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

9178 

Vol. 74, No. 40 

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 72 

[Docket No. PRM–72–6]; [NRC–2008–0649] 

C–10 Research and Education 

Foundation, Inc.; 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 dated November 24, 

2008, filed by the C–10 Research and 

Education Foundation, Inc. (petitioner). 

The petition was docketed by the NRC 

and has been assigned Docket No. PRM– 

72–6. The petitioner is requesting that 

the NRC amend the regulations that 

govern licensing requirements for the 

independent storage of spent nuclear 

fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and 

reactor-related greater than class C 

waste. The petitioner believes that the 

current regulations do not provide 

sufficient requirements for safe storage 

of spent nuclear fuel in dry cask storage 

or in independent spent fuel storage 

installations (ISFSIs). The petitioner 

states that the NRC does not adequately 

enforce the current regulations that 

govern dry cask storage by allowing 

manufacturers, vendors, and licensees 

to use alternatives to the American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME) Code. The petitioner also states 

that the NRC has not specified license 

requirements for multiple cask designs 

under different expiration dates at the 

same ISFSI, has not adequately 

considered age-related degradation of 

dry cask systems, and has no 

requirements in place to address 

sabotage and adverse environmental 

effects on ISFSIs and current and future 

dry cask storage systems. 

DATES: Submit comments by May 18, 

2009. 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: You may submit comments 

on this petition by any one of the 

following methods. Please include 

PRM–72–6 in the subject line of your 

comments. Comments on petitions 

submitted in writing or in electronic 

form will be made available for public 

inspection. Personal information, such 

as your name, address, telephone 

number, e-mail address, etc., will not be 

removed from your submission. 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

[NRC–2008–0649]. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, 

301–492–3668; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Email comments to: 

rulemaking.comments@nrc.gov. If you 

do not receive a reply e-mail confirming 

that we have received your comments, 

contact us directly at 301–415–1677. 

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 

Federal workdays, telephone number 

301–415–1677. 

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– 

415–1101. 

Publicly available documents related 

to this petition may be viewed 

electronically on the public computers 

located at the NRC’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), Room O1 F21, One White 

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland. The PDR 

reproduction contractor will copy 

documents for a fee. Selected 

documents, including comments, may 

be viewed and downloaded 

electronically via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

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 the NRC’s 

Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (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 

PDR Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 

301–415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

For a copy of the petition, write to 

Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, 

Directives and Editing Branch, Division 

of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. The petition is also available 

electronically in ADAMS at 

ML083470148. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael T. Lesar, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555. 

Telephone: 301–492–3663 or Toll-Free: 

1–800–368–5642 or E-mail: 

Michael.Lesar@NRC.Gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The NRC has received a petition for 

rulemaking dated November 24, 2008, 

submitted by Sandra Gavutis on behalf 

of the C–10 Research and Education 

Foundation, Inc. (petitioner). The 

petitioner requests that the NRC amend 

10 CFR Part 72, ‘‘Licensing 

Requirements for the Independent 

Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, HighLevel Radioactive Waste, and ReactorRelated Greater than Class C Waste.’’ 

The petitioner requests that Part 72 be 

amended to require licensees to strictly 

adhere to ASME code requirements for 

design and use of spent fuel storage 

casks. The petitioner also requests that 

10 CFR 72.42 be amended to clarify 

requirements for ‘‘renewal’’ and 

‘‘reapproval’’ of certificates of 

compliance (CoCs) of spent fuel storage 

casks and to address license 

requirements for multiple cask designs 

under different expiration dates at the 

same ISFSI. The petitioner is also 

concerned that NRC requirements allow 

20-year CoCs for spent fuel storage casks 

to be arbitrarily extended up to 60 years 

without adequate evaluation for 

protection of public health and safety. 

The petitioner also states that the NRC 

does not require control systems for dry 

cask storage systems at ISFSIs and that 

the NRC allows licensees numerous 

exemptions from design and 

construction requirements for dry cask 

storage systems that result in unresolved 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 9179 

fabrication and performance issues. The 

petitioner is also concerned that the 

requirements for spent fuel storage casks 

do not adequately consider or address 

long term degradation of casks. Lastly, 

the petitioner states that NRC 

regulations do not adequately specify 

requirements for protection of ISFSIs 

and dry storage casks systems from 

terrorist attacks or environmental 

elements. 

