that the letter lists the cask 

certificate number, the appropriate CoC 

amendment number, the cask model 

number, and the cask identification 

number of each cask, both new and 

previously loaded. 

The commenter states that the 

§ 72.212(b)(5) report, which would 

cover both the loading of the new casks 

and the implementation of the changes 

to the previously loaded casks, would 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 8883 

be prepared well in advance of the 

loading campaign. Sections 72.212(b)(2) 

and (4), however, require the 

registration of the use of new casks and 

the application of changes authorized by 

a later CoC amendment to previously 

loaded casks, no later than 30 days after 

the action—not 30 days after the 

completion of the § 72.212(b)(5) report. 

Thus, even if the § 72.212(b)(5) 

evaluation report was completed well in 

advance of the campaign, the general 

licensee could time its actions such that 

changes to the previously loaded casks 

would be implemented at or near the 

same time that the new casks are 

deployed; and as such, have both parts 

of the campaign covered in one letter. In 

the event that the general licensee 

cannot time the loading of the new 

casks with the implementation of the 

changes authorized by the latter CoC 

amendment so as to have both actions 

covered by one 30-day letter, the 

licensee will be required to prepare two 

letters. 

Comment 15 

A commenter requested that the NRC 

remove the word ‘‘all’’ from the first 

sentence of § 72.212(b)(4) to be 

consistent with the discussion provided 

in Section II, Question ‘‘O’’ of the 

proposed rule. 

Response 

The NRC agrees with the comment 

that, in order to be consistent, the word 

‘‘all’’ should be removed in the first 

sentence of § 72.212(b)(4). The NRC 

revised § 72.212(b)(4) accordingly. 

Comment 16 

A commenter stated that 

§ 72.212(b)(4) is unclear with regard to 

when the 30-day ‘‘clock’’ starts for 

licensees to notify the NRC. The 

commenter added that § 72.212(b)(4) is 

inconsistent with the wording used in 

§ 72.212(b)(2). The commenter 

suggested the following language to 

replace the first sentence in 

§ 72.212(b)(4): ‘‘Register each cask with 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission no 

later than 30 days after applying the 

changes authorized by an amended CoC 

to a cask loaded under the initial or an 

earlier amended CoC.’’ 

Response 

The NRC disagrees with the comment. 

The 30-day clock starts after the 

application of changes authorized by the 

CoC amendment to the previously 

loaded cask (a cask loaded under the 

initial CoC or an earlier CoC 

amendment). The language suggested by 

the commenter is not sufficient because 

there is no direct nexus between the 

phrase ‘‘each cask’’ with the phrase ‘‘the 

changes authorized by an amended CoC 

to a cask loaded under the initial or an 

earlier amended CoC.’’ The NRC 

concludes that the regulatory language 

of § 72.212(b)(4) is clear and will not be 

revised other than the deletion of the 

word ‘‘all’’ from the first sentence (as 

described in the response to Comment 

No. 15). 

Comment 17 

A commenter stated that the proposed 

wording of § 72.212(b)(7) is 

unnecessarily complex and 

recommended the following language: 

‘‘Changes to the written evaluations 

required by § 72.212(b)(5) of this section 

shall be reviewed in accordance with 

§ 72.48(c), as applicable.’’ As an 

alternative, the commenter 

recommended that the NRC change the 

first word of this section of the proposed 

rule from ‘‘evaluate’’ to ‘‘review.’’ The 

commenter suggested this revision 

because some general licensees could 

interpret the word ‘‘evaluate’’ as 

requiring a full § 72.48 evaluation, 

regardless of the nature of the change to 

the document. 

Response 

The NRC disagrees with the comment. 

In response to Comment 13 the NRC 

revised § 72.212(b)(7) to read as follows: 

‘‘Evaluate any changes to the written 

evaluations required by paragraphs (b)(5) and 

(b)(6) of this section using the requirements 

of § 72.48(c).’’ 

Both the language of the proposed 

rule and the above revised language 

follow the same logic and pattern as the 

regulatory language in effect before this 

final rule’s effective date 

(§ 72.212(b)(2)(ii) (2009)). The intent of 

this amendment was only to renumber 

the provision from § 72.212(b)(2)(ii) to 

§ 72.212(b)(7) and make related 

clarifying changes (such as the reference 

to § 72.212(b)(6)). It is not the NRC’s 

intent to change the substantive 

meaning of this provision, and as such, 

the NRC does not agree with changing 

the word ‘‘evaluate’’ to ‘‘review.’’ 

Comment 18 

A commenter stated that the addition 

of the phrase ‘‘and, for those casks to 

which the licensee has applied the 

changes of an amended CoC, the 

amended CoC’’ to § 72.212(b)(11) is 

unnecessary. The commenter suggested 

the following language instead: 

‘‘Maintain a copy of the CoC and each 

amended CoC(s) applicable to casks 

loaded and deployed at the ISFSI, and 

the documents referenced in such 

Certificates for each cask model used for 

the storage of spent fuel until use of the 

cask model is discontinued.’’ 

Response 

The NRC disagrees with the comment 

because CoC amendments may have a 

different design basis from the initial 

CoC as well as each other. 

Consequently, it is necessary for general 

licensees to maintain the initial CoC 

(along with documents referenced in the 

initial CoC) for those casks operating 

under the terms and conditions of the 

initial CoC and for those casks operating 

under the terms and conditions of a 

given CoC amendment, to maintain that 

CoC amendment (along with documents 

referenced in the amended CoC). 

Comment 19 

A commenter stated that the rule 

applies to facilities that have one or 

more operating reactors. The commenter 

expressed concern that the proposed 

regulation would create unneeded 

burdens for permanently shut-down 

reactor sites. The commenter suggested 

that the NRC modify the proposed 

language in § 72.212(b) to address this 

issue, but did not provide alternative 

language. Specifically, the commenter 

raised concerns about the application of 

changes authorized by a later CoC 

amendment to a cask loaded under the 

initial CoC amendment or an earlier CoC 

amendment thereto (a ‘‘previously 

loaded cask’’). 

Response 

Part 72 does not draw a distinction 

between an operating facility and a 

decommissioned facility. The part 72 

regulations make a distinction between 

specific licenses and general licenses. 

Under § 72.210, a holder of a part 50 or 

52 power reactor license holds a part 72 

general license. Section 72.212 sets forth 

the conditions of a general license. If a 

decommissioned facility does not have 

an active part 50 or 52 license, it would 

then not have a part 72 general license; 

most likely, the facility would be 

operating under a specific part 72 

license. The application of changes 

authorized by a CoC amendment to a 

previously loaded cask is not applicable 

to a specific license ISFSI, as those 

provisions of the final rule only apply 

to general licenses. 

In the case of a decommissioned 

facility that does operate under a part 50 

or 52 license, and thus, has a part 72 

general license, this rule would apply to 

the same extent as it would for any 

other part 50 or part 52 licensee. In this 

regard, there is no reason to treat a 

generally licensed ISFSI at a 

decommissioned site any differently 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
8884 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

than a generally licensed ISFSI at an 

active part 50 or 52 facility. 

The commenter may have assumed 

that this rule requires general licensees 

to apply the changes authorized by a 

CoC amendment to any previously 

loaded casks within the licensee’s 

control. This is not correct. Under this 

final rule, the application of the changes 

authorized by a CoC amendment to a 

previously loaded cask is at the 

discretion of the general licensee; unless 

otherwise directed by the NRC, the 

general licensee can choose to continue 

to use the cask in accordance with the 

CoC under which the cask was loaded. 

Time-Limited Aging Analyses and Aging 

Management Programs 

Comment 20 

A commenter asked the NRC to clarify 

when aging management requirements 

apply to casks, such as a cask placed 

into service during the renewal term of 

a CoC. 

