[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 26, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38286-38288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18318]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 72
[Docket No. PRM-72-1]
Maryland Safe Energy Coalition; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition
for rulemaking (PRM-72-1) from Richard Ochs submitted on behalf of the
Maryland Safe Energy Coalition. The petitioner requested several
amendments to the regulations governing the independent storage of
spent fuel in dry casks.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the public comments
received, and the NRC's letter to the petitioner are available for
public inspection and/or copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120
L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gordon E. Gundersen, Office of
Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6195.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On June 23, 1993, Mr. Richard Ochs, on behalf of the Maryland Safe
Energy Coalition, filed a petition for rulemaking with the NRC.
The petition relates to generic requirements for the licensing of
independent storage of spent fuel in dry casks found in the
Commission's regulations contained in 10 CFR Part 72. In particular,
Subpart B provides information required to be submitted in a license
application, Subpart C provides requirements for the issuance and
conditions of a license, Subpart D provides the requirements for the
records that must be kept by a licensee, and Subpart E provides
requirements for evaluation of the storage facility site.
The petitioner requested that the NRC amend 10 CFR Part 72 to read
as follows:
1. In Sec. 72.22(e)(2), ``Contents of application: General and
financial information,'' add ``Specify the planned life of the ISFSI.''
2. In Sec. 72.22(e)(3), ``Contents of application: General and
financial information,'' change ``after the removal of spent fuel and/
or high-level radioactive waste'' to ``if the spent fuel and/or the
high-level radioactive waste is removed.''
3. In Sec. 72.42, ``Duration of license; renewal,'' add a new
paragraph (d) to read ``No license will be issued before 90 days after
the final safety evaluation report (SER) is published.''
4. In Sec. 72.44(c)(3), ``License conditions,'' add paragraph (v)
to read ``dry storage casks must be monitored continuously for
radioactivity at the exit cooling vents.''
5. In Sec. 72.46(d), ``Public hearings,'' add ``The time prescribed
for a notice of opportunity for a hearing or petition for leave to
intervene will extend from the notice of proposed action through 90
days after the final SER is published.''
6. In Sec. 72.72(a), ``Material balance, inventory, and records
requirements for stored materials,'' after the first sentence add ``The
records must include the history and condition of all spent fuel
assemblies including a description of any defective fuel, such as fuel
that is cracked, swollen, blistered, pinholed, or offgassing.''
7. In Sec. 72.104(a) ``Criteria for radioactive materials in
effluents and direct radiation from ISFSI or MSR,'' in place of
``real'' put ``maximally exposed''; after ``individual'' add ``or
fetus''; change ``25 mrem'' to ``5 mrem''; change ``75 mrem'' to ``15
mrem''; and change ``25 mrem'' to ``5 mrem''. The sentence would then
read, ``* * * dose equivalent to any maximally exposed individual or
fetus who is located beyond the controlled area must not exceed 5 mrem
to the whole body, 15 mrem to the thyroid and 5 mrem to any other organ
* * * ''
This petition for rulemaking stems from earlier actions regarding
the Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).
On December 21, 1992, the petitioner filed a petition requesting that
the NRC institute a proceeding pursuant to Sec. 2.206 with regard to
the Calvert Cliffs ISFSI. In acknowledging the receipt of the December
21, 1992, petition, the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, indicated that to the extent it addressed generic issues
related to dry cask storage, the appropriate course of action would be
to file a petition for rulemaking. The Director's decision dated August
16, 1993, denied the Sec. 2.206 petition, Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company (Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation),
DD-9-14 (August 16, 1993); 58 FR 44863 (August 25, 1993). This
rulemaking petition filed on June 23, 1993, addresses many of the
generic issues that were raised in the December 21, 1992, Sec. 2.206
petition.
Basis for Request
As a basis for the requested action, the petitioner stated that, as
an environmental consumer organization, the Maryland Safe Energy
Coalition is interested in the minimization and safe storage of nuclear
waste including spent fuel at nuclear power plant sites in general.
The petitioner indicated that it is particularly concerned about
spent fuel storage at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, which is
operated by Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E). The petitioner
stated that even though the spent fuel at Calvert Cliffs is stored
under a specific Part 72 license, many of the generic requirements
proposed by the petitioner would be the same or similar to the specific
requirements applicable to independent spent fuel storage at Calvert
Cliffs.
Public Comments on the Petition
A notice of filing of petition for rulemaking was published in the
Federal Register on September 8, 1993 (58 FR 47222). Interested persons
were requested to submit written comments or suggestions concerning the
petition by November 22, 1993. The NRC received five comment letters
from the industry and industrial associations, four from individuals,
one from an environmental group, and two from governmental agencies.
The commenters were evenly split, six supporting all or parts of the
petition and six rejecting the petition. The supporters' comments
generally supported the additional 90 days to review the Safety
Evaluation Report (SER), the need for records because of the
uncertainty of knowing how long the spent fuel will be stored, the need
for continuously monitoring radiation leaving storage cask vents, and
lower radiation limits. The commenters objecting to the petition were
more specific, often citing the Director's decision under Sec. 2.206,
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. (Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installation), DD-93-14, August 16, 1993. Concerning extending
the opportunity for hearing or petition to 90 days after the final SER
is issued, the objecting commenters cited the NRC hearing and petition
processes as providing ample opportunity for public participation. In
refuting the lower radiation limits, the objectors cited studies and
reports by respected organizations and other regulations
[[Page 38287]]
including EPA's 40 CFR Part 190 and the recently revised 10 CFR Part
20. Additional information was also received from the petitioner. The
petition and the comments received in response to the notice of filing
are available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room identified
above.
Reasons for Denial
The NRC has considered the petitioner's requested amendments, the
public comments received, and other related information. The following
discussion addresses each of the seven parts of the petitioner's
requested amendments quoted above and the NRC's response.
Part 1: The petitioner requests that Sec. 72.22(e)(2) be revised by
adding ``Specify the planned life of the ISFSI.''
In the existing Sec. 72.22(e), there is already the requirement for
the applicant to specify the period of time for which the license is
requested. The petitioner's request is therefore unnecessary and
redundant because the applicant is already required to specify the
planned life of the ISFSI, that is, the period of time for which the
license is requested.
Part 2: The petitioner requests that wording of Sec. 72.22(e)(3) be
changed from ``after the removal of spent fuel and/or high-level
radioactive waste'' to ``if the spent fuel and/or the high-level
radioactive waste is removed.''
DOE is required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to accept
spent fuel for ultimate disposal. Moreover, the Commission made a
generic determination in its Waste Confidence Decisions (September 18,
1990; 55 FR 38474 and August 31, 1984; 49 FR 34694) that there is
reasonable assurance that safe disposal is technically feasible and
will be available within the first quarter of the 21st century. The NRC
therefore does not believe it is either necessary or appropriate to
revise the existing wording of the regulation as requested by the
petitioner.
Part 3 and Part 5: The petitioner requests a new paragraph (d) be
added to Sec. 72.42 to read ``No license will be issued before 90 days
after the final safety evaluation report (SER) is published.'' The
petitioner believes that significant new issues will be contained in
the final SER. The petitioner also requests that the following be added
to Sec. 72.46(d): ``The time prescribed for a notice of opportunity for
a hearing or petition for leave to intervene will extend from the
notice of proposed action through 90 days after the final SER is
published.'' The petitioner states that if a notice of opportunity for
a hearing or intervention is limited to a short period after the
license application, interested parties may be prevented from obtaining
a hearing based on the second or final SER. Information in the latter
safety reports may impact on the advisability of issuing a license. The
public should have the right and opportunity to comment on the final
Safety Analysis Report (SAR) and SER before a license is issued.
An applicant for a site-specific dry cask storage license is
required by Sec. 72.24 to submit a detailed safety analysis report
(SAR) with the application for license to the NRC. The applicant's SAR
contains the detailed basis for requesting a license and, more
particularly, for demonstrating compliance with NRC licensing
standards. Following receipt of an application, the NRC publishes a
notice of docketing an application for an ISFSI in the Federal Register
as required by Sec. 72.16(e). This notice, which may be combined with a
notice of opportunity for a hearing, will typically indicate where a
copy of the detailed SAR may be examined. An individual is allowed 30
days from the notice of proposed action to request that NRC grant a
hearing in accordance with Sec. 2.105 and Sec. 2.1107. The 30-day
period is provided so that the individual can review the license
application and SAR and determine whether to request a hearing or
intervention. The SAR will provide ample information for the individual
to make the determination. At the same time, the NRC technical staff
will commence its review of the SAR and other relevant documents and
preparation of an SER. These documents and the license are placed in
the NRC Public Document Room and the Local Public Document Room near
the licensee site where they are also available for review. Should the
SER contain a new issue (as opposed to new evidence on an issue
apparent from the SAR) pertinent to the requested license, an
interested party could seek late intervention or submit a late-filed
contention as allowed by Sec. 2.714. Finally, a party can petition the
NRC to modify a license if new information comes to light after the
license is issued. Thus, an individual has ample opportunity to
participate in the ISFSI licensing process and to review and raise
issues concerning the SER. Adding another 90-day delay in issuing the
license would not significantly improve the process for licensing the
safe operation of an ISFSI.
Part 4: The petitioner requests a new paragraph (v) be added to
Sec. 72.44(c)(3) to read ``dry storage casks must be monitored
continuously for radioactivity at the exit cooling vents.'' The
petitioner states that the exit vents are the most likely location of
radioactive venting, and it is therefore logical that monitors would be
required at these locations.
NRC regulations already require that the license (or Certificate of
Compliance in the case of an NRC approved cask) include surveillance
and monitoring requirements to determine when corrective actions need
be taken to maintain safe storage conditions. See, e.g., 10 CFR
72.122(h)(4). In addition, radiation monitoring and environmental
monitoring programs are also already required (e.g., 10 CFR 72.126),
and these programs can be expected to detect any radiation leak in
excess of NRC limits from an NRC-approved cask. Furthermore, the NRC-
approved cask designs which use cooling vents and air flow between the
fuel canister and the concrete biological shield for cooling also are
designed to require double seal closure welds on the canister. These
welds are inspected and the canister leak tested after being loaded.