The NRC has determined that the 

petition meets the threshold sufficiency 

requirements for a petition for 

rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802. The 

petition was docketed by the NRC as 

PRM–72–6 on December 11, 2008. The 

NRC is soliciting public comment on the 

petition for rulemaking. 

Discussion of the Petition 

The petitioner states that because the 

Federal Government for over 50 years 

has not resolved the long-term need to 

protect the public from exposure to 

irradiated nuclear fuel by creating a 

permanent high-level waste repository, 

the States will inherit the responsibility 

to store spent nuclear fuel indefinitely. 

The petitioner believes that the NRC is 

proposing to change the Nuclear Waste 

Confidence rule so there is no deadline 

for storage of spent nuclear fuel and that 

current NRC regulations are inadequate 

and not properly enforced. The 

petitioner states that the NRC allows 

licensees of dry cask storage systems to 

use alternatives to ASME Code 

requirements and grants numerous 

exemptions to cask designs instead of 

requiring strict compliance with current 

ASME Code requirements. The 

petitioner states that required design 

specifications have not been updated 

because no current complete studies 

exist. 

The petitioner also states that the 

renewal process for spent fuel cask 

designs in 10 CFR Part 72 is unclear. 

Specifically, the petitioner states that 

§ 72.42(a) clearly specifies that the 

initial term for a site-specific ISFSI must 

be for a fixed term not to exceed 20 

years from the date of issuance. The 

petitioner states that an application for 

reapproval of a spent fuel storage cask 

design implies that the NRC would 

reevaluate the design basis of the 

original cask design with current 

standards and code requirements for the 

20-year CoC storage cask license. The 

petitioner believes that current NRC 

practice under § 72.42 uses the term 

‘‘renewal’’ which implies that the 

design requirements remain the same as 

in the original CoC and ‘‘simply 

replaces the original license.’’ The 

petitioner states that the NRC has no 

clear requirements that distinguish 

between ‘‘renewal’’ versus ‘‘reapproval’’ 

and has not addressed what the license 

requirements are for multiple cask 

designs under different expiration dates 

at the same ISFSI. 

The petitioner is also concerned that 

the NRC arbitrarily extends CoCs for 

spent fuel casks beyond the 20-year 

term up to 60 years without evaluating 

technical data or regulatory implications 

to adequately protect public health and 

safety. The petitioner’s chief concerns 

are that NRC requirements have not 

been updated; manufacture of spent fuel 

storage casks is not consistent with 

ASME Code requirements; ISFSIs are 

not required to be built to withstand a 

terrorist attack; and that spent fuel 

storage casks are not safeguarded against 

accidents, adverse weather-related 

events, and leakage caused by agerelated degradation. 

The petitioner states that although the 

NRC has determined that spent fuel 

storage casks design and construction is 

as important as that of a reactor vessel, 

the NRC makes distinctions between 

wet and dry storage requirements. The 

petitioner cites § 72.122(i) as an 

example that requires instrumentation 

and control systems be provided to 

specifically monitor and control heat 

removal, but states that the NRC does 

not require control systems for dry cask 

storage systems at ISFSIs. The petitioner 

also notes that § 72.124(b) requires 

specific methods for criticality control 

but that the NRC has concluded that the 

potentially corrosive environment in 

wet storage conditions does not apply to 

dry storage systems. The petitioner 

notes that in 1998 the NRC determined 

that because air and moisture are 

removed from dry storage casks and 

replaced with helium, the spent nuclear 

fuel is then inert and there is no 

reasonable basis to assume degradation 

will occur. ‘‘Miscellaneous Changes to 

Licensing Requirements for the 

Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear 

Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste’’ 

(63 FR 31364, 31365; June 9, 1998). 

However, the petitioner states that this 

determination is refuted by the May 

1996 incident at Point Beach, evidence 

from the reactor vessel inner seal 

failures at the Surry facility, and NRC 

reports of corrosion resulting from salt 

water air at other reactor sites. 

The petitioner also states that vital 

adequate technical radiation and heat 

monitoring data is not included in the 

regulations that govern dry storage casks 

and that this data is needed to protect 

nuclear workers and the public, and for 

future dry cask design and fabrication. 

The petitioner is also concerned that a 

lack of vendor compliance with ASME 

Code design requirements exists and 

that the NRC has allowed exemptions to 

vendors. The petitioner states that the 

NRC’s remedy for this situation has 

been to simultaneously cite vendors and 

manufacturers with numerous 

violations and later approve repeated 

corrective actions. The petitioner 

believes that dry cask design, 

fabrication, and performance issues 

remain unresolved by this practice. 

The petitioner states that limited data 

exists to determine the extent of the 

long-term degradation of dry storage 

casks and the fuel cladding of the fuel 

in some dry cask designs. The petitioner 

notes that the NRC did support a 

research program, ‘‘The Dry Cask 

Storage Characterization Project’’ 

conducted at the Idaho National 

Engineering and Environmental 

Laboratory; but that this study was 

never completed because it was 

cancelled 15 years into the planned 20- 

year study timeframe. According to the 

petitioner, this study revealed that 

degradation of stored fuel was present 

when a dry cask at the Surry facility was 

opened, but the NRC reported that the 

condition of the stored fuel was 

acceptable. The petitioner believes that 

the study’s inconsistencies did not 

provide conclusive data for either the 

cask integrity or condition of the stored 

spent fuel. 

The petitioner also cites a videotape 

provided by the Union of Concerned 

Scientists of an incident at the Point 

Beach facility; a copy of the videotape 

was included with the petition. The 

petitioner states that the video shows 

that the adverse effects of chemical 

reactions in a cask could cause heat 

build up within the cask. The petitioner 

suggests that a sampling of dry casks 

certified by the NRC should be opened 

periodically and studied for at least 60 

years because the NRC has permitted 

extension of 20-year dry cask licenses 

up to 60 years. 

The petitioner lists the following 

technical concerns regarding dry storage 

casks: failure of cask materials over long 

periods of time; inadequate ability to 

observe and detect those failures 

because there is no active maintenance 

in place; difficulty assessing some 

construction materials for long-term 

integrity; lack of a formal aging 

management program; lack of dose rate 

and heat monitoring for increased heat 

and radiation levels on ISFSIs and 

individual casks; and vulnerability to 

weather-related deterioration and 

sabotage; and ISFSIs and dry casks are 

outdoors in plain sight (unlike reactor 

vessels and spent fuel pools) and are not 

designed to withstand various terrorist 

attack scenarios. The casks are the only 

barrier between radioactive nuclear fuel 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
9180 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

and the public and the environment 

while reactor vessels are in a 

containment building in a controlled 

environment with a trained team of 

operators, inspectors, and maintenance 

staff. 

The petitioner suggests that the NRC 

regulations be amended as follows: 

(1) Prohibit dry storage cask systems 

that do not meet NRC certification 

requirements from being produced 

under what the petitioner states is 

industry pressure to ‘‘accept-as-is.’’ 

(2) Base certification of casks on code 

requirements to include design criteria 

and technical specifications on a 100- 

year timeframe instead of the current 

20-year design specification that the 

petitioner views as inadequate. The 

petitioner also suggests that the NRC 

conduct a regulatory review of an indepth technical evaluation for public 

comment at the 20 year CoC reapproval 

interval to address cask deterioration 

issues. 

(3) Approve a method for dry cask 

transfer capacity as part of the original 

ISFSI certification process and 

construction license that will allow for 

immediate and safe maintenance on a 

faulty or failing cask. The petitioner 

states that stored irradiated fuel in dry 

casks approaches approximately 400 

degrees Fahrenheit while the irradiated 

waste storage pool water is kept at 100 

degrees Fahrenheit. The petitioner 

subsequently asserts that the resubmersion of dry casks and resultant 

steam flash threaten workers, and may 

thermally shock the irradiated nuclear 

fuel rods. The petitioner also states that 

the ability to perform maintenance 

safely should be a regulatory priority 

and that procedures to act promptly in 

an emergency situation and safely 

transfer spent fuel must be outlined in 

NRC regulations. 

(4) Ensure that dry casks are qualified 

for transport at the time of onsite storage 

approval certification. The petitioner 

states that transport capacity of 

shipment offsite must be required if an 

environmental emergency occurs or for 

security purposes to an alternative 

storage location or repository as part of 

the approval criteria. The petitioner 

suggests that Chapter 1 of the NRC’s 

Standard Review Plan (NUREG 1567) 

should clearly define the transport 

requirements in §§ 72.122(i), 72.236(h), 

and 72.236(m). 

(5) Specify that the most current 

ASME codes and standards be adopted 

for all spent fuel storage containers with 

no exceptions. The petitioner states that 

the NRC should no longer issue 

‘‘justifications and compensatory 

measures’’ for ASME codes or allow the 

industry to design or manufacture casks 

that conform to safety regulations to 

‘‘the maximum extent practical’’ instead 

of actual ASME Code requirements. The 

petitioner also states that ASME Code 

requirements should be enforced 

unconditionally, with no exceptions or 

exemptions. 

(6) Require ASME code stamping for 

fabrication, which would specify that an 

ASME-certified nuclear inspector, who 

is independent from the manufacturer 

and vendor, must be onsite at the 

fabrication plant. The petitioner also 

suggests that code stamping activities be 

subject to unannounced NRC 

inspections. 

(7) Require that all fabrication 

materials be supplied by ASMEapproved material suppliers who are 

certificate holders. The petitioner is 

concerned that if a supplier who is not 

certified is used, material certification 

under the NG/NF–2130 ASME standard 

is not possible and means that material 

traceability is not achieved. 

(8) Require that the current ASME 

Codes and standards for conservative 

heat treatment and light tightness are 

adopted and enforced. 

(9) Require a safe and secure hot cell 

transfer station coupled with an 

auxiliary pool to be built as part of an 

upgraded ISFSI certification and 

licensing process. The petitioner states 

that the licensee must have a dry cask 

transfer capability for maintenance and 

during emergency situations after 

decommissioning for as long as the 

spent fuel remains on site. 

(10) Require real-time heat and 

radiation monitoring at ISFSIs at all 

nuclear power plant sites and storage 

facilities that are not located at reactor 

sites maintained by the utilities and that 

the monitoring data be transmitted in 

real-time to affected State health, safety, 

and environmental regulators. 

(11) Require what the petitioner 

describes as ‘‘Hardened Onsite Storage’’ 

to fortify ISFSIs and dry casks from 

terrorist attacks. The petitioner cites a 

study by the National Academy of 

Sciences entitled, ‘‘Safety and Security 

of Commercial Nuclear Fuel Storage,’’ 

supported by the NRC (Grant No. NRC– 

04–04–067). According to the petitioner, 

this study states that the NRC should 

upgrade the requirements in 10 CFR 

Part 72 for dry casks, specifically to 

improve resistance to terrorist attacks. 

The petitioner also quotes from a paper 

describing the potential of terrorist 

attacks on dry casks by Gordon 

Thompson, the Director of the Institute 

for Resource and Security, entitled, 

‘‘Assessing Risks of Potential Malicious 

Actions at Commercial Nuclear 

Facilities: A Case of a Proposed ISFSI at 

Diablo Canyon Site’’ (June 27, 2007): 

‘‘the dry cask storage modules used at 

ISFSIs are not designed to resist attack. 

At all recently established ISFSIs in the 

USA, spent fuel is contained in metal 

canisters with a wall thickness of about 

1.6 cm. Each canister is surrounded by 

a concrete over pack, but the over pack 

is penetrated by channels that allow 

cooling of the canister by convective 

flow of air. Attackers gaining access to 

an ISFSI could employ readily available 

skills and explosives to penetrate a 

canister in a manner that allows free 

flow to the spent fuel, and could use 

incendiary devices to initiate burning of 

fuel cladding, leading to a release of 

radioactive material to the atmosphere.’’ 

(12) Establish funding to conduct 

ongoing studies to evaluate the effects of 

age-related material degradation on dry 

casks and to assess the structural 

integrity of the casks and fuel cladding. 

The petitioner has stated that these 

studies would gather the data necessary 

for the management of future damage 

and to determine design specifications 

for future irradiated nuclear waste 

storage. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day 

of February 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–4444 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 55 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2009–0111; FRL–8777–6] 

Outer Continental Shelf Air 

Regulations Consistency Update for 

Alaska 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule-consistency 

update. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to update a 

portion of the Outer Continental Shelf 

(‘‘OCS’’) Air Regulations. Requirements 

applying to OCS sources located within 

25 miles of States’ seaward boundaries 

must be updated periodically to remain 

consistent with the requirements of the 

corresponding onshore area (‘‘COA’’), as 

mandated by the Clean Air Act (‘‘the 

Act’’). The portion of the OCS air 

regulations that is being updated 

pertains to the requirements for OCS 

sources in the State of Alaska. The 

intended effect of approving the OCS 

requirements for the State of Alaska is 

to regulate emissions from OCS sources 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS