This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

36647

Vol. 65, No. 112

Friday, June 9, 2000

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 72

[Docket No. PRM–72–5]

Nuclear Energy Institute; Receipt of

Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Notice

of receipt.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has received and

requests public comment on a petition

for rulemaking filed by the Nuclear

Energy Institute. The petition has been

docketed by the NRC and has been

assigned Docket No. PRM–72–5. The

petitioner is requesting that the NRC

regulations governing storage of spent

nuclear fuel be amended to establish a

more efficient process for issuing and

amending certificates of compliance

(CoC) for dry cask storage of spent

nuclear fuel under a general license.

The petitioner believes the current NRC

process of traditional notice and

comment rulemaking is not appropriate

for the routine task of maintaining a list

of certified casks and that the burden of

maintaining this listing in the

regulations outweighs any benefit. The

petitioner proposes that the list of CoCs

be deleted from the regulations and that

NRC should notice applications for new

CoCs and amendments in the Federal

Register for a 60-day comment period.

The petitioner also proposes that

amendments for existing CoCs that do

not have the potential to have a

significant impact on public health and

safety be immediately effective upon

publication of the amendment in the

Federal Register.

DATES: Submit comments by August 23,

2000. Comments received after this date

will be considered if it is practical to do

so, but assurance of consideration

cannot be given except as to comments

received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications staff.

Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30

am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.

You may also provide comments via

the NRC’s interactive rulemaking

website through the NRC home page

(http://ruleforum.llnl.gov). At this site,

you may view the petition for

rulemaking, this Federal Register notice

of receipt, and any comments received

by the NRC in response to this notice of

receipt. Additionally, you may upload

comments as files (any format), if your

web browser supports that function. For

information about the interactive

rulemaking website, contact Ms. Carol

Gallagher, (301) 415–5905 (e-mail:

CAG@nrc.gov).

For a copy of the petition, write to

David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and

Directives Branch, Division of

Administrative Services, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. Documents related to this action

are available for public inspection at the

NRC Public Document Room (PDR)

located at the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David L. Meyer, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Telephone: 301–415–7162 or Toll-Free:

1–800–368–5642 or E-mail:

DLM1@NRC.Gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

received a petition for rulemaking dated

April 18, 2000, submitted by the

Nuclear Energy Institute (petitioner).

The petitioner is requesting that the

regulations in 10 CFR Part 72 governing

storage of spent nuclear fuel in dry

storage casks be amended. Specifically,

the petitioner is requesting that the NRC

establish a more efficient process for

issuing new and amending existing

certificates of compliance (COC) for dry

cask storage of spent nuclear fuel under

a general license. The petitioner

believes that the current process of

traditional notice and comment

rulemaking for issuing and amending

CoCs is inefficient and that the burden

of maintaining the list of approved dry

storage casks in § 72.214 outweighs any

benefit.

The petitioner has concluded that the

listing of CoCs in § 72.214 is not

necessary and believes that removal of

these requirements will have no impact.

The petitioner requests that the

regulations in 10 CFR Part 72 be

amended by removing § 72.214. Instead,

the petitioner proposes that NRC notice

applications for new CoCs and

amendments to existing CoCs in the

Federal Register for a 60-day comment

period. When the NRC determines that

an amendment to an existing CoC does

not have the potential to have a

significant impact on public health and

safety, the petitioner recommends that

the amendment become immediately

effective upon publication in the

Federal Register. The petitioner

recommends that initial applications

and significant amendments would not

become effective until the NRC has

evaluated public comments and

published its findings in the Federal

Register.

The NRC has determined that the

petition meets the threshold sufficiency

requirements for a petition for

rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802. The

petition has been docketed as PRM–72–

5. The NRC is soliciting public comment

on the petition for rulemaking.

Discussion of the Petition

The petitioner notes that the NRC

Spent Fuel Project Office staff is

currently considering an alternative

process to the NRC’s current practice of

listing and amending CoCs by

rulemaking. The petitioner supports the

NRC staff’s efforts and encourages the

NRC to expeditiously amend 10 CFR

Part 72 to establish an efficient process

for issuing new and amending existing

CoCs for dry cask storage of spent

nuclear fuel under a general license.

