Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/10/16/2012-25366/petition-for-rulemaking-submitted-by-c-10-research-and-education-foundation-inc
Timestamp: 2017-11-18 14:11:12
Document Index: 324339957

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 72', 'art 72', '§\u200972', 'art 72', 'art 50', 'art 50', '§\u200972', '§\u200972', '§\u200972', 'art 72', 'art 72']

Federal Register :: Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc.
A Proposed Rule by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on 10/16/2012
77 FR 63254
63254-63260 (7 pages)
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2012-25366 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2012-25366
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) received a petition for rulemaking (PRM) dated November 24, 2008, filed by Ms. Sandra Gavutis, Executive Director for C-10 Research and Education Foundation Inc. (the petitioner). The petition was docketed by the NRC and assigned Docket No. PRM-72-6. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations concerning dry cask safety, security, transferability, and longevity. The petitioner made 12 requests. The NRC is denying nine of the petitioner's requests, but will consider one request in the rulemaking process. Action on two requests is being reserved for future rulemaking determinations, as these requests are currently under consideration by the NRC. The NRC will publish another Federal Register notice to inform the public of the Commission's decision for these two requests. The docket for this PRM will remain open until action is taken on the two remaining requests.
Further NRC action on the issues raised by this petition can be found on the Federal rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2009-0558, which is the identification for the future rulemaking.
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public comments and supporting materials related to this petition can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on the petition Docket ID NRC-2008-0649 or the future rulemaking Docket ID NRC-2009-0558. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Jeffery Lynch, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5041, email: Jeffery.Lynch@nrc.gov.
The petitioner requested that the NRC amend part 72 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste,” to revise the NRC requirements for interim dry cask storage of spent fuel. Specifically, the petitioner requested that the NRC's regulations be amended to:
As described in the response to Petitioner Request 9, the NRC is still considering the request to require a hot cell transfer station for decommissioned reactor facilities as part of its review of potential regulatory changes to accommodate the storage of SNF for multiple renewal periods. Therefore, at this time, the NRC does not agree with NEI that this request should be denied. Also as discussed below in the response to Petitioner Requests 5 through 8, the NRC agrees with NEI that there is no need for rulemaking regarding either ASME Code requirements or to include funding to conduct effectiveness studies of age-related material degradation.
For the reasons discussed in this section, the NRC is considering this petition in part, denying it in part, and reserving it in part for a future rulemaking determination. The NRC is denying Petitioner Requests 1, 2, 3, 5 through 8, 10, and 12, as listed in the Background section of this document, because the petitioner has not provided new and significant information that would warrant the NRC revising its regulations. Petitioner Request 11 will be considered, as part of the ongoing ISFSI security rulemaking effort (Docket ID NRC-2009-0558). In this section, the description of each request being denied, reserved for future rulemaking determination, and considered in future rulemaking is summarized immediately before the NRC response.
Action on Petitioner Requests 4 and 9 are reserved for future rulemaking determinations. Petitioner Request 4, which requested that the NRC require that dry casks are qualified for transport at the time of onsite storage approval certification, is being evaluated as part of COMSECY-10-0007, “Project Plan for the Regulatory Program Review to Support Extended Storage and Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel” (ADAMS Accession No. ML101390413). The staff identified storage and transportation compatibility as a potential policy issue in COMSECY-10-0007, Enclosure 1, Appendix A, “Project Plan for the Extended Storage and Transportation Regulatory Program Review,” (ADAMS Accession No. ML101390426).
The docket for PRM-72-6 will remain open and consist of Petitioner Requests 4 and 9. Once the Commission takes action on the two remaining requests, the NRC will publish another document in the Federal Register to give notice of the Commission's decision.
Petitioner Request 1: Prohibit non-conforming pre-built full-scale casks, specifically built for NRC certification testing, from being put into production under industry pressure to “accept-as-is.”
NRC Response: The NRC is denying Petitioner Request 1. The NRC's regulations provide that only those casks that have been approved under the procedures of Subpart L, 10 CFR part 72 and subsequently listed in § 72.214, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” may be used under a 10 CFR part 72 general license.[1] The NRC is not aware of, nor did the petition state where any non-conforming, pre-built, full-scale casks were placed into service.
The petitioner asserted that the NRC must require an in-depth technical review of the cask design basis at the 20-year reapproval period to catch and address cask deterioration. The petitioner stated that there is a lack of regulatory requirements to address the extension of CoCs from 20 years to 60 years and that CoCs are being extended without the technical data, regulatory evaluation, or scrutiny to protect the public health and safety. Specifically, there is limited data to determine the extent of degradation of storage casks and the spent fuel it contains. The petitioner cited “The Dry Cask Storage Characterization Project,” a study jointly funded by the NRC, the Electric Power Research Institute, and the U.S. Department of Energy that is detailed in NUREG/CR-6831 (ADAMS Accession No. ML032731021), “Examination of Spent PWR Fuel Rods after 15 Years in Dry Storage” and NUREG/CR-6745, “Dry Cask Storage Characterization Project—Phase 1: Castor V/21 Cask Examination and Opening” (ADAMS Accession No. ML013020363). The petitioner also refers to the opening of, subsequent to this study, several storage casks at the Surry ISFSI due to inner seal failures. These casks were opened after a shorter storage duration than the cask opened in the study. The petitioner stated that although the spent fuel in these cases was found acceptable, there were signs of degradation, and therefore, there is no conclusive data for integrity of casks or the condition of the nuclear fuel.
NRC Response: The NRC is denying Petitioner Request 2. With respect to the request that the NRC incorporate the latest version of the ASME B&PV Code in its regulations, the NRC has determined that amending its regulations to incorporate the latest versions of the AMSE B&PV Code is not necessary to ensure that adequate codes and standards are applied for the material selection, fabrication, design, examination, and testing of dry cask storage systems. As stated in the NRC's standard review plans for spent fuel storage, NUREG-1536 and NUREG-1567, the NRC staff reviews ISFSI and storage cask designs to verify that they incorporate appropriate national codes and standards, in order to comply with NRC regulations. Storage casks approved by the NRC are designed and fabricated to the ASME B&PV Code, Section III, Division 1 for steel confinements and Division 2 for concrete containments. While Section III, Division 3 of the ASME B&PV Code has been specifically written by ASME for containment systems for spent fuel transportation packages and storage casks, it has not been endorsed by the NRC. The NRC staff is reviewing ASME Code Section III, Division 3 and if endorsed, the NRC staff intends to develop guidance for its use in future fabrication of dry storage casks. In addition, with regard to the ASME Code, the petitioner stated that the code includes a requirement that storage cask designs be designed for a minimum of 100-years. A 100-year minimum age-related degradation requirement, however, is not in the ASME B&PV Code.
Petitioner Request 3: Require that the NRC approve, as part of the original ISFSI certification process and construction license, a method for dry cask transfer capacity that will allow for immediate and safe maintenance on a faulty or failing cask. The temperature of the fuel inside a dry storage cask may reach 400 degrees Fahrenheit, while irradiated waste storage pool water is kept at 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Reinsertion of the canister into the pool and resultant steam flash is a risk to workers, and would thermally shock the fuel rods, potentially damaging the fuel assemblies.
NRC Response: The NRC is denying Petitioner Request 3. Dry cask storage systems are designed to be robust, and operating experience indicates that they have been safely used to store fuel for over 20 years. Additionally, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.236(h), “Specific Requirements for Spent Fuel Storage Cask Approval and Fabrication,” the applicant must ensure that the spent fuel storage cask is compatible with wet or dry spent fuel loading and unloading facilities. As described in NUREG-1536, a reflood analysis can be used to show that the thermally induced stresses on fuel rods are not sufficient to damage the rods. The typical operating procedure introduces water into the canister at a very low flow rate. This flow rate allows the steam that forms at the bottom of the canister, well below the active fuel length, to cool the fuel as a vapor to reduce the thermal-induced stresses on the fuel. When the bottom portion of the canister is sufficiently cool for the water level to rise to the active fuel, the rate at which the water level rises is sufficient to cool the fuel rods without causing thermal stresses that would damage the fuel. These operating procedures allow maintenance to be performed safely without undue risk to workers or the public. The petitioner did not provide any new or significant information to indicate that spent fuel assemblies would be damaged if placed back into the spent fuel pool or that existing requirements do not adequately address worker safety.
Petitioner Requests 5 through 8: Require the most current ASME Codes and Standards be adopted for all spent fuel storage containers without exception; require ASME Code stamping for fabrication; require that all fabrication materials be supplied by ASME-approved material suppliers who are certificate holders; and require that the current ASME Codes and Standards for conservative heat treatment and leak tightness be adopted and enforced.
NRC Response: The NRC is denying Petitioner Requests 5 through 8, because the NRC has determined that revising the regulations is not the most effective or efficient method to adopt the ASME Code for the design and fabrication of spent fuel dry storage casks. As stated in NUREG-1567, the industry has adopted, and the NRC has accepted, ASME Code Section III, Division 1 and Division 2 as acceptable standards for the design and fabrication of dry storage casks. It is expressly understood, by the NRC and industry, however, that dry storage casks are not pressure vessels and, as such, ASME Code Section III could not be implemented without allowing some exceptions to its requirements. Therefore, the NRC allows specific exceptions to the code for those requirements that are not applicable or practical to implement for spent fuel dry cask storage systems. Further, the petitioner asserted that adherence to ASME B&PV Code and NCA 3800 of the ASME Code is required to meet the quality assurance requirements in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B. Storage casks are not, however, required by the NRC's regulations to meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.”
Petitioner Request 10: Require real-time heat and radiation monitoring at ISFSIs at all nuclear power plant sites and away-from-reactor storage sites maintained by the utilities and that the monitoring data be transmitted in real-time to affected State health, safety, and environmental regulators.
NRC Response: The NRC is denying Petitioner Request 10, because regular monitoring for radiation at and near ISFSIs is currently required by § 72.44(d)(2) for specific licensees, with reporting required at 12-month intervals as specified in § 72.44(d)(3), and similarly for general licensees in 10 CFR 50.36(a)(2). There have not been any instances of measurable radiation doses from ISFSIs at the site boundaries. The storage cask technical specifications require that concrete storage casks with vents for natural convection provide cooling to the canister and have temperature-monitoring devices or periodic visual monitoring to ensure that the inlet and outlet vents are free of blockage that would inhibit convective airflow.
The applicant demonstrates performance of the thermal design and thermal limits through analyses during the certification and licensing process. The cask systems are also periodically examined by the licensee to verify there are no adverse conditions that would impede thermal performance. Given the surveillance, monitoring, and inspection programs, the risk of immediate failure or emergency is remote. The NRC staff has determined that the current regulatory requirements provide adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment.
While the petitioner referenced a proposed rule, the final rule (64 FR 33178; June 22, 1999), revised the regulations for continuous monitoring of the dry storage confinement system to allow periodic monitoring consistent with the storage cask design requirements and to require that instrumentation systems for dry storage casks be provided in accordance with cask design requirements. In the rulemaking, the NRC determined that continuous, uninterrupted control systems and monitoring are required for wet storage systems that have active heat removal and other active systems, whose safety depends on the continued operation of these systems. Dry storage casks, whose safety solely relies on passive heat removal, do not require continuous, uninterrupted control systems and monitoring as wet storage does. The NRC revised the rules in § 72.122(h)(4) and (i) to require monitoring and instrumentation systems that are consistent with the storage cask design basis.
Petitioner Request 11: Require HOSS at all nuclear power plants as well as away-from-reactor dry cask storage sites; and that all nuclear industry interim on-site or off-site dry cask storage installations or ISFSIs be fortified against terrorist attack. In addition, all sites should be safeguarded against accident and age-related leakage.
NRC Response: Regarding comments about HOSS requirements at nuclear power plant ISFSIs and away-from-reactor dry storage sites, in the response to Petitioner Request 11, the NRC notes that it has conducted considerable analyses regarding the safety of dry storage casks in use in the United States. The agency has, consistently, found that the robust nature of dry storage systems approved by the NRC under 10 CFR part 72 assures the protection of public health, safety, and security and therefore has not mandated HOSS. Nevertheless, the NRC is in the process of reviewing a potential rulemaking regarding enhancements to the security of spent fuel dry storage facilities (SRM-SECY-10-0114 and SRM-SECY-07-0148—ADAMS Accession Nos. ML103210025 and ML073530119, respectively). Because Petitioner Request 11 raises issues that are relevant to this rulemaking, the NRC will address this item in the context of this proposed rule. Further information regarding NRC action on Petitioner Request 11 will be available at http://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket ID NRC-2009-0558.
Petitioner Request 12: Establish funding to conduct on-going studies to provide the data required to accurately define and monitor for age-related material degradation, assess the structural integrity of the casks and fuel cladding in “interim” waste storage.
NRC Response: The NRC is denying Petitioner Request 12 because rulemaking is not the appropriate mechanism for establishing funding for conducting research. The NRC has initiated independent research on the impacts of long term storage of SNF for multiple renewal periods, cooperated with other interested agencies to support materials aging studies, and is participating in an Electric Power Research Institute program that evaluates materials aging issues.
For the reasons previously discussed, the NRC is denying nine of the petitioner's requests (Requests 1, 2, 3, 5 through 8, 10, and 12), will consider one request in the rulemaking process (Request 11), and is deferring action on two requests (Requests 4 and 9). The docket for PRM-72-6 will remain open until the Commission acts, at which time the NRC will publish another document in the Federal Register to notice the Commission's decision.
1. The CoC holder or its contractor fabricates dry storage casks in accordance with the CoC and sells them to 10 CFR part 72 general licensees, who are nuclear power plant operators.
[FR Doc. 2012-25366 Filed 10-15-12; 8:45 am]