Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59547 

(D) Equipment servicing or 

maintenance requirements; 

(E) Education, training, experience, 

qualification, requalification or other 

employment suitability requirements; 

(F) Requirements for safeguard plans, 

including materials control, accounting, 

or other inventory requirements; 

(G) Scheduling requirements; 

(H) Surety, insurance or indemnity 

requirements; 

(I) Requirements to update references; 

e.g. NRC approved ASME codes, ICRP 

standards, or regulatory guidance; or 

(J) Other requirements of an 

administrative, managerial, 

organizational, or procedural nature. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day 

of October 2008. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–24033 Filed 10–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 51 

RIN: 3150–AI47 

[NRC–2008–0404] 

Consideration of Environmental 

Impacts of Temporary Storage of 

Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor 

Operation 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is proposing to 

revise its generic determination on the 

environmental impacts of storage of 

spent fuel at, or away from, reactor sites 

after the expiration of reactor operating 

licenses. The proposed revision reflects 

findings that the Commission has 

reached in the ‘‘Waste Confidence’’ 

decision update published elsewhere in 

this issue of the Federal Register. The 

Commission now proposes to find that, 

if necessary, spent fuel generated in any 

reactor can be stored safely and without 

significant environmental impacts 

beyond the licensed life for operation 

(which may include the term of a 

revised or renewed license) of that 

reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or 

at either onsite or offsite independent 

spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) 

until a disposal facility can reasonably 

be expected to be available. 

DATE: Submit comments on the 

proposed rule by December 8, 2008. 

Comments received after this date will 

be considered if it is practical to do so, 

but NRC is able to assure consideration 

only for comments received on or before 

this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of the following methods. 

Comments submitted in writing or in 

electronic form will be made available 

for public inspection. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

any information in your submission that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed. 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

[NRC–2008–0404]. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 

301–415–5905; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

E-mail comments to: 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you 

do not receive a reply e-mail confirming 

that we have received your comments, 

contact us directly at 301–415–1677. 

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

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

Federal workdays. (Telephone 301–415– 

1677). 

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– 

415–1101. 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this document 

using the following methods: 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public 

File Area O1 F21, One White Flint 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): Publicly available documents 

created or received at the NRC are 

available electronically at the NRC’s 

Electronic Reading Room at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 

From this page, the public can gain 

entry into ADAMS, which provides text 

and image files of NRC’s public 

documents. If you do not have access to 

ADAMS or if there are problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS, contact the NRC’s PDR 

reference staff at 1–899–397–4209, 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil 

Jensen, Office of the General Counsel, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone 

301–415–8480, e-mail, 

neil.jensen@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In 1990, the Commission concluded a 

generic rulemaking proceeding to 

reassess its degree of confidence that 

radioactive wastes produced by nuclear 

power plants can be safely disposed of, 

to determine when such disposal or 

offsite storage will be available, and to 

determine whether radioactive wastes 

can be safely stored onsite past the 

expiration of existing facility licenses 

until offsite disposal or storage is 

available. This proceeding reviewed 

findings the Commission had made in 

1984 on these issues in a generic 

rulemaking proceeding which became 

known as the ‘‘Waste Confidence 

Proceeding.’’ The 1990 proceeding 

resulted in the following five reaffirmed 

or revised Waste Confidence findings: 

(1) The Commission finds reasonable 

assurance that safe disposal of highlevel radioactive waste (HLW) and spent 

nuclear fuel (SNF) in a mined geologic 

repository is technically feasible; 

(2) The Commission finds reasonable 

assurance that at least one mined 

geologic repository will be available 

within the first quarter of the twentyfirst century, and that sufficient 

repository capacity will be available 

within 30 years beyond the licensed life 

for operation (which may include the 

term of a revised or renewed license) of 

any reactor to dispose of the commercial 

HLW and SNF originating in such 

reactor and generated up to that time; 

(3) The Commission finds reasonable 

assurance that HLW and SNF will be 

managed in a safe manner until 

sufficient repository capacity is 

available to assure the safe disposal of 

all HLW and SNF; 

(4) The Commission finds reasonable 

assurance that, if necessary, spent fuel 

generated in any reactor can be stored 

safely and without significant 

environmental impacts for at least 30 

years beyond the licensed life for 

operation (which may include the term 

of a revised or renewed license) of that 

reactor at its spent fuel storage basin, or 

at either onsite or offsite ISFSIs; 

(5) The Commission finds reasonable 

assurance that safe independent onsite 

spent fuel storage or offsite spent fuel 

storage will be made available if such 

storage capacity is needed. (55 FR 

38474; September 18, 1990). 

