[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 82 (Friday, April 28, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20879-20887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10478]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

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.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Rules 
and Regulations
[[Page 20879]]

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; Site-Specific 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 [[Page 20880]] 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 
Sec. 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 
[[Page 20881]] 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  deg.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).

    \1\On 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 long-term 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 
[[Page 20882]] 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, site-generated 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 [[Page 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 [[Page 20884]] 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 [[Page 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 Sec. 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). [[Page 20886]] 

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 Sec. 2.764, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are revised to read 
as follows:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 72.46, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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.

    [[Page 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