The petitioner requests that the NRC

consider a streamlined process

proposed by the petitioner that focuses

opportunities for public input on issues

that have the potential to have a

significant impact on public health and

safety. The petitioner proposes that the

NRC discontinue the use of traditional

notice and comment rulemaking and

that § 72.214, the listing of CoCs, be

repealed.

The petitioner believes there is no

benefit in using rulemaking for the

ministerial act of maintaining a list of

36648 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 112 / Friday, June 9, 2000 / Proposed Rules

certified casks and that the burden of

maintaining the list in the regulations

outweighs any benefit. The petitioner

has concluded that the list of certified

casks neither affords any additional

authority on the CoC holder nor places

additional weight on requirements that

govern dry cask usage. The petitioner

proposes that NRC notice applications

for new CoCs and amendments to

existing CoCs in the Federal Register for

a 60-day comment period. For

amendments to certified casks,

applicants could propose that the

requested amendment has no potential

to adversely affect public health and

safety. If NRC agreed with the applicant

and found that no significant hazard

exists, the amendment would be

effective immediately upon publication

in the Federal Register. The petitioner

proposes that initial applications and

other amendments would not become

effective until the NRC evaluated public

comments and published its findings in

the Federal Register.

The petitioner notes that by 2005, as

many as 50 plants will require dry cask

spent fuel storage to continue operating

or to proceed through decommissioning.

In the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982,

as amended (NWPA), Congress

conferred responsibility on the Federal

Government to ‘‘expedite the effective

use of existing storage facilities and the

addition of new needed storage

capacity’’ at civilian nuclear power

facilities. The petitioner also notes that

cask vendors must amend CoCs

frequently to meet the growing need for

dry cask storage and that, by 2001, the

fuel discharged from operating plants

will exceed the maximum licensed

burnup limits of current casks. The

petitioner contends that the current

NRC practice of issuing CoCs and

associated amendments by rulemaking

is inadequate because it takes about 24

months to amend CoCs through the

rulemaking process. The petitioner

believes that with a 24-month response

time, the unavailability of dry casks will

impede plant operations and

decommissioning at some point.

The petitioner contends that NRC’s

practice of listing and amending cask

CoCs by cask-specific rulemaking goes

beyond Congress’ intent in the NWPA.

The petitioner believes that by issuing

more than ten CoCs under 10 CFR Part

72, the NRC has fulfilled its legislative

obligation and demonstrated that the

regulations are sufficient to certify

technologies for use as directed in the

NWPA. The petitioner states that

conducting cask-specific rulemakings

wastes resources and requires constant

reconsideration of the same technical

issues. The petitioner believes that

many CoC amendments do not involve

new or novel technical issues and are

only being reviewed to demonstrate that

a certificate holder has complied with

NRC requirements for cask certification.

The petitioner recommends that NRC

provide notice in the Federal Register

and consider public comments before

issuing CoCs for new casks and

amendments to existing CoCs that

potentially impact public health and

safety. The petitioner states that

proceeding in this manner would show

that the NRC provides for public input

and does not waste the agency’s or the

public’s resources that could be directed

toward actions on new casks and issues

that may significantly affect public

health and safety and away from actions

that only demonstrate compliance with

existing requirements and guidance.

The petitioner also believes that the

process for issuing and amending CoCs

for spent fuel storage should be similar

to that used for transportation CoCs

under 10 CFR Part 71. The petitioner

states that it is illogical to certify casks

used for the dual purpose of storage and

transportation by two entirely different

processes. The petitioner further states

that the certification process for

transportation CoCs has been effective

since its inception over 20 years ago and

that no reason exists for the process for

certification of casks for storage to be

any more demanding than that for

certifying casks for transportation.

The petitioner recommends that NRC

consider an application process for new

CoCs as follows: Submittal of

application for new CoC; NRC prepares

a draft Safety Evaluation Report (SER);

the draft CoC and SER are noticed in the

Federal Register for public comment;

NRC publishes its findings in a Federal

Register notice; and the CoC and SER

are issued.