These five findings form the basis of 

the Commission’s generic determination 

of no significant environmental impact 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
59548 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

from temporary storage of SNF after 

cessation of reactor operation codified at 

10 CFR 51.23(a): 

The Commission has made a generic 

determination that, if necessary, spent fuel 

generated in any reactor can be stored safely 

and without significant environmental 

impact for at least 30 years beyond the 

licensed life for operation (which may 

include the term of a revised or renewed 

license) of that reactor at its spent fuel 

storage basin or at either onsite or offsite 

independent spent fuel storage installations. 

Further, the Commission believes there is 

reasonable assurance that at least one mined 

geologic repository will be available within 

the first quarter of the twenty-first century, 

and sufficient repository capacity will be 

available within 30 years beyond the licensed 

life for operation of any reactor to dispose of 

the commercial [HLW] and [SNF] originating 

in such reactor and generated up to that time. 

Thus, the environmental impacts of 

spent fuel storage for the period 

following the term of a reactor operating 

license or amendment or reactor 

combined license or amendment or 

initial independent spent fuel storage 

installation license or amendment need 

not be considered in proceedings on 

applications for such licenses or 

amendments. See 10 CFR 51.23(b). 

In 1999, the Commission reviewed its 

Waste Confidence findings and 

concluded that experience and 

developments after 1990 had confirmed 

the findings and made a comprehensive 

reevaluation of the findings 

unnecessary. See 64 FR 68005; 

December 6, 1999. 

Discussion 

Although the Commission concluded 

in 1999 that a detailed reevaluation of 

the Waste Confidence findings was 

unwarranted, it did state that it would 

consider undertaking a comprehensive 

reevaluation of the findings when the 

impending repository development and 

regulatory activities run their course or 

if significant and pertinent unexpected 

events occur, raising substantial doubt 

about the continuing validity of those 

findings. The Commission does not 

believe that these criteria have been 

met. However, the Commission is now 

preparing to conduct a significant 

number of proceedings on combined 

operating license (COL) applications for 

new reactors. This has led NRC to 

explore ways in which these 

proceedings may be conducted more 

efficiently by resolving appropriate 

issues generically in rulemaking 

proceedings. 

Waste confidence is such an issue. 

Prior to NRC’s original Waste 

Confidence proceeding, the Commission 

had stated that, as a matter of policy, it 

‘‘would not continue to license reactors 

if it did not have reasonable confidence 

that the wastes can and will in due 

course be disposed of safely.’’ Natural 

Resources Defense Council; Denial of 

Petition for Rulemaking, 42 FR 34391, 

34393; July 5, 1977. It has been 18 years 

since the Commission last conducted a 

formal review of its Waste Confidence 

findings and there may be concerns that 

one or more of the findings are now outof-date or at least not sufficiently 

supportive of the upcoming COL 

proceedings. In anticipation of these 

concerns, the Commission has prepared 

an update of the 1990 findings and now 

proposes to revise two of the findings. 

A detailed examination of its updated 

findings and proposals is announced 

separately in this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

The update and proposed revisions to 

the findings have led the Commission to 

propose a modification of its generic 

determination of no significant 

environmental impact from the 

temporary storage of spent fuel after 

cessation of reactor operations codified 

at 10 CFR 51.23(a). At present, this 

determination is supported by findings 

reached in 1990 that: (1) Spent fuel can 

be stored safely and without significant 

environmental impacts for at least 30 

years beyond the licensed life for 

operation of the reactor that generated 

the fuel; (2) the Commission has 

reasonable assurance that a geologic 

repository will be available by 2025; and 

(3) all reactors will be able to dispose of 

their spent fuel within 30 years beyond 

their licensed life for operation. As 

modified, this generic determination 

will be simplified to state that, if 

necessary, spent fuel generated in any 

reactor can be stored safely and without 

significant environmental impacts 

beyond the licensed life for operation 

(which may include the term of a 

revised or renewed license) of that 

reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or 

at either onsite or offsite ISFSIs until a 

disposal facility can reasonably be 

expected to be available. The reasons for 

this modification are briefly explained 

below and more fully in the separately 

published update. 

Safe Storage of Spent Fuel 

The Commission’s update has 

strengthened its confidence in the safety 

and security of SNF storage, both in 

water pools and in ISFSIs. In 1990, the 

Commission determined that experience 

with water storage of SNF continued to 

confirm that pool storage is a benign 

environment for SNF that does not lead 

to significant degradation of spent fuel 

integrity; that the water pools in which 

the assemblies are stored will remain 

safe for extended periods; and that 

degradation mechanisms are well 

understood and allow time for 

appropriate remedial action. Similarly, 

by 1990, the Commission had gained 

experience with dry storage systems 

which confirmed the Commission’s 

1984 conclusions that material 

degradation processes in dry storage are 

well-understood, and that dry storage 

systems are simple, passive, and easily 

maintained. In fact, one of the bases for 

the Commission’s confidence in the 

safety of dry storage was its issuance of 

an amendment in 1988 to 10 CFR part 

72 to address spent fuel storage in a 

monitored retrievable storage 

installation (MRS) for a license term of 

40 years, with the possibility of renewal. 

Under the environmental assessment for 

the MRS rule, the Commission found 

confidence in the safety and 

environmental insignificance of dry 

storage for 70 years following a period 

of 70 years of storage in a storage pool, 

for a total of 140 years of storage. See 

NUREG–1092: Environmental 

Assessment for 10 CFR Part 72 

‘‘Licensing Requirements for the 

Independent Storage of Spent Fuel and 

High-Level Radioactive Waste,’’ August 

1984. Nothing has occurred in the 

intervening years which calls into 

question the Commission’s confidence 

in the safety of both wet and dry storage 

of SNF over long periods in the normal 

operation of spent fuel pools and ISFSIs. 

NRC has approved a 20-year license 

renewal for a wet ISFSI and 40-year 

license renewals for two dry ISFSIs. 

Since 1990, the Commission’s 

primary focus has been on potential 

accidents and, since the tragic events of 

September 11, 2001, on security events 

which might lead to a radioactive 

release from stored SNF. Multiple 

studies have been undertaken by NRC 

and by other entities, such as the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), of 

the safety and security of spent fuel 

storage, including the potential for the 

draining of a spent fuel pool leading to 

a zirconium fire and for an airplane 

crashing into an ISFSI. These studies 

and the Commission’s regulatory actions 

in enhancing security at nuclear power 

plants (including the spent fuel pool) 

and at ISFSIs through issuance of orders 

to licensees and through new 

regulations have reinforced NRC’s view 

that spent fuel storage systems are safe 

and secure and without significant 

environmental impacts. See, e.g., Letter 

to Senator Pete V. Domenici from Nils 

J. Diaz, March 14, 2005, enclosing NRC 

Report to Congress on the [NAS] Study 

on the Safety and Security of 

Commercial [SNF] Storage, March 2005; 

Denial of Petitions for Rulemaking: The 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59549 

1 In 2006, Nevada claimed in court that the Waste 

Confidence Rule would skew the judgment of the 

Commissioners during the Yucca Mountain 

licensing proceeding. But the court dismissed the 

claim, ruling that the ‘‘petitioner does not have 

standing to raise this claim because petitioner can 

point to no injury in fact as legal or practical 

consequence of the [Waste Confidence] Rule.’’ State 

of Nevada v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 199 

Fed. Appx. 1; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 24196 (DC Cir., 

September 22, 2006). 

Attorney General of the Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts, The Attorney General 

of California, PRM–51–10, PRM–51–12, 

73 FR 46204; August 8, 2008; In the 

Matter of Private Fuel Storage, LLC, 

CLI–05–19; 62 NRC 403 (2005). 

In sum, the characteristics of spent 

fuel storage facilities, the studies of the 

safety and security of spent fuel storage, 

NRC’s extensive experience in 

regulating spent fuel storage and ISFSIs 

and in certifying dry cask storage 

systems, and NRC’s actions in 

approving 40-year license renewals for 

two ISFSIs (meaning that the safety of 

dry storage after licensed operation at 

these ISFSIs has been approved for at 

least a 60-year period) confirm the 

Commission’s confidence that spent fuel 

storage is safe and secure over long 

periods of time. The current generic 

determination is phrased in terms of 

confidence that SNF can be stored safely 

and without significant environmental 

impacts for at least 30 years beyond the 

licensed life for operation of the reactor. 