There is no known long-term degradation mechanisms which would cause
the weld to fail within the design life of the canister. Therefore, the
regulation proposed by the petitioner is not needed.
Part 5: The response to this part has been combined with the
response to Part 3 and is addressed above.
Part 6: The petitioner requests that the following be added after
the first sentence in Sec. 72.72(a): ``The records must include the
history and condition of all spent fuel assemblies including a
description of any defective fuel, such as fuel that is cracked,
swollen, blistered, pinholed, or offgassing.'' The petitioner states
that defective fuel can cause problems for safe storage; therefore, the
history and condition of all spent fuel should be documented.
NRC regulations already require that the license (or Certificate of
Compliance in the case of an NRC-approved cask) must include
specifications for the conditions of fuel assemblies to be loaded into
storage casks. See, e.g., 10 CFR 72.44(c). These regulations also
require that licensees must demonstrate in procedures and records that
the fuel load meets the cask design criteria. In addition, licensees
must conduct loading operations in accordance with written procedures
which must be specific enough to demonstrate that only fuel assemblies
that meet the cask design criteria can be loaded. Licensees are
required to maintain records, including the condition of the fuel, of
[[Page 38288]]
all fuel assemblies in storage casks or in the pool. See, e.g., 10 CFR
Part 50 Appendix B, XVII, ``Quality Assurance Records,'' and 10 CFR
72.174, ``Quality Assurance Records.'' Therefore, additional records as
proposed by the petitioner are not necessary.
Part 7: The petitioner requests the following revisions to
Sec. 72.104(a): in place of ``real'' put ``maximally exposed''; after
``individual'' add ``or fetus''; change ``25 mrem'' to ``5 mrem'';
change ``75 mrem'' to ``15 mrem''; and change ``25 mrem'' to ``5
mrem.'' The sentence will then read, ``* * * dose equivalent to any
maximally exposed individual or fetus who is located beyond the
controlled area must not exceed 5 mrem to the whole body, 15 mrem to
the thyroid and 5 mrem to any other organ * * *''
The change of the word ``real'' to ``maximally exposed'' in
Sec. 72.104(a) is not needed. In the regulation, the word ``real'' in
the phrase ``The annual dose equivalent to any real individual who is
located beyond the controlled area * * *'' refers to an individual who
lives closest to the boundary of the controlled area. This individual
is, in general, the maximally exposed individual because other
individuals are further away from the controlled area. If the
petitioner's suggested words ``maximally exposed'' were adopted, it
could mean that an imaginary individual would be continually present at
the boundary of the controlled area. The NRC regulates radiation doses
on the basis of real people in proximity to the boundary of the
controlled area.
Section 72.104(a) establishes the bases for the amount of
radioactive materials permitted in ISFSI effluents and direct radiation
from an ISFSI. It imposes limits on the annual dose equivalent that is
received by an individual who is located beyond the controlled area.
The petitioner referred to a 1990 study by Alice Stewart that allegedly
supports the conclusion that the standards incorporated in
Sec. 72.104(a) are too high for a developing fetus, women, and
children. The petitioner cited additional references during the comment
period.
Section 72.104(a) does not incorporate exposure limits that are
unique to ISFSI operation. Rather, the exposure limits used in Part 72
are based on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental
Radiation Standards for fuel cycle facilities specified in 40 CFR Part
190. 45 FR 74693 (November 11, 1980). Moreover, the EPA, commenting on
the proposed 10 CFR Part 72, stated: ``Our only comment of substance
concerns your requirement that such independent storage facilities
provide radiation protection consistent with the Agency's public health
protection standards for the Uranium Fuel Cycle (40 CFR 190). We
generally support your use of these requirements.''
The Sec. 72.104(a) exposure limits are also consistent with the
recent revision of 10 CFR Part 20--Standards for Protection Against
Radiation which became effective on January 1, 1994. This revision was
comprehensive in scope and reflects state-of-the-art data on radiation
protection. This revision was based on recommendations and studies of
expert groups through 1990, including the International Commission on
Radiological Protection, the National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the
Effects of Atomic Radiation, and the National Academy of Science's
Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). Among
other things, these studies analyzed the data on radiation exposure to
a developing fetus. In sum, the NRC's radiation protection standards
are based on a body of recent, authoritative, and substantial data. The
petition fails to provide an adequate basis for its requested revisions
to Sec. 72.104(a).
It should also be noted that both 10 CFR Parts 20 and 72 have
requirements to keep radiation exposures as low as reasonably
achievable (ALARA). Experience to date with ISFSI operations has
demonstrated that due to the conservative ISFSI designs and the
application of ALARA requirements, the radiation levels associated with
ISFSI operations are in fact well below regulatory limits.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is denied.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of July, 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James M. Taylor,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 95-18318 Filed 7-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