Response 

Aging management requirements only 

apply after the cask is in service for the 

length of time equal to the term certified 

by the cask’s initial CoC. For example, 

if the term of the initial CoC is 20 years, 

and a cask is placed into service at the 

end of the 19th year, then the general 

licensee would need to begin 

implementing the appropriate aging 

management requirements at the end of 

the 39th year, assuming the CoC was 

renewed. The appropriate time to 

initiate the aging management 

requirements will be identified in the 

NRC approval of a CoC renewal 

application. Specifically, the aging 

management requirements will be made 

conditions or specifications of the CoC 

and thus applicable to general licensees 

per § 72.212(b). The response to 

Question ‘‘H’’ in Section II was revised 

in light of this comment. 

Comment 21 

A commenter stated that the TLAAs 

for CoC renewals should be based on the 

CLB for the cask. The commenter 

described the CLB for the cask as the 

‘‘original regulatory framework (i.e., the 

regulations, review guidance, and the 

associated SER(s)) under which the cask 

design, including amendments, was 

approved, plus any mandated or 

voluntary changes applied thereafter, as 

tracked by the CoC holder and 

discussed in the cask FSAR.’’ The 

commenter requested that the NRC 

clarify that at the time of renewal, the 

TLAAs do not have to adopt the latest 

regulatory framework unless that is part 

of the cask’s CLB. 

Response 

The amendments to this final rule do 

not include a definition for CLB. The 

cask designs approved, both initially 

and for renewal, under the provisions of 

subpart L of part 72 are generic in 

nature. The CLB is appropriate for site 

specific licensing actions, not generic 

cask designs. 

The certificate holder must submit the 

TLAA when it applies for renewal of a 

given CoC (for a CoC renewal that 

encompasses CoC amendments that 

each may have different design basis, 

the certificate holder will have to 

address how the TLAA applies to each 

CoC amendment covered by the CoC). 

The TLAA is an implicit part of any 

new storage canister evaluation even 

though it is not explicitly identified in 

the existing regulations. This may be 

illustrated by consideration of 

operationally induced degradation. 

Specifically, applicants must consider 

operationally induced degradation and 

its effects as part of the new design 

engineering process. Such an evaluation 

becomes part of the applicants’ 

demonstration that a new cask design 

will perform as specified throughout its 

initial license period. 

For a renewal, the applicant bears the 

same burden of showing that the 

materials of construction (or 

components) will perform as required 

during the extended operational period. 

This extended operational life may not 

have been addressed in the original 

design consideration. Consequently, 

TLAAs (and other issues) were 

explicitly identified in the proposed 

regulations. The evaluation effort for 

renewal shifts its focus from material 

selection, as would be the case for a new 

design certification, to existing material 

condition/degradation assessment. The 

NRC staff determined that this subtle 

but important distinction be clearly 

identified. 

Comment 22 

A commenter requested that the NRC 

clarify what is meant by the term ‘‘site 

aging issues,’’ as stated in Section II, 

‘‘Discussion,’’ Question ‘‘AA’’ of the 

proposed rule. The commenter stated 

that CoC holders should identify the 

cask design features that are subject to 

age-related degradation and address 

them in a bounding manner for use of 

a cask beyond the initial CoC term. The 

commenter suggested that cask users 

review the CoC holder’s aging analysis 

and perform their own analyses to 

supplement or supersede the CoC 

holder’s generic analysis. 

Response 

To clarify the NRC’s intent, the 

statement in the response to Section II, 

‘‘Discussion,’’ Question ‘‘AA’’ of the 

proposed rule should have read: ‘‘Site 

specific aging issues’’ rather than ‘‘site 

aging issues.’’ The NRC asked whether 

the requirement for an AMP for CoC 

renewals should fully address possible 

aging issues related to a general 

licensee’s specific site (e.g., different 

environmental conditions). 

The NRC agrees with the comment 

that CoC holders should identify the 

cask design features that are subject to 

age-related degradation and address 

them in a bounding manner for use of 

a cask beyond the initial CoC term. The 

NRC further agrees that general 

licensees should review the CoC 

holder’s aging analysis and perform 

their own analyses to supplement or 

impose upon themselves a more 

restrictive analysis, but they cannot 

supersede the CoC holder’s analysis. 

Therefore, the general licensees’ 

analyses would address possible aging 

issues at their sites. 

Question ‘‘AA’’ is not included in the 

SOC of this final rule because it was 

intended only to solicit comments on 

the particular items identified. 

Comment 23 

A commenter stated that AMP 

requirements, aging analyses, and other 

technical documents should be 

evaluated for a 20-year license renewal 

term instead of the proposed 40-year 

license renewal term. 

Response 

The basis for the NRC to increase 

specific ISFSI license terms from not to 

exceed 20 years to not to exceed 40 

years is discussed in Question ‘‘C’’ of the 

‘‘Discussion’’ section of the proposed 

rule. The NRC staff concluded that, with 

appropriate aging management and 

maintenance programs, license terms up 

to 40 years are reasonable and provide 

adequate protection of public health and 

safety. 

General Comments Regarding Spent 

Fuel Storage 

Comment 24 

A commenter disagreed with the 

proposed rule’s allowance for unlimited 

specific license renewals. The 

commenter expressed concern that the 

‘‘indefinite nature of the length of time’’ 

the NRC describes for storage at an 

ISFSI could create a ‘‘national landscape 

of ISFSIs’’ at decommissioned sites. The 

commenter added that indefinite storage 

of fuel at ISFSIs is in conflict with ‘‘the 

Commission’s long held policy that it 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 8885 

‘does not intend to support storage of 

spent fuel for an indefinitely long 

period.’ ’’ The commenter also suggested 

that the NRC clearly state this policy in 

the Supplemental Information of the 

final rule document so that the 

‘‘Commission’s intent is clear and 

consistent across its regulatory 

landscape, including its Waste 

Confidence decision.’’ The commenter 

stated that since 1998, the ‘‘federal 

government has had the obligation, by 

contract, to remove spent fuel and 

greater than class C waste from’’ nuclear 

power plant sites. The commenter urged 

the NRC to maintain its expectation 

‘‘that these sites and future like sites not 

proliferate and linger as de facto longterm storage facilities.’’ 

Response 

Please see the response to Comment 3. 

Comment 25 

A commenter agreed with the NRC 

that, with appropriate aging 

management and maintenance 

programs, 40-year licenses ‘‘are 

reasonable and protect public health 

and safety and the environment.’’ 

Response 

The NRC acknowledges the 

commenter’s support for the not to 

exceed 40-year license terms. 

Environmental Review 

Comment 26 

A commenter stated that it is unclear 

how the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will 

be met. The commenter asked if 

licensees are required to submit an 

environmental report with their 40-year 

license renewal. The commenter 

concluded that license renewals should 

include a public environmental review 

process, such as a draft environmental 

assessment posted for public comment. 

Response 

The NRC implements its obligations 

under NEPA through its regulations in 

10 CFR part 51. When a licensee applies 

for the renewal of a specific ISFSI 

license, the licensee is required to 

submit an environmental report under 

§ 51.60(b)(1)(iii). 

Under §§ 51.26, 51.27, 51.28, 51.29, 

51.73 and 51.74, if the NRC prepares an 

environmental impact statement (EIS), 

the most comprehensive of the NEPA 

analyses, public participation would be 

required (the above provisions concern 

publication of a notice of intent, 

scoping, a request for comments on the 

draft EIS, and distribution of the draft 

EIS). If the NRC staff does not prepare 

an EIS, as determined by NRC staff’s 

environmental assessment (EA), it will 

issue a finding of no significant impact 

(FONSI). The NRC may issue the FONSI 

in draft form, which will include a 

request for public comments (§ 51.33). 

