Regulatory Analysis for Part 72 License and CoC Terms Proposed Rule

Regulatory Analysis for Proposed Rule Amendments to 10 CFR Part 72
License and CoC Terms

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
February 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has published a proposed rule (RIN:
3150-AI09) [NRC-2008-0361] to amend its regulations to clarify the license term limits for dry
storage cask Certificates of Compliance (CoCs) and independent spent fuel storage installation
(ISFSI) licenses.
The proposed rule would improve regulatory efficiency by providing a consistent basis
for the scope, applicability, and terminology of CoC and Part 72 ISFSI general license
regulations to better align CoC regulatory requirements with ISFSI general license
requirements. The amended regulations would also provide consistency between the Part 72
ISFSI general and site-specific license requirements.
Section 2 summarizes the technical basis for this rulemaking. Section 3 identifies the
two alternatives evaluated in this rulemaking: no action and implementation of the proposed
rule. Section 4 describes the analysis method and input assumptions. Section 5 presents the
results and Section 6 presents the decision rationale. Section 7 lists the references used in this
Regulatory Analysis. Appendix 1 provides the names of storage casks currently in use, names
of current licensed ISFSI locations, names of licensees pursuing a Part 72 general license, and
names of licensees who have not announced plans for ISFSI licensing.
This Regulatory Analysis provides an evaluation of two alternatives, one of which is
taking no action and the other is implementing the proposed rule. The preferred approach is
implementing the proposed rule. The results show that the proposed rule would save about
$1.3 million or $0.9 million over a 40 year analysis period (2008 dollars using a 3 percent or a
7 percent discount rate, respectively) compared to making no changes in the regulations. Most
of the labor by licensees, CoC holders and the NRC staff is modeled in this regulatory analysis
as a one-time event. Although these activities would occur in different years, the effort would
occur only once in the 40 year analysis period and was modeled as occurring in 2008 to simplify
the analysis. Annual savings are modeled for Part 72 general licensees and the NRC staff as a
result of the proposed amendment in 10 CFR 72.212(b)(4) that would remove the requirement
of the general licensee to submit an exemption request to apply changes authorized by an
amended CoC to a cask loaded under the initial CoC or an earlier amended CoC. The NRC
would benefit the most from the proposed rule, due to the submittal of fewer license renewal
applications during the 40 year analysis period. The savings achieved by industry are due
primarily to more efficient management of cask expiration dates, after the initial term, and ISFSI
license expiration dates, as well as preparation of fewer exemption requests seeking to apply
CoC amendments to previously loaded casks.

2

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Description of the Proposed Action ................................................................................. 5
1.2 Need for the Proposed Action ......................................................................................... 7
2. TECHNICAL BASIS FOR THE PROPOSED RULE ............................................................. 7
2.1 Specify a Maximum Term for an Initial CoC Application .................................................. 7
2.2 Specify a Maximum Term for a Renewal CoC Application .............................................. 9
2.3 Clarify Term Limit for Cask Designs Approved for Use at General License Sites............ 9
2.4 Implementation of Later Amendments to Previously Loaded Casks.............................. 10
2.5 CoC Renewal Application Requires Aging Analyses ..................................................... 10
3. IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES ...................................................... 11
3.1 Alternative 1: No-Action ............................................................................................... 11
3.2 Alternative 2: Implement the Regulations in the Proposed Rule ................................... 11
4. ANALYSIS OF VALUES AND IMPACTS ........................................................................... 11
4.1 Analytical Methodology ................................................................................................. 13
4.1.1 General Assumptions ............................................................................................ 13
4.1.2 Specific Assumptions for Alternative 2 .................................................................. 13
5. RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 16
5.1 Summary of Results...................................................................................................... 16
6. DECISION RATIONALE AND IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................ 19
7. REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix 1: Approved Storage Cask and ISFSI Number and Location Information ........... Error!
Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 2: Input Assumptions and Line Item Results for Alternative 2 ................................... 23

3

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CFR
CoC
COMSECY

FR
INL
ISFSI
NRC
SAR
SECY
SER
SOC
SRM

Code of Federal Regulations
Certificate of Compliance
A paper originating from a Commissioner who wants to bring an item to the
attention of his or her fellow Commissioners, or a paper that originates from the
NRC Executive Director for Operations (EDO), the Chief Financial Officer (CFO),
or other Commission-level office seeking guidance from the Commission.
Federal Register
Idaho National Laboratory
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Safety Analysis Report
A paper addressing policy, rulemaking, or adjudicatory matters submitted to the
Commission for consideration in a document style and format established
specifically for the purpose.
Safety Evaluation Report
Statements of Consideration
Staff Requirements Memorandum

4

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

1.

INTRODUCTION

The NRC is proposing to amend regulations in Part 72 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) to clarify the license term limits for dry storage cask CoCs and ISFSI
licenses, provide consistency between the general license requirements and the site-specific
ISFSI license requirements, and allow Part 72 general licensees to implement changes
authorized by an amended CoC to a cask loaded under the initial CoC or an earlier amended
CoC (a “previously loaded cask”). The Commission directed this rulemaking through a Staff
Requirements Memorandum (SRM) for SECY-06-0152, dated August 14, 2006, as
supplemented, by SRM for COMSECY-07-0032, dated December 12, 2007.
Specifically, the proposed amendments would allow for longer initial and renewal terms
for Part 72 CoCs and licenses, clarify the general license storage term, clarify the difference
between CoC “approval” and “renewal,” allow a licensee to apply the changes associated with a
CoC amendment to a previously loaded cask without express NRC approval, provided the cask
fully conforms to the terms, conditions, and specifications of the amended CoC, and make
certain administrative and clarifying changes.
As of August 2008, there are 15 approved spent fuel storage cask designs listed in
10 CFR 72.214. However, because each amendment to a cask design is considered a
separate and unique cask design, there are in practice 43 approved spent fuel storage cask
designs including all amendments. There are 15 Part 72 ISFSI site-specific licensees, and 37
Part 72 ISFSI general licensees. The licensees of another 18 power reactor sites are pursuing
a Part 72 ISFSI general license. Fourteen power reactor sites have not announced intentions
regarding an ISFSI. Appendix 1 provides the names of storage casks currently in use, names
of the ISFSI locations, names of licensees pursuing a Part 72 general license, and names of
licensees who have not announced plans for ISFSI licensing.
A description of the proposed rule and the need for the rule are discussed in the
following two sections. Section 2 summarizes the technical basis for this rulemaking. Section 3
identifies the two alternatives evaluated in this rulemaking – a No Action alternative and an
alternative assuming implementation of the rule. Section 4 describes the analysis method and
input assumptions. Section 5 describes the Results. Section 6 discusses the Decision
Rationale and Implementation of the preferred alternative, and Section 7 lists the References
used in this regulatory analysis. Input assumptions are documented in Appendix 2.
1.1

Description of the Proposed Action

10 CFR Part 72 provides the requirements for: (a) site-specific ISFSI licenses, (b) CoCs
for spent nuclear fuel dry cask storage systems, and (c) general licenses for ISFSIs at reactor
sites. Under this rulemaking, license terms for each type of license and CoC would be affected.
The first proposed change would be to extend the license term for Part 72 site-specific
licenses from the current 20 years from the date of initial license issuance, or from the date of
license renewal, to a length of time not to exceed 40 years from the date of issuance or license
renewal. The exact license term would be specified by the applicant in a license application.
5

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

Current 10 CFR 72.42 specifies that the duration of a Part 72 site-specific license, either initial
or license renewal, must be for a fixed period of time not to exceed 20 years from the date of
issuance.
Another change would be to extend the license term of a storage cask CoC from a
period of at least 20 years to a period not to exceed 40 years. The current regulations require
that the license applicant for a CoC submit a safety analysis report (SAR) showing that the cask
is suitable for storage of spent fuel for a period of at least 20 years. The proposed rule would
allow the CoC applicant, in a new CoC application, or the CoC holder, in a renewal application
of a CoC, to submit the application for a proposed term not to exceed 40 years.
A general ISFSI license is available for use as long as the licensee is authorized to
possess or operate a nuclear power reactor, under the provisions of Part 50. Therefore, the
“term” for a general license is directly tied to the term of the associated Part 50 reactor license.
However, the use of a specific cask design under a general license is otherwise tied to the CoC.
If the license term of a storage cask CoC is extended to 40 years, the authority to use a specific
cask design under a general license would also be extended to 40 years. Currently, the
general licensee’s authority to use a particular cask design for the storage of spent fuel in each
cask fabricated under an approved CoC terminates 20 years after the date that the general
licensee first uses the particular cask to store spent fuel. Under the proposed rule, the exact
“term” to use a specific cask design under a general license would depend on action taken by
the CoC holder to extend the term of the storage cask CoC. If the CoC holder does not extend
the term of the storage cask, then the Part 72 general licensee could seek approval from the
NRC for a renewal of the storage cask CoC.
Another action in this proposed rule would allow general licensees to apply newer
amendments to previously loaded casks, provided that the loaded cask meets all terms and
conditions of the amended CoC. Partial implementation of the changes in an amendment is
prohibited as it would result in a cask that is in an unanalyzed condition and not fully compliant
with any of the CoCs listed in 10 CFR 72.214. Currently, 10 CFR Part 72 does not allow for
general licensees to apply changes authorized by CoC amendments to previously loaded casks
without prior NRC approval, if the changes alter the terms or conditions of the CoC under which
that cask was loaded. General licensees that want to implement such changes must apply to
the NRC for an exemption.
The proposed rule evaluated in this regulatory analysis would make editorial corrections
to other Part 72 rule text, but these corrections would generate little or no impact on
stakeholders or the NRC. For example, one rule text change that is considered to have no
impact on stakeholders or the NRC is a change in terminology in 10 CFR 72.240 from CoC
"reapproval" to CoC "renewal."
The proposed rule has no impact on Agreement States because 10 CFR Part 72 has a
compatibility category of "NRC" which establishes regulatory program elements that cannot be
relinquished to Agreement States under the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, or under
provisions of Title 10 of the CFR.

6

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

1.2

Need for the Proposed Action

The amended regulations are necessary to improve regulatory efficiency because they
would provide a consistent basis for the scope, applicability, and terminology of CoC and
Part 72 ISFSI license regulations. The amended regulations would also better align CoC
regulatory requirements with ISFSI general license requirements.

2.

TECHNICAL BASIS FOR THE PROPOSED RULE

Sections 2.1 through 2.5 provide the technical basis supporting the proposed rule.
These sections cover (1) a longer term for an initial CoC application; (2) a longer term for a
renewal CoC application; (3) term limit for an approved storage cask design approved for use at
a general site; (4) implementation of later amendments to previously loaded casks; and (5) a
new requirement for a CoC renewal application to include an aging management program
related to the characteristics of the storage cask.
2.1

Specify a Maximum Term for an Initial CoC Application

Currently, Part 72 does not specify an explicit limit on the initial term of a CoC for a
spent fuel storage cask design. NRC has historically authorized 20-year initial terms, as
supported by the requirements of 10 CFR 72.230(b) and 72.236(g), and the Statements of
Consideration (SOC) in the Federal Register (FR) notice for the final rule that added the
general license provisions to Part 72 (55 FR 29184; July 18, 1990). Section 72.230(b) of 10
CFR specifies that for a cask design certified for transportation of spent fuel under 10 CFR Part
71, an SAR showing that the cask is suitable for storage of spent fuel for a period of at least 20
years must be included in an application for a CoC for a spent fuel storage cask design. Section
72.236(g) of 10 CFR requires that the spent fuel storage cask must be designed to store the
spent fuel safely for a minimum of 20 years. The referenced SOC indicate that, “[t]he
Commission believes that 20-year increments are appropriate for such cask design approvals,
after which designs may be renewed.” Furthermore, the 20-year initial term for a Part 72 CoC
is consistent with the initial term of a site-specific ISFSI license specified in 10 CFR 72.42(a).
Proposed rule changes to 10 CFR 72.230(b) and 72.236(g) would change the length of
the term from a minimum of 20 years to a maximum term not to exceed 40 years for an initial
CoC application.
Although CoC license applicants would have the flexibility to request a longer than
20-year initial term under this proposed rule, the maximum initial term would be limited to
40 years because of relatively limited empirical data available to evaluate the long-term material
degradation issues of dry spent fuel storage casks. In 2003 and 2004, during the review for the
Surry and H. B. Robinson renewal applications, the staff evaluated technical data resulting from
an NRC-supported research program at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and dry spent fuel
storage casks used at Surry. Under the INL research program, INL opened and inspected a
dry storage cask after the fuel had been stored for approximately 15 years. At Surry, several
7

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

casks were also opened after less than 15 years of storage as a result of some faulty weather
covers which were corrected. Summaries of the findings regarding the condition of the fuel and
cask components follow:
(1) Cladding creep is a time-dependent change in the dimension of the cladding
resulting from high temperature and stress. It was considered as a potential degradation
mechanism during storage. Confirmatory inspection of the spent fuel stored at INL verified that
no cladding creep had occurred. The spent fuel in dry storage at Surry also supports this
finding. The NRC staff expects very little to no fuel degradation at the end of an extended
licensing period. The established limits for cladding temperature during storage, and
continually decreasing level of cladding stress and temperature, further remove creep as a
degradation mechanism. Assessment indicated that cladding creep would not be an issue.
(2) The NRC staff also expects limited degradation of other internal components
because there are no significant corrosive influences in the inert environment, either for the fuel
or for other components. The INL inspection verified that there was no indication of corrosion
for any internal canister components. The NRC staff has also concluded that radiation levels
are too low to significantly alter the properties of the metals for any storage canister
components.
(3) At Surry, the helium-filled region used metallic seals as the first and second
containment seals. These were the only safety-related seals.
(4) The other external components of the storage systems (which are exposed to
weathering effects) would already be covered by an inspection and corrective action program,
or routine maintenance, to ensure that any degradation will be identified and assessed for its
importance to safety, and will be addressed through corrective actions to ensure continued safe
operation of the storage system.
Based on these findings, the staff believes that, with appropriate aging management
and maintenance programs, not to exceed 40-year terms are reasonable without undue risk to
the public or to the environment. License terms longer than 40 years would require additional
information on the long-term material degradation of dry spent fuel storage casks and would
need to be evaluated by the staff.
The flexibility to request a longer initial CoC term does not involve any change to the
design criteria for spent fuel storage casks. Consequently, new cask designs would meet the
same design requirements as previously certified designs. Each applicant for a longer initialterm CoC must justify in its application that its proposed cask design and associated
support/operational programs (for example, including surveillance and maintenance) are
suitable for storage of spent fuel for that requested term. This proposed change would affect
applicants who request a longer initial CoC term. The staff would develop regulatory guidance
to address the additional analyses or measures necessary to justify CoC initial terms of greater
than 20 years to a maximum of 40 years.

8

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

2.2

Specify a Maximum Term for a Renewal CoC Application

Current regulations do not explicitly call out the renewal term of a Part 72 CoC. The
SOC referenced above (55 FR 29184) specify that the Commission believes that 20-year
increments are appropriate for reapproval of a storage cask CoC and consistent with the
20-year license renewal period for site-specific licenses.
Proposed rule changes to 10 CFR 72.240(a) would provide CoC holders with the
flexibility to request a reapproval term not to exceed 40 years.
For similar reasons as stated in Section 2.1, the NRC staff supports a renewal term not
to exceed 40 years. If a CoC holder (applicant) requests a renewal term for a storage cask
CoC, then the applicant must justify in the renewal application that the spent fuel storage cask
design is suitable for the requested renewal term. This proposed change would affect
applicants who seek to request a CoC renewal term longer than 20 years. As planned for the
change in term length for an initial CoC application, the staff would develop regulatory guidance
to address the additional analyses or measures necessary to justify CoC renewal terms.
2.3

Clarify Term Limit for Cask Designs Approved for Use at General License Sites

A Part 50 power reactor licensee may use a Part 72 ISFSI general license for spent fuel
storage as long as the Part 50 license is maintained. Under current regulations, the Part 72
ISFSI general licensee’s authority to use an approved cask design terminates 20 years after the
date that the general licensee first loads spent fuel into the cask. In the event the CoC was to
expire in the interim, any loaded spent fuel storage casks of that design would need to be
removed from service after a storage period not to exceed 20 years. Neither the regulation nor
the associated SOC for the final rule promulgating the regulation are clear as to whether each
individual cask, once it is loaded with spent fuel under a valid CoC, may remain in service for a
full 20 years, or whether a “20-year clock” is started at each site with the first loading of a cask
of a given design. The 20-year expiration date is approaching for a number of storage casks at
several generally licensed ISFSIs, requiring those terms to be extended. Since the use of a
specific cask design under a general license is tied to the CoC, general licensees would depend
on the certificate owners to obtain renewal from the NRC for the cask designs used at their
sites. If this is done, the general license authority for the continued use of the storage cask
terminates 20 years after the CoC renewal date. If the CoC expires before a renewal is
approved, spent fuel storage casks of that design need to be removed from service after the
storage period not to exceed 20 years.
Since (1) the use of a specific cask design under a general license is tied to the CoC
and (2) the proposed rule would increase CoC terms from 20 years to up to 40 years, the
Commission proposes to amend 10 CFR 72.212(a)(3) to specify that the license for storage of
spent fuel in each cask would terminate after that particular cask is first used by the general
licensee for a length of time equivalent to the licensed lifetime as certified by the cask’s CoC at
the time of loading. If a CoC expires, casks of that design must be removed from service after
a storage period not to exceed a length of time equivalent to the licensed lifetime as certified by
the cask’s CoC at the time of loading. However, if the cask's CoC is renewed, the general
9
Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

license would then terminate when the CoC for that particular cask design expires. This
change is not only consistent with the intent of the current regulations for general licenses, but
also updates the current regulations due to revisions in other sections of Part 72 in this
rulemaking. The proposed change would affect all general licensees.
2.4

