This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

20879

Vol. 60, No. 82

Friday, April 28, 1995

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 2 and 72

RIN 3150–AE64

Interim Storage of Spent Fuel in an

Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installation at a Reactor Site; SiteSpecific License to a Qualified

Applicant

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is amending its

procedures to permit the Director of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

to issue a site-specific license to a

qualified applicant for the interim

storage of spent fuel in an independent

spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at

a reactor site following satisfactory

completion of NRC safety and

environmental reviews and after any

public hearing on the application. The

amendment eliminates the need for

express Commission authorization for

each ISFSI license, but does not affect

the scope of NRC review of an ISFSI

license application or change the

present opportunity for public hearing

provided for in the NRC rules of

practice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The documents referenced

in this final rule are available for

inspection and copying for a fee at the

NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L

Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington,

DC. Copies of NUREG–0575 and

NUREG–1092 may also be purchased

from the Superintendent of Documents,

U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O.

Box 37082, Washington, DC. 20013–

7028. Copies are also available from the

National Technical Information Service,

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA

22161.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C.

William Reamer, Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Telephone: (301) 415–1640.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Background

II. Summary of Proposed Rule

III. Public Comments and the Commission’s

Response

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

V. Environmental Impact: Categorical

Exclusion

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

VII. Regulatory Analysis

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

IX. Backfit Analysis

I. Background

Under 10 CFR Part 72, the NRC will

issue a specific license for the interim

storage of nuclear power plant spent

fuel in an independent spent fuel

storage installation (ISFSI) if NRC

determines the application meets the

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) and the

Commission’s regulations. An ISFSI is a

facility that is specifically designed and

constructed for interim spent fuel

storage, after use of the nuclear fuel as

a source of energy in a nuclear power

reactor, until its shipment to the U.S.

Department of Energy’s (DOE) planned

geologic repository for disposal of

radioactive waste. Part 72 applies to

site-specific licenses for storage of spent

fuel in an ISFSI (up to 20 years with

renewal at the option of the NRC) or a

monitored retrievable storage

installation (MRS) (up to 40 years with

renewal at the option of the NRC).

Although Part 72 also applies to spent

fuel storage in approved casks at an

ISFSI at a reactor site pursuant to a

general license (10 CFR part 72, subpart

K), the general license is not covered or

affected by this rulemaking.

On June 3, 1993 (58 FR 31478), the

Commission proposed rulemaking to

modify the Commission’s procedures for

the issuance of a specific ISFSI license

to a qualified applicant. After

considering the public comments

received in response to the

Commission’s request, the Commission

has decided to adopt the proposed rule

as final with one clarification.

Specifically, the final rule covers an

ISFSI at a reactor site. (The proposed

rule was not explicit on this point.)

II. Summary of Proposed Rule

As set forth in its notice of proposed

rulemaking (58 FR 31478–81), the

Commission proposed to amend the

procedures that authorize the NRC

Director of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards (or the Director’s designee)

to issue a site-specific license for the

interim storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI

under 10 CFR part 72. This type of

license would be issued after the NRC

completes a comprehensive,

documented, public health and safety

review; prepares an environmental

assessment and determines that issuing

the license would conform to all

statutory and regulatory requirements;

and after an opportunity for a public

hearing has been offered and any

requested hearing is complete. The

amendment would end the current

internal practice under which the

Director obtained the Commission’s

express authorization for each ISFSI

license, after the NRC review and

determination that a license should be

issued under 10 CFR part 72, but before

the Director actually issued the license.

However, the proposed rule would not

affect, in any way, existing procedures

for the NRC review or the opportunity

for public hearing.

III. Public Comments and the

Commission’s Response

In response to publication of the

proposed rule and request for public

comments, including extension of the

public comment period (58 FR 48004;

September 14, 1993), NRC received 11

written comments. (Copies of the

comment letters are available for

inspection in the NRC Public Document

Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower

Level), Washington, DC). In some

instances, similar comments were

offered by more than one commenter,

and comments were therefore grouped

into the categories that are set forth

below, together with the Commission’s

response.

1. Comment: The proposed rule

forecloses public participation in

important reactor spent fuel storage

decisions.

Several comments took issue with the

Commission’s statement in the notice of

proposed rulemaking that the

amendment would not affect the

opportunity for a public hearing

provided in NRC’s rules of practice. One

commenter argued the amendment
20880 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

would exclude public participation

given that the existing procedure (i.e.,

without the rule change) provides the

public more opportunity for knowledge

of an ISFSI license application because

there is a second publication of notice

and an open Commission meeting on

the application. A second commenter

expressed the view that the proposed

rule should not be applied to its

pending petition for hearings on the

Calvert Cliffs ISFSI.

Another commenter criticized NRC

for what the commenter called a refusal

to open NRC doors to public

participation on the spent fuel storage

issue despite growing public opposition

to spent fuel storage as a threat to the

environment. That commenter cited

public hearing requests from the

Michigan Attorney General and citizens

interested in the Palisades nuclear plant

in a recent NRC storage cask approval

rulemaking (58 FR 17948; April 7, 1993)

and argued other facilities were also

experiencing public opposition to spent

fuel storage or transportation plans.

Response: Commission procedures

provide a broad opportunity for public

participation in ISFSI decisions. The

Commission is not changing the public

participation process in any manner in

this rulemaking.

Rather, these rulemaking amendments

mainly affect future NRC proceedings in

which the public chooses not to

participate. In this regard, we should

highlight the limiting language in

amended § 72.46(d) which begins with

the words ‘‘If no request for a hearing or

petition to intervene is filed * * *.’’ If,

on the other hand, an interested member

of the public does want to participate in

a hearing on an ISFSI license, then these

rulemaking amendments will in no way

limit the opportunity to do so. In

addition, the amendments will not

change the right of hearing participants

to request Commission review before

any ISFSI license is issued.

The public participation

opportunities in NRC site-specific

licenses for ISFSIs were detailed in the

Commission’s notice of proposed

rulemaking, as follows:

Under the Commission’s rules of practice,

after receipt of an application for a specific

license for interim spent fuel storage in an

ISFSI, the NRC publishes a notice of

proposed action and opportunity for hearing

in the Federal Register to potentially

interested entities and persons (10 CFR

2.105, 72.46(a)). Among other things, the

notice indicates that any person whose

interest may be affected may file a request for

a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene.