Issuing a draft FONSI is discretionary 

with the NRC. After a FONSI is 

finalized, it must be published in the 

Federal Register (§ 51.35). 

Miscellaneous Items and Rule Language 

Revisions 

Comment 27 

A commenter stated that, contrary to 

the first sentence of Section II, 

‘‘Discussion,’’ Question ‘‘K’’ of the 

proposed rule, the current regulations 

do not require general licensees to 

maintain or submit a cask loading 

schedule to the NRC. The commenter 

requested that the NRC delete this 

language or revise the wording. 

Response 

The intent of the response to Question 

‘‘K’’ of the proposed rule was to inform 

readers that general licensees keep track 

of loading and expiration dates of each 

loaded cask. The NRC understands, 

however, that this is not an express 

regulatory requirement. As such, the 

NRC has rephrased Question ‘‘K’’ to ask 

how the NRC tracks cask expiration 

dates and has made clarifying changes 

to the response to Question ‘‘K.’’ The 

registration letters required by the 

regulations, as amended by this final 

rule, provide the NRC with the requisite 

information to track cask expiration 

dates. 

Comment 28 

A commenter suggested that in 

Section II, ‘‘Discussion,’’ Question ‘‘T’’ of 

the proposed rule, the regulation should 

include a provision to permit licensees 

with existing § 72.212 reports to 

maintain the current regulatory 

numbering system and not have to 

revise these reports to reflect the 

redesignated sections within the 

proposed regulation. 

Response 

The NRC disagrees with the comment 

that a provision be added to the 

regulations. There is no requirement to 

revise past § 72.212 reports to reflect the 

redesignation of provisions in 

§ 72.212(b) resulting from the 

amendments of this final rule. Past 

§ 72.212 reports can remain formatted to 

the regulation that was in effect at the 

time the report was written. Section 

72.212 reports written after the effective 

date of this final rule must conform to 

the redesignations in the final rule. 

Comment 29 

A commenter stated that the phrase 

‘‘no later than 30 days after using 

(loading) that cask’’ in Section II, 

‘‘Discussion,’’ Question ‘‘U’’ of the 

proposed rule and § 72.212(b)(2) is too 

vague. The commenter suggested 

replacing the above language with the 

following: ‘‘placing the cask in storage at 

the ISFSI’’ to clearly establish a start 

date. 

Response 

In response to the commenter, the 

NRC is not going to change the rule text; 

this rule language has been in effect 

since 1990 without any controversy. 

Rather, the NRC is clarifying its 

response to Question ‘‘U’’ of this 

document by removing the term 

‘‘loading’’ from the response. It is the 

NRC’s position that the 30-day clock 

starts when the loaded cask has been 

deployed in the ISFSI. 

Comment 30 

A commenter stated that the phrase 

‘‘casks of that design’’ as used in 

§ 72.212(a)(3) is unclear. The 

commenter recommended that the 

phrase be clarified or revised to be 

consistent with the language used 

earlier in the section, ‘‘cask[s] fabricated 

under a Certificate of Compliance.’’ The 

commenter added that if the same 

meaning is not intended, then the NRC 

should define the two phrases in § 72.3. 

Response 

The NRC agrees with the comment 

that the terminology in § 72.212(a)(3) is 

not consistent; the NRC intended for the 

meaning to be the same in both 

instances. The NRC has revised 

§ 72.212(a)(3) and it no longer contains 

the phrase ‘‘casks of that design.’’ 

Comment 31 

A commenter asked whether ‘‘cask 

user or user’s representative,’’ as used in 

§ 72.212(a)(3), is equivalent to the term 

‘‘any licensee,’’ as used in § 72.240(a). 

The commenter concluded that if these 

terms are equivalent, then the NRC 

should use the same term in both 

sections of the rule. 

Response 

The final rule makes several revisions 

to § 72.212(a)(3), including deletion of 

the language referring to ‘‘any cask user 

or user’s representative.’’ The NRC staff 

concluded that this language was 

redundant of the language in 

§ 72.240(a). This final rule also revises 

§ 72.240(a) to allow a licensee, a 

licensee’s representative, or another 

certificate holder to apply for a cask 

renewal in the event that the original 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
8886 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

certificate holder is either no longer in 

business or chooses not to apply for 

renewal of the cask. 

Comment 32 

A commenter requested that in 

§ 72.212(b)(8), the NRC change 

‘‘§ 50.59(c)(2)’’ to ‘‘§ 50.59(c).’’ The 

commenter suggested that the review of 

cask storage activities may require a full 

evaluation under § 50.59, which 

includes § 50.59(c)(1). 

Response 

The NRC agrees with the comment. 

Section 72.212(b)(8) has been changed 

accordingly. 

Comment 33 

A commenter asked whether the 

phrase ‘‘a new protected area’’ in section 

§ 72.212(b)(9)(iii) only applies to an 

ISFSI located outside a nuclear power 

plant’s protected area. The commenter 

requested that the NRC clarify this 

phrase. 

Response 

The phrase ‘‘a new protected area’’ in 

§ 72.212(b)(9)(iii) applies only to an 

ISFSI that is physically separate from a 

reactor’s protected area. As a further 

point of clarification, all references to 

‘‘new protected area(s)’’ in § 72.212(b)(9) 

apply only to an ISFSI physically 

separate from a reactor’s protected area. 

The NRC notes that the phrase ‘‘new 

protected area’’ has been part of the 

regulatory language after the rule was 

promulgated in 1990. The intent of this 

final rule is only to renumber 

§ 72.212(b)(5)(iii) to § 72.212(b)(9)(iii). 

As additional background, the March 

27, 2009, power reactor security rule (74 

FR 13926, 13970) revised 

§ 72.212(b)(5)(iii) to update the cross 

reference to the applicable part 73 

section and add the word ‘‘personnel’’ 

before the word ‘‘searches.’’ 

Comment 34 

A commenter stated that 

§ 72.212(b)(12) uses the terms ‘‘cask 

supplier’’ and ‘‘cask vendor.’’ The 

commenter suggested that these terms 

are inconsistent with the term ‘‘CoC 

holder,’’ which the NRC uses elsewhere 

in the proposed rule. The commenter 

concluded that the terminology should 

be consistent throughout the rule. 

Response 

The NRC agrees with the comment 

that the terminology should be 

consistent. Therefore, the NRC has 

replaced the terms ‘‘cask supplier’’ and 

‘‘cask vendor’’ in § 72.212(b)(12) with 

the term ‘‘CoC holder.’’ 

IV. Discussion of Final Amendments by 

Section 

1. Section 72.3, Definitions 

The final rule adds definitions for 

‘‘Aging management program,’’ ‘‘Term 

certified by the cask’s Certificate of 

Compliance,’’ and ‘‘Time-limited aging 

analyses.’’ 

2. Section 72.24, Contents of 

application; Technical information 

The amendment to § 72.24(c) requires 

applicants seeking initial specific 

licenses or specific licensees seeking 

renewals to demonstrate in sufficient 

detail that the design of the ISFSI or 

monitored retrievable storage 

installation (MRS) is capable of 

performing the intended functions for 

the term requested in the application. 

3. Section 72.42, Duration of license; 

renewal 

The amendment to § 72.42(a) extends 

the term for both an initial specific 

license and a license renewal from a 

term of not to exceed 20 years to a term 

not to exceed 40 years. The final rule 

also adds a requirement that specific 

licensees seeking renewals submit a 

TLAA and a description of the AMP. 