The Commission explained in 1990 that 

this time period was not intended to 

represent any technical limitation for 

safe and environmentally benign 

storage; rather, this time period only 

reflected its expectation that sufficient 

repository capacity would be available 

for any reactor’s spent fuel within 30 

years of the end of its licensed 

operations. See 55 FR 38509; September 

18, 1990. For the reasons explained 

briefly below, and more fully in the 

separately published update, the 

Commission no longer finds it useful to 

include this time limitation in its 

generic determination that SNF can be 

stored safely and without significant 

environmental impacts after the end of 

a reactor’s licensed operation. 

The Availability of a Repository 

The Commission’s accumulated 

experience of the safety of long-term 

spent fuel storage with no significant 

environmental impact and its 

accumulated experience of the safe 

management of spent fuel storage during 

and after the expiration of the reactor 

operating license have motivated it to 

propose that, instead of predicting a 

particular date (currently 2025) for the 

availability of a repository, it would be 

more appropriate to make a general 

finding of reasonable assurance that 

SNF generated in any reactor can be 

stored safely and without significant 

environmental impacts until a disposal 

facility can reasonably be expected to be 

available. Dispensing with the 2025 date 

does not signify a lack of confidence 

that a repository will be available by 

that date. DOE submitted its license 

application for the proposed repository 

at Yucca Mountain, Nevada on June 3, 

2008 and on September 08, 2008, NRC 

Staff notified DOE that it found the 

application acceptable for docketing (73 

FR 53284; September 15, 2008). The 

NRC has no reason at this point to 

conclude that the availability of a 

repository by 2025 is not possible and 

it would be premature to revise the date 

for that reason. However, the 

Commission recognizes that a repository 

can only be available by that date if the 

Commission ultimately renders a 

favorable decision on the application. 

Those decisions must await the outcome 

of any NRC licensing proceedings held 

on the application. The Commission has 

many times affirmed its commitment to 

be an impartial adjudicator of the 

application and does not believe that 

the existence of the 2025 date poses any 

threat to its commitment 1, but the 

Commission now has an opportunity to 

reconsider the issue of repository 

availability and believes that deleting 

this date will have the advantage of 

removing even an appearance of 

prejudgment in a licensing proceeding 

for Yucca Mountain. 

The Commission’s proposal with 

respect to the availability of a repository 

focuses attention on when it may be 

reasonable to expect that a repository 

will be available. The Commission 

proposes to use a ‘‘target date’’ approach 

as described in its proposed revision of 

Waste Confidence Finding 2. This 

approach is used by many nations with 

geologic repository programs and can be 

a useful vehicle for considering the 

complex technical and institutional 

issues involved in predicting repository 

availability. The NRC believes that it is 

reasonable to assume that it will be 

known by 2025 whether a repository is 

available at the Yucca Mountain site 

and intends to use this date as the 

starting-off point for a new repository 

program on the assumption that, for 

whatever reason, a repository does not 

become available at Yucca Mountain. 

The Commission remains confident that 

disposal of SNF and HLW in a geologic 

repository is technically feasible and 

that DOE should be able to locate a 

suitable site for repository development 

in no more time than was needed for the 

Yucca Mountain repository program 

(about 20 years). However, both 

domestic and international 

developments have made clear that 

confidence in the technical feasibility of 

a repository alone is not sufficient to 

bring about the broader societal and 

political acceptance for a repository. 

Achieving this broader support for 

construction of a repository at a 

particular site involves many different 

types of public outreach which, based 

on international examples described in 

the update, suggests a range of 25–35 

years to obtain. This means that if a new 

repository program began in 2025, it 

would be reasonable to expect that a 

repository would become available by 

2050–2060. It must be emphasized that 

this does not represent a hard and fast 

date by which a repository must be 

available for safety reasons. The 

Commission did not define a period 

when a repository will be needed for 

safety or environmental reasons in 1990 

and it is not doing so now; it is only 

explaining its view of when repository 

capacity may be reasonably expected to 

be available. For this reason, the 

Commission proposes to delete 

reference to the availability date for the 

repository from its generic 

determination. 

Availability of Repository Capacity for 

Disposal of Spent Fuel From All 

Reactors 

At present, the Commission’s generic 

determination of no significant 

environmental impact from the 

temporary storage of spent fuel after 

cessation of reactor operation includes a 

prediction that sufficient repository 

capacity will be available within 30 

years beyond the licensed life for 

operation of any reactor for disposal of 

its spent fuel. This prediction was not 

based on safety or environmental 

considerations; it was based on finding 

that 30 years beyond the licensed life for 

operation of even the earliest reactors 

would not occur until after 2025. Thus, 

the Commission’s confidence that a 

repository would be available by 2025 

still meant that no reactor would need 

to store its SNF for more than 30 years 

beyond its licensed life for operation. If 

it is assumed that a repository will not 

be available until 2050–2060, this 

prediction can no longer be maintained. 

There are 18 reactor licenses that will 

expire between 2009 and 2020 and an 

additional 44 licenses that will expire 

between 2021 and 2030. See 2007–2008 

USNRC Information Digest, NUREG– 

1350, Vol. 19, Table 11, p.48 

(Information Digest). For licenses that 

are not renewed, some spent fuel will 

need to be stored for more than 30 years 

beyond the licensed life for operation. 

There are 22 reactors which were 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
59550 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

formerly licensed to operate, but which 

have been permanently shut down. See 

Information Digest, Appendix B. For 

most of these plants, 30 years beyond 

the licensed life for operation will fall 

in the 2030s and 2040s. Thus, for 

virtually all of these plants, spent fuel 

will have to be stored beyond 30 years 

from the expiration of the license if a 

repository is not available until 2050– 

2060. For this reason, the Commission 

is proposing to modify its generic 

determination to delete the prediction 

that sufficient repository capacity will 

be available within 30 years beyond the 

expiration of the licensed life for 

operation on all reactors. As stated 

above, this was not a safety finding and 

the deletion is made solely to be 

consistent with an assumption that a 

repository will not be available until 

2050–2060. The Commission is 

proposing to revise Finding 2 to predict 

that repository capacity will be available 

within 50–60 years beyond the licensed 

life for operation of all reactors (and is 

requesting public comment on whether 

a timeframe should be included at all in 

Finding 2—see below) and, consistent 

with this, is proposing to revise Finding 

4 to find that spent fuel generated in any 

reactor can be stored safely and without 

significant environmental impact for at 

least 60 years beyond the licensed life 

for operation of the reactor. 

Specific Question for Public Comment 

The Commission’s proposed revision 

of Finding 2 to include a timeframe for 

availability of repository capacity 

within 50–60 years beyond the licensed 

life for operation of all reactors is based 

on its assessment not only of its 

understanding of the technical issues 

involved, but also predictions of the 

time needed to bring about the 

necessary societal and political 

acceptance for a repository site. 

Recognizing the inherent difficulties 

in making such predictions, the 

Commission seeks specific comment on 

whether it should revise its approach to 

Finding 2 and adopt a more general 

finding of reasonable assurance that 

SNF generated in any reactor can be 

stored safely and without significant 

environmental impacts until a disposal 

facility can reasonably be expected to be 

available. In other words, in response to 

the concerns raised by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit in State of Minnesota v. NRC, 

602 F.2d 412 (1979) that precipitated 

the original Waste Confidence 

proceeding, the Commission could now 

say that there is no need to be 

concerned about the possibility that 

spent fuel may need to be stored at 

onsite or offsite storage facilities at the 

expiration of the license (including a 

renewed license) until such time as a 

repository is available because we have 

reasonable assurance that spent fuel can 

be so stored for long periods of time, 

safely and without significant 

environmental impact. Such a finding 

would be made on the basis of the 

Commission’s accumulated experience 

of the safety of long-term spent fuel 

storage with no significant 

environmental impact (see Finding 4) 

and its accumulated experience of the 

safe management of spent fuel storage 

during and after the expiration of the 

reactor operating license (see Finding 3). 