The petitioner recommends the

following process for amendments to

existing CoCs. The change to the CoC is

identified and developed by the CoC

holder, and an evaluation under § 72.48,

‘‘Changes, tests, and experiments’’ is

performed to determine if prior NRC

approval is needed. If NRC’s approval is

not required, the amendment may be

implemented and the Safety Analysis

Report (SAR) is updated. If prior NRC

approval is required, the CoC holder

performs a ‘‘Significant Impact’’

evaluation and submits the proposed

amendment to the NRC. If the NRC

agrees that the proposed amendment

poses ‘‘No Significant Impact,’’ the

amendment is published in the Federal

Register and becomes immediately

effective upon publication, the change is

implemented, and the SAR is updated.

If the NRC does not determine that the

amendment poses no significant impact,

the draft CoC is published in the

Federal Register for a 60-day public

comment period. After the comment

period expires, the NRC publishes its

findings in a Federal Register notice,

the change is implemented, and the

SAR is updated.

The petitioner proposes that § 72.214,

‘‘List of approved spent fuel storage

casks’’ be deleted from the regulations.

The petitioner also proposes that

§ 72.238, ‘‘Issuance of an NRC

Certificate of Compliance’’ be amended

by inserting the following language after

the existing codified text:

The Director, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, or the Director’s

designee will publish each initial application

and each application for amendment in the

Federal Register for a 60-day comment

period. An application may include a

proposed determination that the amendment

proposed does not involve a ‘‘significant

impact consideration’’ based on an analysis

of the criteria listed below. Upon receipt of

an application, the Director, or the Director’s

designee will make a determination of

whether it agrees with the applicant’s ‘‘no

significant impact considerations’’ proposal.

If the Director or the Director’s designee

agrees with the applicant’s proposed

determination, the amendment will be

effective upon publication in the Federal

Register prior to receipt and analysis of

public comments.

An amendment is considered to have the

potential to pose a significant impact if

subsequent use of the cask would:

(a) Result in a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated;

(b) Create the possibility for a new or

different kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated; or

(c) Involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety.

The petitioner has also submitted

examples of amendments considered

likely to involve significant impact

considerations that it proposes for

inclusion in a regulatory guidance

document. These would be amendments

that result in a significant increase in

offsite doses and leakage across the

confinement boundary, an increase in

Keff above 0.95 without compensatory

changes, significant increases in

mechanical stress beyond allowable

limits in codes referenced in the NRC

Standard Review Plans (SRPs), and

cladding temperatures that significantly

exceed SRP limits.

Lastly, the petitioner has submitted

examples of amendments it believes

would not likely involve significant

impact considerations that it proposes

for inclusion in a regulatory guidance

document. Examples include

amendments that consist of:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 112 / Friday, June 9, 2000 / Proposed Rules 36649

(1) An administrative change to

technical specifications (TS) including a

change to achieve consistency

throughout the TS, correction of an

error, or a change in nomenclature.

(2) A TS change to ensure that no

significant increase exists in the

probability or consequences of analyzed

accidents and does not significantly

reduce safety margins such as an

increase in the allowable leak rate

compensated by an increase in fill gas

quantity, an increase in the allowable

handling height of the cask

compensated by energy absorbing

features, addition of a more reactive fuel

design that could lead to Keff exceeding

0.95 compensated by an increase in

areal poison density of fixed neutron

poison sheets, and an increase in

helium backfill pressure compensated

by increased material properties to

prevent components from exceeding

code allowables.

(3) A change in the TS that includes

an additional limitation, such as a more

stringent surveillance requirement.

(4) A change that may result in some

increase to the probability or

consequences of a previously analyzed

accident or may reduce the safety

margin in some way, but where the

results are within all acceptable criteria

at the time of approval, such as an

increase in Keff or offsite exposures

beyond ‘‘minimal.’’

(5) Replacing explicit limits on fuel

assemblies, decay heat, and source

terms with a table that incorporates

limits and ensures that these limits are

met by prescribing minimum cooling

times for various combinations of

enrichment versus burnup.

(6) Substitution of another NRCapproved quality assurance program for

fabrication of casks such as modifying

Part 50, Appendix B for Part 72.

(7) A change to a CoC that consists of

minor changes to storage operations that

remain within regulatory requirements

such as a reduction in the center-tocenter cask spacing in the Independent

Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI),

a reduced storage cask temperature

monitoring frequency, an increased time

duration without transfer cask annulus

cooling for canisters with fuel loading

below a certain kilowatt level, or a

reduction in the areal poison density in

boral fixed poison sheets offset by an

increase in the allowable percentage of

the manufacturer’s minimum assured

boron content in criticality calculations.

(8) An expansion of the cask capacity

including the number of bundles, higher

initial enrichment, or higher burnup

bundles when certain conditions are

satisfied.

(9) Inclusion of a more recent NRC

requirement than is contained in the

licensee’s CoC or site-specific license.

(10) Inclusion of an exception or

alternative approved by the NRC for

another licensee.

(11) Administrative improvements

such as the use of generic organization

position titles that clearly indicate

position function as opposed to specific

titles or use of generic organization

charts to delineate functional

responsibilities.

The Petitioner’s Conclusions

The petitioner has concluded that the

NRC requirements governing storage of

spent nuclear fuel in 10 CFR Part 72

should be amended to establish a more

efficient process for issuing and

amending CoCs for dry cask storage

under a general license. The petitioner

has also concluded that the current NRC

process of traditional notice and

comment rulemaking is not appropriate

for the routine task of maintaining a list

of certified casks and that the burden of

maintaining this listing in the

regulations outweighs any benefit. The

petitioner requests that the list of CoCs

be removed from the regulations and

that the NRC notice applications for

new CoCs and amendments to existing

CoCs in the Federal Register for a 60-

day comment period. The petitioner

also requests that amendments for

existing CoCs that have no potential to

have a significant impact on public

health and safety be immediately

effective upon publication in the

Federal Register.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day

of June, 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Annette L. Vietti-Cook,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 00–14686 Filed 6–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 73

Re-evaluation of Power Reactor

Physical Protection Regulations and

Position on a Definition of Radiological

Sabotage

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is re-evaluating its

power reactor physical protection

regulations and the proposed definition

of radiological sabotage, using

performance criteria as the basis. The

purpose of this re-evaluation is to state

precisely what kinds of sabotageinduced events a licensee is expected to

protect against. This request invites

public comment on these issues. The

NRC is publishing as an attachment to

this Federal Register Notice, a

Commission paper entitled, ‘‘Staff ReEvaluation of Power Reactor Physical

Protection Regulations and Position on

a Definition of Radiological Sabotage,’’

(SECY–00–0063).

DATES: Submit comments by August 23,

2000. Comments received after this date

will be considered if it is practical to do

so, but the Commission is able to ensure

consideration only for comments

received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff.

Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30

am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.

You may also provide comments via

the NRC’s interactive rulemaking

website at (http://ruleforum.llnl.gov).

This site provides the capability to

upload comments as files (any format),

if your web browser supports that

function. For information about the

interactive rulemaking website, contact

Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415–5905 (email: CAG@nrc.gov).

The attached Commission paper is

associated with a rulemaking plan,

‘‘Physical Security Requirements for

Exercising Power Reactor Licensees’’

Capability to Respond to Safeguards

Contingency Events,’’ which is located

on the NRC’s rulemaking website.

Copies of any comments received and

certain documents related to this reevaluation may be examined at the NRC

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street

NW, (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

These same documents may be viewed

and downloaded electronically via the

rulemaking website.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard P. Rosano, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–

2933, e-mail: RSS@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In a Staff Requirements Memorandum

(SRM) of November 22, 1999, the

Commission approved the staff’s

recommendation in SECY–99–241

(Rulemaking Plan, Physical Security

Requirements for Exercising Power

Reactor Licensees’ Capability to