Any license renewal application will be 

required to include an analysis that 

considers the effects of aging on SSCs 

important to safety for the requested 

renewal term. 

The amendment to § 72.42(b) requires 

license renewal applications to include 

design bases information as documented 

in the most recently updated FSAR, as 

required by § 72.70. 

4. Section 72.212, Conditions of general 

license issued under § 72.210 

The final rule makes several changes 

to § 72.212. The final rule revises 

§ 72.212(a)(3) to clarify the term of the 

general license and to match the term of 

the general license to the term of the 

applicable CoC. The final rule 

amendment also clarifies that the term 

of the general license runs through any 

renewal periods, unless otherwise 

specified in the CoC. In addition, the 

final rule also amends § 72.212(a)(3) to 

clarify the general license term for those 

casks placed into service during the 

final renewal term of a CoC or during 

the term of a CoC that was not renewed. 

The final rule amendment also states 

that, upon expiration of the general 

license, all casks subject to that general 

license must be removed from service. 

The final rule amends § 72.212(b) by 

redesignating and reorganizing the 

provisions of that section. The following 

table cross references the amended 

regulations with the regulations in effect 

immediately prior to the effective date 

of this final rule. Use of ‘‘modified’’ in 

Table 1 refers to a section whose content 

has been modified. Remaining table 

entries are either new provisions or 

provisions that have been redesignated 

but whose content is unchanged. 

TABLE 1—CROSS REFERENCE OF FINAL REGULATIONS WITH PRIOR REGULATIONS

Final rule Prior rule 

§ 72.212(b)(1) ...................................................................................................................................................... § 72.212(b)(1)(i). 

§ 72.212(b)(2) ...................................................................................................................................................... § 72.212(b)(1)(ii) (modified). 

§ 72.212(b)(3) ...................................................................................................................................................... New section not in prior rule. 

§ 72.212(b)(4) ...................................................................................................................................................... New section not in prior rule. 

§ 72.212(b)(5) ...................................................................................................................................................... § 72.212(b)(2)(i) (modified). 

§ 72.212(b)(5)(i) ................................................................................................................................................... § 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A). 

§ 72.212(b)(5)(ii) .................................................................................................................................................. § 72.212(b)(2)(i)(B). 

§ 72.212(b)(5)(iii) .................................................................................................................................................. § 72.212(b)(2)(i)(C). 

§ 72.212(b)(6) ...................................................................................................................................................... § 72.212(b)(3) (modified). 

§ 72.212(b)(7) ...................................................................................................................................................... § 72.212(b)(2)(ii) (modified). 

§ 72.212(b)(8) ...................................................................................................................................................... § 72.212(b)(4) (modified). 

§ 72.212(b)(9) ...................................................................................................................................................... § 72.212(b)(5). 

§ 72.212(b)(9)(i) ................................................................................................................................................... § 72.212(b)(5)(i). 

§ 72.212(b)(9)(ii) .................................................................................................................................................. § 72.212(b)(5)(ii). 

§ 72.212(b)(9)(iii) .................................................................................................................................................. § 72.212(b)(5)(iii). 

§ 72.212(b)(9)(iv) ................................................................................................................................................. § 72.212(b)(5)(iv). 

§ 72.212(b)(9)(v) .................................................................................................................................................. § 72.212(b)(5)(v). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 8887 

TABLE 1—CROSS REFERENCE OF FINAL REGULATIONS WITH PRIOR REGULATIONS—Continued 

Final rule Prior rule 

§ 72.212(b)(9)(vi) ................................................................................................................................................. § 72.212(b)(5)(vi). 

§ 72.212(b)(10) .................................................................................................................................................... § 72.212(b)(6). 

§ 72.212(b)(11) .................................................................................................................................................... § 72.212(b)(7) (modified). 

§ 72.212(b)(12) .................................................................................................................................................... § 72.212(b)(8)(i). 

§ 72.212(b)(12)(i) ................................................................................................................................................. § 72.212(b)(8)(i)(A). 

§ 72.212(b)(12)(ii) ................................................................................................................................................ § 72.212(b)(8)(i)(B). 

§ 72.212(b)(12)(iii) ................................................................................................................................................ § 72.212(b)(8)(i)(C). 

§ 72.212(b)(13) .................................................................................................................................................... § 72.212(b)(9). 

§ 72.212(b)(14) .................................................................................................................................................... § 72.212(b)(10). 

§ 72.212(c) ........................................................................................................................................................... § 72.212(b)(8)(ii) (modified). 

§ 72.212(d) ........................................................................................................................................................... § 72.212(b)(8)(iii) (modified). 

§ 72.212(e) ........................................................................................................................................................... § 72.212(b)(1)(iii). 

The final rule redesignates current 

§ 72.212(b)(1)(i) as § 72.212(b)(1) and 

makes minor editorial changes to this 

provision. 

The final rule redesignates current 

§ 72.212(b)(1)(ii) as § 72.212(b)(2) and 

further revises the provision to add a 

requirement that general licensees, 

when registering a cask no later than 30 

days after loading, include the CoC 

amendment number, if applicable. 

The final rule adds a new provision, 

§ 72.212(b)(3), that requires general 

licensees to ensure that each cask used 

by the general licensee conforms to the 

terms, conditions, and specifications of 

a CoC or an amended CoC listed in 

§ 72.214. Partial or selective application 

of the terms, conditions, and 

specifications of a CoC or an amended 

CoC, without prior NRC approval, may 

result in a cask that is in an unanalyzed 

condition and is therefore, prohibited. 

The final rule adds a new provision, 

§ 72.212(b)(4), that requires general 

licensees to register those previously 

loaded casks no later than 30 days after 

applying the changes authorized by an 

amended CoC. 

The final rule revises § 72.212(b)(2)(i) 

by requiring general licensees to prepare 

written evaluations before applying the 

changes authorized by an amended CoC 

to a previously loaded cask. Thus, the 

revised rule requires a written 

evaluation before loading the cask with 

spent fuel and an additional written 

evaluation before any changes 

authorized by a CoC amendment are 

applied to a previously loaded cask. The 

final rule redesignates current 

§ 72.212(b)(2)(i) as § 72.212(b)(5). 

The final rule revises § 72.212(b)(2)(i) 

to state that the written evaluation must 

establish that the cask, once loaded with 

spent fuel or after changes authorized by 

an amended CoC have been applied, 

will conform to the terms, conditions, 

and specifications of a CoC or amended 

CoC listed in § 72.214, and redesignates 

current § 72.212(b)(2)(i)(A) as 

§ 72.212(b)(5)(i). The final rule 

redesignates current §§ 72.212(b)(2)(i)(B) 

and (C) as §§ 72.212(b)(5)(ii) and (iii), 

respectively. 

The final rule redesignates current 

§ 72.212(b)(3) as § 72.212(b)(6) and 

revises this provision to add a reference 

to an amended CoC and to update the 

cross-reference to paragraph (b)(5). 

The final rule redesignates current 

§ 72.212(b)(2)(ii) as § 72.212(b)(7) and 

revises this provision to add a 

requirement to evaluate any changes to 

the site parameters determination and 

analyses required by § 72.212(b)(6), 

using the requirements of § 72.48. 

The final rule redesignates current 

§ 72.212(b)(4) as § 72.212(b)(8). 

The final rule revises current 

§ 72.212(b)(5) to reflect changes made by 

the final rulemakings dated October 24, 

2008, and March 27, 2009, and 

redesignates current §§ 72.212(b)(5) and 

(b)(6) as §§ 72.212(b)(9) and (b)(10), 

respectively (see ‘‘Note on October 24, 

2008, and March 27, 2009, Final Rule 

Revisions to § 72.212(b)(5), and 

Redesignation of § 72.212(b)(5) to 

§ 72.212(b)(9)’’ at the end of this Section 

IV, below). 

The final rule redesignates current 

§ 72.212(b)(7) as § 72.212(b)(11) and 

revises this provision to add references 

to an amended CoC. The final rule also 

adds language to clarify that a licensee 

must comply with the technical 

specifications of the CoC, in addition to 

the terms and conditions of the CoC. 

Further, the revised language requires 

the licensee to comply with the terms, 

conditions, and specifications of the 

amended CoC for those casks to which 

the licensee has applied the changes of 

an amended CoC. The revised language 

further provides that licensees must also 

comply with the requirements of any 

AMP put into effect as a condition of the 

NRC approving a CoC renewal 

application. 

The final rule redesignates current 

§§ 72.212(b)(8)(i), (b)(9), and (b)(10) as 

§§ 72.212(b)(12), (b)(13), and (b)(14), 

respectively. 

The final rule redesignates current 

§§ 72.212(b)(8)(ii), (b)(8)(iii), and 

72.212(b)(1)(iii) as §§ 72.212(c), (d), and 

(e), respectively, and makes conforming 

cross-reference changes. 

5. Section 72.230, Procedures for spent 

fuel storage cask submittals 

The final rule revises § 72.230(b) by 

adding language that establishes the 

term for a period not to exceed 40 years. 

The final rule further amends 

§ 72.230(b) by replacing the words ‘‘for 

a period of at least 20 years’’ with ‘‘the 

term proposed in the application.’’ 

6. Section 72.236, Specific requirements 

for spent fuel storage cask approval and 

fabrication 

The final rule revises § 72.236(g) by 

adding language that requires spent fuel 

storage casks to be designed to store 

spent fuel safely for the term proposed 

in the application, eliminating the 

current language that requires the cask 

design to store spent fuel safely for a 

minimum of 20 years. 

7. Section 72.238, Issuance of an NRC 

Certificate of Compliance 

The final rule revises § 72.238 by 

adding language that establishes the 

term for a CoC to be ‘‘not to exceed 40 

years.’’ 

8. Section 72.240, Conditions for spent 

fuel storage cask renewal 

The final rule revises the heading of 

§ 72.240 and the language of 

§§ 72.240(a), (b), and (d) by replacing 

the word ‘‘reapproval’’ with ‘‘renewal.’’ 

The final rule further revises § 72.240(a) 

to establish that the CoC renewal term 

shall be ‘‘not to exceed 40 years.’’ The 

final rule also revises § 72.240(a) to 

clarify that in the event that a certificate 

holder does not apply for a CoC 

renewal, any general licensee that uses 

this cask model under the general 

license issued under § 72.210, any 

licensee’s representative, or another 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
8888 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

certificate holder may apply for renewal 

of the CoC. 

The final rule adds a new § 72.240(c) 

to require the safety analysis report 

accompanying the renewal application 

to include design bases information as 

documented in the most recently 

updated FSAR, a TLAA of SSCs 

important to safety, and a description of 

the program for management of issues 

associated with aging that could 

adversely affect structures, systems, and 

components important to safety. The 

final rule redesignates § 72.240(c) as 

§ 72.240(d) and revises this provision to 

add a requirement that any CoC renewal 

application must demonstrate 

compliance with the QA provisions of 

subpart G of part 72. The final rule also 

revises the last sentence of the provision 

to improve its readability. 

The final rule adds a new § 72.240(e) 

that states the NRC may, as part of the 

approval of a CoC renewal application, 

revise the terms, conditions, and 

specifications of the CoC to require that 

the licensee implement an AMP. 

Note on October 24, 2008, and March 

27, 2009, Final Rule Revisions to 

§ 72.212(b)(5), and Redesignation of 

§ 72.212(b)(5) to § 72.212(b)(9): 

This final rule redesignates 

§ 72.212(b)(5) as § 72.212(b)(9). On 

October 24, 2008 (73 FR 63545, 63573), 

the NRC issued a final rule, ‘‘Protection 

of Safeguards Information,’’ that revised 

§ 72.212 by adding a new 

§ 72.212(b)(5)(v) and redesignated the 

existing § 72.212(b)(5)(v) as 

§ 72.212(b)(5)(vi). The new 

§ 72.212(b)(5)(v) added language 

requiring a general licensee to ‘‘protect 

Safeguards Information against 

unauthorized disclosure in accordance 

with the requirements of § 73.21 and the 

requirements of § 73.22 or § 73.23 of this 

chapter, as applicable.’’ The 

redesignated § 72.212(b)(5)(vi) was 

otherwise unchanged and continued to 

require ‘‘for the purpose of this general 

license, the licensee is exempt from 

§§ 73.55(h)(4)(iii)(A) and 73.55(h)(5) of 

this chapter.’’ These two cross 

referenced paragraphs dealt with reactor 

security requirements to (1) neutralize 

threats by interposing armed security 

personnel between the adversaries and 

reactor vital areas and (2) use force to 

prevent or impede attempted acts of 

theft of special nuclear material or 

radiological sabotage; and the NRC has 

historically not applied these 

requirements to ISFSI general licensees. 

On March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13925, 

13970), the NRC published a final rule, 

‘‘Power Reactor Security Requirements,’’ 

which included a conforming change to 

the security requirements contained in 

§ 72.212(b)(5)(ii)–(v). The changes to 

§ 72.212(b)(5)(ii)–(v) in the March 2009 

final rule were intended to clarify these 

regulations to better use plain language 

and to update the exemption cross 

references to the reactor security 

regulations contained in § 73.55, due to 

the extensive revision of § 73.55. 

In the March 2009 final rule, the NRC 

revised § 72.212(b)(5)(v) to update the 

exemption language to read ‘‘[f]or the 

purpose of this general license, the 

licensee is exempt from requirements to 

interdict and neutralize threats in 

§ 73.55 of this chapter.’’ However, the 

amendatory language in the 2009 final 

rule (74 FR 13970, Item 8) which read 

‘‘[i]n § 72.212, paragraphs (b)(5)(ii), 

(b)(5)(iii), (b)(5)(iv), and (b)(5)(v) are 

revised to read as follows:’’ should 

instead have read ‘‘[i]n § 72.212, 

paragraphs (b)(5)(ii), (b)(5)(iii), (b)(5)(iv), 

and (b)(5)(vi) are revised to read as 

follows:’’ (emphasis added). 

Consequently, the NRC staff in 

developing the March 2009 final rule 

both (1) unintentionally eliminated 

language that had been added by the 

Commission in the October 2008 final 

rule that required general ISFSI 

licensees to protect Safeguards 

Information; and (2) unintentionally 

retained the incorrect exemption 

language in § 72.212(b)(5)(vi) (referring 

to §§ 73.55(h)(4)(iii)(A) and 73.55(h)(5)). 

The provision designated as 

§ 72.212(b)(5)(v) by the March 2009 final 

rule was intended to replace 

§ 72.212(b)(5)(vi), but did not 

accomplish that because of the above 

described mistake in the amendatory 

language. 

Accordingly, to correct these errors, 

this final rule removes § 72.212(b)(5)(vi) 

(which was put in place by the October 

24, 2008, final rule) and reinstates the 

provision added by the October 24, 

2008, rule and then deleted by the 

March 27, 2009, rule, as a new 

§ 72.212(b)(9)(vi). The remaining 

provisions of § 72.212(b)(5) are 

redesignated from § 72.212(b)(5)(i)–(v) 

to § 72.212(b)(9)(i)–(v). 

