80 FR 30924 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec HI-STORM Flood/Wind System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 104 (June 1, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 104 (June 1, 2015)
| Page Range | 30924-30928 | |
| FR Document | 2015-13081 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 2015)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 30924-30928] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-13081] [[Page 30924]] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [NRC-2014-0275] RIN 3150-AJ52 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec HI-STORM Flood/ Wind System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is confirming the effective date of June 2, 2015, for the direct final rule that was published in the Federal Register on March 19, 2015. This direct final rule amended the NRC's spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Holtec International, Inc. (Holtec), HI-STORM Flood/Wind (FW) System listing within the ``List of approved spent fuel storage casks'' to add Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1032. Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, allows these casks to accept 14X14B fuel assemblies with minor changes in the internal diameter of the fuel cladding, diameter of the fuel pellet, and spacing between the fuel pins. The amendment also updates testing requirements for the fabrication of Metamic HT neutron-absorbing structural material. DATES: Effective date: The effective date of June 2, 2015, for the direct final rule published March 19, 2015 (80 FR 14291), is confirmed. ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0275 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0275. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415- 3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection 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. NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert D. MacDougall, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5175; email: Robert.MacDougall@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Discussion On March 19, 2015 (80 FR 14291), the NRC published a direct final rule amending its regulations in Sec. 72.214 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) by revising the Holtec HI-STORM FW System listing within the ``List of approved spent fuel storage casks'' to add Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, to CoC No. 1032. Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, allows these casks to accept 14X14B fuel assemblies with minor changes in the internal diameter of the fuel cladding, diameter of the fuel pellet, and spacing between the fuel pins. The amendment also updates testing requirements for the fabrication of Metamic HT neutron-absorbing structural material. II. Public Comments on the Companion Proposed Rule In the direct final rule, the NRC stated that if no significant adverse comments were received, the direct final rule would become effective on June 2, 2015. The NRC received eight public comments from private citizens on the companion proposed rule (80 FR 14332). Electronic copies of these comments can be obtained from the Federal rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov, by searching for Docket ID NRC-2014-0275. The comments also are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15113B266, ML15113B275, ML15141A021, ML15119A201, ML15119A206, ML15119A210, ML15119A214, and ML15119A230. For the reasons discussed in more detail in Section III, ``Public Comment Analysis,'' of this document, none of the comments received are considered significant adverse comments. III. Public Comment Analysis The NRC received eight comments from private citizens on the proposed rule, many raising multiple and overlapping issues. As explained in the March 19, 2015, direct final rule, the NRC would withdraw the direct final rule only if it received a ``significant adverse comment.'' This is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if: (1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when: (a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis; (b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or (c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff. (2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition. (3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or technical specifications (TSs). The NRC determined that none of the comments submitted on this direct final rule met any of these criteria. The comments either were already addressed by the NRC staff's safety evaluation report (SER) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14276A620), were beyond the scope of this rulemaking, or failed to provide a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment rulemaking. The NRC has not made any changes to the direct final rule as a result of the public comments. However, the NRC is taking this opportunity to respond to the individual comments to clarify information about the CoC rulemaking process. For rulemakings amending or revising a CoC, the scope of the rulemaking is limited to the specific changes requested by the applicant in the request for the amendment or amendment revision. Therefore, comments about the system, or spent fuel storage in general, that are not applicable to the changes requested by the applicant are outside the scope of [[Page 30925]] this rulemaking. Comments about details of the particular system that is the subject of the rulemaking, but that are not being addressed by the specific changes requested, have already been resolved in prior rulemakings. Persons who have questions or concerns about prior rulemakings and the resulting final rules may consider the NRC's process for petitions for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802. Additionally, safety concerns about any NRC-regulated activity may be reported to the NRC in accordance with the guidance posted on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/allegations/safety-concern.html. This Web site provides information on how to notify the NRC of emergency or non-emergency issues. The NRC identified 12 overall issues raised in the comments, and the NRC's responses to these issues follow. Issue 1: Stress Corrosion Cracking Multiple commenters raised the issue of the potential for premature failure of the multi-purpose canisters (MPCs) containing spent fuel within Holtec casks due to stress corrosion cracking (SCC) of the MPC's stainless steel walls. One commenter cited evidence that similar Holtec canisters at Diablo Canyon have already shown conditions for chloride- induced SCC after having been loaded with fuel for only 2 years. Another commenter noted that thin-walled canisters like the Holtec design do not have American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) certification and do not meet ASME standards. Another commenter asked whether the NRC's seismic analysis assumes that the MPC's \1/2\ inch- thick walls remain intact. Still another commenter asked the NRC to specify the extent of cracking from SCC that would require replacement of an MPC to ensure that the spent fuel inside would remain protected in a large earthquake or tsunami and associated mud flooding event. Another commenter alleged that although there is no seismic rating for cracked spent fuel storage canisters, the NRC plans to allow up to a 75 percent crack in these canisters. NRC Response These comments are not within the scope of this specific rulemaking. This rulemaking makes no changes to this system other than those identified in the revisions previously described. Other aspects of this system not identified in the revisions are not considered part of this rulemaking activity. These other aspects of the system were previously evaluated by the NRC as part of the original certification of the HI-STORM FW System dated March 28, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML103020151). The NRC's evaluation and approval of the certification of the original HI-STORM FW System included an evaluation of the susceptibility to, and effects of, stress corrosion cracking and other corrosion mechanisms on safety-significant systems for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) dry cask storage (DCS) systems during an initial 20-year certification period. As indicated in the supporting SER for the original certification, the NRC staff determined that the HI-STORM FW System, when used within the requirements of the proposed CoC, will safely store SNF and prevent radiation releases and exposure in compliance with regulatory requirements. None of the revisions being made by this rule have any impact on the NRC staff's prior analysis in this area. Regarding the ASME certification issue, the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 72 do not require DCS system canisters to be ASME-certified. However, the ASME Code requirements are often contained within the TSs that a general licensee is required to follow. As for the assertions that the NRC's ``plans to allow up to a 75 percent crack in these canisters,'' and that there is evidence of potential cracking or failing of canisters at Diablo Canyon, the NRC has no such plan and is unaware of any such evidence. Importantly, general licensees (10 CFR part 50 licensees that store spent fuel under a general 10 CFR part 72 license) are required to have programs in place to monitor and address any such issues should they arise. For example, 10 CFR 72.122(h)(4) requires storage confinement systems to have the capability for continuous monitoring in a manner such that the licensee will be able to determine when corrective action needs to be taken to maintain safe storage conditions. Issue 2: Inspection Challenges and Inspection Access Several commenters questioned the ability of the HI-STORM FW System to be adequately inspected and repaired if necessary during the initial certification period of 20 years, especially if the system is used in a coastal environment where SCC could be an issue. On the issue of available methods for inspecting SCC, one commenter asserted that no technology exists to inspect adequately the exterior of thin welded canisters for cracks or other corrosion. The commenter said that the NRC is allowing vendors 5 years to develop an inspection method, but it will be limited, and the NRC plans to require inspection of only one canister per plant after 25 years and then the same canister at 5 years intervals. The commenter referred to an unnamed independent July 2010 report on the challenges and limitations of inspecting for SCC in stainless steel components other than loaded spent fuel dry storage canisters. The commenter asserted that no inspection method currently exists for loaded spent fuel dry storage canisters, and that the method recommended in the report as the most reliable is not possible with such canisters. Another commenter noted that if removal of the canister is the only way to inspect the bottom of a canister that has been in contact with the bottom of the concrete well, it will be unlikely that each canister will be inspected for corrosion between the canister and its concrete well, if current NRC inspection schedules for dry storage casks are followed. Concerned about the frequency and extent of inspections, a commenter noted the limited number of dry storage canisters that have been inspected to date, and expressed concern that there will be very few canister inspections, and probably only one, performed at each installation site, with the first inspection occurring 20 years after deployment. The commenter suggested that sites prone to ground water intrusion should have annual visual inspections of the bottom of each canister. NRC Response These comments are not within the scope of this specific rulemaking. This rulemaking is limited to the revisions previously described. Furthermore, the NRC has evaluated the design of the HI- STORM FW System in the initial certification of this system and determined that the design is robust, and contains numbers of layers of acceptable confinement systems in compliance with 10 CFR part 72 requirements. In making this finding, the NRC staff evaluated the HI- STORM FW System to the specific overall requirements of 10 CFR 72.122. Additionally, the two canisters used in the HI-STORM FW System are the same as those used in the HI-STORM Underground Maximum Capacity (UMAX) Canister Storage System previously approved by the NRC (see 80 FR 12073, dated March 6, 2015). Therefore, a detailed evaluation of this MPC system is also documented in the NRC staff's SER for the HI-STORM UMAX System (ADAMS Accession No. ML14122A441). In that review, the NRC staff noted that the current technology does provide options for inspection if necessary. [[Page 30926]] Issue 3: Unavailability of Hot Cells or Spent Fuel Pools To Transfer or Store Spent Fuel From a Damaged Canister One commenter noted that no spent fuel storage cask has ever been opened and examined. Another pointed out that no ``hot cells'' (dry transfer systems) exist in the United States that are large enough to transfer spent fuel between canisters. Another asked how Holtec would handle the failure of a hypothetical 50 canisters after a major earthquake. Yet another commenter expressed concern that the spent fuel pools at the decommissioning San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) will be demolished once the reactors' spent fuel is in dry casks. Demolition of the spent fuel pools, the commenter wrote, would essentially negate the chances of repackaging any casks leaking radionuclides without another major construction effort to build a new storage pool. Another commenter wrote that a spent fuel storage pool is required to replace canisters and casks at any reactor site with spent fuel in dry storage, and that transporting cracked canisters to another facility with a pool presents numerous safety risks. NRC Response These comments are not within the scope of this specific rulemaking. This rulemaking is limited to the specific revisions to Amendment No. 1 of the HI-STORM FW System. This rulemaking does not propose any change in the standards for approval of a CoC, or the requirements that govern use of the CoC by a general licensee. In 10 CFR parts 50 and 72, the NRC places the responsibility for providing facilities necessary to perform spent fuel transfers between canisters, and store spent fuel removed from a damaged or defective MPC, with the 10 CFR part 50 licensee, not the canister system manufacturer. Moreover, in its March 28, 2011, SER for the CoC for the original HI- STORM FW System, the NRC staff evaluated and found acceptable a key subsystem of the applicant's storage system, the HI-TRAC Variable Weight (VW) transfer cask, for its operability with hot cells. In the March 28, 2011, SER, the NRC staff stated that ``[t]he HI-TRAC VW transfer cask also allows dry loading (or unloading) of SNF into the MPC in a hot cell.'' Finally, the NRC has not approved the demolition of the spent storage pools at SONGS. The decommissioning of the SONGS facility will be conducted pursuant to the NRC's decommissioning regulations which include opportunities for public involvement. (See 10 CFR part 20, subpart E; 10 CFR 50.75 and 50.82; 10 CFR 51.53 and 51.95). More information about the SONGS decommissioning activities can be found on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/songs/decommissioning-plans.html. Issue 4: Seismic Protection Several comments raised concerns regarding the ability of this CoC system to withstand seismic events, particularly if the system were to be used at specific sites with known seismic activity, such as SONGS. There is also a question of whether the Holtec casks at issue have been fully tested to handle all United States seismic conditions, particularly those in California. One commenter contended that the NRC lacks information to support a sound determination on whether the casks could withstand the vertical and horizontal ground acceleration and significant ground displacement from a sizable earthquake on one of California's known faults. Another commenter expressed a belief that the NRC has not adequately responded to concerns the U.S. Geological Survey pointed out in comments on the ``Fukushima Lessons Learned'' process. NRC Response These comments are not within the scope of this specific rulemaking. This rulemaking is limited to the specific revisions to Amendment No. 1 of the HI-STORM FW System. Additionally, as explained when the NRC addressed a similar comment about the ability of HI-STORM casks to withstand seismic events during the UMAX System certification rulemaking, the certification provided by approval of the HI-STORM FW System does not, in and of itself, authorize use of this system at any specific site. Under 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5), before applying the changes authorized by an amended CoC and loading a cask, a general licensee wishing to use this cask system must perform written evaluations to establish, among other things, that: Cask storage pads and areas have been designed to adequately support the static and dynamic loads of the stored casks, considering potential amplification of earthquakes through soil- structure interaction, and soil liquefaction potential or other soil instability due to vibratory ground motion; and The independent spent fuel storage installation at the reactor site where the casks will be located will meet the requirements of 10 CFR 72.104 to ensure that radiation doses beyond the reactor's controlled area do not exceed 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) to the whole body, 0.75 mSv (75 mrem) to the thyroid and 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) to any other critical organ, and are further to controlled to a level as low as is reasonably achievable. In addition, under 10 CFR 72.212(b)(6), before using the general license, the reactor licensee must review the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) referenced in the CoC or amended CoC and the NRC's SER evaluating the SAR to determine whether the reactor site parameters, including analyses of earthquake intensity and tornado missiles, are enveloped by the cask design bases considered in these reports. The seismic design levels of the HI-STORM FW System as provided in Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, of this CoC are acceptable for most areas in the continental United States. For locations with potential for seismic activity beyond those analyzed for this system, additional NRC evaluations and certifications may be required before the system may be used in those locations. The NRC is currently evaluating another HI- STORM UMAX System amendment request that provides additional analysis intended to ensure the system's integrity during an earthquake with higher seismic demands. Issue 5: Unacceptable Definition of ``Undamaged'' One commenter said that corrosion, pitting, and cracks cannot be considered undamaged. NRC Response This comment is not within the scope of this specific rulemaking. This rulemaking is limited to the specific revisions to Amendment No. 1 of the HI-STORM FW System. To the extent that the comment is intended to raise safety concerns with the change in the definition of damaged fuel, the definition would not be affected by this rulemaking and is therefore not within its scope. The purpose of the definition of damaged fuel is to identify conditions under which additional engineering measures are required to confine and secure the spent fuel before it can be loaded into a DCS system. The requirement to use these measures, which include isolating the affected spent fuel assembly in an additional container before loading it into an MPC, apply to all fuel assemblies, although the definition of ``damaged'' fuel may be revised to address calculated strengths or known weaknesses in a given assembly design. The NRC staff evaluated and found acceptable a proposed change in the definition of damaged fuel in the SER to CoC No. [[Page 30927]] 1032, Amendment No. 1, dated December 17, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14351A475). The NRC staff evaluated the safety of this revision to CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, in the SER dated March 13, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14276A620). No information is provided that would cause the NRC to change its conclusion regarding the safety of this change in the definition of damaged fuel as documented in the SER. Issue 6: How will casks be removed from service? One commenter pointed out that for any cask placed into service during the final renewal term of a CoC, or during the remaining term of a CoC that was not renewed, the general license for that cask must terminate after a storage period not to exceed the term specified by the cask's CoC, generally 20 years. The commenter further noted that when the general license expires, all casks subject to it must be removed from service. The commenter asked how a cask can be removed from service after its licensed service life of 20 years if the cask contains still-hot radioactive waste, given the fact that, according to Holtec's chief executive officer, its canisters are not capable of being repackaged. NRC Response This comment is not within the scope of this specific rulemaking. This rulemaking is limited to the specific revisions to Amendment No. 1 of the HI-STORM FW System. The regulations governing the length of the CoC term, the standards for approval of a CoC, or the requirements that govern use of the CoC by a general licensee, are not within the changes proposed by this rule. As to the specific comments, the NRC cannot verify the basis for comments attributed to Holtec's chief executive officer. Importantly, however, the NRC's regulations require that the systems be designed to allow for retrieval of spent fuel, and that the waste is packaged in a manner that allows handling and retrievability without the release of radioactive material above regulatory limits. (See 10 CFR 72.122(h)(5) and (l)). The HI-STORM FW System is designed to meet this requirement, and the NRC staff approved this design in its SER dated March 28, 2011 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML103020135). Issue 7: Inadequate Tsunami Analysis One commenter expressed concern about the NRC's process for certifying that the Holtec cask system will operate as designed after a tsunami. The commenter requested a detailed tsunami recovery procedure that should include a means to ensure that muds, salts, and other chemicals within the infiltrating tsunami water have not damaged the stainless steel canister or reduced the DCS's longevity. NRC Response This comment is not within the scope of this specific rulemaking. This rulemaking is limited to the specific revisions to Amendment No. 1 of the HI-STORM FW System. The NRC staff previously evaluated the impacts of flooding during the review of the initial certification for the HI-STORM FW System. In its March 28, 2011, SER (see Sections 4.8.2 and 7.3.1) for the initial certification of the HI-STORM FW System, the NRC staff considered both full and partial flooding for both the vertical and horizontal positions for the MPC. The NRC staff found that the fully flooded condition would produce the highest reactivity in the spent fuel, and that the fully flooded model for safety evaluations ``is acceptable and applicable to all of the assembly configurations that are to be stored in the HISTORM FW MPC Storage system,'' including damaged fuel configurations. In its March 28, 2011, SER, the NRC staff also noted the system's design measures to limit the rise in fuel cladding temperature under the most adverse flood event (one with a water level just high enough to block the MPC overpack's air convection inlet duct). The changes requested in this revision do not affect the NRC's prior flooding evaluation for the initial certification of this system. Issue 8: High Burnup Fuel One commenter said that no vendor has addressed how a cask will handle high burnup fuel (HBF) cladding that may degrade shortly after dry storage. This commenter noted that HBF burns longer in the reactor, resulting in spent fuel more than twice as radioactive, hotter, and unpredictable in storage and transport. The commenter further asserted that HBF requires more years to cool in a reactor's spent fuel storage pool before it can be transported. This raises questions about the long-term acceptability of extended storage of HBF, according to the commenter. NRC Response The comment is not within the scope of this specific rulemaking. This rulemaking is limited to the specific revisions in Amendment No. 1 to the HISTORM FW System. In its March 28, 2011, SER for the original certification for the HI-STORM FW System, the NRC previously evaluated the acceptability of storing HBF during the system's initial 20-year certification term. The revision authorized by this direct final rule does not affect that original evaluation. Storage beyond the initial term of 20 years will require the applicant to submit a license renewal application. The application for that CoC renewal must include, among other things, a description of the Aging Management Programs for management of issues associated with aging that could adversely affect structures, systems, and components important to safety. (See 10 CFR 72.240(c)(3)). Issue 9: Need for New Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) One commenter asked that the NRC do a full EIS evaluating the Holtec cask as one alternative, a German cask as another, and a French cask as a third, with possibly an additional alternative. NRC Response This comment does not present information that would result in a determination that this revision requires an EIS, rather than an Environmental Assessment (EA). According to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 51, an EIS is only required if the action involves a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The NRC`s regulations in 10 CFR part 51 identify actions that require an EIS (see 10 CFR 51.20). Certificate of compliance rulemakings are not one of those actions. Instead, for CoC rulemakings, the NRC performs an EA to determine whether the action will result in a significant environmental impact. If an EA determines that the action will result in a significant impact, the agency prepares an EIS. However, if the EA concludes with a ``finding of no significant impact'' (FONSI), an EIS does not need to be prepared. As explained in the March 19, 2015, direct final rule, the EA regarding the revision to Amendment No. 1 of HI-STORM FW System, concluded with a FONSI and therefore, an EIS is not required for this action. This comment presents no new information or analysis that would justify reconsidering the agency's FONSI determination. Issue 10: Metamic Fabrication Testing Requirements One commenter objected that Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, of the HI- STORM FW System CoC would remove fabrication testing requirements for the thermal expansion coefficient [[Page 30928]] and thermal conductivity of Metamic HT neutron-absorbing structural material. The commenter noted that the justification for this change is that these properties have little variability when Metamic HT is fabricated according to the manufacturer's manual. The commenter asked the NRC what it thinks testing is for if not to verify that the product has been made according to the specifications in the manufacturer's manual. NRC Response This issue was addressed by the NRC staff in its SER, and the commenters do not raise any additional information that would alter the staff's determination that the HI-STORM FW System, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, casks, when used within the requirements of the proposed CoC, will safely store SNF. In its March 19, 2015, SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML14276A620), the NRC staff concluded that this was acceptable for this specific application. For a detailed discussion regarding the NRC staff's evaluation, see Section 4 of the SER. Issue 11: Exemptions One commenter contended that a general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into the Holtec HI-STORM FW System in accordance with the changes described in this rulemaking would have to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Another commenter asserted that once Holtec has been given its original CoC, there should be no ``exemptions.'' NRC Response The revisions to Amendment No. 1 of CoC 1032 for the HI-STORM FW System is to provide changes to the cask system so that general licensees do not need to request an exemption from any requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 or 10 CFR 72.214. Like all other proposed CoC amendments or revisions, the general licensee under 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) will have to perform written evaluations which establish that the cask will conform to the terms, conditions, and specifications of a CoC or an amended CoC listed in Sec. 72.214. Issue 12: Reduced Circulation of Air for Cooling Two commenters objected that the proposed change in the HI-STORM FW System CoC would restrict the circulation of air for cooling spent fuel within the MPC or cask. NRC Response The NRC staff evaluated this issue as part of its SER and concluded that there is no significant reduction in the cooling capacity of the HI-STORM FW System as a result of the revisions requested by the applicant. The NRC staff's SER determined that CoC 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, casks, when used within the requirements of the CoC, will safely store SNF. The comment presents no information that the NRC has not already considered, or that would cause the NRC to change its analysis. The purpose of the revision is to permit the more compact spent fuel assemblies now in some reactors' spent fuel storage pools to be loaded into the HI-STORM FW System for dry storage. In its March 19, 2015, SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML14276A620), the NRC staff found that approval of the application would permit a volumetric increase of 0.6 percent of the fuel and a reduction of 0.13 percent of the original flow area of the 14-rod-by-14-rod fuel assembly previously approved for use in this cask system. The NRC staff also found, however, that the reduced flow area through the 14x14B fuel assembly ``is still larger than the 17x17 assembly flow area used as the bounding scenario in the thermal analysis. As a result, the flow resistance factor is still less restrictive than the one used in the bounding scenario, and the passive decay heat removal of the proposed 14x14B assembly is still conservative.'' The NRC staff also found that the spent fuel cladding ``continues to be protected against degradation leading to gross ruptures under long-term storage by maintaining cladding temperatures below 752 [deg]F (400 [deg]C),'' and ``continues to be protected against degradation leading to gross ruptures under off-normal and accident conditions by maintaining cladding temperatures below 1058 [deg]F (570 [deg]C). Protection of the cladding against degradation is expected to allow ready retrieval of spent fuel for further processing or disposal.'' Therefore, the NRC staff has concluded that the comments received on the companion proposed rule for the HI-STORM FW System, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, are not significant adverse comments as defined in NUREG-BR-0053, Revision 6, ``United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations Handbook'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML052720461). Therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of May, 2015. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Leslie Terry, Acting Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration. [FR Doc. 2015-13081 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
![30924 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
NUCLEAR REGULATORY ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then III. Public Comment Analysis
COMMISSION select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS The NRC received eight comments
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, from private citizens on the proposed
10 CFR Part 72 please contact the NRC’s Public rule, many raising multiple and
[NRC–2014–0275] Document Room (PDR) reference staff at overlapping issues. As explained in the
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by March 19, 2015, direct final rule, the
RIN 3150–AJ52 email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. NRC would withdraw the direct final
List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and rule only if it received a ‘‘significant
Casks: Holtec HI–STORM Flood/Wind purchase copies of public documents at adverse comment.’’ This is a comment
System; Certificate of Compliance No. the NRC’s PDR, Room O–1F21, One where the commenter explains why the
1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision 1 White Flint North, 11555 Rockville rule would be inappropriate, including
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. challenges to the rule’s underlying
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory premise or approach, or would be
Commission. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
ineffective or unacceptable without a
ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of Robert D. MacDougall, Office of Nuclear change. A comment is adverse and
effective date. Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. significant if:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (1) The comment opposes the rule and
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: provides a reason sufficient to require a
Commission (NRC) is confirming the 301–415–5175; email: substantive response in a notice-and-
effective date of June 2, 2015, for the Robert.MacDougall@nrc.gov. comment process. For example, a
direct final rule that was published in substantive response is required when:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
the Federal Register on March 19, 2015. (a) The comment causes the NRC staff
This direct final rule amended the I. Discussion to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position
NRC’s spent fuel storage regulations by or conduct additional analysis;
revising the Holtec International, Inc. On March 19, 2015 (80 FR 14291), the
(b) The comment raises an issue
(Holtec), HI–STORM Flood/Wind (FW) NRC published a direct final rule
serious enough to warrant a substantive
System listing within the ‘‘List of amending its regulations in § 72.214 of
response to clarify or complete the
approved spent fuel storage casks’’ to Title 10 of the Code of Federal record; or
add Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, to Regulations (10 CFR) by revising the (c) The comment raises a relevant
Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. Holtec HI–STORM FW System listing issue that was not previously addressed
1032. Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, within the ‘‘List of approved spent fuel or considered by the NRC staff.
