Spent Fuel Cask Certificate of Compliance Format and Content, 8050-8052 [2013-02477]

Download as PDF 8050 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules Dated: January 30, 2013. David R. Shipman, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. 2013–02400 Filed 2–4–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–02–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [Docket No. PRM–72–7; NRC–2012–0266] Spent Fuel Cask Certificate of Compliance Format and Content Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; receipt and request for comment. AGENCY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing for public comment a notice of receipt for a petition for rulemaking (PRM), dated October 3, 2012, which was filed with the NRC by Anthony R. Pietrangelo on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI or the petitioner). The petition was docketed by the NRC on October 18, 2012, and assigned Docket No. PRM– 72–7. The petitioner requests that the NRC add a new rule that governs the format and content of spent fuel storage cask Certificates of Compliance (CoCs), extend the backfit rule to CoCs, and make other improvements that result in ‘‘more efficient and effective NRC oversight of dry cask storage activities as well as improved implementation of dry cask storage requirements by industry.’’ DATES: Submit comments by April 22, 2013. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related to this petition for rulemaking, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available, by searching on http:// www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC–2012–0266. You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject): • Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2012–0266. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–492–3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. • Email comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:28 Feb 04, 2013 Jkt 229001 do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301–415–1677. • Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– 415–1101. • Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. • Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: 301–415–1677. For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see ‘‘Accessing Information and Submitting Comments’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–492– 3667, email: Cindy.Bladey@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments A. Accessing Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2012– 0266 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this petition for rulemaking. You may access information related to this petition for rulemaking, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, by any of the following methods: • Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2012–0266. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The incoming petition is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12299A380. • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC–2012– 0266 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in you comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http:// www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information. If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. II. The Petitioner The NEI is the policy organization for the nuclear energy and technologies industry. The NEI’s petition states that its ‘‘members include entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect/ engineering firms, and other organizations and entities involved in the nuclear energy industry.’’ These include CoC ‘‘holders, and licensees— under both the specific and general license provisions—regulated by the NRC through 10 CFR part 72 [part 72 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)].’’ The petitioner states that its primary interest in submitting this petition is that it ‘‘is responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of licensees and CoC holders on matters involving generic NRC regulatory policy issues, and generic operations and technical regulatory issues affecting the activities of NRC-licensed independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) and NRCcertified dry storage cask designs.’’ III. The Petition In its petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML12299A380), the petitioner requests that the NRC initiate a rulemaking to amend 10 CFR part 72. The petitioner requests that the NRC regulations be amended as follows: E:\FR\FM\05FEP1.SGM 05FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 1. Add a new rule to ‘‘provide specific criteria for the format and content to be included in a spent fuel storage cask Certificate of Compliance (CoC).’’ 2. Revise the backfit rule in 10 CFR 72.62 to apply to CoCs and CoC holders, ensuring that the addition, elimination, or modification, after the license has been issued, of structures, systems, or components of an ISFSI or Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility, or the procedures or organization required to operate an ISFSI or MRS are limited to ‘‘situations where the Commission finds that the proposed change will yield a substantial increase in the overall protection of public health and safety and is cost-justified.’’ 3. Delete the requirement in 10 CFR 72.212(b)(6) for general licensees to review the NRC Safety Evaluation Report (SER) related to the CoC or amended CoC prior to use of the general license. 4. Clarify the regulatory requirements in 10 CFR 72.212(b)(10), which requires the licensee ‘‘to review various plans and programs that are governed by other regulations.’’ 5. Remove the requirement in 10 CFR 72.236 that the empty weight be marked on the storage cask. 6. Amend 10 CFR 72.124 to clarify the applicability of the criticality monitoring exemptions ‘‘to reflect that criticality monitoring does not apply to spent fuel dry storage, including cask loading, preparation, onsite transport and storage operations governed by a Part 72 license.’’ The petitioner states that these changes are necessary ‘‘to achieve needed improvements to regulatory efficiency and effectiveness, * * * can only be achieved by amending the regulations, and * * * are not currently being considered by the NRC.’’ A. Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Part 72 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 1. Add a New Rule for CoC Format and Content The petitioner states that amending 10 CFR part 72, subpart L, to provide specific criteria for CoC format and content ‘‘would provide the largest benefit to regulatory clarity and stability by assuring that the level of detail in CoCs is consistent and risk informed.’’ Currently, the regulatory requirements for spent fuel storage cask approval and fabrication are contained in 10 CFR 72.236, and apply to the applicants and holders of CoCs for spent fuel storage casks. The petitioner asserts that ‘‘these regulations do not provide specific requirements for the CoC format and content’’ and ‘‘[a]s a result, the content VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:28 Feb 04, 2013 Jkt 229001 of existing CoCs and associated documents varies, with respect to both the type of information included and the level of detail provided.’’ The petitioner states that making format changes to CoCs ensures ‘‘clarity with respect to the division of responsibilities between CoC holders and licensees in implementing the CoC. * * *’’ Additionally, the petitioner asserts that changes related to the content of the CoC will clarify the specific details that must be included in the CoC, improving ‘‘efficiencies in licensing by focusing on the safety significant aspects of cask use.’’ The petitioner believes these changes would ‘‘reduce the number of unnecessary CoC amendments by eliminating the need for NRC review of less-safety-significant information that is currently included in many CoCs.’’ 2. Revise the Backfit Rule in 10 CFR 72.62 To Apply to CoCs and CoC Holders The petitioner requests that 10 CFR 72.62, subpart C, be amended, so that the backfitting protections provided to general and specific licensees are applied to CoCs and CoC holders. The petitioner also requests that conforming changes be made to 10 CFR 72.13. The petitioner argues that ‘‘[n]ew or amended NRC staff positions should not be imposed on a CoC or CoC holder, unless the NRC official communicating that position has first ascertained whether the new or changed position is a backfit.’’ The petition goes on to state that ‘‘if a staff proposed position is identified as a backfit, the staff should determine expeditiously whether the backfit is needed to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety, or to comply with Commission rules or orders, the CoC itself, or written CoC holder commitments.’’ The petitioner states that ‘‘[p]ositions identified as CoC backfits that do not fall into one of these exceptions, should be imposed on CoCs and CoC holders only after documentation of a determination indicating that there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety, or the common defense and security, and that the direct and indirect costs of implementation are outweighed by the increased protection.’’ The petitioner believes that this change ‘‘would improve consistency between the way in which specific licensees, CoC holders and general licensees are regulated, and would ensure that changes to CoCs are imposed only after an adequate justification has been developed.’’ PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 8051 3. Delete the Requirement in 10 CFR 72.212(b)(6) for General Licensees To Review the SER The petitioner requests that 10 CFR part 72, subpart K, be amended ‘‘to remove the requirement for the general licensee to perform the NRC SER compliance evaluation.’’ The petitioner states that 10 CFR 72.212 ‘‘requires general licensees to perform a compliance evaluation of the Safety Analysis Report (SAR), referenced in the CoC, or the amended CoC * * *.’’ The petitioner argues that ‘‘since the review of the cask SAR referenced in the CoC or amended CoC, would encompass the evaluation of the site-specific parameters versus the cask design bases information’’ the ‘‘[r]eview of the SER is extraneous, as the SER will not contain any new requirements or commitments that are not already contained in the CoC and FSAR.’’ 4. Clarify the Requirement in 10 CFR 72.212(b)(10) for Review of Programs and Plans Governed by Other Parts of the Regulations The petitioner requests that 10 CFR 72.212 be amended to clarify requirements ‘‘that general licensees perform a review of the emergency plan (EP), quality assurance program (QAP), training program, and radiation protection program (RP), to determine if their effectiveness is decreased and, if so, prepare the necessary changes and seek and obtain the necessary approvals.’’ The petitioner suggests that currently the rule may be interpreted as imposing additional change control requirements different than the existing change control requirements provided for in 10 CFR part 50. The petitioner argues that changes should be made that ‘‘would remove ambiguity and duplication, and improve clarity by simply directing the general licensee to the appropriate governing regulations for 10 CFR Part 50 program change control.’’ 5. Remove Requirement in 10 CFR 72.236 That the Empty Weight Be Marked on the Storage Cask The petitioner requests that 10 CFR part 72, subpart L, be amended to remove the requirement that the empty weight be marked on storage casks. Currently, 10 CFR 72.236(k) stipulates that spent fuel storage casks be marked with the model number, a unique identification number, and empty weight. The petitioner believes that the model number and unique identification number are necessary and ‘‘ensure that the cask can be properly identified, and traced back to its QA E:\FR\FM\05FEP1.SGM 05FEP1 8052 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules [Quality Assurance] records, which include information on the design and contents.’’ However, the petitioner states that it is important to minimize the number of markings on a container, which will reduce the chances that changes will have to be made to the permanent markings on a cask. The petitioner also states, ‘‘[c]hanging permanent markings on the cask are problematic since this would require significant repair work, evaluation to verify the cask maintains conformance with the CoC, and worker dose if the cask contains used fuel.’’ The petitioner maintains that since this information is contained in the QA controlled records, requiring that the empty weight be permanently marked on the cask does not ‘‘provide any increase to the protection of public health and safety’’ and ‘‘serves no useful purpose.’’ 6. Amend 10 CFR 72.124 To Clarify the Applicability of the Criticality Monitoring Exemptions The petitioner requests that 10 CFR part 72, subpart F, be amended ‘‘to specify that criticality monitoring does not apply to special nuclear material in a dry storage cask being managed under a license granted pursuant to part 72, with ‘managed’ defined as cask loading, preparation, onsite transport and storage operation.’’ The petitioner states that ‘‘no criticality monitoring should be required as long as the cask/canister is being managed in accordance with its approved licensing and design basis as described in the Cask CoC or ISFSI license and their respective FSARs [Final Safety Analysis Reports].’’ In addition, the petitioner asserts that ‘‘the proposed rule change to modify 10 CFR 72.124(c), would clarify the regulations without modifying the intent’’ and ‘‘is consistent with NRC guidance, and other parts of the regulations.’’ mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS B. Additional Regulatory Framework Improvements (Not Requested as Part of This Petition for Rulemaking) Separate from these rulemaking changes, the petitioner recommends eight other regulatory framework improvements. The petitioner states that these improvements are not requested as part of the petition, but believes that these other changes would provide ‘‘synergies with the improvements’’ requested in the petition. These recommendations include: 1. Streamlining the cask certification process. 2. Clarifying ‘‘the implementation of the general license process and activities at the interface of Part 50 and Part 72 requirements.’’ VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:28 Feb 04, 2013 Jkt 229001 3. Updating guidance for implementing 10 CFR 72.48. 4. Examining the role of cladding integrity in the regulatory framework. 5. Discussing ‘‘the potential to reinitiate a rulemaking for moderator exclusion.’’ 6. Discussing the ‘‘potential options for harmonization of Part 71 and Part 72 for spent fuel.’’ 7. Making further improvements to the inspection program. 8. Streamlining the process for ‘‘establishing and maintaining the relevant NRC guidance’’ and ‘‘achieving a more straight-forward regulatory framework by implementing improvements to the organization of the network of guidance documents’’ that exists. IV. Conclusion The NRC has determined that the petition meets the threshold sufficiency requirements for a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802, ‘‘Petition for rulemaking,’’ and the petition has been docketed as PRM–72– 7. The NRC is requesting public comment on the petition for rulemaking. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of January 2013. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 2013–02477 Filed 2–4–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P line, which could result in hydraulic fluid leakage and possible fire due to arcing, and consequent loss of control of the airplane due to structural failure of the tail. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 22, 2013. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Fax: (202) 493–2251. • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. • Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201– 440–6700; Internet http:// www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. Examining the AD Docket DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2012–1322; Directorate Identifier 2012–NM–155–AD] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; DASSAULT AVIATION Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). AGENCY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain DASSAULT AVIATION Model MYSTERE–FALCON 900 and FALCON 900EX airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of chafing between the tail strobe power supply and a hydraulic line. This proposed AD would require modifying the tail strobe power supply wire routing. We are proposing this AD to prevent chafing between the tail strobe power supply and a hydraulic SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1137; fax (425) 227–1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. E:\FR\FM\05FEP1.SGM 05FEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 5, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8050-8052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02477]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 72

[Docket No. PRM-72-7; NRC-2012-0266]


Spent Fuel Cask Certificate of Compliance Format and Content

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; receipt and request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing for 
public comment a notice of receipt for a petition for rulemaking (PRM), 
dated October 3, 2012, which was filed with the NRC by Anthony R. 
Pietrangelo on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI or the 
petitioner). The petition was docketed by the NRC on October 18, 2012, 
and assigned Docket No. PRM-72-7. The petitioner requests that the NRC 
add a new rule that governs the format and content of spent fuel 
storage cask Certificates of Compliance (CoCs), extend the backfit rule 
to CoCs, and make other improvements that result in ``more efficient 
and effective NRC oversight of dry cask storage activities as well as 
improved implementation of dry cask storage requirements by industry.''

DATES: Submit comments by April 22, 2013. Comments received after this 
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is 
able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before 
this date.

ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related 
to this petition for rulemaking, which the NRC possesses and are 
publicly available, by searching on http://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket ID NRC-2012-0266. You may submit comments by any of the 
following methods (unless this document describes a different method 
for submitting comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0266. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     Email comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you do 
not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact 
us at 301-415-1677.
     Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission at 301-415-1101.
     Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff.
     Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal 
workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.
    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting 
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative 
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-492-3667, email: 
Cindy.Bladey@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0266 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information for this petition for rulemaking. 
You may access information related to this petition for rulemaking, 
which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, by any of the 
following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0266.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC 
Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the 
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The incoming petition is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML12299A380.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0266 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in you 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

II. The Petitioner

    The NEI is the policy organization for the nuclear energy and 
technologies industry. The NEI's petition states that its ``members 
include entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in 
the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect/engineering 
firms, and other organizations and entities involved in the nuclear 
energy industry.'' These include CoC ``holders, and licensees--under 
both the specific and general license provisions--regulated by the NRC 
through 10 CFR part 72 [part 72 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR)].'' The petitioner states that its primary 
interest in submitting this petition is that it ``is responsible for 
coordinating the combined efforts of licensees and CoC holders on 
matters involving generic NRC regulatory policy issues, and generic 
operations and technical regulatory issues affecting the activities of 
NRC-licensed independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) and 
NRC-certified dry storage cask designs.''

III. The Petition

    In its petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML12299A380), the petitioner 
requests that the NRC initiate a rulemaking to amend 10 CFR part 72. 
The petitioner requests that the NRC regulations be amended as follows:

[[Page 8051]]

    1. Add a new rule to ``provide specific criteria for the format and 
content to be included in a spent fuel storage cask Certificate of 
Compliance (CoC).''
    2. Revise the backfit rule in 10 CFR 72.62 to apply to CoCs and CoC 
holders, ensuring that the addition, elimination, or modification, 
after the license has been issued, of structures, systems, or 
components of an ISFSI or Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility, 
or the procedures or organization required to operate an ISFSI or MRS 
are limited to ``situations where the Commission finds that the 
proposed change will yield a substantial increase in the overall 
protection of public health and safety and is cost-justified.''
    3. Delete the requirement in 10 CFR 72.212(b)(6) for general 
licensees to review the NRC Safety Evaluation Report (SER) related to 
the CoC or amended CoC prior to use of the general license.
    4. Clarify the regulatory requirements in 10 CFR 72.212(b)(10), 
which requires the licensee ``to review various plans and programs that 
are governed by other regulations.''
    5. Remove the requirement in 10 CFR 72.236 that the empty weight be 
marked on the storage cask.
    6. Amend 10 CFR 72.124 to clarify the applicability of the 
criticality monitoring exemptions ``to reflect that criticality 
monitoring does not apply to spent fuel dry storage, including cask 
loading, preparation, onsite transport and storage operations governed 
by a Part 72 license.''
    The petitioner states that these changes are necessary ``to achieve 
needed improvements to regulatory efficiency and effectiveness, * * * 
can only be achieved by amending the regulations, and * * * are not 
currently being considered by the NRC.''

A. Discussion of Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Part 72

1. Add a New Rule for CoC Format and Content
    The petitioner states that amending 10 CFR part 72, subpart L, to 
provide specific criteria for CoC format and content ``would provide 
the largest benefit to regulatory clarity and stability by assuring 
that the level of detail in CoCs is consistent and risk informed.'' 
Currently, the regulatory requirements for spent fuel storage cask 
approval and fabrication are contained in 10 CFR 72.236, and apply to 
the applicants and holders of CoCs for spent fuel storage casks. The 
petitioner asserts that ``these regulations do not provide specific 
requirements for the CoC format and content'' and ``[a]s a result, the 
content of existing CoCs and associated documents varies, with respect 
to both the type of information included and the level of detail 
provided.'' The petitioner states that making format changes to CoCs 
ensures ``clarity with respect to the division of responsibilities 
between CoC holders and licensees in implementing the CoC. * * *'' 
Additionally, the petitioner asserts that changes related to the 
content of the CoC will clarify the specific details that must be 
included in the CoC, improving ``efficiencies in licensing by focusing 
on the safety significant aspects of cask use.'' The petitioner 
believes these changes would ``reduce the number of unnecessary CoC 
amendments by eliminating the need for NRC review of less-safety-
significant information that is currently included in many CoCs.''
2. Revise the Backfit Rule in 10 CFR 72.62 To Apply to CoCs and CoC 
Holders
    The petitioner requests that 10 CFR 72.62, subpart C, be amended, 
so that the backfitting protections provided to general and specific 
licensees are applied to CoCs and CoC holders. The petitioner also 
requests that conforming changes be made to 10 CFR 72.13. The 
petitioner argues that ``[n]ew or amended NRC staff positions should 
not be imposed on a CoC or CoC holder, unless the NRC official 
communicating that position has first ascertained whether the new or 
changed position is a backfit.'' The petition goes on to state that 
``if a staff proposed position is identified as a backfit, the staff 
should determine expeditiously whether the backfit is needed to ensure 
adequate protection of the public health and safety, or to comply with 
Commission rules or orders, the CoC itself, or written CoC holder 
commitments.'' The petitioner states that ``[p]ositions identified as 
CoC backfits that do not fall into one of these exceptions, should be 
imposed on CoCs and CoC holders only after documentation of a 
determination indicating that there is a substantial increase in the 
overall protection of the public health and safety, or the common 
defense and security, and that the direct and indirect costs of 
implementation are outweighed by the increased protection.'' The 
petitioner believes that this change ``would improve consistency 
between the way in which specific licensees, CoC holders and general 
licensees are regulated, and would ensure that changes to CoCs are 
imposed only after an adequate justification has been developed.''
3. Delete the Requirement in 10 CFR 72.212(b)(6) for General Licensees 
To Review the SER
    The petitioner requests that 10 CFR part 72, subpart K, be amended 
``to remove the requirement for the general licensee to perform the NRC 
SER compliance evaluation.'' The petitioner states that 10 CFR 72.212 
``requires general licensees to perform a compliance evaluation of the 
Safety Analysis Report (SAR), referenced in the CoC, or the amended CoC 
* * *.'' The petitioner argues that ``since the review of the cask SAR 
referenced in the CoC or amended CoC, would encompass the evaluation of 
the site-specific parameters versus the cask design bases information'' 
the ``[r]eview of the SER is extraneous, as the SER will not contain 
any new requirements or commitments that are not already contained in 
the CoC and FSAR.''
4. Clarify the Requirement in 10 CFR 72.212(b)(10) for Review of 
Programs and Plans Governed by Other Parts of the Regulations
    The petitioner requests that 10 CFR 72.212 be amended to clarify 
requirements ``that general licensees perform a review of the emergency 
plan (EP), quality assurance program (QAP), training program, and 
radiation protection program (RP), to determine if their effectiveness 
is decreased and, if so, prepare the necessary changes and seek and 
obtain the necessary approvals.'' The petitioner suggests that 
currently the rule may be interpreted as imposing additional change 
control requirements different than the existing change control 
requirements provided for in 10 CFR part 50. The petitioner argues that 
changes should be made that ``would remove ambiguity and duplication, 
and improve clarity by simply directing the general licensee to the 
appropriate governing regulations for 10 CFR Part 50 program change 
control.''
5. Remove Requirement in 10 CFR 72.236 That the Empty Weight Be Marked 
on the Storage Cask
    The petitioner requests that 10 CFR part 72, subpart L, be amended 
to remove the requirement that the empty weight be marked on storage 
casks. Currently, 10 CFR 72.236(k) stipulates that spent fuel storage 
casks be marked with the model number, a unique identification number, 
and empty weight. The petitioner believes that the model number and 
unique identification number are necessary and ``ensure that the cask 
can be properly identified, and traced back to its QA

[[Page 8052]]

[Quality Assurance] records, which include information on the design 
and contents.'' However, the petitioner states that it is important to 
minimize the number of markings on a container, which will reduce the 
chances that changes will have to be made to the permanent markings on 
a cask. The petitioner also states, ``[c]hanging permanent markings on 
the cask are problematic since this would require significant repair 
work, evaluation to verify the cask maintains conformance with the CoC, 
and worker dose if the cask contains used fuel.'' The petitioner 
maintains that since this information is contained in the QA controlled 
records, requiring that the empty weight be permanently marked on the 
cask does not ``provide any increase to the protection of public health 
and safety'' and ``serves no useful purpose.''
6. Amend 10 CFR 72.124 To Clarify the Applicability of the Criticality 
Monitoring Exemptions
    The petitioner requests that 10 CFR part 72, subpart F, be amended 
``to specify that criticality monitoring does not apply to special 
nuclear material in a dry storage cask being managed under a license 
granted pursuant to part 72, with `managed' defined as cask loading, 
preparation, onsite transport and storage operation.'' The petitioner 
states that ``no criticality monitoring should be required as long as 
the cask/canister is being managed in accordance with its approved 
licensing and design basis as described in the Cask CoC or ISFSI 
license and their respective FSARs [Final Safety Analysis Reports].'' 
In addition, the petitioner asserts that ``the proposed rule change to 
modify 10 CFR 72.124(c), would clarify the regulations without 
modifying the intent'' and ``is consistent with NRC guidance, and other 
parts of the regulations.''

B. Additional Regulatory Framework Improvements (Not Requested as Part 
of This Petition for Rulemaking)

    Separate from these rulemaking changes, the petitioner recommends 
eight other regulatory framework improvements. The petitioner states 
that these improvements are not requested as part of the petition, but 
believes that these other changes would provide ``synergies with the 
improvements'' requested in the petition. These recommendations 
include:
    1. Streamlining the cask certification process.
    2. Clarifying ``the implementation of the general license process 
and activities at the interface of Part 50 and Part 72 requirements.''
    3. Updating guidance for implementing 10 CFR 72.48.
    4. Examining the role of cladding integrity in the regulatory 
framework.
    5. Discussing ``the potential to reinitiate a rulemaking for 
moderator exclusion.''
    6. Discussing the ``potential options for harmonization of Part 71 
and Part 72 for spent fuel.''
    7. Making further improvements to the inspection program.
    8. Streamlining the process for ``establishing and maintaining the 
relevant NRC guidance'' and ``achieving a more straight-forward 
regulatory framework by implementing improvements to the organization 
of the network of guidance documents'' that exists.

IV. Conclusion

    The NRC has determined that the petition meets the threshold 
sufficiency requirements for a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 
2.802, ``Petition for rulemaking,'' and the petition has been docketed 
as PRM-72-7. The NRC is requesting public comment on the petition for 
rulemaking.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of January 2013.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-02477 Filed 2-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P