V. Criminal Penalties 

For the purpose of Section 223 of the 

Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the 

Commission is amending 10 CFR part 

72 under one or more of Sections 161b, 

161i, or 161o of the AEA. Willful 

violations of the rule would be subject 

to criminal enforcement. 

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 (62 

FR 46517; September 3, 1997), 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 

AEA, as amended, or the provisions of 

Title 10 of the CFR. Although an 

Agreement State may not adopt program 

elements reserved to NRC, it may wish 

to inform its licensees of certain 

requirements via a mechanism that is 

consistent with the particular State’s 

administrative procedure laws but does 

not confer regulatory authority on the 

State. 

VII. Voluntary Consensus 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 using such a standard is 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. In this final rule, 

the NRC is clarifying the terms for spent 

fuel storage cask designs, or CoCs, and 

ISFSI licenses. In addition, the final 

action also allows part 72 general 

licensees to implement changes 

authorized by an amended CoC to a cask 

loaded under the initial CoC or an 

earlier amended CoC (a ‘‘previously 

loaded cask’’). This action does not 

constitute the establishment of a 

standard that establishes generally 

applicable requirements. For this 

reason, the NRC concludes that the Act 

does not apply to this final rule. 

VIII. Finding of No Significant 

Environmental Impact: Availability 

The Commission has determined 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the 

Commission’s regulations in subpart A 

of 10 CFR part 51, not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for this 

final rule because the Commission has 

concluded on the basis of an 

environmental assessment that this final 

rule would not be a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment. The NRC has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

and, on the basis of this environmental 

assessment, has made a finding of no 

significant impact. The amendments are 

procedural in nature whereby extended 

license and CoC terms and the 

implementation of CoC amendments to 

previously loaded casks could be 

achieved by exemptions under the 

current regulations. They will not have 

a significant incremental effect on the 

environment. Therefore, the NRC has 

determined that an environmental 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 8889 

impact statement is not necessary for 

this rulemaking. 

The determination of this 

environmental assessment is that there 

will be no significant impact to the 

public from this action. 

This conclusion was published in the 

environmental assessment that was 

made available for comment for 75 days 

after publication of the proposed rule at 

the NRC Public Document Room, Room 

O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, MD 20852. No comments 

were received on the content of the 

environmental assessment. The 

environmental assessment is also 

available in ADAMS, accession number 

ML100710441. 

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Statement 

This rule contains new or amended 

information collection requirements that 

are subject to the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

These requirements were approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget, 

control number 3150–0132. The burden 

to the public for these information 

collections is estimated to average 

¥0.33 hours per response (or a 

reduction of approximately 1 hour for 

every three responses). 

Send comments on any aspect of 

these information collections, including 

suggestions for reducing the burden, to 

the Information Services Branch (T–5 

F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, or by Internet electronic mail to 

Infocollects.Resource@NRC.gov and to 

the Desk Officer, Christine Kymn, Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

NEOB–10202, (3150–0132), Office of 

Management and Budget, Washington, 

DC 20503. You may also e-mail 

comments to 

Christine_J_Kymn@omb.eop.gov or 

comment by telephone at 202–395– 

4638. 

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 Analysis 

The Commission has prepared a 

regulatory analysis on this regulation. 

The analysis examines the costs and 

benefits of the alternatives considered 

by the Commission. The analysis is 

available in the NRC Public Document 

Room, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, and in 

ADAMS, Accession Number 

ML100710139. As part of the proposed 

rule, the NRC sought public comments 

on the draft regulatory analysis. The 

NRC did not receive any comments that 

addressed the regulatory analysis. 

XI. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the 

Commission certifies that this rule does 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The majority of 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 size standards 

established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810). 

XII. Backfit Analysis 

The NRC has determined that the 

backfit rule (§§ 50.109, 72.62, and the 

finality provisions of 10 CFR part 52) 

does not apply to this final rule because 

these amendments do not involve any 

provisions that would impose backfits 

as defined in 10 CFR chapter I. These 

amendments do not require the 

addition, elimination, or modification of 

structures, systems, or components of an 

ISFSI or of the procedures or 

organization required to operate an 

ISFSI. Therefore, a backfit analysis is 

not required. 

XIII. Congressional Review Act 

Under the Congressional Review Act 

of 1996, the NRC has determined that 

this action is not a major rule and has 

verified this determination with the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs of OMB. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Hazardous waste, Nuclear 

materials, Occupational safety and 

health, Penalties, Radiation protection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, Spent 

fuel, Whistle blowing. 

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; 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: 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. 

10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102– 

486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 

5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853 

(42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 

137, 141, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 

2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100–203, 101 

Stat. 1330–235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 

10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 

1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); 

sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109–58, 119 Stat. 806–10 

(42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111). 

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(g)). 

Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 

2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 

2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2224 (42 U.S.C. 

10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L 

are 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 § 72.3, definitions for AMP, Term 

certified by the cask’s Certificate of 

Compliance, and TLAAs are added in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 72.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

AMP, for the purposes of this part, 

means a program for addressing aging 

effects that may include prevention, 

mitigation, condition monitoring, and 

performance monitoring. 

* * * * * 

Term certified by the cask’s Certificate 

of Compliance, for the purposes of this 

part, means, for an initial CoC, the 

period of time commencing with the 

CoC effective date and ending with the 

CoC expiration date, and for a renewed 

CoC, the period of time commencing 

with the most recent CoC renewal date 

and ending with the CoC expiration 

date. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
8890 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TLAAs, for the purposes of this part, 

means those licensee or certificate 

holder calculations and analyses that: 

(1) Involve structures, systems, and 

components important to safety within 

the scope of the license renewal, as 

delineated in subpart F of this part, or 

within the scope of the spent fuel 

storage certificate renewal, as delineated 

in subpart L of this part, respectively; 

(2) Consider the effects of aging; 

(3) Involve time-limited assumptions 

defined by the current operating term, 

for example, 40 years; 

(4) Were determined to be relevant by 

the licensee or certificate holder in 

making a safety determination; 

(5) Involve conclusions or provide the 

basis for conclusions related to the 

capability of structures, systems, and 

components to perform their intended 

safety functions; and 

(6) Are contained or incorporated by 

reference in the design bases. 

■ 3. In § 72.24, revise the introductory 

text of paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 72.24 Contents of application: Technical 

information. 

* * * * * 

(c) The design of the ISFSI or MRS in 

sufficient detail to support the findings 

in § 72.40 for the term requested in the 

application, including: 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 72.42, revise paragraphs (a) and 

(b) to read as follows: 

§ 72.42 Duration of license; renewal. 

(a) Each license issued under this part 

must be for a fixed period of time to be 

specified in the license. The license 

term for an ISFSI must not exceed 40 

years from the date of issuance. The 

license term for an MRS must not 

exceed 40 years from the date of 

issuance. Licenses for either type of 

installation may be renewed by the 

Commission at the expiration of the 

license term upon application by the 

licensee for a period not to exceed 40 

years and under the requirements of this 

rule. Application for ISFSI license 

renewals must include the following: 

(1) TLAAs that demonstrate that 

structures, systems, and components 

important to safety will continue to 

perform their intended function for the 

requested period of extended operation; 

and 

(2) A description of the AMP for 

management of issues associated with 

aging that could adversely affect 

structures, systems, and components 

important to safety. 

(b) Applications for renewal of a 

license should be filed in accordance 

with the applicable provisions of 

subpart B of this part at least 2 years 

before the expiration of the existing 

license. The application must also 

include design bases information as 

documented in the most recently 

updated FSAR as required by § 72.70. 

Information contained in previous 

applications, statements, or reports filed 

with the Commission under the license 

may be incorporated by reference 

provided that these references are clear 

and specific. 

* * * * * 

5. In § 72.212, revise paragraphs (a)(3) 

and (b) and add paragraphs (c), (d), and 

(e) to read as follows: 

§ 72.212 Conditions of general license 

issued under § 72.210. 

(a) * * * 

(3) The general license for the storage 

of spent fuel in each cask fabricated 

under a Certificate of Compliance shall 

commence upon the date that the 

particular cask is first used by the 

general licensee to store spent fuel, shall 

continue through any renewals of the 

Certificate of Compliance, unless 

otherwise specified in the Certificate of 

Compliance, and shall terminate when 

the cask’s Certificate of Compliance 

expires. For any cask placed into service 

during the final renewal term of a 

Certificate of Compliance, or during the 

term of a Certificate of Compliance that 

was not renewed, the general license for 

that cask shall terminate after a storage 

period not to exceed the length of the 

term certified by the cask’s Certificate of 

Compliance. Upon expiration of the 

general license, all casks subject to that 

general license must be removed from 

service. 

(b) The general licensee must: 

(1) Notify the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission using instructions in § 72.4 

at least 90 days before first storage of 

spent fuel under this general license. 

The notice may be in the form of a 

letter, but must contain the licensee’s 

name, address, reactor license and 

docket numbers, and the name and 

means of contacting a person 

responsible for providing additional 

information concerning spent fuel under 

this general license. A copy of the 

submittal must be sent to the 

administrator of the appropriate Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission regional office 

listed in appendix D to part 20 of this 

chapter. 

(2) Register use of each cask with the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission no later 

than 30 days after using that cask to 

store spent fuel. This registration may 

be accomplished by submitting a letter 

using instructions in § 72.4 containing 

the following information: the licensee’s 

name and address, the licensee’s reactor 

license and docket numbers, the name 

and title of a person responsible for 

providing additional information 

concerning spent fuel storage under this 

general license, the cask certificate 

number, the CoC amendment number to 

which the cask conforms, unless loaded 

under the initial certificate, cask model 

number, and the cask identification 

number. A copy of each submittal must 

be sent to the administrator of the 

appropriate Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission regional office listed in 

appendix D to part 20 of this chapter. 

(3) Ensure that each cask used by the 

general licensee conforms to the terms, 

conditions, and specifications of a CoC 

or an amended CoC listed in § 72.214. 

(4) In applying the changes authorized 

by an amended CoC to a cask loaded 

under the initial CoC or an earlier 

amended CoC, register each such cask 

with the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission no later than 30 days after 

applying the changes authorized by the 

amended CoC. This registration may be 

accomplished by submitting a letter 

using instructions in § 72.4 containing 

the following information: the licensee’s 

name and address, the licensee’s reactor 

license and docket numbers, the name 

and title of a person responsible for 

providing additional information 

concerning spent fuel storage under this 

general license, the cask certificate 

number, the CoC amendment number to 

which the cask conforms, cask model 

number, and the cask identification 

number. A copy of each submittal must 

be sent to the administrator of the 

appropriate Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission regional office listed in 

appendix D to part 20 of this chapter. 

(5) Perform written evaluations, 

before use and before applying the 

changes authorized by an amended CoC 

to a cask loaded under the initial CoC 

or an earlier amended CoC, which 

establish that: 

(i) The cask, once loaded with spent 

fuel or once the changes authorized by 

an amended CoC have been applied, 

will conform to the terms, conditions, 

and specifications of a CoC or an 

amended CoC listed in § 72.214; 

(ii) Cask storage pads and areas have 

been designed to adequately support the 

static and dynamic loads of the stored 

casks, considering potential 

amplification of earthquakes through 

soil-structure interaction, and soil 

liquefaction potential or other soil 

instability due to vibratory ground 

motion; and 

(iii) The requirements of § 72.104 

have been met. A copy of this record 

shall be retained until spent fuel is no 

longer stored under the general license 

issued under § 72.210. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 8891 

(6) Review the Safety Analysis Report 

referenced in the CoC or amended CoC 

and the related NRC Safety Evaluation 

Report, prior to use of the general 

license, to determine whether or not the 

reactor site parameters, including 

analyses of earthquake intensity and 

tornado missiles, are enveloped by the 

cask design bases considered in these 

reports. The results of this review must 

be documented in the evaluation made 

in paragraph (b)(5) of this section. 

(7) Evaluate any changes to the 

written evaluations required by 

paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) of this 

section using the requirements of 

§ 72.48(c). A copy of this record shall be 

retained until spent fuel is no longer 

stored under the general license issued 

under § 72.210. 

(8) Before use of the general license, 

determine whether activities related to 

storage of spent fuel under this general 

license involve a change in the facility 

Technical Specifications or require a 

license amendment for the facility 

pursuant to § 50.59(c) of this chapter. 

Results of this determination must be 

documented in the evaluations made in 

paragraph (b)(5) of this section. 

(9) Protect the spent fuel against the 

design basis threat of radiological 

sabotage in accordance with the same 

provisions and requirements as are set 

forth in the licensee’s physical security 

plan pursuant to § 73.55 of this chapter 

with the following additional conditions 

and exceptions: 

(i) The physical security organization 

and program for the facility must be 

modified as necessary to assure that 

activities conducted under this general 

license do not decrease the effectiveness 

of the protection of vital equipment in 

accordance with § 73.55 of this chapter; 

(ii) Storage of spent fuel must be 

within a protected area, in accordance 

with § 73.55(e) of this chapter, but need 

not be within a separate vital area. 

Existing protected areas may be 

expanded or new protected areas added 

for the purpose of storage of spent fuel 

in accordance with this general license; 

(iii) For the purpose of this general 

license, personnel searches required by 

§ 73.55(h) of this chapter before 

admission to a new protected area may 

be performed by physical pat-down 

searches of persons in lieu of firearms 

and explosives detection equipment; 

(iv) The observational capability 

required by § 73.55(i)(3) of this chapter 

as applied to a new protected area may 

be provided by a guard or watchman on 

patrol in lieu of video surveillance 

technology; 

(v) For the purpose of this general 

license, the licensee is exempt from 

requirements to interdict and neutralize 

threats in § 73.55 of this chapter; and 

(vi) Each general licensee that 

receives and possesses power reactor 

spent fuel and other radioactive 

materials associated with spent fuel 

storage shall protect Safeguards 

Information against unauthorized 

disclosure in accordance with the 

requirements of § 73.21 and the 

requirements of § 73.22 or § 73.23 of this 

chapter, as applicable. 

(10) Review the reactor emergency 

plan, quality assurance program, 

training program, and radiation 

protection program to determine if their 

effectiveness is decreased and, if so, 

prepare the necessary changes and seek 

and obtain the necessary approvals. 

(11) Maintain a copy of the CoC and, 

for those casks to which the licensee has 

applied the changes of an amended CoC, 

the amended CoC, and the documents 

referenced in such Certificates, for each 

cask model used for storage of spent 

fuel, until use of the cask model is 

discontinued. The licensee shall comply 

with the terms, conditions, and 

specifications of the CoC and, for those 

casks to which the licensee has applied 

the changes of an amended CoC, the 

terms, conditions, and specifications of 

the amended CoC, including but not 

limited to, the requirements of any AMP 

put into effect as a condition of the NRC 

approval of a CoC renewal application 

in accordance with § 72.240. 

(12) Accurately maintain the record 

provided by the CoC holder for each 

cask that shows, in addition to the 

information provided by the CoC 

holder, the following: 

(i) The name and address of the CoC 

holder or lessor; 

(ii) The listing of spent fuel stored in 

the cask; and 

(iii) Any maintenance performed on 

the cask. 

(13) Conduct activities related to 

storage of spent fuel under this general 

license only in accordance with written 

procedures. 

(14) Make records and casks available 

to the Commission for inspection. 

(c) The record described in paragraph 

(b)(12) of this section must include 

sufficient information to furnish 

documentary evidence that any testing 

and maintenance of the cask has been 

conducted under an NRC-approved 

quality assurance program. 

(d) In the event that a cask is sold, 

leased, loaned, or otherwise transferred 

to another registered user, the record 

described in paragraph (b)(12) of this 

section must also be transferred to and 

must be accurately maintained by the 

new registered user. This record must be 

maintained by the current cask user 

during the period that the cask is used 

for storage of spent fuel and retained by 

the last user until decommissioning of 

the cask is complete. 

(e) Fees for inspections related to 

spent fuel storage under this general 

license are those shown in § 170.31 of 

this chapter. 

■ 6. In § 72.230, revise paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 72.230 Procedures for spent fuel storage 

cask submittals. 

* * * * * 

(b) Casks that have been certified for 

transportation of spent fuel under part 

71 of this chapter may be approved for 

storage of spent fuel under this subpart. 

An application must be submitted in 

accordance with the instructions 

contained in § 72.4, for a proposed term 

not to exceed 40 years. A copy of the 

CoC issued for the cask under part 71 

of this chapter, and drawings and other 

documents referenced in the certificate, 

must be included with the application. 

A safety analysis report showing that 

the cask is suitable for storage of spent 

fuel, for the term proposed in the 

application, must also be included. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In § 72.236, revise paragraph (g) to 

read as follows: 

§ 72.236 Specific requirements for spent 

fuel storage cask approval and fabrication. 

* * * * * 

(g) The spent fuel storage cask must 

be designed to store the spent fuel safely 

for the term proposed in the application, 

and permit maintenance as required. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Revise § 72.238 to read as follows: 

§ 72.238 Issuance of an NRC Certificate of 

Compliance. 

A Certificate of Compliance for a cask 

model will be issued by NRC for a term 

not to exceed 40 years on a finding that 

the requirements in § 72.236(a) through 

(i) are met. 

■ 9. Revise § 72.240 to read as follows: 

§ 72.240 Conditions for spent fuel storage 

cask renewal. 

(a) The certificate holder may apply 

for renewal of the design of a spent fuel 

storage cask for a term not to exceed 40 

years. In the event that the certificate 

holder does not apply for a cask design 

renewal, any licensee using a spent fuel 

storage cask, a representative of such 

licensee, or another certificate holder 

may apply for a renewal of that cask 

design for a term not to exceed 40 years. 

(b) The application for renewal of the 

design of a spent fuel storage cask must 

be submitted not less than 30 days 

before the expiration date of the CoC. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
8892 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

When the applicant has submitted a 

timely application for renewal, the 

existing CoC will not expire until the 

application for renewal has been 

determined by the NRC. 

(c) The application must be 

accompanied by a safety analysis report 

(SAR). The SAR must include the 

following: 

(1) Design bases information as 

documented in the most recently 

updated final safety analysis report 

(FSAR) as required by § 72.248; 

(2) Time-limited aging analyses that 

demonstrate that structures, systems, 

and components important to safety will 

continue to perform their intended 

function for the requested period of 

extended operation; and 

(3) A description of the AMP for 

management of issues associated with 

aging that could adversely affect 

structures, systems, and components 

important to safety. 

(d) The design of a spent fuel storage 

cask will be renewed if the conditions 

in subpart G of this part and § 72.238 are 

met, and the application includes a 

demonstration that the storage of spent 

fuel has not, in a significant manner, 

adversely affected structures, systems, 

and components important to safety. 

(e) In approving the renewal of the 

design of a spent fuel storage cask, the 

NRC may revise the CoC to include 

terms, conditions, and specifications 

that will ensure the safe operation of the 

cask during the renewal term, including 

but not limited to, terms, conditions, 

and specifications that will require the 

implementation of an AMP. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 10th day 

of February, 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3493 Filed 2–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 21, 61, 63, 91, 93, 121, 

135, 142, 145, and 183 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0092; Amendment 

Nos. 21–93, 61–126, 63–38, 77–14, 91–320, 

93–96, 121–352, 135–123, 142–6, 145–28, 

183–14] 

Removal of Expired Federal Aviation 

Administration Regulations and 

References 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) is making minor 

technical changes to its regulations by 

removing expired Special Federal 

Aviation Regulations (SFARs) and crossreferences, as well as other expired or 

obsolete regulations. None of these 

changes are substantive in nature since 

the regulations in question have expired 

and are not currently in effect. This 

technical amendment is necessary to 

update our regulations. The rule will 

not impose any additional burden or 

restriction on persons or organizations 

affected by these regulations. 

DATES: Effective February 16, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jackie Smith, (202) 267–9682; Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; e-mail 

jackie.f.smith@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The FAA periodically issues 

temporary regulations in 14 CFR called 

Special Federal Aviation Regulations 

(SFARs). These SFARs are typically 

necessary for a finite period of time, and 

usually specify an expiration date 

within the regulatory text. Additionally, 

certain subparts have specified 

expiration dates within the regulatory 

text. Currently, 14 CFR contains several 

SFARs, subparts, and sections that have 

become unnecessary or have expiration 

dates that have passed. To maintain an 

accurate body of regulations, we are 

removing and/or amending SFAR Nos. 

36, 80, 92–5, 93, 98, 101–1; Subparts J 

and M of part 21; Subpart B of part 93; 

§§ 91.146(b), 121.360, 135.153, 

183.61(a)(1), 183.63, and corresponding 

references. The following tables are 

presented for the reader’s convenience. 

TABLE 1—EXPIRED SFARS

Part(s) SFARs 

removed 

Expiration 

date 

61, 63, 135, 

142.

93 11/30/2001. 

77 .................. 98 01/20/2009. 

121, 145 ........ 36 11/14/2009. 

121 ................ 80 03/12/2001. 

121 ................ 92–5 07/31/2003 

and 10/01/ 

2003. 

TABLE 2—EXPIRED SUBPARTS AND SECTIONS

Parts Subparts and sections amended/removed Expiration date 

21 ....................................................................................... Subparts J and M ................................................................................ 11/14/2006 

91 ....................................................................................... § 91.147(b) ........................................................................................... 09/11/2007 

93 ....................................................................................... Subpart B ............................................................................................ 10/31/2008 

121 ..................................................................................... § 121.360 ............................................................................................. 03/29/2005 

135 ..................................................................................... § 135.153 ............................................................................................. 03/29/2005 

183 ..................................................................................... §§ 183.61(a)(1) and 183.63 ................................................................. 11/14/2006 

Under the Administrative Procedure 

Act, an agency doesn’t have to issue a 

notice of proposed rulemaking when the 

agency for good cause finds that public 

notice and procedure are ‘‘impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest.’’ See 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Because 

this technical amendment simply 

removes obsolete regulations and 

references, we find that publishing the 

changes for public notice and comment 

is unnecessary. 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

also states that an agency must publish 

a substantive rule not less than 30 days 

before its effective date, except as 

otherwise provided by the agency for 

good cause. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d). We find 

that this technical amendment imposes 

no additional burden or requirement on 

the regulated industry, and is not 

substantive in nature. Moreover, we find 

that there is good cause to make the 

changes effective immediately upon 

publication in the Federal Register. It is 

in the public interest to remove these 

obsolete references from our regulations 

immediately. 

This regulation is editorial in nature 

and imposes no additional burden on 

any person or organization. Therefore, 

we have determined the action: (1) Is 

not a significant rule under Executive 

Order 12866; and (2) is not a significant 

rule under Department of 

Transportation Regulatory Policy and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES