Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

54344

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 188 / Friday, October 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
the NRC staff determined that, because of the physical characteristics of the storage casks and conditions of storage that include specific security provisions, the potential risk to public health and safety due to accidents or sabotage is very small.
Considering the specific design requirements for each accident or sabotage condition, the design of the cask would maintain confinement, shielding, and criticality control. If confinement, shielding, and criticality control are maintained, the environmental impacts from an accident would be insignificant.
There are no changes to cask design or fabrication requirements in the renewed initial certificate or Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of the renewal of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20
limits.
Decommissioning of dry cask spent fuel storage systems under a general license would be carried out as part of a power reactors site decommissioning plan. In general, decommissioning would consist of removing the spent fuel from the site, decontaminating cask surfaces, and decontaminating and dismantling the independent spent fuel storage installation where the casks were deployed. Under normal and offnormal operating conditions, no residual contamination is expected to be left behind on supporting structures.
The incremental impacts associated with decommissioning dry cask storage installations are expected to represent a small fraction of the impacts of decommissioning an entire nuclear power station.
In summary, the proposed changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. Compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR parts 20 and 72 would provide reasonable assurance that adequate protection of public health and safety will continue.
The NRC, in its SER for the renewal of the HISTAR 100 Cask System, has determined if the conditions specified in the certificate of compliance to implement these regulations are met, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be reasonably assured.
Based on the previously stated assessments and its SER for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:40 Sep 30, 2021

Jkt 256001

requested renewal of the HISTAR 100
Cask System certificates, the NRC has determined that the expiration date of this system in 10 CFR 72.214 can be safely extended for an additional 40
years, and that commercial nuclear power reactor licensees can continue using the system during this period under a general license without significant impacts on the human environment.
D. Alternative to the Action The alternative to this action is to deny approval of the renewal and not issue the direct final rule. Under this alternative, the NRC would either 1
require general licensees using the HI
STAR 100 Cask System to unload the spent fuel from these systems and either return it to a spent fuel pool or re-load it into a different dry storage cask system listed in 72.214; or 2 require that users of the existing HISTAR 100
Cask System request site-specific licensing proceedings to continue storage in these systems.
The environmental impacts of requiring the licensee to unload the spent fuel and either return it to the spent fuel pool or re-load it into another NRC-approved cask system would result in increased radiological doses to workers. These increased doses would be due primarily to direct radiation from the casks while the workers unloaded, transferred, and re-loaded the spent fuel. These activities would consist of transferring the dry storage canisters to a cask-handling building, opening the canister lid welds, returning the canister to a spent fuel pool or dry transfer facility, removing the fuel assemblies, and re-loading them, either into a spent fuel pool storage rack or another NRCapproved dry storage system. In addition to the increased occupational doses to workers, these activities may also result in additional liquid or gaseous effluents.
Alternatively, users of the dry cask storage system would need to apply for a site-specific license. Under this option for implementing the no-action alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, each separate license application, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC
and the costs to each licensee.
In summary, the no-action alternative would entail either 1 more environmental impacts than the preferred action from transferring the spent fuel now in the HISTAR 100
Cask System; or 2 cost and administrative impacts from multiple licensing actions that, in aggregate, are
PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

likely to be the same as, or more likely greater than, the preferred action.
E. Alternative Use of Resources Renewal of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1008
would result in no irreversible commitment of resources.
F. Agencies and Persons Contacted No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.
G. Finding of No Significant Impact The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRCs regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions. Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule, List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI
STAR 100 Cask System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1008, Renewal of Initial Certificate and Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This direct final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.. Existing collections of information were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 31500132.
Public Protection Notification The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 5 U.S.C. 605b, the NRC
certifies that this direct final rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and Holtec International.

E:FRFM01OCR1.SGM

01OCR1