Implementation of Later Amendments to Previously Loaded Casks

CoC amendments are routinely requested by the cask manufacturer or vendor (also
referred to as the certificate holder). Upon NRC approval of a CoC amendment, general
licensees can load empty casks meeting the technical specifications of that CoC amendment.
However, general licensees that want to apply changes approved by a later CoC amendment to
a previously loaded cask must request an exemption from the NRC if such changes alter the
terms or conditions of the CoC under which that cask was loaded. Even if a general licensee
requested the certificate holder of the cask to submit an amendment request that is specific to
the general licensee and obtained NRC approval for such an amendment, the general licensee
still could not apply this amendment to previously loaded casks. To take advantage of the CoC
amendment under the current requirements, the licensee must apply to NRC for an exemption.
The proposed change would revise 10 CFR 72.212 to allow a general licensee to apply
CoC amendment changes to a previously loaded cask provided that the licensee perform
written evaluations meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(b). This proposed process is
parallel to an existing process which general licensees must follow before loading an empty
cask under the general license. Specifically, Subpart K of Part 72 allows general licensees to
select from the list of approved spent fuel storage casks from 10 CFR 72.214. Because NRC
has made a safety determination on each of the casks and amendments listed in 10 CFR
72.214, a later amendment that is codified by NRC would automatically be included in the list.
The proposed revision to 10 CFR 72.212 would require that, after application of the changes
authorized by a CoC amendment, the loaded cask must conform to the terms and conditions of
the subject CoC amendment.
This proposed change would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory
process by reducing the regulatory burdens of both the NRC and general licensees. It would
affect general licensees who desire to implement the changes from a later CoC amendment to
a previously loaded cask.
2.5

CoC Renewal Application Requires Aging Analyses

In 2004, the Commission authorized the staff to approve 40-year license renewal terms
for the site-specific license for the Surry ISFSI [Reference 1]. In doing so, the NRC imposed,
by license condition, certain aging management requirements to be performed by the licensees.
Licensees must develop aging management plans to evaluate performance characteristics of
the storage casks at those sites over time. If the regulations are changed to allow general and
site-specific licensees to use storage casks over a renewed term not to exceed 40 years, then
the NRC staff believes that requirements need to be added to the regulations to ensure that
10

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

aging analyses are performed and submitted in the application for the period requested by the
CoC renewal application.
The proposed rule would amend 10 CFR 72.24(c) to specify that the license term for an
ISFSI license cannot exceed 40 years and would amend Section 72.42(a) to require specific
licensees to implement an aging management program, as described by the CoC holder in its
renewal application. The proposed rule would also amend 10 CFR 72.240(c) to require the
contents of the SAR for the cask renewal application must include aging analyses that
demonstrate that structures, systems, and components important to safety will perform their
intended function for the period of extended operation requested in the license renewal. This
new requirement would apply to the CoC holder or to the Part 72 general licensee if the CoC
holder does not apply for renewal of a particular cask. The aging management requirements
for general licensees are tied to the CoC; if the storage cask CoC requires an aging
management program, general licensees would be required to comply with these requirements.
The proposed changes to 10 CFR 72.42(a) and 72.240(c) would provide consistent
program activities performed by site-specific and general license ISFSI installations during the
period of extended operation.

3.

IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
The NRC considered two alternatives for the proposed rule, described below.

3.1

Alternative 1: No-Action

The No-Action alternative is to maintain the status quo. Under the No-Action alternative,
the Commission would make no changes to the current regulations and, as a result, there
would be no incremental costs or benefits. This is the baseline of the Regulatory Analysis.
3.2

Alternative 2: Implement the Regulations in the Proposed Rule

This alternative would amend the regulations as described in Sections 2.1 through 2.5 to
implement the proposed rule. Appendix 2 of this Regulatory Analysis shows the input
assumptions for Alternative 2.

4.

ANALYSIS OF VALUES AND IMPACTS

This section examines the values (benefits) and impacts (costs) expected to result from
NRC’s proposed rule. The benefits and costs are analyzed for Alternative 2 and are broken out
by societal attributes considered important to evaluate a proposed rule. Because the benefits
11

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

would exceed the costs, the overall impact of this proposed rule would be a net savings to both
licensees and to the NRC.
Table 4-1 lists the attributes significant for this proposed rule with reference to their
expected change. The benefits and costs for each attribute are quantified using a methodology
described in Section 4.1. The attributes not expected to be affected by the proposed rule are
listed below Table 4-1. All of these attributes are recommended for consideration during a
rulemaking effort, in the Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook [Reference 2].
Table 4-1: Listing of Societal Attributes that May Be Affected by the Proposed Rule

Expected Change

Attribute
Industry Implementation

Part 72 licensees and CoC holders would realize one time costs and
savings associated with specific sections of rule text in Alternative 2.

Industry Operation

Part 72 general licensees would realize annual savings associated with
proposed amendment in section 72.212(b)(4) in Alternative 2.

NRC Implementation

NRC would achieve one time savings associated with the review of fewer
license renewal applications by Part 72 site-specific licensees and CoC
holders in Alternative 2.

NRC Operation

NRC would realize annual savings associated with fewer exemption
requests submitted in proposed section 72.212(b)(4) in Alternative 2.

Regulatory Efficiency

Licensees, CoC holders and the NRC would realize overall improved
efficiencies as estimated in the total savings for the four attributes above.

The following attributes are not expected to be affected by the proposed rule
Public Health (Accident)
Public Health (Routine)
Antitrust Considerations
Environmental Considerations
Improvements in Knowledge

Offsite Property
Onsite Property
General Public
Other Government

Occupational Health (Accident)
Occupational Health (Routine)
Safeguards and Security
Other Considerations

Section 5 presents the results, in constant 2008 dollars. The results are shown for the
one-time costs and savings and annual costs and savings that result from implementation of
Alternative 2. The total costs and savings over the 40-year implementation period are
estimated using 7 percent and 3 percent real discount rates. This proposed rule would result in
a reduction in costs, so there would be net savings to both licensees and to the NRC.
The estimated total savings for Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1 are $1.3 million
and $0.9 million, discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively, over the 40 year analysis
period.
12

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

4.1

Analytical Methodology

This section describes the process used to evaluate values and impacts of the affected
attributes for Alternative 2. Values (benefits) include any desirable changes. Impacts (costs)
include any undesirable changes in affected attributes, such as increased costs. The following
attributes have quantifiable values and impacts due to implementation of the proposed rule:
–
–
–
–

Industry Implementation
Industry Operation
NRC Implementation
NRC Operations

NRC collected input assumptions from referenced sources when these were available.
In some cases, NRC was not aware of any input data and in these cases NRC staff made an
estimate based on best professional judgment. The NRC seeks public comments on the
accuracy of the input assumptions used in this regulatory analysis, and on the validity of the
method to estimate values and impacts of the proposed rule.
4.1.1

General Assumptions
The general input assumptions for the analysis are discussed below.

•

NRC wage rate: $100/hour. This is NRC’s incremental labor rate, which includes only the
variable costs associated with implementation and operation costs of the rule.

•

Industry wage rate: $100/hour for licensee management and for administrative support.
This represents a blended rate for executive level and administrative personnel who support
regulatory compliance of a company operating under NRC regulations.

•

The time period for the analysis is 40 years. This is considered a reasonable range of time
to evaluate the values and impacts of an increased term because initial and renewal terms
of ISFSI licenses and CoCs would increase from 20 years to 40 years.

4.1.2

Specific Assumptions for Alternative 2

Under Alternative 2, NRC would amend its regulations to implement the proposed rule.
The specific assumptions for Alternative 2 are:
•

For the purposes of modeling the costs and savings associated with the proposed rule, the
analysis assumes the proposed rule would be implemented in 2010.

•

With regard to 10 CFR 72.42(a) and (b), it is assumed that 2 of the 14 power reactor sites
that have not yet announced their intentions with respect to an ISFSI license, would apply
for a Part 72 specific license for a period not to exceed 40 years. Under current regulations,
13

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

these licensees would need to submit an initial application for 20 years and a renewal
application for another 20 years to match the 40-year period in the initial application that
would be allowed under amended 10 CFR 72.42(a). The licensee’s labor saving in not
submitting a renewal application is estimated to be 160 hours. This is a one-time savings.
Also, it is assumed that 12 of the current 15 licensees with a Part 72 site-specific license
would apply for a license renewal for a period not to exceed 40 years. These licensees
would also save an estimated 160 hours each as a result of submitting only a single license
renewal to cover the 40 year analysis period. These are modeled as one-time efforts for
each licensee, in constant 2008 dollars.
•

With regard to 10 CFR 72.212(a)(3), there are 37 licensees who currently hold a Part 72
general license, and there are an estimated 30 new general licensees over the analysis
period. It is assumed that the CoC is renewed by the CoC holder for each cask design
used by all 37 current licensees and by all 30 new general licensees. There is no additional
labor effort on the part of the general licensee to comply with new Section 72.212(a)(3)
compared to the No Action alternative (Alternative 1). The only change in labor is due to the
frequency in which the CoC holder applies for a CoC renewal, and this labor saving is
modeled in 10 CFR 72.240(a).

•

With regard to 10 CFR 72.212(b)(4), the same number of licensees is assumed as in
Section 72.212(a)(3). Therefore, the analysis models the labor cost of 37 current general
licensees and 30 new general licensees during the 40 year analysis period. Additional onetime reporting is required under amended Section 72.212(b)(4) for these licensees. It is
assumed that the 37 current general licensees each have 5 cask designs for which
information would need to be reported in a registration letter, and it would require 4 hours to
report the information for each cask design. For the 30 new general licensees, the analysis
assumes an average of 2 cask designs for each. Fewer cask designs were assumed for
the new licensees because they would have fewer casks on site compared to the current
general licensees. It was also assumed that it would take the same amount of time,
4 hours, to report information in the registration letter. The labor effort to submit these
registration letters is modeled as a one-time expense, in 2008 dollars, occurring during the
40-year analysis period.
Also modeled under 10 CFR 72.212(b)(4) is a savings associated with Part 72 general
licensees no longer being required to submit an exemption request to the NRC to apply
changes authorized by an amended CoC to a cask loaded under the initial CoC or an earlier
amended CoC. These savings are modeled as annual recurring labor savings. The
assumption is that the 37 current general licensees each would submit such an exemption
request once every 10 years, or 0.1 on an annual basis. The labor effort on the part of the
licensee to submit the exemption request was assumed to be 40 hours per request. For the
30 new general licensees, the analysis assumes the same frequency of exemption
requests, equal to once every 10 years, or 0.1 on an annual basis. The labor effort avoided
for these new general licensees was assumed to be 16 hours per request, lower than
current general licensees because the new licensees would have fewer cask types on site.

•

With regard to 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5)-(7), the same number of licensees is assumed as in
Section 72.212(b)(4). Under Alternative 2, each of these would have an additional one-time
14

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

reporting requirement of the documentation and results supporting written evaluations of
specific cask design characteristics prior to the licensee’s use of the cask under the new
40-year renewal term. This must be performed for each of the cask designs for which a
renewal registration letter is being submitted. To perform and document the written
evaluations in the renewal application, the analysis assumes 40 hours by each of the 37
current general licensees for each of their 5 cask designs, and a labor effort of 8 hours by
each of the 30 new general licensees for each of their 2 cask designs. As noted above, the
labor effort is less for the new licensees because they will have fewer cask types on site.
•

With regard to 10 CFR 72.236(g), the analysis assumes no incremental costs or savings to
CoC holders to design their casks to last for the longer term (i.e., a term not to exceed
40 years as opposed to the current 20 year term).

•

With regard to the changes in 10 CFR 72.240(a), the following five companies are the
holders of CoCs: General Nuclear Systems, Transnuclear, BNG Fuel Solutions, Holtec
International, and Nuclear Assurance Corporation. An estimate is made that these holders
apply for the renewal of 15 CoCs, not to exceed 40 years, for a cask design and that during
the 40 year analysis period holders of an additional 10 CoCs of not yet approved cask
designs apply for the extended term renewal. Thus, the holders of a total of 25 CoCs apply
only once for term renewal under the proposed rule instead of twice as would occur under
the alternative No Action. It is assumed that the labor savings is 160 hours for each of the
renewals that are not required to be submitted.

•

With regard to the changes to 10 CFR 72.240(c), the analysis assumes that the one-time
labor effort for the aging analyses requires 40 hours for each for the 25 CoCs held by
companies who apply for term renewal.

•

For NRC costs, an estimate of $50,000 is made to support preparation of the final rule and
a guidance document to implement the changes in this rule. Additional annual costs to
review Part 72 licensee and CoC holder applications are not modeled because it is
assumed these are offset by the savings in not reviewing exemption requests.

•

For NRC savings, the analysis assumes that each of the 14 site-specific licensees would
apply only once for license renewal over the 40 year analysis period, instead of twice, for a
savings to the NRC staff of 200 labor hours. This is consistent with the site specific
licensee costs modeled under 10 CFR 72.42(a), and is modeled as a one-time labor saving.
The analysis also assumed that there would be labor savings due to the holders of 25
CoCs applying only once for license renewal instead of twice over the 40-year analysis
period, for a one-time labor saving of 200 hours per application. Annual savings to the NRC
would occur due to fewer exemption requests being submitted by Part 72 general licensees
to allow the licensee to apply CoC amendment changes to a previously loaded cask. The
NRC’s labor saving is modeled with the same input assumptions as the savings for the
Part 72 general licensee under Section 72.212(b)(4).

15

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

5.

RESULTS

This section presents results of values and impacts that are expected to be derived from
the proposed rule. The results are shown for each of the following four attributes:
•
•
•
•

Industry Implementation
Industry Operation
NRC Implementation
NRC Operation

The proposed rule is expected to provide values in other attributes, such as improvements in
regulatory efficiency and improvements in general public confidence, but these are not
quantified because they are expected to be small. The quantified values are presented in
constant 2008 dollars, for both one-time and recurring annual efforts. The impact of the
proposed rule over a 40 year analysis period is estimated using 3 percent and 7 percent real
discount rates to show an overall net effect in terms of 2008 dollars. Alternative 1, the NoAction Alternative, provides a baseline against which the other alternative is assessed.
5.1

Summary of Results

Table 5-1 presents the net impact of the rule. A positive value below is a cost. A number in
parentheses is a negative cost, or a savings.
Table 5-1: Net Impact of Alternatives 1 and 2
40-year total at 3%
discount rate ($)

Regulatory Alternative
1. No Action
2. Implement the proposed regulations

40-year total 7%
discount rate ($)

0

0

(1,274,099)

(890,603)

There are no costs or benefits associated with Alternative 1, the No Action alternative. No
changes would be made to the regulation. The Part 72 licensees and CoC holders would
continue to operate under existing terms for ISFSI and cask renewals, and the NRC would
review and approve the applications based on the 20-year term length, with a 40-year term
approved for individual exceptions to the regulation.
The major contributing savings under Alternative 2 are due to:
•

A total of about $450,000 in savings, in 2008 dollars at 3 percent discount rate over a
40 year analysis period, is due to the proposed change in Section 72.212(b)(4) that would
allow Part 72 general licensees to apply the changes in an amended CoC to a cask loaded
under the initial CoC or an earlier amended CoC. This savings is offset by an estimated
one-time cost of about $100,000 in new reporting requirements associated with a
16

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

registration letter to apply the changes authorized by an earlier amended CoC, and a onetime cost of about $790,000 to perform the written evaluations prior to applying for the
changes noted above.
•

One-time savings of about $225,000 would be realized by Part 72 site-specific licensees
due to fewer license amendment submittals over the 40 year analysis period.

•

One-time savings of about $400,000 would be realized by CoC holders due to the need to
apply for fewer license renewals, but this is offset by an estimated one-time cost of
$100,000 associated with the preparation of an aging analysis in the SAR for the period of
extended operation for the cask design.

•

The NRC would realize a total of $1.2 million in savings at 3 percent discount rate over the
40 year analysis period. This is due to $280,000 in savings due to the submittal of fewer
Part 72 site-specific license renewal applications, $500,000 in savings due to fewer CoC
license renewal applications, and about $450,000 in savings due to the submittal of fewer
exemption requests from Part 72 general licensees.

Table 5-2 shows the estimated costs, by attribute, over the 40-year analysis period.
Table 5-2: Estimated Values and Impacts by Attribute
Alternative 2
40-Year Total Cost ($ 000)
Attribute

3% Discount

Industry
Implementation

7% Discount

362

362

Industry
Operation

(453)

(261)

NRC
Implementation

(730)

(730)

NRC
Operation

(453)

(261)

(1,274)

(891)

Total

Note: Total may differ from sum of values due to rounding.

Table 5-3 shows the NRC proposed amendments that are included in the proposed rule,
and whether or not the amendment is estimated as a cost to industry and to regulators, or is
insignificant and not included in the cost-benefit calculations. The line item input assumptions
and results are shown in Appendix 2 for those amendments modeled as a cost to industry and
to regulators.
17

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

Table 5-3: Proposed Rule Amendments and Significance in the Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cost of amendment
estimated as a
licensee and/or
NRC cost and
included in costbenefit analysis

10 CFR Part 72 amendment description
72.3
72.24(c)
72.42(a)-(b)

72.212(a)(3)

72.212(b)(1) - (3)

72.212(b)(4)
72.212(b)(5) – (7)

72.212(b)(8) – (10)
72.212(b)(11)

72.212(b)(12) – (14)
72.212(e)
72.230(b)

Definitions.
Requires a description of the design of the ISFSI or
MRS to support the findings in 10 CFR 72.40 for the
term requested in the application.
Requires the licensee to specify in its Part 72
specific license application a fixed period of time,
not to exceed 40 years from the date of issuance,
for both initial and renewal applications, including
aging analyses, current design basis information,
and a description of the aging management
program. Also requires applications filed consistent
with subpart B at least 2 years before expiration of
current license, with design bases information.
Specifies that a Part 72 general license for each
cask terminates at the end of the initial term based
on cask loading date, and allows the general
licensee to apply for a cask term renewal based on
the CoC term for a cask design that it uses under its
general license, pursuant to new 10 CFR 72.240(a).
Existing notification, registration and conformance
requirements for the Part 72 general license. The
analysis does not estimate the additional cost to
general licensees to submit the amendment number
with the existing notification, because the
incremental cost is insignificant.
Specifies information that the Part 72 general
licensee must submit in its registration letter after
applying changes authorized by an amended CoC.
Requires the Part 72 general licensee to perform
written evaluations of three specifications prior to
the cask’s use and prior to applying changes
authorized by an amended CoC to a cask loaded
under the initial CoC or an earlier amended CoC,
and to review the adequacy of site parameters in the
SAR and SER of a CoC, and any changes to written
evaluations.
Existing requirements of Part 72 general licensees.
Requires a general licensee to maintain a copy of
the amended CoC for those casks to which the
licensee has applied the changes of an amended
CoC and documents referenced in the amended
certificate for each cask used for storage of spent
fuel. Previously this section applied only to CoCs,
and not amended CoCs. The analysis does not
estimate the additional cost to general licensees to
maintain this record because the incremental cost is
insignificant.
Existing requirements of Part 72 general licensees.
Existing requirement specifying fee schedule.
Specifies that casks certified for transportation of
spent fuel may be approved for storage of spent fuel
for a proposed term not to exceed 40 years. A copy
of the CoC, a SAR, and other information must be
included in the application.

18

Cost of amendment
NOT estimated as
a licensee and/or
NRC cost and NOT
included in costbenefit analysis
X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

72.234(d)(2)(vii)
72.236(g)

72.238
72.240(a)

72.240(c)

6.

Re-designates 72.236(j) to 72.236(k)
Requires CoC holders and applicants to design the
cask to store the spent fuel safely for a term
proposed in the application, and to permit
maintenance as required.
Specifies that NRC would issue a CoC for a cask
model for a term not to exceed 40 years.
Allows a CoC holder to apply for spent fuel storage
cask renewal for a term up to 40 years, and allows a
Part 72 general licensee who uses a specific cask
model to apply for renewal of that cask CoC if the
certificate holder does not apply for renewal.
Requires in the renewal application a SAR including
aging analyses for the cask structures, systems and
components for the period of extended operation.

X
X
X
X

X

DECISION RATIONALE AND IMPLEMENTATION

The assessment of costs and benefits discussed previously provides a sound basis for
decision-making that leads the NRC to the conclusion that the proposed rule, if implemented,
would result in net savings to industry and to the NRC due to improved efficiency of managing
the terms for ISFSI licenses and for approved storage cask designs. The assessment provides
a disclosure of information supporting the conclusion and an alternate approach to the
regulatory objectives.
Two alternatives were evaluated in this Regulatory Analysis. Alternative 1 would take
No Action and would maintain the regulations as currently written.
Alternative 2 would amend NRC regulations to allow a longer period for the term
associated with a site-specific ISFSI, an ISFSI operating under a general license, and the
storage cask in use at the site. The term would be extended from the current 20-year time
period to a time period specified in an initial license application or a renewal license application,
not to exceed 40 years. These changes would improve licensee and NRC management of
relevant term expiration dates, at an estimated total savings of about $1.3 million over a 40-year
period at a 3 percent discount rate. The NRC would realize most of the savings, with licensees
and CoC holders netting about $90,000 in savings primarily due to the submittal of fewer
license and CoC renewal applications as a result of the increase in term length from 20 years to
40 years. Alternative 2 is the preferred approach.
The final rule is planned for publication in the Federal Register in 2010.

19

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

7.

REFERENCES

(1)

Staff Requirements Memorandum dated November 29, 2004 [ML043500192], in response
to SECY-04-0175 dated September 28, 2004, “Options for Addressing the Surry
Independent Fuel Storage Installation License – Renewal Period Exemption Request”
[ML010670073].

(2)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook,
Final Report," NUREG/BR-0184, January 1997.

Appendix 1: Approved Storage Cask and ISFSI Number and Location Information
As of August 2008
Approved Storage Casks in 10 CFR 72.214 Currently In Use
Certificate Number: 1000. General Nuclear Systems, Inc.
Model Number: CASTOR V/21
Certificate Number: 1002. Nuclear Assurance Corporation
Model Number: NAC S/T
Certificate Number: 1003. Nuclear Assurance Corporation
Model Number: NAC-C28 S/T
Certificate Number: 1004. Transnuclear, Inc
Amendments Numbers 1 - 9.
Model Number: NUHOMS®–24P, –52B, –61BT, –32PT, –24PHB, and –24PTH.
Certificate Number: 1005. Transnuclear, Inc.
Model Number: TN-24.
Certificate Number: 1007. BNG Fuel Solutions Corporation.
Amendments Numbers 1 – 6.
Model Number: VSC-24.
Certificate Number: 1008. Holtec International.
Amendments Numbers 1 – 2.
Model Number: HI-STAR 100.
Certificate Number: 1014. Holtec International.
Amendments Numbers 1 – 5.
Model Number: HI–STORM 100.
Certificate Number: 1015. NAC International, Inc.
Amendments Numbers 1 – 4.
Model Number: NAC–UMS.
Certificate Number: 1021. Transnuclear, Inc.
Amendment Number 1.
Model Number: TN-32, TN-32A, TN-32B
Certificate Number: 1025. NAC International, Inc.
Amendments Numbers 1 – 5.
Model Number: NAC-MPC.

20

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

Appendix 1 continued (All data in Appendix 1 is as of August 2008)
Certificate Number: 1026. BNG Fuel Solutions Corporation.
Amendments Numbers 1 – 4.
Model Number: WSNF-220, WSNF-221, and WSNF-223 systems; W-150 storage cask; W-100 transfer cask; and
the W-21 and W-74 canisters.
Certificate Number: 1027. Transnuclear, Inc.
Amendment Number 1.
Model Number: TN-68.
Certificate Number: 1029. Transnuclear, Inc.
Amendment Number 1.
Model Number: Standardized Advanced NUHOMS®–24PT1, NUHOMS®–24PT4.
Certificate Number: 1030. Transnuclear, Inc.
Model Number: NUHOMS® HD–32PTH

ISFSI site specific licenses
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

GE Morris (wet)
Surry
H. B. Robinson
Oconee
Fort St. Vrain
Calvert Cliffs
Prairie Island
North Anna
TMI-2 Debris
Trojan
Rancho Seco
Diablo Canyon
Idaho Spent Fuel Facility
Humboldt Bay
Private Fuel Storage

ISFSI general licenses
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

Maine Yankee
Vermont Yankee
Yankee Rowe
Haddam Neck
Millstone
Indian Point
Susquehanna
Peach Bottom
Oyster Creek
Hope Creek
Salem
North Anna*
Surry*
McGuire
Catawba
Robinson*
Oconee*
Sequoyah
Hatch

Licensees Pursuing
a General License

Sites with No
Announced Intentions

1. Seabrook
2. Limerick
3. Ginna
4. Braidwood
5. Brunswick
6. LaSalle
7. Byron
8. Cooper
9. LaCrosse
10. Turkey Point
11. Monticello
12. Cooper
13. Kewaunee
14. Comanche Peak
15. Perry
16. Fermi
17. Cook
18. Crystal River

1. Pilgrim
2. Three Mile Island
3. Clinton
4. Callaway
5. Wolf Creek
6. South Texas Project
7. Waterford
8. Shearon Harris
9. Summer
10. Vogtle
11. Zion
12. Beaver Valley
13. Watts Bar
14. Nine Mile Point

21

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

Appendix 1 continued (All data in Appendix 1 is as of August 2008)
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.

Farley
St. Lucie
Browns Ferry
River Bend
Grand Gulf
Arkansas Nuclear One
Calhoun
Dresden
Duane Arnold
Quad Cities
Columbia
Palo Verde
San Onofre
Davis Besse
Palisades
Big Rock Point
Point Beach
FitzPatrick

*also site specific licensees

22

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

Appendix 2: Input Assumptions and Line Item Results for Alternative 2
Licensee Costs and Savings

Description
Part 72
72.42(a) and (b)

72.212(a)(3)

72.212(b)(4)

72.212(b)(5)-(7)

Requires the licensee to specify in its application
for a specific license a fixed period of time for a
Part 72 specific license, not to exceed 40 years
from the date of issuance, including aging
analyses and an aging management program:
--- initial applications.

No. of cask
No. of NRC designs per NRC Hours per
Licensees or Licensee or CoC Licensee or
Holder
CoC Holder
CoC Holders

Wage Rate
($/hr)

One-time Cost
or Savings

Annual
Cost or
Savings

Total 40 Yr Total 40 Yr
3% NPV
7% NPV

2

-

-160

100

-$32,000

-

-

-

--- renewals.

12

-

-160

100

-$192,000

-

-

-

Specifies that a Part 72 general license for each
cask fabricated under a CoC terminates when
the CoC for that particular cask design expires:
--- current general licensees.

37

-

0

--- future general licensees.

30

-

Specifies information that the Part 72 general
licensee must submit in its registration letter after
applying changes authorized by an amended
CoC:
--- current general licensees.

37

4

100

$74,000

-

-

-

--- future general licensees.

30

2

4

100

$24,000

Allows changes authroized by an amended CoC
to a cask loaded under the initial CoC or an
earlier amended CoC:
--- current general licensees.

37

0.1

-40

100

--- future general licensees.

30

0.1

-16

100

Requires the Part 72 general licensee to perform
written evaluations of three specifications prior to
its use and prior to applying changes authorized
by an amended CoC to a cask loaded under the
initial CoC or an earlier amended CoC, and to
review the adequacy of site parameters in the
SAR and SER of a CoC, and any changes to
written evaluations:
--- current general licensees.

37

5

40

100

0
5

$740,000

-

-

-

-$14,800

-$342,099

-$197,309

-$4,800

-$110,951

-$63,992

-

-

-

--- future general licensees.

30

2

8

100

$48,000

72.240(a)

Allows a CoC holder to apply for spent fuel
storage cask renewal for a term not to exceed 40
years,

25

1

-160

100

-$400,000

-

-

-

72.240(c)

Requires aging analyses in the Safety Analysis
Report for the period of extended operation
requested by:
--- the CoC holder.

25

1

40

100

$100,000

-

-

-

23

SUBTOTAL

-$453,050

+ one-time
costs
TOTAL

$362,000

-$261,301
$362,000

-$91,050

$100,699

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009

Appendix 2 continued
NRC Costs and Savings

10 CFR
Part 72
72.42(a)

Description

No. of CoC
Applications
(one time) or
number of
general
licensees

No. of cask
designs, or
NRC Review
number of
Hours per
exemption
requests per Application or
year
Exemption

14

-200

100

-40

100

0.1

-16

100

1

-200

100

Would allow NRC review of
site specific license application
under 40 year term instead of
20 year term.
72.212(b)(4) Would allow a general
licensee to apply CoC
amendment changes to a
previously loaded cask
-- current general licensees
--- future general licensees.

37

0.1

30

72.238

25

Would allow NRC to issue a
CoC for a cask model for a
term not to exceed 40 years,
instead of a term of 20 years.

Wage Rate
($/hr)

Cost to develop final rule and
guidance document.

One-time Cost Annual Cost or
or Savings
Savings

Total 40 Year
3% NPV

Total 40 Year
7% NPV

-$280,000

-$14,800

-$342,099

-$197,309

-$4,800

-$110,951

-$63,992

SUBTOTAL

-$453,050

-$261,301

+ one-time
costs
TOTAL

-$730,000

-$730,000

-$1,183,050

-$991,301

-$500,000

$50,000

24

Draft Regulatory Analysis 02/23/2009