allows these casks to accept 14X14B storage casks’’ to add Amendment No. 1, (2) The comment proposes a change
fuel assemblies with minor changes in Revision 1, to CoC No. 1032. or an addition to the rule, and it is
the internal diameter of the fuel Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, allows apparent that the rule would be
cladding, diameter of the fuel pellet, these casks to accept 14X14B fuel ineffective or unacceptable without
and spacing between the fuel pins. The assemblies with minor changes in the incorporation of the change or addition.
amendment also updates testing internal diameter of the fuel cladding, (3) The comment causes the NRC staff
requirements for the fabrication of diameter of the fuel pellet, and spacing to make a change (other than editorial)
Metamic HT neutron-absorbing between the fuel pins. The amendment to the rule, CoC, or technical
structural material. also updates testing requirements for the specifications (TSs).
DATES: Effective date: The effective date fabrication of Metamic HT neutron- The NRC determined that none of the
of June 2, 2015, for the direct final rule absorbing structural material. comments submitted on this direct final
published March 19, 2015 (80 FR II. Public Comments on the Companion rule met any of these criteria. The
14291), is confirmed. Proposed Rule comments either were already
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID addressed by the NRC staff’s safety
NRC–2014–0275 when contacting the In the direct final rule, the NRC stated evaluation report (SER) (ADAMS
NRC about the availability of that if no significant adverse comments Accession No. ML14276A620), were
information for this action. You may were received, the direct final rule beyond the scope of this rulemaking, or
obtain publicly-available information would become effective on June 2, 2015. failed to provide a reason sufficient to
related to this action by any of the The NRC received eight public require a substantive response in a
following methods: comments from private citizens on the notice-and-comment rulemaking. The
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to companion proposed rule (80 FR NRC has not made any changes to the
http://www.regulations.gov and search 14332). Electronic copies of these direct final rule as a result of the public
for Docket ID NRC–2014–0275. Address comments can be obtained from the comments. However, the NRC is taking
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Federal rulemaking Web site, http:// this opportunity to respond to the
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; www.regulations.gov, by searching for individual comments to clarify
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For Docket ID NRC–2014–0275. The information about the CoC rulemaking
technical questions, contact the comments also are available in ADAMS process.
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER under Accession Nos. ML15113B266, For rulemakings amending or revising
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this ML15113B275, ML15141A021, a CoC, the scope of the rulemaking is
document. ML15119A201, ML15119A206, limited to the specific changes
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents ML15119A210, ML15119A214, and requested by the applicant in the
Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Access and Management System ML15119A230. For the reasons request for the amendment or
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- discussed in more detail in Section III, amendment revision. Therefore,
available documents online in the ‘‘Public Comment Analysis,’’ of this comments about the system, or spent
ADAMS Public Documents collection at document, none of the comments fuel storage in general, that are not
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ received are considered significant applicable to the changes requested by
adams.html. To begin the search, select adverse comments. the applicant are outside the scope of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 11:41 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JNR1.SGM 01JNR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_31028/page/1.svg)
![30926 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Issue 3: Unavailability of Hot Cells or part 20, subpart E; 10 CFR 50.75 and (25 mrem) to the whole body, 0.75 mSv
Spent Fuel Pools To Transfer or Store 50.82; 10 CFR 51.53 and 51.95). More (75 mrem) to the thyroid and 0.25 mSv
Spent Fuel From a Damaged Canister information about the SONGS (25 mrem) to any other critical organ,
One commenter noted that no spent decommissioning activities can be and are further to controlled to a level
fuel storage cask has ever been opened found on the NRC’s public Web site at as low as is reasonably achievable.
http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/ In addition, under 10 CFR
and examined. Another pointed out that
songs/decommissioning-plans.html. 72.212(b)(6), before using the general
no ‘‘hot cells’’ (dry transfer systems)
license, the reactor licensee must review
exist in the United States that are large Issue 4: Seismic Protection the Safety Analysis Report (SAR)
enough to transfer spent fuel between Several comments raised concerns referenced in the CoC or amended CoC
canisters. Another asked how Holtec regarding the ability of this CoC system and the NRC’s SER evaluating the SAR
would handle the failure of a to withstand seismic events, particularly to determine whether the reactor site
hypothetical 50 canisters after a major if the system were to be used at specific parameters, including analyses of
earthquake. sites with known seismic activity, such earthquake intensity and tornado
Yet another commenter expressed as SONGS. There is also a question of missiles, are enveloped by the cask
concern that the spent fuel pools at the whether the Holtec casks at issue have design bases considered in these
decommissioning San Onofre Nuclear been fully tested to handle all United reports.
Generating Station (SONGS) will be States seismic conditions, particularly The seismic design levels of the HI–
demolished once the reactors’ spent fuel those in California. One commenter STORM FW System as provided in
is in dry casks. Demolition of the spent contended that the NRC lacks Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, of this
fuel pools, the commenter wrote, would information to support a sound CoC are acceptable for most areas in the
essentially negate the chances of determination on whether the casks continental United States. For locations
repackaging any casks leaking could withstand the vertical and with potential for seismic activity
radionuclides without another major horizontal ground acceleration and beyond those analyzed for this system,
construction effort to build a new significant ground displacement from a additional NRC evaluations and
storage pool. Another commenter wrote sizable earthquake on one of California’s certifications may be required before the
that a spent fuel storage pool is required known faults. Another commenter system may be used in those locations.
to replace canisters and casks at any expressed a belief that the NRC has not The NRC is currently evaluating another
reactor site with spent fuel in dry adequately responded to concerns the HI–STORM UMAX System amendment
storage, and that transporting cracked U.S. Geological Survey pointed out in request that provides additional analysis
canisters to another facility with a pool comments on the ‘‘Fukushima Lessons intended to ensure the system’s integrity
presents numerous safety risks. Learned’’ process. during an earthquake with higher
NRC Response NRC Response seismic demands.
These comments are not within the These comments are not within the Issue 5: Unacceptable Definition of
scope of this specific rulemaking. This scope of this specific rulemaking. This ‘‘Undamaged’’
rulemaking is limited to the specific rulemaking is limited to the specific One commenter said that corrosion,
revisions to Amendment No. 1 of the revisions to Amendment No. 1 of the pitting, and cracks cannot be considered
HI–STORM FW System. This HI–STORM FW System. Additionally, undamaged.
rulemaking does not propose any as explained when the NRC addressed
change in the standards for approval of NRC Response
a similar comment about the ability of
a CoC, or the requirements that govern HI–STORM casks to withstand seismic This comment is not within the scope
use of the CoC by a general licensee. In events during the UMAX System of this specific rulemaking. This
10 CFR parts 50 and 72, the NRC places certification rulemaking, the rulemaking is limited to the specific
the responsibility for providing facilities certification provided by approval of the revisions to Amendment No. 1 of the
necessary to perform spent fuel transfers HI–STORM FW System does not, in and HI–STORM FW System. To the extent
between canisters, and store spent fuel of itself, authorize use of this system at that the comment is intended to raise
removed from a damaged or defective any specific site. Under 10 CFR safety concerns with the change in the
MPC, with the 10 CFR part 50 licensee, 72.212(b)(5), before applying the definition of damaged fuel, the
not the canister system manufacturer. changes authorized by an amended CoC definition would not be affected by this
Moreover, in its March 28, 2011, SER for and loading a cask, a general licensee rulemaking and is therefore not within
the CoC for the original HI–STORM FW wishing to use this cask system must its scope. The purpose of the definition
System, the NRC staff evaluated and perform written evaluations to establish, of damaged fuel is to identify conditions
found acceptable a key subsystem of the among other things, that: under which additional engineering
applicant’s storage system, the HI– • Cask storage pads and areas have measures are required to confine and
TRAC Variable Weight (VW) transfer been designed to adequately support the secure the spent fuel before it can be
cask, for its operability with hot cells. In static and dynamic loads of the stored loaded into a DCS system. The
the March 28, 2011, SER, the NRC staff casks, considering potential requirement to use these measures,
stated that ‘‘[t]he HI–TRAC VW transfer amplification of earthquakes through which include isolating the affected
cask also allows dry loading (or soil-structure interaction, and soil spent fuel assembly in an additional
unloading) of SNF into the MPC in a hot liquefaction potential or other soil container before loading it into an MPC,
cell.’’ instability due to vibratory ground apply to all fuel assemblies, although
Finally, the NRC has not approved the motion; and the definition of ‘‘damaged’’ fuel may be
Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
demolition of the spent storage pools at • The independent spent fuel storage revised to address calculated strengths
SONGS. The decommissioning of the installation at the reactor site where the or known weaknesses in a given
SONGS facility will be conducted casks will be located will meet the assembly design. The NRC staff
pursuant to the NRC’s decommissioning requirements of 10 CFR 72.104 to ensure evaluated and found acceptable a
regulations which include opportunities that radiation doses beyond the reactor’s proposed change in the definition of
for public involvement. (See 10 CFR controlled area do not exceed 0.25 mSv damaged fuel in the SER to CoC No.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 11:41 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JNR1.SGM 01JNR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_31028/page/3.svg)
![30928 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
and thermal conductivity of Metamic NRC Response For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
HT neutron-absorbing structural Leslie Terry,
The NRC staff evaluated this issue as
material. The commenter noted that the Acting Chief, Rules, Announcements, and
part of its SER and concluded that there
justification for this change is that these Directives Branch, Division of Administrative
is no significant reduction in the cooling Services, Office of Administration.
properties have little variability when
capacity of the HI–STORM FW System
Metamic HT is fabricated according to [FR Doc. 2015–13081 Filed 5–29–15; 8:45 am]
as a result of the revisions requested by
the manufacturer’s manual. The BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
the applicant. The NRC staff’s SER
commenter asked the NRC what it determined that CoC 1032, Amendment
thinks testing is for if not to verify that No. 1, Revision 1, casks, when used
the product has been made according to within the requirements of the CoC, will DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
the specifications in the manufacturer’s safely store SNF. The comment presents
manual. no information that the NRC has not Federal Aviation Administration
NRC Response already considered, or that would cause
the NRC to change its analysis. 14 CFR Part 39
This issue was addressed by the NRC The purpose of the revision is to [Docket No. FAA–2014–0342; Directorate
staff in its SER, and the commenters do permit the more compact spent fuel Identifier 2014–NM–007–AD; Amendment
not raise any additional information that assemblies now in some reactors’ spent 39–18168; AD 2015–11–05]
would alter the staff’s determination fuel storage pools to be loaded into the
that the HI–STORM FW System, HI–STORM FW System for dry storage. RIN 2120–AA64
Amendment No. 1, Revision 1, casks, In its March 19, 2015, SER (ADAMS
when used within the requirements of Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Accession No. ML14276A620), the NRC
the proposed CoC, will safely store SNF. Company Airplanes
staff found that approval of the
In its March 19, 2015, SER (ADAMS application would permit a volumetric AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Accession No. ML14276A620), the NRC increase of 0.6 percent of the fuel and Administration (FAA), DOT.
staff concluded that this was acceptable a reduction of 0.13 percent of the ACTION: Final rule.
for this specific application. For a original flow area of the 14-rod-by-14-
detailed discussion regarding the NRC rod fuel assembly previously approved SUMMARY: We are adopting a new
staff’s evaluation, see Section 4 of the for use in this cask system. The NRC airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
SER. staff also found, however, that the The Boeing Company Model 747–400,
reduced flow area through the 14x14B 747–400D, 747–400F, 747–8F, and 747–
Issue 11: Exemptions fuel assembly ‘‘is still larger than the 8 series airplanes. This AD was
One commenter contended that a 17x17 assembly flow area used as the prompted by reports of very high
general licensee seeking to load spent bounding scenario in the thermal temperatures, near the floor in the aft
nuclear fuel into the Holtec HI–STORM analysis. As a result, the flow resistance lower lobe cargo compartment. This AD
FW System in accordance with the factor is still less restrictive than the one requires installing an additional zone
changes described in this rulemaking used in the bounding scenario, and the temperature sensor (ZTS) assembly in
would have to request an exemption passive decay heat removal of the the aft cargo compartment, and, for
from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 proposed 14x14B assembly is still certain airplanes, installing tape and
and 72.214. Another commenter conservative.’’ The NRC staff also found replacing the markers in the bulk cargo
that the spent fuel cladding ‘‘continues compartment. We are issuing this AD to
asserted that once Holtec has been given
to be protected against degradation prevent overheating of the aft lower lobe
its original CoC, there should be no
leading to gross ruptures under long- cargo compartment, where, if
‘‘exemptions.’’
term storage by maintaining cladding temperature sensitive cargo is present,
NRC Response temperatures below 752 °F (400 °C),’’ the release of flammable vapors could
and ‘‘continues to be protected against result in a fire or explosion if exposed
The revisions to Amendment No. 1 of degradation leading to gross ruptures to an ignition source.
CoC 1032 for the HI–STORM FW under off-normal and accident DATES: This AD is effective July 6, 2015.
System is to provide changes to the cask conditions by maintaining cladding The Director of the Federal Register
system so that general licensees do not temperatures below 1058 °F (570 °C). approved the incorporation by reference
need to request an exemption from any Protection of the cladding against of certain publications listed in this AD
requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 or 10 degradation is expected to allow ready as of July 6, 2015.
CFR 72.214. Like all other proposed CoC retrieval of spent fuel for further ADDRESSES: For service information
amendments or revisions, the general processing or disposal.’’ identified in this AD, contact Boeing
licensee under 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) will Therefore, the NRC staff has Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data
have to perform written evaluations concluded that the comments received & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707,
which establish that the cask will on the companion proposed rule for the MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207;
conform to the terms, conditions, and HI–STORM FW System, Amendment telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1;
specifications of a CoC or an amended No. 1, Revision 1, are not significant fax 206–766–5680; Internet https://
CoC listed in § 72.214. adverse comments as defined in www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view
Issue 12: Reduced Circulation of Air for NUREG–BR–0053, Revision 6, ‘‘United this referenced service information at
Cooling States Nuclear Regulatory Commission the FAA, Transport Airplane
Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Regulations Handbook’’ (ADAMS Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Two commenters objected that the Accession No. ML052720461). Renton, Washington. For information on
proposed change in the HI–STORM FW Therefore, this rule will become the availability of this material at the
System CoC would restrict the effective as scheduled. FAA, call 425–227–1221. It is also
circulation of air for cooling spent fuel Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day available on the Internet at http://
within the MPC or cask. of May, 2015. www.regulations.gov by searching for
VerDate Sep<11>2014 11:41 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01JNR1.SGM 01JNR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_31028/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 15:18:25
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 15:18:25
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date. | |
| Contact | Robert D. MacDougall, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5175; email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 30924 | |
| RIN Number | 3150-AJ52 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR