C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc.; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking, 9178-9180 [E9-4444]
Download as PDF
9178
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 74, No. 40
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 72
[Docket No. PRM–72–6]; [NRC–2008–0649]
C–10 Research and Education
Foundation, Inc.; Receipt of Petition
for Rulemaking
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Notice
of receipt.
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has received and
requests public comment on a petition
for rulemaking dated November 24,
2008, filed by the C–10 Research and
Education Foundation, Inc. (petitioner).
The petition was docketed by the NRC
and has been assigned Docket No. PRM–
72–6. The petitioner is requesting that
the NRC amend the regulations that
govern licensing requirements for the
independent storage of spent nuclear
fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and
reactor-related greater than class C
waste. The petitioner believes that the
current regulations do not provide
sufficient requirements for safe storage
of spent nuclear fuel in dry cask storage
or in independent spent fuel storage
installations (ISFSIs). The petitioner
states that the NRC does not adequately
enforce the current regulations that
govern dry cask storage by allowing
manufacturers, vendors, and licensees
to use alternatives to the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) Code. The petitioner also states
that the NRC has not specified license
requirements for multiple cask designs
under different expiration dates at the
same ISFSI, has not adequately
considered age-related degradation of
dry cask systems, and has no
requirements in place to address
sabotage and adverse environmental
effects on ISFSIs and current and future
dry cask storage systems.
DATES: Submit comments by May 18,
2009. Comments received after this date
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:19 Mar 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
will be considered if it is practical to do
so, but assurance of consideration
cannot be given except as to comments
received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this petition by any one of the
following methods. Please include
PRM–72–6 in the subject line of your
comments. Comments on petitions
submitted in writing or in electronic
form will be made available for public
inspection. Personal information, such
as your name, address, telephone
number, e-mail address, etc., will not be
removed from your submission.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for documents filed under Docket ID
[NRC–2008–0649]. Address questions
about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher,
301–492–3668; e-mail
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Email 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 number
301–415–1677.
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301–
415–1101.
Publicly available documents related
to this petition may be viewed
electronically on the public computers
located at the NRC’s Public Document
Room (PDR), Room O1 F21, One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy
documents for a fee. Selected
documents, including comments, may
be viewed and downloaded
electronically via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal https://
www.regulations.gov.
Publicly available documents created
or received at the NRC, are available
electronically at the NRC’s Electronic
Reading Room at https://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
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
For a copy of the petition, write to
Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking,
Directives and Editing Branch, Division
of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001. The petition is also available
electronically in ADAMS at
ML083470148.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael T. Lesar, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Telephone: 301–492–3663 or Toll-Free:
1–800–368–5642 or E-mail:
Michael.Lesar@NRC.Gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
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, HighLevel Radioactive Waste, and ReactorRelated 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
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
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 NRC has determined that the
petition meets the threshold sufficiency
requirements for a petition for
rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802. The
petition was docketed by the NRC as
PRM–72–6 on December 11, 2008. The
NRC is soliciting public comment on the
petition for rulemaking.
Discussion of the Petition
The petitioner states that because the
Federal Government for over 50 years
has not resolved the long-term need to
protect the public from exposure to
irradiated nuclear fuel by creating a
permanent high-level waste repository,
the States will inherit the responsibility
to store spent nuclear fuel indefinitely.
The petitioner believes that the NRC is
proposing to change the Nuclear Waste
Confidence rule so there is no deadline
for storage of spent nuclear fuel and that
current NRC regulations are inadequate
and not properly enforced. The
petitioner states that the NRC allows
licensees of dry cask storage systems to
use alternatives to ASME Code
requirements and grants numerous
exemptions to cask designs instead of
requiring strict compliance with current
ASME Code requirements. The
petitioner states that required design
specifications have not been updated
because no current complete studies
exist.
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:19 Mar 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 is also concerned that
the NRC arbitrarily extends CoCs for
spent fuel casks beyond the 20-year
term up to 60 years without evaluating
technical data or regulatory implications
to adequately protect public health and
safety. The petitioner’s chief concerns
are that NRC requirements have not
been updated; manufacture of spent fuel
storage casks is not consistent with
ASME Code requirements; ISFSIs are
not required to be built to withstand a
terrorist attack; and that spent fuel
storage casks are not safeguarded against
accidents, adverse weather-related
events, and leakage caused by agerelated degradation.
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 also states that vital
adequate technical radiation and heat
monitoring data is not included in the
regulations that govern dry storage casks
and that this data is needed to protect
nuclear workers and the public, and for
future dry cask design and fabrication.
The petitioner is also concerned that a
lack of vendor compliance with ASME
Code design requirements exists and
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9179
that the NRC has allowed exemptions to
vendors. The petitioner states that the
NRC’s remedy for this situation has
been to simultaneously cite vendors and
manufacturers with numerous
violations and later approve repeated
corrective actions. The petitioner
believes that dry cask design,
fabrication, and performance issues
remain unresolved by this practice.
The petitioner states that limited data
exists to determine the extent of the
long-term degradation of dry storage
casks and the fuel cladding of the fuel
in some dry cask designs. The petitioner
notes that the NRC did support a
research program, ‘‘The Dry Cask
Storage Characterization Project’’
conducted at the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory; but that this study was
never completed because it was
cancelled 15 years into the planned 20year study timeframe. According to the
petitioner, this study revealed that
degradation of stored fuel was present
when a dry cask at the Surry facility was
opened, but the NRC reported that the
condition of the stored fuel was
acceptable. The petitioner believes that
the study’s inconsistencies did not
provide conclusive data for either the
cask integrity or condition of the stored
spent fuel.
The petitioner also cites a videotape
provided by the Union of Concerned
Scientists of an incident at the Point
Beach facility; a copy of the videotape
was included with the petition. The
petitioner states that the video shows
that the adverse effects of chemical
reactions in a cask could cause heat
build up within the cask. The petitioner
suggests that a sampling of dry casks
certified by the NRC should be opened
periodically and studied for at least 60
years because the NRC has permitted
extension of 20-year dry cask licenses
up to 60 years.
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
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
9180
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
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.
The petitioner suggests that the NRC
regulations be amended as follows:
(1) Prohibit dry storage cask systems
that do not meet NRC certification
requirements from being produced
under what the petitioner states is
industry pressure to ‘‘accept-as-is.’’
(2) Base certification of casks on code
requirements to include design criteria
and technical specifications on a 100year timeframe instead of the current
20-year design specification that the
petitioner views as inadequate. The
petitioner also suggests that the NRC
conduct a regulatory review of an indepth technical evaluation for public
comment at the 20 year CoC reapproval
interval to address cask deterioration
issues.
(3) Approve a method for dry cask
transfer capacity as part of the original
ISFSI certification process and
construction license that will allow for
immediate and safe maintenance on a
faulty or failing cask. The petitioner
states that stored irradiated fuel in dry
casks approaches approximately 400
degrees Fahrenheit while the irradiated
waste storage pool water is kept at 100
degrees Fahrenheit. The petitioner
subsequently asserts that the resubmersion of dry casks and resultant
steam flash threaten workers, and may
thermally shock the irradiated nuclear
fuel rods. The petitioner also states that
the ability to perform maintenance
safely should be a regulatory priority
and that procedures to act promptly in
an emergency situation and safely
transfer spent fuel must be outlined in
NRC regulations.
(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).
(5) Specify that the most current
ASME codes and standards be adopted
for all spent fuel storage containers with
no exceptions. The petitioner states that
the NRC should no longer issue
‘‘justifications and compensatory
measures’’ for ASME codes or allow the
industry to design or manufacture casks
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:19 Mar 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
that conform to safety regulations to
‘‘the maximum extent practical’’ instead
of actual ASME Code requirements. The
petitioner also states that ASME Code
requirements should be enforced
unconditionally, with no exceptions or
exemptions.
(6) Require ASME code stamping for
fabrication, which would specify that an
ASME-certified nuclear inspector, who
is independent from the manufacturer
and vendor, must be onsite at the
fabrication plant. The petitioner also
suggests that code stamping activities be
subject to unannounced NRC
inspections.
(7) Require that all fabrication
materials be supplied by ASMEapproved material suppliers who are
certificate holders. The petitioner is
concerned that if a supplier who is not
certified is used, material certification
under the NG/NF–2130 ASME standard
is not possible and means that material
traceability is not achieved.
(8) Require that the current ASME
Codes and standards for conservative
heat treatment and light tightness are
adopted and enforced.
(9) Require a safe and secure hot cell
transfer station coupled with an
auxiliary pool to be built as part of an
upgraded ISFSI certification and
licensing process. The petitioner states
that the licensee must have a dry cask
transfer capability for maintenance and
during emergency situations after
decommissioning for as long as the
spent fuel remains on site.
(10) Require real-time heat and
radiation monitoring at ISFSIs at all
nuclear power plant sites and storage
facilities that are not located at reactor
sites maintained by the utilities and that
the monitoring data be transmitted in
real-time to affected State health, safety,
and environmental regulators.
(11) Require what the petitioner
describes as ‘‘Hardened Onsite Storage’’
to fortify ISFSIs and dry casks from
terrorist attacks. The petitioner cites a
study by the National Academy of
Sciences entitled, ‘‘Safety and Security
of Commercial Nuclear Fuel Storage,’’
supported by the NRC (Grant No. NRC–
04–04–067). According to the petitioner,
this study states that the NRC should
upgrade the requirements in 10 CFR
Part 72 for dry casks, specifically to
improve resistance to terrorist attacks.
The petitioner also quotes from a paper
describing the potential of terrorist
attacks on dry casks by Gordon
Thompson, the Director of the Institute
for Resource and Security, entitled,
‘‘Assessing Risks of Potential Malicious
Actions at Commercial Nuclear
Facilities: A Case of a Proposed ISFSI at
Diablo Canyon Site’’ (June 27, 2007):
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
‘‘the dry cask storage modules used at
ISFSIs are not designed to resist attack.
At all recently established ISFSIs in the
USA, spent fuel is contained in metal
canisters with a wall thickness of about
1.6 cm. Each canister is surrounded by
a concrete over pack, but the over pack
is penetrated by channels that allow
cooling of the canister by convective
flow of air. Attackers gaining access to
an ISFSI could employ readily available
skills and explosives to penetrate a
canister in a manner that allows free
flow to the spent fuel, and could use
incendiary devices to initiate burning of
fuel cladding, leading to a release of
radioactive material to the atmosphere.’’
(12) Establish funding to conduct
ongoing studies to evaluate the effects of
age-related material degradation on dry
casks and to assess the structural
integrity of the casks and fuel cladding.
The petitioner has stated that these
studies would gather the data necessary
for the management of future damage
and to determine design specifications
for future irradiated nuclear waste
storage.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day
of February 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9–4444 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 55
[EPA–R10–OAR–2009–0111; FRL–8777–6]
Outer Continental Shelf Air
Regulations Consistency Update for
Alaska
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule-consistency
update.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to update a
portion of the Outer Continental Shelf
(‘‘OCS’’) Air Regulations. Requirements
applying to OCS sources located within
25 miles of States’ seaward boundaries
must be updated periodically to remain
consistent with the requirements of the
corresponding onshore area (‘‘COA’’), as
mandated by the Clean Air Act (‘‘the
Act’’). The portion of the OCS air
regulations that is being updated
pertains to the requirements for OCS
sources in the State of Alaska. The
intended effect of approving the OCS
requirements for the State of Alaska is
to regulate emissions from OCS sources
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 3, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9178-9180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4444]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 9178]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 72
[Docket No. PRM-72-6]; [NRC-2008-0649]
C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc.; Receipt of Petition
for Rulemaking
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Notice of receipt.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received and
requests public comment on a petition for rulemaking dated November 24,
2008, filed by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc.
(petitioner). The petition was docketed by the NRC and has been
assigned Docket No. PRM-72-6. The petitioner is requesting that the NRC
amend the regulations that govern licensing requirements for the
independent storage of spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive
waste, and reactor-related greater than class C waste. The petitioner
believes that the current regulations do not provide sufficient
requirements for safe storage of spent nuclear fuel in dry cask storage
or in independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs). The
petitioner states that the NRC does not adequately enforce the current
regulations that govern dry cask storage by allowing manufacturers,
vendors, and licensees to use alternatives to the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code. The petitioner also states that the
NRC has not specified license requirements for multiple cask designs
under different expiration dates at the same ISFSI, has not adequately
considered age-related degradation of dry cask systems, and has no
requirements in place to address sabotage and adverse environmental
effects on ISFSIs and current and future dry cask storage systems.
DATES: Submit comments by May 18, 2009. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of
consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or
before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this petition by any one of the
following methods. Please include PRM-72-6 in the subject line of your
comments. Comments on petitions submitted in writing or in electronic
form will be made available for public inspection. Personal
information, such as your name, address, telephone number, e-mail
address, etc., will not be removed from your submission.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and
search for documents filed under Docket ID [NRC-2008-0649]. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, 301-492-3668; 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
number 301-415-1677.
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
301-415-1101.
Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed
electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR), Room O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor
will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments,
may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal https://www.regulations.gov.
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.
For a copy of the petition, write to Michael T. Lesar, Chief,
Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001. The petition is also available
electronically in ADAMS at ML083470148.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555. Telephone: 301-492-3663 or Toll-Free: 1-800-368-5642 or E-mail:
Michael.Lesar@NRC.Gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
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
[[Page 9179]]
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 NRC has determined that the petition meets the threshold
sufficiency requirements for a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR
2.802. The petition was docketed by the NRC as PRM-72-6 on December 11,
2008. The NRC is soliciting public comment on the petition for
rulemaking.
Discussion of the Petition
The petitioner states that because the Federal Government for over
50 years has not resolved the long-term need to protect the public from
exposure to irradiated nuclear fuel by creating a permanent high-level
waste repository, the States will inherit the responsibility to store
spent nuclear fuel indefinitely. The petitioner believes that the NRC
is proposing to change the Nuclear Waste Confidence rule so there is no
deadline for storage of spent nuclear fuel and that current NRC
regulations are inadequate and not properly enforced. The petitioner
states that the NRC allows licensees of dry cask storage systems to use
alternatives to ASME Code requirements and grants numerous exemptions
to cask designs instead of requiring strict compliance with current
ASME Code requirements. The petitioner states that required design
specifications have not been updated because no current complete
studies exist.
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 Sec. 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
Sec. 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 is also concerned that the NRC arbitrarily extends
CoCs for spent fuel casks beyond the 20-year term up to 60 years
without evaluating technical data or regulatory implications to
adequately protect public health and safety. The petitioner's chief
concerns are that NRC requirements have not been updated; manufacture
of spent fuel storage casks is not consistent with ASME Code
requirements; ISFSIs are not required to be built to withstand a
terrorist attack; and that spent fuel storage casks are not safeguarded
against accidents, adverse weather-related events, and leakage caused
by age-related degradation.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 also states that vital adequate technical radiation
and heat monitoring data is not included in the regulations that govern
dry storage casks and that this data is needed to protect nuclear
workers and the public, and for future dry cask design and fabrication.
The petitioner is also concerned that a lack of vendor compliance with
ASME Code design requirements exists and that the NRC has allowed
exemptions to vendors. The petitioner states that the NRC's remedy for
this situation has been to simultaneously cite vendors and
manufacturers with numerous violations and later approve repeated
corrective actions. The petitioner believes that dry cask design,
fabrication, and performance issues remain unresolved by this practice.
The petitioner states that limited data exists to determine the
extent of the long-term degradation of dry storage casks and the fuel
cladding of the fuel in some dry cask designs. The petitioner notes
that the NRC did support a research program, ``The Dry Cask Storage
Characterization Project'' conducted at the Idaho National Engineering
and Environmental Laboratory; but that this study was never completed
because it was cancelled 15 years into the planned 20-year study
timeframe. According to the petitioner, this study revealed that
degradation of stored fuel was present when a dry cask at the Surry
facility was opened, but the NRC reported that the condition of the
stored fuel was acceptable. The petitioner believes that the study's
inconsistencies did not provide conclusive data for either the cask
integrity or condition of the stored spent fuel.
The petitioner also cites a videotape provided by the Union of
Concerned Scientists of an incident at the Point Beach facility; a copy
of the videotape was included with the petition. The petitioner states
that the video shows that the adverse effects of chemical reactions in
a cask could cause heat build up within the cask. The petitioner
suggests that a sampling of dry casks certified by the NRC should be
opened periodically and studied for at least 60 years because the NRC
has permitted extension of 20-year dry cask licenses up to 60 years.
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
[[Page 9180]]
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.
The petitioner suggests that the NRC regulations be amended as
follows:
(1) Prohibit dry storage cask systems that do not meet NRC
certification requirements from being produced under what the
petitioner states is industry pressure to ``accept-as-is.''
(2) Base certification of casks on code requirements to include
design criteria and technical specifications on a 100-year timeframe
instead of the current 20-year design specification that the petitioner
views as inadequate. The petitioner also suggests that the NRC conduct
a regulatory review of an in-depth technical evaluation for public
comment at the 20 year CoC reapproval interval to address cask
deterioration issues.
(3) Approve a method for dry cask transfer capacity as part of the
original ISFSI certification process and construction license that will
allow for immediate and safe maintenance on a faulty or failing cask.
The petitioner states that stored irradiated fuel in dry casks
approaches approximately 400 degrees Fahrenheit while the irradiated
waste storage pool water is kept at 100 degrees Fahrenheit. The
petitioner subsequently asserts that the re-submersion of dry casks and
resultant steam flash threaten workers, and may thermally shock the
irradiated nuclear fuel rods. The petitioner also states that the
ability to perform maintenance safely should be a regulatory priority
and that procedures to act promptly in an emergency situation and
safely transfer spent fuel must be outlined in NRC regulations.
(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 Sec. Sec. 72.122(i), 72.236(h), and 72.236(m).
(5) Specify that the most current ASME codes and standards be
adopted for all spent fuel storage containers with no exceptions. The
petitioner states that the NRC should no longer issue ``justifications
and compensatory measures'' for ASME codes or allow the industry to
design or manufacture casks that conform to safety regulations to ``the
maximum extent practical'' instead of actual ASME Code requirements.
The petitioner also states that ASME Code requirements should be
enforced unconditionally, with no exceptions or exemptions.
(6) Require ASME code stamping for fabrication, which would specify
that an ASME-certified nuclear inspector, who is independent from the
manufacturer and vendor, must be onsite at the fabrication plant. The
petitioner also suggests that code stamping activities be subject to
unannounced NRC inspections.
(7) Require that all fabrication materials be supplied by ASME-
approved material suppliers who are certificate holders. The petitioner
is concerned that if a supplier who is not certified is used, material
certification under the NG/NF-2130 ASME standard is not possible and
means that material traceability is not achieved.
(8) Require that the current ASME Codes and standards for
conservative heat treatment and light tightness are adopted and
enforced.
(9) Require a safe and secure hot cell transfer station coupled
with an auxiliary pool to be built as part of an upgraded ISFSI
certification and licensing process. The petitioner states that the
licensee must have a dry cask transfer capability for maintenance and
during emergency situations after decommissioning for as long as the
spent fuel remains on site.
(10) Require real-time heat and radiation monitoring at ISFSIs at
all nuclear power plant sites and storage facilities that are not
located at reactor sites maintained by the utilities and that the
monitoring data be transmitted in real-time to affected State health,
safety, and environmental regulators.
(11) Require what the petitioner describes as ``Hardened Onsite
Storage'' to fortify ISFSIs and dry casks from terrorist attacks. The
petitioner cites a study by the National Academy of Sciences entitled,
``Safety and Security of Commercial Nuclear Fuel Storage,'' supported
by the NRC (Grant No. NRC-04-04-067). According to the petitioner, this
study states that the NRC should upgrade the requirements in 10 CFR
Part 72 for dry casks, specifically to improve resistance to terrorist
attacks. The petitioner also quotes from a paper describing the
potential of terrorist attacks on dry casks by Gordon Thompson, the
Director of the Institute for Resource and Security, entitled,
``Assessing Risks of Potential Malicious Actions at Commercial Nuclear
Facilities: A Case of a Proposed ISFSI at Diablo Canyon Site'' (June
27, 2007): ``the dry cask storage modules used at ISFSIs are not
designed to resist attack. At all recently established ISFSIs in the
USA, spent fuel is contained in metal canisters with a wall thickness
of about 1.6 cm. Each canister is surrounded by a concrete over pack,
but the over pack is penetrated by channels that allow cooling of the
canister by convective flow of air. Attackers gaining access to an
ISFSI could employ readily available skills and explosives to penetrate
a canister in a manner that allows free flow to the spent fuel, and
could use incendiary devices to initiate burning of fuel cladding,
leading to a release of radioactive material to the atmosphere.''
(12) Establish funding to conduct ongoing studies to evaluate the
effects of age-related material degradation on dry casks and to assess
the structural integrity of the casks and fuel cladding. The petitioner
has stated that these studies would gather the data necessary for the
management of future damage and to determine design specifications for
future irradiated nuclear waste storage.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of February 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-4444 Filed 3-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P