[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30924-30928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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: [email protected]. 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 [email protected].
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:
[email protected].
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