Potentially affected persons and entities have

a right to obtain all relevant NRC staff safety

documents, as well as all technical

submissions of the license applicant. They

may request a hearing or provide written

comments before any final NRC action on an

ISFSI license application (10 CFR 2.105). If

a hearing on the application is held before an

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, issuance

of a specific license for an ISFSI by NRC

must await completion of the hearing and the

initial decision by the Board, and must be

appropriately conditioned in light of the

Board’s findings and conclusions on the

matters determined in the hearing (10 CFR

2.760). Under NRC rules of practice, hearing

participants have the right to request

Commission review of the Board’s decision,

including the right to request that the

effectiveness of the Board’s decision be

stayed, and that the Commission undertake

review before license issuance if they believe

the facts warrant such a review (10 CFR

2.786, 2.788). Of course, absent a stay

request, under the general rule which the

Commission is now proposing to restore, the

Board’s decision would be immediately

effective, and the Director would issue the

ISFSI license within 10 days after the

decision, without being required to obtain

additional, express Commission

authorization to do so (See 10 CFR 2.764 (a)

and (b)).

The opportunity for public hearing

described above, including the

opportunity to request Commission

review before issuance of a site-specific

license for an ISFSI, will continue even

with adoption of these rulemaking

amendments. Accordingly, because the

amendments have no effect at all on

public participation, they would also

have no retroactive effect on any

petition regarding Calvert Cliffs.

Therefore, regarding the comment that

NRC doors are closed to public

participation generally on spent fuel

storage issues, the Commission believes

the true facts are quite different. With

respect to the commenter’s criticism of

an unrelated 1993 NRC cask-approval

final rule (58 FR 17948; April 7, 1993),

involving a storage cask (i.e., VSC–24)

later used at the Palisades nuclear plant,

which is not a relevant matter to be

addressed in this rulemaking, the final

rule and public participation procedures

were recently upheld by the United

States Court of Appeals for the Sixth

Circuit. Kelley v. Selin, No. 93–3613

(6th Cir., Jan. 11, 1995) (‘‘* * *

[P]etitioners’ assertion that the NRC

attempted to shut them out of

meaningful participation on the

question of the use of the VSC–24 casks

is meritless.’’). The description of and

rationale for that rulemaking process

can be found in the 1993 final rule (e.g.,

58 FR 17962–63; April 7, 1993).

The Commission has been entrusted

with the responsibility to protect the

public health and safety, and to provide

adequate assurance for public

confidence, in the safe storage of spent

nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants

in the United States. It is NRC’s

responsibility as a regulator to verify the

adequate protection of the public health,

safety, and the environment, and to

conduct its processes in the open with

opportunity for full public participation.

In carrying out its responsibilities, NRC

will continue to rely on, among other

things, a careful, comprehensive public

health and safety examination of each

ISFSI application, addressing NRC

requirements covering site-related

parameters, facility design, systems for

protection against potential accidents,

quality assurance and quality control,

worker training, emergency planning,

and operating plans and programs to

ensure protection of the public from

radiation and radioactive materials. To

provide further assurance, NRC will

continue to rely on a broad, selectively

applied program of nuclear plant

inspections and compliance reviews,

using resident inspectors stationed at

each nuclear plant ISFSI site throughout

the United States, supported by

augmented, expert teams as may be

necessary to judge the quality of

licensee compliance with ISFSI

requirements. NRC will also continue to

conduct its ISFSI activities through an

open regulatory process that

demonstrates, at all stages, an objective

and full consideration of public views

and concerns.

2. Comment: There are growing

technical problems which should lead

NRC not to go forward with its ISFSI

storage rulemaking proposal.

One commenter claimed that

technical problems at existing ISFSIs

show dry storage will not prove to be a

satisfactory solution to utilities’ need for

additional spent fuel storage capacity.

The commenter claimed that dry casks

at the Surry ISFSI were operating

beyond their designed thermal,

radiation and pressure limits; it also

claimed that casks systems at Palisades

and systems proposed for use elsewhere

have inadequate thermal safety margin.

The commenter stated that internal NRC

studies (CNWRA–93–0006, May 1993)

raise other safety problems that will

increase spent fuel management costs

which the public ultimately must pay.

The commenter argued that, given the

problems, NRC should not amend its

ISFSI licensing procedures as proposed.

Response: Although the comment

principally relates to specific plants and

therefore seeks to present broader issues

independent of the narrow procedural

subject matter of this rulemaking, the

following information is offered to

address the stated concerns.

Spent fuel has been safely stored in

independent storage casks at the Surry

nuclear plant site for nearly seven years
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20881

1On August 1, 1994, Consumers Power Company,

the Palisades licensee, reported that two small

crack-like indications and a slag-like indication had

been discovered in review of radiographs of a weld

in a component of a VSC–24 cask at the Palisades

ISFSI. After additional analyses, the licensee

concluded the cask met requirements and was

capable of safely storing fuel for the 20-year license

term. The licensee has nonetheless decided to

remove from service and replace the cask.

without, to date, serious incidents or

reports of casks operating outside

specified thermal, radiation, or pressure

limits. Moreover, the cask limits at

Surry, which were measured at cask

loading and are expected not to change

significantly during normal operations,

will continue to be monitored on a

periodic basis. In addition, dry storage

at the Palisades plant commenced about

one and one-half years ago after a 1993

NRC rulemaking to approve the VSC–24

storage cask (58 FR 17948; April 7,

1993). That rulemaking exhaustively

covered a number of public comments

relating to Palisades and, in particular,

comments questioning thermal safety

margins of the storage cask. NRC

responses to those public comments,

particularly the response to comment

26, detail the basis for NRC acceptance

of the thermal margins for the VSC–24.

As set forth in the response, the basis for

NRC acceptance of the VSC–24 included

assurance that cask thermal margins

were calculated using conservative

assumptions (e.g., sustained ambient

temperatures of 100 °F over several

days; little heat conduction through the

ends of the canister; fuel clad

temperatures based on a peak heat

generation rate rather than an average

rate; a fuel temperature criterion derived

from long-term degradation mechanisms

rather than short-term mechanisms that

would have led to a much higher

temperature standard). Moreover, as

indicated in the response, the calculated

margins for the VSC–24 were

significantly larger when more realistic

assumptions were used in the

calculations.1 Thermal analyses and

calculations have also been

satisfactorily resolved with respect to

another cask system, the NUHOMS dry

storage system. Rulemaking was

completed in January 1995 for the

NUHOMS system, and the applicant

and NRC staff analyses and calculations

are available in the docket of that

rulemaking. See Docket No. PR–72 (59

FR 28496) (‘‘List of Approved Spent

Fuel Storage Casks: Addition’’) (see also

59 FR 65898).

Turning to the internal NRC study

referenced in the comment that is the

subject of this response, it is important

to fully identify that the report is

actually directed not at spent fuel

storage at reactors, but rather at longterm geologic disposal of high-level

waste and spent fuel over thousands of

years. Consequently, the report does not

draw conclusions that would be directly

relevant to decisions about interim

storage of spent fuel in ISFSIs or, more

significantly, that would be contrary to

the NRC’s experience with such storage

to date. As discussed elsewhere (e.g., 58

FR 17948; April 7, 1993; 55 FR 29181;

July 18, 1990; 54 FR 19379; May 5,

1989) and as summarized below, NRC

experience to date is that spent fuel can

be safely stored under dry conditions

over the 20-year licensed term of an

ISFSI without presenting significant

public health and safety risks.

Irradiated reactor fuel has been

handled under dry conditions since the

mid-1940’s when fuel examinations

began in hot cells. Light water reactor

fuel has been handled in dry cells since

the early 1960’s, and some fuels have

been in storage under dry conditions for

approximately 20 years. Experience

with storage of spent fuel in dry casks

is extensive, and it is growing. Six

nuclear power plant sites are already

using dry cask storage: Virginia Power’s

Surry Station (500 assembles); Carolina

Power and Light’s H.B. Robinson

Station (60 assembles); Duke Power’s

Oconee Station (530 assemblies); Public

Service of Colorado’s Fort St. Vrain

facility (1480 fuel elements); Consumers

Power’s Palisades plant (160

assemblies); and Baltimore Gas and

Electric’s Calvert Cliffs Station (190

assemblies). A seventh plant—Northern

States Power’s Prairie Island plant—will

begin loading assemblies in March 1995.

As a result of the growing use of dry

storage technology experience, NRC has

over 35 staff years of experience in

licensing ISFSI storage, further

supported by the knowledge and

experience of an outside pool of

recognized, expert scientists and

engineers to perform independent safety

analyses of ISFSI systems and

components proposed by licensees and

vendors in the field.

The successful experience to date in

the dry storage of spent fuel storage and

the licensing of ISFSIs in the United

States, provides support for the

Commission’s belief there is reasonable

assurance such storage and licensing

can safely continue without the need for

express Commission authorization of

each ISFSI license at a reactor site.

However, past successes provide no

guarantee for the future, and the

Commission therefore hastens to

emphasize that the NRC staff—under

the Commission’s active supervision, as

described in this document—will

continue to bring to bear its full

experience in the review, licensing, and

inspection of ISFSIs.

3. Comment: The Commission

proposal would unacceptably reduce

Commission oversight of the siting of

ISFSIs.

Several comments opposing the

Commission proposal believe it will

reduce NRC oversight of spent fuel

storage, and they find that reduction

unacceptable for several reasons. One

comment reflecting this view stated

that, because the Federal Government

was unable satisfactorily to solve the

high-level waste (HLW) management

problem, and given the growing storage

of spent fuel at reactor sites, there is

increasing public concern over ISFSI

storage and a consequent need for more,

rather than less, Commission regulatory

oversight of siting decisions. Another

commenter stated that ISFSI licenses

should have Commissioner review

because Commission members have the

responsibility to protect public health

and safety and should not delegate it to

the Director, NMSS, or to anyone else.

Other comments argued the rule

change was inappropriate because of the

likelihood that the number of ISFSI

licenses will increase in the future and

the Commission would therefore

increasingly need to supervise the

licensing process. One commenter, for

example, observed that requiring the

NRC staff to explain all aspects of a

specific ISFSI license to the

Commissioners would necessarily lead

to a more careful review, and that this

additional layer of review would

become even more important as the

number of ISFSIs grew.

Another commenter argued that the

Commission seemed to view its license

approval review as ‘‘marginal to safety,’’

and disagreed with this view on the

ground that spent fuel storage in an

ISFSI created a significant hazard to the

public in the vicinity of the storage

facility.

Response: While it is true the

Commission believes its express

authorization of each ISFSI license—the

internal procedure that is the subject of

these rulemaking amendments—is an

unnecessary, additional layer of agency

review, and, therefore, can be

eliminated without reducing public

health and safety protection, the

Commission’s belief is based on its

years of experience in supervision of the

entire NRC licensing review process for

ISFSIs which the Commission will

continue to oversee.

The anchor point of the NRC’s

internal review process to protect public

health and safety from the potential

risks of a proposed ISFSI is the NRC

staff’s technical review of the license
20882 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

application. As described in the notice

of proposed rulemaking, that process is

as follows:

Upon receipt of an ISFSI license

application, after publishing a notice of

docketing in the Federal Register, the NRC

staff reviews the license application and

applicant’s supporting safety analysis report

(SAR) describing the proposed ISFSI. This

comprehensive, technical review by the NRC

staff addresses all relevant public health and

safety matters including site characteristics

affecting construction and operating

requirements for the proposed ISFSI, criteria

for and design of the proposed installation,

operation systems of the facility, sitegenerated waste confinement and

management systems, measures to ensure the

protection of the public and occupational

workers from radiation and radioactive

materials, analyses of potential accidents that

might occur at the facility, and the

applicant’s plans for the conduct of ISFSI

operations. In its review, the NRC staff may

require further submittals from the applicant

as necessary to complete the ISFSI

application, will thoroughly review all of the

applicant’s supporting technical information,

and will independently verify the applicant’s

safety analyses and design calculations if

necessary. To document its review and

conclusions, the NRC staff will prepare a

comprehensive safety evaluation report (SER)

detailing its safety findings and conclusions,

as well as an environmental assessment (EA)

for the proposed specific license for interim

storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI. As noted,

interested members of the public may obtain

copies of these documents from NRC. None

of these NRC staff technical activities would,

in any way, be modified by this proposed

amendment. (58 FR 31479; June 3, 1993.)

After issuance of an ISFSI license,

NRC regulatory responsibilities during

the 20-year license term include an

inspection and enforcement program,

providing for an NRC resident inspector

at every licensed reactor site of an ISFSI

in the United States, supplemented as

necessary by teams of engineers and

technical specialists, performing

inspections in a wide variety of

engineering and scientific disciplines,

and ranging from civil and structural

engineering to health physics and

quality assurance. By means of selective

examinations, NRC’s inspection

program seeks to ensure that each ISFSI

licensee is meeting its responsibility for

safe maintenance and operation of the

ISFSI, in accordance with NRC

regulations. The program is preventive

in nature, and is designed to anticipate

and preclude potentially significant

public health and safety events or

problems by identifying underlying

safety concerns or latent vulnerabilities

for prompt licensee management

attention and adequate corrective

action. NRC inspections supplement,

rather than supplant, the licensee’s

programs, so as to provide an

independent check or verification of the

effectiveness of those licensee programs

and their strict conformance with NRC

requirements.

The Commission, alone, is ultimately

responsible and accountable for the

successful regulation of spent fuel

storage in licensed ISFSIs to protect the

public health and safety. These

rulemaking amendments do not change

in any way the Commission’s

responsibility and accountability to the

public and its elected representatives.

Rather, in one respect, these

amendments modify how the

Commission will perform its

responsibility (i.e., they eliminate a

Commission vote before issuance of an

ISFSI license at a reactor site). After the

amendments become effective, however,

the Commission will still have, and will

still continue to fulfill, the

responsibilities to supervise and direct

the NRC staff’s performance of the

licensing, inspection, and enforcement

activities described above. The NRC

staff is required to keep the Commission

fully and currently informed about

significant proposed licensing actions.

This means the Director, NMSS, must

notify the Commission before issuance

of any license for an ISFSI. The Director

must also notify the Commission if the

staff’s inspection program reveals any

significant public health and safety

matter relating to ISFSI operations that

are of regulatory concern. The NRC staff

is also required to bring any significant

policy issue regarding ISFSI activities to

the Commission’s attention for

resolution. This means the Commission

will continue to make any decision

involving any significant new ISFSI

issues that may arise in the future. In

addition, any member of the public who

has specific concerns about a proposed

ISFSI license can bring them to the

Commission for resolution in NRC’s

public hearing process, as described

previously in this notice. In short,

through these mechanisms, which are

adequate and well-suited for the

purpose, the Commission will continue

to perform all of its health and safety

responsibilities to the public, and will

ensure that ISFSI regulation by NRC

continues to takes place under the

Commission’s supervision and

direction. If new information becomes

available that casts doubt on the

adequacy of the oversight mechanisms,

the Commission can and will take

action which could include reversal of

these rulemaking amendments.

4. Comment: ISFSI licensing should

be the same as licensing for new

reactors, an MRS or for the disposal

repository which the Commission

would need to specifically approve.

Several comments, opposing the

proposed rule, express the view that the

Commission should apply to specific

ISFSI licenses the same Commission

approval process it would use to license

nuclear reactors, a monitored retrievable

storage installation (MRS), and HLW

disposal facilities.

One commenter, for example, stated

that, given that the cumulative load of

discharged irradiated spent fuel in a

spent fuel pool could contain more

radioactivity than an operating nuclear

reactor, greater care should therefore be

given to ISFSI licensing than to the

reactor itself because the potential for

release is greater. Another comment,

adopting the view that ISFSI licensing

should be in the same category as

licensing nuclear reactors or amending

such licenses, stated the Commission

should not characterize Commission

approval of ISFSI licenses as a ‘‘special

exception.’’ Other commenters stated

that spent fuel is highly radioactive and

its quantity increasing. Therefore, in

their view, the requirement for

Commission approval of ISFSI

licensing, in addition to NRC staff

review, as in the case of licenses to

operate reactors, is consistent with the

NRC’s longstanding regulatory

philosophy of redundancy of safeguards

and defense-in-depth.

Several comments also opposed the

proposed rule change on the ground that

it would make ISFSI licensing less

stringent than the licensing review

afforded to disposal of spent fuel in a

repository. One commenter, for

example, stated that, in the absence of

a viable disposal solution, storage of

spent fuel in an ISFSI cannot be labeled

‘‘temporary,’’ and should therefore be

done under procedures comparably

stringent to those for ‘‘permanent’’

disposal facilities.

Another commenter viewed

elimination of Commission review to be

at odds with the history of the MRS

which was authorized only through

Congressional action in the Nuclear

Waste Policy Act and which could be

constructed in the future only after

further Congressional action. In this

commenter’s view, the amount of spent

fuel stored at the various ISFSIs under

NRC license was approaching the

amount that might be expected to be

stored at the MRS. Another commenter,

who also compared the quantity of

spent fuel stored in ISFSIs to the

capacity of an MRS, stated that NRC was

not properly perceiving the inherent

hazards in spent fuel storage operations.

Response: The Commission agrees in

part with the thrust of the comments,

that is, that NRC regulations as applied

should achieve a comparable level of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20883

protection for the public health and

safety, whether the NRC-licensed

activity is operation of a nuclear power

reactor, storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI

or an MRS, or disposal of high-level

radioactive wastes in a geologic

repository. Significantly, however, the

goal of comparable protection does not

mean ISFSI activities must be regulated

by NRC’s using the same NRC

requirements as for reactors or geologic

repositories.

Specifically, the public health and

safety risks posed by ISFSI storage,

described in various publicly available

NRC documents identified below, are

very different from the risks posed by

the safe irradiation of the fuel

assemblies in a commercial nuclear

reactor, which requires the adequate

protection of the public factor in the

conditions of high temperatures and

pressures under which the reactor

operates. The risks of ISFSI storage are

also very different from those posed by

the safe disposal of the irradiated fuel in

a geologic repository, which would

require isolation of the wastes from the

accessible environment for thousands of

years.

Nuclear fuel irradiated in a power

reactor is highly radioactive and

produces considerable heat. However,

after the minimum 1 year of cooling that

precedes its storage in an ISFSI, cooling

and some shielding requirements will

decrease as a result of the natural decay

process over time. See Generic

Environmental Impact Statement on the

Handling and Storage of Spent Light

Water Power Reactor Fuel (NUREG–

0575–V–1, August 1979) at 2–2. A fuel

assembly cooled for 10 years after

discharge from the reactor (typically the

age of spent fuel actually placed in dry

storage) generates approximately 500

watts of heat, which is on the order of

the amount of heat generated by the

light bulb in a floodlamp. In addition,

its radiation dose rate is approximately

one-half the rate when it was discharged

from the reactor. ISFSIs are therefore

designed to adequately dissipate the

remaining heat, provide sufficient

shielding from the radioactivity, and

safely confine any gaseous and

particulate radioactive nuclides.

The potential ability of irradiated fuel

to adversely affect public health and

safety and the environment is largely

determined by the presence of a driving

force behind dispersion. Therefore, it is

the absence of such a driving force, due

to the absence of high temperature and

pressure conditions in an ISFSI (unlike

a nuclear reactor operating under such

conditions that could provide a driving

force), that substantially eliminates the

likelihood of accidents involving a

major release of radioactivity from spent

fuel stored in an ISFSI.

[D]uring normal [storage] operations the

conditions required for the release and

dispersal of significant quantities of

radioactive materials are not present. There

are no high temperatures or pressures present

during normal operations of under design

basis accident conditions to cause the release

and dispersal of radioactive materials. This is

primarily due to the low heat generation rate

of spent fuel with more than the one year of

decay before storage in an ISFSI required by

the rule and with the low inventory of

volatile radioactive materials readily

available for release to the environs. (45 FR

74693; November 12, 1980.)

Further, since its radioactive content

is in the form of solid ceramic material

(except for some gaseous fission

products) encapsulated in high-integrity

metal cladding, spent fuel is relatively

invulnerable to sabotage and natural

disruptive forces. See Environmental

Assessment for 10 CFR Part 72,

‘‘Licensing Requirements for the

Independent Storage of Spent Fuel and

High-Level Radioactive Waste,’’ at II–15

and –16 (NUREG–1092, August 1984);

see also 45 FR 74693 (November 12,

1980).

Although the risks associated with

ISFSIs described above differ from those

of nuclear power plant operation or

geologic disposal, the Commission’s

regulatory responsibility to ensure

adequate protection remains the same.

However, the manner in which it

discharges those responsibilities will

differ. Significantly, because of the very

different risks, the Commission would

not automatically apply all regulatory

requirements to ISFSIs that it applies to

other regulated activities. More

particularly for this rulemaking, based

on its experience to date, the

Commission believes it can and should

fulfill its public responsibilities,

through the ISFSI licensing and

inspection process described earlier in

this notice, as supervised and directed

by the Commission, but without the

need for specific Commission

authorization of every ISFSI license in

the future.

However, as discussed in response to

comment 8, the NRC licensing

experience that support this rulemaking

to eliminate specific Commission

approval of ISFSI licenses is not

sufficient to support a similar change for

the MRS or for an ISFSI at other than

a reactor site. Therefore, the

Commission intends that NRC rules

continue to require specific Commission

authorization before issuance of a

license for an MRS or a license for an

ISFSI that is located at a site other than

a reactor site.

5. Comment: The cost savings for the

agency and utilities are not an

appropriate basis for the rulemaking

amendments.

Several commenters took issue with

the Commission’s statement in the

proposed rule that the amendments

could save money that would otherwise

be spent on unnecessary agency

reviews. One commenter characterized

the prospect of financial savings for the

agency and its licensees as ‘‘offensive,’’

because it was being used to justify

elimination of a ‘‘safety-related’’ review

of ISFSIs whose failure could lead to

significant adverse consequences to the

public health and safety. Another

commenter similarly challenged the

Commission’s rationale for reducing the

costs of duplicative Commission review

on the ground that the Commission’s

responsibility is to protect the public

health and safety, not the nuclear

industry’s financial well-being or its

profitability for stockholders.

Response: As the foregoing responses

to comments make clear, the

Commission’s experience to date leads

it to believe it can fully perform its

public protection responsibilities

without specific authorization of every

license for an ISFSI at a reactor site that

is now required under the Commission’s

current process. The extra step of

express Commission authorization for

each specific license is a minor,

ancillary matter in protecting public

health and safety. If the Commission

thought the additional step was needed

for safety, then it would require the

review step regardless of its cost.

Therefore, one consequence of the

current process (i.e., the process that

includes the extra step of specific

Commission authorization) is that

someone is paying the bill for agency

review steps that are not really needed.

Because Commission funding is

recovered from the nuclear industry

through license fees and the like, the

people who are paying the bill are

normally utility ratepayers.

Significantly, however, the Commission

would have proposed these rulemaking

amendments even if its costs were not

recoverable and, in that case, the people

paying the bill were the U.S. taxpayers.

The Commission has the public

interest responsibility to regulate

effectively without imposing

unnecessary or overly burdensome

regulatory costs. Where, as here, the

Commission can make rulemaking

amendments that will allow it to

perform its public health and safety

responsibilities more efficiently, but do

not diminish in any way the license

applicant’s obligation to demonstrate to

NRC (and to any member of the public
20884 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

who is interested) that a proposed ISFSI

is safe, then the Commission believes it

should make those rulemaking

amendments.

6. Comments: The revision is a useful

simplification of existing procedures

that does not create any impacts adverse

to safety. Given the proven safety and

reliability of ISFSIs. NRC licensing

procedures should not have layers of

unnecessary reviews that are not used in

other NRC licensing actions.

Several comments received on the

notice of proposed rulemaking favor the

NRC proposed rule change. One

commenter stated the amendments do

not change the fact that the license

applicant must still undergo a

comprehensive public health and safety

review, environmental assessment and

an opportunity for public hearing, in

order to ensure the proposed ISFSI is

safe and in compliance with NRC

regulations. The commenter noted the

only change would be elimination of

Commissioner approval.

Another comment supporting the

change stated it would make ISFSI

procedures more like NRC licensing

procedures for other types of facilities

handling nuclear materials, and justified

it on the basis of the safety and

reliability of spent fuel dry storage in

ISFSI. The commenter also noted the

rule is consistent with Congress’ intent

in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (Sec.

131(a)(2)) that directs the Federal

government to expedite additional spent

fuel storage capacity and encourage dry

storage technologies which have been

proven to be safe. It further argued the

change was in keeping with NRC

initiatives elsewhere to reduce

unnecessary regulatory burdens without

reducing public health and safety

protection. It also noted the only

practical effect of the change was to

eliminate mandatory Commission

review in uncontested licensing action.

Response: The Commission generally

agrees with this comment. However, the

Commission notes that substantial

reliance is being placed in this

rulemaking on the demonstrated safety

and reliability of dry storage at reactors

in ISFSIs to date. In this connection,

although NRC has an important

regulatory role outlined elsewhere in

this notice, licenses have the primary

responsibility for safe ISFSI operations,

to protect the public health and safety,

and to abide by NRC regulations. If

circumstances warrant in a particular

case, or if significant new information

becomes available, the Commission

could require specific Commission

authorization before issuance of any

ISFSI license in a future case.

7. Comment: The rule needs to reflect

that DOE continues to pursue plans for

interim storage.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

submitted a comment expressing

concern that the notice of proposed

rulemaking printed in the Federal

Register gave the erroneous impression

that DOE is not pursuing plans

respecting interim storage. In recounting

the history of the MRS, the DOE states

the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

(NWPA) adopted a policy of spent fuel

disposal in repositories and did not

authorize large-scale storage facilities.

DOE goes on to state that Congress

amended the NWPA in 1987 to

authorize an MRS subject to specific

conditions, after DOE recommended a

mandated MRS site-specific proposal.

The DOE comment also indicates that

DOE plans continue to include interim

storage. DOE requests the discussion

accompanying the proposed rulemaking

change should be revised to accurately

reflect DOE’s position.

Response: The rulemaking record

should be corrected to reflect the facts

set forth in DOE’s letter. The

Commission did not intend any of its

statements in the notice of proposed

rulemaking to imply circumstances

contrary to those described by DOE.

8. Comment: The Commission’s

proposal not to extent the rule change

to the MRS, thereby continuing the need

for express Commission authorization

before the Director could issue an MRS

license, drew opposing views.

Several comments took opposing

positions on the Commission’s proposal

not to eliminate Commissioner

authorization for issuance of a license

under Part 72 for the MRS. One

commenter posited that an MRS might

be simple in design and operation,

much like an ISFSI, and therefore ought

to be licensed by the Director, NMSS,

without the need for specific

authorization by the Commission. The

comment recognized that the proposed

MRS design might be more complex

than an ISFSI, in which case the MRS

license could be reviewed by

Commission before issuance.

Another commenter, however, agreed

with the Commission’s proposal not to

change the requirement for express

Commission authorization of an MRS

license, arguing the different procedure

is justified by a fundamental difference

between an ISFSI and an MRS, as those

facilities are defined in Part 72.

Response: As the differing comments

reflect, there is, at this time, no DOE

license application or DOE-proposed

design for an MRS that is before the

Commission. In addition, the

Commission has no basis to speculate

on any interim storage design that DOE

might proposal for licensing, including

whether it would be similar to the ISFSI

facilities licensed by NRC to date.

Therefore, inasmuch as the Commission

cannot now determine that NRC

licensing experience with ISFSIs would

be directly applicable to an MRS, it has

decided not to eliminate the

requirement for express Commission

authorization before issuance by the

Director, NMSS, of any initial license

for the acquisition, receipt or possession

of spent fuel, high-level waste and

associated radioactive material, for the

purpose of storage at an MRS by DOE.

In this connection, the Commission

notes that the DOE letter referred to in

comment 7 does not disagree with this

aspect of the NRC rulemaking

amendments.

Similarly, various plans have received

mention recently regarding possible

private ISFSIs at non-DOE sites (e.g., a

new off-site ISFSI for the Prairie Island

plant located within Goodhue County,

Minnesota at a site not on Prairie

Island). However, the Commission has

no basis to speculate on these possible

facilities or their designs. Therefore,

since the Commission cannot determine

that its ISFSI licensing experience

would be directly applicable to these

possible facilities, it has decided not to

eliminate the requirement for express

Commission authorization before

issuance by the Director, NMSS, of any

initial license for the acquisition, receipt

or possession of spent fuel, high-level

waste and associated radioactive

material, for the purpose of storage at an

ISFSI that is not located at a reactor site.

9. Comment: The Commission should

not make rule changes that would result

in an ISFSI being licensed by Agreement

States.

One comment questions the proposed

rule change on the ground that it might

open ISFSI siting to licensing by

Agreement States which may not be

technically prepared to handle the

responsibility.

Response: The proposed rule does not

open ISFSIs to licensing by Agreement

States. As the comment correctly notes,

a number of States have agreements

with the Commission or its predecessor,

the Atomic Energy Commission,

pursuant to section 274 of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954. These agreements

typically provide for the Commission to

discontinue, and the State to assume,

responsibility for regulating certain

nuclear materials in order to protect the

public health and safety. However,

under section 274 of the Act, the

Commission will not discontinue

regulatory responsibility for special

nuclear materials in quantities sufficient
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20885

to form a critical mass. Because spent

nuclear fuel may contain special nuclear

materials in such quantities,

Agreements States therefore have no

authority to license spent fuel storage in

an ISFSI.

The Commission’s exclusive authority

to license ISFSIs is reflected in § 72.8 of

NRC regulations which provides that

‘‘Agreement States may not issue

licenses covering the storage of spent

fuel in an ISFSI * * *.’’ The foregoing

regulation would be unchanged by this

rulemaking.

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

This portion of the notice contains a

section-by-section analysis of the

rulemaking amendments. A comparable

analysis was provided in the notice of

proposed rulemaking for these

amendments (58 FR 31478; June 3,

1993). The following analysis, among

other things, clarifies that the

rulemaking amendments apply only to

an ISFSI located at a reactor site.

A. Rules of Practice (10 CFR 2.764)

The Commission is amending 10 CFR

2.764(c) to modify the references in the

section to ‘‘an independent spent fuel

storage installation (ISFSI)’’ by adding at

the end of each of the references the

words ‘‘located at a site other than a

reactor site.’’ As amended, the provision

continues to apply in the future to

licensing of an independent spent fuel

storage installation (ISFSI) located at a

site other than a reactor site or licensing

of a monitored retrievable storage

installation (MRS) under 10 CFR part

72. The amendment eliminates the

requirement of express Commission

authorization before issuance by the

Director of NMSS (or the Director’s

designee) of each initial license for

interim storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI

at a reactor site. The general rule applies

under which the Director, NMSS, has

delegated authority, when no public

hearing on the application has been

requested, to issue a license for an ISFSI

at a reactor site under 10 CFR part 72

following satisfactory completion of

NRC’s environmental assessment and

public health and safety review, without

obtaining additional, express

authorization from the Commission to

do so. Further, under the amendment to

10 CFR 2.764, if the application is the

subject of a public hearing, then the

Director will issue the license for an

ISFSI at a reactor site only after an

initial decision of the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board directing issuance of

the license, but without the Director

being required to obtain the additional,

express authorization of the

Commission to do so. In this

connection, 10 CFR 2.764 (a) and (b) are

being clarified to explicitly incorporate

‘‘a license under 10 CFR part 72 to store

spent fuel in an independent spent fuel

storage installation (ISFSI) at a reactor

site’’ to thereby cover any application

for a specific ISFSI license at a reactor

site that is the subject of a public

hearing.

Under other provisions of the

Commission’s rules pertaining to the

opportunity for public hearing that are

not being changed, a party to the

hearing could request Commission

review and ask the Commission to stay

the effectiveness of the Board’s decision

(including any direction for issuance of

any ISFSI license at a reactor site)

pending that review (10 CFR 2.786,

2.788). If the Commission granted a stay,

then the Director would not issue the

license until the terms of the stay, if

any, were met or until further order of

the Commission.

B. Licensing Requirements for ISFSIs (10

CFR 72.46)

The amendment of 10 CFR 72.46(d)

modifies the reference to ‘‘an ISFSI’’ in

the last sentence of paragraph (d) by

adding at the end of the reference the

words ‘‘located at a site other than a

reactor site.’’ As amended, the sentence

continues to apply to licensing of an

ISFSI located at a site other than a

reactor site or licensing of the MRS.

Thus, under the amendment, the

Director, NMSS, will have delegated

authority to issue a specific license for

interim storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI

at a reactor site. He/she is not required

to seek the express authorization of the

Commission to do so. However, the

Director’s authority will continue to be

subject to the limitation that the

Commission will be fully and currently

informed and will address any

significant questions of policy relating

to a specific license for interim storage

of spent fuel in an ISFSI at a reactor site.

V. Environmental Impact: Categorical

Exclusion

The NRC has determined that this

rule is the type of action described in

categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)

(1) and (3). Therefore, neither an

environmental impact statement nor an

environmental assessment has been

prepared for this rule.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

Statement

This rule does not contain a new or

amended information collection

requirement subject to the requirements

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing

requirements were approved by the

Office of Management and Budget,

approval numbers 3150–0136 and

–0132.

VII. Regulatory Analysis

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

is making changes to internal

procedures that are administrative in

nature. The changes will not have any

significant impact on the public health

and safety or the U.S. economy. The

amendments create no new regulatory

burdens, or result in the use of resources

by NRC licensees or by the staff of the

NRC or an Agreement State. The

Commission’s current procedures

require the Director, NMSS, to obtain

express authorization of the

Commission before issuing a license to

construct and operate an ISFSI. The

amendments will authorize the Director

to issue a license for interim storage of

spent fuel in an ISFSI at a reactor site

without seeking express authorization

from the Commission to do so. The costs

of the amendments, in this regard, are

likely to be less than the costs of the

current procedure since the

amendments will reduce the layers of

agency review. The foregoing discussion

constitutes the regulatory analysis for

this final rule.

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Certification

The final rule does not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The rule sets forth internal procedures

of an administrative nature for issuance

of licenses for ISFSIs at reactor sites.

Owners of nuclear power reactors do

not fall within the scope of the

definition of ‘‘small entities’’ set forth in

section 601(3) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (15 U.S.C. 632) or the

Small Business Size Standards set out in

regulations issued by the Small

Business Administration at 13 CFR part

121. Thus, in accordance with the

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5

U.S.C. 605(b), the NRC hereby certifies

that this final rule will not have a

significant economic impact upon a

substantial number of small entities.

IX. Backfit Analysis

The NRC has determined that the

backfit rule, 10 CFR 72.62, does not

apply to this rule and that a backfit

analysis is not required because these

amendments do not involve any

provisions which would impose backfits

as defined in 10 CFR 72.62(a) (see also

10 CFR 50.109).
20886 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 2

Administrative practice and

procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct

material, Classified information,

Environmental protection, Nuclear

materials, Nuclear power plants and

reactors, Penalties, Sex discrimination,

Source material, Special nuclear

material, Waste treatment and disposal.

10 CFR Part 72

Manpower training programs, Nuclear

materials, Occupational safety and

health, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures, Spent

fuel.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble and under the authority of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,

as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553,

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is

adopting the following amendments to

10 CFR parts 2 and 72.

PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE FOR

DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS

AND ISSUANCE OF ORDERS

1. The authority citation for part 2 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 161, 181, 68 Stat. 948,

953, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec.

191, as amended, Pub. L. 87–615, 76 Stat. 409

(42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552.

Sec. 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62,

63, 81, 103, 104, 105, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933,

935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135);

sec. 114(f), Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2213, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)); sec. 102, Pub.

L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42

U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 88 Stat. 1248 (42

U.S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104,

2.105, 2.721 also issued under secs. 102, 103,

104, 105, 183, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938,

954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133,

2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Section 2.105 also

issued under Pub. L. 97–415, 96 Stat. 2073

(42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200–2.206 also

issued under secs. 161 b, i, o, 182, 186, 234,

68 Stat. 948–951, 955, 83 Stat. 444, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 2201 (b), (i), (o), 2236,

2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat. 1246 (42 U.S.C.

5846). Sections 2.600–2.606 also issued

under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853,

as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections

2.700a, 2.719 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 554.

Sections 2.754, 2.760, 2.770, 2.780 also

issued under 5 U.S.C. 557. Section 2.764 and

Table 1A of Appendix C also issued under

secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2232,

2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section 2.790

also issued under sec. 103, 68 Stat. 936, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 2133) and 5 U.S.C. 552.

Sections 2.800 and 2.808 also issued under

5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809 also issued under

5 U.S.C. 553 and sec. 29, Pub. L. 85–256, 71

Stat. 579, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2039).

Subpart K 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). Subpart

L also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42

U.S.C. 2239). Appendix A also issued under

sec. 6, Pub. L. 91–560, 84 Stat. 1473 (42

U.S.C. 2135). Appendix B also issued under

sec. 10, Pub. L. 99–240, 99 Stat. 1842 (42

U.S.C. 2021b et seq.).

2. In § 2.764, paragraphs (a), (b) and

(c) are revised to read as follows:

§ 2.764 Immediate effectiveness of initial

decision directing issuance or amendment

of construction permit or operating license.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs

(c) through (f) of this section, or as

otherwise ordered by the Commission in

special circumstances, an initial

decision directing the issuance or

amendment of a construction permit, a

construction authorization, an operating

license, or a license under 10 CFR part

72 to store spent fuel in an independent

spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at

a reactor site shall be effective

immediately upon issuance unless the

presiding officer finds that good cause

has been shown by a party why the

initial decision should not become

immediately effective, subject to review

thereof and further decision by the

Commission upon petition for review

filed by any party pursuant to § 2.786 or

upon its own motion.

(b) Except as provided in paragraphs

(c) through (f) of this section, or as

otherwise ordered by the Commission in

special circumstances, the Director of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation or Director

of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards, as appropriate,

notwithstanding the filing or granting of

a petition for review, shall issue a

construction permit, a construction

authorization, an operating license, or a

license under 10 CFR part 72 to store

spent fuel in an independent spent fuel

storage installation (ISFSI) at a reactor

site, or amendments thereto, authorized

by an initial decision, within ten (10)

days from the date of issuance of the

decision.

(c) An initial decision directing the

issuance of an initial license for the

construction and operation of an

independent spent fuel storage

installation (ISFSI) located at a site

other than a reactor site or a monitored

retrievable storage installation (MRS)

under 10 CFR part 72 shall become

effective only upon order of the

Commission. The Director of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards shall not

issue an initial license for the

construction and operation of an

independent spent fuel storage

installation (ISFSI) located at a site

other than a reactor site or a monitored

retrievable storage installation (MRS)

under 10 CFR part 72 until expressly

authorized to do so by the Commission.

* * * * *

PART 72—LICENSING

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT

NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL

RADIOACTIVE WASTE

3. 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 (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 (43

U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157,

10161, 10168).

Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs.

142(b) and 148 (c), (d), Pub. L. 100–203, 101

Stat. 1330–232, 1330–236 (42 U.S.C.

10162(b), 10168 (c), (d). Section 72.46 also

issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.

2239); section 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).

4. In § 72.46, paragraph (d) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 72.46 Public hearings.

* * * * *

(d) If no request for a hearing or

petition for leave to intervene is filed

within the time prescribed in the notice

of proposed action and opportunity for

hearing, the Director, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards or the

Director’s designee may take the

proposed action, and thereafter shall

promptly inform the appropriate State

and local officials and publish a notice

in the Federal Register of the action

taken. In accordance with § 2.764(c) of

this chapter, the Director, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

shall not issue an initial license for the

construction and operation of an ISFSI

located at a site other than a reactor site

or an MRS until expressly authorized to

do so by the Commission.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of April, 1995.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20887

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–10478 Filed 4–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES

SAFETY BOARD

10 CFR Part 1703

FOIA Fee Schedule

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities

Safety Board.

ACTION: Update of FOIA fee schedule.

SUMMARY: The Defense Nuclear

Facilities Safety Board is publishing its

annual update to the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA) Fee Schedule

pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of the

Board’s regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth M. Pusateri, General Manager,

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board,

625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700,

Washington, DC 20004–2901, (202) 208–

6447.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FOIA

requires each Federal agency covered by

the Act to specify a schedule of fees

applicable to processing of requests for

agency records. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(i). On

March 15, 1991 the Board published for

comment in the Federal Register its

proposed FOIA Fee Schedule. 56 FR

11114. No comments were received in

response to that notice and the Board

issued a final Fee Schedule on May 6,

1991.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of

the Board’s regulations, the Board’s

General Manager will update the FOIA

Fee Schedule once every 12 months.

Previous Fee Schedule updates were

published in the Federal Register and

went into effect, most recently, on May

1, 1994. 59 FR 21640.

Board Action

Accordingly, the Board issues the

following schedule of updated fees for

services performed in response to FOIA

requests:

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety

Board Schedule of Fees for FOIA

Service

[Implementing 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6)]

Search or Review

Charge.

$44 per hour.

Copy Charge (paper) $.05 per page or generally available

commercial rate

(approximately

$.10 per page).

Copy Charge (3.5′′

diskette).

$5.00 per diskette.

Copy Charge (audio

cassette).

$3.00 per cassette.

Duplication of Video $25.00 per video;

$16.50 for each additional video

Copy Charge for

large documents

(e.g., maps, diagrams).

Actual commercial

rate.

Dated: April 25, 1995.

Kenneth M. Pusateri,

General Manager.

[FR Doc. 95–10462 Filed 4–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3670–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–69–AD; Amendment

39–9208; AD 95–09–05]

Airworthiness Directives; British

Aerospace Model Avro 146–RJ Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to certain British Aerospace

Model Avro 146–RJ series airplanes.

This action requires a revision to the

FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM) to alert the flightcrew of the

potential for significant delays in the

Honeywell Standard Windshear

Detection and Recovery Guidance

System (WSS) detecting windshear

when the flaps of the airplane are in

transition. This amendment is prompted

by a report of an accident during which

an airplane encountered severe

windshear during a missed approach.

The actions specified in this AD are

intended to ensure that the flightcrew is

aware that there may be significant

delays in the WSS detecting windshear

when the flaps of the airplane are in

transition.

DATES: Effective on May 15, 1995.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

June 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–NM–

69–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

The information concerning this

amendment may be obtained from or

examined at FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk

Baker, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and

Equipment Branch, ANM–130L, FAA,

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,

Lakewood, California 90712–4137;

telephone (310) 627–5345; fax (310)

627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Recently,

the FAA received a report of an accident

during which the flightcrew executed a

missed approach following an

instrument landing system (ILS)

approach. A McDonnell Douglas Model

DC–9–31 series airplane equipped with

Honeywell Windshear Detection and

Recovery Guidance System (WSS) was

involved in this accident. Investigation

into the cause of this accident revealed

that the airplane encountered severe

windshear during the missed approach.

The FAA has determined that a design

feature in the windshear computer

delayed the detection of windshear

when the airplane’s flaps were in

transition. This condition, if not

corrected, could result in the flightcrew

being unaware of the potential for

significant delays in the WSS detecting

windshear when the flaps of the

airplane are in transition.

On February 14, 1995, the FAA issued

AD 95–04–01, amendment 39–9153 (60

FR 9619, February 21, 1995), applicable

to various transport category airplanes

equipped with a Honeywell Standard

Windshear Detection and Recovery

Guidance System (WSS). That AD

requires a revision to the FAA-approved

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to alert

the flightcrew of the potential for

significant delays in the WSS detecting

windshear when the flaps of the

airplane are in transition. The actions

required by that AD are intended to

prevent the flightcrew from failing to

realize that the WSS does not detect

windshear in a timely manner when the

flaps of the airplane are in transition,