Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2009/03/03/E9-4444/c-10-research-and-education-foundation-inc-receipt-of-petition-for-rulemaking
Timestamp: 2014-04-23 23:46:15
Document Index: 493913719

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 72', 'art 72', 'art 72', '§ 72', '§ 72', '§ 72', '§ 72', '§ 72']

Federal Register | C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc.; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking
-9180 (3 pages)
Document Number: E9-4444
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/E9-4444 Regulations.gov Docket Info
C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc.: Upgrade Interim Dry Cask Storage Code Requirements
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
The NRC has received a petition for rulemaking dated November 24, 2008, submitted by Sandra Gavutis on behalf of the C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc. (petitioner). The petitioner requests that the NRC amend 10 CFR Part 72, “Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste.” The petitioner requests that Part 72 be amended to require licensees to strictly adhere to ASME code requirements for design and use of spent fuel storage casks. The petitioner also requests that 10 CFR 72.42 be amended to clarify requirements for “renewal” and “reapproval” of certificates of compliance (CoCs) of spent fuel storage casks and to address license requirements for multiple cask designs under different expiration dates at the same ISFSI. The petitioner is also concerned that NRC requirements allow 20-year CoCs for spent fuel storage casks to be arbitrarily extended up to 60 years without adequate evaluation for protection of public health and safety. The petitioner also states that the NRC does not require control systems for dry cask storage systems at ISFSIs and that the NRC allows licensees numerous exemptions from design and construction requirements for dry cask storage systems that result in unresolved fabrication and performance issues. The petitioner is also concerned that the requirements for spent fuel storage casks do not adequately consider or address long term degradation of casks. Lastly, the petitioner states that NRC regulations do not adequately specify requirements for protection of ISFSIs and dry storage casks systems from terrorist attacks or environmental elements.
The petitioner also states that the renewal process for spent fuel cask designs in 10 CFR Part 72 is unclear. Specifically, the petitioner states that § 72.42(a) clearly specifies that the initial term for a site-specific ISFSI must be for a fixed term not to exceed 20 years from the date of issuance. The petitioner states that an application for reapproval of a spent fuel storage cask design implies that the NRC would reevaluate the design basis of the original cask design with current standards and code requirements for the 20-year CoC storage cask license. The petitioner believes that current NRC practice under § 72.42 uses the term “renewal” which implies that the design requirements remain the same as in the original CoC and “simply replaces the original license.” The petitioner states that the NRC has no clear requirements that distinguish between “renewal” versus “reapproval” and has not addressed what the license requirements are for multiple cask designs under different expiration dates at the same ISFSI.
The petitioner states that although the NRC has determined that spent fuel storage casks design and construction is as important as that of a reactor vessel, the NRC makes distinctions between wet and dry storage requirements. The petitioner cites § 72.122(i) as an example that requires instrumentation and control systems be provided to specifically monitor and control heat removal, but states that the NRC does not require control systems for dry cask storage systems at ISFSIs. The petitioner also notes that § 72.124(b) requires specific methods for criticality control but that the NRC has concluded that the potentially corrosive environment in wet storage conditions does not apply to dry storage systems. The petitioner notes that in 1998 the NRC determined that because air and moisture are removed from dry storage casks and replaced with helium, the spent nuclear fuel is then inert and there is no reasonable basis to assume degradation will occur. “Miscellaneous Changes to Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste” (63 FR 31364, 31365; June 9, 1998). However, the petitioner states that this determination is refuted by the May 1996 incident at Point Beach, evidence from the reactor vessel inner seal failures at the Surry facility, and NRC reports of corrosion resulting from salt water air at other reactor sites.
The petitioner lists the following technical concerns regarding dry storage casks: failure of cask materials over long periods of time; inadequate ability to observe and detect those failures because there is no active maintenance in place; difficulty assessing some construction materials for long-term integrity; lack of a formal aging management program; lack of dose rate and heat monitoring for increased heat and radiation levels on ISFSIs and individual casks; and vulnerability to weather-related deterioration and sabotage; and ISFSIs and dry casks are outdoors in plain sight (unlike reactor vessels and spent fuel pools) and are not designed to withstand various terrorist attack scenarios. The casks are the only barrier between radioactive nuclear fuel and the public and the environment while reactor vessels are in a containment building in a controlled environment with a trained team of operators, inspectors, and maintenance staff.
(4) Ensure that dry casks are qualified for transport at the time of onsite storage approval certification. The petitioner states that transport capacity of shipment offsite must be required if an environmental emergency occurs or for security purposes to an alternative storage location or repository as part of the approval criteria. The petitioner suggests that Chapter 1 of the NRC's Standard Review Plan (NUREG 1567) should clearly define the transport requirements in §§ 72.122(i), 72.236(h), and 72.236(m).