The Commission seeks comment on 

this alternative revision of Finding 2 

and whether additional information is 

needed for or accompanying changes 

should be made to its other Findings on 

the long term storage of spent fuel if 

such a revision of Finding 2 were to be 

adopted. 

Summary of Proposed Amendments by 

Section 

Section 51.23(a) would be amended to 

provide the Commission’s generic 

determination that, if necessary, spent 

fuel generated in any reactor can be 

stored safely and without significant 

environmental impacts beyond the 

licensed life for operation (which may 

include the term of a revised or renewed 

license) of that reactor at its spent fuel 

storage basin or at either onsite or offsite 

ISFSIs until a disposal facility can 

reasonably be expected to be available. 

Plain Language 

The Presidential memorandum ‘‘Plain 

Language in Government Writing,’’ 

published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883), 

directed that the Government’s writing 

be in clear and accessible language. The 

NRC requests comments on this 

proposed rule specifically with respect 

to the clarity and effectiveness of the 

language used. Comments should be 

sent to the NRC as explained in the 

ADDRESSES portion of this document. 

Voluntary Consensus Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–113) requires that Federal agencies 

use technical standards that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies unless the 

use of such a standard is inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. In this proposed rule, NRC 

would modify its generic determination 

that, if necessary, spent fuel generated 

in any reactor can be stored safely and 

without significant environmental 

impacts for at least 30 years beyond the 

licensed life for operation (which may 

include the term of a revised or renewed 

license) of that reactor at its spent fuel 

storage basin or at either onsite or offsite 

ISFSIs. This action does not constitute 

the establishment of a standard that 

establishes generally applicable 

requirements. 

Finding of No Significant 

Environmental Impact: Availability 

This proposed rule amends 10 CFR 

part 51 of the Commission’s regulations 

to modify the generic determination 

currently codified in Part 51 which was 

made by the Commission in the 1990 

Waste Confidence rulemaking 

proceeding. That generic determination 

was that for at least 30 years beyond a 

reactor’s licensed life for operation 

(which may include the term of a 

revised or renewed license) no 

significant environmental impacts will 

result from the storage of spent fuel 

generated in that reactor in its spent fuel 

storage basin or at either onsite or offsite 

independent spent fuel storage 

installations. The proposed 

modification provides that, if necessary, 

spent fuel generated in any reactor can 

be stored safely and without significant 

environmental impacts beyond the 

licensed life for operation (which may 

include the term of a revised or renewed 

license) of that reactor at its spent fuel 

storage basin or at either onsite or offsite 

independent spent fuel storage 

installations until a disposal facility can 

reasonably be expected to be available. 

The environmental analysis on which 

the revised generic determination is 

based can be found in the proposed 

revision and update to the Waste 

Confidence findings published 

elsewhere in this issue. This proposed 

rulemaking formally incorporating the 

revised generic determination in the 

Commission’s regulations has no 

separate independent environmental 

impact. The proposed revisions and 

update to the Waste Confidence findings 

are available as specified in the 

ADDRESSES section of this notice. 

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a new or amended information 

collection requirement subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

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

requirements were approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

approval number 3150–0021. 

Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to a request for information or an 

information collection requirement 

unless the requesting document 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59551 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Regulatory Analysis 

A draft regulatory analysis has not 

been prepared for this proposed 

regulation because this regulation does 

not establish any requirements that 

would place a burden on licensees. 

Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

Commission certifies that this rule, if 

adopted, would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The proposed 

rule would describe a revised basis for 

continuing in effect the current 

provisions of 10 CFR 51.23(b) which 

provides that no discussion of any 

environmental impact of spent fuel 

storage in reactor facility storage pools 

or ISFSIs for the period following the 

term of the reactor operating license or 

amendment or initial ISFSI license or 

amendment for which application is 

made is required in any environmental 

report, environmental impact statement, 

environmental assessment, or other 

analysis prepared in connection with 

certain actions. This rule affects only 

the licensing and operation of nuclear 

power plants or ISFSIs. Entities seeking 

or holding Commission licenses for 

these facilities do not fall within the 

scope of the definition of ‘‘small 

entities’’ set forth in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act or the size standards 

established by the NRC at 10 CFR 2.810. 

Backfit Analysis 

The NRC has determined that the 

backfit rule (§§ 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, or 

76.76) does not apply to this proposed 

rule because this amendment would not 

involve any provisions that would 

impose backfits as defined in the backfit 

rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not 

required. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 51 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Environmental impact 

statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear 

power plants and reactors, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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. 553, the NRC 

is proposing to adopt the following 

amendment to 10 CFR Part 51. 

PART 51—ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR 

DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED 

REGULATORY FUNCTIONS 

1. The authority citation for Part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as 

amended, sec. 1701, 106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 

2953, (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2297(f)); secs. 201, as 

amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 

1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); sec. 1704, 112 

Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Subpart A 

also issued under National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, secs. 102, 104, 105, 83 

Stat. 853–854, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332, 

4334, 4335), and Public Law 95–604, Title II, 

92 Stat. 3033–3041; and sec. 193, Public Law 

101–575, 104 Stat. 2835 (42 U.S.C. 2243). 

Sections 51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 41.80, and 51.97 

also issued under secs. 135, 141, Public Law 

97–425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241, and sec. 148, 

Public Law 100–203, 101 Stat. 1330–223 (42 

U.S.C. 10155, 10161, 10168). Section 51.22 

also issued under sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688, as 

amended by 92 Stat. 3036–3038 (42 U.S.C. 

2021) and under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 

1982, sec. 121, 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C. 

10141). Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 

also under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 

sec 114(f), 96 Stat 2216, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 10134 (f)). 

2. In § 51.23, paragraph (a) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 51.23 Temporary storage of spent fuel 

after cessation of reactor operation— 

generic determination of no significant 

environmental impact. 

(a) The Commission has made a 

generic determination that, if necessary, 

spent fuel generated in any reactor can 

be stored safely and without significant 

environmental impacts beyond the 

licensed life for operation (which may 

include the term of a revised or renewed 

license) of that reactor at its spent fuel 

storage basin or at either onsite or offsite 

independent spent fuel storage 

installations until a disposal facility can 

reasonably be expected to be available. 

* * * * * 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day 

of September 2008. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–23384 Filed 10–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 51 

[Docket ID–2008–0482] 

Waste Confidence Decision Update 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Update and proposed revision 

of Waste Confidence Decision. 

SUMMARY: On September 18, 1990, the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC 

or Commission) issued a decision 

reaffirming and revising, in part, the five 

Waste Confidence findings reached in 

its 1984 Waste Confidence Decision. 

The 1984 decision and the 1990 review 

were products of rulemaking 

proceedings designed to assess the 

degree of assurance that radioactive 

wastes generated by nuclear power 

plants can be safely disposed of, to 

determine when such disposal or offsite 

storage would be available, and to 

determine whether radioactive wastes 

can be safely stored onsite past the 

expiration of existing facility licenses 

until offsite disposal or storage is 

available. The Commission has decided 

to again undertake a review of its Waste 

Confidence findings as part of an effort 

to enhance the efficiency of combined 

operating license proceedings for 

applications for nuclear power plants 

anticipated in the near future. To assure 

that its Waste Confidence findings are 

up-to-date, the Commission has 

prepared an update of the findings and 

proposes to revise two of the findings. 

The purpose of this notice is to seek 

public comment on the update and the 

proposed revisions. 

The Commission proposes that the 

second and fourth findings in the Waste 

Confidence Decision be revised as 

follows: 

Finding 2: The Commission finds 

reasonable assurance that sufficient 

mined geologic repository capacity can 

reasonably be expected to be available 

within 50–60 years beyond the licensed 

life for operation (which may include 

the term of a revised or renewed license) 

of any reactor to dispose of the 

commercial high-level radioactive waste 

and spent fuel originating in such 

reactor and generated up to that time. 

Finding 4: The Commission finds 

reasonable assurance that, if necessary, 

spent fuel generated in any reactor can 

be stored safely without significant 

environmental impacts for at least 60 

years beyond the licensed life for 

operation (which may include the term 

of a revised or renewed license) of that 

reactor in a combination of storage in its 

spent fuel storage basin and either 

onsite or offsite independent spent fuel 

storage installations. 

The Commission proposes to reaffirm 

the remaining findings. Each finding, 

any proposed revisions, and the reasons 

for revising or reaffirming them are 

discussed below. In keeping with the 

proposed revised Findings 2 and 4, the 

Commission is publishing concurrently 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS